[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4954-S4961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1723, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1723) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to assist the United States to remain competitive by
increasing the access of the United States firms and
institutions of higher education to skilled personnel and by
expanding educational and training opportunities for American
students and workers.
The Senate proceeded to consider of the bill.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the submission of S.
Con. Res. 97 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as we begin debate on S. 1723, I would
like to begin by yielding to the Senator from California for purposes
of making a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be now 2
hours of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator.
Privilege of the Floor
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that Sandra Shipshock, a
State Department fellow with Senator Kennedy's staff, be given floor
privileges for consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
(At the request of Mr. Abraham, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate is today considering The
American Competitiveness Act of 1998, a modest, balanced, and critical
change in our immigration laws.
The bill does three very important things: (1) it raises the limit on
the annual number of temporary visas allowed for highly skilled foreign
born professionals for a five-year period; (2) it increases enforcement
and penalties to ensure the program works as intended; and (3) it
increases the opportunities for American students and workers to fill
the shortage of skilled high tech workers.
As we approach the 21st century, Mr. President, we face a critical
challenge with respect to our workforce. The challenge concerns whether
and how America's businesses and America's educational institutions are
preparing the potential workforce for the 21st century.
It is estimated that about ten percent of this country's current
information technology jobs are vacant and that this critical shortage
of programmers, systems analysts, and computer engineers will increase
significantly in the next decade.
In few places is this shortage more acute than in my own state of
Utah where the high tech industry grew by 12 percent in 1996 and where
our 1,900 high tech companies plan to add almost 20,000 jobs annually
in the next three years. The primary potential impediment to our
state's growth is the shortage of skilled workers.
Frankly, as I see it, we are only facing a real crisis if we fail to
respond. For now I view it as an opportunity and a challenge; perhaps
the greatest challenge of the next century. This challenge is to match
the needs of high tech employers with the preparedness of and
opportunities for the American worker.
Meeting this challenge effectively will demand the attention and
commitment of businesses large and small; of our educational system at
every level; of government, principally at the state and local level;
and of parents and students as well. All of these entities must be
working in partnership.
Just weeks ago, Mr. President, a new comprehensive international
study listed American high school seniors as among the industrial
world's least prepared in mathematics and science. Further, in advanced
subjects like physics and advanced math not one of the countries
involved scored lower than the U.S. If we ever needed a wake-up call,
this is it.
It is in everyone's individual interests, as well as in the overall
interests of this country, to enter the next century with a well-
trained workforce that will help keep American companies competitive in
the global economy.
Admittedly, as the grandparent of 17 young children who will be
entering the workforce in the next century, I am enthusiastic that
technology has opened so many tremendous opportunities. It remains
clear that human capital is still the greatest asset this country has.
Without human know-how, the most sophisticated of computers is just a
dumb machine.
Given that, there is no reason for any individual in our society who
is willing to work should be left behind--not women, minorities, or the
disabled. Responding aggressively and intelligently to the need to
educate, train, and retrain the potential pool of high tech workers in
the next century is the kind of affirmative action that can ensure that
all individuals have the opportunity to work hard and prosper in the
next century.
It is, however, an unfortunate reality that this kind of long term
solution is insufficient to meet our most immediate needs. Thus, this
legislation focuses on a limited short-term measure to raise the annual
cap, currently at 65,000, for temporary visas for highly skilled
workers. Notably, the cap for this year was reached last week!
Mr. President, as I understand it, critics of this legislation have
focused on two arguments. First, some argue that there is no real
shortage in high tech workers. While this will be addressed in more
detail in due course, let me just say that I think any member with
doubts over which bureaucratic study to believe ought to check the help
wanted ads in their Sunday home town papers. I think those long list of
job vacancies for computer and engineering jobs tell the story.
Further, critics argue that in exchange for this modest, five year
increase in temporary visas, we need vast new bureaucratic requirements
to protect American workers.
Mr. President, we will debate this question in more detail later, but
let me respond briefly now.
First, I think the record is pretty clear that the temporary use of a
limited amount of foreign talent--many of whom have attended U.S.
universities and graduate schools--creates more, not fewer jobs for
Americans. It also insures that American employers do not move to other
countries with more and cheaper labor.
Second, there are already important limits in the law to make sure
this program is not abused and that these visas
[[Page S4955]]
are not used to hire cheaper labor. This bill enhances both the limits
and restrictions on the use of these visas.
But at some point, Mr. President, you can go so overboard that a
program becomes a bureaucratic nightmare of regulation and it is just
not worth it, particularly for small and medium sized employers. I
think that some of the alternatives proposed here--in response to a
five year increase in temporary visas by about 25,000 a year--cross
that line.
Finally, as we debate these so-called ``labor protection''
provisions, I think we need a little perspective here on what aspect of
our immigration policy really puts American jobs at risk. (A) We have
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering this country every
year on top of the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants already here.
(B) This Administration has a terrible record of failing to identify
and deport criminal aliens who are released from prison and remain in
this country. (C) We have a horrible situation of an inestimable number
of smuggled immigrants being used as slaves and indentured servants.
I think that these areas ought to be our principal focus if we want
to protect jobs for American workers, not finding more bureaucratic
hurdles for a small and limited program with a history and record of
little abuse.
I want to close for now, Mr. President, by recognizing the hard work
and leadership of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's
subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Abraham.
I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Hatch had hoped to be present for
the launching of this legislation, and when last week it appeared, on
either Wednesday or Thursday, that was going to take place, he was
going to be in the manager's chair, at least initially, to begin the
debate. He is not able to be here today, so we wanted to make sure his
statement was included at the appropriate spot in the Record, which we
have just done.
