[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4962-S4975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have the time allocation. Could 
the Chair tell me how much remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 47 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.
  Mr. President, as of May 7 the immigration quota for skilled 
temporary foreign workers was full. The 65,000 visas available each 
year under the H-1B visa category have been claimed. For the remainder 
of the fiscal year--almost 5 months--no more visas are available. The 
quota filled rapidly this year because U.S. high-tech computer 
companies are bringing in foreign programmers in record numbers. 
America's high-tech industry is undergoing extraordinary growth, and 
the demand is high for more workers, so they have turned to the 
immigration laws to bring them in from abroad. A temporary increase in 
the immigration quota is justified. We all want to ensure that our 
high-tech industries get the workers they need to remain healthy and 
competitive.
  I have always felt that with regard to our immigration laws we ought 
to, first of all, recognize the importance of families and family 
reunification; and then, secondly, if they are going to bring in those 
who have special skills, which is going to expand the American economy, 
a case could be made for those individuals. They could make that--
particularly in the years of 1980 and as we came into 1990, we are 
facing the unemployment that we are facing, we did recognize the 
importance of these special skills that will result in expanding the 
American economy and expanded employment. That does make sense.
  The demand for more foreign workers is an embarrassing indictment of 
our failure to provide adequate training for American workers. These 
are good high-tech jobs in the modern economy. Over the next decade, it 
is estimated that high-tech computer companies will need 1.3 million 
additional employees, and American workers deserve help in obtaining 
the skills to compete for them.
  It is not enough just to raise the immigration quota. Any bill that 
passes this Congress should, I believe, have two additional things. 
First, it must assure American workers that they will get the training 
opportunities they need to compete for these good jobs. It makes no 
sense to throw in the towel by increasing the immigration quota, even 
temporarily, without also investing substantially in the training of 
U.S. workers. We must not give away these good jobs forever. We must 
invest in our workers, and that means putting real money on the table 
for training American workers.
  The bill that came out of our committee, I believe, failed. It was a 
good-faith effort to try to do so, but I believe it failed in making 
that kind of commitment. We have been working with the chairman of the 
committee to address that particular issue. There is no reason in the 
world why we should not provide these kinds of skills for American 
workers. That is really what this debate here this afternoon is all 
about. We recognize that we may very well have a need to increase this 
category in order to bring in some of those that have particular skills 
that might be important in terms of our American industry, and we can 
have a chance to go over the record on that particular issue. I think, 
quite frankly, it is a mixed issue. Nonetheless, given the evaluation 
of the information that is out there, I think we should take a 
temporary step. But beyond that, there is no reason why we should not 
develop the kinds of training programs and the kinds of initiatives to 
make sure, to the extent possible, that we are going to provide the 
skills to American workers so they can have the jobs, and not just have 
a more open-ended immigration policy in these categories for foreign-
trained workers. That really is an important part of this debate.
  A second very important part of this debate is how we are going to 
treat the American workers. We find that at least we will have a 
chance, probably, to go into this in some detail, and that there is at 
least a record out there that a number of these individuals come into 
this country, and they know that if they have their job terminated, 
they are effectively deported; they can't retain their green card. 
There is some evidence that these individuals have displaced American 
workers who were holding those jobs.
  Then, subsequently, there has been an adverse impact on the wages of 
those workers who are virtually handcuffed, so-to-speak, and trying to 
complain about it, because if they complain, they are shipped back 
overseas. We want to make sure that, one, as a great Nation that has 
the capacity to train our workers, we are going to provide skills for 
those workers. For every worker that goes into the job market today, 
they are going to have seven different jobs. Under the excellence bill, 
which was passed just over a week ago by the leadership of Senators 
DeWine, Jeffords, and Wellstone, we have tried to bring our training 
programs up to the demands of the turn of the century, so that 
Americans are going to have a continuing possibility for upgrading 
their skills. They are going to need that.
  We as a nation should make sure that those kinds of opportunities for 
self-improvement are going to be available to working families in this 
country. That is very, very important, I believe.
  The Senate went on record a week ago with a very strong bipartisan 
vote to do just that. We don't want to carve out an area. We don't want 
to say we will train Americans for some jobs but we are not going to 
train them for the computer jobs in this Nation. That makes no sense. 
That virtually turns our back on what we committed to American working 
families just a week ago. We shouldn't carve this area out and say, 
``We are not going to provide that.'' That is why we have been working 
with our friend and colleague, the Senator from Michigan, to try to 
address that. I think we have seen some important movement on this 
issue. I certainly appreciate his understanding of that importance. We 
are trying to work out an approach on that. That is going to meet some 
of the concerns that he and others have.
  But a second important point is that we don't want to say to American 
workers who are working in the computer industry now, to have their 
boss come up to them and say, ``You are fired because we have someone 
else who will replace you at the same wage.'' That is legal in America 
today. Any of these large companies can bring in the temporary workers 
having met some rather fundamental kinds of requirements and just 
displace Americans. I think that is wrong. I think that is absolutely 
and fundamentally wrong. We will have an amendment to try to address 
that issue.
  Second, we want to make sure that there is going to be at least an 
effort, some effort. All we are talking about in this case is an 
attestation; we are saying to the employer that you attest that you 
have made an effort to try to hire an American worker. What we are 
saying is we are not setting up any type of rule or regulation. We are 
saying whatever the industry requires, whatever the pattern is in the 
particular industry. So if a particular industry is just publishing 
something on the Internet, e-mail, whatever, that is sufficient in 
terms of meeting that requirement. Whatever the industry does, we say 
that is fine. All the company has to do is just say OK, we have done 
that. That is all. That is the total

[[Page S4963]]

amount of paperwork. But what we are trying to do is say that we are 
going to give some priority to American workers. The company is just 
going to have to follow whatever the industry does in recruiting, is 
going to have to do so with regard to these workers. I think that is 
very important. We don't want to displace American workers, and we want 
to make sure than an American worker who has those kinds of skills is 
going to be able to get that job. Those aren't, I don't think, very 
radical kinds of concepts if we are talking about what we are 
interested in--looking after American workers' families.
  What are these jobs? When you come down to it, we will probably come 
back to revisit this issue a little later in the debate. But, according 
to Department of Labor figures, from 1997 on the H-1B jobs, on the 
certification of what these jobs are, and what they pay, this chart is 
an indication of what the pay is for these particular jobs. If you look 
at this particular chart, Mr. President, you will see that 76 percent 
of these jobs are from $25,000 to $50,000 a year. These are good jobs. 
It is difficult for me to believe that we cannot develop training and 
education programs so that American workers can get those particular 
jobs. Those are good jobs for working families. We are not prepared to 
say that we are going to turn our back on Americans for these kinds of 
jobs.

  Another 16 percent go from $50,000 to $75,000. Those are good jobs, 
too. What you are talking about here is that more than 5 percent of 
those are below $75,000.
  Then you have these in the smaller group, approximately 5 percent, 
that are in excess of that $75,000. Those are represented by those, I 
think, that we call the ``Best and the Brightest'' in this category. We 
said they don't have to go and have an attestation or requirement in 
terms of seeking alternatives for those individuals who are going to 
universities or doing research. They don't have to go through even 
these very preliminary steps. What we are trying to do is to say for 
the basic jobs that are in these categories that fall roughly in 
$75,000 or less that they should not displace American workers and that 
American workers ought to get the first crack at it. That is basically 
what the amendment I will be offering later this afternoon calls for, 
and what we, I believe, should bring to our attention.
  Mr. President, it matters to U.S. high-tech companies that want more 
visas. But it also matters to workers who are laid off by unscrupulous 
employers and replaced by foreign workers. It matters to middle-aged 
computer programmers who work hard to keep up their skills but are laid 
off in favor of younger workers who will work longer hours at cheaper 
pay. And it matters to working families who would love to get one of 
these jobs and make $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year. Many of the 
workers who come in under the H-1B visa program are obviously talented. 
We should put out the welcome mat for accomplished people who have 
unique skills to improve our economy and create jobs, but accomplished 
workers represent only a fraction of the foreign workers who come to 
the United States under the H-1B program.
  I have indicated that more than 75,000 would be about 5 percent. We 
might even stretch it to up to 20 percent. Most of those who are coming 
into this program are lower-level computer programmers. Many are 
physical therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, and 80 percent 
are paid less than $50,000, as I referred to. These are good jobs, and 
the working families of America should get the first crack at them.
  The bill before us does little or nothing to enhance the 
accountability and enforcement of the H-1B visa program. Some say the 
current program is satisfactory. They cite the low number of violators 
found by the Labor Department as evidence that the terms of the program 
are widely observed. But the reason so few violations are discovered is 
that the Labor Department's hands are tied. The Department cannot 
intervene unless a complaint is filed. And few workers dare complain. 
As I mentioned before, if they complain, they are shipped overseas and 
they are gone. No matter how poorly they are being trained and how 
overworked they are being worked, if they complain about that part and 
get fired, they lose their green card, and it is back to their country 
of origin. That has to be, and it is, an important factor. The fact 
that we have not had the complaints is because to do so would 
jeopardize their immigration status. So they either accept the abuses 
or change employers. But they don't complain.
  We know there are serious problems. This is the issue. Two years ago, 
the Labor Department's inspector general completed the largest study of 
the program. That is the basic program, the fundamental, the temporary 
worker program, which is the issue that we are talking about here 
today. They reviewed some 720 cases in 12 States. The results were 
appalling. In 75 percent of the cases, the inspector general could not 
even tell from the employer's records whether the employer paid the H-
1B foreign worker the proper wage. If those are good documents on what 
they paid, 19 percent of the employers paid less than the wage that 
they had promised on their applications.
  Any bill that the Congress sends to the President must remedy this 
problem. The Labor Department should have the same authority to enforce 
the rules under this program as they have to enforce workplace 
standards and the minimum wage, and they should have the same authority 
that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has to ensure that 
employers do not hire illegal immigrant workers. That means giving the 
Labor Department authority to enforce the rule where there is 
reasonable cause to believe that they have been broken.
  We permit the enforcement. If we do not have enforcement, we have 
abuses. Your rights are diminished if you do not have the ability to 
have a remedy. That is just basic fact. We don't have to spend the time 
on the floor to really debate that issue. Unless we are going to have 
that kind of protection, you are going to have the kind of abuses that 
have taken place and continue to take place.
  Stephen Schultz is an engineer who was laid off from his job in 
Modesto, CA.
  He was then asked to come back to his company on a temporary basis in 
order to train his foreign replacement. There was nothing Mr. Schultz 
could do about it. He was laid off and replaced by a foreign worker. To 
add insult to injury, he was asked to train his foreign replacement. 
Can you imagine that, Mr. President. Here is the person who is laid 
off. The company hires someone from overseas, brings them over here, 
puts them in that job and then hires the worker that had been working 
there, I believe in this case 5 to 7 years he had been working there, 
to train that worker to fill that person's job. That was happening. 
That was happening. Now, that is absolutely and fundamentally wrong, 
and we do not want to permit, as we are seeing in the expansion of this 
program, those kinds of practices.
  I commend Senator Abraham for recognizing the problem, but 
unfortunately the antilayoff provisions in the bill, I believe, are 
inadequate. They apply only in a very limited circumstance. The 
employers who lay off U.S. workers and replace them with foreign 
workers can be penalized under this bill only if they break the law 
first. Only if they break the law first. Under this bill, you can lay 
off American workers and replace them with foreign workers as long as 
you don't underpay them or use them as strikebreakers or commit some 
other violation first. We should require employers to state that they 
have been unable to find qualified workers in this country before they 
apply for workers from abroad.
  Now, a high-tech facility in New Mexico announced a hiring freeze and 
refused to accept job applications, but at the same time they brought 
in 53 foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. Alan Ezer, a 45-
year-old computer programmer with 10 years of experience in the field, 
has kept his skills up to date. He was willing to take a cut in pay to 
stay in the industry. After he was laid off, he sent out 150 resumes. 
He got one job interview and no job offers. Rose Marie Roo is an 
experienced computer programmer. When no one would hire her to do 
computer work, she and her husband opened a bed and breakfast in 
Florida. Peter Van Horn,

