[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4976-S5001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, would the distinguished chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee yield me 5 minutes to speak on behalf of his 
bill and against the Kennedy amendments?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the Senator from Texas such time as he may need. 
I believe this would have to be yielded from time that is to be 
available for the amendments
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is 1 minute 20 
seconds remaining on the bill.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes from the time reserved for our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank our dear colleague for yielding. 
I congratulate him on this bill, the American Competitiveness Act.
  Over the years, we have wisely attracted the best and brightest to 
America. We have recognized that having talented people come to our 
country to work has not only not displaced American workers, but it has 
created an intellectual base that has help create millions of jobs.

  I want to congratulate Senator Abraham for this bill. I think it is 
vitally important, and I am proud to be a supporter of the bill. I 
think it is interesting to note that the companies most strongly 
supporting Senator Abraham's bill are America's fastest growing 
companies. These are the companies that are creating most of the new 
jobs in America. Especially those companies that are in high-tech areas 
and research areas that are primarily responsible for generating the 
new products, the new know-how and the new technology that will create 
jobs now and in the 21st century.
  I understand that Senator Kennedy will be offering two amendments. 
Although they have not technically been offered yet, I know enough 
about the amendments to know that I am opposed to them. Senator Kennedy 
is trying to preserve the jobs of the 1950s. Senator Abraham is trying 
to create jobs now and in the 21st century. Senator Kennedy believes 
that if we can keep new, talented people out of America, as a 
contributory factor to the intellectual base of our country, we can 
induce innovative businesses to hire more Americans. Senator Abraham 
understands that we need an intellectual base to help us create the 
products and the technology that will create thousands and ultimately 
millions of new jobs.
  In these two amendments that will be offered, we really have a debate 
between the past and the future. The past deals with the idea that we 
can somehow protect jobs by keeping talented people out of the country. 
The future is a recognition that America has literally drained the 
brain talent of the world by bringing talented people to America, and, 
in the process, talented people here have found more opportunity, more 
freedom, than any other people who have lived. They have created an 
economic system that is unrivaled throughout the world.
  The first amendment Senator Kennedy will offer states that if a 
company brings in an H-1B visa worker, and later has to lay someone 
off, the company is in violation of the law. The problem is that in 
dealing with innovative companies, people are hired based on creating 
new products and based on success of their research. To force a company 
to guarantee that it will not, in the next 6 months, have to lay anyone 
off is to ask them to guarantee the success of their research. As we 
know from the experience of Europe, which is still trying to follow the 
policies of the 1950s that are built into the Kennedy amendments, if a 
company does not have the right to lay people off when a project fails, 
it can not take the risk to

[[Page S4977]]

hire the very people who make it possible for it to succeed.
  The second amendment deals with giving the Labor Department the 
ability to make a final judgment and to second-guess an employer as to 
whether or not a person who is a resident of the United States could 
have been found to do the work. I simply want to remind my colleagues 
that the existing law states that a company can not bring in an H-1B 
worker from outside and pay them less than either the prevailing wage 
or the actual wage. So it is not a case of bringing in people who will 
work for less.
  Also, the bill offered by Senator Abraham strengthens current law by 
providing a $25,000 fine and a 2-year debarment from the program for 
those who willfully violate the law.
  So the question is: If there are talented people who can come to our 
universities, to our research labs, to our high-tech companies bringing 
with them human capital that can help us create technology and products 
that will put millions of our own people to work, why not ask them to 
come to America, instead of inducing American companies to invest 
abroad in order to employ them in their country?
  It seems to me that the most revealing thing about this whole debate 
is the companies that use this H-1B program are the companies that have 
the fastest growing employment base of American citizens. We are not 
talking about companies that are experiencing declining employment 
trying to bring in technical people from abroad. It is companies in 
Silicon Valley that want to bring in people with special expertise. 
This will allow these companies, through the application of their 
genius to practical business problems, to hire hundreds and ultimately 
thousands more people.
  If Senator Kennedy's amendments were valid, the companies that use 
this program would be companies where employment is declining. But the 
plain truth, as is evident to anyone who looks at the data, is that the 
companies using these programs are companies that are creating the 
largest number of jobs in America.
  So if Microsoft--assuming the Government doesn't put them out of 
business by trying to limit technology--can put hundreds of thousands 
of Americans to work by bringing someone to this country who has 
special expertise, why not let them do it. Especially when this bill 
strengthens the law by imposing a $25,000 fine on companies that 
violate procedures aimed at dealing with the legitimate problems raised 
by Senator Kennedy and others---that people will be brought here who 
will work for less and therefore undercut the wage base of American 
workers.
  So I hope these two amendments will be defeated. I think it is very 
revealing that our high-tech industries say they would rather not have 
the bill if the Kennedy amendments are adopted. That suggests to me 
that the purpose of the amendments are to kill the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes on the 
amendments.
  As I am sure the Senator from Texas knows, about 85 percent of these 
jobs earn $75,000 a year, or less. I am just wondering what we have 
against Americans and American workers that we are so prepared to turn 
over these good jobs to foreigners.
  Now, if the Senator wants to say, well, what about these $75,000 
jobs? The GAO pointed out that there is no increase in the salary of 
these workers. I thought supply and demand said that if we have that 
great a demand, we are going to see an increase in salaries; right? 
Wrong. The GAO report says there is no indication of that.
  So these are good jobs. I say, let's try an American first. Let's 
develop the kinds of skills employers need so that we won't need to 
have this continue after the expiration of this particular proposal. 
Let's try an American first. And if we are not going to do that, let's 
just ensure that an American who is in that job and working, as the 
record demonstrates today, isn't going to get laid off and replaced by 
a foreign worker who then is going to work longer hours and be 
threatened day after day that if they complain at all, they are going 
to have their green card taken and they will be shipped overseas. That 
is the case, in many instances.
  Madam President, I find it difficult to just accept the Senator's 
argument that this really is just the pure free market system working 
at its best. I think we owe something to American workers. It is so 
interesting that all of these companies want to have a free enterprise 
system--except when it comes to paying wages and salaries. Then they 
want to do it and get cheaper workers in from overseas and then exploit 
them. We want to protect against that. That is what those amendments 
would do.
  I withhold the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Michigan to yield 
me an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I yield an additional 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, first of all, I always welcome Senator 
Kennedy giving me lectures about supply and demand. I wish I believed 
in my heart that he believed in supply and demand.
  Secondly, one of the purposes of the bill is to add teeth to the 
provision about hiring Americans first. This is done by imposing a 
$25,000 fine on people who displace American workers in order to hire 
H-1B workers, or people who violate the law that prohibits hiring these 
workers at less than the current wage rate.
  Obviously, we are talking about very talented people when we are 
talking about people coming in for salary of $75,000. I have to admit 
that I am somewhat struck by the paradox. Only last week, we were 
debating an effort I had undertaken to make people who come to America, 
come with their sleeves rolled up, rather than their hand held out to 
get food stamps; and last week the Senate voted to give them food 
stamps for 7 years.
  When the Senator from Michigan says, we should let very talented 
people come and not let them work for less than Americans, and if they 
can bring talent that will make American products more competitive and 
help create American jobs, we should let them come in and work in 
limited numbers, under strict requirements. I think one might be 
confused to hear that we are perfectly willing to let people come here 
and go on welfare; it is when they want to come and go to work that we 
have an objection. Well, I do not.

  I go back to the point that the companies who are hiring these people 
are not companies that are in decline. I know the Senator feels this 
concern in his heart, and I have no doubt about the sincerity of his 
position. If these were companies in decline and they were trying to 
drive down their wage base by simply hiring people with standard skills 
to displace Americans, I would be siding with Senator Kennedy. But what 
is happening here is companies that are using this program are our most 
innovative companies. They are the companies that have the most 
talented workers that they can hire in our country. They are our 
fastest growing companies. They are companies that are creating jobs 
now, and they are laying the technological foundations that will create 
hundreds, thousands, and ultimately millions of jobs in the future. 
They want to reach out in the world and pick the most talented, the 
best and the brightest, to come to America on a temporary basis and 
help us develop the technology that will create jobs--good jobs, high-
paying jobs, $75,000-a-year jobs--for our own workers.
  So I strongly support the provision offered by the Senator from 
Michigan. I do believe that the amendments offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts are well intended, but I think they are wrongheaded in 
the sense that, in the name of protecting jobs, we are keeping out a 
very small number of very select people who are working at labs at 
Harvard University, or working in Silicon Valley, or working in 
research institutes all over the country to create technology that puts 
millions of our people to work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I have 150 letters and scores more back 
in my office of Americans who have training and skills in computer 
knowledge and technology and are unable to get the jobs. You can, under 
this proposal, hire 1,000 foreign workers and displace 1,000 American 
workers and it doesn't violate any law. It violates no law. I think we 
ought to protect American workers, and if there is a job out

[[Page S4978]]

there, an American worker ought to have a crack at it before it goes 
overseas.
  Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from Nevada who, under 
the agreement, is to be recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let's put ourselves in the situation that 
a woman from Las Vegas found herself in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Nevada offering his 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. I will offer it at the appropriate time. I have the floor 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless time is yielded to the Senator under 
the agreement on the bill, the Senator----
  Mr. REID. My amendment has no time.


                           Amendment No. 2414

 (Purpose: To require that applications for passports for minors have 
                          parental signatures)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2414.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, 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:

     SEC ____. PASSPORTS ISSUED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 16.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of title IX of the Act of June 
     15, 1917 (22 U.S.C. 213) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Before'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Before'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Passports Issued for Children Under 16.--
       ``(1) Signatures required.--In the case of a child under 
     the age of 16, the written application required as a 
     prerequisite to the issuance of a passport for such child 
     shall be signed by--
       ``(A) both parents of the child if the child lives with 
     both parents;
       ``(B) the parent of the child having primary custody of the 
     child if the child does not live with both parents; or
       ``(C) the surviving parent (or legal guardian) of the 
     child, if 1 or both parents are deceased.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirements of paragraph (1)(A) if the Secretary determines 
     that circumstances do not permit obtaining the signatures of 
     both parents.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to applications for passports filed on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, let's assume that you are a mother, you 
have a 6-year-old child, you have recently been divorced, and you go to 
pick the child up from school and he is not there. You wonder what 
happened to your child. You call the police; the police have no 
knowledge of his whereabouts. No one seems to know what happened to 
your child. But as things are pieced together, you learn that your 
husband, who you recently divorced, has taken the child from school and 
to Croatia. This happens during the time of the Balkans war. What as a 
mother are you to do? Your child is in Croatia. You were married to a 
Croatian.

  This is a situation that 1,000 parents face every year in our 
country. Over 1,000 children are taken from this country, normally as a 
result of the mother and father not getting along, or recently 
divorced, and they are taken many times to a country where one of the 
parents was born. Sometimes the parent just takes off to a country they 
are familiar with. They want to get away from the wife or husband, 
recognizing that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get the 
baby back.
  The tragedy is of a thousand stories a year; there are many thousands 
of stories I could retell.
  The Las Vegas Review Journal reported about a woman by whose name is 
Lilly Waken. Her two daughters left home for a party. The children 
never came back. Frantically, she called the police. She called the 
hospitals. She learned that her husband had taken them away and had 
bought three one-way tickets to Damascus, Syria. That was 18 months 
ago. She hasn't seen her children since.
  My amendment is all about fairness and prevention. It is about 
preventing a problem that plagues this country, the international 
children's abduction problem. As I have indicated, 1,000 or more 
children are abducted every year in our country. These children, as I 
have indicated, are abducted during or shortly after a contentious 
divorce, sometimes even by an abusive parent, at a time when these 
children are most vulnerable and uncertain about their future. They are 
then snatched from custody of one parent and hauled over to a foreign 
country.
  In the case that I first spoke of, a young boy by the name of Mikey 
Kale from Las Vegas was taken to Croatia. His mother worked for months 
and months, and was finally able, after spending a tremendous amount of 
money trying to get the return of her son--remember, this is in a 
country that was Mikey Kale Passport and Notification Amendment at 
war--she was able to get her child back.
  I am proposing this legislation, the Mikey Kale Passport Notification 
Amendment, after this young boy taken to Croatia, Mikey Kale. This 
amendment is very simple. It will require that parents who are married 
must both sign for a passport for their child. If there has been a 
divorce, the one with primary custody must sign for the child to obtain 
a passport. We have a provision in this bill so that, under extreme 
circumstances, the Secretary of State can waive the requirements if the 
Secretary determines that the circumstances do not permit the obtaining 
of the signatures of both parents.
  Madam President, this legislation was passed before in this body. It 
went to the House where it was knocked out in conference. Why? For the 
same reason that the State Department indicated in a recent article in 
Parade Magazine, it is going to create too much paperwork. I say, Madam 
President, that is too much baloney. It may be too much paperwork for 
them. But for the parents and the children involved in this, it is 
better to spend a little extra time when someone comes to get a 
passport to make sure that the passport is obtained properly. It is not 
asking too much of the State Department to insure that people who are 
going to get a passport for a child to check out that the child is, in 
effect, not being kidnaped.
  The aim of the amendment is prevention. It prevents parental 
abductors from obtaining U.S. passports for their minor children. One 
of the best ways to prevent international parental abductions is to 
make it more difficult for the abductors to obtain a passport.
  Madam President, prior to coming to this body I practiced law and did 
divorce work, among other things. When Mikey Kale's mother came to me, 
it flooded memories back to my mind about a case that I had where there 
was a contested divorce. I represented a police officer from Henderson, 
NV. Suddenly, my client picked up the two children and went to Mexico. 
He called me from Mexico, and said, ``I'm not coming back until I get 
what I asked for from my wife.'' So I called the opposing counsel and 
told him what had happened. My client stayed down in Mexico for years 
until finally the mother of the two children, in effect, gave him what 
he wanted. It was a difficult situation. The children were never in 
school during that period of time.

  Madam President, this is a very serious problem. We who are parents 
and grandparents know that we are the ones who are looked upon as 
protectors of our children. But those who should be protecting children 
are doing the worst for the child by taking them to a strange country, 
recognizing that the standards and customs in that country are much 
different from ours, and that it is going to be difficult, if not 
impossible, to get that child back.
  It is reported that the State Department has had thousands and 
thousands of these reported kidnapings, and that they just write them 
off after a year or two, closing 80 percent of their files.
  This amendment is a simple legislative solution which will implement 
a system of checks prior to the issuance of a minor child's passport 
thereby protecting both parental rights and the rights of the child.

[[Page S4979]]

  Two years ago the same amendment passed. The State Department and 
their lobbyists prevailed upon those in conference to remove this 
provision. In the meantime, 2,000 children in this country have been 
abducted to other countries--2,000 children. Think of the grief that 
has been caused to those children and to the parents of those children. 
This, Madam President, should stop. We should not listen to what the 
State Department says, that because they are understaffed and don't 
want to go into the details of who has custody, they cannot implement 
this preventive measure. I say let's save some pain and suffering of 
these little children, and also of one of the parents.
  This problem is more common than one would think. As I stated 
earlier, 1,000 children are abducted every year. Here in the United 
States missing and abducted children are counted meticulously, in some 
countries they keep no records whatsoever. Forty-five nations have 
signed a Hague treaty designed to resolve international child custody 
disputes. Most countries have not.
  Finding a missing child is very difficult. This problem is no better 
illustrated, as I have indicated, than that of Mikey Kale for whom this 
amendment is named.
  Let me repeat. On Valentine's Day in 1993, Mikey was abducted by the 
ex-husband of Barbara Spierer and taken to Croatia--kidnaped, for lack 
of a better description. As I have said, after tremendous emotional and 
financial efforts, Barbara was one of the lucky ones. She got her baby 
boy back.
  Regardless of the number of cases--whether it is 1,000 cases, which 
it is, or 10 cases a year, which it isn't--one case of abduction is one 
too many. My amendment seeks to prevent even that one tragedy from 
occurring. One of the most difficult and frustrating elements for 
parents of internationally abducted children is that the U.S. laws and 
court orders are usually ignored in a foreign country. If they are not 
ignored, the possible pain and expense of legal representation in that 
country are unbearable.
  Many of these cases involve parents who have relatively no assets. So 
the one who is, in effect, left behind, when the child has been 
kidnaped, can do nothing.
  One country alone has 45 cases of American children being abducted. 
Letters to that foreign head of state have had no effect, and none of 
the 45 have been voluntarily returned.
  An inconceivable, irrefutable fact is that once a child is abducted 
from the United States, it is almost impossible to get the child back.
  Madam President, once again, the aim of this amendment is 
prevention--prevention of anguish to families, prevention of parental 
rights being violated, prevention of a child being abducted. Until more 
can be done, I believe a simple, cost-effective legislative solution to 
protect our children's rights is essential, and I ask my colleagues to 
join me.

  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to speak on the amendment, 
but what I will do is note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I will speak very briefly in support of 
the Reid amendment.
  I think the concerns he has raised here are very important ones and 
need to be addressed. I would actually add to the examples he used 
other situations which have occurred to constituents of mine in which 
following a divorce decree in this country, a spouse who maintains dual 
citizenship in some fashion goes to a country of his or her other 
citizenship with the child after there has been an agreement with 
regard to visitation. The American citizen spouse who remains in the 
United States then seeks to visit on the basis of that visitation 
agreement and finds, when visiting the foreign country, the child is 
not available, cannot be found, has disappeared, usually just to 
another city or another relative's home or something else, but 
basically because of the limited amount of time the visiting spouses 
have in the country, they no longer have the opportunity to see their 
children.
  This is not the case of an abduction per se, but it is relatively 
similar in terms of the implications. So I think the outlawing this 
amendment takes helps to address the most egregious form of this 
problem. But I indicate to the Senator from Nevada I not only would be 
willing to accept this amendment and support it, but I look forward to 
working with him--and I know of several other Senators who have 
approved--to see if there are ways we could also address these other 
cases where we may not be dealing with abduction, but still dealing 
with the circumstance where parents are prevented from seeing their 
children.
  So I thank the Senator from Nevada for his amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for 
bringing this matter to our attention once again. As we were saying a 
few moments ago, this was accepted in the last debate on immigration 
reform in 1996. When it went to conference, there were a number of us 
who were excluded. If we had been able to participate, we would have 
supported this measure. But we were in a different regime at the time.
  In so many areas of immigration policy there are the opportunities 
for abuse by a few. But as the Senator has pointed out, thousands can 
still be affected by the injustice. The Senator has identified one 
instance in which a family was harmed. We would be glad to work with 
him and with Senator Abraham to see what could be worked through in the 
conference. If somehow we are not persuasive in the conference, we will 
join with him later in offering his amendment on appropriations bills 
or other bills. But I think the Senator has made a strong case, just as 
he did the last time. I think he has identified a very important issue.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my request 
for the yeas and nays be withdrawn subject to the manager of the bill 
accepting the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2414) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, be recognized for 7 minutes in order to 
offer an amendment, and immediately following the conclusion that I be 
recognized for the same purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to--he 
will go for 7 minutes and then we will have a chance to respond to his 
amendment? Are we going to have time to dispose of his amendment before 
the Senator from Arkansas?
  Mr. REED. I think in that time we can dispose of the amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment, I think, can be disposed of in 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2415

 (Purpose: To strike section 4, relating to education and training in 
                        science and technology)

  Mr. REED. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2415.