Mr. President, we are here to discuss a piece of legislation, the
American Competitiveness Act, which passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee a few weeks ago by a 12-to-6 vote, a piece of legislation
which is extraordinarily important, I think, to our country at this
time if we wish to remain strong and competitive and wish to have an
economy that continues to grow with the success we have seen in recent
months.
Basically, we are learning as we examine the economy that a very
substantial reason for the recent economic growth stems from the
tremendous success we have had in the development of our high-
technology industries. Frankly, we are growing in those areas so fast
that our labor force cannot even keep up with the speed of that growth.
Indeed, studies conducted by a variety of organizations have suggested
that we currently have a gap between the number of jobs in the
information-technology and high-technology areas and the number of
workers needed to fill them.
A study by Virginia Tech University has indicated that there are an
estimated 340,000 current vacancies in information-technology jobs in
America today. A study by the U.S. Department of Commerce indicates a
projected growth of information-technology and high-tech jobs over the
next decade of approximately 130,000 per year, and yet that very same
study suggests we will only be producing something in the vicinity of
25 percent of the graduates needed to fill these jobs over that
timeframe. Clearly, that suggests we have to get busy to make sure that
our educational system, our job training system, and so on, meet these
challenges.
We also know that this isn't just a bunch of statistics. You need
only pick up the want ads of a newspaper or trade journal today and
browse them and you will see, as these various newspapers I have here
today suggest, the spectacular number of jobs available in these
areas--high-tech jobs going unfilled, companies not able to find the
skilled workers needed to fill them.
At the same time, the extent to which companies are being forced to
improvise in order to meet this challenge is also interesting as well.
Recently, in fact, in the Washington Post, we read of the story of
various young people in high school in Fairfax County, VA, who are
being tapped to fill some of these positions. In fact, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record at this time one such story.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 1998]
Teens With Tech Talent Rise to Top; Not Even Out of High School,
Computer Jocks Rake in Big Bucks
(By Eric L. Wee)
Life is good. That's what Doug Marcey will tell you as he
sits in his basement on this Friday morning.
While others fight their way to the office, he's writing
computer code in his jeans and bare feet in front of two
blazing 21-inch monitors. The job pays well. For his work
three days a week, a software company forks over $50,000 a
year, enough to rent his three-bedroom town house in Fairfax
County. Not a bad life.
Especially considering that Doug Marcey is only 17.
Computer companies in Washington and elsewhere, facing a
shortage of tech talent, increasingly are turning to
teenagers such as Doug to help fill out their employment
rosters. Computer jocks as young as 14 are working as
programmers, graphics artists and Web page designers, some of
them drawing very adult salaries, using skills acquired in
high school classes and during hours of surfing the Internet.
The rich job market even has some of the teenagers facing
the sort of decisions that gifted athletes make: Do I stay in
school or turn pro and make some big money?
``I got tired of high school,'' said Doug, who last fall
chose not to return for his senior year at Fairfax's Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
``It got too boring. I took all the computer courses I
could and basically learned all that I could,'' said Doug, a
6-foot-4-inch baby-faced teenager in new Armani glasses who
figures he'll still get a college diploma. ``I was realizing
that I could go out and work. . . . The cool thing about
computers is that I can make lots of money doing what I
really like doing.''
So three days a week, Doug does everything from Web site
work to helping make the company's programs more enticing to
customers. The rest of the time, he takes classes at George
Mason University. He's considering working full time, which
would bump his salary to $70,000.
David Rosenfeld hired Doug at Nu Thena Systems Inc., a
McLean company that creates software programs to let places
such as Boeing Co. and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory model
and test ideas on computers.
Rosenfeld figured if he didn't snap up Doug, someone else
would. Indeed, Doug said he got a half-dozen offers after his
junior year.
``There aren't that many programmers out there that are
really creative,'' Rosenfeld said. ``There are plenty who
will do what you tell them to do, but there aren't many who
can see a new way to do things. That's another tier of
people, and I thought Doug was one of them. If you can get
your hands on someone like that, you never let them go.''
Washington area computer executives say that it's unclear
how many teenagers are getting full- and part-time work from
the area's high-tech companies but that they're sure it's
becoming more common. The Washington Post interviewed nine
such teenagers.
Nationally, the U.S. Department of Labor says, 22,000
teenagers ages 16 to 19 worked in the computer and data-
processing industry last year, more than four times the
number three years earlier.
Mario Morino, one of the Washington area's early successful
technology entrepreneurs who now runs a Herndon-based
technology think tank, said the nationwide shortage of high-
tech workers has made those teenagers more attractive to
companies. But even without the labor drought, Morino said,
the youths would be enticing because of their incredible
skills.
Employers say teenagers have an advantage in the cyber job
market because they're often up on the newest technologies.
While adult workers have time commitments such as families,
teenagers can spend hours on the Internet, downloading and
experimenting with the latest programs.
Federal work regulations don't allow anyone younger than 14
to work for pay. And 14- and 15-year-olds can put in only 18
hours a week during the school year. Those restrictions
disappear at 16. The rules are there in part, Labor
Department officials say, to make sure that work doesn't
interfere with studies.
That's a concern of Donald Hyatt, director of Thomas
Jefferson High School's computer laboratory. He said he
constantly gets requests from companies for prospective
employees and doesn't have enough students to fill all the
summer internships offered. Every one of his seniors, he
said, could leave school and make a large salary.
But he tries to convince them that they won't develop to
their full potential that way. College offers opportunities
to learn from top programmers, he argues, not to mention the
value of getting a solid, broad-based education. And when it
comes time for cyclical layoffs, he adds, those without
college degrees often will be the first to go.
Seth Berger, a sophomore at Langley High School, isn't so
sure. He said his computer work has taught him much more than
any class. Seth looks like any other 16-year-old.