[[Page S4964]]

age 31, with a masters degree in computer science, lives in California. 
Employers won't hire him either. The list goes on and on.
  Many of the Nation's high-tech firms are blatantly turning away 
qualified U.S. workers while appealing to Congress for more foreign 
workers. Not all but some. And those are the ones that need the 
attention. It is that kind of injustice these amendments which I will 
be introducing focus on. So this, too, must change. Employers should be 
required to state that they have made an effort to recruit in this 
country first. Some argue that if we impose these new requirements, the 
program will bog down in redtape. They say employers will have to wait 
too long to get their workers from abroad.
  Our solution, as I mentioned, is very simple. Employers must simply 
state on one sheet of paper they have laid someone off and that they 
have been unable to locate workers in this country. That is all. If you 
are concerned about redtape, then look at what the bill does. It 
transfers the program to the most overwhelmed and most backlogged 
agency in the Federal Government, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. It takes a year for American citizens to bring spouses or 
children here. That is supposedly our highest immigration priority, 
uniting citizens with their families, but it takes years just to 
process the paperwork to bring these families together. 
After individuals actually qualify for citizenship, it takes 2 years or 
even longer for them to have the forms completed.

  So we have an opportunity today to pass legislation that responds to 
the needs of the high-growth high-tech industry and our workers. We 
should increase the quota temporarily. We must provide our workers with 
the training they need to assure them that our immigration programs do 
not unfairly disadvantage them as they compete for the new jobs.
  Now, Mr. President, I will make some comments with regard to both of 
these amendments and then we can have some discussion. I will offer 
them with the understanding of the chairman so that we can move this 
process.
  Before going further, Mr. President, on the recruitment amendment, I 
know that Senator Abraham has announced the endorsement of this bill by 
certain groups. I have here in my hand 150 letters from American 
workers who are opposed to the bill. They are computer programmers and 
computer engineers who want a shot at these jobs. These are American 
workers. We believe they ought to be listened to.
  I might just selectively insert some of these letters, not to unduly 
burden the Congressional Record, but we have more than 150 and scores 
more back at the office. I will introduce a select group to be able to 
reflect the concern that these American workers have about this 
particular bill.
  It is interesting, Mr. President, when we were looking at what the 
needs were and we heard a good deal of testimony from different groups 
that one of the things that was pointed out by the General Accounting 
Office was the salaries in these particular areas have not increased 
effectively over time. At least some of the economists in the General 
Accounting Office found that sort of interesting because, generally 
speaking, when there is a greater demand for these kinds of skills, the 
salaries all go up. If you want to recruit people, with supply and 
demand, the salaries are going to increase, but they did not find that 
increase in the salaries. They sort of stayed standard in terms of 
other skilled occupations. That is where they had drawn some concerns 
about the legislation.
  Now, Mr. President, I would I ask unanimous consent that the time I 
now use be allocated to the recruitment amendment, if there is no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will just reserve the other time for general debate, 
if I could. And then I could stop and put that in. But I think this is 
OK with the chairman, or if the Senator wants to make some comments.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Actually, I was about to yield to Senator Brownback. I 
think he would like to speak when the Senator is finished.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I will just make some brief comments here and then 
I will yield.
  My amendment says that before employers can bring in foreign workers 
under the H-1B visa program, they must attest that they have tried to 
hire U.S. workers first.
  These are good well-paying jobs created by the high tech American 
economy. My amendment assures that U.S. workers will get first crack at 
these jobs. If employers cannot find U.S. workers who are ready, able, 
and willing to do the job, then--and only then--should foreign workers 
be available. Employers should be required to recruit in Boston, 
Detroit, and Los Angeles before they recruit in other countries.
  We hear a great deal about the impressive contributions of foreign 
workers to our economy. We should welcome outstanding workers who are 
exceptional in their fields and have impressive track records of 
accomplishment. In fact, my amendment rolls out the red carpet for such 
workers.
  It exempts universities and non-profit research institutions from 
this requirement. The researchers they bring in from abroad under this 
program help to train college students for the future. There is no 
significant evidence of abuses in their recruitment.
  But 80 percent of the applications received under the visa program 
are for jobs paying $50,000 or less. Half the applications are for 
computer programmers, most of them at lower levels. A quarter of the 
applications are for health care workers, particularly physical 
therapists. Other applications are for teachers, accountants, 
dietitians, piano tuners, drafters, realtors, construction workers, and 
many others.
  Many of these workers are in the early stages of their careers. As 
the Republican views in the Committee report on this bill correctly 
note, ``many H-1Bs are foreign students recruited off U.S. college 
campuses.'' U.S. workers should have first priority for these jobs.
  In fact, American college students are specializing in computer 
studies in growing numbers. According to the Computer Research 
Association, the number of college students majoring in computer 
science increased by 91 percent from 1995 to 1997. My amendment will 
assure that when they graduate, they will not have to worry that they 
must compete with foreign workers for U.S. jobs.
  Some argue that this amendment creates unnecessary additional 
paperwork. In fact, the amendment requires only that employers attest--
on a simple, one-page H-1B application form--that they have tried to 
recruit U.S. workers for the job and failed. They are required only to 
use recruitment procedures that are common for the industry.
  If the standard practice among computer companies is to post the job 
on the internet for five days, that's all they have to do to satisfy 
this requirement.
  The Labor Department does not investigate the application in advance 
of the foreign worker coming here. In fact, the Labor Department is 
required to act on the application within seven days. So all the 
employer would do, under my amendment, is complete the one-page form. 
Nothing more.
  Most high tech companies should have no problem meeting this simple 
requirement. They say they recruit in the U.S. constantly and still 
have hundreds of openings.
  All they have to do is check the box on the form, and send it in.
  The problem is that many American workers have applied for high tech 
jobs, only to be turned away.
  Peter Van Horn is a 31-year-old from Mountain View, California. He 
has a master's degree in computer science. He is an expert in computer 
graphics. But he can't get a job in his field.
  Bard-Alan Finlan is a computer engineer in his 40s. He knows the 
latest computer languages. He's received one interview in a year and a 
half, and still no job.
  Kurt Granzen is an electronics worker. He was laid off from a Silicon 
Valley firm after it started hiring H-1B workers. He has been unable to 
find a job in his field for the past four years, after hundreds of 
interviews.
  These well-trained U.S. workers deserve to know that we will not 
allow employers to bring in foreign workers before they have a fair 
opportunity to fill these jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

[[Page S4965]]

  I see other colleagues who desire to speak so I will withhold at this 
time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Kansas at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Michigan 
yielding time to me to speak on this very important amendment. I have 
been listening to the earlier debate about the ability of U.S. workers 
to get these jobs versus workers coming in from overseas. I think the 
critical point that maybe is not being clearly put forward on this is 
what we are talking about here is being able to keep U.S. businesses in 
the United States, and, thus, access to these jobs dominantly by--
indeed, in many cases exclusively--by U.S. workers. We are trying to 
keep the businesses here. Many of these businesses could easily and 
rapidly move overseas, particularly ones in developing computer 
software and programming. That is something they could rapidly and 
easily move overseas. We want those jobs here so our workers have 
access to them.
  What we are talking about in the amendment put forward by the Senator 
from Michigan, Senator Abraham, is a present crunch that we have 
getting some workers into some of these jobs. This seriously needed 
legislation will raise the visa cap for professional workers from the 
present maximum of 65,000 to an additional 30,000 visas for 1998 with a 
5-year sunset for additional H-1B visas. A failure to act would be a 
blow to many American companies, which are striving to obtain these 
workers at this immediate need and juncture in a very highly 
competitive marketplace. Without the visa increase, they will be denied 
the ability to secure workers central to their immediate needs.
  I agree, we need to offer benefits and help more and make sure that 
U.S. workers have the greatest access, and they should. What we have is 
an immediate problem, and we don't want these businesses moving 
overseas. The legislation seeks to address this problem.
  There is an immediate, severe, technical worker shortage in America 
which can only be met by this legislation. It is reported by the INS 
that by early May the present cap of 65,000 will have already been 
reached--already reached. This means that American businesses will be 
entirely foreclosed for over half a year from obtaining some of the 
highly skilled professional workers that they need under this option 
for immediate need--immediate work and immediate help--rather than 
moving these businesses overseas to be able to access those workers.
  This legislation will help to maintain America's competitive edge in 
the global marketplace. It will encourage--not hurt--American business 
growth and, thus, job creation in the United States, which is presently 
at an extraordinarily high level. It will enable technical businesses 
to retain the workers required to develop their products in a highly 
competitive market. It will empower companies to maintain timely 
production schedules.
  Companies from throughout the country say that they must have this 
additional ability to hire needed workers to be able to remain in the 
United States. This is especially true for high-tech industries across 
America which specialize in computer-related products. This industry is 
extremely time sensitive, requiring speedy product development and 
production. For example, computer software is frequently developed in 
6-month cycles. Failing to deliver within these time frames because of 
technical worker shortages can severely compromise a company's 
competitive edge. One observer of the current system said:

       Critical projects will be abandoned or put on hold--at the 
     cost of many more American jobs. This can be disastrous for 
     our industries with short product cycles that are trying to 
     compete against fierce global competitors.

