Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12254-S12257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3736, a bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes relating to H-1B
nonimmigrants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I regret that this objection is being made.
The bill is vital to the technology industry, and this objection makes
it impossible to pass the bill this year.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for about 3 minutes?
Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator from Indiana yielding to me to
explain why I object to this.
Before I get into that, let me say that I was here for part of his
speech. He thanked his staff. I thought it was a very gracious and
wonderful thing the Senator did. It was really nice.
I must say, I will miss you here in the Senate, Dan. As I said
before, you have been a wonderful person to work with. I hate to end it
on this note, where I am objecting to something that you are bringing
up. You have been a great Senator. You have been a great human being to
work with. We will miss you. I will miss you, personally. All of my
friends who have left said there is a life beyond the Senate. Quite
frankly, it is probably a lot better, considering we are here at 7:30
on a Friday night.
Mr. President, I just want to explain why I object to this bill. This
is the bill

[[Page S12255]]

that would have increased the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 per year
to 115,000 for next year and the year after, then drop down to 107,500
in 2001 and back down to 65,000 thereafter.
Now, ostensibly, the reason for doing this, and why this came up in
the last couple of years, is that there was projected to be a big
shortage in computer programmers. Thus, there was this big push to
increase the number of H-1B visas, to get these computer programmers.
It turns out that has, indeed, not happened. In fact, I have three
recent articles. One is from the San Jose Mercury News dated October 6,
1998. It says:

High-tech Layoffs are Accelerating.

They pointed out in the article:

Computers ranked second in total job-cut announcements,
with 44,000. That represented nearly three times the number
from last year.

The article goes on to say:

The changing job market can be seen at the Career Action
Center, a career resource center in Cupertino, where
counselors are seeing more people come in. Job searches are
taking more time, companies are taking longer to make their
hiring decision, and some businesses have even enacted hiring
freezes, said Betsy Collard, the center's strategic
development director.
While the center posted 10,000 jobs in August, that was
down from 13,500 it posted a year earlier.

I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 6, 1998]

High-Tech Layoffs Are Accelerating

(By Jonathan Rabinovitz)