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

       On page 27, beginning with line 1, strike all through page 
     29, line 10.

  Mr. REED. Madam President, my amendment would strike section 4 of

[[Page S4980]]

the underlying legislation. This section proposes to amend the State 
Student Incentive Grant Program, the SSIG Program.
  I first want to recognize Senator Abraham's efforts on behalf of this 
legislation and to underscore that I understand the issue the Senator 
is attempting to address is the lack of suitable training in our 
country to provide the types of scientists and engineers which this 
legislation hopes to attract through immigration policies. But I would 
object to the importation of the SSIG Program into this legislation; to 
pull SSIG in is inappropriate.
  We all recognize we do have to educate and train more Americans to 
take up these high-tech jobs, but this immigration bill is not the 
right vehicle, and the SSIG Program is not the right approach to simply 
target high-tech training in the United States.
  I would like to briefly set the record straight with respect to SSIG, 
its status, and I hope its future.
  First, the State Student Incentive Grant Program is within the 
jurisdiction of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. We have been 
considering its reformation and improvement over the last several 
months, and we have made progress in that regard. We are on the verge, 
after deliberation in the committee, of bringing a bill to the floor 
which will make significant improvements to SSIG.
  I would like to also point out that the State Student Incentive Grant 
Program was initiated back in 1972 by Senator Jacob Javits of New York. 
It was created not as a way to bootstrap high-tech learning in the 
United States, but to meet a critical deficiency--the need to provide 
resources to low-income students to enable them to go to college in a 
vast array of programs, letting them make the decision of where their 
talent will carry them, but giving them the resources to go to college 
and stay in college.
  In its more than 20-year history, it has been a remarkably effective 
program. It takes Federal dollars and offers a one-for-one dollar match 
with the States to provide need-based grants to students. It has no 
federal overhead. It delivers money in the form of grants to low-income 
students that need these resources to go on to college.
  Now, if we are talking about providing more opportunities for 
Americans to be scientists, to be engineers, to do all the things that 
we want them to do and not have to rely upon foreign nationals coming 
into our country, SSIG is the wrong place to start. We should be 
starting in the elementary and secondary schools. We should be 
recognizing that in many of our schools, particularly low-income urban 
schools with high minority enrollments, 50 percent of those students 
are likely to have a science or math teacher who never concentrated on 
science or math in college. And that is one reason we are not 
developing, here in the United States, those skills necessary for this 
high-tech age. So, if we are really interested in having Americans 
qualify to take these jobs, bringing SSIG into this bill, hijacking it, 
Shanghaiing it into this bill is not going to do it. We have to start 
early and consistently to reach young people.
  I believe we have made progress in this regard. We have made 
progress, both in terms of identifying the need to improve elementary 
and secondary education, and, as I mentioned before, we have made 
progress working closely with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, 
Senator Collins, to improve SSIG. We have introduced, with 17 other 
Senators, a bipartisan proposal to reform SSIG. It is called the LEAP 
Act. This proposal will create a two-tiered proposal: Up to $35 
million, there will continue to be a one-for-one match of Federal 
dollars to State dollars; but when we go beyond that amount, we will 
allow the States a great deal more flexibility, flexibility that they 
will have to recognize by matching $2 for every one Federal dollar. But 
within that more flexible regime of options, we have actually built in, 
at the request of Senator Abraham, the ability of States to develop 
scholarship programs that are targeted to mathematics and computer 
science and engineering. In effect, working very closely with the 
Senator, who is sincerely committed to improving the quality of 
education throughout this country, we have done in the LEAP Act in the 
Labor Committee what is purported to be done here in this legislation.
  Now, we are concerned--frankly, I am concerned--that if we act in 
this immigration bill, we might upset the progress we have made to date 
on the LEAP Act. We might, in fact, compromise its fundamental 
commitment not to one specific sector of study but to a broader social 
purpose--of giving low-income students the chance to go on to college.
  I hope we will not do that. I feel very strongly about SSIG. I felt 
very strongly last year--again, working with Senator Collins from 
Maine. We came to the floor, we literally saved this program from 
extinction with an overwhelming vote of 84 to 4 to maintain 
appropriations for SSIG. Having, in a sense, given renewed life to this 
legislation, I want the opportunity, with my colleagues, to ensure that 
we continue this program as a need-based program and not at this 
moment, for convenience, for an attempt to respond to a legitimate 
concern about training high-tech personnel, to distort the purpose, the 
goals, and the future of SSIG.
  I think, working together with my colleagues, we can maintain the 
integrity of SSIG and we can also, using the Higher Education Act, 
strengthen it, reform it, and make it adaptable and make it accessible 
to a new generation of American students.
  I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Abraham. We have, I 
think, mutual appreciation of the need for SSIG. I hope, working with 
him over the next several weeks as this measure goes forward, and given 
his commitment to work together on this whole topic of the State 
Student Incentive Grant Program--I am prepared at this moment to seek 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2115) was withdrawn.
  Mr. REED. I yield to the Senator from Michigan, if he had a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I briefly would like to do a couple of 
things. First, I compliment the Senator from Rhode Island as well as 
the Presiding Officer for their efforts on this issue. As I mentioned 
earlier in my opening statement about the legislation before us, our 
office has been very grateful to you as well as to Senator Jeffords and 
others on the Labor Committee for the efforts that have been engaged in 
to help us craft, in the higher education bill, language which was 
consistent with our objectives in terms of trying to provide ways by 
which we can incentivize more young people in our country to fill these 
jobs we know are going to be created in the future.
  And under no circumstances, I think the Senator from Rhode Island 
knows, and I know the Senator from Maine knows as well, are any of us 
involved in the development of this legislation seeking to, in any 
context, reduce or undermine the SSIG program. To the contrary, I think 
everybody who is a cosponsor is a strong supporter. So we look forward 
to working with you. I have appreciated the efforts of the Senator from 
Rhode Island to assist us in this and thank him for what he has already 
done and what we look forward to doing together, to find a way to 
address this issue in the context of other legislation that will be 
before us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator, my friend from 
Rhode Island. We have had the good opportunity to work with the Senator 
from Rhode Island and also the Senator from Maine on this particular 
issue. I know that the Senator from Rhode Island is someone who has 
been on the education committees, not only in the Senate but also in 
the House of Representatives, and is someone with a number of years of 
experience with this important issue. The Senator from Rhode Island has 
spent a lot of time in developing an understanding of this particular 
program and how it works in the States. He has also found how it can 
best be targeted in ways that offer the best opportunity for needy 
students, giving focus in areas of important need--math and science and 
other skills. So, we will continue to work with him. We appreciate his 
leadership and the leadership of the Senator from Maine in this area.

[[Page S4981]]

  We have been trying to work to assure that Americans are going to 
develop the skills to be able to compete in these areas. This is really 
a combination of both the education and training aspects that Senator 
DeWine, Senator Reed, and Senator Collins have been working on, as well 
as the Senator from Michigan. And that is a reflection of the good 
faith of the Senator from Michigan on it.
  So I appreciate his willingness of the Senator from Rhode Island, at 
this time, to continue to work with us. We give the Senator the 
assurance we will continue to work very closely with him, and with the 
Senator from Maine, as we move on into the conference. But I appreciate 
his cooperation and leadership on this issue.


                           Amendment No. 2416

          (Purpose: To repeal the Immigrant Investor Program)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized, under 
the previous order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2416.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, 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 end of the bill add the following:

     ``SEC. ----. REPEAL OF IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAM.

       ``Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     as amended, (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)) shall be repealed effective 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be advised that there are 90 
minutes equally divided under the time agreement.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair for reminding me.
  Madam President, this amendment repeals a provision in the 
immigration laws that was a tragic mistake when it was enacted. My 
amendment to strike that provision deals with economics, it deals with 
patriotism, it deals with immigration, and it deals with fraud. In 
order for my colleagues to understand precisely what we are talking 
about, let me set the stage. I fought this battle in 1989 and, at the 
expense of sounding a little self-serving, lost, but predicted what has 
happened would happen.
  The immigration bill considered by the Senate in 1989 included a 
provision of the bill to increase investment because we were headed 
into a recession. We decided we would take a page out of the play books 
of Canada and Australia. We thought, if they can sell citizenship for 
$200,000, citizenship in the United States ought to be worth at least 
$1 million. It is a very logical assumption. So, we said, in that bill 
in 1989, we will reserve 4,800 visas for foreigners who wants to come 
into this Nation and bring $1 million and hire 10 people: We will give 
you a green card at the end of 2 years, and, at the end of an 
additional 3 years, we will make you a citizen of the United States.
  Then in the conference committee we decided we could do even better 
than that. We said: You don't have to bring $1 million dollars; bring 
$500,000. If you put a hamburger joint up that will hire 10 people in 
an area of high unemployment or in a rural area, we will do the same 
thing for you. We cut the price of citizenship from $1 million to 
$500,000 and the 4,800 slots that we reserved in the Senate bill 
increased to 10,000 in the conference report.
  Multiply $1 million by 10,000 visas and just think of all the 
magnificent investment we would have in this country and how many jobs 
we would create.
  Madam President, that ``ain't'' all. We said not only will you not 
really have to create 10 jobs with your $500,000 or your $1 million, 
you only have to maintain 10 jobs. What does that mean? If old Joe's 
hamburger joint is about to go out of business and he has 10 employees 
and you are willing to buy his place and keep those 10 employees 
working, you have maintained 10 jobs, so you qualify for American 
citizenship.
  Then in 1993 we decided we would liberalize it a little further. Not 
only do you not have to create 10 jobs, not only do you not have to 
maintain 10 jobs, all you have to do is indirectly provide 10 jobs if 
you invest in businesses located in certain areas known as Regional 
Centers . What does that mean? You are making widgets. You employ five 
people to make widgets. You have two people to distribute them and 
three people to sell them. Those are indirectly created jobs. 
Therefore, you get your green card at the end of 2 years, and you get 
your citizenship papers at the end of 5 years.
  I can remember at that time how we thought Hong Kong was going to 
flood this Nation with people with $1 million in their pocket because 
they were terrified of the Chinese taking over Hong Kong. I must say, 
the program, such as it is, has been mostly of people from the Pacific 
rim--Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan.
  Madam President, do you know the nice thing about this? If you have 
$500,000 to invest, bring the little wife and kids, too, you are all 
welcome. They are also going to ultimately be entitled to citizenship.
  What have been the results? Madam President, a cottage industry of 
consultants and limited partnerships has grown up in this Nation. No 
plan the U.S. Congress has ever devised has been scam-proof, and God 
knows this one is no exception. What do these consultants do? Why, they 
advertise in the newspapers in Hong Kong, in Oman, in Taiwan, and they 
say, ``You don't even need $500,000, you don't need $1 million, you 
only need $100,000.'' We have gone from $1 million to $500,000 to 
$100,000. We have gone from creating jobs to maintaining jobs to 
indirectly providing jobs. It is incredible what has happened to this 
program.
  How do they get by with this? These consultants form limited 
partnerships. They get several of these people who have $100,000 and 
they pool all those $100,000 contributions from various people.
  What about the $500,000 requirement? How are you going to put up 
$100,000 and meet that? Easy. You give a promissory note for $400,000. 
You give $100,000 in cash--incidentally, there is a little matter of a 
$35,000 to $50,000 fee that goes to the consultant. So if you come, you 
ought to have $150,000 in your pocket, $50,000 for the consultant and 
$100,000 to show your good faith, and then be willing to sign a note 
for $400,000. But not to worry. At the end of 2 years, your note is 
forgiven. Forget the $400,000 note. If you are in the $1 million class, 
forget the $900,000 note. And if, at the end of 2 years, the business 
has not done well, shut it down. When you shut it down, you can go down 
to the courthouse and apply for your citizenship 3 years later. You do 
not have to maintain the business for the ensuing 3 years to get your 
citizenship. Shut that sucker down after 2 years; it has probably been 
a loser anyway.
  Madam President, Russell Burgoise was quoted in an April 13, 1998 New 
York Times article. He is a spokesman for the Immigration Service. He 
said: ``These plans don't meet either the spirit or the letter of the 
law.''
  Recently, when the INS sought to revoke up to 5,000 visas, the New 
York Times in the same article said ``influential Members of Congress 
protested the Government was changing rules in midstream,'' and the INS 
backed off.
  Late in 1997, the Times of Oman, not a widely read paper in 
Washington, contained an advertisement which said: ``U.S. green card 
for anyone who can show U.S. $500,000.''
  They ought to be prosecuted for misleading advertising. It doesn't 
take $500,000, just $100,000 would do fine if you know the right 
consultant in this country.
  It is an interesting thing that it took these consultants and these 
limited partnerships to figure out how to get the program going. Until 
the latter part of 1996, the investor visa program had been an even 
worse disaster than its worst critics--namely me--had predicted. Nobody 
was showing much interest.
  In 1992, 280 people applied, 240 were approved. In 1993, 384; 1994, 
407; 1995, 291; 1996, 616; in 1997, 1,110. The consultants are getting 
geared up now. It is still a far cry from the 10,000 slots available, 
but in 1997, 1,110 petitions were approved. But over the last 7 years, 
only 3,284 have been approved.
  So, despite the fact that the program has been weakened unbelievably 
to

[[Page S4982]]

make almost anybody eligible for it, nobody much has been applying. Out 
of 7 years, we only got 3,000-plus, and we are supposed to be doing 
10,000 each year.
  AIS, one of the consulting organizations I mentioned a moment ago, 
specializes, as I said, in pooling investors to bankroll larger 
products.
  Now you should know that a lot of people invest their $100,000 not to 
become American citizens; they come here because they want to purchase 
citizenship for their children and educate them here. Or they come here 
for any host of other reasons. Maybe they are actually coming with 
their family. That would be a fairly laudable purpose. But they do not 
come because they want citizenship. And a lot of people will freely 
tell you the reason they did not want to be citizens of the United 
States is because they will have to pay taxes. They have to pay taxes 
on all of their income all over the world wherever it may come from. 
They are not about to do that. They only have to come here twice a year 
to keep their eligibility for the green card.
  AIS has advertised ``Alternate residency: Less restrictive and 
expensive than other plans in other countries.'' You are not becoming a 
citizen of the United States. You do not have to love the flag. You do 
not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. You do not have to fight our 
wars. You do not have to be any particular age. You do not have to have 
any specialized education. You do not have to have any experience. You 
do not have to know the language. All you need is ``green.'' You do not 
have to know anything about the poor and huddled masses that Emma 
Lazarus wrote about.
  Madam President, this program is so rife with fraud. In some 
instances, you can get your entire $500,000 back. If you invest 
$500,000 or $1 million, there are some plans under which you can get it 
all back and still get your citizenship.
  Harold Ezell, a former INS regional immigration commissioner--now a 
lawyer in Newport Beach, CA--this is a former INS official's quote. 
What did he say about Congress, about this bill? ``They were smoking 
something when they wrote it.'' ``We've shot ourselves in the foot.'' 
Another attorney said, ``You know, since we're blatantly soliciting the 
wealthy, we might ought to charge $2 million.''
  Madam President, the investor visa program makes no economic sense 
either. The underlying bill we are debating today would raise the cap 
on the number of workers who will come into this country who have 
skills, principally for the computer industry.
  The Senator from Michigan, who is handling this bill on the floor, 
wants to raise the annual limit on people coming into this country from 
60,000 to 95,000. Now, you think about the incongruity of raising the 
level of people we invite into this country because they have a skill 
and because we have a labor shortage. We would not do it otherwise. We 
have a labor shortage of so-called skilled workers. At least, that is 
the proposition. I do not believe it, and I am not going to vote for 
the bill. I will announce that right now.
  This country, incidentally, as great as we are, to be depending on 
the rest of the world to send us their skilled workers so we can stay 
afloat in the computer industry, or whatever, is the height of 
something or other. If we have a $50 billion surplus looming this year, 
for Pete's sake, let us educate our youngsters so we do not have to 
depend on anybody else for these skills. That should not be too 
difficult.
  But here we are saying we want to invite an additional 35,000 
laborers into this country because we have a labor shortage, and at the 
same time saying, ``If you will give us $100,000 or $500,000''--
whichever the case may be--``and hire 10 people, we'll give you 
citizenship.''
  There is an outfit in West Virginia called InterBank, and they want 
to create a telemarketing business. While the deal has not been 
approved yet, the wages will be $6 an hour. I have not seen a 
McDonald's in I don't know how long that didn't have a sign in the 
window saying, ``Help wanted. Pay up to $6 an hour.'' We are desperate 
for workers at all levels in this country, and here we are asking 
people to put up money and come into this country and hire workers. How 
silly can we get? Even if it were not rife with fraud, even if it were 
not shameless to be selling American citizenship, it makes no economic 
sense. It is an oxymoron to vote at the same time to bring 95,000 
workers in and ask somebody else to come in and hire more workers.
  Every time Alan Greenspan appears on a television station, every time 
he appears before the Banking Committee, every time he appears before 
the Joint Economic Committee, Wall Street and all of America holds its 
breath for fear he is going to announce an increase in interest rates. 
And why are they afraid he is going to raise interest rates? Because 
they have a labor shortage. In Economic 101 at the University of 
Arkansas, I was taught--and it is still a fundamental economic 
principle--that when you have a labor shortage, you have to pay more 
for labor. You think McDonald's is paying $6 an hour because they want 
to see how far they can exceed the minimum wage? They are paying $6 an 
hour because they cannot find workers for any less than that. That is 
still a pitiful wage, but be that as it may, I am not here to debate 
that.
  What I am saying is, everybody is scared to death that this labor 
shortage is going to kick wages up, that in turn is going to create 
inflation, and inflation is going to cause Alan Greenspan to raise 
interest rates, and raising interest rates is going to bring the 
longest sustained period of economic prosperity in the United States to 
a grinding halt. These are not things that you have to be a rocket 
scientist to understand. Everybody knows precisely what I am talking 
about.
  Finally, Madam President--and I am reluctant to say this because I am 
not one who has stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and waved the 
flag and beat my chest and talked about what a great patriot I am. I 
put in 3 years in the Marine Corps in World War II, for a very simple 
reason--we were in a war where the absolute freedom of this Nation was 
at stake. Not even a second thought about it. And 25, 30 other million 
men and women did the same thing.
  I have voted against constitutional amendments on flag burning. 
Nobody is more deeply offended than I am to see an American flag burn. 
There are ways to deal with it. But you do not need to tinker with the 
Bill of Rights for the first time in more than 200 years.
  I still get goose bumps at a military parade when Old Glory goes by. 
And I am offended by a law which puts American citizenship up for bid 
by either the wealthy or those willing to participate in a fraud.
  How crassly we demean this precious blessing we call citizenship. 
Emma Lazarus who wrote those magnificent words in the Statue of Liberty 
about, ``Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses,'' Emma 
Lazarus must be whirling in her grave to even hear such a debate as 
this going on. The families of the people whose sons and daughters 
fought those wars for citizenship and freedom--and the families of 
those who died, and they did it because they valued citizenship so 
highly--must be weeping at the thought of citizenship being sold to the 
highest bidder. It is vulgar. How we champion citizenship that we once 
prized so highly.