  Who supports the legislation? Businesses, universities and ethnic 
organizations, all back this effort, as well as workers concerned that 
their companies might be forced to move offshore.
  Speaking of that subject, the New York Times recently wrote this:

       If U.S. companies are told to put up ``No Vacancy'' signs, 
     they are inevitably going to move more operations overseas, 
     and that will spur more innovation, wealth creation, and jobs 
     over there. By contrast, this legislation helps to encourage 
     companies to stay within American shores and keep jobs here 
     in America, and growth taking place here in America.

  At this time of economic growth, our Government must be sensitive to 
respond to needs as they arise in the marketplace. This legislation is 
a sensible response to a legitimate problem, and represents that 
American Government is a partner to encouraging, not discouraging, 
growth, job creation, retention of jobs, and prosperity in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and commend Senator Abraham for 
sponsoring this important legislation, needed for American jobs to be 
able to stay in America. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield 
the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use 
on my other amendment called the layoff amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under this amendment, employers cannot 
lay off American workers and then import foreign workers to fill the 
same jobs. Believe it or not, it is perfectly legal today for an 
employer to lay off qualified American workers and replace them with 
foreign workers under the H-IB program, and unscrupulous employers have 
taken advantage of this loophole in the law.
  In recent weeks, we have seen announcements of layoffs from many of 
the biggest U.S. companies, and many of these companies have asked 
Congress to increase immigration quotas so they can bring in more 
workers from abroad. We owe it to those laid-off U.S. workers to make 
sure their employers do not bring in foreign workers to fill their 
jobs.
  On April 13, the Wall Street Journal reported:

       The past couple of weeks have seen a steady drum beat of 
     layoff announcements in industry sectors that until recently 
     have complained about personnel shortages.

  The article included a long list of high-tech computer companies 
laying off thousands of workers. For example, on April 13, Intel 
Corporation announced plans to cut 3,000 jobs. Earlier in the month, 
Compaq Computer announced that it plans to lay off 15,000 workers as 
part of its merger with Digital, and the list goes on. Not all of these 
lost jobs are the same jobs that would be filled with foreign workers 
under the H-1B visa program. But we must be certain that no employer 
turns around and brings in a H-1B worker to fill a job from which 
American workers were laid off.
  Stephen Schultz of Modesto, CA, an engineer, was laid off in November 
of last year. While he was looking for a new job, his former company 
called him back to train the foreign worker they had brought in to 
replace him. Mr. Schultz filed a complaint with the Department of 
Labor, complaining that he had been laid off and displaced by the 
foreign worker, but this offensive practice is currently legal under 
the current law. There is nothing the Labor Department can do about it. 
And that is plain, fundamentally wrong. This amendment addresses that 
injustice.
  My amendment would give those laid-off workers a fighting chance. It 
says, ``You have just been laid off. You are trying to feed your 
family. You are struggling to find a new job. So we will not compound 
your suffering by letting your former employer bring in a foreign 
worker to replace you.''
  As I mentioned earlier, I commend Senator Abraham for acknowledging 
the problem. But, as I mentioned, the layoff protections in the pending 
legislation, I think, do not do the job. They offer little help to 
working Americans who lose their jobs in today's changing labor market. 
But under this bill, employers don't have to promise that they have 
not--and will not--lay off U.S. workers as a condition of their 
participation in the program. Under this bill, the only time that an 
employer can be penalized for replacing U.S. workers with foreign 
workers is if the employer also violates other requirements of the H-1B 
program.
  That is under the Abraham proposal. It is not bad enough for an 
employer to

[[Page S4966]]

lay off U.S. workers, but then they replace them with foreign workers. 
The employer has to underpay them to have some other violation of the 
law before the Labor Department can act. We believe that we should not 
displace American workers with foreign workers who are doing the same 
job--and we have language which effectively is the same in both bills; 
ours has a different triggering mechanism--we believe that we should 
not displace Americans with foreign workers who are doing the same job. 
That is what my amendment will do with regard to the layoff proposals.
  Under the current bill, the engineer that I mentioned who was laid 
off in Modesto would have a case only if the employer who laid him off 
violated some other requirement of the program. He could be laid off, 
so to speak, as I understand the Abraham proposal, and they could hire 
another worker for his identical job, pay him less and, as in this 
particular case, if this person who was laid off wanted to, he could 
come back and train his replacement, and that American worker would 
virtually have no cause of action.
  Under the current bill, an employer can lay off 1,000 American 
workers and bring in 1,000 H-1B workers to replace them as long as the 
employer pays them the same wage, and it is OK. Some argue that 
employers are unlikely to go through the effort to lay off an American 
to replace with a foreign worker. They cite studies to suggest foreign 
workers are actually paid higher wages than their American 
counterparts. If that is the case, then the employer should have no 
problem attesting, as a condition of their participation in the visa 
program, that they have not and will not lay off U.S. workers.
  The fact is, employers do lay off American workers and replace them 
with foreign workers. That happens to be the information that we have. 
They want foreign workers because such workers are less likely to 
complain if their hours are extended and their working conditions are 
not as good. The Labor Department inspector general found that 75 
percent of employers in the program could not even document that the 
wage they paid the foreign worker was the proper prevailing wage, and 
unscrupulous U.S. employers also want foreign workers because they are 
less likely to protest long hours and harsh working conditions. If they 
do, they know they may lose their jobs and have to leave the country.
  An American software developer called my office recently and asked to 
remain anonymous for fear of reprisal by his employer. He spoke of how 
the high-tech firms are abusing their foreign workers. He said, ``I had 
a good talk with an H-1B worker. He told me he was so anxious to work 
in this country that he would accept any salary. Even a pitifully low 
salary by our standards was high in his country. He has been here for 6 
months and working 80-plus hours a week. The company knows they can 
pick up a well-educated foreign worker who will work many more hours 
for half as much salary. I have seen this, en masse, first hand.''
  The unscrupulous employers who engage in these flagrant abuses put 
honest employers at a severe competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. President, what happens is, the American worker is displaced and 
that impacts that American worker. But if they get some foreign workers 
and then work them harder and longer, they have a competitive advantage 
over a company that just has American workers, and that threatens those 
American workers. The other company that has foreign workers is 
competing with the company that has American workers, and they are not 
meeting their responsibilities.

  All we are trying to do is make sure that all play the game by the 
same rules by which so many companies are willing to play. We want to 
make sure we are not creating abuses, which have been recognized in the 
past, and we want to make sure that, since we are expanding this 
program, we are going to give American workers first shot; we are not 
going to displace American workers, and we are going to give them the 
first shot at those jobs. Also, we are going to work out a training 
program over the period of this legislation so that at the end of the 5 
years, we will have in place a training mechanism so that these jobs--
the 80 percent which go to families earning less than $75,000, good 
jobs--will be going to Americans because they are going to have the 
training to do so. That is effectively what we are saying, Mr. 
President.
  We need to address the abuses. We need to protect the workers. We 
should outlaw the abuses to protect the vast majority of American 
employers who play by the rules. We are protecting the American 
businessmen who are playing by the rules. They are playing by the rules 
because they are paying a fair salary for these computer experts and 
they are respecting them for their working conditions and are out there 
competing fair and square, while someone who is unscrupulous brings in 
the foreign worker in these circumstances and, in too many 
circumstances, displaces the American worker and has that worker 
working longer hours and under more difficult conditions. You have one 
worker who has already lost his or her job, and if you get several 
workers, they are going to be able to compete on an uneven playing 
ground with the American firm.
  All we are saying is, No. 1, you can't displace an American worker 
with a foreign worker; No. 2, you have to at least attest that you have 
made a reasonable effort to hire an American worker; and, No. 3, we are 
going to work out the training program so that at the end of this 
program, in a period of years, we are going to have sufficient training 
so that Americans are going to be qualified to get those jobs, which 
are good jobs. That is what this issue is really about, Mr. President.
  I did not want to leave the impression, but in my earlier comments, 
on which my staff has corrected me, if the foreign worker is paid less 
than Abraham, then the Abraham layoff does kick in, assuming a worker 
complains.
  My point is, under Abraham, they can lay someone off as long as they 
meet the other rules of the program. They can still lay off the 
American worker. They see a layoff as a freebie, a free ride for 
employers who want to bring in the foreign workers.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The time will run against the 
bill or the amendment. Will the Senator indicate his preference in 
regard to time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Time on the amendment. How much time remains on the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining on the 
layoff amendment.
  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, I want to make a quick inquiry. Are we on 
an amendment at this point or are we on the bill generally?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Technically, we are still on the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2412

 (Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
special immigrant status for NATO civilian employees in the same manner 
            as for employees of international organizations)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] for Mr. Warner, for 
     himself and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 2412.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN NATO CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (J),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (K) 
     and inserting ``; or'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(L) an immigrant who would be described in clause (i), 
     (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (I) if any reference in 
     such a clause--

[[Page S4967]]

       ``(i) to an international organization described in 
     paragraph (15)(G)(i) were treated as a reference to the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);
       ``(ii) to a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15)(G)(iv) were 
     treated as a reference to a nonimmigrant classifiable under 
     NATO-6 (as a member of a civilian component accompanying a 
     force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO 
     Status-of-Forces Agreement, a member of a civilian component 
     attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the 
     `Protocol on the Status of International Military 
     Headquarters' set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, 
     or as a dependent); and
       ``(iii) to the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 
     1988 or to the Immigration and Nationality Technical 
     Corrections Act of 1994 were a reference to the American 
     Competitiveness Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Nonimmigrant Status for Certain Parents of 
     Special Immigrant Children.--Section 101(a)(15)(N) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(N)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(or under analogous authority under 
     paragraph (27)(L))'' after ``(27)(I)(i)'', and
       (2) by inserting ``(or under analogous authority under 
     paragraph (27)(L))'' after ``(27)(I)''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, which I am offering on 
behalf of the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, would seek to 
grant permanent legal status, resident status to individuals who are 
stationed in the United States in conjunction with their 
responsibilities as part of NATO. I believe the amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. And so I hope that we can move rapidly to pass 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have no objection to it and urge the 
support for it, as we do the same, as I understand, with regard to 
United Nations personnel. This would provide a sense of equity in both 
of those areas. It seems to make sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment? 
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2412.
  The amendment (No. 2412) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2413

