[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8571-H8602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 513 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H8572]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 513

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3736) to amend the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes relating to 
     H-1B nonimmigrants. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed 
     in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 
     6 of rule XXIII, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order or demand for division of the question, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend, the gentelwoman from 
Fairport, NY, star of MS-NBC (Ms. Slaughter) pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3736, the 
Workforce Improvement and Protection Act under a modified closed rule 
providing one hour of general debate divided equally between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The rule waives all points of order against consideration in the House.
  At the close of the debate on the rule, I will be offering an 
amendment to the rule to consider as adopted in lieu of the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill the 
amendment printed in the Congressional Record that is numbered 3. This 
amendment consists of the text of the compromise agreed to last night 
by the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) who has worked tirelessly on 
this issue, the Clinton administration, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith) chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration who has been a 
great friend and a very sincere champion of immigration reform.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order the amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record numbered 2 to be offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) which will be in order without 
the intervention of any point of order and will be debatable for one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, America's high tech explosion has been one of the truly 
inspiring stories of the last 2 decades. Brand names that were barely 
heard of 2 decades ago are now recognized not only here in the United 
States but all around the globe. Whole new private sector industries 
have expanded to the point where millions of American families enjoy 
their standard of living because of the jobs that they create.
  In my State of California, Mr. Speaker, cutting edge industries that 
develop technology and sell it in every major world market have 
transformed a depressed, defense-based economy to a vibrant technology- 
and export-based economy.
  The driving force behind these cutting edge industries and job-
creating technologies is simple. It is the energy, brain power and 
perseverance of skilled people. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental concept 
behind this bill is that skilled people create jobs, they do not take 
up jobs.
  California wins when talented, energetic people come to the State to 
build companies and create jobs. It does not matter whether those 
skilled people come from New York, Missouri or Montreal; California 
wins. This bill will help create more jobs in California and the rest 
of the country by insuring that more skilled workers can come here to 
help strong private sector businesses prosper.
  Mr. Speaker, the companies that take advantage of skilled workers 
that temporarily enter the country from abroad do more than just create 
more good jobs here. The technological advances that they pioneer are 
felt throughout the country as better and less expensive consumer 
products, reduced production costs, increased efficiency, better wages 
and a higher standard of living for all Americans. Everyone loses when 
the private sector is denied access to skilled people.
  Mr. Speaker, the compromise crafted through intense bipartisan 
negotiations over the past 2 weeks addresses the very legitimate 
concerns raised about the actions of a tiny minority of companies that 
abuse the H1B program, using it in a way that was never intended by the 
proponents of this valuable program. In addition to the current 
requirement that H1B workers be paid the same as American employees in 
similar positions, and I underscore that once again, Mr. Speaker, the 
requirement that H1B workers be paid the same as American employees in 
similar positions and previously agreed-to changes that would allow the 
Department of Labor to audit many companies which use H1B workers to 
ensure that they are recruiting American workers and not replacing them 
with foreign workers, today's compromise inserts additional 
requirements as well.
  Companies that hire a significant number of H1B workers will be 
subjected to unprecedented scrutiny by the Department of Labor to 
ensure that they are making efforts to recruit American workers and 
that H1Bs are not taking jobs from Americans. Mr. Speaker, a fee of 
$500 per application will also be charged companies that seek to use 
H1B workers, with the revenues being used to fund math and science 
scholarships, to retrain displaced workers and to permit the Department 
of Labor to police the program.
  Now it is an unfortunate reality, Mr. Speaker, but a reality all the 
same, that our education system is not producing enough skilled workers 
to meet the needs of many industries. Half of the students graduating 
from American universities with doctorates in science, math and 
computer programing are foreign-born students. It is a sad fact that 70 
percent of American high tech companies claim a shortage of skilled 
workers as the leading barrier to their growth. This is a long-term 
national problem, and nothing we do here reduces the importance of 
dramatically improving education and training. We have much work to do 
on that account.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to present the House 
an opportunity to enact bipartisan legislation that will benefit our 
economy and create jobs. The Workforce Improvement and Protection Act 
highlights the very best of the role immigration plays in our national 
economy, injecting the vibrancy of skilled and energetic people. Not 
only do the vast majority of immigrants work hard, support their 
families and pay taxes, but some turn out to be like one named Andy 
Grove. He came to this country and, using his brain and his heart, made 
the Intel Corporation what it is today, a world leader in technology 
that has created thousands of jobs for Americans and thousands of 
products for American families.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good compromise worked out among 
all the parties, including both the Senate, the House and the 
administration.
  I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not actively oppose this rule. The agreement that 
has

[[Page H8573]]

been crafted with the administration addresses some of the concerns my 
colleagues and I have with the underlying bill, but I do have concerns 
about how we arrived at this rule.
  The process we adopted seems to abolish as irrelevant the committee 
process in the House of Representatives. This rule throws out the 
crafted consensus bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by a 
23 to 4 vote; that is right, a 23 to 4 vote. The Committee on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims heard from a variety 
of witnesses at its April hearing, including representatives from 
affected businesses, academia, labor unions and the Labor Department. 
At its markup, the subcommittee reported the bill by voice vote.
  The full Committee on the Judiciary, working in bipartisan 
cooperation, fully considered the bill, adopting 11 amendments by voice 
vote. The committee report included a letter from the White House 
commending the committee-reported bill as a good basis for fine tuning 
final legislation that the administration could support. One might have 
thought that the legislative process had worked, producing a bill that 
addresses a problem and it could be enacted into law.
  But last July, when the Committee on Rules first considered this 
rule, the Committee on Rules majority decided that the work of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, reported by a 23 to 4 margin, could be 
discarded at its whim. The Committee on Rules majority appropriated to 
itself the right to substitute a wholly different bill, drafted in 
secret, without the benefit of hearings or the expertise of the 
authorizing committee.
  Unfortunately, this circumvention of the committee process is 
becoming a bad habit. Last month, we voted on a health care bill which 
no committee considered, and it had no chance of being enacted into 
law. Last week, we considered important bills to fight drug use that no 
committee had considered, marked up or reported.
  And why should the American public care? Is this just inside 
baseball, irrelevant to the final legislative product? No. Far too 
often, the Congress has hastily passed ill-considered legislation that 
had many unforeseen consequences.
  As I noted, the majority in the Committee on the Judiciary have 
reached an agreement with the White House that will allow this bill to 
be signed into law. The agreement was reached last night, although few 
of us and almost probably none of us have any idea what it is, and none 
of us have had the opportunity to examine it.
  The Committee on the Judiciary-reported bill should have been brought 
to the House floor in regular order under an open rule. Unfortunately, 
that is not the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I register my 
objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), a valued member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I rise 
in support of this compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very proud of, of course, I 
represent the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, and that is 
the Chicago region ranks fourth today in high tech. We often think of 
Silicon Valley and the Boston corridor and Seattle, but the Chicago 
region is home to over 3,000 information and high tech corporations 
that are growing and, of course, creating new jobs in the Chicago 
region.
  One lesson that we have all learned, though, as high tech jobs grow, 
as this new industry of the 21st century grows, that we have also 
learned that there is a shortage of skilled workers who have the 
computer skills to fill the jobs that are now made available. In fact, 
there are 340,000 jobs, it is estimated, that went unfilled this past 
year because of lack of computer skills in the workforce, and that is 
an issue that we have got to address long term as we work to give 
computer and Internet access to our schools throughout this Nation. 
But, short term, we need to solve this problem; and this compromise 
worked out between the administration and this House of Representatives 
and the Senate solves the problem; and that is why I stand in support 
of it.
  Think about it. Information technology is our future. It is estimated 
there is 130,000 information technology jobs created in the past year. 
Over the next 10 years, we expect to create 1.3 million new jobs, and 
it is important to my home State of Illinois.
  In 1995, information technology created 189,000 jobs for the people 
of Illinois, generating $8.5 billion in annual wages. The average 
industry wage is $45,000. The average private sector wage is only 
$30,000. These are good-paying jobs, and it is a great opportunity for 
young people to know that there is a future in high technology.
  We need to win this fight. If we do not find a way to fill these 
jobs, we are going to lose out. If we want to compete globally, we have 
to fill these jobs with qualified workers. This legislation, which 
provides H-1B visas, raises the caps, will help us fill those positions 
as we work to prepare more Americans to fill these jobs in the future.
  I am also proud this compromise between the White House and this 
Congress also increases protection for American workers. It is a good 
compromise. It is common sense. That is how this process should work. 
We protect workers giving the opportunity for our industry to grow and 
create new jobs, and I am proud that Chicago and the Chicago region, 
which ranks fourth in high technology, will be the winner when this 
legislation passes.
  Again, I ask for bipartisan support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I always find it very interesting, the names of the bills that come 
before us during this Congress. I would venture, if we did not have the 
kind of protections we have in speech on the floor of the House, that 
we would be able to sue our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
for false advertising.
  Workforce Improvement and Protection Act, a bill that allows some of 
the best jobs in the high tech industry to go to foreign workers who we 
bring into this country under a special H-1B provision, while those 
very same companies have spent the last year laying off hundreds of 
thousands of American workers. And I hope that when we get into the 
general debate I will have the opportunity to cite specific companies 
and the number of thousands of American workers in the high tech field 
that they have been laying off.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about a lack of workers. It is about a lack 
of workers that are the cheapest to be found. It is about a lack of 
indentured servants that we can bring in from other nations who cannot 
complain because there is virtually no enforcement by the Department of 
Labor.
  Now I understand under the bill that we are to take up today that we 
have increased some of the oversight by the Department of Labor, but 
the fact of the matter is that only the smallest percentage of 
companies using H-1B visas will be able to be scrutinized. Those will 
be the companies that are called H-1B dependents.
  When I first began to talk about the problem with H-1Bs and this 
visa, a lot of people across America were calling my office, Mr. 
Speaker, and indeed some Members thought H-1B was some experimental 
aircraft. The fact of the matter is that this was a program that was 
developed back in 1990. The colleges and the universities and the high 
tech industries were coming to Congress saying, we are not educating 
enough people with PhDs and the kind of degrees to take these high tech 
jobs.
  My question still is, if we are not educating them, those same 
educational institutions, those colleges and universities that are 
complaining to us, are at fault. They are the schools that are 
accepting the tuition money that is being earned and paid out by the 
hard-working people of this country, and then they are not educating 
those students to take the jobs of tomorrow.
  And to my friends on the minority side I will say at the same time 
that they are attempting to eliminate the Department of Education, 
eliminate the Department of Commerce, eliminate the Department of Labor 
who could monitor the needs of the work force and could help us train 
the workers for those skilled needs. Instead,

[[Page H8574]]

they are saying, let us raise the number up, let us raise the number of 
foreign workers that we are bringing in by 142,500, and that is what 
this rule does. That is what this bill does.

                              {time}  1500

  It says to the hard-working taxpayers across this country, ``Your 
kids are too stupid, your schools are too bad, and we are not going to 
do anything about it, except we are going to bring foreign workers in 
to take those good paying jobs. If you don't like it, we in Congress 
don't care.''
  Because you bring this bill up today, no one has read it, no one 
knows what the provisions of this bill are. The White House worked this 
out. They did not talk to those of us in the House, except to advise us 
what the deal was that they had made. No one consulted us, no one asked 
us what we thought, what we needed. We were not a part of putting this 
legislation together.
  I would say that the gentlewoman from the Committee on Rules, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who yielded time to me, is 
absolutely right. We come here today blindly, not knowing what it is we 
are voting for. What are the specific protections in there? I defy one 
Member on either side to tell us exactly what that language is, because 
we have not had a chance to scrutinize it.
  That is not the way the House of Representatives should work. Over 80 
percent of the people in a Harris poll across this country, when asked 
if they favored the program, when the H-1B program was explained to 
them, over four out of five workers across this country, voters across 
this country, said they do not want to see an increase in this program.
  We are defying that. We are flying in their face. This is not about 
building up a high-tech industry. This is about catering to high-tech 
industries, and a very formidable political voice, right before we have 
an election. If it is bipartisan, then both parties are guilty of doing 
it.
  This is about giving away American jobs over the next three years. 
147,500 additional foreign jobs are being given away. You can take my 
words and remember them, because two or three years from now, for those 
of you who vote for this rule, for those of you who vote for this bill, 
when your constituents by the tens of thousands tell you that they have 
been denied labor because the companies were waiting for H-1Bs, that 
their children have been denied, with those giant student loans, the 
ability to apply for those jobs because the companies want H-1Bs, go 
back and remember what it is we did today, and remember my words.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my very good friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the details of the changes that 
have been made and say, first of all, in the area of education, 10,000 
scholarships are going to be provided under this plan. There were very 
minor changes made in the compromise bill itself. Let me just go 
through those, if I may.
  First of all, the amendment I am going to be offering, which is the 
compromise, extends the H-1B program three years, not four years. 
Companies will pay a $500 fee, as I said in my opening statement, to 
fund education, training and oversight. The fee had been half that in 
the original measure. Violators of H-1B rules will be banned for three 
years from the program, anyone who is violating it.
  The compromise tightens up the small business exemption that is in 
the bill. The Department of Labor is authorized to do spot checks on 
companies which face any credible charges that have been leveled, and, 
along with the equivalent pay, which I mentioned again in my opening 
remarks, H-1B workers must get equivalent benefits.
  So those are the changes made in the compromise.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the specific language. That 
is my problem. I understand those things are in there. We have not had 
a chance to debate them.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is in the 
Congressional Record. I have a copy of it right here. I am more than 
happy to provide it to my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is very well guided 
in his strong support of the rule, but slightly misguided in his 
opposition to the compromise.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, 
but in strong opposition to H.R. 3736, a bill which would raise the 
annual number of high-tech jobs given to foreign workers.
  Currently the INS issues 65,000 H-1B visas per year to highly skilled 
noncitizen technical workers. H.R. 3736, in response to high-tech 
industry's claim that there is a crisis in the shortage of trained 
American workers, would increase the H-1B cap to 115,000 jobs in 1999 
and 2000, and 107,000 jobs the following year. That is over 200,000 
jobs going to foreign workers.
  Big business' claim that there is a worker shortage curiously comes 
at a time when our Nation's high-tech companies have laid off over 
200,000 American employees, this year. The question is whether those 
Americans think there is a worker shortage crisis. And that does not 
even include, I might add, the tens of thousands of aerospace workers 
who have been laid off and are in need of training before they can get 
a job in these high-tech companies.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be honest about H-1B and this issue. This is not 
about a shortage of qualified American workers; it is about pacifying a 
powerful big business interest who is trying to secure cheap foreign 
labor.
  Mr. Speaker, whom do we represent? Working people who get laid off 
after having given their service to their industry and to their country 
are the people we should be most concerned about.
  Instead of letting the market forces work and seeing the wages rise 
and the amount of money put into job training increase because there is 
a supply and demand issue here, instead of letting that market force 
work to the benefit of our own people, we are being asked to interfere 
with this market process so we can flood the market with people from 
overseas who are willing to work for less money. Whom do we care about? 
Whom do we represent if we are going to do this?
  There are hundreds of thousands of workers from developing countries, 
indeed, that are willing to work for less. But the fact that they are 
importing them will take pressure off people to train our own people or 
to increase the wages of our people so those people will get their own 
training. The effect of this bill is to bring down the market wage for 
our high-tech workers.
  It is called supply and demand. That is what we believe in. We 
Republicans especially are supposed to believe in that. It is not just 
supposed to work for the benefit of big companies; it is supposed to 
work for the benefit of all of our people. It will also reduce the 
incentives for companies to reeducate and retrain employees or 
unemployed Americans. It will provide an incentive for companies to lay 
off senior employees before they qualify for retirement or if they need 
health benefits, which people who get older need. Instead, it will 
bring on people who are from developing countries who are willing to 
work for a lot less and are a lot younger, and thus will not use the 
health care or the retirement benefits.
  To whom are we loyal? Whom do we care about? We are supposed to care 
about the American people. American business, if they expect loyalty 
from their employees, have got to be loyal to their employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3736, while supporting the rule, because 
H-1B was a rotten idea to begin with, and it is a rotten compromise.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to associate myself 
with the remarks of the previous speaker. This is a very important 
piece of legislation here, and one of the problems with the rule is 
that it cuts off debate and limits amendments that can be made on a 
very important job policy bill.
  This is all about jobs. To the American people, I say wake up. These 
are

[[Page H8575]]

the jobs of right now and the jobs of the future. This is a problem of 
growth and prosperity, and we welcome it. We are discussing the jobs of 
today and the jobs that will be mushrooming in numbers in the future. 
Lots and lots of them will be created. Information technology workers; 
they are the workers of the future.
  This is the wrong solution to the problem of shortages though. There 
are shortages. They are very real. But this solution sets the wrong 
precedent. If we go this way, we are going to find ourselves repeatedly 
increasing the quota and repeatedly raising the number of foreign 
workers who can come in from the outside and take jobs that should be 
here for American workers.
  This bill is a negative job bill for American workers. Right now 
there are 65,000 foreign workers who fill up these kinds of jobs, who 
are in the country right now. What this bill proposes to do is this 
year increase it by 25,000 or 30,000 so we could have 90,000 this year. 
Then it is going to keep increasing, and by the year 2001 you will have 
107,000 if they follow the formula that they have here.
  But the likelihood is that if you set the precedent, if you start 
now, they are not going to follow this formula. You are going to have 
an amendment to increase it more next year, and still another 
amendment. Instead of doing what has to be done to guarantee that our 
own workers are trained properly and educated properly, that our own 
education policies are changed, so that our schools will begin to 
generate large numbers of people who can become information technology 
workers we will continue to raise the foreign worker quota.
  65,000 now, then 90,000, then 107,000, that is only a small part of 
the problem. There are going to be many, many more jobs than that.
  These numbers tell only a small part of the story. The Information 
Technology Association has done a survey that shows that right now 
there are about 300,000 vacancies, 300,000 right now, in information 
technology workers. The Department of Labor estimates that in five 
years we will have 1.5 million vacancies. These are vacancies that they 
compute after they take into consideration the number of youngsters who 
are in college majoring in computer science, math and other kinds of 
programs that will allow them to fill up the jobs. Even after you get 
all of the graduates out of the schools and they take these jobs, you 
are still going to have at least 1.5 million vacancies in five years, 
if you do not do anything about it.
  What can we do about it? We must find ways to fill these jobs which 
are more substantial than what we are doing here. What we are doing 
here is opening the spigot so that massive numbers of foreign workers 
will keep coming in.
  By the way, they pay foreign workers less, so this is highly 
desirable for industry. The pattern is they generally pay them less.
  We need a program and set of policies that train American workers, 
starting with technology in our own schools. We need a pool, a supply 
of people to draw from, people who come through the schools and have 
been exposed to enough computer training to want to go on to junior 
college.
  By the way, you can get some jobs after you come out of high school. 
You can get an A-1 certification for Microsoft just with a high school 
diploma and you can go out and earn $35,000 to $40,000 a year just 
coming out of high school. That is the kind of jobs we are talking 
about. But those who go on to junior college will get higher paying 
jobs, those who go to college and get computer programming degrees will 
get even more, can get $100,000 after they have been working for three 
or four years.
  We are talking about a lucrative field that is likely to keep 
growing, so we want to have in our schools technology, as the President 
called for. We want to support the E-rate. There is a direct 
relationship between the people who are opposing the E-rate right now. 
E-rate, by the way, guarantees schools will be able to have 
telecommunications services at a discount. It allows some schools that 
could not afford to link their computers up with the Internet and have 
those services, to have them by giving as much as a 90 percent discount 
to the poorest schools.
  The E-rate is being opposed now by some of these same companies. Many 
of the same companies that are bringing in the foreign workers are 
opposing the E-rate, which would allow us to have our schools prepared 
to educate a larger body of people who can take these jobs as American 
citizens. So we need to support the E-rate. We need to deal with the 
problem of school construction funding, which does not allow certain 
schools to be wired because they are too old and you need to renovate 
them or build new schools.
  We need store front computer training centers, not only to allow 
youngsters from poor neighborhoods to be able to go in at night when 
the schools are closed down and get some practice, but also all these 
workers that are being laid off.
  I want to say we have proposed, I proposed in the higher education 
legislation, an amendment which would allow colleges to combine with 
communities and set up store front training centers which will begin to 
deal with this problem. We need many innovative approaches.
  Why is Bangalore, India, considered the computer programming capital 
of the world? Why are most of the workers who will be brought in under 
this program coming from India? Because India decided a long time ago, 
they had the vision and wisdom, to have first rate computer training 
programs in their schools. Bangalore in particular, developed first 
rate computer training programs. So they have large pools of people who 
are feeding the computer systems of all of the English speaking world. 
They speak English, so that is another advantage.
  So we need policies that revamp our education system in order to 
produce the workers who can take these jobs. We do not need any more 
patchwork, easy answers for the big industries. They get lower paid 
workers and they get an unlimited flood of them without having to 
contribute to the effort here in America to educate our own citizens.
  These are the jobs of the future. Wake up. These are the jobs of the 
future. If we give them away now, we will never be able to get them 
back.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Del Mar, California (Mr. Cunningham), 
who has a great understanding and grasp of this issue. We are all very, 
very happy to see him back, healthy and raring to go.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is the envy, I think, of 
the whole world on our high-tech accomplishments and our industries. 
Take a look at our biotech industry. Look at QualComm all over the 
world. Look at our health care. Look at our universities in health 
care. Look at the supercomputers that San Diego and other schools have. 
We need to keep that going.
  My nephew had a full scholarship to MIT. His fiance is finishing up 
her Ph.D. in biotech at the age of 27. Their future is set because of 
the shortages that we have in the technology field.
  In San Diego we have a program that takes displaced aerospace workers 
and trains them in these high-tech fields. However, I would like to 
tell the Members that workers at a beginning entry level do not have 
the same productivity as someone that has a Ph.D. and experience in the 
field that could produce the jobs, the biotech, the health care 
remedies and those kinds of things that we need.
  If we look at the aerospace industry, we are in a sine wave with 
jobs. At times there are high peaks, and right now we happen to be in 
low peak, and we need people to replace them. What this bill does is 
takes that valley and levels it off, and at the end of that valley we 
allow for the American worker to have priority over a foreign worker, 
and they are out. That is all we are trying to do.
  Here is the challenge. Remember Jaime Escalante? He said, just 
because a child is a minority she is not any ledss capable than other 
children. I can teach that child math. The community thought he was 
nuts. The teachers thought he was nuts. The children thought he was 
crazy. Yet, he taught those kids math. Then the community rallied 
behind him.