[[Page S4956]]
He wears faded jeans and Nike Airs. He says ``cool'' often,
and when he smiles, his braces show. But Seth is the computer
graphics core of a company called Creative Edge Software
Inc.--maker of a new martial arts computer game called ``The
Untouchable.''
Travis Riggs, Seth's boss, said that soon after he was
hired last year at age 15, it become clear that Seth was the
company's best computer graphics specialist. Seth will get a
percentage of the net profits from the game, which he said
could add up to more than $50,000. Riggs has hired him for a
second game and made him the sole computer graphics artist,
bumping his cut to a six-figure sum if the game does well.
``I don't know if I'm going to go to college, especially
since I can make money like this,'' Seth said. ``If college
costs 25 grand, for me it's going to cost $25,000, plus that
I could be making. I'm going to go to college and spend [the
equivalent of] $80,000 a year, to learn stuff I already know?
That doesn't make sense to me when I look at it that way.''
His mother, retired physician Amy Dwork-Berger, said she
and her husband have accepted that Seth probably won't attend
college. She sees him as an extremely bright person who would
be frustrated by college's regimentation. And she sees his
success in computer work as a positive influence on his life.
``It's been marvelous,'' she said. ``College isn't the only
way to learn. Seth doesn't fit the mold, and to make the most
of his potential, you have to let him do what he needs to do.
. . . He's happy. He's good at it. What more could a parent
want?
Bruce Hurwitz takes a somewhat different view for his son,
Gus, 17, who worked last summer for Netrix, a Herndon
computer networking company. Gus also sells a program over
the Internet that lets people access their computers remotely
or set up Web pages. That now brings in from $750 to $2,500 a
month.
Gus said that last year he was seriously considering not
returning for his senior year, in part because computer work
seemed more challenging. But he decided to stick with school
and college plans after talking it over with his parents.
His father, a data communications executive for a French
company, said he has worked to explain to Gus that college is
a valuable time for exploring new, varied interests. And he
warns his son that he won't always be the young hotshot,
because new technologies will surface down the road.
``I'm nervous that he's 17 about to go on 40,'' he said.
``I want him to be a child and enjoy himself. I want him to
be exposed to the liberal arts and other things. I don't want
him to be just a computer guy.''
But as a computer guy, Gus is clearly exceptional. He
tackled some of the company's most difficult tasks at the
bargain rate of $9 an hour. Netrix's senior engineers ``had
their jaws to the ground'' in amazement as Gus showed them
new ways of doing things.
Randy Hare, Gus's former boss, estimates that Gus is as
qualified as a typical senior-level system administrator in
his thirties making $80,000 a year.
Although employers rave about such young computer aces,
they say hiring teenagers can complicate workplace dynamics.
Datametrics Systems Corp., in Fairfax, got a taste of that
when it hired Brent Metz, now 17, for the last two summers.
The company, which sells a program that examines large
computer systems for inefficiencies, gave Brent a project
predicted that it would take him six to eight weeks. He
finished it in a week and a half.
``I think there were a couple of [adult programmers] who
felt threatened,'' said Grady Ogburn, a manager at
Datametrics. ``Up to that point, their programming efforts
were shrouded in mystery. * * * They're experienced
programmers taking x number of weeks to accomplish tasks, and
everybody thinks that's a reasonable amount of time. Now
here's this 16-year-old bringing all those estimates into
question.''
Brent's salary soon shot to $20 an hour, and Ogburn
believed he was worth double that. Now Brent is starting his
own Web page design company.
Although the junior employees generally blend in, employers
say, you can't get away from the fact that they are, well,
young.
Seth Berger's employer often has someone spend nearly an
hour traveling to pick him up after school and bring him to
the Dulles area office, because he can't drive yet.
A California software company that hired a 10-year-old for
the summer two years ago had to get used to seeing its new
software evaluator play with the copy machine on his breaks.
They also had to accept the grammatical errors in his
reports--understandable because he learned to write only a
few years before.
But most say the young people's raw enthusiasm can be like
a shot of adrenaline for other company employees. And
Rosenfeld, like other bosses, said he'll give some jobs to
17-year-old Doug Marcey rather than an adult programmer
because Doug doesn't yet know ``what's impossible.'' Adults
might give up, he said, but Doug will keep pushing.
Elliott Frutkin also believes in young talent. Last summer,
he dug through 200 resumes but still couldn't find the right
person to create graphics for his Georgetown startup Web page
company, Ideal Computer Strategies. Finally he found the
person he was looking for: the company's 14-year-old unpaid
intern, Josh Foes.
Frutin said Josh, unlike others, could do advanced graphics
work and understood how to translate the customers' concepts
onto the computer. His pay jumped to $10 an hour and later to
$25 an hour for urgent projects.
Josh, now 15, said it's changed the way he thinks about
money. He recalls a friend who worked at a toy store saying
he made more than $100 after putting in a long week. ``That's
the kind of thing I could make in a day, not working very
hard,'' Josh said.
Now Frutkin does everything he can to entice Josh back,
including offering to pay him an hourly rate equal to at
least $35,000 a year.
``In today's market, it's impossible to find someone with
those skills,'' Frutkin said. ``The next ad I run may be in a
high school newspaper rather than The Washington Post.''
Mr. ABRAHAM. This story basically says, ``Teens with tech talent rise
to the top. Not even out of high school, computer jocks rake in big
bucks.'' And it talks about how high school students working just part
time are making $50,000 here in the Virginia suburbs filling some of
these high-tech jobs for which it is difficult to locate sufficiently
skilled personnel.