 (Purpose: To provide whistleblower protection to foreign H-1B workers 
who file successful complaints against employers for violations of the 
                             H-1B program)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2413.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 41, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       Section 212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by 
     section 5 of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, or that the 
     employer has intimidated, discharged, or otherwise retaliated 
     against any person because that person has asserted a right 
     or has cooperated in an investigation under this paragraph'' 
     after ``a material fact in an application''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Any alien admitted to the United States as a 
     nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), who 
     files a complaint pursuant to subparagraph (A) and is 
     otherwise eligible to remain and work in the United States, 
     shall be allowed to seek other employment in the United 
     States for the duration of the alien's authorized admission, 
     if--
       ``(i) the Secretary finds a failure by the employer to meet 
     the conditions described in subparagraph (C), and
       ``(ii) the alien notifies the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service of the name and address of his new 
     employer.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, currently the Labor Department can 
investigate violations under the H-1B program only if a complaint has 
been filed by an aggrieved party. The complaint can be filed by a 
temporary foreign H-1B worker, and affected American workers. Few 
complaints are filed because workers are afraid of retaliation. And the 
H-1B workers are afraid if they complain, they could lose their jobs 
and then have to leave the country. American workers are afraid they 
will be blackballed in the industry if they complain.
  So this amendment offers them the whistle-blower protection, and it 
penalizes employers if they retaliate against a whistleblower. So 
whether the whistleblowers are H-1B workers or affected American 
workers, the employer cannot retaliate against them.
  In addition, under my amendment workers who filed a successful 
complaint against an employer can switch jobs if they wish and still 
remain in the United States for the duration of their visa. They just 
have to let the INS know their new address.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from 
Massachusetts on this amendment. I think it addresses a large part of 
the concern that he previously registered with respect to the way the 
program functions.
  As I will indicate as we continue this debate this afternoon, it is 
not the intent of either this Senator or those of us who cosponsor the 
American Competitiveness Act to put any American worker at a 
disadvantage. We believe the protections that are already in place in 
this legislation--both in the existing laws as well as in my bill--will 
protect American workers.
  Basically, you cannot bring a foreign worker in for lower pay and 
replace an American worker with that individual. If you do, you are 
violating the law. The Senator from Massachusetts earlier raised the 
concern that no one will complain because the H-1B visa holder, the 
foreign worker, will be afraid of consequences if they do so.
  In my judgment, this whistle-blower provision will allay any such 
concerns. I think it ties nicely into the protections which we have 
built into S. 1723, the protections that come in the form of very 
severe penalties for anyone who willfully violates the law with respect 
to bringing in an H-1B employee.
  So for that reason I am comfortable with and supportive of this 
amendment. We worked closely with Senator Kennedy's staff on the 
crafting of the amendment, and I think it has been done in a way that 
effectively supplements what is already in place.
  But let me, as long as we are on this, just briefly talk about this 
whole system. In his earlier statement with respect to his amendment, 
the Senator from Massachusetts expressed concern that no one would 
bring a complaint, that the complaint-driven system that currently 
exists is one which masquerades many violations. I do not believe it 
does. I think that complaints are very likely to occur under the 
current system simply because competitors could bring the complaints.
  The salaries with which foreign workers are paid must be posted, not 
only posted at the job site, but at secondary sites and at the 
Department of Labor. If somebody believes that someone is gaining an 
unfair advantage by bringing in cheaper labor, they can complain as 
well. It does not necessarily have to be the foreign worker who brings 
the complaint; it can be a coworker who is mad because they see the 
foreign worker is coming in and driving his friends out of a job, or it 
can be a competitor.

  It is possible, I suppose, although we do not have any documental 
evidence to this, that someone might be intimidated about bringing such 
complaints. For that reason, I think the whistle-blower provision is an 
effective way to address this one area that might be a loose end. I 
think it tightens up the process in such a way that we can have the 
confidence in a complaint-driven system necessary to maintain that 
system as it is working. And it is working effectively.
  As I said earlier, as I will be saying in further debate on these 
amendments, in the entire history of this program there have only been 
eight willful violations in 8 years--one per year. And only one of 
those involved a situation where an employee was laid off.

[[Page S4968]]

  We have heard descriptions of several of those, I think, already in 
the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts. Indeed, because there 
are so few, we have already heard about several of those instances on 
more than one occasion here today. They are wrong. They were punished. 
I think they should have been punished even more severely. I do not 
think they should bring a foreign worker in the United States, pay them 
a lower salary than you are paying an existing worker, and lay somebody 
off. I think if you do that, you ought to suffer stiff consequences, 
and our legislation administers those stiff consequences.
  To the extent someone might have failed to raise a concern or a 
complaint because of fear of reprisal, I think Senator Kennedy's 
amendment, which I am prepared to support at this time, closes that 
loophole as well and I think puts in place a system that can and should 
work effectively.
  So, for that reason, I support the amendment. And I think we can move 
forward to adopt it here presently.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2413 offered by 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The amendment (No. 2413) was agreed to.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the American Competitiveness Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
  The American Competitiveness Act is important to the American economy 
and to our Nation's high standing in a global economy. It will also 
have a positive and direct impact on promoting job creation and 
economic growth in Nebraska.
  Mr. President, as the 21st Century quickly approaches, American 
companies, businesses and universities increasingly find themselves in 
a fiercely competitive global economy. Thus far, the United States has 
been able to succeed and benefit overwhelmingly from this increased 
``globalization.''
  However, our continued economic growth is being threatened by a 
shortage of highly skilled and internationally experienced workers, 
While companies around the U.S. have invested billions of dollars in 
educating and training employees, demand for qualified people continues 
to grow faster than the supply of available workers. This is 
particularly true in the area of information technology.
  The shortage of workers with technical or computer-related skills is 
a real concern to Nebraska. My colleagues may not realize that Nebraska 
currently has an unemployment rate of 1.6%, which is the lowest rate in 
the country. While this is very good news, it also presents a challenge 
for many of Nebraska's employers.
  Employers in Nebraska have told me over and over again that the state 
is unable to meet their increased demand for labor, particularly high-
skilled labor. In fact, the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce estimates 
there are currently 1,500 to 2,000 job openings in the field of 
information technology in the Omaha area alone.
  While the Chamber, other business community leaders, and the Nebraska 
state government, have been actively recruiting workers from within the 
State, across the country and around the world, they have not been able 
to produce enough skilled workers to keep pace with job growth.
  The United States Senate can take an important step toward addressing 
this problem by passing the American Competitiveness Act. This 
legislation will immediately help America's companies and universities 
by raising the current ceiling on the number of foreign-born 
professionals we allow to work in the United States under the H-1B visa 
program. These temporary visas are used to attract the best and 
brightest minds from around the world to U.S. companies and 
universities, which helps them to compete in global markets.
  We must also address our Nation's long term employment challenges by 
preparing more American students for the high technology, global 
workforce of tomorrow. Not enough of our students are being prepared, 
or preparing themselves, to excel in an increasingly high-tech economy.
  The American Competitiveness Act takes steps to correct this 
situation by creating 20,000 scholarships annually for low-income 
American students to study math, engineering, and computer science. It 
also authorizes $10 million a year to train unemployed U.S. workers for 
jobs in the information technology industry.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Abraham's bill, 
which will keep American companies in this country, create and save 
American jobs and contribute to the growth of the economy. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill because it will help ensure that 
America remains a great, industrious and rich nation both culturally 
and economically.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me by 
the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce in support of this legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                     Greater Omaha


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                           Omaha, NE, May 8, 1998.
     Senator Chuck Hagel,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hagel: The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 
     has been working for several years on the challenge of 
     Nebraska's shortage of skilled workers. We believe Senate 
     bill 1723, known as the ``American Competitiveness Act,'' 
     will aid employers across the country in hiring the skilled 
     workers needed to grow their businesses, especially in the 
     information technology field. We are especially interested in 
     the portion of the bill which increases the number of H-1B 
     visas granted each year. At the current rate, the United 
     States will reach the statutory quota on H-1B visas by the 
     end of June, a full three months before the end of the fiscal 
     year.
       Currently, Omaha has approximately 1,200 H-1B visa holders 
     employed in the metro area. There is room for considerable 
     growth, and there are jobs to be filled. Omaha's unemployment 
     rate is about 1.7%. It is one of the lowest in the nation and 
     has consistently been so for the past several years. It is 
     estimated the Omaha area currently has 1,500 to 2,000 job 
     openings in the filed of information technology.
       The business community in Omaha has stepped up to the plate 
     and is actively recruiting workers from across the country 
     and around the world. Over the last four years, the Chamber 
     has organized and attended numerous job fairs, initiated 
     Internet recruiting and job posting programs, coordinated and 
     funded national advertising campaigns and image marketing in 
     an attempt to grow the size of our work force.
       In addition to recruiting, Omaha has placed great emphasis 
     on ``growing our own.'' Omaha is a national leader in the 
     School-to-Work arena and was one of the first six communities 
     nationally to embrace and promote Work Keys, a work-based 
     skills and job profiling assessment to better prepare our 
     students for the work place. The University of Nebraska, with 
     close to $50 million worth of private support, has 
     established an innovative Institute which encompasses a new 
     College of Information Science and Technology along with the 
     inter-related engineering disciplines.
       All of these efforts however, are not enough. The passage 
     of Senate bill 1723 is imperative to the continued growth of 
     the high-tech industry in Nebraska and the rest of the 
     nation. It is reliably estimated that there are 346,000 
     computer related jobs vacant in the United States and that 
     number will only increase in the coming years. Even with our 
     best efforts nationwide, we will not produce sufficient 
     qualified workers at a rate fast enough to keep pace with the 
     job growth. By allowing greater numbers of skilled workers 
     from other countries to fill available jobs in the United 
     States, our employers will be better equipped to continue to 
     fuel this country's and state's booming economy.
       By not increasing the number of H-1B visas granted each 
     year, the government is in effect encouraging United States 
     businesses to enter an all-out civil war for the information 
     technology workers we currently employ here. At a time when 
     the United States is at an historically low rate of 
     unemployment, it is unreasonable for the Federal Government 
     to embrace a policy that in effect robs Peter to pay Paul.
       On behalf of the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, I again 
     wish to reiterate our strong support for this legislation and 
     urge immediate passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                C.R. ``Bob'' Bell,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 1723, the 
American Competitiveness Act introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham  to 
increase the cap on H-1B visas to allow our companies to continue to 
compete.
  We find ourselves in the midst of a booming American economy, now in 
its 87th month of the longest peacetime economic expansion experienced, 
and with the lowest inflation and unemployment (4.9%) in 25 years. 
However, we find that 350,000 information technology (IT) jobs 
nationwide are unfilled. As we speak, the ability to bring

