Disapproval of AEWR Wage Rule

Full Title:
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology.

Summary#

This joint resolution would overturn a Department of Labor rule about how the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is calculated for H‑2A nonimmigrant workers in non-range occupations. The resolution says the DOL rule published October 2, 2025, would have no force or effect. The broad policy goal is to use congressional disapproval to stop that specific DOL rule from taking effect.

  • Main change: It disapproves and nullifies the DOL rule titled “Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States” (90 Fed. Reg. 47914).
  • Scope: The action targets only that specific DOL rule.
  • Authority used: The resolution is filed under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the congressional disapproval process).
  • Sponsor and status: Introduced by Senator Alex Padilla on March 26, 2026; read twice and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
  • Effect stated in text: The rule “shall have no force or effect.”

What it means for you#

  • H-2A workers (temporary agricultural workers): This would likely prevent the DOL’s new wage-rate method from taking effect. This could mean their pay would continue to be set under the previous method until a different rule or law is adopted.
  • Employers who hire H-2A workers: If enacted, employers would not be required to follow the wage-rate changes the DOL rule would have imposed. This could affect payroll calculations or hiring costs depending on what the DOL rule would have changed.
  • Department of Labor: The DOL could not put this specific rule into effect while the disapproval is in force.
  • Federal rulemaking process: The resolution targets one rule only; it does not itself create a new wage rule or change existing statutory law.

What is unclear: The resolution does not explain which parts of the DOL rule are objectionable, how long the nullification would last in practice, or what wage methodology would apply afterward beyond saying the submitted rule has no force.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and summary do not include a fiscal note, cost estimate, or any numbers on government savings or expenses.
  • There may be administrative or legal costs if agencies or affected parties challenge or respond to the disapproval, but no estimate is provided in the materials supplied.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to block the DOL’s new AEWR methodology from taking effect.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that Congress should review and reject a rule it views as inappropriate before it changes employer obligations or worker pay.
  • It could be seen as preserving the status quo until Congress or the agency adopts a different approach.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that nullifying the rule may leave in place the prior wage-setting method that the DOL sought to change, which could leave unresolved problems the agency identified.
  • The resolution does not explain which parts of the rule are problematic or offer an alternative, so it may create uncertainty for employers and workers about future wage calculations.
  • Using congressional disapproval for a technical wage-methodology rule may raise questions about limiting an agency’s ability to update technical labor standards; the bill does not address how that oversight will be handled going forward.