  Madam President, these people are not the poor. They are not the 
huddled masses who were our ancestors and who came here for freedom to 
contribute their labor and their values to live, live free, and to 
raise their families and die here, even in battle, if need be.
  These people who we welcome for $1 million are coming twice a year 
because that is the only way they can keep their green card. They don't 
want citizenship because that would require them to pay taxes.
  What in the name of God has happened to this place?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the Senator from West Virginia such time as he 
may need to speak in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am grateful to my friend from the 
State of Michigan.
  I start out by disputing any thought by the senior Senator from 
Arkansas that the words ``patriotism'' and ``Bumpers'' don't go side by 
side--I know the Senator himself knows that

[[Page S4983]]

to be true--in his service in the Marine Corps, his service in this 
body, the things he has been through over the years. He is a patriot. 
He is a marvelous man.
  He happens, however, to be marvelously wrong on the amendment that he 
puts forward, which in spite of the larger framework of the immigration 
bill, is a very specific and very targeted amendment which would do 
enormous damage to what we are trying to do in areas of my State that 
need this program desperately, and which do enormous damage to some of 
the things that I and others I work with--Governor Underwood and 
others--are trying to do in the State of West Virginia. I refer to the 
attempt to eliminate the EB5, the immigrant Investor Program. I didn't 
say that with an abundance of fluency, and there is a reason for that. 
It is not one of the things that trips off your lips. I confess that it 
was not until relatively recently, in the last several years, that I, 
indeed, learned what it was at all because we had not had experience.
  Let me give a little context. I was Governor of the State of West 
Virginia for 8 years and I was always very frustrated, and I say to my 
fellow Governor from the State of Arkansas, of all of the money that 
was discretionary to the Governor during the 8 years that this Senator 
was Governor, I spent 75 percent of it on water and sewer, which of 
course is invisible and never seen. And I put more per capita in one of 
our poorest counties in southern West Virginia called McDowell County, 
which used to be referred to as the $1 billion coal field, and now is 
mostly worked out and people have left. Even when I came to West 
Virginia as a VISTA volunteer in 1964, I say to the Senator, there were 
tens of thousands of people in McDowell County, the Senator would 
remember. Now there are about a handful.
  I felt that I had not come through properly in spite of efforts for 
McDowell County, for Wyoming County, for Mercer County, for southern 
West Virginia, for people who had broken their backs and given their 
lives, many of them, and who walk around, some of them carrying oxygen 
tanks. For some it is a 10-minute walk from one side of a room to 
another side to adjust the television and back because of something 
called black lung or because of diseases they have accumulated by 
virtue of being coal miners.
  These are the areas I am talking about. There are other areas in West 
Virginia and the State of Arkansas and in the State of Massachusetts 
and in the State of Michigan and in the State of Maine, all of our 
States, where people just don't have the opportunity to have jobs 
because they live in rural areas. It might be a worked-out coal mining 
area which is called rural, or it might be an area which is mostly 
trees which would be called rural, but it is rural and jobs don't tend 
to go there. People don't tend to build the interstates over there.

  I am old fashioned about it, but the reason that I stayed in West 
Virginia as a VISTA volunteer, more than anything I wanted to see 
people go to work. I think my friend from Arkansas understands that. I 
think he understands it very well. What I found was there were just 
certain blocks, certain ways, certain impediments that nature put up 
which just didn't allow some of our good people to be able to go to 
work by accident of their birth or by the fact they were so close to 
their families that they didn't leave and go to other places like so 
many others had done from Appalachia. So they stayed and they can't 
work and they want to work, and they want so badly to work but there is 
no work. So that is how I came to know what the EB5 Immigrant Investor 
Program is.
  ``Give us your poor,'' the Senator from Arkansas said. Well, our 
income and our population is increasing, I am happy to say, in West 
Virginia at a very healthy rate. Things are being done right there. 
People have caught the flavor of it and there is a sense of optimism 
which I haven't seen there in 20 or 30 years.
  But I learned about this program that the Senator wants to eliminate 
in this amendment. It is just a little thing down here. It says, 
``Repeal. . . Section 203(b)(5),'' et cetera--one sentence which nobody 
can understand, but I know exactly what it does. It would eliminate 
everything that I am talking about, just eliminate it. It would be 
gone.
  I learned about this program because of a company called InterBank. 
It is a merchant banking company. They run a program which is called 
Invest in America. Nothing wrong that I can see in that, especially 
because in this program InterBank has pooled millions of dollars in 
foreign investments, millions of dollars to establish new operations in 
teleservicing--telemarketing some call it; I call it teleservices--in 
exactly the kind of areas in West Virginia I was talking about.
  I was in Welch, WV, in McDowell County on a freezing-cold day when 
they announced they were going to create 400 new jobs. The next day 
they had 1,500 applicants from that county; the word traveled so fast. 
This was considered the best news that had ever happened to that 
county. And now they are looking at others. They are looking, in fact, 
at putting, 10, 12, 15,000 jobs across the State of West Virginia in 
precisely the kinds of places where nobody else will go to invest, and 
they want to do it in telemarketing, or teleservicing as I prefer to 
call it. West Virginia is important in that we are wired very well in 
terms of fiber optics, so it is a superb place for them to do that.
  It is like with the telephone system. If you are in Washington, DC, 
and you call information, you are talking to somebody in West Virginia. 
Where you live, where you reside doesn't make that much difference 
anymore. But it makes a tremendous difference in southern West Virginia 
and in other parts of West Virginia where people do not have work, 
where people remember having had work because of coal mining or 
remember when they had an opportunity for work, but they were rejected 
for work. Now they realize that they could get into these programs and 
get trained because InterBank is going to put a lot of money into 
training people, West Virginia people, and I assume people in other 
parts of the country, other industries like them in other parts of the 
country.
  We are talking about $7 or $8 an hour. I don't ridicule that. And I 
don't ridicule it because it is a company that has benefits 
particularly when it is a company that provides health benefits, which 
is something I care about as much as anybody on this planet, and they 
are included. My people will get them or my people will not get them, 
depending, and it is true for all the rest of the people in this 
country who interact with this program as to whether this amendment 
passes or fails, which is why I hope so much that it fails.
  Yes, it is true there has been some abuse, and the Senator, I 
believe, quoted the New York Times. I don't necessarily think because 
something is in the New York Times and it is printed, it defines what 
national policy is to be, but I read it every day and I respect it very 
much, and there was an article saying there had been some abuse. There 
have been 30 or 40 articles talking about the abuse in Medicare and I 
don't hear anybody talking of getting rid of Medicare, because HCFA is 
trying to crack down. There is, I am sure, abuse in the farmers 
assistance programs which help the Senator and the people he represents 
from Arkansas, which don't do our people any good at all in West 
Virginia.
  All I am saying is that there is always abuse in Federal programs, 
but it is usually a little bit. In the case of the INS, I have talked 
with Doris Meissner about the problem of abuse and about these 
programs. She has put our InterBank program on hold, in fact, even 
though they have done nothing wrong, because they have the FBI and the 
INS who looks into this, and the State Department looks into it. They 
have a total of five separate reviews that are involved in this. The 
INS is not only taking steps to correct whatever abuse that may exist, 
but they are so adamant about it that they are taking those programs 
where there are no problems and making them wait until they have a 
chance to look at the entire thing. I pleaded with Doris Meissner to 
approve this program, which had no deficiencies, and she said, ``I 
can't do it. We have to put it near the end of the line so we can 
review all of these programs to make sure there is no fraud and abuse, 
and where there is, we can get rid of it.''
  Now, is the idea that somebody would be able to bring some money into 
the United States to put a West

[[Page S4984]]

Virginian, or a Washingtonian, or Oregonian, or somebody from Maine, 
Vermont, or Wisconsin, to work, that they would bring in some money and 
they would be given a period of a couple of years for review and, after 
the review, which is a three-agency review, they be allowed to stay 
because they have brought money, which is then pooled, which puts 
people to work in areas where nobody else will put them to work, is 
there something wrong with that? I certainly don't see it.
  If it is helping my people in southern West Virginia, or from the 
State of Maine, where there is so much of the population located in one 
section--and I am sure some industry will not go into the interior 
section because the infrastructure isn't there, but they might with 
innovative thinking such as InterBank has put forward.
  So I think eliminating a program, just wiping it out for the idea of 
somehow being able to say I am against waste, fraud, and abuse and I am 
going to have none of it, when one knows there may be, as in Medicare--
I repeat, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, and the Health 
Care Financing Administration which is going crazy trying to cure that 
abuse, most of which comes from the private sector. Here, INS is doing 
the same thing. They admit it is a good program, but they admit they 
cannot have a program that has any abuse at all in it. So they are 
stopping everything until they have a chance to review it.
  Yes, we need to take steps to prevent abuses in this or any other 
program--INS, Medicare, crop subsidies, or any other thing that 
involves the U.S. taxpayers' money--but to eliminate a program that 
holds out more for the people of my State in terms of areas where 
people have had a hard time getting jobs, all of a sudden having a $7- 
or $8-per-hour job with health benefits, I can't imagine doing such a 
thing.
  I passionately urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment of the 
Senator, my friend from Arkansas.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Before the Senator leaves, let me say how much I 
appreciate his very kind and complimentary remarks in his opening 
statement, and to say that I value his friendship very highly. He and I 
have been close friends for many years. We were both Governors and we 
relate in that way. His uncle used to be Governor of my State. I must 
say to the Senator from West Virginia that I wonder what has happened 
since 1989 when he voted with me on precisely the same amendment, and 
his vote now after the INS says we must have been smoking something 
when we passed the bill in the first place?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may answer, as the Senator well knows, the 
amendment he referred to was in 1989, as my encyclopedic memory comes 
flashing before me like a billboard here in the Senate. As I told the 
Senator, on that particular bill, I felt I voted wrong and I have told 
him since then that I should have voted against him. In reflection, I 
think my vote at that time was based on too much of a knee-jerk theory 
on the idea that somehow it was wrong, when, in fact, it was exactly, I 
think, the right thing to do. The case didn't seem to be as strongly 
made at that point. If the Senator would put that forward again, I 
would vote against it in a flash.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator answer one additional question? First 
of all, I come from a poor State, too. In Arkansas, our teachers' 
salaries are 45th in the Nation. I don't know where we are 
economically; it's in that vicinity. I relate to the poverty you have 
described in southern West Virginia. Yet, I have to say I believe that 
if I could communicate the remarks I made a moment ago in offering this 
amendment to the people of my State--and there are plenty of areas in 
the Mississippi Delta where we are desperate for jobs, and this may be 
a gross exaggeration--I believe 90 percent of the people of my State 
would agree that it is wrong to be selling citizenship like this. They 
might be willing to accept tax credits to attract foreign investment. 
They might be willing to do all kinds of things that you and I did as 
Governor to try to attract industry into our States. But I believe that 
people in my State would take a very dim view if they knew, No. 1, the 
amount of fraud that has now been uncovered in the program; and, No. 2, 
the fact that we are selling citizenship in exchange for a few bucks 
from some of the wealthy people in other countries just to come here 
and get citizenship. Don't you think there is something a little crass 
about that?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Arkansas, what strikes me 
as utterly crass is the thought that for the words the Senator used, 
that I would then take away or deny the opportunity for the people that 
I love so much in my State, that you love so much in your State in the 
delta area, or wherever it may be, from having jobs when they have 
never been able to have jobs before.
  Let me tell you something very plain and clear. Arkansas, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia have statistically bound 
themselves together on the bottom of the charts for a long time. I am 
absolutely, flat-out sick of it. There are not many principles that 
will get me over the fact that I am sick of seeing my people not being 
able to work when my people--if you are a West Virginian and you go 
down to North Carolina and apply for a job, and they ask--and this is 
true--``Where do you come from?'' and you say, ``West Virginia,'' you 
are hired because of the work ethic, because these people have known 
jobs. There has been a tradition in parts of our State where people 
have known jobs. When they have had a chance to get those jobs, there 
is a 1-percent turnover, or less, and absenteeism is 1 percent or less 
per year. They work.
  We had AT&T close down a plant employing 450 people in Charleston, 
WV, the capital of our State. After the workers got their pink slips, I 
say to the Senator from Arkansas, saying they were fired, and it had 
been announced in the press, just against hope, I guess, they worked 
harder, their productivity went up after they got their pink slips. And 
they kept the plant open.

  I don't mean to filibuster the Senator's question because it was an 
honorable question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I had a question. I wanted the Senator to give me a full 
and complete answer according to his beliefs.
  Let me make one other observation. The other day, the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on HUD-VA very graciously invited me over to question Dan 
Goldin, who is, as the Senator knows, the Administrator of NASA. And, 
as the Senator knows, I am opposed to the space station. I know the 
Senator is strongly in favor of the space station. But I asked Mr. 
Goldin about the $6.8 billion overrun that has just been announced. It 
has not been built. It is not deployed and operating. It is a 43-
percent cost overrun. I said, ``Mr. Goldin, is there any threshold 
beyond which you would not be willing to go to build the space 
station?'' He said he had not thought about it.
  If somebody asked me desperately, ``We want jobs in Arkansas''--and 
as much as I want to do something about the delta area of my State, 
there is a threshold beyond which I would not be willing to cross. That 
would be to sell citizenship to a bunch of takers and not givers.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This is not a matter of selling citizenship, I 
repeat. I want to be able to explain that. It is not a matter of 
selling citizenship.
  You come in, and then for $500,000, if you can produce 10 jobs for 
West Virginia, for Americans, if you can do that, then after a period 
of 2 years of that activity, then by three different agencies with an 
analysis from those agencies, which is extremely tough, if you then 
pass muster, then you can become a citizen, but not before.
  If you would ask if I would turn down somebody from England, or if I 
would turn down somebody from somewhere else, and I worked for 10 years 
to get the Toyota Motor Company to come to West Virginia--10 years, and 
they came, do I feel that somehow--I am just making a point--that 
because the person comes from Japan, or because they come from Taiwan, 
or because they come from some other place and they have some money and 
they want to come to this country, which is what the Statue of Liberty 
is all about, and they are willing to put 10 Americans to work and 
those 10 Americans turn out

[[Page S4985]]

to be 10 West Virginians in the case of InterBank, and other companies 
that are interested in West Virginia in a like manner, I would say 
bring them on.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Here is a quote. It says, ``The immigrant investor 
program was created 8 years ago. It allowed foreigners to put up 
$500,000 to create 10 jobs.''
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator says ``foreigners,'' people who are not 
from this country.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am quoting a newspaper article.
  I will answer the next question. This is an op-ed piece in a West 
Virginia newspaper.

       Yesterday the United States was selling citizenship. The 
     program was supposed to spur job creation. The investors have 
     the money to spend, and the benefits are worth it to them. Is 
     it fair to open a door to citizenship but let only the rich 
     pass through? Of course not. But that is what is done. Now 
     there are new problems. Years after the program was 
     established companies began springing up to pool investments 
     and people seeking those visa. A Virginia firm called the 
     InterBank Group plans to use some of that capital to build 
     two telemarketing centers in southern West Virginia.''

  That is what the Senator alluded to in his comments.
  They say:

       The InterBank ran into trouble in California where the 
     Department of Corporations in March indicated that the 
     company was luring investors who had no way of knowing that 
     their investment would qualify them for a visa. InterBank 
     says it was all a misunderstanding and is being worked out. 
     Meanwhile, INS is reexamining the foreign investment deal, 
including InterBank, and hoping to set up stricter rules. InterBank 
maintains its deal should pass muster and is going ahead with the 
telemarketing centers. But the money is tied up until INS makes a call. 
That the visa program has run into trouble shouldn't be a shock to 
anyone. It is just too tempting with all of that money, and all of 
those communities are grateful for any investment.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I answer the Senator?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let me answer the Senator specifically, returning to 
what he has read. The reference to InterBank was not accurate.
  Yes; a desist and refrain order was issued against the bank because 
it was thought that InterBank was selling securities to Americans in 
California.
  I hope my colleagues are listening, because this is important, 
because the Senator is attempting to put me on the defensive, and 
therefore his amendment, which I strongly oppose, seems to have more 
weight. But the Senator is wrong in his criticism, because he has read 
the New York Times with too much faith.

       The issue began from an ad in fact that InterBank ran in a 
     Japanese language magazine. This magazine was translated into 
     English and had some circulation in California

which is understandable.