[[Page S4969]]

foreign nationals temporarily into the country on H-1B visas to fill 
those jobs has been halted as of Monday, May 11. As of last Friday, the 
65,000 H-1B visa cap has been reached in this temporary immigrant 
category. New applications will be turned away and the information 
technology industry, as well as our universities and colleges will be 
harmed.
  Minnesota companies affected by this cap have aggressively supported 
this legislation. 3M estimates its projected research effort will lack 
80 technical employees for slots paying between $60,00 to $100,000. 3M 
had $15 billion in 1997 worldwide sales. Through the efforts of foreign 
nationals working in their research and development departments, 3M has 
been awarded 578 patents. We should continue to encourage this 
progress.
  Cargill, another Minnesota-based company, has 10 to 15% of their 
technology department unstaffed--about 99 to 110 people with a starting 
salary of $44,000. They have not been able to meet their needs through 
local labor pools and universities. They have been forced to turn to 
temporary foreign nationals. Furthermore, they tell me they have a 15% 
turn-over because of competition from other U.S. companies.
  Honeywell has 7,500 Minnesota employees and does not hire a large 
number of H-1B nationals--only those of needed technical skills. 
However, these shortages affect the productivity of the whole company.
  Even labor has agreed that there is a temporary need for this 
adjustment; that it may be warranted due to current market conditions 
and global demands. Education and training of the U.S. labor pool is 
being outstripped by racing technological advances and industry 
competition. The Department of Labor has projected the high tech 
industry will create 130,000 jobs each year for the foreseeable future.
  This is at a time when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tells us our 
domestic labor pool is shrinking. Baby boomers are leaving a 23 million 
people labor short fall, and often it is difficult to replace them with 
employees who have the training and expertise to meet the needs of many 
highly technical areas.

  Reports show fewer Americans seeking higher education are choosing 
the high tech fields of electrical engineering, computer science and 
mathematics. The number of Americans graduating with engineering 
degrees has declined 16% since 1985. Ironically, on the other hand, Mr. 
President, the United States is educating a higher percentage of 
foreign nationals in these subjects--48% of PHDs are foreign, 22% of 
undergrads are foreign nationals, and 42% of Master of Sciences 
candidates are foreign nationals.
  There is great global competition for all of these graduates. Japan, 
Germany, India and China are trying to lure them away with better deals 
and more benefits. However, the American life style and standard of 
living are a strong incentive in keeping them here.
  Another sector affected by the H-1B cap is the university/college 
community. A great deal of research and development is carried on at 
U.S. schools of higher learning. Temporary visiting scholars and 
research fellows from abroad have extended our base and expanded our 
scope of understanding in many fields.
  The University of Minnesota has written me asking for my strong 
support of this issue. Their ability to bring foreign scholars and high 
level faculty to their campus has raised their standards and 
strengthened their international stature. Their need has become even 
more critical since the cap has been reached, because they process 40% 
of their applications for these positions between May and September. 
They need help now.
  However, I would like to point out, Mr. President, we do need to look 
for a more permanent solution to this problem. We cannot rely on 
foreign expertise forever. We need to educate our young people to fill 
these vacancies. I applaud the inclusion in S. 1723 of the training and 
scholarship incentives for educating our own information technology 
workers. 20,000 college scholarships a year will be made available to 
low-income students in math, engineering and computer science through 
the State Student Incentive Grant program. It will increase training 
for the unemployed and help people cross-train into these fields. After 
the bill expires in 5 years, I am hopeful the supply of permanent, 
skilled American workers will be sufficient to meet industry's needs.
  This bill enhances the current H-1B visas by increasing the penalties 
five times and improving enforcement against willful offenders, 
although there have been few enforcement actions in the past.
  S. 1723, also, provides no-layoff protection for American workers and 
prohibits underpayment of temporary foreign nationals. In an industry 
where starting salaries for these skilled workers are between $35,000 
and $75,000, by law H-1Bs are to be paid the middle wage of the 
prevailing scale. This wage is posted at the work site and registered 
with the Labor Department.
  Let me close, Mr. President by saying that Minnesota companies such 
as Guidant, ADC Telecommunication, Ceridian (formerly Control Data), 
Imation (a 3M spin-off), Medtronic and the Carlson Companies should be 
able to fill their IT vacancies now with temporary foreign nationals 
without having to shift production off-shore. We need to keep jobs at 
home and benefit by the expertise and innovation brought to us by these 
global technicians. But more importantly, we need to review, upgrade 
and strengthen our U.S. educational system to the point where it can 
best serve our need for permanent talent driving the information 
technology explosion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I note that this bill contains 
authorization for programs that will assist in educating and training 
American workers for these positions. It is essential that we include 
education and training provisions within this bill, but I believe it is 
important that we go further.
  In particular, I believe that employers who are using this program to 
fill short term needs should also contribute to programs that will 
educate and train American workers to fill these positions in the 
future. If we are going to increase the immigration quota, then I 
believe we have an obligation to assure American workers that they can 
get the training to compete for these goods jobs.
  So Mr. President, I would hope that as this bill moves forward, we 
can continue to work together to secure funding for these programs as 
an integral component of this legislation, and in ways that assure that 
we are not taking away resources from other training programs to meet 
this need.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am very pleased we could agree on language in the 
managers' amendment which authorizes new demonstration programs for 
technology skills training for American workers, provided that funding 
for such training does not diminish funding for existing federal job 
training programs. It is important that job-training provisions of this 
bill are consistent with extremely significant legislation we recently 
passed overwhelmingly to improve the federal workforce education and 
training system. I thank my colleagues for working with me to achieve 
that end.
  Still, while many employers in this country are doing a great deal to 
educate and train technology workers, the clamor for a large increase 
in non-U.S. citizens to fill high-skill jobs here seems clearly to 
point to a lack both in those efforts and in our public job training 
system. Therefore I believe we also need to be sure that those who will 
benefit the most from any adjustment in immigrant policy will help us 
to address the underlying problem. We in the Senate cannot originate a 
revenue measure to fund the new training we authorize here. But it 
would be a serious mistake to enact a final bill that does not call on 
employers who have pushed for it and will benefit substantially from it 
to help pay for the new training authorized in the bill.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I too am committed to seeing to it that there is funding 
for these programs. As the Ranking Member knows, I believe that as far 
as the shortage of highly skilled workers is concerned, we have both a 
short term and a long term problem, and I believe these programs are an 
integral part of addressing our long term problem. I also believe the 
business community is already doing a great deal to help educate and 
train workers. That being said, I pledge to work with you, the other 
members of this body, the business community and other affected

[[Page S4970]]