The unemployment rate, of course, as we all saw in the most recent
numbers, is at a 30-year low, and that is great news. We want to see
the unemployment rate go lower. But the fact that it is so low
buttresses what these various statistics I have just described suggest;
namely, that we are at a point now where we are having a hard time
filling these high-tech jobs. And if we don't fill them and if the
expansion can't continue, I fear we will start to see the unemployment
rate going in the other direction, because we will not be able to
sustain the economic growth we have and because, as a consequence of
that, we will also start to see American companies forced to look
elsewhere for the employees they need.
But the bottom line is this. There is a gap, and what we need to do,
in my judgment, to address it is to provide both a short-term solution
and a long-term solution as well. The long-term solution is very
dependent on better targeting and more efficient operation of our job
training programs and an educational system, a K-12 educational system,
that gets more young people headed in the direction of filling these
jobs as well as a higher education system that properly trains them to
take these jobs.
The legislation which we have for consideration today, as I will
indicate a little later on, aims to address the long-term solution that
we are seeking. But until the education system can adjust, until the
job training programs can be reconfigured, we need to do something in
the short term, and that is also what S. 1723 is about.
What we need in the interim is to attract and find, be able to bring
to this country from anywhere on the globe where they might reside, the
highest skilled workers we can find to fill these jobs until we can
produce enough workers here in this country to fill them. And that is
the goal of this legislation.
There is a program under the existing immigration laws that allows
people to come into this country on a temporary basis to fill high-
skilled jobs. This is a program which is called the H-1B visa program.
Since its inception about 8 years ago, the H-1B program has had a cap
of 65,000 visas per year that may be made available for highly skilled
people to come to this country to fill the types of jobs we are talking
about here today. Until the 1997 fiscal year, however, we had never
reached the 65,000 cap. It was not assumed we would reach it when the
program was originally created. It was set at a fairly high level--at
least it seemed to be the case at the time. But in 1997 the cap was
hit, Mr. President. It was hit approximately early in July of 1997.
What that meant was that at that point and from that point forward
until the end of the fiscal year, companies in desperate need of high-
tech workers, unable to find them in the United States, were also
unable to bring them here from another country.
We estimated at that time in the Immigration Subcommittee that the
cap would be hit even earlier in the 1998 fiscal year, and our estimate
was correct. The cap was hit 1 week ago Friday. It was hit, in other
words, at the very beginning of May in this fiscal year. It is our
projection that if we do not increase this cap, it will be hit even
earlier in the 1999 fiscal year, perhaps as early as February.
What it means for this year is very simple. Companies in the United
[[Page S4957]]
States, high-tech companies that need skilled workers and cannot locate
them here in the United States at this time--because in spite of all
these want ads, there just aren't people adequately skilled to meet
these specialized jobs--are not going to be able to bring another
individual here until next October.
What that means in terms of its implications on the economy is very
significant. There are a lot of ramifications to not increasing the
cap. First, as I have alluded to already, there will be the potential
to impair our economic growth. If we can't fill these jobs, the
companies are forced to defer and delay the initiation of new projects
and new product lines and a variety of other similar types of programs,
then clearly it will have an impact and effect on economic growth. It
means key projects will be put on hold. And we have a list. Since this
cap was hit the other day, Mr. President, I have heard from an array of
companies indicating that they envision in this year being forced to
either take people off payroll or not to hire prospective candidates
because they will not be able to get the talent they need to fill these
key spots.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full list.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Organizations Endorsing the American Competitiveness Act (S. 1723)
business organizations
American Business for Legal Immigration.
American Council of International Personnel.
American Electronics Association.
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The Business Roundtable.
Business Software Alliance.
Computing Technology Industries Association.
Electronics Industry Association.
Information Technology Association of America.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Technical Services Association.
Semiconductor Industry Association.
TechNet.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
PHARMA.
ethnic organizations
Advocates for the Rights of Korean Americans.
American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin.
American Latvian Association in the United States.
Congress of Romanian Americans.
The Indus Entrepreneurs.
Joint Baltic American National Committee.
Korean Americans Association.
Lithuanian American Council.
National Albanian American Council.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
The Polish American Congress.
Portuguese-American Leadership Council.
Slovak League of America.
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce.
National Federation of Filipino American Associations.
Emerald Isle Immigration Center.
India Abroad Center for Political Awareness.
B'Nai B'Rith International.
National Immigration Forum.
Immigration and Refugee Services of America.
university organizations
American Association of Community Colleges.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
American Council on Education.
Association of American Universities.
College and University Personnel Association.
Council of Graduate Schools.
Madonna University.
Michigan State University.
Michigan Technological University.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities.
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges.
University of Michigan.
michigan organizations
Bay de Noc Community College.
Citation Corporation-Automotive Sales & Engineering
Division.
Compuware Corporation.
ITT Industries.
Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
Michigan Manufacturers Association.
Swiftech Computing, Inc.
ERIM International, Inc.
Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Meijer Corporation.
Northern Initiatives.
Phillips Service Industries, Inc.
The Right Place Program-Grand Rapids.
Sensors, Inc.
Software Services Corporation.
Suomi College.
Superb Manufacturing, Inc.
leading scientific and medical research organizations
American Society for Biochemistry.
American Society for Cell Biology.
Association of Independent Research Institutes.
Biophysical Society.
Genetics Society of America.
other organizations
Americans For Tax Reform.
Empower America.
editorial endorsements
The Washington Post.
Washington Times.
Miami Herald.
Detroit News.
Ann Arbor News.
Seattle Times.
The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY.
The Atlanta Journal.
Chicago Tribune.
The Columbia Dispatch.
Fairfax Journal, Fairfax, VA.