[[Page H8576]]

  That is what we need to do with the American education system. We 
need to invest in the public education system, through private and 
local initiatives. But at the same time, we cannot continue to only get 
about 50 cents on the dollar out of our Federal programs. That is why 
our Dollars to the Classrooms Act, getting 90 cents out of the dollar 
for classrooms, is very, very important. We need to invest in those 
kinds of things.
  This bill is a balance for American workers and American jobs. When 
we take a look, we, the United States of America, are 15th of the 
industrialized nations in math and science. That is a crime in itself. 
Look at the D.C. schools. Children are graduating, and over 60 percent 
are functionally illiterate.
  If we want a long-term solution, it is--and I agree with my friend, 
the gentleman from New York--it is education, and making sure that we 
have those effective kinds of programs. We do not do that in this 
country, to a large degree. Overall, we have a shortage in the field 
that we need to fill. This bill allows us to do that.
  Are there problems with it? Yes. But I think it is a bipartisan 
agreement in most areas, and I support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, America's high-tech industry is the envy of the world. 
It powers our strong economy. And it is making our lives better.
  Advanced technology requires people with advanced skills to keep 
these innovations coming. Our high-tech industry spends far more per 
worker on training and education than other industries do.
  But the Commerce Department, the American Electronics Association, my 
local San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and many of the employers in my 
district--like Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, UCSD and others--all agree 
that there are not enough of these high-skill workers to go around.
  Moreover, our colleagues and universities are not producing enough 
science and engineering graduates to meet demand. And of those 
graduates, a large percentage are non-U.S. nationals.
  So what can we do?
  First, America's schools must do better than last place among 
industrialized countries in math and science. Our ``Dollars to the 
Classrooms Act'' and other local initiatives will help meet that 
challenge. But it will take time.
  Second, we should encourage more young people to pursue the high-tech 
field. Again, this will take a long time to bear fruit. But we can do 
it.
  Third, we should adopt this legislation, H.R. 3736, the Workforce 
Improvement Act.
  The Workforce Improvement Act temporarily increases the number of 
high-skill worker visas. It will help American employers address the 
current high-tech worker shortage, so they can strengthen America's 
economy, help create American jobs in America, and maintain our global 
leadership in technology and innovation.
  The bill contains a reasonable balance of checks and balances--
helping to keep the H-one-B visa program from being abused, while 
resisting the temptation to have the U.S. Department of Labor involved 
in every private hiring decision.
  And the fees from this program will help pay for advanced American 
worker training and education.
  This bill is not perfect. I would have preferred that the increase in 
H-one-B high skill worker visas was offset with a reduction in other 
visa categories. But the measure is a product of compromise. And on 
balance, it is in the national interest.
  For American workers, American jobs, and a strong American future * * 
* support this important legislation, and oppose the Watt substitute 
and the motion to recommit.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I take some pleasure in the fact that I seem to share 
the same views as my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on this issue. I want to explain some of 
the reasons for that.
  I want to address the primary argument put forth by supporters of 
this bill that a shortage exists of the workers needed to maintain 
American leadership in the information technology industries. As usual, 
anecdotes far outweigh hard evidence in the debate. I thought it might 
be useful to examine more closely the data that is available.
  Determining a labor shortage is a fiendishly difficult exercise, even 
for labor economists. Defining the types of workers involved, where 
they get their education, the tasks employers want them to do, and the 
overall economic climate are just some of the items that go into the 
analysis. None of these factors remain static, and it is difficult to 
track them on a real-time basis. It is no wonder that John Bishop, the 
Chair of the Department of Human Resource Studies at Cornell, has 
warned us to be careful in adopting policies to address perceived 
shortages. This is not a policy that can be easily reversed.
  We on the Committee on Science have specific experience about the 
damage we can do manipulating the labor market. At the beginning of 
this decade we were concerned about a shortfall of scientists and 
engineers. We gave new money to the National Science Foundation to get 
more people into the pipeline. By the time they finished their 
education and went out to the job market, there were not any jobs for 
them.
  Those of us who have been here for a while may recall the billboard 
that read, and I quote, ``Will the last person leaving Seattle please 
turn out the lights,'' during the aerospace slump of the seventies. 
This is typical in the aerospace industry. Now the National Research 
Council is recommending that we sharply limit new entrants into the 
life sciences training programs, because there are so few places for 
graduates to go.
  It has become almost sacred writ that there are 346,000 vacancies for 
information technology workers. I believe that we should treat this 
assertion with great skepticism. This number was derived from telephone 
surveys of companies in the field, but the response rate was just 36 
percent of those chosen for sampling.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I asked the General 
Accounting Office for their views on the methodology that led to this 
result. GAO reported to us that they considered the response level too 
low to permit the results to reflect conditions across the country. GAO 
further noted that there was not enough information about the vacancies 
discussed in the study to answer some very important questions: How 
many of these vacancies are caused by normal turnover, and how long 
does it take a company to fill a job slot when it becomes empty?
  IBM once looked at this particular issue a few years ago and 
discovered that at any one time it was normal to have some 5 percent of 
their jobs vacant. The surveys gave us no information on the salary 
levels of the vacancies, so we cannot know if the companies were 
offering competitive salaries or merely wishful thinking. The study 
itself warned that no one should infer that 346,000 jobs would be 
immediately ready to absorb 346,000 qualified candidates.
  At this point, I would like to raise the supply side of the equation, 
because it is not getting much consideration in the debate. The 
Computing Research Association tells us that enrollments in computer 
sciences have grown 40 percent in each of the last 2 years. The 
Statistical Factbook for the University of California at San Bernadino 
in my district shows that declared majors in the Information and 
Decision Management Department have jumped from 22 in 1992 to 219 in 
1997. Enrollment leaped from 28 to 143 just between 1993 and 1994. Dr. 
Walt Stewart, the department chair, told my staff that these numbers 
are low because they do not capture the students from other 
departments.
  The American Association of Community Colleges reports strong 
increases in enrollments in programs for computer technology, software, 
and computer-assisted design. Our children are getting the message that 
there is an opportunity here. For us to make policy about demand while 
ignoring supply is guaranteed to get us into trouble.
  My last point involves the current economic situation. Reports in the 
latest issues of The Economist and Business Week indicate that the 
high-tech sector is feeling strong pressure from the breakdown of Asian 
economies. There is severe overcapacity in the semiconductor business; 
Motorola has just decided to postpone building its new chip 
manufacturing plant in Virginia. Falling prices for PCs, while a boon 
for consumers, limit the profits their makers can earn. TIME reported 
this

[[Page H8577]]

week that China is contemplating a 30-percent devaluation of its 
currency early next year, a severe blow to recovery efforts in Japan, 
Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Prosperity may be just around the 
corner. Prudence recommends that we do no harm in this volatile 
situation.
  I intend to vote for the Watt-Berman-Klink substitute. I do so 
because it increases visa limits only through fiscal year 2000, thereby 
reducing the outyear effects on the labor market. I also believe that 
all companies who benefit from this public policy should be required to 
demonstrate that their resort to H-1Bs is driven by genuine need and 
not convenience. The substitute derives directly from Chairman Lamar 
Smith's bill that earned a bipartisan majority from the members of the 
Judiciary Committee. Support Watt-Berman-Klink.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is strongly 
supportive of the bipartisan compromise that has been worked out by the 
House, the Senate, and the administration.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me, and he is quite right.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the compromise 
legislation offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. This 
legislation is the product of extensive work and deliberation between 
the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Smith), and the high-tech industry. I believe it represents an 
effective compromise that addresses the needs of the high-tech industry 
and also provides important and necessary protections for American 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this country has a vested interest in ensuring that our 
policies encourage the continued growth of the booming high technology 
industry. The high-tech industry has contributed over 3 million jobs to 
the United States economy over the last 3 years. It has also accounted 
for over 27 percent of the growth in the gross national product.
  The industry's ability to hire the best and brightest is essential if 
we are to remain the global leader in this emerging field. 
Unfortunately, there is currently an insufficient number of American 
workers available to fill many high technology positions. According to 
some reports, as many as 300,000 high technology jobs are unfilled due 
to a lack of qualified American workers in a tight labor market.
  The current quota of 65,000 H-1B visas was reached months ago, 
leaving many companies without the resources they need to effectively 
operate and expand. If we do not responsively address this problem, we 
risk placing a strain on the expansion of the industry that could end 
up costing the American people countless jobs.
  I have consistently worked to ensure our immigration policy is firm, 
fair, and effective. Immigration laws should not be used as a tool to 
provide sources of cheap labor, nor should they be used to deprive 
qualified American workers the opportunity to succeed in the 
marketplace. However, we are currently confronted with a skilled labor 
shortage.
  Our response to this shortage should be targeted yet effective. We 
should not alter our fundamental commitment to maintain responsible and 
productive levels of immigration, but we should be willing to permit 
the necessary number of workers to enter temporarily to respond to the 
lack of qualified workers.
  Mr. Speaker, every effort should be made to ensure that qualified 
American workers are not being laid off or passed over to hire foreign 
workers. This bill provides necessary protection for American workers. 
It also takes important steps to support the training of American 
workers, so we will remain effective and competitive in the future.
  Furthermore, this is only a temporary measure. It will only increase 
the numbers until 2002, at which point the numbers will return to 
current levels. This is a temporary fix to address a problem that needs 
immediate attention.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible, reasonable, and necessary piece 
of legislation that is essential to the continued success of our 
booming high-tech industry and the millions of American jobs that it 
creates. I urge my colleagues to support this compromise and oppose the 
substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to focus on is the unparalleled 
economic growth that we are currently experiencing and why. The 
principal reason we are doing as well as we are economically is 
attributable to the high technology sector. U.S. firms dominate the 
world market in both high-tech products and high-tech services. Over 
3.3 million Americans are directly employed in high technology jobs.
  But the work force shortage faced by the technology sector threatens 
our world dominance in the technology sector and our continued economic 
prosperity. Over the next 10 years the global economy is projected to 
grow at three times the rate of the U.S. economy. Basic high technology 
infrastructure needs in just 8 of the fastest growing countries are 
going to reach $1.6 trillion.
  If the U.S. does not seize the opportunity to supply goods and 
services to these emerging markets, other countries will. But U.S. 
firms simply cannot compete if they do not have access to a highly-
trained work force. There is no doubt that the quantity and even the 
quality of our current work force is failing to keep pace with the 
needs of the technology industry.
  Some 10 percent of high technology jobs are now vacant. This is 
nearly 200,000 vacant jobs across the country. U.S. firms who cannot 
find enough domestic workers are sending more and more contracts 
overseas. In Northern Virginia, we have a vacancy rate of 19,000. Just 
pick up the Washington Post any Sunday and Members will see where those 
vacancies are.
  We are in desperate need of more workers, and as a result, because we 
do not have the workers, we are sending jobs overseas, even to fulfill 
government contracts. We are going over to India, Ireland, and any 
number of other countries that are willing to meet our needs.
  But does it not make more sense to pay an American worker here 
$60,000 a year than to send a job overseas, pay them maybe $16,000, but 
that money is spent in their economy? We are so much better off if 
these jobs and these salaries are spent in our U.S. economy. That is 
what we are trying to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a substantial improvement. It increases the 
cap. It is going to enable us to better meet the needs, but it is not 
adequate. We still need to do more work.

                              {time}  1530

  I must say, in terms of the training provision, that we cannot 
continue job training programs in the way that we have done them in the 
past. They need to be much more tied to industry. They need, in fact, 
to be industry driven.
  Let the companies in the technology sector, particularly, get 
together, cooperate, contribute maybe a third of the money. Let the 
Federal Government contribute a third of the money. Let universities 
contribute. And with that consortia, let us make sure that the training 
that we do is going to be immediately met by job placement. We cannot 
afford to train just for the sake of training. We need to be putting 
people in the jobs that are available today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Glendale, California (Mr. Rogan), my very good friend who is a hard-
working member of both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), my friend and neighbor, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for his leadership on this issue. Over the past several months, 
he worked to achieve a compromise measure that will help both American 
businesses, universities and our workforce.
  I also want to recognize the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Abraham, for leading the negotiations with the administration on behalf 
of the Senate and the House leadership.
  H-1B visas have played a crucial role in America's vibrant economy. 
During the past 3 years, the high-tech industry has contributed over 
3.5 million jobs to the U.S. economy and has accounted for a 27 percent 
increase in our gross national product.

[[Page H8578]]

  Human and intellectual capital fuel this industry, and a small but 
critical element of the high-tech workforce consists of foreign-born 
workers holding H-1B visas. H.R. 3736 will temporarily raise the annual 
cap on H-1B visas in order to lessen the shortage of high-tech workers.
  As cochairman of the Speaker's High Technology Working Group, I 
recognize America's strong interest in ensuring that our policies 
encourage the continued growth of technology while promoting the 
strength of the national economy as a whole.
  This is an issue of international competitiveness. Our ability to 
hire the best and the brightest is essential if America is to remain 
the global leader in technology. This compromise strikes an important 
balance between addressing the workforce needs of this industry and 
protecting the security of American workers.
  This legislation creates a workable system where employers can 
temporarily obtain immigrant workers to fill high-tech jobs when there 
is a lack of qualified domestic workers. Further, this protects 
American workers from abuses such as being laid off or being replaced 
by a foreign worker, and it achieves this without creating a huge 
enforcement bureaucracy at the Department of Labor. This legislation 
also recognizes this as a short-term solution to the high technology 
worker shortage. The increased number of H-1B visas will sunset in 
2002.
  This bill provides further protections for American workers by 
targeting employers who are more likely to abuse the program. 
Additionally, this legislation supports long-term solutions to worker 
shortages by providing more job training programs and college 
scholarships for Americans in areas such as math, engineering and 
computer science.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule that will bring 
forth legislation to support America's high-tech industry while 
securing and offering better jobs for Americans.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May 
I ask if my colleague has further requests?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman 
and say that we have just completed with our last speaker, just as she 
has. So, obviously, this could not have been planned any better than it 
has.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would close by simply saying that I believe that this 
is an extraordinarily good compromise for a very, very important issue 
to address a telling need to ensure that we do not see companies that 
have been thriving forced to leave the United States of America for 
their survival, so that we can remain on the competitive edge. I urge 
support of it.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier:
       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 3 pursuant 
     to clause 6 of rule XXIII shall be considered as adopted in 
     lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
     in the Congressional Record and numbered 1.''

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will briefly take a moment to explain this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply provides that, upon the adoption 
of the resolution, the text of the administration-endorsed compromise 
that we have come to with the House and the Senate and the 
administration shall be considered as adopted.
  I urge support of the resolution as well as the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 513, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 3736) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to make changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrants, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 513, the bill 
is considered as having been read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3736 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3736

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workforce Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN SKILLED FOREIGN WORKERS.

       Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1)(A) to read as follows:
       `(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), subject to 
     paragraph (5), may not exceed--
       `(i) 95,000 in fiscal year 1998;
       `(ii) 105,000 in fiscal year 1999; and
       `(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000; or'; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       `(5) In each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the total 
     number of aliens described in section 212(a)(5)(C) who may be 
     issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed 7,500.'.

     SEC. 3. 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)(i) The employer has not laid off or otherwise 
     displaced and will not lay off or otherwise displace, within 
     the period beginning 6 months before and ending 90 days 
     following the date of filing of the application or during the 
     90 days immediately preceding and following the date of 
     filing of any visa petition supported by the application, any 
     United States worker (as defined in paragraph (3)) (including 
     a worker whose services are obtained by contract, employee 
     leasing, temporary help agreement, or other similar means) 
     who has substantially equivalent qualifications and 
     experience in the specialty occupation, and in the area of 
     employment, for which H-1B nonimmigrants are sought or in 
     which they are employed.
       `(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), in the case of an 
     employer that employs an H-1B nonimmigrant, the employer 
     shall not place the nonimmigrant with another employer 
     where--
       `(i) the nonimmigrant performs his or her duties in whole 
     or in part at one or more worksites owned, operated, or 
     controlled by such other employer; and
       `(II) there are indicia of an employment relationship 
     between the nonimmigrant and such other employer.
       `(iii) Clause (ii) shall not apply to an employer's 
     placement of an H-1B nonimmigrant with another employer if 
     the other employer has executed an attestation that it 
     satisfies and will satisfy the conditions described in clause 
     (i) during the period described in such clause.'.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--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 `H-1B nonimmigrant' means an alien admitted 
     or provided status as a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
       `(B) The term `lay off or otherwise displace', with respect 
     to an employee--
       `(i) means to cause the employee's loss of employment, 
     other than through a discharge for cause, a voluntary 
     departure, or a voluntary retirement; and
       `(ii) does not include any situation in which employment is 
     relocated to a different geographic area and the employee is 
     offered a chance to move to the new location, with wages and 
     benefits that are not less than those at the old location, 
     but elects not to move to the new location.
       `(C) The term `United States worker' means--
       `(i) a citizen or national of the United States;
       `(ii) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; 
     or
       `(iii) an alien authorized to be employed by this Act or by 
     the Attorney General.'.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 212(n)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is 
     amended by striking `a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)' each place such term appears and 
     inserting `an H-1B nonimmigrant'.

     SEC. 4. RECRUITMENT OF UNITED STATES WORKERS PRIOR TO SEEKING 
                   NONIMMIGRANT WORKERS.

       Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as

[[Page H8579]]

     amended by section 3, is further amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (E) the following:
       `(F)(i) The employer, prior to filing the application, has 
     taken, in good faith, timely and significant steps to recruit 
     and retain sufficient United States workers in the specialty 
     occupation for which H-1B nonimmigrants are sought. Such 
     steps shall have included recruitment in the United States, 
     using procedures that meet industry-wide standards and 
     offering compensation that is at least as great as that 
     required to be offered to H-1B nonimmigrants under 
     subparagraph (A), and offering employment to any qualified 
     United States worker who applies.
       `(ii) The conditions described in clause (i) shall not 
     apply to an employer with respect to the employment of an H-
     1B nonimmigrant who is described in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (C) of section 203(b)(1).'.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO INITIATE COMPLAINTS AND 
                   CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS FOR NON-H-1B-DEPENDENT 
                   EMPLOYERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(2)(A) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting the following: `, except that the Secretary 
     may only file such a complaint respecting an H-1B-dependent 
     employer (as defined in paragraph (3)), and only if there 
     appears to be a violation of an attestation or a 
     misrepresentation of a material fact in an application.'; and
       (2) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     `Except as provided in subparagraph (F) (relating to spot 
     investigations during probationary period), no investigation 
     or hearing shall be conducted with respect to an employer 
     except in response to a complaint filed under the previous 
     sentence.'.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 212(n)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as added by section 3, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after `purposes of this subsection:' the 
     following:
       `(A) The term `H-1B-dependent employer' means an employer 
     that--
       `(i)(I) has fewer than 21 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States, and (II) employs 4 or 
     more H-1B nonimmigrants; or
       `(ii)(I) has at least 21 but not more than 150 full-time 
     equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; 
     and (II) employs H-1B nonimmigrants in a number that is equal 
     to at least 20 percent of the number of such full-time 
     equivalent employees; or
       `(iii)(I) has at least 151 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States; and (II) employs H-1B 
     nonimmigrants in a number that is equal to at least 15 
     percent of the number of such full-time equivalent employees.
       In applying this subparagraph, any group treated as a 
     single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of 
     section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     treated as a single employer. Aliens employed under a 
     petition for H-1B nonimmigrants shall be treated as 
     employees, and counted as nonimmigrants under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) under this subparagraph.'; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:

     SEC. 6. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       `(C)(i) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (1)(E), a substantial failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1)(C), (1)(D), or (1)(F), or a 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an 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 ($1,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       `(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       `(ii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of material fact 
     in an 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 $5,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       `(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       `(iii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of material fact 
     in an application, in the course of which failure or 
     misrepresentation the employer also has failed to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1)(E)--
       `(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 that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 2 years for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       (b) Placement of H-1B Nonimmigrant With Other Employer.--
     Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       `(E) Under regulations of the Secretary, the previous 
     provisions of this paragraph shall apply to a failure of an 
     other employer to comply with an attestation described in 
     paragraph (1)(E)(iii) in the same manner as they apply to a 
     failure to comply with a condition described in paragraph 
     (1)(E)(i).'.
       (c) Spot Investigations During Probationary Period.--
     Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by subsection (b), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       `(F) The Secretary may, on a case-by-case basis, subject an 
     employer to random investigations for a period of up to 5 
     years, beginning on the date that the employer is found by 
     the Secretary to have committed a willful failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1) or to have made a 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an application. The 
     preceding sentence shall apply to an employer regardless of 
     whether the employer is an H-1B-dependent employer or a non-
     H-1B-dependent employer. The authority of the Secretary under 
     this subparagraph shall not be construed to be subject to, or 
     limited by, the requirements of subparagraph (A).'.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     applications filed with the Secretary of Labor on or after 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that 
     the amendments made by section 2 shall apply to applications 
     filed with such Secretary before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In lieu of the amendment printed in the 
bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
Congressional Record numbered 3 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3736, as amended by amendment No. 3 printed in the 
Congressional Record is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENTS TO 
                   IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary 
     Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B Non-immigrant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents, amendments to Immigration and 
              Nationality Act.