outside interests to seek ways to help fund these programs consistent 
with the principle you articulated.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 1723, I rise 
today to support the American Competitiveness Act.
  Mr. President, the H-1B immigrant visa program is not the preferred 
avenue of hiring by our U.S. high tech companies. Hewlett-Packard, 
which is one of Oregon's largest high tech employers, currently employs 
more than 65,000 people in the United States and uses only 140 H-1B 
visas. Of these 140 H-1B visas, 17 of them have Ph.D. degrees and the 
remaining of them have at least an equivalency of a Masters degree.
  Our American companies would prefer to invest in Americans and retain 
the current domestic workforce. These companies collectively already 
spend, and will continue to spend, billions of dollars each year on 
training and educating American workers. Notwithstanding the current 
workforce, they are unable to fill key personnel slots, and it is 
critical in order to remain competitive, that they have access, through 
the H-1B visas, to these foreign-born professionals.
  According to the American Electronics Association, the U.S. 
electronics and information industry creates high-skilled, high value-
added jobs. The rapid advances in computer technology have increased 
demand for trained specialists like computer engineers, computer 
systems analysis, database administrators, and computer support 
specialists.
  Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that demand for these 
occupations will more than double by 2006. Oregon's largest employer in 
the state is Intel. And with more than 10,000 employees in Oregon, 
Intel's job growth has grown 167 percent since 1990, creating almost 
40,000 jobs worldwide.
  In this age of a global marketplace, it is imperative that American 
companies have access to a legal supply of skilled professionals in the 
United States so that they can continue to grow and expand in the 
United States.
  Failure to increase the H-1B cap will create significant uncertainty 
about the U.S. government's commitment to enable American companies to 
compete and participate effectively in the global economy. These 
companies will be faced with the tough decisions to either stay in the 
U.S. without a sufficient number of highly skilled staff or possibly 
move their research and development facilities overseas.
  Mr. President, the American Competitiveness Act raises the current 
cap for temporary foreign workers to 95,000 in fiscal year 1998 and 
contains a five-year sunset for the additional H-1B visas. While 
raising the temporary H-1B cap, the American Competitiveness Act also 
increases education and training in the high technology field for 
American citizens and establishes a data bank on the Internet that 
matches domestic applicants with available technology jobs.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham for his leadership on this 
issue and urge my colleagues to support the American Competitiveness 
Act.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is little question that our 
country faces a skills shortage in industries with a concentration of 
workers who utilize high technology and information technologies. In 
Minnesota, we have very low unemployment in general, and Minnesota 
technology industry employers are having a hard time finding workers 
with the skills they need. The Minnesota Department of Economic 
Security released a study last week called ``Beyond 2000: Information 
Technology Workers in Minnesota,'' which indicated that over 60 percent 
of information-technology employers in the state believe the shortage 
of qualified information technology workers is ``moderately'' or 
``extremely'' serious. Representatives of the Minnesota High Tech 
Council have been in touch with my office. They believe that the 
provisions of the Abraham bill which raise the cap on the number of 
nonimmigrant workers allowed to come temporarily to work in the United 
States are necessary.
  I agree that we want to make sure that immigration policy is 
consistent with our overall desire to remain the world's leader in high 
technology industries. The high tech sector is crucial in Minnesota. It 
is an engine of growth and a pillar of current very good economic 
performance by the state. I take seriously the argument that if the 
cap, which has been reached for this year, is not lifted, then a 
significant amount of U.S. high-tech business and a significant amount 
of jobs could actually be moved oversees.
  At the same time, however, there are three areas of concern that I 
believe must be resolved in the bill before it merits support. First is 
the matter of job training for workers who are U.S. citizens. Much of 
the debate over the bill is focused on high tech workers. Clearly we 
would hope that when we are talking about good jobs--jobs that require 
significant information technology skills and which pay well--then we 
are making every effort to see to it that U.S. workers have a shot at 
those jobs. That means training.
  As ranking member of the Labor Subcommittee on Employment and 
Training, I'm extremely pleased that we were able to complete and pass 
with an overwhelming vote recently a bill to reform the country's 
workforce training and education system. Still, even once that reform 
is enacted, following a conference with the House and passage of a 
conference report, I believe that the fact we are talking about a 
serious shortage of workers with technology skills indicates that our 
current federal job training system, even combined with the large 
amount of employer-sponsored education and training that is happening, 
remains inadequate. The skills shortage points to a failure in our 
efforts to educate and train.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to improve the Abraham bill in 
this area. I am pleased, though, that we were able to agree to changes 
in the bill which first of all authorize new demonstration programs for 
technology skills training for American workers. That provision is in a 
managers' amendment, which it is my understanding will be accepted. The 
provision ensures that funding for that new training will not diminish 
funding for existing federal job training programs. It therefore is 
consistent with the workforce education and training reform we passed 
with such a large vote. It is crucial that a bill which aims to address 
a skills shortage in industries that have good jobs available take 
every step to make sure that our own citizens ultimately can become 
qualified for those jobs.
  In my view, the new training authorized in the bill should be paid 
for largely with proceeds from a modest fee collected from employers 
for each application for the specialized visas. The Senate cannot 
technically originate a revenue measure to fund the new training we 
authorize here. But it is my hope that the House will include such a 
funding mechanism for new training of U.S. workers and that such a 
provision will be included in the conference bill. It would be a 
serious mistake to enact a bill that allows a large increase in the 
visas but does not call on those employers who will most benefit from 
the bill to help pay for the new training. I appreciate my colleagues' 
willingness to work with me on the provision that is included in the 
managers' amendment, and I appreciate as well the colloquy between 
Senators Abraham, Kennedy and myself indicating support from each of us 
for funding job training in this bill.
  Mr. President, I also strongly support both amendments offered by my 
colleague Senator Kennedy--one of the recruitment of U.S. workers for 
available high technology jobs and one regarding non-displacement of 
U.S. workers currently holding jobs in the information technology 
industry. They are moderate amendments and should be included in the 
bill.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time not run against either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 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, at this time, I yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to speak on the bill.

[[Page S4971]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for S. 1723, the American Competitiveness Act, of which I am proud to 
be an original co-sponsor. Although it deals ostensibly with the visa 
cap on foreign-born high-tech workers, its effect would be far more 
profound--to enhance the competitiveness of the American economy at a 
time when U.S. companies, if given access to the necessary resources, 
are poised to dominate the Information Age for decades to come. As the 
representatives of the American people, we in Congress should do all we 
can to contribute to their potential for success in the global economy.
  Mr. President, I want to say a special thanks to the Senator from 
Michigan, Senator Abraham. Senator Abraham brought this issue to the 
attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle a long time ago. 
It is a critical issue. It is far more important than it appears on its 
surface. As I mentioned earlier when we discussed this bill upon the 
contemplation of it coming before the Senate, the high-tech community, 
the ``silicon valleys'' all over America, are saying that they need to 
have skilled workers if we are going to maintain the dominance of this 
industry and remain competitive throughout the world.
  The fact is that this piece of legislation is as important to our 
high-tech community as any that we will consider this year before the 
U.S. Senate. The taxing of the Internet is close. The issue of 
pornography on the Internet is close. But this issue of being able to 
have enough skilled workers to continue this incredible revolution 
going on in Silicon Valley, I believe, is of the utmost importance. The 
Senator from Michigan has led on this issue, and all of us are very 
grateful for his participation.
  I might add that he had to go through some very delicate negotiations 
with the other side of the aisle in order to bring this issue to its 
conclusion.
  I am convinced that the best thing government can do to advance the 
fortunes of the private sector is to stay out of its way. I support 
this bill because it makes progress toward that end while providing for 
the regulatory framework and new educational opportunities to protect 
and promote American workers. By raising the arbitrary cap on temporary 
immigrant visas for skilled foreign workers--a cap set in 1990, when 
the Democrats controlled Congress and the American economy was in 
recession--this legislation gets government out of the way of American 
companies, universities, and research labs which simply cannot hire the 
skilled professionals they need in the domestic labor market because of 
an arbitrary, anachronistic cap on H-1B visas that does not reflect the 
forces of supply and demand in the American economy today.
  Opponents of this legislation surely cannot believe that government 
knows better than business what's best for business in America. We 
cannot and should not condemn American companies for wishing to remain 
competitive in the global marketplace. Indeed, we should encourage the 
companies that employ our citizens, contribute to our tax base, and 
produce the goods and services we consume daily to retain the 
competitive edge that has sustained them by whatever means are 
available within the law. If we do not consent to raising the cap on H-
1B visas for skilled foreign workers, we will be handicapping the very 
American companies and their employees we profess to support as 
legislators empowered by the people to advance the public interest.
  Critics having charged that this legislation subordinates the public 
interest to the private interests of American companies engaged in a 
vast conspiracy to hoodwink Congress and the American people so that 
they may replace American professionals with skilled foreign workers 
content with below-market salaries and no benefits.
  Had these critics read our bill or spoken with those of us who 
support it, they would have had to devise new arguments against raising 
the H-1B cap by virtue of the emptiness of their own rhetoric. It is a 
fact that this legislation penalizes any employer which lays off an 
American worker in order to replace him with an H-1B visa holder and 
pays that individual anything less than the average prevailing wage in 
that line of work--a standard which often results in a higher salary 
than made by American entry-level workers. It is also a fact that the 
Department of Labor is empowered under the law to investigate and 
penalize willful abuse of the H-1B visa program and has done so 
repeatedly since the program began in 1990--a fact which disarms those 
militants who insist that there exist rampant fraud and abuse within 
the H-1B market.
  This is not a debate about the facts, which are unambiguous. This is 
a debate about the way in which American society responds to the new 
challenges and opportunities offered by economic globalization and a 
knowledge-based economy. We can row with the tide or against it, but we 
will not have an equal prospect for success. Allowing more skilled 
professionals to enter the U.S. job market to fill jobs Americans are 
not filling will enhance the dynamism of the American economy by 
allowing it to more efficiently produce the goods and services demanded 
by the American consumer and those who buy American exports overseas.
  Erecting barriers to the inflow of valuable human capital will not 
help American businesses, workers, or consumers. Businesses will suffer 
from the costs of a labor shortage which they are powerless to change 
in the short term. Workers will suffer when their companies lose the 
profits that would accrue from hiring the skilled workers that are 
unavailable. And consumers will pay higher prices for the goods and 
services which are available while going without those which are not. 
Everyone will lose as American companies shift production overseas to 
the sources of the specialized labor they cannot attract in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, the Information Technology Association of America 
estimates that there are more than 346,000 unfilled positions for 
highly-skilled workers in American companies today.
  A recent Department of Labor study estimates that the American 
economy will generate 1.3 million new jobs during each of the next ten 
years in the computer and information-technology industries. The same 
study predicts that American universities will be able to supply only a 
quarter of the graduates needed to fill those jobs during that period. 
The Hudson Institute predicts that in a few years this worker shortage, 
if not addressed, will cause a five percent drop in the growth rate of 
the gross domestic product, which breaks down to a startling $200 
billion loss in national output.
  In the words of T.J. Rodgers, President and CEO of Cypress 
Semiconductor Corporation, ``It takes two percent of Americans to feed 
us all, and five percent to make everything we need. Everything else 
will be service and information technology, and in that world humans 
and brains will be the key variable. Any country that would limit its 
brain power to single select group from that country alone is going to 
self-destruct.''
  I support this bill because I do not wish to encourage more U.S. 
companies to set up shop in India, Pakistan, Costa Rica, and other 
sources of skilled labor unavailable in sufficient quantities in the 
United States. I support this bill because I do not think a job is 
better going unfilled that going to an educated foreign national on a 
temporary visa to the United States. I support this bill because I 
believe the Information Age will be built upon a globalized market for 
people and technology, not upon barriers to the free flow of goods, 
services, and professional workers. I support this bill because I do 
not believe the endless advertisements for specialized labor at 
attractive salaries in the Employment section of the Sunday newspaper 
represent a conspiracy by Big Business to fool us all into thinking 
there really are jobs on offer in many of America's fastest-growing 
companies. I support this bill because I do not think the government is 
a better judge of the needs of American companies, universities, and 
laboratories than are the very companies, universities, and 
laboratories that have urged us to write this legislation.
  Mr. President, I, for one, do not take the health of the American 
economy or the fabulous returns offered by Wall Street for granted. 
America prospers when we allow entrepreneurs, small businesses, 
companies, universities,