       Although the InterBank program is only available to foreign 
     nationals California's Commissioner of Corporations was 
     unaware of the program and assumed that the ad was an offer 
     for the sale of securities in California to Americans. Since 
     that time the matter has been completely settled, and 
     InterBank is seeking to have the order lifted.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me just say to the Senator from West Virginia that 
there isn't a Senator in the U.S. Senate for whom I have greater 
respect and hopefully a warmer friendship and whose opinions I value 
highly. I tell you, I have been in that position many, many times where 
I simply disagreed with somebody who couldn't understand why I 
disagreed with them. And the Senator is a great champion for the people 
of West Virginia. The jobs situation in West Virginia is paramount to 
him, more than almost anything else in that State; that is, trying to 
improve the quality of life for people. I certainly would not ever 
suggest anything to the contrary. It is just that I would be willing to 
provide jobs for the people of West Virginia by attracting foreign 
investments with tax credits and anything under the shining sun, except 
offering them citizenship. There is just something crass about that 
that really hits me right here. That is the only difference we have.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No; the only difference we have is maybe broader 
than that, because I take it philosophically. I grew up in a very lucky 
fashion, unlike the Senator from Arkansas. Sometimes in private we joke 
about that, and we have a good laugh about it.
  But my great-great-grandfather came from somewhere in Germany. Nobody 
really knows what he was doing. And he came to this country because he 
wanted to be able to do something better, to have a better life. I find 
nothing wrong with that. I thought that, again, was what the Statue of 
Liberty was all about. My family has done well. Other families have 
done well. People not only do well in this country, they do well in 
other countries. Often people who do well in other countries want to 
come to the United States either for their own professional purposes or 
because they feel they can use the money which they have earned in 
other countries to better affect this country. That is one reason why 
people are investing. Is it wrong for foreigners to buy in the stock 
market? No. They are. It is one of the reasons they are doing so well; 
we are a good deal.
  What I am saying is, positively the Senator was wrong in his previous 
question about California, that the commissioner of corporations was 
totally unaware of this program. What I am saying is that allowing 
people to pool money to put West Virginians, or Kansans, or others to 
work is a principle which is no less evil than allowing 17 people from 
Boston or 13 people from Magnolia, AR, to pool funds and put people to 
work in those two States.
  Citizens of the world want to come to this country. That is why we 
are so much populated by people who came from other countries, 
including my own family, and including the Senator's, at some point. 
That is what is great about this country. If in that process we create 
jobs for people who in the 34 years that I have been in West Virginia 
have never held a job before and it brings with it health benefits, 
then don't expect me to stand in its way.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We are all indebted to your great-great-grandfather who 
immigrated to this country. We are indebted to him for coming because 
he wanted to be free; he wanted to live and die here; he wanted to 
raise his family here.
  These people do not even come to the United States. They live in Hong 
Kong and they send their money.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have on the Bumpers amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 13 minutes 27 
seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 22 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have listened to the debate on this issue. It has been 
an important and illuminating debate. We are really talking, as I 
understand it--and I am going to ask the Senator from West Virginia a 
question about this--we are talking about approximately 1,000, maybe 
1,500 visas or green cards a year. We issue about 900,000 green cards 
annually, and with the investor visa, we are talking about a very small 
program by comparison. There is a principle involved and I have heard 
the Senator from Arkansas. But it actually is a very, very modest 
program. It was developed at a time when we had higher unemployment 
than we do at the present time. It was a recognition that in many of 
these areas of unemployment we were trying to devise as many different 
kinds of ways to bring jobs into those areas as possible.
  But I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he would not agree with 
me that the immigration policy is a policy which is basically to 
benefit the United States? That is overarching and a generalization, I 
know. But our overall immigration policy includes a number of different 
features.
  We have the reunification of families. That has a very high priority.
  We have provisions in our immigration laws for 140,000 skilled 
workers. Most of our major hockey league players are players from other 
countries. They come over here, play hockey, get citizenship, and make 
a lot of money. We have artists who come in here and appear on our 
stages and they make a lot of money. They have money when they come in 
here, and they make a lot of money, but we feel they add to the theater 
or to sports, so we let them in. We have artists who come over here

[[Page S4986]]

who are wealthy and have particular talents and settle here, get green 
cards and become citizens. But we believe they add to the country, too, 
so we let them in.
  We are, as I understand it, not a nation that just is taking in the 
dispossessed, although we have an important tradition for that. As I 
look at immigration, the way that it actually works --a matter which we 
have been debating here--I believe we ought to give Americans the first 
crack at these jobs under the temporary worker program, which we can 
certainly do. But if we are talking about Andrew Lloyd Webber coming 
over here, he gets in here. He has not waited 2 years, 3 years to get 
in. He comes on in as fast as the Concorde can bring him. You can say, 
``Well, that is unfair. That is unfair. Why are we going to take Lloyd 
Webber? Why is he jumping over all these other people who want to come 
here?'' But we still believe he is exceptional and adds something to 
our nation.
  These are all balances, though the Senator may not agree with me. 
What we did in creating the investor visa was very modest. No one quite 
understood it, because we had never done it before. But it was an 
effort to try to get some jobs in underserved areas. We had seen that 
the idea of an investor visa had been utilized in other countries with 
a modest amount of success--not great success but a modest amount. But 
we said that in our law, immigrant investors must also create jobs 
because jobs are needed in West Virginia, needed in Roxbury, MA, needed 
in Lawrence, MA, and needed in southeastern Massachusetts.
  Maybe this hasn't worked as well as many of us would like, but 
nonetheless in some areas, in my own State in some areas, there has 
been some positive development. Sure, it is 10 jobs per investor. Sure, 
I would like them to be better jobs than some of the investors have 
created, but there have been jobs that wouldn't have been there or that 
would have disappeared without these investments.
  But I would just say to the Senator, with all respect to my colleague 
from Arkansas, we have just let in, thank God, one of the best baseball 
pitchers that we have on the Boston Red Sox. He did not wait like 
unskilled people do, coming from all over the world. He came right in, 
and he has been pitching. He started pitching 5 days after he was in 
this country and he has been just superb.

  I wanted to say to the Senator and ask him, does he not believe that 
we have an immigration policy that includes a variety of these 
features; the overwhelming aspect of it is the reunification of 
families? That is its heart and soul, as I believe it should be. We 
have debated what is a family--a nuclear family, whether it is just 
brothers and sisters, older brothers and sisters, younger brothers and 
sisters, small children. We have had that debate. There are important 
differences in this body on that issue. But it has been families.
  We have also cut back on low-skilled workers which we did not do 20 
years ago, and the reason why? Because we find that they are a 
depression factor on wages for American workers in entry-level jobs. 
Interesting. That was not a factor years and years ago. But it is now. 
It is now. That is why there has been some alteration and change.
  So I just wondered whether the Senator from West Virginia agrees with 
me that we have in our immigration policy a variety of different 
features. There are some features of it I disagree with and we have 
debated some in the last bill which came through this body, which I 
opposed for various other reasons, not important here today.
  In creating the investor visa, jobs were important. And that was the 
balance that was made--to permit the visa if it created jobs. It has 
been a very modest program and all of us hope that it can be 
strengthened.
  But I would ask my colleague whether he does not agree in the total 
lexicon of consideration of the immigration policy we shouldn't at 
least be able to consider the feature of national need.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to my friend from Massachusetts that I 
certainly do agree with the variety of the application he describes. 
And I would also say to my friend from Massachusetts the final words of 
the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, before sitting down were oh, 
no, these are all people who are living in Hong Kong, which is an odd 
statement to make. But I want my colleagues to pay very, very close 
attention when I say that the majority of the people involved in this 
program are coming to this country, are bringing their families to this 
country, want to settle in this country, want to educate their children 
in this country. They are not doing this from long distance like it is 
totally legal for them to do, for example, to invest in our stock 
market from long distance.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts has said, these are people who for 
the most part plan to come into this country, bring their families, are 
in this country. That is one of the ways that you can come to this 
country. You want your children to go to good schools. You want them to 
have a better life than they do from where they might come--just the 
wide open spaces, the wide open opportunities of America. So this is 
one of the vehicles.
  On the way, by the way, it helps create potentially tens of thousands 
of jobs in this country, and then 5,000 or 6,000 jobs in my State of 
West Virginia from people who are for the most part deciding to come to 
live in this country and to make their money available to put my people 
to work. I would not argue against that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator be willing to answer this question. He 
said most of these people are coming into this country. What is the 
Senator's source for that information?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for that, you have to come in 
in order to qualify for it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not know where the bill says that. Could the 
Senator quote that for me in the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is self-evident in the application of the green card. 
You cannot get the green card unless you come here. That is the 
provision. It is self-evident because that is what the Senator is 
complaining about--they are coming over here and getting the green 
card.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is right. They get the green card at the end of 2 
years.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But they don't have to be here for that first 2 years to 
get it. And there is nothing in the law that requires them to be here.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The statute says primary residence.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Primary residence in Hong Kong or the Senator is saying 
the United States is the primary residence?
  Mr. KENNEDY. In the United States, or they lose their immigration 
status. It says the U.S. must be the primary residence in the 
legislation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator from Arkansas would yield for this 
statement. The statement we got is from the official documents, in 
fact, sent from West Virginia by InterBank in which they declare that 
the majority of their people are coming here to live, to bring their 
families and to raise their families.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Arkansas have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 11 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do the opponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 14 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, some of this information is really 
strange to me. It is things I never heard before. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service is the one who said, first, that we must have 
been smoking something when we passed this law, and, second, that we 
shot ourselves in the foot. And now they say that this program cannot 
be monitored.
  The law does require the INS, incidentally, to study the background 
of these people. You think about that. And the INS says that is utterly 
impossible. This can be drug money. Any guy who has run drugs in 
Colombia or wherever can come to this country, put up $100,000, and 
pretend that he is creating jobs and get himself a green card in 2 
years.
  Hold a hearing in the Judiciary Committee and ask the INS how well 
they are monitoring this program? They

[[Page S4987]]

will tell you they don't even come close to having the personnel to 
monitor this program, or the background of the people who are coming 
in, the background of those who are putting the money up. Of course 
they can't. They can't stop the hoards crossing the border from Mexico 
into the United States. They can't stop the hoards coming into our 
airports. How do you expect them to do background checks to determine 
whether or not this money that they do put up, which is about 20 
percent or 10 percent of the required amount, how do you expect them to 
be able to determine whether that is drug money or not? Whether the guy 
is an escaped convict or not? Whether he is simply coming to educate 
his children and comes here long enough to set the thing up and goes 
back to Korea or Hong Kong or Taiwan or wherever. Most all of these 
people are coming from the Pacific rim.
  When I say that, I say that advisedly. They are not coming at all. 
They are coming to visit and then they are going home. They are buying 
what is advertised by AIS, the biggest limited partnership who deals in 
these things; they are buying American citizenship and they are buying 
an alternate residence.
  Mr. President, let me say one other thing in response to the 
statement of the Senator from Massachusetts. Pedro Martinez gets a 
permit to come here for a certain number of days and then he has to go 
back to the Dominican Republic? Other players, such as Livan Hernandez, 
of Cuba, came here because he was a baseball pitcher and because he was 
willing to get in a boat and risk his life, I suppose. Was he one of 
those? Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts, was Livan Hernandez 
one of the boat people that they rescued?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. He was one of those. Although we have many others.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would almost be willing to grant him carte blanche, if 
he wants to come here bad enough to get into a little old boat and come 
from Cuba, that is fine. Give that guy a chance to become an American 
citizen. That is the way our ancestors came. They took risks to get 
here. They would do anything in the world--to fight and scratch and 
claw to get here. And people still do.
  So what are we doing? We are not rewarding them. We are taking up 
some of the immigration slots in this country with this scam, one of 
the biggest scams ever perpetrated by the U.S. Congress deliberately.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, it will be evenly 
divided between the two sides.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just 1 more minute. On the issue of the 
presence of the applicant, the law itself says:

       Continuing residence: The alien must establish that he has 
     continuously resided in the United States since the date the 
     alien was granted the temporary resident status.

  So, according to the law, it says must ``continuously reside in the 
United States.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may respond to that, that is exactly 
what the INS says. They cannot monitor this program. They don't have 
the people to monitor it. They don't know whether they are staying or 
not.
  But if you talk to these people running these limited partnerships 
and consulting firms who are the people really making money out of 
this--you have to pay them $50,000 up front to pull this scam off. And 
INS will tell you that they cannot monitor the very question, the very 
point that the Senator from Massachusetts makes. They are not complying 
with any of these laws. INS will tell you some of them are and some of 
them aren't, but they cannot monitor it. The law is bad and the 
enforcement is impossible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in 
the New York Times on April 12, 1998, and an article in the Washington 
Post, dated December 29, 1997, setting out virtually everything I just 
pointed out in my remarks, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, April 13, 1998]

         Abuses Are Cited in Trade of Money for U.S. Residence

                           (By Eric Schmitt)

       Washington, April 12.--A Federal program that grants 
     wealthy foreign investors permanent residency in the United 
     States is being manipulated, the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service says, with investors' money being 
     pooled so that most of them obtain residency visas without 
     making the required investment.
       The program, established by Congress in 1990, envisioned 
     wealthy foreigners investing directly in American businesses. 
     But in recent years, a cottage industry of consultants has 
     sprung up to pool money in creative ways from the foreigners, 
     who under the program must invest at least $500,000 in an 
     American business that creates or saves jobs. In return, the 
     foreigners receive a permanent residency visa, or green card, 
     the coveted document that is the first step toward American 
     citizenship.
       A six-month Government review concluded last month that 
     many of the consulting firms that link the immigrants to 
     business opportunities in the United States had improperly 
     exploited loopholes to guarantee rates of return and limit 
     investor risk. Under some consultants' plans, for example, 
     foreigners would only have to pay about one-third of the 
     required $500,000 investment, with a promissory note for the 
     rest that could eventually be forgiven by the consulting firm 
     or the American business.
       ``These plans do not meet either the spirit or the letter 
     of the law established by Congress,'' said Russell Bergeron, 
     a spokesman for the immigration service.
       But when immigration officials moved this year to revoke 
     more than 5,000 visas granted under the program, mostly to 
     immigrants from Taiwan, China, South Korea and Hong Kong, a 
     number of influential lawmakers from both parties, including 
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, 
     protested that the Government was changing the rules in 
     midstream.
       The immigration service, the lawmakers said, knew all along 
     what the investors were doing and never raised an eyebrow 
     when the Government approved the visa petitions. The 
     lawmakers criticized a freeze the agency has imposed on most 
     new visas until it sorts out what kinds of investments are 
     allowed. They contend that the freeze has stymied growth in 
     economically depressed parts of the country that the program 
     was intended to help invigorate.
       ``For months, American jobs, created by the investor visa 
     program, have been ensnared in bureaucratic red tape,'' said 
     Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who heads the 
     House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. ``Job 
     opportunities have been stifled by a heavy-handed Government 
     agency.''
       In response to the criticism, the immigration service 
     backtracked a bit late last month, allowing 1,500 investors 
     and their families, who had received conditional green cards 
     and completed a two-year waiting period, to stay in the 
     United States.
       But hundreds of other applicants in the pipeline will have 
     to refile their visa petitions under new guidelines being 
     developed. Critics say the immigration service did not 
     publicize this decision, leaving immigrants and their lawyers 
     in limbo.
       ``The immigration service is wreaking havoc on everyone's 
     lives, and it makes zero sense to me,'' said Denyse Sabagh, a 
     former president of the American Immigration Lawyers 
     Association, who now represents one of the consulting firms.
       The issue has rekindled a fierce debate over the propriety 
     of using permanent residency visas to attract foreign capital 
     and create, or at least save, American jobs.
       The uproar also underscores deficiencies in the immigration 
     service. Its loosely worded regulations are an easy target 
     for consulting firms looking for loopholes. And its 
     examiners, who are trained to ferret out most routine 
     immigration fraud, are ill-equipped to address increasingly 
     complicated financial plans.
       ``The I.N.S., unlike the I.R.S., isn't typically an agency 
     that has to police against highly sophisticated investment 
     devices,'' said David A. Martin, the former general counsel 
     of the immigration service whose blistering 36-page 
     memorandum last December became the centerpiece of the 
     Government's review of the program.
       For the immigration service, the visa program is the latest 
     in a string of contentious issues to catch the attention of 
     the Republican-led Congress, which over the past year has 
     criticized the agency for wrongly naturalizing tens of 
     thousands of immigrants and which has even suggested 
     abolishing the service.
       The immigrant investor program, which offers 10,000 visas a 
     year, has never caught on the way its proponents had hoped. 
     Until two years ago, the immigration service never issued 
     more than 600 visas a year to investors and members of their 
     immediate families.
       Congress created the program to compete with other 
     countries, including Canada and Australia, that offered 
     similar visas to attract foreign capital and create jobs. But 
     the American model required larger investments, the hiring of 
     at least 10 employees who were not related to the investor, 
     and an audit two years after the visa was issued to insure 
     the investment and employees were still in place.
       In the past two years, immigration officials say consulting 
     firms have devised savvier business plans for immigrants to 
     use and stepped up their marketing, particularly in Asian 
     and Middle Eastern publications. The number of visas 
     issued to investors

[[Page S4988]]

     jumped to 1,110 in fiscal year 1997 from 295 visas in 
     fiscal year 1996.
       At the same time, American consular officials in Tokyo, 
     Taipei, Guangzhou, Seoul and Hong Kong raised questions about 
     dozens of visa petitions. Consuls found that many plans 
     called for a down payment, typically $150,000 on a $500,000 
     investment, and arranged a promissory note for the rest. 
     After two years, the investor would get a green card and 
     then, the plans suggested, the remaining $350,000 would be 
     forgiven.
       Last month, the California Department of Corporations 
     ordered a Virginia-based firm, Interbank Immigration 
     Services, to stop offering investment programs to wealthy 
     immigrants.
       The company, California officials said, promised qualified 
     immigrants a green card within eight weeks if they bought a 
     stake in a Delaware limited partnership. The stakes were in 
     turn sold to a Bahamian enterprise for an annuity that 
     matured in five years. But state officials said investors had 
     no guarantee that they would realize the promised benefits.
       Reports like this prompted the immigration service to 
     conduct its review. ``Little by little, the program may have 
     gotten out of control,'' said a State Department official 
     familiar with the visa program.
       But many consulting firms say that they have followed the 
     rules and that they are being penalized for the abuses of a 
     few or by lax oversight by immigration officials.
       One such firm, American Export Partners of Charleston, 
     S.C., has pooled more than $8 million in cash and promissory 
     notes from investors, mostly from Asia, and, with the 
     Government's blessing, created a commercial financing company 
     to make loans to American exporters. Thirty-eight of the 
     firm's investors have received green cards, said Timothy D. 
     Scranton, a managing director.
       One loan was a $750,000 line of credit to Pillow Perfect, a 
     bedding manufacturer in Woodstock, Ga. ``They're providing 
     financing for my company to grow and hire more people,'' said 
     Paul Ratner, president of Pillow Perfect, whose work force 
     has increased to 50 employees from 20 employees in the past 
     two years.
       Mr. Ratner said that he had consulted several local banks 
     but that American Export was ``more competitive and easier to 
     deal with.''
       Other middlemen are changing their marketing practices to 
     address the Government's complaints. One of the largest 
     consulting firms, AIS of Greenbelt, Md., said it sent a 
     revised business plan to the immigration service in February.
       ``Things are continuing to evolve,'' said William P. Cook, 
     a lawyer for AIS who was the immigration service's general 
     counsel when the visa program was created.
       The immigration service insists that it still supports the 
     program--but with several changes--and plans to ask the 
     Commerce Department and Small Business Administration for 
     technical help in reviewing future immigrant-investor 
     financial packages.
       But immigration lawyers and their clients say the program 
     will stay stuck in neutral until the immigration service 
     drafts a clear set of rules for the industry and immigrants 
     to follow. ``What we need now is for the I.N.S. not to issue 
     more general counsel memos, but regulations,'' Mr. Cook said.