Crain's Detroit Business.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me just mention a few of the companies we have heard
from already: Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Ford Motor Company, Eli
Lilly. The list goes on and on, and it spans a variety of areas from
medical research to information technology. And as those projects go on
hold, it means not only that the company will not be growing as fast as
we would like to see, it also means that we will not be filling as many
new job opportunities with people WHO currently are hoping that those
companies will begin their new product lines. It is estimated by the
Hudson Institute that if we don't increase this cap, we could see a
significant impact on economic growth. They have even projected it to
be as much as $200 billion in lost output. That almost works out to
nearly $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
But the ramifications actually go beyond simply not being able to
fill those positions until next October. There are other implications
as well. For example, if we can't hire these talented people and bring
them here now, foreign competitors can and will fill that gap, and we
will lose people to other countries who will then be the ones
developing the technologies that we are talking about. At the same
time, if we don't even reach the cap and if American companies can't
bring the talent here to fill their needs, it increases the
possibility--in fact it is a very real possibility--that they will
begin to move some of the operations we are talking about overseas.
That means we don't just lose that one job which we are attempting to
fill through a temporary worker. It means existing jobs in the United
States could be lost if product lines of divisions, if new projects,
are initiated in another country.
Obviously, we don't want to lose American jobs simply because we
can't get certain specific skilled workers to this country to begin
these kinds of operations. The types of operations we are talking about
are also very significant. We are not just talking about a new widget
being developed. We are talking about dealing with enormous important
problems confronting our country at this time. We have all heard in
recent weeks from Senator Bennett, our colleague from Utah, who is the
Senate's foremost expert on the problems we confront with the year 2K
situation. Now, we have a Senate task force to examine those issues
specifically with what the intent is for us in the Senate, but what we
clearly know is there is not one sector of our economy that is not
going to be impacted by the year 2K problems.
I have heard from numerous companies and numerous individuals trying
to meet the year 2K challenges, who said it is absolutely vital that we
increase the H-1B visa program at this time so we can bring in
sufficient talent to deal with the year 2K problems between now and the
end of 1999. Yet, as I say, we have hit the cap.
I will be talking about this in greater detail as we go along this
afternoon, but let me talk specifically about what our legislation
would do to meet these challenges, both the short-term problem we have,
such as the year 2K problem, and the long-term problem we are trying to
address, the challenge of having enough American workers to meet the
dramatic increases in job creation
[[Page S4958]]
in the information technology sector of the economy.
Our legislation would do the following: First, it would temporarily
increase from 65,000 to 95,000 the cap on H-1B visas. That means an
increase of 30,000 per year.
In addition, we have created as a safety valve--so we would have at
least the possibility of congressional oversight and examination if we
hit that 95,000 cap sooner than anticipated--a safety valve which would
permit us to use up to 20,000 visas from the H-2B program, if such
visas were available and unused by that program in the previous year.
As I say, our legislation has a 5-year sunset to it. In short, we tried
to make this a short-term rather than a long-term focus piece of
legislation in the hope that in that 5-year period we can develop
through job training programs and our educational system the talent we
need right here at home. So it would be a 5-year program. Those
increases we have mentioned would be for 5 years.
In addition, starting in the 1999 fiscal year, we would separate out
of the H-1B program health care workers, and create a new category, the
H1-C program with a limit of 10,000 annual visas for health care
employees. We do that because a number of people have expressed
concerns about the high-tech program, the skilled worker program. That
addresses concerns that if we make this significant increase in the
numbers, too many of those will end up being used in areas which do not
necessarily, right now, seem to have the need that the high-tech
information technology sector requires. So what we have decided to do
in the legislation is essentially to create a new category of 10,000
visas that would be the limit annually for health care workers. That
would reach 85,000 for the information technology and other high-
skilled categories.
In addition, our legislation calls upon the INS to provide us with
more information with regard to the H-1B program. One of the
frustrations that we have all had, and I know the Senator from
California and I have talked about this in the subcommittee when we
discussed this program, is that we don't actually know how many workers
are coming in, into various categories, because the records are not
that explicit. We have records of who applies for these H-1B visas, but
we do not and are unable to get a count on how they actually are
distributed. We need that information if we are going to do the kind of
long-term focus that I think necessary to properly oversee this whole
program.
To that end, and in addition to getting numbers--thanks to an
initiative that Senator Kyl, a member of our subcommittee, has
proposed--we include in the legislation the conducting of a study by
the National Science Foundation to try to more accurately gauge our
high-tech, skilled worker needs.
During the deliberations on this legislation in the committee when we
had our hearings and so on, a lot of different issues were raised as to
what the real long-term needs will be. Senator Kyl, I think, has wisely
proposed because our program is a 5-year program with a sunset that we,
in a shorter period of time, study the actual situation, what the real
needs are today, what are likely to be long term, to determine whether
the projections in such things as the Commerce Department study bear
out.
Finally, as I said, our legislation is aimed at being both a short-
term as well as a long-term fix. The short-term fix is to increase the
number of H-1B visas. The long-term fix is to provide various
mechanisms by which American workers can be trained to fill these jobs.
Thus, a key part of our legislation is a scholarship authorization
which authorizes funds for scholarships in science and math for needy
students. We have worked very closely with the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee on this part of the legislation. We will be talking
about it, I think, a little bit later. We have worked with Senators
Collins and Reed who have been involved in the higher education
reauthorization bill to try to make sure our language tracks the
language in that legislation. And we believe that, by focusing more
resources on science and math and computer science training, we can
have an excellent chance of meeting some of the long-term needs that
have been referenced in my remarks today.
