[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________