I suggest this afternoon in my opposition to the amendment that it is predicated on what I hope are appropriately the unforeseen consequences of this amendment and the impact it would have on American agricultural employment. Last Thursday night. Senator CHAMBLISS opened the debate on his amendment. and I talked about its impact on the users of the H2A agricultural guest worker program. To get right to the bottom line. my argument is that the Senate should keep the provision that is in the bill now and deny Senator CHAMBLISS the success of his amendment. Why? A deal doesnt necessarily have to be a deal. but at the same time. over the course of the last 4 years. in negotiating with agricultural employees and agricultural employers. we attempted to bring some rationale to a method of compensation under the H2A program that simply in most opinions was out of touch with reality. It was escalating on an automatic basis every year. and it simply was not fitting the need. especially when more and more in agriculture were illegal and were not under that program. Now a small minority actually. some 40.000plus a year. are under the H2A program and identified with the wage set by that program. It is possibleand we are not surebut a millionplus are not and are simply out there in the marketplace bidding for a salary that. in most instances. is below the H2A adverse wage that is proposed. So what did we do? Recognizing that disparity. we reached back. with the agreement of all of the parties involved. and said that one of the pieces of getting this puzzle right was to freeze that wage in 2003 at the 2002 level. and that is what is in the bill.