That is essentially what the legislation attempts to do. It also
attempts to provide protection, protection for American workers to make
certain the H-1B program is not abused. Already in the existing program
I believe there is a very firm set of protections that stand as
safeguards for American workers. Essentially, what those protections
are is a requirement that anyone who brings somebody to this country
under the H-1B visa program must pay that individual the higher of the
prevailing wage or the salary in their company paid to people of like
experience and skill. We think that is a pretty effective approach and
it has proven to be effective. In the entire history of the H-1B
program there have been only eight willful violations determined to
have existed. But it was our view that if we were going to increase the
numbers we should also increase the vigilance with which we look at
this program and the penalties against anyone who might seek to take
advantage of it.
So in addition to the aforementioned components of the legislation,
our bill does the following: It increases from $1,000 to $5,000 per
violation the fines to be imposed on any company that fails to meet
that standard I indicated of requiring an H-1B individual to be paid
the higher of the prevailing wage in the industry or the actual
salaries paid in that company for this type of position.
Furthermore, in an attempt to make certain that no one in any way
attempts to lay off an American worker to bring in an H-1B employee, we
impose a $25,000 fine per violation and a 2-year debarment from the
program where anyone violates the prevailing wage rule and it is
determined has laid off somebody to fill the position with an H-1B
worker.
In short, I think we have taken the steps necessary to guarantee that
abuses in this program will not occur. And, as I said, at least in its
history so far, very few have occurred. The legislation enjoys broad
support, support here on the floor of the Senate on a bipartisan basis,
support throughout the business community. It has been endorsed by the
United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
Manufacturers, Tech Net--a high-tech trade organization--the
Information Technology Association of America, the Motion Picture
Association of America, and numerous other organizations.
It, likewise, enjoys broad support of the academic community, because
many of these H-1B workers actually come to the country and assume jobs
in academia teaching American kids the skills needed to fill these
high-tech jobs. As a consequence, the legislation is endorsed by the
Association of American Universities, the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and the American Council on
Education.
It is similarly supported by a broad array of heritage groups,
including the National Asian Pacific-American Legal Immigration
Consortium, National Immigration Forum, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, the Polish-American Congress, B'nai B'rith, and a variety of
others.
I will summarize later why this legislation must be passed, but I
think in this opening statement I have laid out the key essentials.
Right now, against the backdrop of very low unemployment in this
country, we have a shortage of skilled workers. We need to address that
on both the short- and long-term basis. Our legislation tries to do
both.
In the short-term sense, we increase the cap on H-1B workers to come
to this country. We need that or else we are going to see American jobs
lost, not gained. This is not a zero sum situation, Mr. President.
Without change in this cap, without doing it soon, we will start to see
a very significant impact, I believe, in our high-tech industries.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. We expect to have additional
speakers on our side as the afternoon goes on.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, very shortly, Senator Kennedy, the
ranking member of the Immigration
[[Page S4959]]
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, will be presenting an
amendment which I will strongly support. It is very similar to the
amendment which was offered in committee, proposed both by the Senator
from Massachusetts and myself representing California. I voted for it
then, and I will vote for it now.
I did in committee also vote for the Abraham bill, because Senator
Abraham is correct, there is a problem. The high-tech industry is
consistently turning to foreign nationals to fill low-level computer-
related jobs.
In my State of California, this is a very big deal. High tech
currently provides about 814,000 jobs in California. That is 18\1/2\
percent of the total California employment. So it is a substantial
industry. When this industry says to their Senator, ``We can't hire
high school or college graduates to fill our needs,'' I obviously have
to be very concerned.
I have become very saddened by our high-tech CEOs who repeatedly tell
me they cannot find qualified workers. As a matter of fact, during the
hearings in the Judiciary Subcommittee, we even heard one CEO say that
they advertised a brand new, I think it was a Ford Mustang for any
individual who would take one of these computer-related jobs.
Senator Abraham is correct, the industry will reach the cap of 65,000
by May of this year. As Senator Abraham stated, this presents a very
serious problem.
Let's talk for a moment about this 65,000 cap and the way it is now.
The 1996 Labor Department report shows that only 41 percent of the H-
1Bs presently are computer-related professions. Another 26 percent are
physical therapists and health professionals. It is not only computer-
related people who are presently coming into this country on a H-1B
visa, 26 percent of them are physical therapists, which is kind of
canny to me to think we can't find American health therapists for these
jobs? The IG's report also shows that some H-1B employers have
contracted their employees out to other companies functioning as job
shops, companies that hire predominantly or exclusively H-1B's and
contract them out. Current law does not prohibit this practice of
running these job shops, despite the concern that these job shops are
paying the H-1B's less than the prevailing wage and have a negative
impact on the American worker's ability to keep his or her job.
The 1996 Labor Department report also indicates that 48 percent of
employment-based, permanent immigration is admitted through the H-1B
program, and this is a major point I want to make. The H-1B program is
not necessarily just a temporary worker program. Fifty percent of these
workers achieve permanent status and remain in this country essentially
forever. This is a big problem.
From the CRS report on this issue, dated May 13, 1998, I read the
following:
In practical terms, the H-1B visa links the foreign student
to legal permanent residence. Anecdotal accounts--
And I think Senator Abraham mentioned correctly that we really don't
know; the recordkeeping in this program is very bad--
Anecdotal accounts tell of foreign students who are hired
by U.S. firms as they are completing their programs. The
employers obtain H-1B visas for the recent graduates, and if
the employees meet expectations, the employers may also
petition for the nonimmigrants to become legal permanent
residents, through one of the employment-based immigration
categories. Some policymakers consider this a natural and
positive chain of events, arguing that it would be foolish to
educate these talented young people, only to make them leave
to work for foreign competitors. Others consider this a
pathway program.
This is really my point and my concern about the Abraham legislation.