             [From the Washington Post, December 29, 1997]

 U.S. Issuing More Visas to Investors; Critics Say 1990 Statute Opens 
               Path to Citizenship for Wealthy Foreigners

                         (By William Branigin)

       For those with a desire to emigrate and cash to spare, the 
     recent ad in the Times of Oman offered an enticing 
     proposition: ``U.S. Green Card for anyone who can show U.S. 
     $500,000.''
       Green cards for sale? Those coveted credit card-size 
     documents, which confer legal U.S. resident status and 
     constitute the first step toward citizenship, on the block 
     for cold cash in a Persian Gulf sultanate?
       What appeared on the face of it to be a dubious offer in 
     fact was based on a little-known--but quite legal--U.S. 
     government program to encourage immigration by wealthy 
     foreign investors. The investor visa program, passed by 
     Congress in 1990 as a way to compete for foreign capital and 
     create U.S. jobs, reserves up to 10,000 green cards a year 
     for investors and their immediate families.
       To qualify, the principals must each create at least 10 
     full-time U.S. jobs by investing $1 million--or $500,000 if 
     the jobs are in certain high-unemployment areas--in the 
     establishment of a new business, or the rescue or expansion 
     of an existing one. The workers must not be relatives of the 
     investors, but they do not necessarily have to be U.S. 
     citizens.
       So far, the program has not really taken off. In recent 
     years, issuances have numbered only in the hundreds. In 1996, 
     the latest fiscal year for which figures are available, 936 
     people received them, including spouses and children. More 
     than 80 percent of the visas went to Asians, mostly from 
     Taiwan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong.
       In part because of promotions like the one by a private 
     consulting firm in Oman, however, the investor visa program 
     gradually is becoming better known around the world. Its 
     boosters expect the 1997 numbers to show a sharp increase, 
     perhaps double the 1996 total. And with Hong Kong now under 
     Beijing's control and Asian economies in turmoil, the 
     promoters hope to attract even greater numbers of wealthy 
     Asians.
       The program has spurred an industry of consultants and 
     facilitators who link investors with business opportunities 
     in the United States, handle the visa applications and even 
     arrange financing for the required investment money. The 
     industry leader is a Greenbelt-based firm called AIS Inc. 
     (originally American Immigration Services) that specializes 
     in pooling investors together to bankroll larger projects. It 
     says it has obtained visa approvals for more than 1,000 
     investors who have committed more than $500 million to U.S. 
     businesses since 1991.
       The firm boasts a high-profile management team led by Diego 
     C. Asencio, a retired senior U.S. diplomat, as president. 
     Gene McNary, a former commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, is one of the company's top lawyers. 
     Its board of directors includes former ambassadors Stephen W. 
     Bosworth and Jack F. Matlock Jr., former assistant 
     secretaries of state William Clark and Richard W. Murphy, 
     retired Democratic congressman John Bryant of Texas and 
     Prescott S. Bush, the brother of former president George Bush 
     and chairman of the private USA-China Chamber of Commerce.
       Among the projects to which AIS has channeled investments 
     are restaurants, hotels, apparel and equipment manufacturing 
     companies and a chain of retirement homes. The investors 
     include businessmen, bankers, doctors and other 
     professionals.
       The visa program's advocates argue that it brings in 
     immigrants with needed capital, saves troubled companies and 
     creates or preserves jobs. By contrast, they point out, 
     growing numbers of immigrants who enter the United States 
     under the current system, which stresses family ties, are 
     poor, unskilled and uneducated, and thus often a burden to 
     society.
       But critics of the scheme say there is something unsettling 
     about marketing immigrant visas like a commodity. Although 
     the green cards are ``conditional'' for two years under the 
     program, pending verification that the investment has been 
     made and the jobs created, the transaction is viewed by some 
     as only one step removed from selling U.S. citizenship.
       ``If it's one step, it's a mile wide,'' said McNary, who 
     disputes that view. The program lately has met with some 
     recalcitrance within the INS and the State Department, just 
     as it did in 1990 when congressional opponents charged it 
     would allow well-off foreigners to ``buy green cards,'' he 
     said. But that notion is misguided, McNary insisted, because 
     the participants ``are investing in our economy and serving 
     the national interest. These are good people who blend into 
     American culture.''
       In its literature, AIS describes the investor visa program 
     as offering ``the best of both worlds'': the security and 
     convenience of ``alternate residency'' in the United States, 
     with no real requirement to live here full time. An AIS 
     brochure touts the program as less restrictive and expensive 
     than similar plans in other countries such as Canada, which 
     requires investor immigrants to stay there at least 183 days 
     of the year. The U.S. program also sets no requirements on 
     age, prior business training or experience, education level 
     or language skill, the brochure points out.
       ``The only requirement for the investor,'' it says, ``is 
     that he have the required net worth and initial capital,'' 
     which must come from a ``lawful source'' but may include 
     gifts, inheritances and bank loans.

  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
put in a quorum call and the time be equally charged to the proponents 
and opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I seek the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have not spoken yet on this amendment 
by the Senator from Arkansas, but I think the points that have been 
made in opposition are ones that our colleagues should observe closely. 
I think if they do, they would argue in favor of a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  I would just say this, though, to the Senator from Arkansas. There 
obviously have been some concerns raised by the program. He has raised 
some of those concerns today, and they have been the subject of various 
articles. But we have not in the Immigration Subcommittee up until this 
point yet conducted any hearing or examination to determine the degree 
to which these concerns are appropriately warranted.
  It is my understanding, though, that the Immigration and 
Naturalization

[[Page S4989]]

Service is currently making some significant internal changes to the 
program that many believe have been previously undermining the goal of 
the program. I want to look at what the INS is proposing. Based on what 
I have heard so far, I have some concerns about the approach they are 
taking, but I want to get a better feel from that before I believe we 
should move forward with a specific fix--whether it is the fix proposed 
here, of eliminating the program, or some modified approach.
  This amendment, if accepted, would simply eliminate the use of these 
visas. I do believe there are a number of circumstances where we need 
to learn more before we would go forward. So, therefore, I don't think 
we should at this point simply hack off an important part of the 
immigration system without further deliberation and examination. I 
think the intention of the Immigrant Investor Program is a good 
intention. We have heard from the Senator from West Virginia of some of 
the benefits that have already taken place. The goal is of attracting 
and creating more jobs for Americans and so on. If refinements need to 
be made, I think we need to examine the program a little more 
extensively than we have done. I think we need to go beyond the reports 
in the media. And I think we need to see exactly what the INS' final 
proposal would be.
  I say to my colleague from Arkansas, certainly we intend to exercise 
such oversight in our subcommittee, regardless of what the outcome is 
here today. But I think it would make sense for us to have that 
oversight before we simply move to eliminate this program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time. Let me ask, before I 
do, what the status is with regard to time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls 10 minutes 
35 seconds. The Senator from Arkansas has 5 minutes 22 seconds.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say to the distinguished 
floor manager, Senator Harkin had a 5-minute statement. We are 
scheduled to vote at 5:45. I am not sure what other amendments are to 
be voted on besides mine. I assume after that, final passage?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The intent of the majority leader would be to have the 
votes on the amendments to begin at 5:45. I believe we already have an 
order entered into to that effect. And then final passage to follow on 
votes on the amendments for which votes were requested. I assume a vote 
will be requested on the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has two amendments.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Have the votes been ordered on the amendments of the 
Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No, but we will.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. And we also need to dispose of the managers' amendment 
prior to the beginning of the voting. We are hoping to begin the 
voting--the order calls for it to begin in 15 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to both floor managers, I was 
prepared to yield back my time, but Senator Harkin came over and waited 
quite awhile. He had a statement he wanted to make for 5 minutes on 
something completely unrelated. I reserve my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I had planned to put my two amendments in and make 
comments for about 4 minutes or so on both of those amendments. I 
expect Senator Abraham to do about the same, and then we will be almost 
at the time for the vote. I have about 4 or 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is this as good a time as any to ask for the yeas and 
nays on my amendment? I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 2417 and 2418

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2417 and 2418.

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


                           amendment no. 2417

  (Purpose: To ensure that employers recruit qualified United States 
   workers first, before applying for foreign workers under the H-1B 
                                program)

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

     SEC.   . RECRUITMENT OF UNITED STATES WORKERS PRIOR TO 
                   SEEKING TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS UNDER THE 
                   ``H-1B VISA'' PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E)(i) The employer, prior to filing the application, has 
     taken timely, significant, and effective steps to recruit and 
     retain sufficient United States workers in the specialty 
     occupation in which the nonimmigrant whose services are being 
     sought will be employed. Such steps include good faith 
     recruitment in the United States, using procedures that meet 
     industry-wide standards, offering compensation that is at 
     least as great as that required to be offered to 
     nonimmigrants under subparagraph (A), and offering employment 
     to any qualified United States worker who applies.
       ``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to aliens 
     seeking admission or status as nonimmigrants described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who are--
       ``(I) aliens with extraordinary ability, aliens who are 
     outstanding professors and researchers, or certain 
     multinational executives and managers described in section 
     203(b)(1), or
       ``(II) aliens coming as researchers or faculty at an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 
     1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 20 U.S.C. 
     1141(a)) (or a related or affiliated non-profit entity of 
     such institution) or a non-profit or Federal research 
     institute or agency.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2418

(Purpose: to ensure that participating employers cannot lay off United 
 States workers and replace them with temporary foreign workers under 
                         the H-1B visa program)

       Beginning on page 30, strike line 12 and for all that 
     follows through line 21 on page 32.
       On page 41, after line 16, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION AGAINST DISPLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES 
                   WORKERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) The employer has not replaced any United States 
     worker with a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i) (b) or (c)--
       ``(i) within the 6-month period prior to the filing of the 
     application,
       ``(ii) during the 90-day period following the filing of the 
     application, and
       ``(iii) during the 90-day period immediately preceding and 
     following the filing of any visa petition supported by the 
     application.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 212(n) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `replace' means the employment of the 
     nonimmigrant, including by contract, employee leasing, 
     temporary help agreement, or other similar basis, at the 
     specific place of employment and in the specific employment 
     opportunity from which a United States worker with 
     substantially equivalent qualifications and experience in the 
     specific employment opportunity has been laid off.
       ``(B) The term `laid off', with respect to an individual, 
     means the individual's loss of employment other than a 
     discharge for inadequate performance, violation of workplace 
     rules, cause, voluntary departure, voluntary retirement, or 
     the expiration of grant, contract, or other agreement. The 
     term `laid off' does not include any situation in which the 
     individual involved is offered, as an alternative to such 
     loss of employment, a similar employment opportunity with the 
     same employer at equivalent or higher compensation and 
     benefits as the position from which the employee was 
     discharged, regardless of whether or not the employee accepts 
     the offer.
       ``(C) The term `United States worker' means--
       ``(i) a citizen or national of the United States,
       ``(ii) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence, or
       ``(iii) an alien authorized to be employed by this Act or 
     by the Attorney General, if the individual is employed, 
     including employment by contract, employee leasing, temporary 
     help agreement, or other similar basis.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has sufficient time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are at the time where, in just a few 
minutes, we will be making a decision

[[Page S4990]]

about expanding a provision of the immigration law that provides for 
temporary workers. This is a provision now that has been, by and large, 
used for workers 85 percent of whom make $75,000 or less.
  There is a small group of highly skilled, highly talented individuals 
who do a great deal better than that. They are really not an issue in 
this particular amendment, as far as I am concerned, because they only 
take a very small number of the green cards that will be issued.
  There is a substantive question about how much of a problem there is. 
Under the Abraham amendment, we will temporarily be opening up this 
quota in a very significant way. Tens of thousands of new immigrants 
will be coming to the United States. In our particular proposal, that 
was not so.
  Let me read two letters that indicate what the challenge is. One is 
from Sally Barnett. She is from Plano, TX:

       I just heard via the radio that several companies, 
     including Texas Instruments, Microsoft, etc., wish to bring 
     in immigrants to do high-tech engineering. I live in Dallas 
     and have for 3 years. I graduated with a degree in 
     mathematics and went back to school in the late 1980s and 
     received my degree in computer programming. I have two 
     positions in the field . . . I have applied all over Dallas 
     but never get an interview. I have my resume on the Internet. 
     I had a 4.0 average in my classes in the late 1980s . . . I 
     do not even demand a high salary but I can't even get an 
     interview for a job.

  This is a computer technician who is unable to get a job. I had 
scores of letters that I read from earlier in this debate.
  Jim Sizemore from Cupertino, CA, has a long letter:

       Do not increase the immigration quota for high-tech 
     workers. This will force employers to act responsibly to get 
     more from their high-tech talent . . . to invest in domestic 
     training, to internally develop talent, and to take action to 
     retain the talent they have. Don't let employers off the hook 
     from taking such actions.
       Importing more foreign labor is a cheap and easy answer for 
     companies who don't want to do what's right. Importing 
     foreign labor is wrong for current workers . . . .

  Wrong for American workers.
  That gets to the heart of my two amendments. There are three 
different issues here. One is training, to make sure down the road that 
we provide adequate training so that American workers will have the 
skills to get all of these jobs and hopefully be able to do that in the 
next 3 or 4 years. We are working out that particular provision.
  But the two amendments that I offer say something else. They say that 
we will not permit Americans who have those jobs today to be laid off 
from those jobs and to substitute for those Americans foreign workers. 
That is permitted today, and that is wrong. That is wrong, because we 
know what has happened. Foreign workers come on in, and they are forced 
to work longer and harder and are in the position where they refuse to 
complain because they know if they do complain, they are going to have 
their green card pulled and will be sent back to their country of 
origin. We have the record; that happens, and that is wrong. That 
amendment no. 1.
  The second amendment says, before you go out and hire a foreign 
worker, you at least have to make a reasonable effort to try to hire an 
American worker. We do it by just saying any employer has to follow the 
industry standards for recruitment in that industry, and simply 
indicate on the application form that that is what they have done.
  Basically, we are saying, what is wrong with American workers? 
Clearly, they can be trained to take these jobs. We believe they should 
be able to do so.
  Secondly, we believe that there are tens of thousands of workers 
across this country who ought to be able to maintain their jobs and not 
be replaced by foreigners in this country. We also believe that 
Americans ought to be given a chance for these jobs in the United 
States before they go overseas.
  Those are effectively the two amendments before us. We believe in 
American workers. We believe they can be trained. We believe they ought 
to be given the first opportunity for hiring. And we believe that they 
ought to be able to hold those jobs and not be displaced if they have 
the needed skills. Mr. President, I hope that we will have a vote in 
favor of my amendments.
  I yield back what time I have, and I ask that it be in order to ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to requesting the yeas and 
nays? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I will respond to the 
amendments that have finally been offered, as well as to speak about 
the bill in general.
  With respect to these amendments, let me say this: Our whole intent 
in addressing this legislation from the beginning was to provide three 
things:
  A short-term solution to meet the current, very significant shortage 
in high-tech workers which our high-tech industry is confronting, a 
shortage which, if not met, will severely hurt the American economy 
and, in my judgment, dramatically reduce our economic growth.
  The second goal of the legislation is to address the long-term needs 
we will have for high-tech workers, skilled workers, information 
technology workers. We attempt to do that in this legislation. We do 
believe that American workers, American kids, have the skills and 
talent it takes. The goal is to have the right job training and 
educational opportunities so that people can develop these skills, and 
we are in the process, through this legislation, of setting in motion 
both a scholarship component as well as a job training component to 
assist in what is obviously a much broader, macro effort that must be 
undertaken to effectively, in a long-term sense, meet the challenges of 
the job market of the 21st century.
  At the same time, we felt it was important in this legislation to 
protect American workers so that these programs cannot be abused. Let 
me begin by saying I think these amendments are a solution in search of 
a problem. For those Members watching and listening right now, in the 
entire history of this program there have only been eight willful 
violations of hundreds of thousands of cases--only eight willful 
violations in this program, and each has been punished.
  Our legislation says even though that is a tremendous track record 
and a great expression of the fact that this is a program not being 
abused, we want to go further. We have dramatically toughened the 
penalties in such a way that if anybody willfully violates the 
provisions of using H-1B employees and H-1B visa holders and lays off 
someone--Mr. President, that has only happened one time in the entire 
history of the program--if it happens, if somebody is displaced for an 
H-1B employee, then the company involved will be debarred and prevented 
from even using the H-1B program for 2 years. In addition, they would 
pay a $25,000 penalty fine per violation.