           Title I--Provisions Relating to H-1B Nonimmigrants

Sec. 101. Temporary increase in access to temporary skilled personnel 
              under H-1B program.
Sec. 102. Protection against displacement of United States workers in 
              case of H-1B dependent employers.
Sec. 103. Changes in enforcement and penalties.
Sec. 104. Collection and use of H-1B nonimmigrant fees for scholarships 
              for low-income math, engineering, and computer science 
              students and job training of United States workers.
Sec. 105. Computation of prevailing wage level.
Sec. 106. Improving count of H-1B and H-2B nonimmigrants.
Sec. 107. Report on older workers in the information technology field.
Sec. 108. Report on high technology labor market needs, reports on 
              economic impact of incresae in H-1B nonimmigrants.

 Title II--Special Immigrant Status for Certain NATO Civilian Employees

Sec. 201. Special immigrant status for certain NATO civilian employees.

                   Title III--Miscellaneous Provision

Sec. 301. Academic honoraria.
       (c) Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act.--Except 
     as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, whenever in 
     this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment 
     to a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to that section or other provision of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

           TITLE I--PROVISIONS RELATING TO H-1B NONIMMIGRANTS

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN ACCESS TO TEMPORARY SKILLED 
                   PERSONNEL UNDER H-1B PROGRAM.

       (a) Temporary Increase in Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers.--
     Paragraph (1)(A) of section 214(g) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), may not exceed--
       ``(i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal year 1999;
       ``(ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999;

[[Page H8580]]

       ``(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000;
       ``(iv) 107,500 in fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(v) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year; or''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies beginning with fiscal year 1998.

     SEC. 102. PROTECTION AGAINST DISPLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES 
                   WORKERS IN CASE OF H-1B-DEPENDENT EMPLOYEES

       (a) Protection Against Layoff and Requirement for Prior 
     Recruitment of United States Workers.--
       (1) Additional statements on application.--Section 
     212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E)(i) In the case of an application described in clause 
     (ii), the employer did not displace and will not displace a 
     United States worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) employed 
     by the employer within the period beginning 90 days before 
     and ending 90 days after the date of filing of any visa 
     petition supported by the application.
       ``(ii) An application described in this clause is an 
     application filed on or after the date final regulations are 
     first promulgated to carry out this subparagraph, and before 
     October 1, 2001, by an H-1B-dependent employer (as defined in 
     paragraph (3)) or by an employer that has been found under 
     paragraph (2)(C) or (5) to have committed a willful failure 
     or misrepresentation on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this subparagraph. An application is not described in this 
     clause of the only H-1B non-immigrants sought in the 
     application are exempt H-1B nonimmigrants.
       ``(F) In the case of an application described in 
     subparagraph (E)(ii), the employer will not place the 
     nonimmigrant with another employer (regardless of whether or 
     not such other employer is an H-1B-dependent employer) 
     where--
       ``(i) the nonimmigrant performs duties in whole or in part 
     at one or more worksites owned, operated, or controlled by 
     such other employer; and
       ``(ii) there are indicia of an employment relationship 
     between the nonimmigrant and such other employer;

     unless the employer has inquired of the other employer as to 
     whether, and has no knowledge that, within the period 
     beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of 
     the placement of the nonimmigrant with the other employer, 
     the other employer has displaced or intends to displace a 
     United States worker employed by the other employer.
       ``(G)(i) In the case of an application described in 
     subparagraph (E)(ii), subject to clause (ii), the employer, 
     prior to filing the application--
       ``(I) has taken good faith steps to recruit, in the United 
     States using procedures that meet industry-wide standards and 
     offering compensation that is at least as great as that 
     required to be offered to H-1B nonimmigrants under 
     subparagraph (A), United States workers for the job for which 
     the nonimmigrant or nonimmigrants is or are sought; and
       ``(II) has offered the job to any United States worker who 
     applies and is equally or better qualified for the job for 
     which the nonimmigrant or nonimmigrants is or are sought.
       ``(ii) The conditions described in clause (i) shall not 
     apply to an application filed with respect to the employment 
     of an H-1B nonimmigrant who is described in subparagraph (A), 
     (B), or (C) of section 203(b)(1).''.
       (2) Notice on application of potential liability of placing 
     employers.--Section 212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The application 
     form shall include a clear statement explaining the liability 
     under subparagraph (F) of a placing employer if the other 
     employer described in such subparagraph displaces a United 
     States worker as described in such subparagraph.''.
       (3) Construction.--Section 212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Nothing in subparagraph (G) shall be construed to prohibit 
     an employer from using legitimate selection criteria relevant 
     to the job that are normal or customary to the type of job 
     involved, so long as such criteria are not applied in a 
     discriminatory manner.''.
       (b) H-1B-Dependent Employer and Other Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term `H-1B-
     dependent employer' means an employer that--
       ``(i)(I) has 25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees who 
     are employed in the United States; and (II) employs more than 
     7 H-1B nonimmigrants;
       ``(ii)(I) has at least 26 but not more than 50 full-time 
     equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; 
     and (II) employs more than 12 H-1B nonimmigrants; or
       ``(iii)(I) has at least 51 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States; and (II) employs H-1B 
     nonimmigrants in a number that is equal to at least 15 
     percent of the number of such full-time equivalent employees.
       ``(B) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(i) the term `exempt H-1B nonimmigrant' means an H-1B 
     nonimmigrant who--
       ``(I) receives wages (including cash bonuses and similar 
     compensation) at an annual rate equal to at least $60,000; or
       ``(II) has attained a master's or higher degree (or its 
     equivalent) in a specialty related to the intended 
     employment; and
       ``(ii) the term `Nonexempt H-1B nonimmigrant' means an H-1B 
     nonimmigrant who is not an exempt H-1B nonimmigrant.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) in computing the number of full-time equivalent 
     employees and the number of H-1B nonimmigrants, exempt H-1B 
     nonimmigrants shall not be taken into account during the 
     longer of--
       ``(I) the 6-month period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of the Temporary Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Program Improvement Act of 1998; or
       ``(II) the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     the Temporary Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B Nonimmigrant 
     Program Improvement Act of 1998 and ending on the date final 
     regulations are issued to carry out this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) any group treated as a single employer under 
     subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as a single 
     employer.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `area of employment' means the area within 
     normal commuting distance of the worksite or physical 
     location where the work of the H-1B nonimmigrant is or will 
     be performed. If such worksite or location is within a 
     Metropolitan Statistical Area, any place within such area is 
     deemed to be within the area of employment.
       ``(B) In the case of an application with respect to one or 
     more H-1B nonimmigrants by an employer, the employer is 
     considered to `displace' a United States worker from a job if 
     the employer lays off the worker from a job that is 
     essentially the equivalent of the job for which the 
     nonimmigrant or nonimmigrants is or are sought. A job shall 
     not be considered to be essentially equivalent of another job 
     unless it involves essentially the same responsibilities, was 
     held by a United States worker with substantially equivalent 
     qualifications and experience, and is located in the same 
     area of employment as the other job.
       ``(C) The term `H-1B nonimmigrant' means an alien admitted 
     or provided status as a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
       ``(D) The term `lays off', with respect to a worker--
       ``(i) means to cause the worker's loss of employment, other 
     than through a discharge for inadequate performance, 
     violation of workplace rules, cause, voluntary departure, 
     voluntary retirement, or the expiration of a grant or 
     contract (other than a temporary employment contract entered 
     into in order to evade a condition described in subparagraph 
     (E) or (F) of paragraph (1)); but
       ``(ii) does not include any situation in which the worker 
     is offered, as an alternative to such loss of employment, a 
     similar employment opportunity with the same employer (or, in 
     the case of a placement of a worker with another employer 
     under paragraph (1)(F), with either employer described in 
     such paragraph) at equivalent or higher compensation and 
     benefits than the position from which the employee was 
     discharged, regardless of whether or not the employee accepts 
     the offer.
       ``(E) The term `United States worker' means an employee 
     who--
       ``(i) is a citizen or national of the United States; or
       ``(ii) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence, is admitted as a refugee under section 207, is 
     granted asylum under section 208, or is an immigrant 
     otherwise authorized, by this Act or by the Attorney General, 
     to be employed.''.
       ``(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)) is amended by striking ``a nonimmigrant described 
     in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``an H-1B nonimmigrant''.
       (c) Improved Posting of Notice of Application.--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 conspicuous 
     locations at the place of employment or electronic 
     notification to employees in the occupational classification 
     for which H-1B nonimmigrants are sought.''.
       (d) Requirements Relating to Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(n)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) is offering and will offer to H-1B nonimmigrants, 
     during the period of authorized employment, benefits and 
     eligibility for benefits (including the opportunity to 
     participate in health, life, disability, and other insurance 
     plans; the opportunity to participate in retirement and 
     savings plans; cash bonuses and noncash compensation, such as 
     stock options (whether or not based on performance)) on the 
     same basis, and in accordance with the same criteria, as the 
     employer offers benefits and eligibility for benefits to 
     United States workers.''.
       (2) Orders to provide benefits.--Section 212(n)(2)(D) (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(D)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or has not provided benefits or 
     eligibility for benefits as required under such paragraph,'' 
     after ``required under paragraph (1),''; and

[[Page H8581]]

       (B) by inserting ``or to provide such benefits or 
     eligibility for benefits'' after ``amounts of back pay''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a) and (c) apply to applications filed under section 
     212(n)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on or after 
     the date final regulations are issued to carry out such 
     amendments, and the amendments made by subsection (b) take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (f) Reduction of Period for Public Comment.--In first 
     promulgating regulations to implement the amendments made by 
     this section in a timely manner, the Secretary of Labor and 
     the Attorney General may reduce to not less than 30 days the 
     period of public comment on proposed regulations.

     SEC. 103. CHANGES IN ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.

       (a) Increased Enforcement and Penalties.--Section 
     212(n)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(20(C)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C)(i) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E), or (1)(F), a substantial failure to 
     meet a condition of paragraph (1)(C), (1)(D), or 
     (1)(G)(i)(I), or a misrepresentation of material fact in an 
     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 $1,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 of 
     214(c) during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(ii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1), a willful misrepresentation of material fact 
     in an application, or a violation of clause (iv)--
       ``(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 $5,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 2 years for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(iii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of 
     material fact in an application, in the course of which 
     failure or misrepresentation the employer displaced a United 
     States worker employed by the employer within the period 
     beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of 
     filing of any visa petition supported by 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 $35,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 3 years for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(iv) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who 
     has filed an application under this subsection to intimidate, 
     threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any 
     other manner discriminate against an employee (which term, 
     for purposes of this clause, includes a former employee and 
     an applicant for employment) because the employee has 
     disclosed information to the employer, or to any other 
     persion, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a 
     violation of this subsection, or any rule or regulation 
     pertaining to this subsection, or because the employee 
     cooperates or seeks to cooperate in an investigation or other 
     proceeding concerning the employer's compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection or any rule or regulation 
     pertaining to this subsection.
       ``(v) The Secretary of Labor and the Attorney General shall 
     devise a process under which an H-1B nonimmigrant who files a 
     complaint regarding a violation of clause (iv) and is 
     otherwise eligible to remain and work in the United States 
     may be allowed to seek other appropriate employment in the 
     United States for a period (not to exceed the duration of the 
     alien's authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant).
       ``(vi) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who 
     has filed an application under this subsection to require an 
     H-1B nonimmigrant to pay a penalty (as determined under State 
     law) for ceasing employment with the employer prior to a date 
     agreed to by the nonimmigrant and the employer. If the 
     Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, 
     that an employer has committed such a violation, the 
     Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty of $1,000 for 
     each such violation and issue an administrative order 
     requiring the return to the nonimmigrant of any amount 
     required to be paid in violation of this clause, or, if the 
     nonimmigrant cannot be located, requiring payment of any such 
     amount to the general fund of the Treasury.''.
       ``(b) Use of Arbitration Process for Disputes Involving 
     Qualifications of United States Workers Not Hired.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)), as 
     amended by section 102(b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) This paragraph shall apply instead of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (2) in the case of 
     a violation described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The Attorney General shall establish a process for 
     the receipt, initial review, and disposition in accordance 
     with this paragraph of complaints respecting an employer's 
     failure to meet the condition of paragraph (1)(G)(i)(II) or a 
     petitioner's misrepresentation of material facts with respect 
     to such condition. Complaints may be filed by an aggrieved 
     individual who has submitted a resume or otherwise applied in 
     a reasonable manner for the job that is the subject of the 
     condition. No proceeding shall be conducted under this 
     paragraph on a complaint concerning such a failure or 
     misrepresentation unless the Attorney General determines that 
     the complaint was filed not later than 12 months after the 
     date of the failure or misrepresentation, respectively.
       ``(C) If the Attorney General finds that a complaint has 
     been filed in accordance with subparagraph (B) and there is 
     reasonable cause to believe that such a failure or 
     misrepresentation described in such complaint has occurred, 
     the Attorney General shall initiate binding arbitration 
     proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to appoint an arbitrator from the roster 
     of arbitrators maintained by such Service. The procedure and 
     rules of such Service shall be applicable to the selection of 
     such arbitrator and to such arbitration proceedings. The 
     Attorney General shall pay the fee and expenses of the 
     arbitrator.
       ``(D)(i) The arbitrator shall make findings respecting 
     whether a failure or misrepresentation described in 
     subparagraph (B) occurred. If the arbitrator concludes that 
     failure or misrepresentation was willful, the arbitrator 
     shall make a finding to that effect. The arbitrator may not 
     find such a failure or misrepresentation (or that such a 
     failure or misrepresentation was willful) unless the 
     complainant demonstrates such a failure or misrepresentation 
     (or its willful character) by clear and convincing evidence. 
     The arbitrator shall transmit the findings in the form of a 
     written opinion to the parties to the arbitration and the 
     Attorney General. Such findings shall be final and 
     conclusive, and, except as provided in this subparagraph, no 
     official or court of the United States shall have power or 
     jurisdiction to review any such findings.
       ``(ii) The Attorney General may review and reverse or 
     modify the findings of an arbitrator only on the same bases 
     as an award of an arbitrator may be vacated or modified under 
     section 10 or 11 of title 9, United States Code.
       ``(iii) With respect to the findings of an arbitrator, a 
     court may review only the actions of the Attorney General 
     under clause (ii) and may set aside such actions only on the 
     grounds described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     706(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code. Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such judicial review may only be 
     brought in an appropriate United States court of appeals.
       ``(E) If the Attorney General receives a finding of an 
     arbitrator under this paragraph that an employer has failed 
     to meet the condition of paragraph (1)(G)(i)(II) or has 
     misrepresented a material fact with respect to such 
     condition, unless the Attorney General reverses or modifies 
     the finding under subparagraph (D)(ii)--
       ``(i) the Attorney General may impose administrative 
     remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount not 
     to exceed $1,000 per violation or $5,000 per violation in the 
     case of a willful failure or misrepresentation) as the 
     Attorney General determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General is authorized to not approve 
     petitions filed with respect to that employer under section 
     204 or 214(c) during a period of not more than 1 year for 
     aliens to be employed by the employer.
       ``(F) The Attorney General shall not delegate, to any other 
     employee or official of the Department of Justice, any 
     function of the Attorney General under this paragraph, until 
     60 days after the Attorney General has submitted a plan for 
     such delegation to the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     United States House of Representatives and the Senate with 
     respect to such delegation.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     212(n)(2)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph 
     (5)(A), the Secretary''.
       (c) Liability of Petitioning Employer in Case of Placement 
     of H-1B Nonimmigrant With Another Employer.--Section 
     212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(E) If an H-1B-dependent employer places a nonexempt H-1B 
     nonimmigrant with another employer as provided under 
     paragraph (1)(F) and the other employer has displaced or 
     displaces a United States worker employed by such other 
     employer during the period described in such paragraph, such 
     displacement shall be considered for purposes of this 
     paragraph a failure, by the placing employer, to meet a 
     condition specified in an application submitted under 
     paragraph (1); except that the Attorney General may impose a 
     sanction described in subclause (II) of subparagraph (C)(i), 
     (C)(ii), or (C)(iii) only if the Secretary of Labor found 
     that such placing employer--
       ``(i) knew or had reason to know of such displacement at 
     the time of the placement of

[[Page H8582]]

     the nonimmigrant with the other employer; or
       ``(ii) has been subject to a sanction under this 
     subparagraph based upon a previous placement of an H-1B 
     nonimmigrant with the same other employer.''.
       (d) Spot Investigations During Probationary Period.--
     Section 212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by 
     subsection (c), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(F) The Secretary may, on a case-by-case basis, subject 
     an employer to random investigations for a period of up to 5 
     years, beginning on the date that the employer is found by 
     the Secretary to have committed a willful failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1) (or has been found under paragraph 
     (5) to have committed a willful failure to meet the condition 
     of paragraph (1)(G)(i)(II)) or to have made a willful 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an application. The 
     preceding sentence shall apply to an employer regardless of 
     whether or not the employer is an H-1B-dependent employer. 
     The authority of the Secretary under this subparagraph shall 
     not be construed to be subject to, or limited by, the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).''.
       (e) Investigative Authority.--Section 212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1182(n)(2) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       (G)(i) If the Secretary receives specific, credible 
     information, from a source likely to have knowledge of an 
     employer's practices, employment conditions or compliance 
     with the employer's labor condition application whose 
     identity is known to the Secretary, that provides reasonable 
     cause to believe that an employer has committed a willful 
     failure to meet a condition of paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B), 
     (1)(E), (1)(F), or (1)(G)(i)(I), a pattern and practice of 
     failures to meet the [aforementioned conditions], or a 
     substantial failure to meet the [aforementioned conditions] 
     that affects multiple employees, the Secretary may conduct a 
     30 day investigation of these allegations, provided that the 
     Secretary personally (or the Acting Secretary in the case of 
     the Secretary's absence or disability) certifies that the 
     requirements for conducting such an investigation have been 
     met and approves commencement of the investigation. At the 
     request of the source, the Secretary may withhold the 
     identity of the source from the employer, and the source's 
     identity shall not be disclosable pursuant to a Freedom of 
     Information Act request.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall establish a procedure for any 
     individual who provides the information to DOL that 
     constitutes part of the basis for the commencement of an 
     investigation on the basis described above to provide that 
     information in writing on a form that the Department will 
     provide to be completed by, or on behalf of, the individual.
       ``(iii) It shall be the policy of the Secretary to provide 
     to the employer notice of the potential initiation of an 
     investigation of an alleged violation under the authority 
     granted in this [] with sufficient specificity to allow the 
     employer to respond before the investigation is actually 
     initiated unless in the Secretary's judgment such notice 
     would interfere with efforts to secure compliance.
       ``(iv) Nothing in this section shall authorize the 
     Secretary to initiate or approve the initiation of an 
     investigation without the receipt of information from a 
     person or persons not employed by the Department of Labor 
     that provides the reasonable cause required by this section. 
     The receipt of the l.c.a. and other materials the employer is 
     required in order to obtain an H-1B visa shall not constitute 
     ``receipt of information'' for purposes of satisfying this 
     requirement.''.

     SEC. 104. COLLECTION AND USE OF H-1B NONIMMIGRANT FEES FOR 
                   SCHOLARSHIPS FOR LOW-INCOME MATH, ENGINEERING, 
                   AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS AND JOB TRAINING 
                   OF UNITED STATES WORKERS.

       (a) Imposition of Fee.--Section 214(c) (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9)(A) The Attorney General shall impose a fee on an 
     employer (excluding an employer described in subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) of section 212(p)(1) and an employer filing for new 
     concurrent employment) as a condition for the approval of a 
     petition filed on or after October 1, 1998, and before 
     October 1, 2001, under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) initially to grant an alien non-immigrant status 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); or
       ``(ii) to extend for the first time the stay of an alien 
     having such status.
       ``(B) The amount of the fee shall be $500 for each such 
     non-immigrant.
       ``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(s).
       ``(D)(i) An employer may not require an alien who is the 
     subject of the petition for which a fee is imposed under this 
     paragraph to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer 
     for part or all of the cost of such fee.
       ``(ii) Section 274A(g)(2) shall apply to a violation of 
     clause (i) in the same manner as it applies to a violation of 
     section 274A(g)(1).''.
       (b) Establishment of Account; Use of Fees.--Section 286 (8 
     U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'. Notwithstanding 
     any other section of this title, there shall be deposited as 
     offsetting receipts into the account all fees collected under 
     section 214(c)(9).
       ``(2) Use of fees for job training.--63 percent of amounts 
     deposited into the H-1B nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall 
     remain available to the Secretary of Labor until expended for 
     demonstration programs and projects described in section 
     104(c) of the Temporary Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Program Improvement Act of 1998.
       ``(3) Use of fees for low-income scholarship program.--32 
     percent of the amounts deposited into the H-1B nonimmigrant 
     Petitioner Account shall remain available to the Director of 
     the National Science Foundation until expended for 
     scholarships described in section 104(d) of the Temporary 
     Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B Nonimmigrant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1998 for low-income students enrolled in a 
     program of study leading to a degree in mathematics, 
     engineering, or computer science.
       ``(4) Use of fees for application processing and 
     enforcement.--2.5 percent of the amounts deposited into the 
     H-1B non-immigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available 
     to the Secretary of Labor until expended for decreasing the 
     processing time for applications under section 212(n)(1), and 
     2.5 percent of such amounts shall remain available to such 
     Secretary until expended for carrying out section 212(n)(2). 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, both of the amounts 
     made available for any fiscal year pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence shall be available to such Secretary, and shall 
     remain available until expended, only for carrying out 
     section 212(n)(2) until the Secretary submits to the Congress 
     a report containing a certification that, during the most 
     recently concluded calendar year, the Secretary substantially 
     complied with the requirement in section 212(n)(1) relating 
     to the provision of the certification described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) within a 7-day period.''.
       (c) Demonstration Programs and Projects To Provide 
     Technical Skills Training for Workers.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), 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 the enactment of this Act, or demonstration 
     programs or projects under section 171(b) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish demonstration programs or projects to provide 
     technical skills training for workers, including both 
     employed and unemployed workers.
       (2) Grants.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary of 
     Labor shall award grants to carry out the programs and 
     projects described in paragraph (1) to--
       (A)(i) 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 the enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) local boards that will carry out such programs or 
     projects through one-stop delivery systems established under 
     section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998; or
       (B) regional consortia of councils or local boards 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     programs and projects under paragraph (1), including awarding 
     grants to carry out such programs and projects under 
     paragraph (2), only with funds made available under section 
     286(s)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and not 
     with funds made available under the Job Training Partnership 
     Act or the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
       (d) Low-Income Scholarship Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Director'') shall award scholarships to low-income 
     individuals to enable such individuals to pursue associate, 
     undergraduate, or graduate level degrees in mathematics, 
     engineering, or computer science.
       (2) Eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship 
     under this subsection, an individual--
       (i) must be a citizen or national of United States or an 
     alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence;
       (ii) shall prepare and submit to the Director an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require; and
       (iii) shall certify to the Director that the individual 
     intends to use amounts received under the scholarship to 
     enroll or continue enrollment at an institution of higher 
     education (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965) in order to pursue an associate, 
     undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, 
     engineering, or computer science.
       (B) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this subsection 
     shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the 
     ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2 
     or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the 
     Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and 
     there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one 
     to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or 
     scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner 
     that will tend to result in a geographically wide 
     distribution throughout the United States of recipients' 
     places of permanent residence.