The Abraham legislation essentially is a 5-year program, and over 5
years, it would permit 555,000 new foreign nationals to come into this
country, 50 percent of whom would remain. This is the 555,000 that is
specially targeted for high tech by the Abraham legislation. However,
the Abraham legislation also provides an additional 10,000 workers per
year for non-high-tech jobs. That is a total of 50,000 over 5 years. So
when you add that together over 5 years, this is an additional 605,000
foreign workers coming into this country, taking jobs which many of us
believe should be filled by American young people, American high school
and college graduates. This is over a 77-percent increase in numbers,
Mr. President.
The amendment that Senator Kennedy will offer is essentially a 3-year
program which is a total of only 270,000 workers coming in targeted for
high tech over the 3 years. The program would sunset after 3 years, and
we would have an opportunity to take a good look at that program at the
end of that period of time, hopefully have better records by then and
hopefully be better aware of what the needs are after that period of
time.
I mentioned that there are about 815,000 high-tech workers in this
country in California alone. So this is really a huge new immigration
program over 5 years. Nobody should think to the contrary. It will let
in over 600,000 foreign nationals, one-half of whom, by our own past
statistics, will remain in this country as legal aliens able to work in
this country. In other words, they will have green cards, and they will
continue to go from temporary worker to permanent worker, thereby
taking up a job which an American young person could occupy.
Now, this troubles me. It really troubles me. And the reason it
troubles me is because these workers are not necessarily superstars.
The superstars come in. These are lower level computer programmers.
They really are $50,000-a-year job occupants.
As a matter of fact, there is a chart that essentially shows the
salaries. Seventy-five percent of the workers who have been coming in
under this program are at salaries from $25,000 to $50,000. So these
are not, in the main, the jobs of $100,000 or more. These are exactly
the jobs that graduates of the new age, graduates into the global
economy from our schools all over the United States should be taking to
develop a sinecure in an industry that is only going to bloom in the
future.
So I am troubled by the Abraham bill's numbers. Again, they are
605,000 over 5 years. And 550,000 would go for high-tech workers as
opposed to the amendment that Senator Kennedy will shortly make, which
would be a 3-year program, 270,000 jobs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor at the present time.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you.
I would like to put a couple of points into perspective, first of
all, which relate to the statements of the Senator from California with
regard to the numbers. I indicated in my opening statement we have a
very significant problem just understanding exactly what the numbers
are.
For instance, the issue with respect to physical therapists taking 26
percent of these positions--we do not know that is the percentage of
applications that have come to INS. And our legislation attempts to do
two things to address it.
First, it attempts to force INS to tell us not what the application
numbers are but who actually gets the H-1B positions. We need to know
that to shape this program more effectively.
Second, with respect to health care workers and physical therapists,
and so on, our legislation actually attempts to put a cap on that
category of 10,000, so that, in fact, 26 or 30 percent of whatever of
the H-1B visas cannot go into that category. The legislation that the
Senator from California alludes to, that would not put that cap in
place, means that literally all of the positions could go to these
categories that I think most of us would agree do not need to be filled
with H-1B workers. In fact, our legislation, the bill before us,
attempts to move us in a direction to attempt to address that problem.
Next, with respect to the actual numbers themselves, the statistics
of the Senator from California are not accurate. Currently, if we do
nothing legislatively, 325,000 people will come in over the next 5
years under the H-1B program. Our legislation increases that amount by
30,000 per year to 475,000. And the amount that was referenced with
respect to health care workers comes out of that 95,000. It is not in
addition to the 95,000; it is 10,000 under the 95,000 per year cap. So
the numbers that were just referenced simply are not correct.
Lastly, I would like to just comment this is not a bill about foreign
exchange students, but I just say this: We
[[Page S4960]]
already have in place a system by which individuals can get permanent
green cards annually. Approximately 140,000 such cards are available
each year. We do not use all of those. So whether or not people coming
in under the H-1B program end up becoming permanent employees has not
forced that number higher. We do not even use the 140,000. But to the
extent that we do use permanent green cards for anyone, it seems to me,
at least, that it makes more sense for the people who receive them to
be people who came to the United States, were trained in our colleges,
then worked in our companies and paid taxes. It seems to me they are
more valid permanent green card recipients than individuals who did
none of the above.
Why should we train people at our colleges to take on these very
important 21st century jobs and then see them leave and go work for
foreign competitors? Again, it would make some sense to bring that
issue up if we were going to be limiting the number of permanent green
cards available on an annual basis, but this legislation does not
attempt to do this, nor was that part of anyone's proposal.
So I think, in sum, that the earlier statements I made remain
accurate and certainly are on point to deal with the worker shortage we
confront right now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The amendment that the Senator from Massachusetts
will propose will not have a 3-year limit on it at this time. That was
our bill we had in committee. Rather, it will require that employers
look for American workers first before they hire foreign workers and
that they have not laid off American workers 6 months prior or 3 months
after they put in an application.
So I am happy to be able to make that clarification. And I believe
Senator Kennedy will be here momentarily.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri to speak
on the bill.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the 5
minutes speaking on this bill that I be able to continue for 10 minutes
as in morning business to address other issues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to begin by thanking Senator Abraham of Michigan for his
attention to this very important issue. It seems to me that this is a
fundamental issue that relates to the success and survival of this
culture in the next century.
The long-term impact of a Government-imposed shortage of high-tech
workers is clear. If workers cannot come to these jobs, then the jobs
will have to go to the workers.
We have an option here, an option of whether or not we bring workers
to these jobs and have the industry in the United States or these
companies decide to take these jobs to wherever the workers are
otherwise.
Let us not fool ourselves. There are several countries that have the
resources to begin a strong technology sector. I believe it would
behoove us to make sure that the technology sector continues to exist
in the United States of America.