  In short, we have addressed each of the things that have been raised 
by Senator Kennedy. In my judgment, we have addressed them in an 
effective way, considering the fact that in the history of the program 
there have been, in fact, so very few violations.
  I also say this. The solution proposed by the Senator from 
Massachusetts would give the Department of Labor a dramatically 
increased role in the supervision of the high-tech community and other 
businesses and entities using skilled workers. I do not personally 
believe either of these amendments could be implemented without the 
Department of Labor creating massive new bureaucratic regulations and 
micromanaging these companies.
  Indeed, I do not believe these companies would go forward and hire 
anyone on an H-1B program without getting some type of prior clearance 
from the Department of Labor.
  We have an attestation process in place, a recruitment process in 
place for permanent workers. It takes 2 years before the various hoops 
and regulations can be met. I am not saying that is wrong, but I am 
saying it is unworkable in the context of temporary workers. We have 
dramatic needs today for these workers.
  We have heard, as I said in my opening statement, about the year 2000 
problem. We cannot wait 2 years to bring in additional workers to cure 
the

[[Page S4991]]

year 2000 problem because we will already be in the year 2000. In a 
similar sense, we simply cannot take the existing program and undermine 
it with these complicated bureaucratic Department of Labor regulations.
  I have heard from the various companies and entities that are seeking 
an increase in the cap on H-1B visas. They have said an increase in the 
cap would be meaningless and totally nullified if these kinds of labor 
provisions are included. They go too far. They would undermine the 
whole program. And indeed, if they were to be enacted or passed in the 
form of these amendments, I would be inclined to encourage the majority 
leader to pull the bill down because I think it would create ultimately 
a greater problem than we already have today. We have a serious problem 
already.
  So, for those reasons, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to 
support my motion which I intend to make to table those amendments, and 
I urge them to pass the legislation. It is vitally needed. It is 
important to our economy. It is important to our ability to meet the 
year 2000 challenges, and it is important for us to bring the academics 
here to train American students so that we will produce these 
additional workers. That is why it has such broad-based support, 
bipartisan support in the Senate, academic support throughout the 
academic community, business support throughout the business community, 
support among heritage groups, and others.
  Mr. President, this is not a situation where we are dealing in a zero 
sum game. People coming in under the H-1B program are not taking jobs 
away from Americans. In virtually every case, they are contributing to 
a business, a company, an organization that is growing; and they are 
creating more opportunities. That is the evidence we had before us in 
the committee. I think it is what will happen in the 5-year period for 
which we are seeking this increase, and that will give us time to solve 
the problem in the long term.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters I have received 
from various business groups in opposition to the Kennedy amendments to 
S. 1723 be entered in the Record:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1998.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     Senate Dirksen Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the 14,000 members of 
     the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), including 
     approximately 10,500 small manufacturers we want to thank you 
     for your continuing efforts to temporarily expand the number 
     of highly skilled, foreign-born professionals allowed into 
     the United States on a short-term basis. As you know, the cap 
     on H1-B visas was reached over a week ago--nearly five months 
     before the end of the fiscal year. If your bill, S. 1723, is 
     not enacted soon, the ability of U.S. companies to compete in 
     the global marketplace will suffer. With unemployment at a 
     record low, and thousands of vacancies in the high-technology 
     sector alone, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of 
     temporarily raising the number of H1-B visas available.
       While there is no question that raising the cap is a 
     necessary short-term step so that U.S. companies can fill 
     vital vacancies, we do not believe that the cap should be 
     raised at all costs. Specifically, we strenuously oppose the 
     Kennedy-Feinstein attestation amendments that would impose 
     new mandates on all employers and fundamentally and 
     permanently change the HI-B program. Instead, we believe that 
     your bill, which would impose new and substantial penalties 
     on those who break the law without burdening law-abiding 
     employers, is the correct approach. If the Kennedy-Feinstein 
     attestation amendments are adopted in their current form, all 
     positive benefits from raising the cap would be negated and 
     we would regretfully have to oppose final passage.
       We have repeatedly urged your colleagues to vote for S. 
     1723 without amendment, even identifying it as a Key 
     Manufacturing Vote in the NAM's Voting Record for the 105th 
     Congress. As always, we are prepared to assist you in 
     whatever manner possible to raise the H1-B cap in a way that 
     will protect American workers while allowing U.S. companies 
     to stay strong and keep their competitive edge.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul R. Huard,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                                           1615 H Street, N.W.

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1998.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, the world's largest business federation, 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector and region, I wish to 
     make clear our opposition to the amendments we understand 
     will be offered by Senator Kennedy to the American 
     Competitiveness Act of 1998 which will add complex 
     ``attestation'' procedures to the H-1B visa application 
     process.
       These amendments would seriously undermine the H-1B 
     program. Their broad and ill-defined requirements would, as a 
     matter of reality, empower the Department of Labor to second 
     guess every hiring decision by an employer and to evaluate 
     the nature of every job in an employer's workforce. The 
     program would grind to a halt. Unfortunately, the employer 
     community's experience with the Department under the 
     permanent visa program has demonstrated that these fears are 
     well-founded.
       If these amendments are adopted, the Chamber would be 
     forced to withdraw its support for the legislation.
                                                        Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                             American Business for


                                             Legal Immigration

                                                     May 18, 1998.
       Dear Senator: We write to express our continuing support 
     for S. 1723, the American Competitiveness Act, and to oppose 
     amendments scheduled to be offered by Senator Ted Kennedy on 
     the floor of the Senate.
       The Kennedy amendments on ``recruitment'' and ``non-
     displacement'' needlessly impose regulatory burdens on vital 
     and competitive sectors of our economy. The attestation 
     provisions contained in these amendments would gut a program 
     that has helped our economy grow since 1990. The Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, explicitly 
     rejected this anti-business approach and instead embraced a 
     tough enforcement regime directed at the abusers, and not the 
     legitimate, law-abiding U.S. companies and universities that 
     employ H-1B workers.
       If you support the businesses and institutions that benefit 
     from and utilize this program, you should not impose anti-
     business provisions that have no place or role in this 
     legislation. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the 
     Kennedy amendments to S. 1723.
           Sincerely,
         American Council on International Personnel; American 
           Electronic Association; American Immigration Lawyers 
           Association; Business Software Alliance; Computing 
           Technology Industry Association; Electronic Industries 
           Alliance; Information Technology Association of 
           America; National Association of Manufacturers; 
           National Technical Services Association; Semiconductor 
           Equipment and Materials International (SEMI); 
           Semiconductor Industry Association; Software Publishers 
           Association; The Technology Network; U.S. Chamber of 
           Commerce.
                                  ____



                                                          ITAA

                                                     May 18, 1998.
     Senator Spencer Abraham,
     Chairman Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, 
         Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Abraham: Thank you for your continued 
     leadership on the need to bring highly skilled temporary 
     foreign workers to the United States. We are very pleased the 
     Senate is moving toward final action on this bill.
       As you know, time is running out. the H-1B cap has been 
     reached. The United States Senate needs to act now and pass 
     S. 1723, the ``American Competitiveness Act of 1998.''
       We want to express our very strong opposition to amendments 
     that will make the H-1B program useless by adding unnecessary 
     regulatory burdens. Providing more H-1B visas, as your bill 
     does, while at the same time adding unworkable provisions 
     relating to recruiting and layoffs, could harm critical 
     projects, such as solving the Year 2000 challenge. As has 
     been documented repeatedly, the IT workforce shortage is one 
     of the reasons companies are not moving quickly enough to 
     solve Year 2000 problems. One senior executive at a major 
     company told me last week he is 350 IT workers short for Year 
     2000 projects.
       We urge you and your colleagues to reject these negative 
     amendments. Your bill, with a strong emphasis on enforcement 
     and sanctions against violators of the H-1B program, has the 
     appropriate tools for dealing with alleged H-1B violations.
       We also hope your colleagues will note that delay on the H-
     1B cap increase While the H-1B program is not the only 
     solution to the IT worker shortage, as I explained during 
     your Subcommittee hearing, it is an important element of 
     dealing with the shortage in the short-term.
       It would be ironic of the Senate, just a short time after 
     establishing a Special Committee to deal with Year 2000, did 
     not take action to pass the H-1B, a direct element for 
     addressing the Year 2000 challenge.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Harris N. Miller,
                                                        President.

[[Page S4992]]

     
                                  ____
                       National Immigration Forum

 Pro-Immigrant Organizations Call on Political Leaders to Refrain from 
       Bashing Legal Immigrants in Coming Debate Over H-1B Visas

       This week the full Senate and the House Judiciary Committee 
     will take up proposed legislation to address the shortage of 
     highly skilled workers in part by increasing the availability 
     of H-1B visas. This is a category of temporary legal 
     immigration in which high tech and other companies can 
     sponsor talented foreign-born employees. Many of these 
     skilled workers are top graduates of America's finest 
     universities.
       As the discussion unfolds in the coming days and weeks, and 
     differences are debated, we call on our leaders to 
     underscore, rather than undermine, America's great tradition 
     as a nation of immigrants. For most of our history, the 
     American people have extended a generous welcome to those 
     willing to work hard and contribute their skills and talents 
     to this society. It would be unfortunate if leaders in the 
     heat of political battle did damage to this nation's spirit 
     of tolerance and respect for diversity.
       Furthermore, we urge our nation's political leaders to 
     refrain from stereotyping and stigmatizing immigrants as 
     harmful to the nation. Foreign-born professionals who enter 
     the United States on H-1B visas come from a variety of ethnic 
     backgrounds and as such are easy targets for those looking to 
     ``blame foreigners.'' In recent weeks, for example, extreme 
     anti-immigrant groups have used the occasion of the H-1B 
     debate to aggressively pit immigrants against the native-
     born. Their attacks come dangerously close to legitimizing a 
     climate of hostility directed at immigrants and refugees 
     generally.
       Individuals who come here on H-1B visas are not a threat to 
     U.S. workers. Much like legal immigrants sponsored by 
     families or those admitted as refugees, they make important 
     contributions to our society and our economy. They fill 
     important positions at high tech companies, universities, and 
     in a variety of other fields. Rather than harming native-born 
     Americans, these immigrants, many of whom become permanent 
     immigrants to our country, strengthen America. We ask all of 
     our leaders to bear this in mind as we proceed with this 
     important debate.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield 
the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the time in 
opposition to the Kennedy amendments?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. I yield back the remainder of my time on the 
amendments as well, except I believe you still have Senator Bumpers' 
amendment.
  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided between each of the stacked votes 
which I am about to propose; and I further ask unanimous consent the 
order of the votes be as follows: a vote on or in relation to the 
Kennedy amendment No. 2418, followed by a vote on or in relation to 
Kennedy amendment No. 2417, followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Bumpers amendment 2416.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. 2416?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. No. 2416.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the first vote will 
be on the Kennedy amendment No. 2418, followed by a vote on the Kennedy 
amendment No. 2417. Is there objection--Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2419

              (Purpose: To set forth manager amendments.)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Kennedy, and Senator McCain in the form of a 
managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2419.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, 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 25, line 9, insert ``and for any other fiscal year 
     for which this subsection does not specify a higher 
     ceiling,'' after ``1997''.
       Beginning on page 27, strike line 6 and all that follows 
     through page 29, line 10, and insert the following: ``is 
     amended in section 415A(b) (20 U.S.C. 1070c(b)), by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Mathematics, computer science, and dngineering 
     scholarships.--It shall be a permissible use of the funds 
     made available to a State under this section for the State to 
     establish a scholarship program for eligible students who 
     demonstrate financial need and who seek to enter a program of 
     study leading to a degree in mathematics, computer science, 
     or engineering.''.
       On page 32, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (d) Prohibition of Use of H-1B Visas by Employers Assisting 
     in India's Nuclear Weapons Program.--Section 214(c) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as 
     paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) The Attorney General shall not approve a petition 
     under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for any employer that has 
     knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the employer is 
     providing material assistance for the development of nuclear 
     weapons in India or any other country.''.
       On page 32, line 22, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       On page 33, line 1, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Beginning on page 36, line 25, strike ``the National'' and 
     all that follows through ``methods'' on line 3 of page 37 and 
     insert ``a study involving the participation of individuals 
     representing a variety of points of view, including 
     representatives from academia, government, business, and 
     other appropriate organizations,''.
       On page 34, line 15, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 35, line 20, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       On page 41, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 10. JOB TRAINING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), in establishing 
     demonstration programs under section 452(c) of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1732(c)), as in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, or a successor Federal 
     law, the Secretary of Labor shall establish demonstration 
     programs to provide technical skills training for workers, 
     including incumbent workers.
       (b) Grants.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of 
     Labor shall award grants to carry out the programs to--
       (1) private industry councils established under section 102 
     of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1512), as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or successor 
     entities established under a successor Federal law; or
       (2) regional consortia of councils or entities described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     programs under subsection (a), including awarding grants to 
     carry out such programs under subsection (b), only with funds 
     made available to carry out such programs under subsection 
     (a) and not with funds made available under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act or a successor Federal law.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me indicate the managers' amendment 
contains several components, one of which pertains to the issue of job 
training. We have worked very closely with Senator Lieberman, as I said 
earlier, with Senator DeWine, with a variety of other Members with 
respect to this issue. This amendment modifies the job training and 
scholarships sections authorized by S. 1723 as reported out of 
committee.
  In the job training end, the end product is the result, as I said, of 
work with Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, Lieberman, Robb, DeWine, and the 
chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords. And without giving 
all the details, it would allow the Secretary of Labor to provide 
demonstration projects through part D of title IV of the JTPA Program 
for private industry councils or their successors or regional 
consortia, private industry councils or their successors.
  It would also allow the Secretary to support innovative technical 
skills training programs provided at the local level to help prepare 
workers with the skills necessary for the 21st century. In that sense, 
it conforms with the workforce development legislation we passed just 
last week. With respect to scholarships, I think we have already 
expressed during the discussion of Senator Reed's amendment the actions 
we are taking there.
  In addition, the managers' amendment, at the request of Senator Kyl 
and the National Science Foundation, also makes some changes in the way 
the panel study in workforce issues is to be organized. It contains 
various technical fixes to address a pay-go issue raised by the 
transfer of authority to process labor condition applications from the 
Department of Labor to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It 
handles other technical corrections as well.
  Finally, it adds a prohibition. The Attorney General may not approve 
a petition for an H-1B petition if he or she concludes that the 
petitioning employer is assisting in the development of India's nuclear 
energy program or any other nation engaged in the development of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Obviously, a number of us in the Senate are concerned about the 
recent nuclear tests that have been conducted

[[Page S4993]]

and the concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
and so we have given the Attorney General the power to intervene if she 
were to conclude that someone attempting to use an H-1B visa would be 
somehow connected to a program of that sort.
  I also indicate I will be working with all interested Senators--and a 
number of them have talked to us--about this to make sure these 
provisions are as effective as possible in preventing these visas from 
being used by anyone to assist in the development of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, first, for his overall 
leadership in introducing the underlying bill, which I am pleased to be 
a cosponsor of, and, secondly, for being very thoughtful and 
accommodating in including the language he has described in this 
managers' amendment which would authorize demonstration projects for 
technical skills training for workers, including incumbent workers 
through local and regional consortia of private sector groups.
  Mr. President, this accomplishes two breakthroughs, I think. What it 
is aimed at, first, is to focus not only on folks who are out of work, 
but people who are in work but need training to hold their jobs and to 
upgrade themselves. The second is to stimulate companies to work 
together to train workers in a given area in which there is a regional 
or local shortage. I thank Senator Abraham and the other cosponsors of 
this amendment and the bill for the work they have done.

  Mr. President, I am one of many Senators who have cosponsored this 
bill, but I wish to recognize the singular achievements of my 
colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham, for introducing the bill and for 
advancing it so thoughtfully, so energetically, and so cooperatively.
  In one sense we are called upon to pass legislation to respond to a 
crisis, as so often seems the case. Just last week the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service announced that the 65,000 person cap on H-1B 
visas for fiscal year 1998 had been reached. Unless we act, for the 
remaining five months of the fiscal year, American employers will be 
unable to hire the temporary foreign workers who help fill gaps in our 
very tight labor market for skilled professionals. With each successive 
year, the backlog would only grow. Skilled foreign professionals, many 
of them graduates of our finest universities, would be driven to jobs 
with our international economic competitors.
  But this crisis is different from other crises, for it reflects the 
good news that we are in the midst of a period of unprecedented 
economic growth. The national unemployment rate last month was only 
4.3%. Even more remarkable, the unemployment rate for college graduates 
was only 1.7%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not keep statistics 
for the information technology sector, but most experts estimate that 
the unemployment rate there has sunk to well below 1%. Various studies 
are reporting hundreds of thousands of unfilled positions in the high 
tech sector. Last month representatives of major American corporations 
like IBM could be found on the beaches of Florida, recruiting college 
seniors on their Spring Break.
  In short, Americans looking for work are finding jobs like never 
before. But in certain sectors of the economy, and in certain parts of 
the country, there are not enough Americans able to fill all of the 
available jobs. The H-1B program allows employers to hire skilled 
foreign workers for six-year periods, provided that the employers pay 
them the same wages that other workers receive, and that the foreign 
workers are not employed in connection with a strike or a lock-out. All 
sorts of employers benefit from the H-1B program, from corporations to 
universities to non-profits, but at the moment it is the rapidly 
growing hi-tech companies that are most in need of additional skilled 
workers.
  But it is not just those companies that benefit from the H-1B 
program: in some senses, all Americans do. That is because the growth 
of the high tech sector has been a crucial element of our recent 
economic resurgence. It is vitally important that we keep the jobs 
associated with this vibrant industry here in the United States and 
that we keep this industry growing with the innovative ideas of the 
brightest people we can find. Unfortunately, at the present time our 
educational system is not producing enough graduates in the relevant 
fields of math, science, computers and engineering to keep up with 
demand. The long term solution to this problem is obviously to 
encourage more education and job training of American citizens in high-
tech fields, and S. 1723 does speak to that need by providing $50 
million in matching funds for educational scholarships as well as $10 
million per year to train unemployed workers in new skills. But in the 
short term, we must act quickly to ensure that American information 
technology companies are not forced to slow their domestic operations 
or, worse, move their operations overseas in search of the skilled 
foreign workers who would come to the U.S. if given the chance, The 
skilled foreign workers employed under the H-1B program will keep their 
employers strong and growing so that they can hire even more American 
workers.
  Sentor Abraham made an important accommodation in Committee when he 
modified his bill so that the increase in H-1B visas would sunset after 
five years. During the first years of that period, the bill calls for a 
study by the National Academy of Sciences to examine the future 
training and education needs of American students to ensure that their 
skills are matched to the needs of the information technology sector. 
The study would also assess the need by the high-tech sector for 
foreign workers with specific skills, and would examine the effects of 
increasing globalization. By the time the increase in visas is set to 
expire, Congress will have had an excellent opportunity to re-examine 
the H-1B program in light of additional information and new economic 
conditions, and hopefully there will be many more skilled American 
workers to fill these jobs.
  A progressive new idea included in the bill is the authorization of 
demonstration projects for technical skills training for workers, 
including incumbent workers, by local and regional consortia of private 
sector groups. This is a very important addition to the bill, and I 
want to thank Senator Abraham for including it. Two ideas behind the 
demonstration projects' authorization language in this bill can be 
particularly important. First, training our workforce with the skills 
needed for today's industry must include the training of incumbent 
workers. Training is now a lifelong process and should not be withheld 
from people because they already have a job. The Workforce Investment 
Partnership Act addressed this issue by eliminating the income 
requirement for some of the Labor Department's adult training programs. 
We need to turn Labor Department programs into programs that industry 
wants to partner with, and a large part of that metamorphosis must 
include incumbent worker training.
  The second important element of these demonstration projects is 
stimulating companies to work together. We need to change the 
institutional mind set of American companies so that they will 
collaborate with each other on training skilled workers for their 
industry. Many small and medium-sized companies cannot afford to run 
training programs by themselves. Some of the larger corporations have 
substantially cut their training programs because skilled workers move 
quickly from one job to another in today's labor market. Yet, all these 
companies may be competing in a region for the same pool of skilled 
labor. It only makes sense for these employers to join together to 
train workers in these skills. It makes sense for the government to be 
the coalescing force in bringing these groups together to fill the 
regional community's needs. We hope that these demonstration projects 
will show industry how successful such regional skills alliances can 
be.
  I thank Senator Abraham and the other co-sponsors of the American 
Competitiveness Act for the time they have put into this bill, and I 
thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Feinstein for their very 
constructive efforts as well. All of us are interested in what is best 
for the American economy, and what is best for American