[[Page H8583]]

       (3) Limitation.--The amount of a scholarship awarded under 
     this subsection shall be determined by the Director, except 
     that the Director shall not award a scholarship in an amount 
     exceeding $2,500 per year.
       (4) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this subsection 
     only with funds made available under section 286(s)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.

     SEC. 105. COMPUTATION OF PREVAILING WAGE LEVEL.

       (a) In General.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1) In computing the prevailing wage level for an 
     occupational classification in an area of employment for 
     purposes of subsections (n)(1)(A)(i)(II) and (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 research organization or a Governmental 
     research organization;

     the prevailing wage level shall only take into account 
     employees at such institutions and organizations in the area 
     of employment.
       ``(2) With respect to a professional athlete (as defined in 
     subsection (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 of regulations shall be 
     considered as not adversely affecting the wages of United 
     States workers similarly employed and be considered the 
     prevailing wage.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     supplies to prevailing wage computations made for 
     applications filed on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 106. IMPROVING COUNT OF H-1B AND H-2B NONIMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Ensuring Accurate Count.--The Attorney General shall 
     take such steps as are necessary to maintain an accurate 
     count of the number of aliens subject to the numerical 
     limitations of section 214(g)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)) who are issued visas or 
     otherwise provided nonimmigrant status.
       (b) Revision of Petition Forms.--The Attorney General shall 
     take such steps are as necessary to revise the forms used for 
     petitions for visas or nonimmigrant status under clause 
     (i)(b) or (ii)(b) of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)) so as to ensure 
     that the forms provide the Attorney General with sufficient 
     information to permit the Attorney General accurately to 
     count the number of aliens subject to the numerical 
     limitations of section 214(g)(1) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1184(g)(1)) who are issued visas or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status.
       (c) Reports.--Beginning with fiscal year 1999, the Attorney 
     General shall provide to the Congress--
       (1) on a quarterly basis a report on the numbers of 
     individuals who were issued visas or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status during the preceding 3-month period under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)); and
       (2) on an annual basis a report on the countries of origin 
     and occupations of, educational levels attained by, and 
     compensation paid to, individuals issued visas or provided 
     nonimmigrant status under such sections during such period.

     Each report under paragraph (2) shall include the number of 
     individuals described in paragraph (1) during the year who 
     were issued visas pursuant to petitions filed by institutions 
     or organizations described in section 212(p)(1) of such Act 
     (as added by section 105 of this Act).

     SEC. 107. REPORT ON OLDER WORKERS IN THE INFORMATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY FIELD.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into a 
     contract with the President of the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study, using the best available data, 
     assessing the status of older workers in the information 
     technology field. The study shall consider the following:
       (1) The existence and extent of age discrimination in the 
     information technology workplace.
       (2) The extent to which there is a difference, based on 
     age, in--
       (A) promotion and advancement;
       (B) working hours;
       (C) telecommuting;
       (D) salary; and
       (E) stock options, bonuses, and other benefits.
       (3) The relationship between rates of advancement, 
     promotion, and compensation to experience, skill level, 
     education, and age.
       (4) Differences in skill level on the basis of age.
       (b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2000, the Secretary 
     of Commerce shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report containing the results of the study described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 108. REPORT ON HIGH TECHNOLOGY LABOR MARKET NEEDS; 
                   REPORTS ON ECONOMIC IMPACT OF INCREASED IN H-1B 
                   NONIMMIGRANTS.

       (a) National Science Foundation Study and Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall conduct a study to assess labor market needs 
     for workers with high technology skills during the next 10 
     years. The study shall investigate and analyze the following:
       (A) Future training and education needs of companies in the 
     high technology and information technology sectors and future 
     training and education needs of United States students to 
     ensure that students' skills at various levels are matched to 
     the needs in such sectors.
       (B) 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 science, and engineering since 1998.
       (C) An analysis of the number of United States workers 
     currently or projected to work overseas in professional, 
     technical, and management capacities.
       (D) The relative achievement rates of United States and 
     foreign students in secondary schools in a variety of 
     subjects, including math, science, computer science, English, 
     and history.
       (E) The relative performance, by subject area, of United 
     States and foreign students in postsecondary and graduate 
     schools as compared to secondary schools.
       (F) The needs of the high technology sector for foreign 
     workers with specific skills and the potential benefits and 
     costs to United States employers, workers, consumers, post-
     secondary educational institutions, and the United States 
     economy, from the entry of skilled foreign professionals in 
     the fields of science and engineering.
       (G) The needs of the high technology sector to adapt 
     products and services for export to particular local markets 
     in foreign countries.
       (H) An examination of the amount and trend of moving the 
     production or performance of products and services now 
     occurring in the United States abroad.
       (2) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2000, the Director 
     of the National Science Foundation shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report containing the 
     results of the study described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Involvement.--The study under paragraph (1) shall be 
     conducted in a manner that ensures the participation of 
     individuals representing a variety of points of view.
       (b) Reporting on Studies Showing Economic Impact of H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Increase.--The Chairman of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Chair of the Council of 
     Economic Advisers, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and any other 
     member of the Cabinet, shall promptly report to the Congress 
     the results of any reliable study that suggests, based on 
     legitimate economic analysis, that the increase effected by 
     section 101(a) of this Act in the number of aliens who may be 
     issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act has had an impact on any national economic 
     indicator, such as the level of inflation or unemployment, 
     that warrants action by the Congress.

 TITLE II--SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN NATO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 201. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN NATO CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(27) (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 Temporary 
     Access to Skilled Workers and H-1B Nonimmigrant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1998.''.
       (b) Conforming Nonimmigrant Status for Certain Parents of 
     Special Immigrant Children.--Section 101(a)(15)(N) (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)''.

                   TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION

     SEC. 301. ACADEMIC HONORARIA.

       (a) In General.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182), as amended by 
     section 105, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(q) Any alien admitted under section 101(a)(15)(B) may 
     accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental 
     expenses for

[[Page H8584]]

     a usual academic activity or activities (lasting not longer 
     than 9 days at any single institution), as defined by the 
     Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, if such payment is offered by an institution or 
     organization described in subsection (p)(1) and is made for 
     services conducted for the benefit of that institution or 
     entity and if the alien has not accepted such payment or 
     expenses from more than 5 institutions or organizations in 
     the previous 6-month period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to activities occurring on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record numbered 2, which shall be considered read 
and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3736.
  First, some background: The H-1B bills passed by the Senate and by 
the House Committee on the Judiciary both propose to increase the quota 
of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professional workers. Both bills 
responded to the fact that the demand has exceeded the annual quota of 
65,000 in each of the past 2 fiscal years.
  The reason for this increased demand is thought to be a shortage in 
America's information technology workforce. While evidence for this 
shortage is inconclusive, I believe we should give the industry the 
benefit of the doubt and grant the additional visas.
  The Senate and House Committee on the Judiciary bills had stark 
differences. The House Committee on the Judiciary bill required that 
employers comply with two new attestations when petitioning for H-1B 
workers. Employers would have had to promise not to lay off American 
workers and replace them with H-1Bs, and to recruit American workers 
before petitioning for foreign workers.
  I felt that these protections for American workers were necessary 
because of the large number of documented abuses of the H-1B program, 
instances of companies actually laying off Americans to be replaced by 
H-1Bs and companies recruiting workers exclusively from overseas. The 
Senate bill contained no comparable protections.
  With the assistance and support of the House leadership, we wrote a 
workable compromise. And, in negotiations concluded just yesterday, we 
made further changes that were supported by the administration.
  The measure we are considering today embodies those compromises; and, 
of course, it is a negotiated agreement. That is the nature of any 
legislative process. What is important is that we have come up with a 
bill that both responds to the needs of the high-tech industry and adds 
protections for American workers.
  The employers most prone to abusing the H-1B program are called job 
contractors or job shops. Often, much of their workforce is composed of 
foreign workers on H-1B visas. These companies make no pretense of 
looking for American workers. They are in business to contract their H-
1Bs out to other companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are 
contracted benefit by paying wages to the foreign workers often well 
below what comparable Americans would receive. Also, they do not have 
to shoulder the obligations of being the legally recognized employers; 
the job shops remain the official employers.
  Under the compromise we are considering today, the no-layoff and 
recruitment attestations will apply to H-1B-dependent businesses in 
those instances where they petition for H-1Bs without masters degrees 
and where they plan to pay the H-1Bs less than $60,000 a year. The 
attestations are being targeted to hit the companies most likely to 
abuse the system. Other employers who use a relatively small number of 
H-1Bs will not be affected, unless they have been found to have 
willfully violated the rules of the H-1B program.
  Specifically, the no-layoff attestation prohibits an employer from 
laying off an American worker from a job that is essentially the 
equivalent of a job for which an H-1B is sought during the period 
beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date the employer 
files a visa petition for the foreign worker.
  The recruitment attestation requires an employer to have taken good-
faith steps to have recruited American workers for the job an H-1B 
alien will perform and offer the job to an American worker who applies 
and is equally or better qualified than the foreign worker.
  Other features of the compromise are that the H-1B quota will be set 
at 115,000 in 1999 and 2000 and 107,500 in the year 2001. Then the 
quota will return to 65,000, at which time the attestations also will 
sunset.
  The Labor Department will enforce all aspects of the program, except 
in those instances where an American worker claims that a job should 
have been offered to him or her instead of to a foreign worker. In such 
cases, an arbiter appointed by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
Service will decide the issue.
  Under the compromise, a $500 fee per alien will be charged to all 
employers except universities and certain other institutions. The funds 
will go for scholarship assistance for students studying mathematics, 
computer science, or engineering, for Federal job training services, 
and for processing and enforcement expenses. The fee will sunset in the 
year 2001.
  Under current law, the Labor Department can only investigate a user 
of the H-1B program if an aggrieved party files a complaint. The 
compromise will allow the Department to investigate a company in 
certain instances where it receives specific, credible information that 
provides it with reasonable cause to believe that the company has 
committed a willful violation to abide by the rules of the H-1B 
program, has shown a pattern or practice of failing to abide by the 
rules, or has substantially failed to meet the rules.
  While current law requires an employer to pay an H-1B alien at least 
the prevailing wage for the occupation, the compromise will also 
require the employer to provide benefits equivalent to those given to 
American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude with one point of legislative history. 
The compromise eases requirements on companies when they are 
petitioning for workers who have advanced degrees. For example, 
companies who would otherwise have to comply with the two new 
attestations are relieved of this obligation.
  The bill actually uses the phrase ``master's or higher degree (or its 
equivalent).'' The point I want to make is that the term ``or its 
equivalent'' refers only to an equivalent foreign degree. Any amount of 
on-the-job experience does not qualify as the equivalent of an advanced 
degree.
  The bill is a workable compromise that deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a very interesting position today, one 
that in the 6 years that I have been in this House is unprecedented. 
Because I am here defending the work product of the committee of 
jurisdiction in this case.
  On May 20, 1998, the full Committee on the Judiciary took a vote on a 
bill that I will be offering as a substitute to the bill that we are 
considering here on the floor, and we passed that bill out of the full 
Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 23 to 4.

                              {time}  1545

  We got to that bill after going through the subcommittee that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith)

[[Page H8585]]

chairs and on which I am the ranking member, and working out some 
details in the subcommittee, and we continued to work out further 
details as we moved from the subcommittee to the full committee. And by 
the time we got to the full committee, the full Committee on the 
Judiciary, we had broad bipartisan support for a bill. And that is the 
bill that I am here offering as a substitute to what is being offered 
on the floor today.
  So instead of me being the minority opposing what the majority of our 
committee did, I find myself in the very unique position of being on 
the floor of the House defending what the Committee on the Judiciary 
did by a 23 to 4 vote, bipartisan, with the chairman of the 
subcommittee having gone on and being told to support some other bill, 
which we will be voting on today unless my substitute passes.
  Now, why did we get to the bill that I will be offering as a 
substitute? We got there because we finally concluded that H-1Bs are 
probably necessary at this point. We have an H-1B program that 
authorizes 65,000 foreign workers per year to come into our country and 
work subject to certain specialty provisions. The H-1B, let me make 
sure everybody understands, the H-1B visas are available for workers 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in 
specialty occupations.
  A specialty occupation is one that requires a theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and 
attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty 
as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.
  Now, that is a fancy way of saying, you have to be in a pretty narrow 
area that is specialized in order to be eligible to come into the 
United States on an exceptional basis and take a job that, in effect, 
we are saying we just do not have the United States workers in our 
country capable of filling that job.
  Now, this H-1B program has been around for a long time. We have 
65,000 people a year that we allow to come in. They spend a total of 6 
years each, 65 times 6 is almost 400,000 foreign workers that can be in 
the United States under the current H-1B program.
  Now, how did we get here? High tech industries expanded their 
employment base and concluded that they needed more than the 65,000 a 
year allocation and, in fact, the Committee on the Judiciary agreed 
with them.
  We will hear arguments all over the place, but the truth of the 
matter is that we finally concluded, well, we do not really know 
whether there is a shortage that requires an increase in H-1B slots or 
not, but we are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and keep on 
moving. So let us do this and let us do it in a reasonable way that 
acknowledges that the high tech industry has a problem that they cannot 
get enough U.S. workers to fill these highly technical positions, but 
we did it against a backdrop where some people were really concerned.
  In fact, I am going to be reading here a lot, interestingly enough, 
from the committee's report. This is the full Committee on the 
Judiciary report that I keep finding myself reading from, one that I 
would have hoped that my colleague would be reading from in defense of 
our bill, rather than me having to read from it to defend the bill that 
we passed.
  Let me read what Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the former 
Secretary of Labor said. He said, our experience with the practical 
operation of the H-1B program has raised serious concerns that what was 
conceived as a means to meet temporary business needs for unique, 
highly skilled professionals from abroad is, in fact, being used by 
some employers to bring in relatively large numbers of foreign workers 
who may well be displacing U.S. workers and eroding employers' 
commitment to the domestic work force.
  So how did we decide to address this in the Committee on the 
Judiciary on a bipartisan basis? We said, we acknowledge that there is 
a shortage, but we also acknowledge on the other side that some people 
say this program is being abused and has been abused. So if we are 
going to expand the numbers of authorized people who can come in under 
this program, then we also ought to expand the protections for U.S. 
workers and the guarantees that employers have to provide that they are 
neither displacing a U.S. worker, laying off a U.S. worker or having 
not sought to obtain a U.S. worker. And we need to put in place a 
mechanism to provide training to U.S. citizens so that we do not make 
this a permanent H-1B expansion going forward.
  And that is exactly what the Committee on the Judiciary set out to 
do, and it did it masterfully. With one exception, and that was the 
training component, which is also in my bill, in my substitute and in 
the committee, in the new bill that we are now considering on the 
floor.
  So how did we do this? We said, you need the workers. You come in, 
you make an attestation that you have not fired or will not fire an 
employee or replace that fired employee by a foreign worker. I mean, 
that is fair enough. You make an attestation that you have sought to 
find a comparable worker in the United States. That is fair enough.
  And yet now we have a bill in front of us that requires that 
attestation of only a very small group of employers. Here is the 
exception, so that everybody knows: Employers with fewer than 25 
employees and more than 7 H-1B workers would have to make the 
certification. Employers with 26 to 49 employees and more than 12 H-1B 
workers would have to make the certification. Employers with more than 
50 workers with at least 15 percent, 15 percent of their work force 
being H-1B employees would have to make the certification. But 
everybody else in the world can bring in their H-1B employees without 
making those certifications.
  Now, the House is going to have a classic opportunity here today. We 
have got a bill that does what 23 members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary said is fair. That is the substitute that I will be offering, 
along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink). It is the committee's bill.
  And we have got a bill that is the base bill that was written by the 
Senate, worked out in the back room, agreed on last night on the floor 
at 5 minutes to 4:00 in the afternoon the next day, without anybody 
even having seen what the language is, except they printed it in the 
Congressional Record in small print last night. Now they are saying we 
should accept what the Senators said over here, lock, stock and barrel, 
abandon the bipartisan agreement that the committee had and go forward 
with that.
  Nobody thinks that is fair, and we have got a better bill, which 
addresses the issue and protects United States workers.
  That is the choice that the House has in front of them today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to make the point, again, that this is a bill that 
is supported by both the Republican leadership and the administration. 
This is an unusual conjunction of sometimes opposing forces agreeing on 
a bill, and that is yet another reason why Members should support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the next chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time.
  Some might say that they had heard enough from me during the debate 
on the rule which I just managed, but I did feel compelled to state 
that I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has been very 
courageous and hard working in pursuing this compromise.
  My friend from North Carolina is correct that it is an unusual 
procedure, but guess what? This H-1B visa bill is not going to become 
public law until a majority of the House of Representatives casts its 
vote, until the United States Senate has its compromise, until it goes 
through the conference process and it gets to the desk of the President 
of the United States for signing. So guess what? A majority of the 
Members here will have to direct how this process is going to go ahead.
  I happen to think that it is a very reasonable and positive 
compromise. It

[[Page H8586]]

is one which does address concerns that have been raised by virtually 
everyone on this. Some of my colleagues talk about the problem in the 
area of education, saying, we need to have a better educated citizenry 
so that they can, in fact, fulfill these jobs that are out there. I 
agree, and this bill addresses that, with 10,000 scholarships that go 
to those lower income individuals. It is done with a $500 fee that is 
going to be charged that should raise $75 million so that this can 
annually be funded to address those concerns.
  It also tightens up the small business area, the exemption there. I 
remember having a discussion in the Republican conference with my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) who was concerned, 
I think he offered an amendment in the committee which talked about 
shortening the time frame for the program itself.
  Well, in fact, in the compromise, the time frame of the program has 
been reduced. It was going to be ultimately at first, I guess, 5 years, 
if we included this year, but we have gone so late now we are not doing 
that, so it has gone from 4 years down to a 3-year program. I hope that 
within that 3-year time frame we are able as a Nation to educate the 
best qualified people so that, as we create new technologies, we will 
have qualified individuals out there to address them.
  It is going to be a 3-year program, not a 4- or a 5-year program. 
Then, obviously, we will have to look at it again.

