[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S9853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was in my office and listened to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Idaho talk about the bill that is 
before the Senate, the so-called fence bill. I have great respect for 
the distinguished senior Senator. We have served together in the House 
and the Senate. He talked with great emotion about the agricultural 
workers and how people are losing crops as a result of not having 
sufficient agricultural workers and that it was extremely important 
that we have agricultural worker legislation.
  I heard my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein, talk about agricultural workers and how important they 
are. She gave vivid illustrations of how they are important. I agree 
with both, but I am stunned that the Senator from Idaho appears to only 
be talking and not being meaningful in what he is saying about 
agricultural workers.
  ``Congress Daily PM,'' which is a publication put out on a daily 
basis by the National Journal, says as follows:

       Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, would like to 
     offer his amendment which would streamline certification for 
     migrant farm workers, language that was included in the 
     Senate's immigration package.

  Listen to this one, though, this final sentence:

       Craig spokesman said the Senator would not offer his 
     amendment if it would hold up consideration of the House-
     passed bill.

  We have a bill before the Senate. No one has any intent of holding up 
the bill, but there are some important amendments that people want to 
offer. According to the Senator from Idaho, he feels his agricultural 
workers provision is pretty important. Then why shouldn't we be able to 
offer some amendments on this? Why shouldn't we be able to offer one 
amendment, an agricultural workers amendment? Why shouldn't we be able 
to offer two amendments, three amendments with time on them?
  I am told the majority leader is going to fill the tree--that is a 
buzzword around here for having the majority lock up this legislation 
so no amendments are possible.
  My friend from Idaho cannot have it both ways. He cannot be 
righteously indignant about the fact we are not having an opportunity 
to help agricultural workers and then, in effect, throw in the towel 
and say he is going to do nothing about it.
  He is part of the majority party; we are not. We cannot do much about 
it, but he can.

                          ____________________