[[Page S4994]]

workers. I am supporting the American Competitiveness Act because I am 
convinced that the bill will strengthen economic opportunities for all 
Americans while we respond to the daunting but exciting challenges of 
this new high-tech age.
  Mr. President, I want to again compliment my colleague Senator 
Abraham for sponsoring S. 1723, the American Competitiveness Bill, 
which I joined as a cosponsor because I believe we need to address the 
issue of worker shortages in our high-tech industries. S. 1723 provides 
a short-term solution for the worker shortage by raising the cap for 
H1-B visas, thereby keeping the jobs here in the United States instead 
of forcing U.S. companies to move the jobs overseas. It also provides 
for the longer term solution of educating and training our workforce so 
that American workers can fill the jobs generated by this very fast 
growing segment of our economy.
  One provision in S. 1723, as adopted in the Manager's Amendment, 
specifically allows for demonstration programs to provide technical 
skills training for workers, including incumbent workers, by consortia 
of private industry councils. As the lead sponsor of this provision in 
the manager's Amendment I want in these remarks to particularly address 
the intent and meaning of the provision.
  These demonstration projects include two elements that I believe are 
essential to help us prepare our workforce with the skills they need 
for today's fast-paced economy and help update our training programs 
for the needs of the 21st Century. These are, first, including 
incumbent workers in training programs and, second, stimulating 
collaboration between companies to train a pool of skilled workers.
  Employees now need to update their skills continually to remain 
competitive. The realty is that we have a global economy and there is, 
more and more, a global workforce. If companies cannot find skilled 
workers in the United States, they will find them in another country. 
Realistically, we must include workers who have jobs now in training 
programs to upgrade and update their skills so they can qualify for the 
changing needs of industry, instead of waiting until they lose their 
job or become dislocated workers from a declining industry.
  The demonstration projects described in the Manager's Amendment to S. 
1723 would allow the Secretary of Labor to award grants to consortia, 
made up of a number of companies in the same region, educational 
institutions, labor organizations, state and local governments, and 
private industry councils established under section 102 of the Job 
Training Partnership Act, or successor entities. These consortia would 
develop training programs for technical skills needed by a number of 
companies in that region. Only with industry leading the skills 
training can we be sure that workers are being trained for jobs that 
actually exist. That is why the provision in this bill as amended by 
the Manager's Amendment creates an industry-driven training program.
  Why does this new provision indicate the federal government needs to 
be involved? Because industry does not normally cooperate in training 
workers. Small companies, and 90% of firms in the United States are 
small businesses, don't have the resources to invest in lengthy 
training. Larger companies used to provide training programs, but in 
the high-tech field, workers move quickly from one job to another 
chasing higher salaries. Many companies are reticent to invest in long-
term training for employees that may quickly move on. Cooperation 
within an industry provides a solution to this program. This program is 
intended to specifically allow participation by small and medium-sized 
companies. The new provision in the manager's Amendment to S. 1723 
would enable this approach.
  The government's role under this new provision would be to provide 
the catalyst to bring the companies together to cooperate on training. 
The federal funds that would be available under this new provision 
should be matched by funds from the consortium. The Secretary of Labor 
would have the discretion to undertake this implementation approach. Of 
course, available federal funds are meant only to start the process--
federal funding would end over time after which the consortia would 
continue the cooperative training programs alone.
  In the last few years, a small number of regional and industry-based 
training alliances in the United States have emerged, usually in 
partnership with state and local governments and technical colleges, 
that exemplify the type of program on which this provision in the 
Manager's Amendment is modeled. In Rhode Island, with help from the 
state's Human Resource Investment Council, plastics firms developed a 
skills alliance. The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, metal-
working firms in conjunction with the AFL-CIO, set up a teaching 
factory to train workers. Without some kind of support, such as created 
by the new provision in this bill, to create alliances, small- and 
medium-sized firms just don't have the time or resources to collaborate 
on training. In fact, almost all the existing regional skills alliances 
report that they would not have been able to get off the ground without 
an independent, staff entity to operate the alliance. Widespread and 
timely deployment of these kinds of partnerships is simply not likely 
to happen without the incentives established by a federal initiative, 
which would be created by this provision. This provision can help 
create successful models and templates that others can replicate across 
the nation.
  I am very appreciative that Senator Abraham has included the 
technical skills training provision in the manager's amendment to S. 
1723.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might have 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Senator from 
Michigan. I believe the time for this bill and this change in the 
quotas has come and he has had the courage and the intelligence to see 
it and to bring us a bill that will truly enhance our productivity and 
our capacity to man the kind of high-tech programs that this country so 
desperately needs to stay up front.
  Already in many parts of the country there are not the skilled 
workers necessary for many of these jobs. This bill won't take care of 
all of that, but it is a recognition that a small portion of it ought 
to take place as provided for in this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 2419. The amendment (No. 2419) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Abraham 
for the fine job he has done in guiding S. 1723 through the legislative 
process. The American Competitiveness Act is an important step forward 
in ensuring that America's high-technology companies have the skilled 
personnel they need to compete both domestically and globally.
  There is one area that I regret we were not able to work out: the 
issue of the exploitation of visas, including H-1B visas, by foreign 
countries for training individuals in fields essential for the 
development of weapons of mass destruction. I attempted to negotiate 
language with the gentleman from Michigan that would ensure that 
countries like India, which recently detonated five nuclear weapons, 
would not be able to send individuals to work in the United States in a 
capacity that would enable them to return home with sensitive knowledge 
on developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Unfortunately, 
those negotiations ended without a satisfactory resolution, and I 
remain very concerned about this very serious problem.
  When those of us who are original cosponsors of the American 
Competitiveness Act chose to support this bill, we did not envision the 
most glaring and ominous violation of international norms to occur: the 
testing of multiple nuclear weapons by the government of India. The 
repercussions of that series of tests are serious indeed; India's 
relations with Pakistan and China have long been confrontational, with 
four wars occurring between it and its neighbors since it attained 
independence from Britain. This ill-timed, ill-considered decision to 
conduct nuclear tests, emanating as it did from the most infantile and 
dangerous of motives--the desire to be respected as a nuclear power--
fully warranted the immediate implementation of sanctions against 
India.

[[Page S4995]]

  If there is a consensus about any aspect of U.S. national security 
policy since the end of the Cold War, it is the threat to international 
stability posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
especially nuclear weapons. By running on a platform of elevating its 
``bomb in the basement'' capability to one of overtly brandishing its 
capability to inflict widespread destruction, India's new government 
has undermined our ability to contain the arms race in one of the 
world's most inherently volatile regions. It is now imperative that the 
United States adopt every measure to ensure we do not inadvertently 
contribute to India's ability to further refine its nuclear weapons 
capabilities. For this reason, I had hoped to have an amendment adopted 
that would have addressed this concern.
  As a cosponsor of the American Competitiveness Act, I understand the 
requirements of U.S. industry for highly skilled workers. Raising the 
cap on H-1B visas will aid American companies in meeting that 
requirement. To the extent that India's military-industrial complex can 
benefit from sending technicians and scientists to the United States, 
however, the program can work against our own national security 
interests. My amendment would have helped to prevent that situation 
from coming about by prohibiting Indian nationals associated with its 
nuclear weapons program from attaining H-1B visas.
  I hope to work with the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on 
the future to help the Congress attain a better understanding of any 
possible correlation between foreign technicians, engineers and 
scientists working in the United States and the problem of 
proliferation. In the meantime, I reiterate my strong support of S. 
1723 and again thank the gentleman from Michigan for his hard and 
productive work on this legislation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support S. 1723, the American 
Competitiveness Act. Business, professional associations, and various 
governmental entities have presented convincing evidence of the need to 
raise the current 65,000 annual cap on H1-B workers. It is also true 
that there is significant conflicting evidence, which is why I believe 
the requirement in the bill for a non-biased report on high-technology 
labor needs is one of the most important provisions of the bill.
  Over the past two years I have heard from numerous employers from 
around the state of Arizona, including such major employers as Intel 
Corporation, Motorola, the TRW, who have provided evidence and 
anecdotes about why more H1-B workers are needed. For example, TRW 
tells about a foreign student it hired from an American university 
because the foreign student was the only individual who could produce a 
formula to redesign a component of the ``air-bag'' to make it safer and 
better designed. If TRW had not been allowed to hire the foreign 
student, it believes it would still be searching for an engineer to 
perform the job.
  This year and last, the 65,000 annual ceiling on H1-B workers has 
been reached. That means that for the next four months, until the end 
of the fiscal year, employers who cannot find American workers to 
perform certain specialty jobs, including computer programming, 
engineering, and other high-technology positions, will not have that 
work performed until the 1999 fiscal year begins, this October 1. For 
anyone who has ever run a business and experienced worker shortages, 
they know that not being allowed to hire necessary personnel can be 
devastating.
  I support an increase in the cap for this year. I also support a 
short term increase, for five years, in the number of aliens granted 
H1-B visas. With the increasing number of high-technology jobs, 
including positions related to the Year 2000 problem, and, until this 
year, a decreasing number of students studying in high-tech-oriented 
majors, employers will be challenged in the near term to find enough 
qualified workers.
  Having said this, however, I reiterate that there are conflicting 
issues surrounding the H1-B foreign worker debate that must be examined 
and addressed at the end of the five-year authorization. When the full 
Judiciary Committee considered S. 1723, the Judiciary Committee 
accepted my provision to limit the authorization to five years and 
require that various interests on both sides get together and issue a 
non-biased report within two years of enactment of the bill about labor 
market needs over the next ten years for high-technology workers. This 
study and report, to be overseen by the National Science Foundation, 
will include representatives with varying interests for academia, 
business, and government, and, among other issues, will assess the 
future training and education needs of American students to ensure that 
their skills match the needs of the IT industry over the next 10 years. 
It will also provide an analysis of progress made since 1998 by 
educators, employers, and government entities to improve the teaching 
and educational level of American students in the fields of math, 
science, computer and engineering.
  The report, and the requirement that the authorization be limited to 
five years, is clearly necessary. My office has been inundated with 
information from government agencies, the high-technology industry, and 
professional associations that represent particular high-tech 
industries. But the information has been inconsistent. For example, 
information we received from the Commerce Department indicates that the 
United States is currently experiencing a significant high-technology 
worker shortage and over the next 10 years, the U.S. will generate more 
than 100,000 information-technology jobs annually. An interest group 
study, conducted by Virginia Tech, found that there is a current 
vacancy rate of 346,000 high-technology positions in the United States. 
The Labor Department projects that our economy will produce more than 
130,000 information-technology jobs in each of the next ten years, for 
a total of more than 1.3 million positions. The Hudson Institute 
estimates that the unaddressed shortage of skilled workers throughout 
the U.S. will result in a five percent drop in the growth rate of GDP.
  On the other hand, information provided for the General Accounting 
Office about the Commerce Department's assessment of information-
technology shortages indicates that the Commerce report contained 
serious methodological weaknesses. The GAO, however, also found that 
its assessment should ``not necessarily lead to a conclusion that there 
is no shortage. Instead, as the Commerce report states, additional 
information and data are needed to more accurately characterize the IT 
labor market now and in the future.

  The GAO report also provided Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates on 
projected growth for high-technology jobs and found that, compared to 
the expected 13 percent growth in other jobs by the year 2005, IT 
occupations are expected to grow 60 percent over the same period.
  Increasing wages of IT workers and the unemployment rate of IT 
workers also signal shortages in the IT field. But in these areas, 
there is also conflicting information. For example, reports conducted 
by consulting and interest groups found that salaries for IT workers 
rose higher than for other specialty occupations in 1996 and 1997. But, 
according to the GAO, the percentage changes for the IT industry over 
the period between 1983 and 1997 were comparable to, or lower, than 
other speciality occupations. Such statistics may support the high-
technology sector's anecdotal evidence that demand, relative to other 
occupations in a period of relatively low unemployment, has grown 
substantially over the past couple of years.
  There are also anecdotal stories in leading newspapers about the 
difficulty American college graduates are experiencing trying to enter 
the high-technology job market. But, statistics about specific high-
tech professions paint a different picture. For example, the 
unemployment rate among electrical engineers nationally is below one 
percent. Anecdotal evidence points toward one assessment but statistics 
seem to point toward high demand for these U.S. workers.
  So, the required repot will serve as an important tool in the 
reauthorization of the H1-B program, but regardless of the outcome of 
the report, it is very important for the private sector and for 
government, all the way up to the Executive Branch, to encourage young 
people to be fully prepared, first, for job markets where there is an 
abundance of jobs and, second, for the very

[[Page S4996]]

jobs that will keep America strong and competitive on a global basis. 
To that end, I am supportive of the bill's provision to authorize $50 
million in scholarships for low-income students pursuing degrees in 
math, engineering, and science. It is my hope that the provision, 
coupled with related provisions in the Senate-passed job-training 
consolidation bill and the National Science Foundation reauthorization, 
will help young people go into high tech fields.
  There are other aspects of this legislation that I want to highlight. 
As foreign workers continue to be admitted into the American workforce, 
and as the five-year reauthorization progresses, I will work with the 
State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
scrutinize which workers really make up our population of H1-B workers. 
Let's make sure that the H1-B program only admits those workers who 
will perform a ``specialty occupation'' as defined by the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, including the following; the individual possesses 
unique knowledge or skills; the individual can localize a product based 
on native knowledge of language or culture of the foreign market; the 
individual will contribute to a company's global presence; or, an 
employer finds an inadequate number of highly qualified American 
workers to fill the job.
  In addition, it is important to understand the dynamics by which H1-B 
employees come to stay in the United States permanently, instead of 
returning home after the six years they are authorized to work in this 
country under the visa. While it is true that in 1990, immigration 
reforms made it possible for H1-B workers to, with ``dual intent,'' 
enter the United States on an H1-B visa and then remain in the United 
States permanently, I believe it is important to know how many 
immigrants are entering the United States on an H1-B visa and then 
staying here permanently.
  Finally, it is very important that the Labor Department respond to 
questions posed in March by Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Spencer 
Abraham about abuses in the H1-B program. It is important to understand 
why the number of complaints about the H1-B process are so few. I 
support the provisions of the bill that increase penalties to $25,000 
per violation and provide for a two-year debarment from the H1-B 
program for employers who willfully violate the law, but we need to 
know more about whether or not a substantial number of employers do or 
do not violate H1-B immigration law.
  Mr. President, I will support passage of S. 1723. Companies in the 
United States must not be impeded from hiring needed employees. I look 
forward to a comprehensive assessment of high-technology employer needs 
from the report included in the bill and to critically applying that 
assessment when we look at and reauthorize the H1-B program in five 
years.


                           amendment no. 2418

  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to table the amendment by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The question is on the motion to 
table amendment 2418 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy. The Yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Faircloth) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Faircloth
     Levin
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2418) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2417

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to table the second Kennedy 
amendment numbered 2417, and I also seek unanimous consent that the 
following rollcall votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators are advised that there are 2 
minutes of debate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there was a unanimous consent request that 
the next votes be reduced to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in my amendment we are basically saying 
let the best and the brightest come into the United States on the basis 
of their extraordinary contributions in our research facilities or 
universities or other places.
  But the fact of the matter is that most of jobs for which employers 
seek H-1B workers pay $75,000 or less, and 75 percent of them are 
$50,000 or less. Those are good jobs for Americans. We are saying: Make 
sure you are going to offer it to an American before you are going to 
apply to hire a foreign worker.
  We prescribe in our amendment that recruitment standard is whatever 
the industry does normally when recruiting workers. If employers follow 
that procedure, all they have to do is attest that they have followed 
those procedures and they are protected.
  These are good jobs. Americans are qualified for these jobs, and we 
ought to put American workers first. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  Mr. President, before we vote, I would like to thank Senator Abraham 
for his courtesies in this debate, and his staff, Lee Otis, Stuart 
Anderson and Cesar Conda. I would also like to thank my own staff, 
Michael Myers, my staff director, and Sandy Shipshock, who has worked 
diligently for many months on my staff as a Pearson Fellow from the 
State Department. I am deeply grateful for their help.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, our legislation puts America's workers 
first, and it severely punishes anybody who tries to do otherwise.
  But the provisions in the regulations that would be necessary to 
implement this amendment would give the Department of Labor dramatic 
intrusive powers to intervene in hiring decisions of high-tech 
companies involving temporary workers. In the permanent worker 
category, these kinds of provisions typically delay a hiring decision 
by as much as 2 years. We oppose that in the temporary category. It 
would have the effect, Mr. President, of setting back the entire 
temporary worker program when we need it most--as we are trying to 
address the year 2000 problem and other immediate emergencies before 
us. For that reason, I propose that we vote to table.