                              {time}  1600

  Those who are violators of this program can be debarred for 3 years, 
and so there clearly is an incentive to comply with the strictures of 
the program itself. The Department of Labor is going to be able to 
participate in spot checks for those companies that have knowingly 
violated in the past. I think that is a decent provision that was put 
in there.
  And we have had so many people who have stood up and said, oh, there 
is nothing that has been made available and no one has been able to see 
it. I am going through this explanation, and I think the modifications 
that are made are, frankly, quite, quite modest.
  But one of the things that I think is important to note is that, 
while U.S. companies are required to pay the so-called prevailing wage, 
the same wage, they cannot all of a sudden say we are going to fire an 
American worker so that we can instead go and start hiring someone from 
another part of the world at a lower rate. We not only are requiring 
equivalent pay but equivalent benefits in this compromise.
  So as I listen to the criticism that will be leveled by some on both 
sides of the aisle, it seems to me that it is a very, very balanced 
measure. It is worthy of our support. It is worthy of our support for a 
very, very important reason. While we address the concern of American 
workers, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the ability of the industries 
of the United States of America to remain competitive.
  Virtually everyone has acknowledged that we are, today, living with a 
global economic crisis. I have been in a number of meetings today in 
which I have heard things, in fact, that are very, very troubling about 
the potential future. Tomorrow, we will be voting on fast track 
negotiating authority. There is a debate raging on the replenishment of 
the International Monetary Fund. The question of interest rates, all of 
these economic questions are out there as far as the future of the 
global economy, and I believe we need to be very concerned about the 
U.S. economy, which, obviously, is the world's leader.
  Mr. Speaker, if we turn down an attempt to increase the H-1B visas, 
guess what will happen? We have businesses that are being lured out of 
the United States by spots like Singapore and Ireland trying to create 
tax incentives and other incentives to draw our businesses out. Why? 
They will be able to have the best-qualified, skilled expertise there. 
Now, for every one of these H-1B visas that will come in creating jobs, 
there will be four U.S. jobs that are created as a by-product of that.
  So this is a win-win. It will help keep U.S. businesses here in the 
U.S., ensuring that they have an incentive to stay here. And this is a 
compromise which is positive. It has been one that has, again, been 
worked out by the Clinton administration, Democrats and Republicans in 
the United States Congress, in both Houses, the House and the Senate, 
and it is one that I believe is worthy of bipartisan support here in 
the House of Representatives.
  So, with that, I would again like to congratulate my friend from San 
Antonio, the very distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for 
working long and hard on this. It was a pleasure to work with him on 
this issue, and we look forward to a spectacular victory in the not-
too-distant future.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California 
for his generous words about me and for his accurate words about the 
bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains for each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1990 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality 
Act created two new Visa categories, O and P, which provide for the 
temporary entry of aliens who have extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, and for the 
temporary entry of athletes and entertainers with lesser abilities.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the O and P visa categories were created to 
ensure that entertainers, athletes and support personnel would no 
longer be admitted under the broad H-1 standard of omission but, 
instead, would come in under the O and P categories. It is my 
understanding, therefore, that this bill under consideration today does 
not pertain to the temporary admission of entertainers and their 
accompanying crews. Is that also the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that that is my 
understanding, and I thank the gentleman for making that valid point.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this H.R. 
3736 so we can ensure a continued supply of highly skilled workers for 
American companies.
  To those of us who are in business, particularly in manufacturing, 
some of the rhetoric we have heard in connection with this bill just 
does not make any sense. Whether we like it or not, we are in a world 
economy. Our competition is just as likely to come from Asia, Europe or 
Latin America as it is from the town next door. We can only compete if 
we constantly are adapting to new technologies and new demands, and to 
do that we have to find employees who have skills that we need. It is 
not a question of American versus foreign workers. It is a matter of 
keeping up and, hopefully, ahead of the constant competition. And if we 
fail at that, there will not be any jobs.
  So the question is, in this world economy, how do we best promote the 
interest of our economy and the American workers? And it seems to me 
this bill is entirely consistent with doing what is best for our 
economy and our workers.
  Some people argue this bill will hurt American workers. The principal 
protection for American workers that has been in H-1B programs before, 
and continues to be a part of the program under this bill, is that an 
H-1B worker must be paid at least as much as other employees with 
similar qualifications and experience.
  There have been some abuses in the H-1B program, as there have been 
in many other government programs, and the problems have been 
particularly in the area of paying the required wage. This bill that we 
are considering today provides additional enforcement and includes 
tighter restrictions on H-1B dependent employers.
  I would also note that H.R. 3736 has an important provision to 
generate additional funds for training and education of American 
workers in technology fields where there is such a demand for workers 
right now. Hopefully,

[[Page H8587]]

as some of the reforms of JTPA that we have recently passed go into 
effect, these funds will be used to improve retraining programs for 
Americans so that Americans can fill the technical jobs that are 
increasingly the jobs available in this economy.
  Let me just say that we all have seen polls that have been sent 
around to our offices asking Americans whether they support allowing 
190,000 additional foreign technical workers to come into the United 
States. To be more accurate, they should instead ask this question: 
``Would you prefer these 190,000 technical jobs be filled in the United 
States or transferred to other countries?'' Then I think the answer 
would be much different. That is the challenge of the world economy in 
which we are operating. I think H.R. 3736 provides the right answer to 
that question.
  And, again, I appreciate the work of the Members of the House and the 
Senate in agreeing on an agreement reached with the administration, and 
I urge my colleagues to support 3736.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, 
just to say to my good friend from North Carolina that this is not 
about whether we become a global economy. We have acknowledged that we 
are a global economy. We made findings in the bill that the Committee 
on the Judiciary passed 23 to 4 that acknowledged there was a need. So 
this is not about that.
  Now, there are some people who believe we ought not be doing any of 
this, and I am going to yield to one of those people right now. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), is a colleague of the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) on the Republican side, 
who thinks we should not be doing any of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cass Ballenger), this is about 
whether we have 200,000 jobs here for Americans or whether we will have 
200,000 jobs given to foreigners who come here. And those jobs will be 
taken up, yes, but we are taking away, by this law, the incentive for 
people to retrain people who can fill these jobs if we pass this 
legislation. So I stand here today to oppose H.R. 3736.
  This bill is contrary to the interests of hundreds of thousands of 
American workers, in fact, millions of American workers. It represents 
an attempt by high-tech corporations to hire cheaper foreign labor. And 
we cannot really blame them for that. That will add to their profit. 
That is who they represent, the interest of their stockholders. But we 
are not supposed to be representing the interest of their stockholders, 
we are supposed to be representing the interests of the American people 
and the United States. And rather than hire laid-off, high-tech 
employees or retrain other unemployed Americans, now these high-tech 
companies will just bring in cheaper foreign labor.
  So why retrain people? Why hire older Americans, who might have to 
use health benefits or retirement benefits? Let us bring in these 25-
year-old Indians or Pakistanis. This bill, in short, is a windfall to 
some companies that are making a profit off bringing in cheaper foreign 
labor, but it is a kick in the teeth to Americans, hard-working 
Americans, many of whom have been so loyal to their country and their 
employer but now are unemployed.
  Now they need some retraining or they need a job, and Congress is 
being asked to change the rules so that we can have hundreds of 
thousands of foreigners to come in here and take those jobs. Because 
those foreigners will get less money.
  Now, we can talk about, well, there is some things in the bill that 
protect that. In the end, we know that this will suppress any type of 
momentum in the economy to pay people more because there is, quote, a 
shortage. Thus, loyal Americans, people who have worked real hard for 
their employer or real hard for their country are going to be 
unemployed and untrained because those people that are going to be 
hired are going to be from outside this country.
  H.R. 3736 will bring in hundreds of thousands and flood the job 
market. If supply and demand were being adhered to, and those of us on 
our side of the aisle always talk about supply and demand, we believe 
in it, that is why we oppose many of these other things, well, if it is 
being adhered to, it has to be adhered to when it pressures wages up 
and helps the American people at those times as well as when it helps 
American companies. If we believe in it, let us stand for it now.
  Now, what would it mean if we let the supply and demand work at a 
time like this when they say there is a shortage of labor in the high-
tech industries? It means wages would rise or investments would be made 
for retraining. That is what we are undercutting by passing this bill. 
We are undercutting increasing wages for our people and retraining. So 
there are thousands of veterans and aerospace workers, veterans who 
need jobs and they need retraining, aerospace workers in my area who 
need retraining, and there are perhaps 200,000 people who have been 
laid off by high-tech companies themselves, all of these people are the 
victims of this legislation.
  And who are we helping? We are helping hundreds of thousands of 
foreign workers. Who are we loyal to here?
  This is a maneuver to add to the profit margin of these high-tech 
companies. And, again, it is good for them. They should be out for 
their profit. But it is a dagger aimed at loyal employees, especially 
employees who are over 40 who may have to use health benefits and 
retirement benefits.
  We should decide what our standard of immigration is all about, what 
is best for our country, and it should not be flexible and manipulated 
and used to subsidize any industry or to keep wages down. What these 
companies should do is go hire people and train them or get involved in 
the community but not manipulate the rules in order to keep their 
profits up and keep wages down. So wages and prices as well should be 
just like in supply and demand. It should be outside. Wages and prices 
should not be based on political maneuvers or manipulations.
  Finally, this bill reflects an attitude I find pervasive in corporate 
America, and that is many of our executives think of themselves as 
citizens of the world. This is a global economy; thus, they are 
globalists. Well, I have news for everybody that makes that argument. 
We better be loyal to the American people. The freedom of the world, 
the prosperity of our country, the whole future of mankind depends on 
these people who have worked hard for our country. They have worked 
hard for their employer. They have been loyal to us, and they expect us 
to be loyal to them. And if we sell them out for the profit margin of a 
couple of high-tech companies, so it will be a little higher, at a time 
when they are unemployed and out of work, but we are going to flood the 
job market with foreigners, who are we loyal to and what does that mean 
to our future?
  Our high-tech companies and their corporate leaders should be loyal 
to the United States of America. And if they are not, well, we, at 
least in the United States Congress, have to be loyal to the American 
people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to remind my colleagues this bill does, in fact, target 
businesses that are called H-1B dependent. Businesses who hire more 
than 15 percent of these type of foreign workers are targeted, and we 
do have safeguards for the American worker. We do have safeguards that 
include the fact that the businesses cannot fire an American worker and 
hire an overseas worker, and they have to make good-faith efforts to 
hire American workers first. So the abusers of the program are being 
targeted by the compromised bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding this time to me, and I commend him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3736. This well-
balanced legislation addresses the needs of the business community 
while protecting the well-being of American workers. It meets a short-
term labor demand for our country, and it institutes strong safeguards 
to protect against a permanent reliance upon alien labor sources,

[[Page H8588]]

including a new program of grants to provide technical skills training 
for workers.
  Mr. Speaker, one project that should be supported under this new 
program is the DePaul University High-Tech Workforce Pilot Program in 
Chicago. Developed in conjunction with corporate and local entities, 
this comprehensive program ensures that America's workforce will be 
better prepared to compete in the dynamic high-tech industry. I am 
confident that implementation of DePaul's training, retraining and 
education program will expand America's skilled labor force and enhance 
our competitive position in the global marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, the technology industry is presently experiencing a 
labor shortage. The current 65,000 cap on H-1B visas, created by 
Congress in 1990, has been rendered irrelevant by the technology 
explosion of the past decade. This arbitrarily chosen quota was met by 
May of this year and has left American businesses unable to hire new H-
1Bs until next January. In the interim, technology firms have been left 
with thousands of open jobs and few qualified applicants. Employing 
American workers for these jobs is not, at present time, a feasible 
solution. Failures in our educational system has created a void of 
qualified American skilled labor, compelling high tech firms to rely 
upon foreign born talent to fill these positions. Without an increase 
of the 65,000 visa ceiling, these vacant jobs will not be filled, 
thereby weakening a high growth industry that has been at the forefront 
of this nation's current economic boom.
  Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns that increasing the 
number of H-1B visas will displace American workers and shut them out 
of future employment opportunities in the high tech industry. This bill 
institutes numerous measures to ensure that Americans will not be 
victimized by this legislation. A $500 fee paid by businesses wishing 
to participate in the H-1B program will raise approximately $75 million 
annually to be split between a scholarship program for underprivileged 
high school students studying mathematics, computer science, or 
engineering and funding for job training programs which focus on 
information technology. Furthermore, a system of fines and/or a one to 
three year disqualification for those companies who abuse this law will 
work to further protect American workers from being shut out of the 
high-tech industry by H-1B aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3736 constitutes a carefully constructed, well-
balanced piece of legislation that addresses the needs of the American 
business community while protecting the well-being of American workers. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The self-executing amendment to H.R. 3736 includes a provision 
to provide math, engineering and computer science scholarships to needy 
students and a provision to provide additional worker training 
programs. There are a number of pilot programs being developed around 
the country to provide high-tech training to American workers. As the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has just mentioned, DePaul 
University has developed just such a pilot program to address the 
shortage of qualified U.S. high-tech workers in conjunction with 
corporate and local entities that might well serve as a good model for 
other programs across the country.
  Programs like the one developed by DePaul University are what we had 
in mind when the training provisions were drafted. Again I thank the 
gentleman from Illinois for helping us make sure that this provision 
was in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize too strongly, and I 
returned to the floor to state that this is an education problem, not 
an immigration problem. The immigration band-aid is botching up the 
whole process. There is a symptom here. We have a problem in terms of a 
shortage of people to fill information worker jobs. As long as we patch 
it up with a band-aid, we are not going to deal with the real problem. 
We need major surgery. Instead of a DePaul University experiment, which 
is a laudable innovation and I have no problem with that, but it is too 
small. We need something on the scale of a GI bill which offered 
education to every GI returning from World War II. We need something 
that massive to deal with the coming explosion of needs for information 
workers in our economy and in the economies of all the countries of the 
world. It is that big.
  We are the indispensable nation. If we are going to stay ahead, our 
education system has to be ahead. We have to have the most educated 
people on the face of the earth. There is no reason why we cannot do 
that. We have the resources. We can finance it. We have the policies 
that have been proposed by the President in terms of school 
construction so that all of our schools can be wired in a way which 
allows them to have computers and educational technology in order for 
them to prepare youngsters at a very early age to enter into the 
information technology worker field.
  We also have an e-rate that has been proposed by the Federal 
Communications Commission which gives communications services at a 
discount to schools and libraries. The same companies that are begging 
for these foreign workers and will utilize foreign workers are opposing 
the implementation of the e-rate. The e-rate is a permanent arrangement 
which will lower the cost of telecommunications services for schools. 
That is part of a comprehensive policy that we need. We need a 
comprehensive approach which includes school construction and wiring of 
schools, making more computers available, the e-rate, information and 
technology training centers at the community level so that youngsters 
from low-income homes will have an opportunity to go in and practice on 
the computer like their middle-income counterparts.
  But since the low-income youngsters do not own computers, we need 
some storefront computer centers where we can keep them open late at 
night and on Saturdays so that not only the students or youngsters but 
also older workers who are being downsized and misplaced in their 
present jobs can get some new training. Other workers need to upgrade 
themselves. They do not have computers at home. There are a number of 
components that ought to go into meeting this massive need. It is true, 
we are going to need them. 1.5 million vacancies are predicted over the 
next 5-year period. Instead of this band-aid which if it were only 
temporary, I would not be here. It is not temporary when you talk about 
a three or four-year period. ``Temporary'' is this year or next year. 
But they are talking about going all the way to the year 2001 and in 
the process of making that journey from now until the year 2001, they 
are going to ask to have those quotas raised. I predict that we will be 
back here next year with an argument being made to increase the quota 
of foreign workers coming in.
  Why can we not be as wise and have as much vision as Bangalore, 
India? Many years ago they decided they would heavily invest in 
training their students in computers and computer programming. Now 
Bangalore, India is considered the computer capital of the world. Most 
of these foreign workers that are going to come in will be coming from 
India. I have no problem with them coming from India or anywhere else, 
but the American students ought to have the opportunity to get the 
training that they need to fill these jobs. American workers also will 
keep the standard of pay at the level commensurate with the rest of our 
economy. They are going to pay these workers who come in as foreigners 
less. There are many inducements and enticements that are involved here 
which will make the industries continue to pressure to have more and 
more of the quota increases of foreign workers. We need to train our 
own workers with a comprehensive education program.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I 
have very mixed feelings about this bill. There are some improvements 
that have been made without question by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I do not like to 
disagree with them. However, I have some major concerns.
  My background is in education, heading a university with numerous 
computer programs. I come from the State of California where Silicon 
Valley is most of Santa Clara County.

[[Page H8589]]

  But there are Silicon Valleys of many and few firms all over the 
United States of America. They are in Michigan near Ann Arbor. They are 
across the Potomac in Fairfax County, Virginia. They are in San Diego 
County and Orange County in California.
  But I happen to come from Los Angeles County where 400,000 aerospace 
workers have been laid off over the last decade. And recently, Boeing, 
which I am delighted to have in my particular congressional district, 
they cut back roughly 3,000 workers in Downey, California. Now, that 
hurts. These workers built the Appollo, the Sky Lab, and the Shuttle.
  Many of these 400,000 have either jobs much lower than they had at 
one point in time or simply have not been placed and have moved out of 
the field.
  I feel very strongly that the Silicon Valleys of the Nation--and let 
us start with those firms in Santa Clara County. They should sit down 
with the Presidents of the community colleges of the Nation and work 
out the type of education program the computer firms need if domestic 
workers will master the skills to fill these jobs. These are not 
minimum wage jobs. These are $30,000 a year, $40,000 a year, $50,000 a 
year, and $60,000 a year jobs! We should have goals for our young 
people and adults who need to be retrained for the Information Age. 
Many already have the math and other courses. They just need the 
opportunity. That is why I am concerned. We have got to have an 
exchange of improving the quality of the product.
  In California we have an excellent community college system. There 
are 107 two year colleges spread over the State from the Mexican border 
to the Oregon border. They have outstanding faculty members
  We need to have the presidents of the colleges and the computer firms 
in the same room. The college presidents need to say, ``look, you can 
help us, Silicon Valley, because State budgets never cover our 
equipment needs. Our school budget is never able to secure the latest 
up-to-date generational equipment. We can help you with development of 
this curriculum. We need your input.''
  The chief executives in education and industry must get together. Who 
will buy the coffee and provide the room. If that is not going to 
happen, I will tell you that the $75 million and the 10,000 
scholarships it will fund is pitiful, When enacted, H.R. 3736 will 
remove the existing cap off at the 65,000 foreign worker level annually 
and this legislation would almost double the cap by going to 115,000. 
The 10,000 scholarships to retrain the American worker is a seemingly 
big drop in the bucket, but is not when the foreign visas rise from the 
current level of 65,000 annually to 115,000 in the year 2000. In 2001, 
107,500 MIB visas would be issued. So much for 10,000 retrained 
American workers. There should be 107,500 trained American workers, not 
just 10,000. In the Second World War many more workers were trained.
  I cannot believe that if we set goals and communicate with young and 
old alike, there will not be people who will seek that training. We 
should make sure that 7th and 8th grades know about the new and needed 
jobs that will be available in the twenty-first century.
  I think my colleagues have done a wonderful job in some of the 
differences, but once you go this route with that big a gap between 
visas and scholarships, then you are in trouble. Industry and education 
need to get together. That ought to be our goal. Until that time, I am 
not going to vote for a bill that increases the visa cap,
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I just want to reassure my colleague from California that we 
do have that $500 fee in this bill that every business will pay for 
every H-1B worker that business brings into the country. That is a huge 
pot of money. It is going to be used largely for job training and also 
for scholarships, particularly for college students who major in either 
computer science or math or engineering. I hope that that will reassure 
the gentleman and answer and address some of his concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Let us get to what we are really debating here today. We are 
debating the failed trade policy of the United States of America. We 
are going to run a $200 billion trade deficit this year. That means we 
are going to export about 4 million jobs. But we were told, ``Don't 
worry. Those 4 million jobs are those old, dirty, obsolete industrial 
jobs.'' Even though they were family wages and they paid benefits, not 
to worry. Those workers will be retrained for the future, the high-tech 
industry of the United States of America.
  So as we export the industrial base jobs, the family wage jobs, the 
jobs with benefits, what are we going to do now? We are going to import 
people for those jobs of the future. We are going to export our 
industrial jobs and we are going to import people into the United 
States to do the jobs of the future.
  What about those 4 million people? What about the people laid off 
from the aerospace jobs, from the computer companies and everywhere 
else? Are you telling us the American people are stupid? They know what 
you are doing here. You are screwing them going and coming. You are 
going to bring in people to fill the jobs you promised them when you 
took away their jobs.
  Both bills should be rejected, the bill and the substitute.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us 
for a number of reasons. As a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and someone who has experience in immigration law, used to teach 
immigration law, I have worked through with the White House and 
leadership on the other side of the aisle on this issue, and I believe 
that the product before us has many things that merit our support.
  First, although much has been said about computer professionals, and 
I come from Silicon Valley, I represent Santa Clara County, the H-1B 
program extends beyond computer specialists. I would note that I just 
received a call from a superintendent of schools in San Jose who said, 
``Please be careful. We're getting almost all our bilingual teachers 
through the H-1B program right now.'' So that is something to keep in 
mind.
  Secondarily there are specialists. This is not just a shortage issue, 
it is a specialist issue. Like the biotech firm in Silicon Valley that 
has hired specialists in Great Britain who are on the cutting edge of a 
particular type of science and has kept them on full salary since last 
spring in Great Britain waiting for an H-1B visa to become available. 
That is not a shortage issue. That is a specialist issue. That needs to 
be kept in mind.
  Finally, it is also a shortage issue. For my colleagues who say that 
we ought to do a better job of training our own people, I could not 
agree more. We need to get into schools that have been neglected. We 
need to make sure that poor children who are not achieving have a 
chance to achieve and become scientists and engineers. And although 
this bill will not accomplish all of that, this 75 to $100 million a 
year that will be provided for in the bill by the fees is going to help 
retrain American workers through the Job Training Partnership Act and 
also will be made available for math and science instruction.