High-technology industries have cut four times as many jobs
nationally in 1998 as they did in the same period last year,
imposing more layoffs than almost every other sector of the
economy, according to a report released Tuesday by an
international outplacement firm.
The survey of job-cut announcements was yet another signal
of the slowing of economic growth both in Silicon Valley and
nationally. It attributed many of the reductions to the
global financial crisis, particularly the recession that has
gripped much of Asia.
And while the labor market in the San Jose area remains
tight--the 3.4 percent unemployment rate in August was down
from last year--one of the authors of the study said that
this year's downsizing tend has already dimmed the rampant
optimism that once pervaded Silicon Valley.
``People used to say that you don't have anything to worry
about, but that's not the case any more,'' said John A.
Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas
Inc., the Chicago-based company that compiles the monthly
survey. ``The ice seems a little bit thinner right now.''
Still, Silicon Valley and the state continue to add
thousands of jobs, at a pace that outstrips the rate of
layoffs, though job growth has slowed both here and
nationally.
The layoffs in high-tech companies come against a backdrop
of increased job-cut announcements across the country. The
September figure for job-cut announcements was the highest
reported by the survey since January 1996. The amount has
generally increased each month this year.
And the total number of job cuts for all industries was up
53 percent--about 150,000 job-cut announcements--from the
amount for the first nine months of 1997.
But perhaps the most striking change was in the high-tech
industries. While electronics, computers and
telecommunications were not among the top five industries in
job-cut announcements last year at this time, all three
industries were now in that category.
Electronics, which includes chip manufacturing, had more
announcements than any other industry. The number had
increased to nearly 70,000, eight times more than the first
nine months of last year, according to the Challenger survey.
Computers ranked second in total job-cut announcements,
with 44,000. That represented nearly three times the number
from last year.
Telecommunications was placed fifth. It increased to nearly
29,000, four times the amount in 1997.
The changing job market can be seen at the Career Action
Center, a career resource center in Cupertino, where
counselors are seeing more people come in. Job searches are
taking more time, companies are taking longer to make their
hiring decision and some businesses have even enacted hiring
freezes, said Betsy Collard, the center's strategic
development director.
While the center posted 10,000 jobs in August, that was
down from the 13,500 it posted a year earlier.
But, Collard stressed, ``It is still a very good job
market.''
Indeed, the Challenger survey should not inspire panic in
Silicon Valley. Its findings reveal only a small and recent
dent in an economic miracle that has included phenomenal job
growth.
Another report, issued this week by the American
Electronics Association, showed how Silicon Valley extended
its reach throughout California from 1990 to 1996.
While Santa Clara County added almost 25,000 high-tech jobs
during that period to reach a total of 221,000 technology
jobs--a 12 percent increase--other California metropolitan
areas had substantial employment growth in the tech
industries.
The Sacramento area, for instance, had 30,000 high-tech
jobs by 1996, a 56 percent jump from six years earlier. San
Mateo, San Francisco and Marin Counties had a total of about
49,000 high-tech jobs, up 37 percent over the same period.
And Alameda and Contra Costa Counties had 53,000, a 14
percent increase from 1990.
Still, the continued growth had a new facet this year, it
was accompanied by a spate of down-sizing efforts that
approach the scope of the deepest cuts of the decade in 1993,
Challenger said.
Over the last year, many of Silicon Valley's most revered
companies have announced layoffs. Santa Clara-based Applied
Materials has eliminated almost one out of every four
positions. Scotts Valley-based Seagate said in January it
would reduce its work force by 10,000 employees worldwide.
And San Jose-based Adobe Systems said it would cut anywhere
between 240 to 300 jobs.
The Challenger Survey has been conducted since 1993. It is
based entirely on public reports of job cuts and calculates
all reductions announced by U.S.-based companies.

Mr. HARKIN. Another recent article from Computer World, dated October
5, 1998, talked about the same subject:

The article pointed out, quite frankly, that the programmers are in
fine shape. What they are really looking for are program managers. I
understand the H-1B visa does not in any way address that problem at
all.
I ask unanimous consent this article also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Computerworld, Oct. 5, 1998]

The Millennium's Superstars

year 2000 project managers are worth their weight in gold. how do you
keep them?

(By Kathleen Melymuka)

The year 2000 retention drama is playing out differently
from what was expected. The widely anticipated programmer
shortage never quite materialized, but another shortage has
proved far more dangerous.
``We'd always heard the industry speak of demand for
programmers, but the more critical and unexpected demand is
for project managers,'' says Irene Dec, vice president of
information systems at The Prudential Insurance Company of
America in Newark, N.J.
``Those are the people that make the different between
success and failure,'' says Chas Snyder, who heads the year
2000 project at Levi Strauss & Co. in San Francisco. ``If
somebody is experienced at running an effort like this for a
large company, the knowledge they develop is invaluable.''
Keeping programmers ``has not been as big a problem as
people thought it was going to be,'' says Jim Jones, managing
director of the year 2000 group at the Information Management
Forum in Atlanta. ``It's not the worker-bee folks they're
hurting for; it's project managers.''
An August survey of 100 contracting and consulting firms by
the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
showed that the ``overwhelming majority'' have more
programmers than they can use. The ITAA called the
anticipated programmer shortage ``a marketplace failing to
live up to its prior billing.''
The supply of year 2000 programmers has been bigger than
expected because many corporations outsourced coding to
offshore companies, vendors developed year 2000 tools that
automated much of the coding process, and schools and
training facilities graduated a bumper crop of programmers
geared to the job.
With programmers available, companies realized where the
real crunch would be. ``Even the best programmers in the
world can't make it happen if no one is managing,'' Dec says.
Depending on the organization, year 2000 project managers
may be found at every level--and every salary--from corporate
vice presidents through division managers, business
functional team leaders and department honchos. There may be
one project manager, or there may be a pyramid of project
managers--from each division or business unit, for example--
reporting to a chief. But wherever they are found, they are
hard to keep. ``We know that our people are being called [by
headhunters] because they tell us,'' says