Some of my colleagues seem to view this bill too narrowly. They view
it as an immigration issue and an immigration issue alone. My
colleagues are not to be blamed for wanting to make certain that
Government policies respect the needs and interests of American
workers. This legislation, however, does not threaten American workers
in any way. No one is being replaced.
We are not dealing with a situation in which legal immigrants are
coming to the United States to compete with low-income, native-born
workers or, worse yet, coming to live off the Federal dole. That is not
the situation here.
The shortage of workers in this industry is well documented. Filling
these jobs with skilled workers, whether born here or overseas, is in
America's best interests. We have a chance to either import the workers
or export the jobs. It seems to me that clearly we would want to bring
in these critical workers who can sustain this industry and help us
sustain it as an American industry.
Indeed, it would be a grave mistake, in my judgment, to send even any
portion of this dynamic and critical sector abroad in search of
workers. It would send the wrong signal. It would be the wrong
strategy. The economic and national security benefits of keeping this
industry in the United States are substantial. They should not be
overlooked. This industry will continue to flourish. But if the U.S.
Government needlessly restricts one of the key inputs--that is, the
necessary labor for growing--it will flourish somewhere else. We don't
need for this industry to flourish on someone else's shores. We want
this industry to flourish on our own.
I understand some of our colleagues will seek to amend the
legislation. These amendments have noble sounding purposes and titles,
but they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Excluding those that the
subcommittee chairman has agreed to accept, these amendments are
designed to kill the bill and should be defeated for that reason. Isn't
it ironic that some Members are unwilling to help an industry do
exactly what we want every industry in this country to do, and that is
to become the best in the world. Some people want to keep our industry
from attaining that standard.
We make the same mistake over and over again in Congress. We already
are forcing the encryption industry to relocate to foreign shores
through antiquated export restrictions, and now Members entertain
amendments that will make difficult the United States success in the
entire technology sector by restricting the import of needed skilled
workers.
Perhaps the most disturbing amendments are those that would let loose
a swarm of Federal bureaucrats into the high-tech industry to
investigate hiring practices. Is this the role that we want Government
to play in any industry--to create another set of regulatory hurdles
that stifle growth and productivity? The energy of this recovery, the
energy of our economy, has been provided by the high-tech industry, and
it has been able to do so absent Government interference and control. I
believe it would be an inappropriate decision, it would be a tremendous
insult, and, frankly, an injury to this industry if we were to move
Government in massively, as some of these amendments will propose.
As I have said before, we can allow workers to come to these jobs in
America, or we can force those who want these jobs done to take the
production facilities and the jobs that go with them someplace else. It
seems that would be insanity. It does not take a highly trained
computer expert to figure out what we want. We want to keep the jobs
here. If we have the jobs here, and we can get the people, then keep
the jobs here rather than export the jobs to where the workers may
happen to be.
The technology sector of our country has had tremendous success by
almost any measure--in productivity, in capital, in growth and in
sales.
However, this thriving sector is running into a problem that even the
best engineers cannot design around--a lack of individuals with the
necessary skills to power the growth of American ``high-tech''
industries. The common approach of Silicon Valley of ``Just Fix It''
doesn't work in this instance--the engineers cannot overcome design
flaws or test for efficiencies because the problem is imposed not by
outdated technology but by the outdated laws of the federal government.
The high tech sector has come to the federal government to ask for
assistance in an area that is in the control of the federal
government--the granting of visas to highly skilled technical workers.
[[Page S4961]]
I rise today to applaud an industry that is so dynamic that it has
depleted the tremendous human resources available in this country so
swiftly. We, as a nation, should take great pride in our technology
sector, and even greater pride that this robust sector of our economy
continues to thrive.
One frightening trend that has begun to emerge in this Congress is
the consideration of laws that would directly involve the federal
government in the operations of the technology sector. Any number of
bills introduced with the best of intentions would have ignored budding
and dynamic technology and instead imposed a quick legislative fix that
would have remained in the code for years. This push for instant
gratification and instant solutions will lead to disastrous results in
the dynamic area of high technology. Instead, Members of Congress must
start making the tough decisions on how to allow our technology sector
to continue to be an engine of growth for our economy, continue to
provide greater efficiencies for business, guarantee lifestyle
enhancements to all people, and continue to position the United States
as the world's technology leader. We need to focus less on imposing new
government obstacles to tomorrow's technologies and more on removing
government as an obstacle to growth in this dynamic sector.
This brings me to Senator Abraham's legislation, the American
Competitiveness Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important
legislation because it removes a government-imposed limit on the growth
of the technology sector. We should all support the Abraham legislation
as a means to facilitate the continued growth and success of an
industry that is so important to our nation.
In closing, Mr. President, I must call attention to another troubling
aspect of this debate, the glaring omission of leadership from the
Clinton Administration. I am frustrated by this Administration's
continuing talk of support for the industry of Silicon Valley. As I
cast about in search of that support I find precious little. So I just
ask--where is the Administration support for this important
legislation? Where is the support for a well thought-out encryption
policy, for the elimination of arbitrarily imposed taxation of the
Internet--which currently remains international in scope but subject to
tax by any municipality, or for leadership in confronting what may be
the most dangerous threat to our economy, The Year 2000 bug? Mr.
President, where was the Administration just two weeks ago when we were
fighting to take a truly damaging provision on digital signatures out
of the IRS bill?
I urge the Administration live up to its words and help us create
jobs and growth in the technology sector. It is time for the
Administration to stop talking the talk and begin walking the walk.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I commend the
subcommittee chairman, Senator Abraham, for his outstanding work in
this respect. It is not merely an immigration bill; this is a bill that
relates to the success of the high-tech industry, an industry in which
America continues to be the No. 1 power.
What is the situation regarding time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes to speak as in
morning business.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank you for informing me of that.
____________________