                              {time}  1630

  Now in listening to my colleagues here and in talking to Members on 
the Republican side of the aisle and also in the Senate I think that we 
may need in conference to take a look at the allocation of funds in the 
math and science arena and see if we should not do a little bit more in 
K-12 education in addition to the scholarships, and I think that there 
is a willingness to work together on that.
  But having said that, Mr. Speaker, and if we could accomplish that, 
we should also note that in this bill there is the toughest enforcement 
that has ever been devised that is oriented towards those who are the 
wrongdoers primarily in abusing American workers, and that is the so-
called job shops. Very heavy attestation requirements, very severe 
penalties and very strong enforcement provisions.
  I would just also note that the Department of Labor has additional 
enforcement authority beyond the complaint system.
  So this is a tough bill, it is a balanced bill, and it is a bill that 
provides

[[Page H8590]]

funding for American school kids so they can become the scientists and 
engineers we need. I hope that my colleagues will support this very 
sensible approach.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our 
time to close the general debate to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Klink), and then I will yield him some more time when we start the 
debate on the substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
yielding this time to me, for his courteousness during this debate and 
also his leadership. The gentleman, the ranking member, is someone 
that, after we have been through this and my other work with him, I 
would appreciate being in a foxhole with him any day. He has conducted 
himself very well and very ably in this as he has on many other issues. 
And even though we have ended up with different conclusions, I would 
say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) he did good work to get us 
as far as he has gotten us, but it is not nearly good enough, and I 
think that the people of the country need to understand what is before 
us today.
  Let me first talk about the macro view. My friend from Oregon touched 
on the point when we were debating NAFTA back in 1993. He said that we 
understand that those low-skilled jobs are going to move offshore, but 
we were promised, as the gentleman said, that the high-tech jobs would 
be created, our workers would be retrained for those jobs, our sons and 
daughters would be trained for those jobs; that was the new economy. 
And now what this bill is saying is that our children are too stupid; 
our displaced workers are too stupid. We are not putting money into 
training. We need to bring over those foreigners who can take the jobs 
and displace America.
  The other macro view about this is, what will that do long term to 
the social fabric of this Nation? What will it do towards the attitudes 
of Americans when they see foreigners coming here and taking those 
jobs? It is only natural, if someone has got $60,000 or $70,000 in 
college loans and they are waiting on tables because the high-tech 
industry will not hire them, and, by the way, I have testimonial after 
testimonial from hundreds of people across this country who have been 
displaced who have not gotten jobs, and the people have told them we 
are waiting for the H-1B expansion because we can hire these workers 
cheaper, and when they are here, they are ours. They are nothing more 
than indentured servants. That is exactly what they are.
  As my colleagues know, we have heard stories today about 10,000 
scholarships. What good is a scholarship created by this program if the 
people who have gone to college here now cannot get hired? So we will 
have 10,000 more people with college educations waiting in the 
unemployment line and waiting on tables. That is what this debate is 
about.
  I cannot understand why there is this huge deal about $500 a job in 
the new bill. For $500 we are going to sell each American job. That is 
what it cost. If my colleagues want a $50,000 or $60,000 a year job, 
vote for this and get it for $500. What a deal.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again this compromise bill is supported by both the 
Republican leadership and the administration because it does two things 
right. It continues to protect the rights of American workers, and in 
addition to that it also provides the needed workers for high-tech 
industry itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who is both chairman of the Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia and, just as importantly, he is a former high-
tech executive in the information technology field.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding this time to me, working with the other body and working with 
the administration to try to bring a bill with some very complex 
components and, obviously, some very emotional components to fruition 
here where we can do what is right for American workers. And to my 
friend from Pennsylvania who spoke, I know these are sincere words from 
him, but I take a different macro view of how the world and jobs are 
being created.
  The reality is that high-technology jobs are being created in America 
faster than we have qualified people to fill them. This was not 
expected at the time. In my own county, the Northern Virginia 
Technology Council did a study that showed we have 20,000 available 
jobs, average salary $42,000 a year, that we cannot fill. Now, what 
happens if we cannot find the people to fill them?
  There is, by the way, a nationwide vacuum in the vacancies in the 
information technology field, and this is a study by the Information 
Technology Association of America, the ITAA: 346,000 vacancies for 
computer programers, systems analysts, software engineers, computer 
scientists nationwide that we cannot fill. It is building and costing 
companies more to hire people. We are in a bidding war. Salaries are 
going up. And with the year 2000 problems and others it is costing our 
Federal Government billions of dollars more than we originally 
envisioned because of the scarcity of trained technical workers.
  Now what does this bill do? It confronts it. One of the most 
challenging components of the information age is, as a society, how do 
we confront these challenges that workers are going to have to be 
trained and constantly retrained as technologies emerge, as they change 
rapidly to fill the rapidly developing jobs in this era? H.R. 3736 
serves as a short-term remedy to this Nation's long-term need for 
highly skilled technical workers. If we do not, and let us take these 
20,000 jobs in Fairfax that are available right now, if we do not find 
technical workers that are qualified to do this, what happens to those 
jobs? I will tell my colleagues exactly what happens:
  We have companies right now unable to find trained Americans to do 
the jobs that are moving the jobs to India, they are moving them to 
Malaysia, they are moving them offshore. And as they move offshore, we 
lose those jobs from this country entirely over the long period so that 
when our sons and daughters and friends and neighbors are trained to be 
able to provide for this, not only those jobs but the jobs that spill 
out of that have gone offshore forever. This is a short-term remedy.
  And it does something else that I am not hearing from the other side 
and opponents of this. It addresses the issue of training, something we 
as a society both on the private sector and government sector have 
really not focused on in the information age, and that is how you get 
people to be trained and retrained into where the jobs are, how do we 
coordinate public education, higher education, community colleges and 
train people for exactly where the jobs are? Because government 
traditionally lags a little bit behind the market, and we are finding 
that now, because of the fee that companies are paying for each worker 
that is put into a fund is going to fund scholarships for individuals 
who would otherwise not be trained and to entice people to go into some 
of these engineering and speciality fields so they can get the training 
and at the end of the cycle, in the year 2001, we are going to have 
trained Americans to fill these jobs. Without this legislation, I dare 
say there is nothing pending before this body that addresses the issue 
of how we are going to get people into these fields where the jobs are.

  In my State of Virginia, we have more students graduating from 
college each year going into psychology as a major than we do into the 
computer science area, three times as many last year, and yet the jobs 
are not there, they are in the technical side. This bill addresses 
that. This bill makes the companies who are bringing workers in on a 
temporary basis pay for those jobs. That is the way it ought to be. It 
should not be the taxpayers at large. We have no other vehicle that 
does that.
  And that is the beauty of this compromise. By creating that $500 fee 
to be included as a part of every H-1B visa issued, it will support 
this fund, and it is going to provide scholarship assistance for 
students studying math, computer science, engineering for Federal job 
training services.

[[Page H8591]]

  I think that instead of sitting, complaining and whining about what 
is happening in different parts we need to take actions, that the 
result of those actions move jobs out of the United States on a 
permanent basis. What we need is to take more positive steps to induce 
qualified Americans to become trained and retrained, and this bill does 
that. We need to bring students from the inner city right now where a 
lot of these high technology jobs do not even exist, get them into 
training and programs. They have the aptitudes. Get them into programs 
where they can be trained and take advantage of these.
  This is the wave of the future, not just in the United States, not 
just in the Silicone Valley or northern Virginia, but across the world, 
and this legislation is the first meaningful piece I have seen come out 
of this Congress that addresses this in a fair way and addresses the 
future, not just the current cycle.
  And I just thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) for working so hard 
to bring this compromise about. I am excited about this legislation. I 
hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Mr. Watt of 
                             North Carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workforce Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN SKILLED FOREIGN WORKERS; 
                   TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN H-2B NONIMMIGRANTS.

       Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1)(A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), subject to 
     paragraph (5), may not exceed--
       ``(i) 95,000 in fiscal year 1998;
       ``(ii) 105,000 in fiscal year 1999;
       ``(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(iv) 65,000 in fiscal year 2001 and any subsequent fiscal 
     year; or'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (1)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) may not exceed--
       ``(i) 36,000 in fiscal year 1998;
       ``(ii) 26,000 in fiscal year 1999;
       ``(iii) 16,000 in fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(iv) 66,000 in fiscal year 2001 and any subsequent fiscal 
     year.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``years.'' and inserting 
     ``years, except that, with respect to each such nonimmigrant 
     issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status in 
     each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 in excess of 65,000 
     (per fiscal year), the period of authorized admission as such 
     a nonimmigrant may not exceed 4 years.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The total number of aliens described in section 
     212(a)(5)(C) who may be issued visas or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 1999) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not 
     exceed 5,000.''.

     SEC. 3. 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)(i) Except as provided in clause (iv), the employer 
     has not laid off or otherwise displaced and will not lay off 
     or otherwise displace, within the period beginning 6 months 
     before and ending 90 days following the date of filing of the 
     application or during the 90 days immediately preceding and 
     following the date of filing of any visa petition supported 
     by the application, any United States worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (3)) (including a worker whose services are 
     obtained by contract, employee leasing, temporary help 
     agreement, or other similar means) who has substantially 
     equivalent qualifications and experience in the specialty 
     occupation, and in the area of employment, for which H-1B 
     nonimmigrants are sought or in which they are employed.
       ``(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), in the case of 
     an employer that employs an H-1B nonimmigrant, the employer 
     shall not place the nonimmigrant with another employer 
     where--
       ``(I) the nonimmigrant performs his or her duties in whole 
     or in part at one or more worksites owned, operated, or 
     controlled by such other employer; and
       ``(II) there are indicia of an employment relationship 
     between the nonimmigrant and such other employer.
       ``(iii) Clause (ii) shall not apply to an employer's 
     placement of an H-1B nonimmigrant with another employer if 
     the other employer has executed an attestation that it 
     satisfies and will satisfy the conditions described in clause 
     (i) during the period described in such clause.
       ``(iv) This subparagraph shall not apply to an application 
     filed by an employer that is 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, if the application relates solely to aliens who--
       ``(I) the employer seeks to employ--
       ``(aa) as a researcher on a project for which not less than 
     50 percent of the funding is provided, for a limited period 
     of time, through a grant or contract with an entity other 
     than the employer; or
       ``(bb) as a professor or instructor under a contract that 
     expires after a limited period of time; and
       ``(II) have attained a master's or higher degree (or its 
     equivalent) in a specialty the specific knowledge of which is 
     required for the intended employment.''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--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 `H-1B nonimmigrant' means an alien admitted 
     or provided status as a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
       ``(B) The term `lay off or otherwise displace', with 
     respect to an employee--
       ``(i) means to cause the employee's loss of employment, 
     other than through a discharge for cause, a voluntary 
     departure, or a voluntary retirement; and
       ``(ii) does not include any situation in which employment 
     is relocated to a different geographic area and the employee 
     is offered a chance to move to the new location, with wages 
     and benefits that are not less than those at the old 
     location, but elects not to move to the new location.
       ``(C) The term `United States worker' means--
       ``(i) a citizen or national of the United States;
       ``(ii) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; 
     or
       ``(iii) an alien authorized to be employed by this Act or 
     by the Attorney General.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 212(n)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``a nonimmigrant described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``an H-1B nonimmigrant''.

     SEC. 4. RECRUITMENT OF UNITED STATES WORKERS PRIOR TO SEEKING 
                   NONIMMIGRANT WORKERS.

       Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by section 3, is further 
     amended by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F)(i) The employer, prior to filing the application, has 
     taken, in good faith, timely and significant steps to recruit 
     and retain sufficient United States workers in the specialty 
     occupation for which H-1B nonimmigrants are sought. Such 
     steps shall have included recruitment in the United States, 
     using procedures that meet industry-wide standards and 
     offering compensation that is at least as great as that 
     required to be offered to H-1B nonimmigrants under 
     subparagraph (A), and offering employment to any United 
     States worker who applies and has the same qualifications as, 
     or better qualifications than, any of the H-1B nonimmigrants 
     sought.
       ``(ii) The conditions described in clause (i) shall not 
     apply to an employer with respect to the employment of an H-
     1B nonimmigrant who is described in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (C) of section 203(b)(1).''.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO INITIATE COMPLAINTS AND 
                   CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS FOR NON-H-1B-DEPENDENT 
                   EMPLOYERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(2)(A) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting the following: ``, except that the 
     Secretary may only file such a complaint respecting an H-1B-
     dependent employer (as defined in paragraph (3)), and only if 
     there appears to be a violation of an attestation or a 
     misrepresentation of a material fact in an application.''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``Except as provided in subparagraph (F) (relating to spot 
     investigations during probationary period), no investigation 
     or hearing shall be conducted with respect to an employer 
     except in response to a complaint filed under the previous 
     sentence.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 212(n)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as added by section 3, 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after ``purposes of this subsection:'' the 
     following:
       ``(A) The term `H-1B-dependent employer' means an employer 
     that--
       ``(i)(I) has fewer than 21 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States; and
       (II) employs 4 or more H-1B nonimmigrants; or

[[Page H8592]]

       ``(ii)(I) has at least 21 but not more than 150 full-time 
     equivalent employees who are employed in the United States; 
     and
       (II) employs H-1B nonimmigrants in a number that is equal 
     to at least 20 percent of the number of such full-time 
     equivalent employees; or
       ``(iii)(I) has at least 151 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States; and
       (II) employs H-1B nonimmigrants in a number that is equal 
     to at least 15 percent of the number of such full-time 
     equivalent employees.

     In applying this subparagraph, any group treated as a single 
     employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 
     414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as 
     a single employer. Aliens employed under a petition for H-1B 
     nonimmigrants shall be treated as employees, and counted as 
     nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) under this 
     subparagraph.''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(D) The term `non-H-1B-dependent employer' means an 
     employer that is not an H-1B-dependent employer.''.

     SEC. 6. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C)(i) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (1)(E), a substantial failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1)(C), (1)(D), or (1)(F), or a 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an 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 $1,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(ii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a condition of 
     paragraph (1), a willful misrepresentation of material fact 
     in an application, or a violation of clause (iv)--
       ``(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 $5,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(II) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 1 year for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(iii) If the Secretary finds, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, a willful failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1) or a willful misrepresentation of 
     material fact in an application, in the course of which 
     failure or misrepresentation the employer also has failed to 
     meet a condition of paragraph (1)(E)--
       ``(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 that employer under section 204 or 
     214(c) during a period of at least 2 years for aliens to be 
     employed by the employer.
       ``(iv) It is a violation of this clause for an employer who 
     has filed an application under this subsection to intimidate, 
     threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any 
     other manner discriminate against an employee (which term, 
     for purposes of this clause, includes a former employee and 
     an applicant for employment) because the employee has 
     disclosed information to the employer, or to any other 
     person, that the employee reasonably believes evidences a 
     violation of this subsection, or any rule or regulation 
     pertaining to this subsection, or because the employee 
     cooperates or seeks to cooperate in an investigation or other 
     proceeding concerning the employer's compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection or any rule or regulation 
     pertaining to this subsection.''.
       (b) Placement of H-1B Nonimmigrant With Other Employer.--
     Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) Under regulations of the Secretary, the previous 
     provisions of this paragraph shall apply to a failure of an 
     other employer to comply with an attestation described in 
     paragraph (1)(E)(iii) in the same manner as they apply to a 
     failure to comply with a condition described in paragraph 
     (1)(E)(i).''.
       (c) Spot Investigations During Probationary Period.--
     Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by subsection (b), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) The Secretary may, on a case-by-case basis, subject 
     an employer to random investigations for a period of up to 5 
     years, beginning on the date that the employer is found by 
     the Secretary to have committed a willful failure to meet a 
     condition of paragraph (1) or to have made a 
     misrepresentation of material fact in an application. The 
     preceding sentence shall apply to an employer regardless of 
     whether the employer is an H-1B-dependent employer or a non-
     H-1B-dependent employer. The authority of the Secretary under 
     this subparagraph shall not be construed to be subject to, or 
     limited by, the requirements of subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION BY IMPORTING EMPLOYERS OF 
                   EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PROVISIONS VIOLATING PUBLIC 
                   POLICY.

       Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)), as amended by section (6), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing, that an employer who has submitted an 
     application under paragraph (1) has requested or required an 
     alien admitted or provided status as a nonimmigrant pursuant 
     to the application, as a condition of the employment, to 
     execute a contract containing a provision that would be 
     considered void as against public policy in the State of 
     intended employment--
       ``(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 by the employer under section 214(c) during a period of 
     not more than 10 years for H-1B nonimmigrants to be employed 
     by the employer.''.

     SEC. 8. COLLECTION AND USE OF H-1B NONIMMIGRANT FEES FOR 
                   STATE STUDENT INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAMS AND JOB 
                   TRAINING OF UNITED STATES WORKERS.

       (a) Imposition of Fee.--Section 214(c) (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9)(A) The Attorney General shall impose a fee on an 
     employer (excluding an employer described in subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) of section 212(p)(1)) as a condition for the approval 
     of a petition filed on or after October 1, 1998, and before 
     October 1, 2002, under paragraph (1) to grant an alien 
     nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
     The amount of the fee shall be $500 for each such 
     nonimmigrant.
       ``(B) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(t).
       ``(C)(i) An employer may not require an alien who is the 
     subject of the petition for which a fee is imposed under this 
     paragraph to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer 
     for part or all of the cost of such fee.
       ``(ii) Section 274A(g)(2) shall apply to a violation of 
     clause (i) in the same manner as it applies to a violation of 
     section 274A(g)(1).''.
       (b) Establishment of Account; Use of Fees.--Section 286 (8 
     U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account which shall be known as 
     the `H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'. Notwithstanding 
     any other section of this title, there shall be deposited as 
     offsetting receipts into the account all fees collected under 
     section 214(c)(9).
       ``(2) Use of half of fees by secretary of education for 
     higher education grants.--Fifty percent of the amounts 
     deposited into the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall 
     remain available until expended to the Secretary of Education 
     for additional allotments to States under subpart 4 of 
     chapter 8 of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 but 
     only for the purpose of assisting States in providing grants 
     to eligible students enrolled in a program of study leading 
     to a degree in mathematics, computer science, or engineering.
       ``(3) Use of half of fees by secretary of labor for job 
     training.--Fifty percent of amounts deposited into the 
     deposits into such Account shall remain available until 
     expended to the Secretary of Labor for demonstration programs 
     described in section 104(d) of the Temporary Access to 
     Skilled Workers and H-1B Nonimmigrant Program Improvement Act 
     of 1998.''.
       (c) Conforming Modification of Application Requirements for 
     State Student Incentive Grant Program.--Section 415C(b) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c-2(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) provides that any portion of the allotment to the 
     State for each fiscal year that derives from funds made 
     available under section 286(t)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act shall be expended for grants described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) to students enrolled in a program of study 
     leading to a degree in mathematics, computer science, or 
     engineering.''.
       (d) Demonstration Programs and Projects to Provide 
     Technical Skills Training for Workers.
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), in establishing 
     demonstration programs

[[Page H8593]]

     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 demonstration programs or projects under a 
     successor Federal law, the Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     demonstration programs or projects to provide technical 
     skills training for workers, including both employed and 
     unemployed workers.
       (2) Grants.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary of 
     Labor shall award grants to carry out the programs and 
     projects described in paragraph (1) to--
       (A)(i) 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
       (ii) local boards that will carry out such programs or 
     projects through one-stop delivery systems established under 
     a successor Federal law; or
       (B) regional consortia of councils or local boards 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     programs and projects under paragraph (1), including awarding 
     grants to carry out such programs and projects under 
     paragraph (2), only with funds made available under section 
     286(t)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and not 
     with funds made available under the Job Training Partnership 
     Act or a successor Federal law.

     SEC. 9. IMPROVING COUNT OF H-1B AND H-2B NONIMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Ensuring Accurate Count.--The Attorney General shall 
     take such steps as are necessary to maintain an accurate 
     count of the number of aliens subject to the numerical 
     limitations of section 214(g)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act who are issued visas or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status.
       (b) Revision of Petition Forms.--The Attorney General shall 
     take such steps as are necessary to revise the forms used for 
     petitions for visas or nonimmigrant status under clause 
     (i)(b) or (ii)(b) of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act so as to ensure that the forms provide 
     the Attorney General with sufficient information to permit 
     the Attorney General accurately to count the number of aliens 
     subject to the numerical limitations of section 214(g)(1) of 
     such Act who are issued visas or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status.
       (c) Reports.--Beginning with fiscal year 1999, the Attorney 
     General shall provide to the Congress not less than 4 times 
     per year a report on--
       (1) the numbers of individuals who were issued visas or 
     otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during the preceding 
     3-month period under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act;
       (2) the numbers of individuals who were issued visas or 
     otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during the preceding 
     3-month period under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such 
     Act; and
       (3) the countries of origin and occupations of, educational 
     levels attained by, and total compensation (including the 
     value of all wages, salary, bonuses, stock, stock options, 
     and any other similar forms of remuneration) paid to, 
     individuals issued visas or provided nonimmigrant status 
     under such sections during such period.

     SEC. 10. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON AGE DISCRIMINATION IN THE 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FIELD.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study assessing age discrimination in the 
     information technology field. The study shall consider the 
     following:
       (1) The prevalence of age discrimination in the information 
     technology workplace.
       (2) The extent to which there is a difference, based on 
     age, in promotion and advancement; working hours; 
     telecommuting; salary; and stock options, bonuses, or other 
     benefits.
       (3) The relationship between rates of advancement, 
     promotion, and compensation to experience, skill level, 
     education, and age.
       (4) Differences in skill level on the basis of age.
       (b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2000, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report containing the 
     results of the study described in subsection (a). The report 
     shall include any recommendations of the Comptroller General 
     concerning age discrimination in the information technology 
     field.

     SEC. 11. GAO LABOR MARKET STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a labor market study. The study shall 
     investigate and analyze the following:
       (1) The overall shortage of available workers in the high-
     technology, rapid-growth industries.
       (2) The multiplier effect growth of high-technology 
     industry on low-technology employment.
       (3) The relative achievement rates of United States and 
     foreign students in secondary school in a variety of 
     subjects, including math, science, computer science, English, 
     and history.
       (4) The relative performance, by subject area, of United 
     States and foreign students in postsecondary and graduate 
     schools as compared to secondary schools.
       (5) The labor market need for workers with information 
     technology skills and the extent of the deficit of such 
     workers to fill high-technology jobs during the 10-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (6) Future training and education needs of companies in the 
     high-technology sector.
       (7) Future training and education needs of United States 
     students to ensure that their skills at various levels match 
     the needs of the high-technology and information technology 
     sectors.
       (8) An analysis of which particular skill sets are in 
     demand.
       (9) The needs of the high-technology sector for foreign 
     workers with specific skills.
       (10) The potential benefits of postsecondary educational 
     institutions, employers, and the United States economy from 
     the entry of skilled professionals in the fields of 
     engineering and science.
       (11) The effect on the high-technology labor market of the 
     downsizing of the defense sector, the increase in 
     productivity in the computer industry, and the deployment of 
     workers dedicated to the Year 2000 Project.
       (b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2000, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report containing the 
     results of the study described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     applications filed with the Secretary of Labor on or after 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that 
     the amendments made by section 2 shall apply to applications 
     filed with such Secretary before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 513, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my colleagues that this has been an 
interesting debate up to this point, and my colleagues will see, if 
they have been listening to the debate, how difficult an issue this is. 
This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. There are 
some very difficult issues that we have had to address here, and I will 
just say to my colleagues that, in addressing those issues, the 
Committee on the Judiciary took every single point that was made in the 
general debate into account.
  There are people in the general debate who are saying we should not 
have an H-1B program at all because we got enough American workers here 
in our country to meet the need. There are people who said we ought to 
increase it a lot more than we increase it in either this bill or in my 
substitute. There are people who are all over the waterfront on this 
issue, and we tried to take every single view into account as we went 
through the process.
  Now listen to what the committee report says. This is the committee 
report in support of the bill which I am offering as my substitute 
which ought to be on the floor because it passed the Committee on the 
Judiciary by a vote of 23 to 4. This is what the committee report says. 
It says, it is in the Nation's interest that the quota for H-1B aliens 
be temporarily raised. First, unless Congress acts, employers will not 
be able to employ new H-1B nonimmigrants until the beginning of the 
next fiscal year.
  The committee report then goes on to say, the committee recognizes 
that the evidence for such a shortage is inconclusive. There are people 
out there who are saying there is no shortage of high-tech workers. 
There are people who are saying there is a major shortage of high-tech 
workers, and we, in our committee report, acknowledge that we could not 
decide that one way or another.