[[Page S4997]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a motion to table the 
amendment?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I did move to table earlier.
  I guess the Presiding Officer did not hear.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Michigan to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Faircloth), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Faircloth
     Levin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2417) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2416

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to the 
Bumpers amendment, No. 2416.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Could we have a little order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1989 this body adopted a provision 
that said anybody who will invest $500,000 or $1 million in this 
country and create or maintain 10 jobs can get a green card for 2 years 
and, 3 years later, have American citizenship. The program never took 
off, and since that time a cottage industry has grown up of people who 
were advertising in Taiwan and Oman and saying: ``$100,000 is all you 
need. You give us a $400,000 promissory note, you still get your green 
card.'' The INS says it is impossible to monitor. You don't know where 
these people are coming from; you don't know where their money is 
coming from.
  Mr. President, what we are doing allowing this to continue --and the 
INS says it is a disaster--is cheapening American citizenship. You want 
foreign investment? Give them tax breaks. Do not--do not--cheapen 
American citizenship. These are not the tired, these are not the poor, 
these are not the huddled masses. These are people from Hong Kong, 
Korea, the Pacific rim, who don't even come here; they send $100,000. 
They don't even want our citizenship, because they have to pay taxes.
  It is a terrible, shameful thing. It is downright vulgar. I plead 
with you, vote to strike that provision from the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this program is a very small program. It 
is a maximum of 1,000 visas a year. It means people who come to this 
country to create jobs will be given a chance to do so. We have not 
examined or studied some of the complaints that have been brought forth 
in both today's debate and in the news media in our subcommittee. Until 
we do, I urge the Senate not to eliminate this program. I believe it is 
creating jobs, not taking them away.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The distinguished Senator from Michigan said 1,000 
slots. It is 10,000 slots.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the motion to table 
amendment No. 2416 offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Faircloth) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--24

     Allard
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Faircloth
     Levin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2416) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Explanation of Absence

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, because of a flight cancellation and 
delays, I missed three votes this afternoon. If I were here, I would 
have voted against tabling all three amendments. While there are times 
when a temporary increase in High-Skilled Worker Visas is necessary, 
this bill doesn't adequately protect American workers, and I am 
therefore unable to support the bill on final passage.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered on final passage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S4998]]

  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato) 
and the Senator from North Carolinaa (Mr. Faircloth) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     D'Amato
     Faircloth
       
  The bill (S. 1723), as amended, was passed as follows:

                                S. 1723

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American 
     Competitiveness Act''.
       (b) References in Act.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or 
     repeal is expressed as an amendment to or a repeal of a 
     provision, the reference shall be deemed to be made to the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) American companies today are engaged in fierce 
     competition in global markets.
       (2) Companies across America are faced with severe high 
     skill labor shortages that threaten their competitiveness.
       (3) The National Software Alliance, a consortium of 
     concerned government, industry, and academic leaders that 
     includes the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force, has 
     concluded that ``The supply of computer science graduates is 
     far short of the number needed by industry.''. The Alliance 
     concludes that the current severe understaffing could lead to 
     inflation and lower productivity.
       (4) The Department of Labor projects that the United States 
     economy will produce more than 130,000 information technology 
     jobs in each of the next 10 years, for a total of more than 
     1,300,000.
       (5) Between 1986 and 1995, the number of bachelor's degrees 
     awarded in computer science declined by 42 percent. 
     Therefore, any short-term increases in enrollment may only 
     return the United States to the 1986 level of graduates and 
     take several years to produce these additional graduates.
       (6) A study conducted by Virginia Tech for the Information 
     Technology Association of America estimates that there are 
     more than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled 
     information technology workers in American companies.
       (7) The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed 
     shortage of skilled workers throughout the United States 
     economy will result in a 5-percent drop in the growth rate of 
     GDP. That translates into approximately $200,000,000,000 in 
     lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American.
       (8) It is necessary to deal with the current situation with 
     both short-term and long-term measures.
       (9) In fiscal year 1997, United States companies and 
     universities reached the cap of 65,000 on H-1B temporary 
     visas a month before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal 
     year 1998 the cap is expected to be reached as early as May 
     if Congress takes no action. And it will be hit earlier each 
     year until backlogs develop of such a magnitude as to prevent 
     United States companies and researchers from having any 
     timely access to skilled foreign-born professionals.
       (10) It is vital that more American young people be 
     encouraged and equipped to enter technical fields, such as 
     mathematics, engineering, and computer science.
       (11) If American companies cannot find home-grown talent, 
     and if they cannot bring talent to this country, a large 
     number are likely to move key operations overseas, sending 
     those and related American jobs with them.
       (12) Inaction in these areas will carry significant 
     consequences for the future of American competitiveness 
     around the world and will seriously undermine efforts to 
     create and keep jobs in the United States.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED ACCESS TO SKILLED PERSONNEL FOR UNITED 
                   STATES COMPANIES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Establishment of H1-C Nonimmigrant Category.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(i)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and other than services described in 
     clause (c)'' after ``subparagraph (O) or (P)''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``section 212(n)(1)'' the following: 
     ``, or (c) who is coming temporarily to the United States to 
     perform labor as a health care worker, other than a 
     physician, in a specialty occupation described in section 
     214(i)(1), who meets the requirements of the occupation 
     specified in section 214(i)(2), who qualifies for the 
     exemption from the grounds of inadmissibility described in 
     section 212(a)(5)(C), and with respect to whom the Attorney 
     General certifies that the intending employer has filed with 
     the Attorney General an application under section 
     212(n)(1).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 212(n)(1) is amended by inserting ``or (c)'' 
     after ``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' each place it appears.
       (B) Section 214(i) is amended by inserting ``or (c)'' after 
     ``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' each place it appears.
       (3) Transition rule.--Any petition filed prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act, for issuance of a visa under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act on behalf of an alien described in the 
     amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) shall, on and after that 
     date, be treated as a petition filed under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) of that Act, as added by paragraph (1).
       (b) Annual Ceilings for H1-B and H1-C Workers.--
       (1) Amendment of the INA.--Section 214(g)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1184(g)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g)(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas 
     or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal 
     year--
       ``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)--
       ``(i) for each of fiscal years 1992 through 1997, and for 
     any other fiscal year for which this subsection does not 
     specify a higher ceiling, may not exceed 65,000,
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 1998, may not exceed 95,000,
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 1999, may not exceed the number 
     determined for fiscal year 1998 under such section, minus 
     10,000, plus the number of unused visas under subparagraph 
     (B) for the fiscal year preceding the applicable fiscal year, 
     and
       ``(iv) for fiscal year 2000, and each applicable fiscal 
     year thereafter through fiscal year 2002, may not exceed the 
     number determined for fiscal year 1998 under such section, 
     minus 10,000, plus the number of unused visas under 
     subparagraph (B) for the fiscal year preceding the applicable 
     fiscal year, plus the number of unused visas under 
     subparagraph (C) for the fiscal year preceding the applicable 
     fiscal year;
       ``(B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), beginning with 
     fiscal year 1992, may not exceed 66,000; or
       ``(C) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), beginning with 
     fiscal year 1999, may not exceed 10,000.

     For purposes of determining the ceiling under subparagraph 
     (A) (iii) and (iv), not more than 20,000 of the unused visas 
     under subparagraph (B) may be taken into account for any 
     fiscal year.''.
       (2) Transition procedures.--Any visa issued or nonimmigrant 
     status otherwise accorded to any alien under clause (i)(b) or 
     (ii)(b) of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act pursuant to a petition filed during fiscal 
     year 1998 but approved on or after October 1, 1998, shall be 
     counted against the applicable ceiling in section 214(g)(1) 
     of that Act for fiscal year 1998 (as amended by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection), except that, in the case where counting 
     the visa or the other granting of status would cause the 
     applicable ceiling for fiscal year 1998 to be exceeded, the 
     visa or grant of status shall be counted against the 
     applicable ceiling for fiscal year 1999.

     SEC. 4. EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Degrees in Mathematics, Computer Science, and 
     Engineering.--Subpart 4 of part A of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c et seq.) is amended in 
     section 415A(b) (20 U.S.C. 1070c(b)), by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Mathematics, computer science, and engineering 
     scholarships.--It shall be a

[[Page S4999]]

     permissible use of the funds made available to a State under 
     this section for the State to establish a scholarship program 
     for eligible students who demonstrate financial need and who 
     seek to enter a program of study leading to a degree in 
     mathematics, computer science, or engineering.''.

     SEC. 5. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES AND IMPROVED 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Increased Penalties for Violations of H1-B or H1-C 
     Program.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``a failure to meet'' and all that follows 
     through ``an application--'' and inserting ``a willful 
     failure to meet a condition in paragraph (1) or a willful 
     misrepresentation of a material fact in an application--''; 
     and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,000''.
       (b) Spot Inspections During Probationary Period.--Section 
     212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) The Secretary of Labor may, on a case-by-case basis, 
     subject an employer to random inspections for a period of up 
     to five years beginning on the date that such employer is 
     found by the Secretary of Labor to have engaged in a willful 
     failure to meet a condition of subparagraph (A), or a 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an application.''.
       (c) Layoff Protection for United States Workers.--Section 
     212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by subsection 
     (b), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F)(i) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a 
     condition in paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of 
     a material fact in an application, in the course of which the 
     employer has replaced a United States worker with a 
     nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) (b) or (c) 
     within the 6-month period prior to, or within 90 days 
     following, the filing of the application--
       ``(I) the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of 
     such finding, and may, in addition, impose such other 
     administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties 
     in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to the employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 2 years for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph:
       ``(I) The term `replace' means the employment of the 
     nonimmigrant at the specific place of employment and in the 
     specific employment opportunity from which a United States 
     worker with substantially equivalent qualifications and 
     experience in the specific employment opportunity has been 
     laid off.
       ``(II) The term `laid off ', with respect to an individual, 
     means the individual's loss of employment other than a 
     discharge for inadequate performance, violation of workplace 
     rules, cause, voluntary departure, voluntary retirement, or 
     the expiration of a grant, contract, or other agreement. The 
     term `laid off' does not include any situation in which the 
     individual involved is offered, as an alternative to such 
     loss of employment, a similar employment opportunity with the 
     same employer at the equivalent or higher compensation and 
     benefits as the position from which the employee was 
     discharged, regardless of whether or not the employee accepts 
     the offer.
       ``(III) The term `United States worker' means--

       ``(aa) a citizen or national of the United States;
       ``(bb) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence; or
       ``(cc) an alien authorized to be employed by this Act or by 
     the Attorney General.''.

       (d) Prohibition of Use of H-1B Visas by Employers Assisting 
     in India's Nuclear Weapons Program.--Section 214(c) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as 
     paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) The Attorney General shall not approve a petition 
     under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for any employer that has 
     knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the employer is 
     providing material assistance for the development of nuclear 
     weapons in India or any other country.''.
       (e) Expedited Reviews and Decisions.--Section 214(c)(2)(C) 
     (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ``or section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' after ``section 101(a)(15)(L)''.
       (f) Determinations on Labor Condition Applications To Be 
     Made by Attorney General.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended by striking ``with respect 
     to whom'' and all that follows through ``with the Secretary'' 
     and inserting ``with respect to whom the Attorney General 
     determines that the intending employer has filed with the 
     Attorney General''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Secretary of 
     Labor'' and inserting ``Attorney General'';
       (ii) in the sixth and eighth sentences, by inserting ``of 
     Labor'' after ``Secretary'' each place it appears;
       (iii) in the ninth sentence, by striking ``Secretary of 
     Labor'' and inserting ``Attorney General'';
       (iv) by amending the tenth sentence to read as follows: 
     ``Unless the Attorney General finds that the application is 
     incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Attorney General 
     shall provide the certification described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and adjudicate the nonimmigrant visa 
     petition.''; and
       (v) by inserting in full measure margin after subparagraph 
     (D) the following new sentence: ``Such application shall be 
     filed with the employer's petition for a nonimmigrant visa 
     for the alien, and the Attorney General shall transmit a copy 
     of such application to the Secretary of Labor.''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by striking 
     ``Secretary'' and inserting ``Secretary of Labor''.
       (g) Prevailing Wage Considerations.--Section 101 (8 U.S.C. 
     1101) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i)(1) In computing the prevailing wage level for an 
     occupational classification in an area of employment for 
     purposes of section 212(n)(1)(A)(i)(II) and section 
     212(a)(5)(A) in the case of an employee of--
       ``(A) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or a 
     related or affiliated nonprofit entity, or
       ``(B) a nonprofit or Federal research institute or agency,

     the prevailing wage level shall only take into account 
     employees at such institutions, entities, and agencies in the 
     area of employment.
       ``(2) With respect to a professional athlete (as defined in 
     section 212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(II)) when the job opportunity is 
     covered by professional sports league rules or regulations, 
     the wage set forth in those rules or regulations shall be 
     considered as not adversely affecting the wages of United 
     States workers similarly employed and be considered the 
     prevailing wage.
       ``(3) To determine the prevailing wage, employers may use 
     either government or nongovernment published surveys, 
     including industry, region, or statewide wage surveys, to 
     determine the prevailing wage, which shall be considered 
     correct and valid if the survey was conducted in accordance 
     with generally accepted industry standards and the employer 
     has maintained a copy of the survey information.''.
       (h) Posting Requirement.--Section 212(n)(1)(C)(ii) (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) if there is no such bargaining representative, has 
     provided notice of filing in the occupational classification 
     through such methods as physical posting in a conspicuous 
     location, or electronic posting through an internal job bank, 
     or electronic notification available to employees in the 
     occupational classification.''.

     SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS ON H1-B VISAS.

       Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Using data from petitions for visas issued under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the Attorney General shall 
     annually submit the following reports to Congress:
       ``(A) Quarterly reports on the numbers of aliens who were 
     provided nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) during the previous quarter and who were 
     subject to the numerical ceiling for the fiscal year 
     established under section 214(g)(1).
       ``(B) Annual reports on the occupations and compensation of 
     aliens provided nonimmigrant status under such section during 
     the previous fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT ON HIGH-TECHNOLOGY LABOR MARKET 
                   NEEDS.

       (a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall oversee a 
     study involving the participation of individuals representing 
     a variety of points of view, including representatives from 
     academia, government, business, and other appropriate 
     organizations, to assess the labor market needs for workers 
     with high technology skills during the 10-year period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. The study 
     shall focus on the following issues:
       (1) The future training and education needs of the high-
     technology sector over that 10-year period, including 
     projected job growth for high-technology issues.
       (2) Future training and education needs of United States 
     students to ensure that their skills, at various levels, are 
     matched to the needs of the high technology and information 
     technology sector over that 10-year period.
       (3) An analysis of progress made by educators, employers, 
     and government entities to improve the teaching and 
     educational level of American students in the fields of math, 
     science, computer, and engineering since 1998.
       (4) An analysis of the number of United States workers 
     currently or projected to work overseas in professional, 
     technical, and managerial capacities.
       (5) The following additional issues:
       (A) The need by the high-technology sector for foreign 
     workers with specific skills.
       (B) The potential benefits gained by the universities, 
     employers, and economy of the United States from the entry of 
     skilled professionals in the fields of science and 
     engineering.
       (C) The extent to which globalization has increased since 
     1998.

[[Page S5000]]

       (D) The needs of the high-technology sector to localize 
     United States products and services for export purposes in 
     light of the increasing globalization of the United States 
     and world economy.
       (E) An examination of the amount and trend of high 
     technology work that is out-sourced from the United States to 
     foreign countries.
       (b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2000, the National 
     Science Foundation shall submit a report containing the 
     results of the study described in subsection (a) to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--Funds available to the National 
     Science Foundation shall be made available to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO 
                   EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
       ``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per 
     country limitation if additional visas available.--If the 
     total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter 
     exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise 
     be issued such visas, the visas made available under that 
     paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical 
     limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the 
     remainder of the calendar quarter.
       ``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to 
     subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent 
     area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of 
     visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number 
     of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the 
     state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection 
     (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in 
     applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have 
     been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 
     203(b).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
       (2) Section 202(e)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``the proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting 
     ``except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of 
     the visa numbers''.
       (c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
     Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, any alien who--
       (1) as of the date of enactment of this Act is a 
     nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) of that 
     Act;
       (2) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section 
     204(a) for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or 
     (3) of section 203(b); and
       (3) would be subject to the per country limitations 
     applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs but for this 
     subsection,

     may apply for and the Attorney General may grant an extension 
     of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's application for 
     adjustment of status has been processed and a decision made 
     thereon.

     SEC. 9. ACADEMIC HONORARIA.

       Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Any alien admitted under section 101(a)(15)(B) may 
     accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental 
     expenses for a usual academic activity or activities, as 
     defined by the Attorney General in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education, if such payment is offered by an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 
     1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965) or other 
     nonprofit entity and is made for services conducted for the 
     benefit of that institution or entity.''.

     SEC. 10. 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--
       ``(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)''.

     SEC. 11. 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.''.

     SEC. 12. PASSPORTS ISSUED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 16.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of title IX of the Act of June 
     15, 1917 (22 U.S.C. 213) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Before'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Before'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Passports Issued for Children Under 16.--
       ``(1) Signatures required.--In the case of a child under 
     the age of 16, the written application required as a 
     prerequisite to the issuance of a passport for such child 
     shall be signed by--
       ``(A) both parents of the child if the child lives with 
     both parents;
       ``(B) the parent of the child having primary custody of the 
     child if the child does not live with both parents; or
       ``(C) the surviving parent (or legal guardian) of the 
     child, if 1 or both parents are deceased.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirements of paragraph (1)(A) if the Secretary determines 
     that circumstances do not permit obtaining the signatures of 
     both parents.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to applications for passports filed on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 13. JOB TRAINING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), in establishing 
     demonstration programs under section 452(c) of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1732(c)), as in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, or a successor Federal 
     law, the Secretary of Labor shall establish demonstration 
     programs to provide technical skills training for workers, 
     including incumbent workers.
       (b) Grants.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of 
     Labor shall award grants to carry out the programs to--
       (1) private industry councils established under section 102 
     of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1512), as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or successor 
     entities established under a successor Federal law; or
       (2) regional consortia of councils or entities described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     programs under subsection (a), including awarding grants to 
     carry out such programs under subsection (b), only with funds 
     made available to carry out such programs under subsection 
     (a) and not with funds made available under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act or a successor Federal law.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I voted for S. 1723 because I am convinced 
that some high technology companies are facing critical labor 
shortages, which is in turn hampering growth in this important economic 
sector of Oregon's economy. It is critically important, however, that 
the final legislation contain additional protections for workers 
rights. Specifically, we should make certain that no qualified U.S. 
worker will be laid off simply to be replaced by a foreign worker. 
Further, we should ensure that employers who want to use this program 
have taken steps to find qualified American workers. I look forward to 
continued progress on this legislation as it proceeds to conference.
  Mr. LOTT. First of all, I want to congratulate the Senator from 
Michigan

[[Page S5001]]

for his efforts on this very important legislation. I also appreciate 
the cooperation of Senators on the other side of the aisle that worked 
through the day, including Senator Kennedy, so that we could get to a 
conclusion on this important legislation. I think it is good for the 
country. It is the fourth of the high-tech bills that we worked on last 
week. I thought the combination of those four bills were important and 
will make a difference in our high-tech community and having the 
workers and the opportunity for workers to be able to do these 
important jobs in the high-tech sector. I congratulate Senator Abraham 
for his work, and Senator McCain, who came up with the suggestion that 
we try to do several of these high-tech bills in a row.

                          ____________________