[[Page S4972]]

and research labs to create wealth and knowledge. Government does not 
cause economic growth; hard-working people do. It is appalling to think 
that we would stand in the way of those who would temporarily come to 
our country to add their value to the economy by working in jobs 
Americans cannot and do not fill.
  Over the long term, we must see to it that American workers possess 
the skills and know-how to fill the jobs created by American high-tech 
firms. For this reason, our legislation provides for 20,000 new college 
scholarships annually for low-income students in math, engineering, and 
computer science through the State Student Incentive Grant program. Our 
bill also sunsets the higher H-1B visa cap after five years so we can 
determine whether an increased supply of foreign professionals remains 
necessary to our economic well-being.
  American unemployment levels stand at their lowest levels in over two 
decades. Americans are not responding to the ``Wanted'' ads in their 
local newspapers for high-tech and other skilled positions at U.S. 
companies, universities, and research centers. Company recruiters are 
hounding college students--on campus, in the libraries, even at the 
beach during Spring Break--to sign on to lucrative contracts with 
American firms.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot afford to allow this desperate trend 
to continue. The 65,000-person cap on H-1B workers for Fiscal Year 1998 
was reached last week. American companies cannot meet their hiring 
needs until the new Fiscal Year begins on October 1 unless Congress 
acts now. Should we fail to do so, we will all pay the price imposed by 
our shortsightedness. The Information Age and the global marketplace 
are a reality which we neglect at our peril when we refuse to provide 
the regulatory framework within which the American economy can thrive 
and Americans can prosper. The American Competitiveness Act deserves 
our support.
  Mr. President, in addition, this is the last of several bills that we 
call high-tech bills. I think it is the most important one. I hope that 
we in the Senate recognize that we need to enact further legislation to 
help high-tech industries in America.
  What has happened is remarkable. What has happened is fragile. And 
what has happened deserves our attention and support as we provide an 
enormous growth in opportunity, growth in the way of economy and 
opportunity to provide knowledge to all Americans and all citizens of 
the world in the most unprecedented fashion; in fact, the most 
remarkable changes taking place in the world since the industrial 
revolution.
  I appreciate the cognizance by the Senator from Michigan of this fact 
and his responsibility for this important legislation.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Arizona for his support of this legislation. He has been a great ally 
with regard to not only this bill but, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
a variety of other similar legislation to make America more 
competitive. I thank him for having helped me to move the legislation 
to the floor today. He has been a great friend and ally on this.
  I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington to speak 
with respect to the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this debate on the bill of the Senator 
from Arizona and his opponents, or those who would significantly change 
it and limit it, is a debate between optimists and pessimists about the 
American condition. Senator Abraham's proposal stems from the 
proposition that we are in a society so dynamic, changing so rapidly, 
with so many new technologies on each and every day, that we can do 
nothing but benefit by recruiting into that economy the most highly 
skilled people from dozens of nations around the world who seek to make 
their contribution to humanity as a part of the United States of 
America as against the nations from which they come, hobbled by 
societal and governmental restrictions. A large number of the men and 
women on whom this battle is being waged have been educated here in the 
United States and have already begun to become a part of our culture. 
It is the theory of this bill, a theory borne out by the experience of 
H-1B so far, that not only are these men and women who seek to become 
Americans contributing to their own well-being and to the progress of 
our society but are, in fact, creating jobs for others.
  The opponents of this bill, those who would restrict it, those who 
would tie it by all kinds of restrictions so as to make it 
impracticable for most of the high-tech companies of the United States 
to use, still believe implicitly in a zero sum economy--that any job, 
no matter how skilled, taken by someone who was born somewhere else 
will inevitably result in a job being deprived from some person born in 
the United States of America.
  They do this despite the fact that at the hearing on this bill, as I 
understand it, the Department of Labor could come up with only one 
example of a true displacement and a guess that there might be two or 
three others somewhere across the United States.
  So, Mr. President, if you believe that we are not really competitive, 
that we can't grow, that every job that one person takes of a skilled 
nature simply comes at the expense of another job already there, then 
of course you can support the amendments proposed by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and by the administration, and wreck a system that has 
already been so successful that we need to expand it in order to meet 
the expanding needs of a dynamic and growing American society and 
American economy.
  I find it particularly curious that these attempts to say that every 
recruiting company must follow rules set out by the Government in 
recruiting and in retention, detailed rules with major penalties for 
noncompliance, have made no such proposal with respect to the great 
bulk of American immigration.
  We get tens, hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year who come 
to the United States under the guise of family reunification, as 
seekers of political asylum, as refugees, the great bulk of which have 
few, if any, skills and over whom there has been a major debate lasting 
over the last 3 years as to their eligibility for various forms of 
welfare and who, when they get jobs in order to get off welfare, will 
be taking the lowest skilled jobs that the United States has to offer 
where there may well be a real displacement. Yet, these requirements, 
the requirements of the amendments we are about to deal with, do not 
deal with these immigrants coming in far larger numbers than the extra 
30,000 skilled employees about whom we are speaking at the present 
time.
  Mr. President, the proposal of the Senator from Michigan is a 
proposal for a dynamic future for the United States. It is a proposal 
that will not only create opportunities for men and women, many of whom 
are educated in the United States, and others of whom are exceptional 
people for themselves, but for the new jobs and the new opportunities 
they will create.
  Let me just take one or two examples of a specific company and the 
way in which it would be impacted by the proposed amendments. My 
friends at Microsoft tell me they will have hired an individual for a 
12-month contract to do a very specific task, say, to develop an 
Internet site for stamp and coin collectors but then determined that 
there wasn't enough to warrant going on with the project and dismissed 
the employee. The proposed amendments backed by the administration 
would prevent Microsoft from hiring any new H-1B worker for any project 
for a period of at least 3 to 9 months, or if someone is dismissed 
because they have worked on a project and are experts at something 
which is now an anachronism, you cannot hire a new one through H-1B for 
something that looks to the future and is totally and completely 
different without meeting all of these restrictions.
  Today we have an example of the Clinton administration's desire to 
have lawyers and judges design computers. In the amendments this 
afternoon, quite consistent with that philosophy, we have its desire to 
act as an employment agency for all of the high-tech companies in 
America, to tell them who they can hire, when they can hire

[[Page S4973]]

them, when they can fire them, and what the restrictions on them will 
be.
  That is not the way we caused our economy in the course of the last 
10 years to be one about which we have many questions, many jealousies 
of the Japanese and of others to the point at which we clearly dominate 
the world in the very fields in which this bill by the Senator from 
Michigan is designed to keep us preeminent.
  I congratulate the Senator from Michigan for his dogged determination 
to see to it that we get to this vote and to say that we should deal 
with it with no amendments other than those of which he approves.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just while my friend from the State of 
Washington is here, I would ask him if he would read through both the 
amendments which I intend to offer about protection against 
displacement of U.S. workers, because the Senator has misstated what my 
amendment does and then differed with it. The amendment is very clear. 
It says:
  For purposes of this section the term ``replacement'' means the 
employment of the nonimmigrant at the specific place of employment in 
the specific employment opportunity from which the United States worker 
with substantially equivalent qualifications and experience in the 
specific employment opportunity has been laid off.
  That is identical language to what is in the Abraham amendment. So it 
is difficult--when the Senator talks about Microsoft talking about 
laying off some employee, not being able to hire someone for 6 months 
is completely inaccurate. I intend to speak further, but if the Senator 
wanted to make some comment I would be glad to hear it. But I hope 
perhaps he might look at page 2 at the definitions of the amendment and 
I think he would find it is different from what the Senator has stated.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator simply wishes to report that 
the Kennedy amendments place the Department of Labor in the shoes of 
most of these employers with respect to the criteria with which they 
will engage in employment. We have sent the amendments that the Senator 
from Massachusetts proposes to the companies that will be affected by 
them and asked them, the people who are engaged in these hiring 
activities, what the impact will be. They report to us exactly what I 
have told the Senate here today. They report, in fact, that the Kennedy 
amendments are so disastrous for their recruiting they will be worse 
off with 95,000 H-1Bs and the Kennedy amendments than they would be to 
retain present law.
  I, for one, am willing to accept the views of the employers in the 
high-tech community on the impact of these amendments as being exactly 
what they feel would apply to them. They do not want the Department of 
Labor making more of their employment decisions than they are making 
today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, this is the problem. Some companies 
distort and misrepresent what these amendments are. All The Senator has 
to do is read the amendment. In the recruitment area, our amendment 
says:
  Take such steps to include a good faith recruitment in the United 
States using procedures that meet industry-wide standards.
  Those are industry-wide standards. All we are trying to do is protect 
American workers. If there is a job out there and an American can do 
it, we are saying let him or her have the first crack at it. Let's not 
displace an American worker with a foreign worker and then find the 
corresponding pressure that is put upon them.
  As I mentioned before, over 90 percent of the workers who are coming 
in are making $75,000 or less. So it is difficult for me to listen to 
the Senator from Washington talk about the kind of esoteric job he was 
looking at in terms of what might be needed for Microsoft and relating 
it to the more than 90 percent of workers who earn less than $75,000 
per year. These are the workers--75 percent earn less than $50,000 and 
16 earn more than $75,000. It seems to me we ought to be able to 
develop the training programs for those workers.
  I would like to read through a few of the letters we have here that I 
mentioned earlier. One is from February of this year from Mr. 
Whittlinger in Torrance, CA.

       Chalk up a Republican's support for your stand on not 
     allowing foreign high tech immigrants in until and unless 
     more Americans are given a chance first. I am unemployed 
     (downsized) and cannot get a job, yet I see companies bring 
     in foreign programmers over hiring me who is already trained 
     (although perhaps not to latest technology/ program 
     languages). But I also see a reduced quality and wages (which 
     I think is the primary goal of these companies.)

  This is from a technology information worker who expressed his views 
on this particular provision.
  Jay Roberts from the State of Maryland writes:

       Currently, I work in the information industry as a senior 
     level individual. My observation is there is little if any 
     shortage.

  This is a recruiter who says he is in the information industry. And 
he says:

       We are quite capable of hiring all the qualified help that 
     we need at currently prevailing wages. Should there be any 
     question on this point, prepare the most qualified software 
     resume of which you can think and send it to Microsoft. There 
     is a 95 percent chance that they will not even acknowledge 
     it.
       There not being a true software professional shortage makes 
     us face this for what it is--the H1B program is in effect an 
     indentured servant program. H1B workers typically work at 
     lower wages than Americans, and with less complaint.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The current technology revolution has the promise of 
     restoring broad middle class prosperity, which has been 
     severely eroded. . . .

                           *   *   *   *   *

       If wages do increase to reflect temporary shortages, this 
     soon corrects itself by more college graduates and career 
     challenges.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Please demonstrate that you support the goals, prosperity, 
     and future of your constituency by opposing increases in the 
     H1B quotas. Furthermore, please begin efforts to force H1B 
     employers to proactively demonstrate that they are hiring and 
     training U.S. citizens prior to any H1B approval.