                              {time}  1645

  Then the committee report says, however, the increase in the H-1B 
quota should be of relatively brief duration; there will be a bumper 
crop of American college graduates skilled in computer science 
beginning in the summer of 2001.
  Now, we acknowledge that if there is a shortage, it is a temporary 
shortage of high skilled workers, and we ought to respond to that 
shortage by increasing the number on a temporary basis. And that is 
exactly what the committee's bill does, the one that I am offering 
instead of my chairman defending the committee's bill, I am here 
offering on the floor, defending the committee's position.

[[Page H8594]]

  Now, what does our bill do? What does our bill do? It temporarily 
increases the number of H-1B visas until the year 2000 under our bill, 
because we recognize that this was a temporary problem that we were 
trying to address. So our plan was to increase it from 65,000 to 95,000 
workers for fiscal year 1998, to 105,000 for the year 1999, and to 
115,000 for the year 2000. And then we were going to go back to the 
current level of 65,000, because we had evidence that said in 2001 we 
are going to have a bumper crop of students coming out of school in 
these fields and we will not need this increase anymore. That is why we 
passed the bill the way we passed it out of our committee.
  So now you have a choice between a bill that we had hearings on, that 
documented, to some extent, the need for it. We acknowledged that there 
might be a need for it and increased the numbers until the year 2000, 
but not to 2001, like the bill we have on the floor today. The bill we 
have on the floor goes to 115,000 for 1999, 115,000 for 2000 and 
107,500 for the year 2001, when we have in our record documentation 
that there is going to be a bumper crop of American students coming 
out, and it is in our report.
  So, you have got a choice: Do you take our efforts that we worked so 
hard in the committee on and passed, 23 to 4, to address this issue, or 
do you take something that somebody pulled out of the sky, where I do 
not know where the figures came from, I still do not know, and nobody 
will be able to tell us.
  Now, we had evidence before the committee that said this program is 
being abused, and we took steps in the committee's bill to address the 
abuse in the process.
  Our bill, the substitute which is being offered here today, requires 
all employers to attest that they have not laid off or otherwise 
displaced a U.S. worker who has substantially equivalent 
qualifications, and that they will only place the foreign worker that 
comes in under the program with another employer who has also attested 
to this. You cannot either bring in a person for your own benefit or 
for another employer unless you have attested that you are not going to 
lay off a U.S. worker. Now, is that unreasonable? There is not a person 
in this chamber who could say that that is unreasonable, if we are 
going to fulfill our minimum obligation to U.S. employees.
  Yet the bill we are voting on today does not apply that requirement 
to all employers. What it says is some convoluted formula, if you are 
under 25,000 employees, then you have to attest; under 25,000 to 
50,000, you have to do another kind of attestation. It makes no sense. 
We had attestation that 23 Members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
said was a good way to protect against abuses, and we are throwing it 
in the trash can, unless we adopt the substitute that is on the floor 
today.
  The third thing our bill does is that it requires that all employers 
attest that they have in good faith taken timely and significant steps 
to recruit and retain sufficient U.S. workers in the specialty 
occupation for which the foreign workers are sought.
  That is not an unreasonable requirement. All we are saying is do not 
go and bring a foreign worker into the United States unless you have in 
good faith taken some steps to try to recruit U.S. workers. That is why 
all of these people are coming to the floor today and saying to us, 
well, in my part of the country, people are being laid off.
  If there are laid off people in Michigan and there is a need in 
California, my goodness, we ought to request the employer to go to 
Michigan before we send them to India. That is all we are saying, and 
that is all the attestation would do. And it applies to all employers 
again, just like it should apply to all employers.
  Now, there is something in our bill, because we did not have all the 
facts, that required a study to be done by GAO to determine what impact 
this is having.
  I do not know whether they put that in their new bill or not, but I 
do not see anything about the GAO in the draft of the bill that I got 
late last night in the Congressional Record in the fine print. So maybe 
they will tell me that that is in their bill too. But at least we ought 
to during this three or four year period document whether there is a 
shortage or is not a shortage, and our substitute does that, the bill 
that passed the Committee on the Judiciary, which I, a minority member 
of the committee, has to come to the floor and defend the committee's 
work product. That ought not be the case.
  We had a good bill. We passed it 23 to 4, bipartisan support, broad 
based support. It addressed the issues. It was not protectionist. It 
acknowledged that we had a problem. But we have got to do it in a way 
that is fair to the American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to search their heart and 
vote for this bipartisan substitute that came out of the Committee on 
the Judiciary by a 23 to 4 vote; not a bill that we have been sent over 
here from the Senate that has nothing in it that really supports the 
findings that we made as a committee in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering on the floor today 
represents a good faith compromise between differing H-1B measures, one 
passed by the Senate and one passed by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. It is not perfect, but compromises seldom are.
  What the bill does do is take a middle role between varying 
viewpoints as to the H-1B visa program. The H-1B program is being 
abused by firms known as job shops or job contractors. These companies 
do not bring in a few H-1B aliens a year to plug skill gaps in their 
work forces. Instead, many, and sometimes all, of their personnel are 
in fact H-1B workers.
  Job contractors make no pretense of looking for American workers. 
They are in the business of contracting out their H-1Bs to other 
companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are contracted benefit by 
paying wages to the H-1Bs often well below what comparable Americans 
would receive. In order to achieve this benefit, they have been known 
to lay off American workers and replace them with H-1B foreign workers 
from job contractors.
  In order to stem this abuse, H.R. 3736 requires job contractors, 
defined as companies where 15 percent or more of the workforce is 
composed of H-1Bs, to make good faith efforts to recruit American 
workers, to not lay off Americans and replace them with foreign 
workers, and to not contract H-1Bs to other companies who use them to 
replace other American workers.

  If we are to have an increase in the H-1B quotas and protect American 
workers at the same time, it will be through H.R. 3736, and not the 
Watt amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I also want to make a final point: You might get the impression from 
listening to some of the opponents of the bill and to some of the 
proponents of the Watts substitute that there is nothing in the bill to 
protect American workers. The opposite is true. We are going to protect 
American workers, and, in fact, we are going to target the companies 
that have in fact been the abusers in the past. So there are lots of 
protections for the American workers in the bill. That will continue, 
that is in the compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to my friend the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon), who is also a member of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairman, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Watt amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 3736, the Workforce Improvement and 
Protection Act. The H-1B program is critical to our Nation, and, in 
particular, to the state of Utah, which I represent. The engine driving 
American productivity has performed well beyond anyone's expectations 
over the past several years, and I am sure we all realize how much of 
this performance is due to the contribution made by the high-tech 
sector

[[Page H8595]]

and its commitment to research, development, innovation and 
achievement.
  So today we must make a choice that is critical to this engine of 
American productivity. We must decide whether this engine will continue 
to have fuel to run on, because that is what we are talking about here. 
Our high-tech sector cannot function without the high skilled 
individuals employed to generate that productivity, and voting in favor 
of this substitute would effectively put a stop to this productivity.
  At the same time, I am pleased that a compromise has been reached 
that safeguards productivity while it, for example, generates 
additional private sector funds for scholarships for American students 
in the fields of mathematics, computer science and engineering.
  The compromise will build our investment in American students and 
workers, will sustain our high-tech sector, and will allow America to 
remain the global economic leader it is today. I voted ``no'' during 
the markup of an earlier version of this language in the Committee on 
the Judiciary several months ago, for the same reasons I urge Members 
to vote against it today.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a cosponsor of the substitute.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute 
sponsored by the ranking member of our subcommittee and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, as well as myself.
  Here is where I come from: I buy into a lot of the arguments of the 
proponents of the bill. One, in a global economy, we want our companies 
to be competitive. That includes making sure they are able to hire 
workers with the skills necessary for them to be as competitive as they 
can be, because it is our competitive edge which will help us in the 
future.
  I come from a very strong background of believing in immigration, 
believing immigration is good for this country, believing immigration 
based on family relationships and employer sponsorships are both 
important and that those immigrants contribute a great deal to our 
economy and to our social fabric and to our culture.
  I also accept the premise that probably at this particular time we 
need substantial additional visas for H-1B, for temporary nonimmigrant 
workers who have specific skills. I just think that to say that huge 
numbers of the employers who will utilize these H-1B workers do not 
have to go through a basic meaningful process of recruitment and do not 
have any meaningful constraints on their ability to displace a U.S. 
worker in order to bring in a temporary nonimmigrant visa is wrong 
fundamentally, and, moreover, will in the long term undermine America's 
willingness to accept immigration under these grounds.

                              {time}  1700

  So I think the substitute, which provides a meaningful attestation 
requirement, is a compelling help to this particular legislation.
  The way this is written, a company that employs 5,000 people but has 
only 600 H-1B workers would not be obligated to provide any of the 
attestation requirements, because it would not meet the definition of 
an H-1B-dependent company.
  That makes no sense to me. This is not an amendment that simply 
excludes small employers, not that they should not have the same 
obligations, anyway, but we can talk about the Department of Labor, 
paperwork burdens, and things like this. We could be talking about some 
enormous employers with substantial numbers of H-1B employees who will 
not be required to have enforceable obligations to recruit domestically 
first, or to agree not to displace U.S. workers with people filling 
these nonimmigrant visas, these H-1B visas.
  I urge support for the substitute. I congratulate our ranking member 
for his preparing of this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute of the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) to the legislation pending before us.
  I do so because of many of the points that the two authors of this 
substitute have pointed out. When we read the committee report, we see 
the documented concerns that have been raised both about age 
discrimination, about displacement, about unemployment in various 
regions of the country, and the overdefining of some of these jobs, and 
I think that it is incumbent that we ask employers to make the kinds of 
efforts necessary to make sure that in fact these jobs cannot be filled 
from United States citizens before we go overseas to look for them.
  I, like the proponents of this legislation, also accept the notion 
that there are in many instances jobs that cannot be filled from the 
domestic work force, for one reason or another, and it may be temporary 
in some cases, or what appears to be permanent when we consider the 
rapidity of change within these industries.
  But not all of these jobs are the narrow band of jobs on the cutting 
edge where, in many instances, those individuals do not exist within 
the American work force, and we ought to make sure that, therefore, we 
can go overseas and recruit those individuals and bring them here to 
help companies remain in the competitive position.
  But many of the other jobs in fact are available, but they may not be 
available in that immediate geographic region. It ought to be incumbent 
on people to go out and to see and recruit individuals that can fill 
those jobs, either because they have been laid off of their jobs in 
another region of this country, or they can be readily retrained for 
those jobs that these employers are looking for.
  For that reason, I believe that the substitute is a preferable work 
product in assuring that we make sure that American citizens who are 
looking for work, who have these skills, are in fact considered first, 
because that really is the obligation that these companies should have. 
If they are not available, then we ought to make sure that we also 
provide a vehicle so those people can be brought into the work force. 
Again, I support the substitute.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the substitute to H.R. 3736 prepared 
by my colleagues from North Carolina, California, and Pennsylvania. I 
have already expressed my skepticism about the claims of a shortage. I 
would like to turn here to the protection for U.S. workers.
  The Republican proposal is carefully crafted to apply only to 
companies that we call ``body shops.'' It would allow most American 
firms who use H-1Bs to avoid scrutiny by the Department of Labor. The 
Watt substitute requires all companies using H-1Bs to attest that they 
have sought an American employee, and that they have not laid off an 
American in order to take on the H-1B employee.
  In the Republican bill, the protection against layoffs only applies 
if the body shop knows or should have known that the ultimate employer 
was going to lay off the American worker. If I am an American worker, 
that does not fill me with confidence.
  The Department of Labor has been hampered in enforcing the H-1B 
program because only H-1B visa holders could initiate complaints. The 
Republicans claim that the Department receives authority to investigate 
based on specific credible information of violation. What is not said 
is that the Secretary must first ``* * *provide notice to allow the 
employer to respond before the investigation is initiated, unless the 
Secretary determines it would interfere with compliance.''
  In practice, we know the Secretary has few resources to investigate 
violations now, and the Department can expect to find employers 
objecting to investigations as soon as the Department informs them that 
one is being considered. It should also be noted that the increased 
protections provided by the Republican substitute last only as long as 
the increase in visa numbers continues. The Watt substitute permanently 
protects U.S. workers.

[[Page H8596]]

  I noted earlier that the claim of a shortage is not well supported by 
the evidence. The Republicans think they have made a great concession 
by shrinking their bill from 5 years to 3 years, but with substantial 
increases in the numbers. The Watt substitute provides a smaller 
increase. I prefer this more limited intervention in the labor market.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) worked hard to 
produce a bipartisan consensus in the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
Watt substitute embodies the fruits of his labor. I believe the House 
would do better to vote for the Watt substitute.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me, I thank him for his leadership, and I thank my 
good friend, the gentleman from Texas, for working on this very 
difficult issue.
  Frankly, in my district I get immigrants who are speaking of those 
they have left behind, and are certainly concerned that this country 
might be seen as closing the doors to those who seek to come and work. 
At the same time, I get many of those who are in this country, who are 
born in this country, who express a great degree of concern about 
losing their jobs and opportunities.
  Where reasonable men and women can agree, that is what we should be 
doing in the United States House of Representatives. Adversarial 
positions, where we can agree, do nothing to help America and to move 
forward.
  I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is an obviously 
reasonable person, not only because he comes from the State of Texas, 
but I know where he went to undergraduate college, so I know where his 
background leads him, and I know he is a reasonable man.
  With that in mind, I think it is extremely appropriate that we 
support the Watt-Berman-Klink bill. Just look at that, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and California. Can we get any more American, talking 
about how can we can resolve this question?
  I think it is extremely important that we insist that employers 
attest to the fact that they have not laid off or otherwise displaced a 
U.S. worker who has a substantially equivalent qualification, and that 
they will only place the foreign worker with another employer who has 
also attested to do this.
  Do Members realize that there are thousands of middle-aged, and I 
know they would not want us to call them that, engineers who are 
unemployed? Do Members realize that 650,000 Americans get Bachelor's of 
Science degrees in science and engineering, and 120,000 master's 
degrees? Do Members recall that Bill Gates never finished college, and 
organized Microsoft?
  Frankly, we need this amendment, because it allows $500 for a 
training fee on such H-1B visas to be applied to train and retain 
American workers. The legislation will also provide for a more accurate 
account of foreign workers and GAO studies of the high technology labor 
market.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do this together. There is no reason why we 
should leave these chambers and not protect American workers. There is 
no reason why we should not train those who can be trained. There is no 
reason why we should not hire our middle-aged, if you will, engineers 
who need jobs.
  Frankly, let me say to the computer industry, there is no reason why 
they should not be going into the inner city and hiring minorities and 
women. They have a very poor record of that, of which I look forward to 
convening a meeting with the computer industry to tell me, who are they 
hiring in this country? Are they hiring women? Are they promoting 
people? Are they bringing back engineers who have been displaced?
  We can work this out together. This is not an adversarial posture. 
Yes, America stands for opening its doors of opportunity to those who 
would come legally. Let us not close the door on them. But at the same 
time, we owe an obligation to protect Americans who are unemployed, 
underemployed, and who want an opportunity, 650,000 getting degrees in 
science and math, and 120,000 with master's degrees.
  I think this amendment is the right and fair way to go. I ask for 
reasonable men and women to join me on this.
  Mr. SPEAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for the 
opportunity to speak on this bill. Although it is true that in recent 
years, the high tech industry has fueled enormous growth in the United 
States and has benefitted the corporate information technology 
industry, I have some serious concerns about wholeheartedly supporting 
H.R. 3736 for several reasons.
  H.R. 3736 seems to speak to the need for more skilled workers to move 
into highly paid jobs in the high tech/information technology industry. 
Yet, there are more complex issues that should not be overlooked. 
currently highly skilled foreign workers are unable to obtain a H1-B 
visa and work for U.S. industry.
  The cap on such highly skilled position visas was met in May of this 
year, and this bill proposes to increase the number of processable 
visas, by 30,000 for 1998, 40,000 for 1999, and 50,000 for the year 
2000. Although on its face, these increases may seem as if they are a 
positive move for our country's technological industry, there are 
several issues regarding the provisions of this bill which we must 
consider.
  For example, what about increasing resources for training U.S. 
workers for these high tech jobs? Currently there are thousands of 
middle age engineers who are unemployed. There have been recent studies 
which indicate that the industry only hires about 2% of all of those 
applying for programmer positions.
  Is there really a shortage of high tech workers in America? I am also 
concerned that although the H1-B visa program was originally designed 
to bring in highly skilled workers it has been used for other less 
ethical purposes. A little over two years ago the high technology 
industry was laying off U.S. computer programmers by the hundreds and 
replacing them with cheaper foreign workers. High Tech management told 
us that Americans were being paid too much and that temporary foreign 
workers should be used to keep wages down, lest companies should move 
abroad!
  Every year, this country produces 650,000 bachelor degrees in science 
and engineering and 120,000 masters degrees! And let's not forget that 
even degrees aren't absolutely necessary to train talented and 
motivated U.S. workers.
  Remember, Bill Gates dropped out of College and THEN created 
Microsoft! Right now, our most highly skilled, sought after, domestic 
technology workers have realized just how valuable they are to high 
tech Corporate America, and the industry is unwilling to pay these 
workers the high wages they are demanding!
  Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to vote for the Watt-Berman-
Klink substitute. Although it is true that in recent years, the high 
tech industry has fueled enormous growth in the United States and has 
benefitted the corporate information technology industry, I have some 
serious concerns about wholeheartedly supporting H.R. 3736 for several 
reasons.
  H.R. 3736 seems to speak to the need for more skilled workers to move 
into highly paid jobs in the high tech/information technology industry. 
Yet, there more complex issues that should not be overlooked.
  Currently highly skilled foreign workers are unable to obtain a H1-B 
visa and work for U.S. industry. The cap on such highly skilled 
position visas was met in May of this year, and this bill proposes to 
increase the number of processable visas, by 30,000 for 1998, 40,000 
for 1999, and 50,000 for the year 2000. Although on its face, these 
increases may seem as if they are a positive move for our country's 
technological industry, there are several issues regarding the 
provisions of this bill which we must consider.
  For example, what above increasing resources for training U.S. 
workers for these high tech jobs? Currently there are thousands of 
middle age engineers who are unemployed. There have been recent studies 
which indicate that the industry only hires about 2% of all of those 
applying for programmer positions. Is there really a shortage of high 
tech workers in America?
  I am also concerned that although the H1-B visa program was 
originally designed to bring in highly skilled workers it has been used 
for other less ethical purposes. A little over two years ago the high 
technology industry was laying off U.S. computer programmers by the 
hundreds and replacing them with cheaper foreign workers. High Tech 
management told us that Americans were being paid too much and that 
temporary foreign workers should be used to keep wages down, lest 
companies should move abroad!

  Every year, this country produces 650,000 bachelor degrees in science 
and engineering and 120,000 masters degrees! And let's not forget that 
even degrees aren't absolutely necessary to train talented and 
motivated U.S. workers. Remember, Bill Gates dropped out of college and 
then created Microsoft! Right now, our most highly skilled, sought 
after, domestic

[[Page H8597]]

technology workers have realized just how valuable they are to high 
tech Corporate America, and the industry is unwilling to pay the 
workers the high wages they are demanding!
  For the above reasons, I am urging my colleagues to vote for the 
Watt-Berman-Klink substitute. Some of the most important changes in the 
Watt Berman legislation require employers to attest that they have not 
laid off or otherwise displaced a U.S. worker who has substantially 
equivalent qualifications, and that they will only place the foreign 
worker with another employer who has also attested to this. In 
addition, the Watt-Berman substitute will provide $500 for a training 
fee on each H-1B visa applied for to train and retrain American 
workers. This legislation will also provide for a more accurate count 
of foreign workers and GAO studies of the high technology labor market.
  I believe that the growing workforce of our country and the strength 
and growth of the high tech industry in particular can be met most 
effectively by fully developing the skills of our own U.S. workers. In 
fact, the hidden blessing in the current high demand market for certain 
technical specialties is that it should encourage us to retrain 
displaced workers, attract underrepresented women and minorities, 
better educate our young people and recommission willing and able older 
workers who have been forced out of their work.
  Increased immigration should it be allowed, should be considered a 
complement to our industries, not a substitute for U.S. workers.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, could the Speaker advise us 
as to who has the right to close, and why?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As a member of the committee controlling 
time in the opposition, the manager of the bill, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), has the right to close.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 
the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the final speaker to close debate, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), I just wanted to spend a 
minute or two, or less than a minute or two, really, saying that I 
understand the predicament that the chairman of my subcommittee is in. 
I suspect he would rather be supporting my substitute than the bill 
that he is on the floor with, so I do not envy his position.
  He has worked hard on this bill, and to kind of show Members how 
interesting this is, we had to get a special ruling from the Chair to 
determine who has the right to close this debate, because the bill that 
came out of our committee, except in one respect, is the same bill that 
I am offering as a substitute. This is a very unusual process.
  The bill that I am offering as a substitute is a bill that passed our 
committee by a vote of 23 to 4, and here I am, defending the 
committee's bill. So I want to just empathize with my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas. He has gotten a bill shoved down his throat, just 
like we are having a bill shoved down our throats, but we are the 
House. We have the right to stand up and vote against the Senate's bill 
and support our own bill. That is what I hope my colleagues will do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), the cosponsor of this substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) 
is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this. I hope we are 
successful in our substitute. I also want to again laud the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) for working with us.
  I just want to just draw the attention of the Members to a Dear 
Colleague that was sent out on June 18 by my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Elton 
Gallegly).
  They pointed out what I thought was a very important point, and that 
is that during the time that all of these information technology 
companies were in fact telling us how much of a shortage there was of 
workers in the workplace, they were laying off workers by the hundreds 
of thousands.
  Silicon Graphics laid off 1,000; Xerox laid off 9,000; Seagate 
Technologies, 10,000; Intel 4,000; National Semiconductor, 1,000; 
Hewlett Packard, 1,000; Boeing, 12,000 workers. Do they mean that they 
were so so stupid they could not be reeducated or retrained to take 
other jobs?
  Kodak laid off 19,000 workers; AT&T, 18,000 workers laid off; 
Ameritech, 5,000 workers laid off; Motorola, 16,500 workers laid off; 
and on and on and on we go. I could read many more. In fact, the final 
number by the end of August that we have is 208,558 workers, that is 
that we know about.
  If this was on the legitimate, this whole argument about not liking 
the substitute, our friends in industry would not have disagreed so 
much with attesting to the fact that they could not find American 
workers, or that they were not firing American workers.