[[Page S12256]]

Gael Hanover, senior director of human resources for
information systems at Sears. Roebuck and Co. in Hoffman
Estates, Ill. ``Consulting firms can dangle pretty big
salaries, and we can't.''
In fact, some consulting firms are so desperate for project
managers that they are willing to pay them at the rate they
bill customers for their services. ``The projects can't get
done without project managers, so if they bill [companies] at
$125 an hour, they're willing to give [project managers] $125
an hour,'' Jones says. ``No corporation can do that.''
But corporations have come up with other strategies to keep
their year 2000 project managers on the job through the
millennium. Some strategies rely on the lure of money and
perks, but most are based on the understanding that retention
has to be a long-term effort because the need for project
managers won't go away after 2000.

RECOGNITION AND ROTATION

At Kraft Foods, Inc. in Northfield, Ill., where the overall
IS turnover rate is 5%, Chief Information Officer Jim Kinney
has been very careful to make year 2000 a high-profile, high-
recognition temporary job. ``We've chosen very good people
for project teams,'' he says. Most work only on the
application set for which they're normally responsible.
``Once that's finished, they rotate back to their regular
assignment,'' Kinney explains.
Smart companies are making sure their year 2000 project
managers don't stagnate during the project. ``Folks focused
on year 2000 are being sent to appropriate training and
conferences and classes so they can stay up with
technology,'' Dec says. She has lost only five of the 60 to
80 people in her year 2000 program management team.
Keane, Inc. in Boston, a provider of year 2000 services,
has established an internal organization to look after the
career development of its project managers, says David
Pollard, Keane's director of recruiting.
``Rather than simply throw cash at the issue, we tapped
into meeting their development objectives and getting [them]
the right training so they can be successful in the long
haul,'' he says. Turnover has declined 30% since the
development organization was founded last year.

MONEY

There's nothing wrong with money judiciously deployed, and
bonuses of 20% of salary aren't uncommon. Sears is offering
year 2000 project managers and selected other periodic cash
bonuses through April 2000.
``If we lost one of these folks, we would be hurting more
than if we lost 10 other people. So rather than spread [the
money] to everyone, we do more for some,'' Hanauer says.

BE PREPARED

Nothing can guarantee that you will retain the people
crucial to your year 2000 effort. Knowing that, Snyder
planned for the worst. ``My biggest fear was to lose people
in high leverage points,'' he says. ``So for my core four or
five managers, I designed responsibilities to be shared. That
way, if I lost one, we could cover the responsibility
easily.''
He did lose one, he says, ``but we were able to pick up the
slack running.''

the BIG PICTURE

Unlike year 2000 programmers, who know their peak earning
time is limited, project managers have the luxury of a long
view. If your company's view is the same, you have an
advantage. ``Year 2000 is a short-term brass ring,'' Snyder
says. ``There might be enough in a year or two to make it
worthwhile for some people to leave, but if you're thinking
long term, it's not enough. The people I have are long-term
Levi's employees, and they plan on staying here.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think this bill, at the time it came up,
was probably well intentioned.
Another article I want to have printed in the Record is an article
from Labor Relations Week, dated September 30, 1998:

The latest data from the Challenger report showed that so
far this year, electronics industry job reductions
announcements have totaled 60,845, and those in the computer
industry totaled 40,642.