  This is to President Clinton on the same issue, from Mr. Burns, of 
Portland, OR.

       If companies are truly so desperate for engineers they 
     should try raising salaries or expanding in areas of the US 
     outside of Silicon Valley. And if the visa limit must truly 
     be raised, then companies who hire H1B engineers should be 
     willing to never layoff US citizen engineers, but I doubt 
     they'll ever accept that.
       High-Tech companies are always in favor of a free market 
     and want to limit government intervention. But, when it comes 
     to employment, they demand special treatment rather than 
     letting supply and demand dictate salaries.

  I guess he must be referring to what the GAO report showed, that 
there hadn't been any noticeable, significant increase in salaries in 
these areas. Generally, when you get a shortage of the professional 
personnel, salaries go up: Supply and demand. The GAO review of the 
Commerce Department's study indicates there is no increase, virtually, 
in these salaries. That is what we are seeing, and we are hearing from 
a lot of these American workers, who are trying to find employment.
  Here is a letter dated February of this year:

       Dear Mr. President,
       I am graduating with a degree of computer science this 
     spring. I am in deep debt and hope to find work quickly so I 
     may repay it.
       If you allow them to raise or eliminate the current 60,000 
     person quota on foreign computer workers it will be nothing 
     less than a knife in my heart.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       I hope you are on the side of indebted college students on 
     this one.

  You know, the list goes on. Here is the letter from Martin Rojo, San 
Mateo. He said:

       . . . I am a professional software engineer who conducts 
     hiring interviews. I can state that in my experience there is 
     no shortage of qualified workers. While it is rare that 
     someone exactly matches a job description in the esoteric 
     world of software and hardware, the candidate's mental acumen 
     is a more important indicator of success than any specific 
     language or platform.
       The real purpose behind any attempt to lift visa 
     restrictions is, in my opinion, to allow importation of cheap 
     labor. Part of my past coworkers were hired on H-1B visas, 
     and they were tied to an employer in the manner of an 
     indentured servant, while perfectly qualified American 
     citizens did not get the job. This might be fine in farm 
     labor, but there are many Americans who would fill the open 
     positions if allowed.

  We are basically saying OK, let's increase the numbers in a temporary 
way. But let us also develop training programs so Americans can fill 
those jobs in the future. And let's say no to displacing American 
workers with foreign temporary workers. And let's also

[[Page S4974]]

say that there must be at least minimum efforts to recruit Americans, 
following whatever the industry standard is.
  All they have to do is attest, check the box, ``We have followed the 
industry standard and attest we have tried to hire an American.''
  I find it difficult to understand, among our colleagues here--what is 
wrong with seeking American workers for these jobs? What is wrong with 
just asking employers to observe a requirement to recruit American 
workers? That is what these amendments do. They ensure that employers 
are at least going to make an effort to try to recruit Americans and 
make assurance they are not going to lay off Americans and to displace 
those Americans from a job that will then be filled by a foreigner.
  It seems to me, if we had those two measures and an effective 
training program, then we could respond to whatever the needs of the 
information technology industry are for the best and the brightest 
workers.
  But it comes down, Mr. President, to what we do for American workers 
who, despite doing a good job, in many instances, have been displaced. 
We find out that there is basic prejudice and discrimination against 
them. I think that is wrong.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Perhaps, Madam President, I owe the Senator from 
Massachusetts an apology. Perhaps it is true that he knows better than 
these high-tech companies whom they ought to hire and when they ought 
to hire them. Perhaps his effectively granting to the Department of 
Labor the determination of when a layoff is a layoff and when it is 
not, when a replacement is an appropriate replacement and when it is 
not, will be dealt with entirely benignly and will not harm any of our 
international competitiveness.
  But, Madam President, I think not. I believe that these companies are 
better judges of their own needs than is the Senator from Massachusetts 
or the Department of Labor. And I am convinced that, looking around us, 
we can see how well this system has worked for the last 10 years, as 
evidenced by the dynamism and the growth of the American economy 
matched by no one else. Let's extend what already works rather than 
destroying what already works. Let's be optimists and not pessimists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I will yield at this point to the 
Senator from Ohio, up to 10 minutes. I believe we have used all of our 
time on the bill, so I yield 10 minutes to him, off of one of the 
amendments that are time controlled.
  Before he speaks, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his work and his 
staff's efforts to work with our staff and the staff of the ranking 
member and Senator Lieberman and several others, and especially the 
Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Labor Committee, to craft 
what will be ultimately a provision in the managers' amendment that I 
think effectively begins to address the issue of job training as a part 
of this legislation.
  At this point, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1723, 
the American Competitiveness Act. I'd like to commend Senators Abraham 
and Hatch for introducing such a well crafted piece of legislation.
  I think the title of this bill--the American Competitiveness Act--is 
especially appropriate, since we are talking about a bill that will 
make our companies stronger and more able to compete in the global 
marketplace. None of our businesses can run efficiently when they are 
understaffed--and in today's marketplace there are plenty of overseas 
competitors who will pick up the slack and take away our customers if 
we give them that opportunity.
  When the Commerce Department, using the Labor Department's data, 
projects that our economy will continue to grow at such a rate that 
more than 1.3 million new information technology jobs will be created 
over the next decade--but that our universities will produce less than 
a quarter of the necessary number of information technology graduates, 
simple math tells us that there will be a shortage of these highly 
skilled workers.
  It may surprise people that the high-tech industry is not just about 
Silicon Valley. Ohio now ranks 10th in the nation in high-tech 
employment and 8th in high-tech exports. In Ohio, these jobs, on 
average, pay close to $14,000 higher than Ohio's average private sector 
wage--$14,000. I want to keep these jobs in Ohio and I don't want to 
see them moved overseas.
  But let's look beyond statistics at what some of the largest 
employers in our country are telling us. They are the one we need to 
listen to. NCR, a leading high-tech company based in Ohio, has 
expressed concern that the estimated 340,000 high-tech worker shortage 
nationwide could affect NCR's ability to fill key high-tech positions. 
TRW, which is also based in Ohio, is a good example of how this 
shortage of skilled workers affects more than just the information 
technology industry. TRW, which produces safety equipment for the 
automotive industry and equipment for the defense industry, tells me 
that only one U.S. citizen for every 10 foreign students apply at TRW 
when they go onto a college campus to recruit. The company currently 
has 1,100 openings nationwide. These unfilled jobs are not helping this 
company to expand and create more jobs.
  Procter & Gamble is another Ohio-based company that uses H-1B visas 
to hire about six to ten foreign nationals a year. Some people may 
wonder why such a low number of employees are so essential to a 
company's productivity, but these specialized scientists, many with 
doctoral degrees, are needed for key projects. Reaching this year's 
arbitrary limit on H-1B visas will prevent all employers from filling 
such specialized positions until the next fiscal year begins, thus 
delaying some key projects for up to six months. When those key 
projects are delayed, this means other American workers cannot work, 
other American workers will not be able to work on these projects. In 
our global marketplace, competitiveness demands that our companies be 
able to beat their overseas competitors to market. Any delay in the 
product cycle--from innovation or creation to production--impedes such 
competitiveness and could result in such companies moving their 
operations overseas where such hiring limitations do not exit for their 
overseas competitors.

  Also, in a global marketplace, it only makes sense that small and 
large domestic companies must cater to a wide range of customer 
preferences and needs--they must know what the traditions and cultures 
of all of the countries are that they serve. I would rather have these 
companies hire a few foreign workers under our H-1B visa program, 
rather than have these companies move their base of operations--and 
American jobs--overseas.
  The best and the brightest of the foreign workforce are brought into 
our country under the H-1B system. These are productive men and women 
who create innovative technologies--many receiving patents for the U.S. 
companies they work for--and whose ideas launch new projects and, thus, 
create new jobs for our domestic workforce.
  I am a firm believer in educating and training our domestic workforce 
from within, so that this shortage of highly skilled labor may one day 
be solved. I strongly believe that part of the solution to this 
shortage depends on how we raise and educate our children and 
teenagers--this is why the 20,000 scholarships per year created under 
this bill (some for low income students) for math and engineering and 
computer science majors is such an important part of the bill, and such 
a strong contribution. I again salute my colleague from Michigan for 
inclusion of this Provision in the bill. Improving the educational 
process--whether it is job training focused on teens and adults, or 
math and science courses for children--is not something that can be 
achieved overnight. We must realistically face the shortage of highly 
skilled, high-tech workers and allow our companies to hire the workers 
they need to stay competitive in this global marketplace. The world 
will not wait for us to catch up in the math and science fields. We 
must move forward.
  The enforcement penalties included in the bill will also help us 
protect our

[[Page S4975]]

domestic workforce form those who willfully violate the H-1B program. 
First, the bill increases penalties for such violators by 5 times the 
current penalty--by increasing fines from $1,000 to $5,000. The bill 
also provides for a 5-year probationary period during which spot 
inspections of the violating firms may occur at the discretion of the 
Department of Labor. The bill also adds a $25,000 fine per violation, 
and a two-year debarment from all employment immigration programs, in 
cases where an employer lays off a U.S. worker and willfully underpays 
a H1-B worker to replace the U.S. worker.
  This bill also modifies the per-country limits an employment based 
visas. This modification will help prevent further discriminatory 
effects that the current per-country limit creates for otherwise 
qualified people from China and India.
  I strongly support Senator Abraham's bill. I believe it contains 
essential provisions to protect our domestic workforce from willful 
violators by increasing fines and investigative or probationary 
periods. Out domestic employers and workforce need to have the cap on 
H-1B visas raised in order to remain competitive. I urge my colleagues 
in the Senate to vote in favor of the Abraham bill.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
support and help on this legislation. As I said before, it is 
especially appropriate to thank him because of his leadership on the 
entire topic of workforce development. He is the chairman of the Senate 
subcommittee that deals with preparing our workforce, job training and 
other similar topics. I know his support of the approach we are taking 
in this legislation should satisfy Members on both sides of the aisle, 
given the respect with which he is held on these issues, that the 
legislation which we are working on today addresses the concerns of the 
long term of how we are going to prepare American workers to hold these 
jobs when this short-term solution expires. I thank him.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the 
time not be assessed to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 11 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________