                              {time}  1715

  See, the fact of the matter is that if they really are searching for 
Americans for these jobs, or if they are not displacing an American 
worker, then they should not have any difficulty then attesting to that 
fact in order to get H-1B visas. But the industry has been screaming 
about the attestation.
  The committee's own report says that ``it is imperative that we build 
into the H-1B program adequate protection for U.S. workers.'' 
Continuing to quote from the report from the committee in the House, 
``the most simple, most basic protection that can be given to any 
American worker is a guarantee that he or she will not be fired by an 
employer and replaced by a foreign worker. More broadly stated, an 
employer should not in the same instance fire an American worker and 
bring on a foreign worker when the American worker is well-qualified to 
do the work intended for the foreign worker. The H-1B program currently 
contains no such guarantee.''
  The underlying bill that we are trying to substitute provides 
protection for only a small percentage, about 1 percent, of the H-1B 
workers that are going to be brought into this country. This substitute 
has that attestation provision for all of those workers and that, in 
fact, is the difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to get into speaking for some of the workers who 
are not here to speak for themselves.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINK. I yield to the gentleman from California, my friend.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Klink) for yielding me a bit of his time.
  I just wanted to come down and say that as much as I would love to be 
able to support the underlying bill, having a large number of firms 
that are in desperate need of workers to fill high-tech, high-paying 
jobs, it is difficult to stand here and not be able to support the bill 
unless we have the Watt amendment, which is the committee's bill.
  It is such a frustrating thing to stand here knowing that this 
committee passed a bill out for House consideration, a full vote of the 
House, and we cannot get Members who supported it in committee to now 
support what they voted out of committee. That would be something a 
number of us would be willing to support. Unfortunately, now we have to 
try to get it into the bill that is being debated here through an 
amendment.
  The problem I see with the underlying bill without the Watt amendment 
accepted is that we restrict the application of this visa category to 
only a small percentage of all the employers who are going to be out 
there seeking these employees from foreign countries, which means that 
we are going to have a vast number of companies that will be able to 
skirt the law, bring in foreign workers, and deny American workers the 
opportunity to get good-paying jobs. That is not fair, that is not 
reasonable, and I think most people here know that I am one who is 
generally pro-immigration that is fair and reasonable.
  Mr. Speaker, if we did more to make sure that the workforce of the 
future that we grow by ourselves in our country could meet the needs of 
these firms, that would be great. But I understand the need temporarily 
for these firms immediately.
  I wish I could support this; I cannot without the Watt amendment. I 
hope

[[Page H8598]]

everyone here will vote for the Watt amendment, which is in fact the 
committee's bill. Then we could get good support out of this House and 
hopefully get it to the President's desk. But without the Watt 
amendment, I would hope everyone would vote against this bill.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that seemed like an 
adequate 60 seconds. I thank the gentleman from California for what he 
was able to fit into that time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me speak for those workers out there. We have no 
definitive evidence that there is a shortage. And if those 208,000 
people have been laid off, can they not be retrained? I want to talk 
about a research faculty member from Texas who wrote me to say, ``I 
train international students to qualify for H-1B and other work visas. 
I would like to know, however, why these companies show no interest in 
hiring me.''
  How about Linda Killcrese of Dover, New Jersey, who said, ``In my own 
case, all information technology staff were fired by American 
International Group and replaced by a body shop.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have workers after workers who complain that they 
have jobs, and at $500 a job we are selling away the future of American 
workers.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been made in the last few minutes about the 
need to support the Watt substitute because it is the committee bill. I 
will look forward to the enthusiastic support of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle on future committee bills commensurate with 
their support of the Watt substitute tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again that the underlying bill has the 
support of both the Republican leadership and the administration. And 
the reason it has garnered such bipartisan support is because it does 
target companies that have historically been the abusers of the H-1B 
program. It does target companies who in the past have not hired 
American workers when they should have, and it targets companies that 
in the past may have fired American workers and replaced them with 
foreign workers.
  In addition to that, it also provides the needed high-tech employees 
for our high-tech companies which will generate more jobs in the 
economy and help our economy continue to expand.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do want to encourage my colleagues to vote against 
the Watt amendment and vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the professor 
from Stanford Law School, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I welcome him to my class any time he pays 
the tuition.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to note with recognition of the great effort of 
my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). I do 
understand what he is offering. I respect him and his thinking. I am 
impressed by it.
  I also wish to recognize what a remarkable job the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman, has done along the lines 
very much of the gentleman from North Carolina's comments: I know Lamar 
Smith, Lamar Smith is a friend of mine, and he has gone farther than 
perhaps he wished to go. I know how far he has gone in order to bring a 
bill to the floor that will meet the approval of a majority of this 
body and the President of the United States. My credit to both of these 
fine gentlemen.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two differences between the Watt substitute 
and the underlying Smith version. One has received a lot of attention, 
the attestation requirement, and I will have a word about that in a 
second. But the first has not, and that is that there is a difference 
in the Watt substitute in that the increased H-1Bs come from H-2Bs, so 
that the net number of temporary immigrant visas will not increase. 
Whereas, under the Smith bill, the H-1Bs are a net increase.
  So, we really have two differences and they are quite significant. If 
we believe that it is beneficial to our country to have a net increase 
in the number of temporary visas, then only the Smith bill provides for 
that.
  As to the attestation requirement, the arguments that have been made 
are in my judgment missing the fundamental point that we are speaking 
of a temporary position. That is why we do not have an attestation 
requirement in existing law for an H-1B visa. See, if we are hiring 
somebody to come to this country on a permanent basis, that is a green 
card. And for a green card, an attestation requirement is needed and 
that is in existing law. That is because they are coming to this 
country and are going to be a member of our economy on a permanent 
basis.
  But the whole idea of the H-1B and the H-2B is that it is a temporary 
invitation to this country for a task that needs someone now. That is 
why the attestation requirement runs into such opposition in many 
industries, because the need now to go through the attestation 
requirement delays the ability to fill that need now. That is why 
existing law does not have an attestation requirement for the H-1B 
visa.
  We would, for the first time, be imposing into law an H-1B 
attestation requirement, and that is quite a move towards those who 
have expressed, with all good faith, concern for protecting the jobs of 
the American worker.
  Indeed, the best way, it seems to me, to protect it is job of the 
American worker is to guarantee a vibrant economy with a growing sector 
that relies upon the H-1B and permanent immigrants and American 
citizens.
  That is my second main point. It is essential that we remain 
competitive. If as a result of what we do today we have fewer temporary 
immigrant laborers hired, but we lose the opportunity for the person 
necessary to the immediate job at hand to come to this country, we will 
have lost a great deal. For the immediate need is exactly the 
competitive edge, and then that technology, that opportunity, will very 
well go to another country which does have the ability to hire the 
temporary worker without the delay of the attestation requirement.
  So, I observe that under existing law we do not have an attestation 
requirement, and for a very good reason. I observe that we do have an 
attestation requirement, however, for permanent workers and I observe 
that the Smith version of the bill has an attestation requirement where 
there is reason to expect it. Namely, where there is a reliance upon 
the imported, the H-1B imported laborer above the 15 percent.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for his great work on behalf of high-tech companies and workers 
throughout this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer my support for this bill as 
well from somebody who represents an area that has transitioned from a 
particularly defense-laden economy to one that has a much more 
diversified economy. It is now struggling to continue to break free to 
add employment to what is increasingly a biotech and high-tech economic 
base.
  This bill strikes the right balance between promoting the growth of 
the high-tech companies that are so important to the future of this 
country and the need to keep American workers educated, trained, and 
fully employed.
  Just last month, I would say to the gentleman from California, I met 
with a large group of high-tech executives from my district. They 
repeated a concern that I have heard time and time again that Long 
Island does not have enough workers with the unique skills that they 
need today. Our schools are not producing enough engineering graduates, 
they told me, and high schools do not concentrate enough effort on the 
technological education that will provide the core technological skills 
our students need.
  This is something we all want. We need to address these problems on 
both a long-term and short-term basis. This compromise reflects this 
reality.
  H-1B visa holders bring unique skills to American companies help U.S. 
businesses access foreign markets, provide training to American workers 
about foreign markets, and help fill temporary worker shortages.
  Clearly, the long-term answer is to be sure that American students 
and workers are prepared to fill these good

[[Page H8599]]

jobs permanently. But this bill provides 10,000 scholarships a year for 
low-income students in math, engineering and computer science. Equally 
important, it provides training for many thousands of American workers 
through the Jobs Partnership Act. These programs will be paid for by 
the companies that benefit from the H-1B visa program, and not by 
taxpayers.
  The bill protects our workers today with three types of layoff 
protections, including requiring those companies most likely to abuse 
the program to attest that they are not laying off an American employee 
to hire an H-1B employee. The bill even provides a $35,000 fine for 
violations.
  For the short term, while we are helping to train and educate 
American workers and students, we provide a temporary 3-year increase 
in the number of H-1B visas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take 
advantage of this opportunity to promote our high-tech companies and 
help our workers now and in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this as a two-pronged strategy of 
looking to the short-term to insure growth in our most promising 
industries and also insuring a continuing supply of students with the 
type of technological and educational backgrounds to make that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for 
yielding this time to me, I know it is precious time, to allow me to 
make these remarks.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his insightful remarks and courtesy.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) for his helpful and enlightening comments, and to follow the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), because he really said exactly 
what I would like to say. In fact, he said in just a few minutes what 
would probably take me 10 minutes to say.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will simply associate my comments to those of the 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California. I also wish 
to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his outstanding 
efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong opponent of illegal immigration. I 
think we need to do a better job of cracking down on illegal 
immigration. At the same time, I think it is imperative that in certain 
areas we increase legal immigration, particularly in the areas where 
other jobs are related. I believe by bringing in people with high-tech 
skills, we help create more jobs in the United States for American 
workers.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I have been 
informed by the subcommittee chairman that the distinguished ranking 
minority member may wish to speak, and that it would be courteous to 
allow him to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
my good friend.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the reason he wanted to yield to me was that he 
had represented that he was on his final speaker, and he did not want 
it to look like he had misrepresented. I understand that other Members 
came to the floor after that. He probably also wants me to speak in 
favor of my substitute again, but I will not take advantage of his 
generosity.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, it just adds to my admiration for the 
gentleman from North Carolina, his candor.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who has labored with this bill along 
with other Members over the course of this year. And although the 
gentleman from North Carolina has a worthy alternative, I think that 
the bill we have before us is an agreed-upon bill between the House and 
the Senate and the administration. It is time to move this issue 
forward.
  There are probably a lot of people in America who wonder why we have 
guest workers, why we would bring these special H-1B workers in. I 
think it is important to note that over the last 18 to 20 years, the 
American economy has grown to be the most competitive economy in the 
world. If Members will recall, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we 
were losing quickly our ability to compete.
  What has happened over the last 18 to 20 years is America, because of 
the information age, because of the advent of new technology, has 
really become the most competitive Nation on the earth. The only 
problem is, our workers, a lot of them, we do not have enough to fill 
these very highly skilled positions. That is why we have this temporary 
guest worker program.
  While I support the program, I support what we are doing here, we 
also have to keep in mind that we need to do a better job of making 
sure that we have the educational resources and the options available 
for U.S. citizens to gain the skills and gain the education to fill 
these positions long-term. That is why in this bill there is some 
additional money for training and education. But I think it causes us 
to take a moment to think about the bigger picture of what has to 
happen in our country.
  Tomorrow, hopefully, we will have the Higher Education 
Reauthorization Act on the floor of the House that will, again, show 
the American people our commitment to broadening higher education and 
the availability of it for all Americans, because long-term we have the 
skills and the ability to fill these jobs ourselves if, in fact, we 
make that commitment to them.
  In the meantime, we need this to maintain our competitiveness. It is 
the right thing to do. The gentleman from Texas really does deserve a 
big pat on the back for laboring through a lot of slings and arrows 
from a lot of different directions over the course of this year.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, in brief recital of where I was before, I 
was equally surprised at the additional speakers. I had made the point 
that the Smith version gives us a net increase in temporary worker 
visas, the Watt substitute does not; that it is important to have 
temporary visas so that people needed for an immediate job can get into 
that job without the delay of attestation.
  But a very fundamental point has been raised by my friends on the 
other side saying that there have been layoffs and what sort of 
compassion do we have for American workers who have been laid off. I 
have a great degree of compassion. I hear them at every town hall 
meeting in my district which is a high technology district. But the 
Smith substitute, I think, cuts the compromise just about right.
  It realizes that the people who are laid off in categories are 
different from the categories where the H-1B visas are being hired. 
They are simply not the same. In high technology terms, the layoffs 
tend to be in the fabrication side, and the H-1Bs tend to be in the 
engineering side. That is exactly where we need to be importing, for 
temporary engineering purposes, that brainpower that might otherwise go 
to one of our competitor countries.
  The Smith substitute makes that cut perhaps roughly at 15 percent. 
Nevertheless it makes exactly the cut that we ought to between those 
are truly job shops and should be subject to an attestation requirement 
and should be subject to heightened Department of Labor scrutiny, 
because they are taking jobs away from Americans, and those legitimate 
American employers who need a temporary visa for someone to come in and 
provide the technological expertise that otherwise will diminish our 
competitive position.
  I close by observing that the economic benefit is as important as the 
preservation of the existing jobs. The first being new growth for new 
jobs; the second being the preservation of existing. Without the H-1B, 
we will not, I think, be able to guarantee the growth of new jobs. 
Important as preserving the existing jobs are, we must do both. The 
Smith substitute recognizes both of those.
  A former constituent of mine, Andy Grove, came to this country as an 
immigrant. He founded Intel Corporation and he was Time magazine's Man 
of the Year. This is the kind of talent that I

[[Page H8600]]

would wish to come to our country rather, in Andy Grove's case, than 
stay in Europe.
  At the end of this debate, this is only the first step. We must do 
far more to retrain American workers. I strongly support the provision 
in the Smith alternative that every H-1B visa employer pay $500 that 
goes into a retraining and education fund for Americans so that they do 
not lose this opportunity in the long run. But even that is not enough.
  Legislation of my own supports a double deduction for retraining an 
American worker, not just the ordinary and necessary cost of doing 
business deduction but twice it, so that if you are retraining an 
American worker, you have an economic incentive from all of us that 
that person keep the job and keep the job in this country.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I thank my friend from California for his very articulate and 
trenchant remarks. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Watt 
amendment and for the underlying bill.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Workforce 
Improvement and Protection Act. America's cutting-edge companies depend 
on the annual admission of a small number of highly-skilled workers 
under the H-1B visa program in order to maintain a competitive edge in 
the global marketplace. The H-1B visa program is a timely--and often 
the only--means for U.S. companies to employ foreign-born professionals 
on a temporary basis. These workers supplement the domestic labor force 
where no American worker is available who can perform the job.
  In recent years, the high-tech, engineering, pharmaceutical, and 
other industries that use H-1B workers have enjoyed extraordinary 
growth. Demand for H-1B workers has increased to a point where the 
annual cap of H-1B visas was reached in May this year and is expected 
to be reached even earlier in coming years. This means that 
indispensable people, who likely have been educated and trained in the 
United States, will have to return home and work for our foreign 
competitors instead of staying in the U.S. to advance American 
companies and generate jobs for American workers.
  In my home State of Washington, companies like Boeing and Microsoft, 
and the hundreds of other high-tech firms just starting up, understand 
the importance of H-1B visas. I recently received a letter from a 
constituent detailing her concerns. She employs less than 10 H-1B 
workers in a company of over 230 employees. These workers are in key 
leadership roles, where people with international experience and 
perspective, along with technical expertise, are required. The success 
of these visa holders enables this company to hire many more American 
workers. Without the H-1B visa program, this firm would be negatively 
impacted, to the point where the company could move out of my district, 
possibly to a foreign country, moving 230 jobs and the ensuing economic 
benefit out of the United States.
   Mr. Speaker, high-tech companies aren't the only ones utilizing the 
talents of H-1B workers. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 
also in Washington State, is an excellent example of the specialized 
abilities of these workers. For example, Dr. Rainier Storb, a German 
national, joined the bone marrow research team working at the Center. 
Dr. Storb brought unique knowledge to this team, which subsequently 
developed the use of bone marrow transplantation. This research 
resulted in the clinical treatment of a host of blood and immune system 
diseases. Lymphomas and anemias, which were terminal just 20 years ago, 
are now successfully treated in 80 percent of cases. This work led to 
the award of a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Dr. Storb's example is simply 
one of a number where the contribution of a foreign born scientist led 
to significant scientific and health care progress, the creation of 
jobs and economic opportunity, and training to countless other 
scientists from the U.S.
  While our Nation's economic health is strong today, I believe that we 
must ensure access to the best talent the world has to offer in order 
to keep this momentum. Temporarily expanding H-1B admissions will help 
insure that the United States remains the world leader in the 
development of new technologies.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the current 
version of H.R. 3736, which drastically increases the number of 
available H-1B visas while severely limiting worker protection clauses 
that were contained in the version passed out of the House Judiciary 
Committee on May 20, 1998. I am especially disturbed that the newest 
compromise achieved by Senate Members and the administration late last 
night has been brought to the floor today with little time for us to 
adequately review this newest proposal.
  I am not convinced of the need for more temporary workers. Industry 
alleges there is a great shortage among high-tech companies. The 
Information Technology Association of America, an industry-funded group 
claims 340,000 information technology jobs are going unfilled.
  In March of this year, the GAO questioned the ``reliability of ITAA's 
survey findings,'' as not supported by the evidence. It concluded the 
response rate of the survey was too low (36%) to make an accurate 
projection.
  It is important to note various reports which show that industry has 
laid off over 142,000 American workers since the beginning of this 
year. Why were they laid off if there is a shortage?
  The August 1997 Computerworld Magazine found over 17 percent of 
American high-tech workers over the age of 50 are unemployed. If there 
is a shortage, why aren't these individuals being retrained and 
rehired?
  Foreign high-tech workers generally earn less than their American 
counterparts, despite laws requiring employers to pay them ``prevailing 
wages.'' A July 26, 1998 Washington Post article found that foreign 
computer programmers with masters' degrees earn $50,000 compared to 
$70,000 that a comparably educated American worker could earn. So what 
are these industries doing? Hiring cheaper labor? Are H-1B visas being 
used as a conduit for cheap labor? It sure looks that way. Between 1990 
and 1995, computer specialist jobs increased by only 35 percent, while 
the number of visas requested by employers increased by 352 percent! 
These companies are more interested in hiring foreign workers than our 
American workers.
  In response to these concerns, the bipartisan bill reported out of 
committee on May 20, 1998 contained worker protection clauses designed 
to prevent foreign workers from being hired over American workers 
because they are cheaper labor. The clause simply required employers 
petitioning for H-1B foreign workers to show a good faith effort to 
recruit Americans first.
  This simple requirement was read as too burdensome to the industry. 
They argued that it would cause ``too much red tape'' impeding their 
ability to hire workers. Well I say to those companies, what about the 
hardship faced by 142,000 laid off technology workers?
  I am appalled that this simple attestation clause has been whittled 
down to nothing in the current form of H.R. 3736. This attestation 
clause is now expected to reach only 5 percent of H-1B employers. While 
the job-shops will be required to attest that no American workers were 
laid off to create the position for the foreign worker and that workers 
they provide on a contractual basis to another company do not replace 
American workers, this is not enough. Ninety-five percent of our 
workers are left unprotected under this bill. Even with the added 
authority given to the Department of Labor in the newest compromise 
between Members of the Senate and the administration, there is no 
guarantee that our workers will be protected. The Department of Labor 
is only allowed to investigate and punish once there is a willful 
violation. What about other violations? I am simply not convinced that 
our American workers will be sufficiently protected.
  Fundamental fairness requires that we take a balanced approach when 
lifting the cap on H-1B visas. We cannot raise the limit for foreign 
workers while providing no worker protections for Americans laid off 
from this very industry. There was a bipartisan measure in the House 
that could have passed. Now I am forced to oppose passage of this bill 
unless amended because it still does not provide adequate protections 
for American job-seekers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 177, 
nays 242, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               YEAS--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers

[[Page H8601]]


     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--242

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Goss
     Kennelly
     Manton
     Murtha
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Rothman
     Sanchez
     Schaefer, Dan
     Skelton
     Torres
     Wexler
     Yates

                              {time}  1758

  Messrs. PAPPAS, GIBBONS, HALL of Ohio, SANDERS, WHITFIELD, FOX of 
Pennsylvania, BILIRAKIS, EVERETT, and DICKS, and Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 
CONDIT, and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GILMAN, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, 
and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
513, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 288, 
noes 133, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 460]

                               AYES--288

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Vento
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--133

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson

[[Page H8602]]


     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Green
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Goss
     Kennelly
     Manton
     Murtha
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Sanchez
     Schaefer, Dan
     Skelton
     Torres
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1814

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________