I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Labor Relations Week, Sept. 30, 1998]

Layoff Reports Outpacing Level Seen Last Year; High-Tech Hit Hard

With high-technology industries particularly hard hit, the
pace at which U.S. corporations are announcing workforce
reductions remained brisk through August, according to the
latest figures from the international outplacement firm
Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
In August, U.S. companies announced that they plan to make
job cuts totaling 37,717, the Challenger report, released
Sept. 8, said. That figure, while it was smaller than
reported in July, put the total for the first eight months of
this year at 358,394--which is 37 percent higher than the
total for the comparable period of 1997.
In fact, the January-to-August total for this year is only
11 percent lower than the total reported by Challenger for
the same period in 1993, the year that the firm began its
layoff survey.
``There have been a significant number of downsizing
announcements in 1998, reflecting a number of factors that
include the global situation, especially in Asia.'' John
Challenger, executive vice president of the firm, told BNA.
He said that given the increased pressure on some U.S.
industries due to the Asian economic crisis, there are likely
to be more layoff announcements in the industries most
affected.
The latest data from the Challenger report showed that so
far this year, electronics industry job reductions
announcements have totaled 60,845, and those in the computer
industry totaled 40,642.
``We've seen the 10 largest mergers in [U.S.] history all
announced since last fall,'' Challenger said, citing another
indication of labor market flux. In many cases, companies are
reducing their workforces in one area at the same time that
they are adding employees in other areas, he said.
While Challenger said that he does not expect 1998 to
surpass 1993 in total layoff announcements, he said that the
fact that the total for the first eight months of this year
is so close to 1993 total indicates that ``companies are
quicker to respond to changes in the marketplace.''
Layoff announcements tracked by the Challenger firm are
based on publicly released estimates of planned workforce
reductions that could take place immediately or over an
extended period of time, the firm said. Announcements of job
reduction plans are verified by the Challenger firm, and the
tallies are revised only if companies announce that they have
changed their plans, the firm said.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object because I think while this maybe
had some legitimacy at some time because of the projected shortage in
computer programmers, every indication is that has not happened.
Obviously, we don't need to pass this bill right now. I think we can
take another look at it next year to see if, in fact, there is any
problem. We can always come back and look at this again next year, but
right now it does not appear that the demand is there that they
anticipated a couple of years ago.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Iowa
for his kind comments. We have served together in the Labor Committee
for a 10-year period of time. While we have had our disagreements, we
have also agreed on a number of things. I have enjoyed working with
him.
I understand, but regret, the objection of this unanimous consent
request. There obviously is a difference of opinion as to the need for
support in the technology industry, the computer industry, particularly
with the Y2K problem. That issue will have to be resolved. There is
honest disagreement here. We will pick the issue up in the next
Congress.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to turn my attention briefly
to the issue which was discussed by the Senator from Iowa in raising
objection to proceeding with the legislation aimed at trying to expand
the number of H-1B entries as permitted on an annual basis to be
employed by American businesses.
The Senator focused on a very narrow issue in raising his objection--
specifically, the argument based on several newspaper stories that
there is not a shortage of skilled workers in the high-tech industries.
Virtually every study that I have seen--and as the principal sponsor
of the legislation when it was in the Senate, I made most of those
available as part of the Record--indicates that, indeed, we have a very
severe shortage in these high-tech worker job slots. Virginia Tech
University conducted a recent study which indicated over 340,000
vacancies in information technology positions that exist today in this
country. Our Department of Commerce conducted a study which revealed it
is anticipated that in each of the next 10 years we will generate over
130,000 new information technology jobs and yet the combined resources
of our colleges, universities, and job training programs and high
schools is only likely to fill a fraction of those every year. This is
a severe problem, and it is especially severe at this time.
The Senator from Iowa talks about moving us to next year. Well, next
year just happens to be the last few months prior to the year 2000. By
the time this legislation might be brought back before us, we will be
in a situation where the Federal Government as well as the companies
from one end of America to the other are going to be confronted with
the final crisis stages of trying to prepare our high-tech systems for
the Year 2K problems that we have all been raving so much about.

[[Page S12257]]

If we do not pass this legislation, it is going to be Senators such
as the Senator who raised this objection and others who have impeded
the progress in this legislation who are going to have to explain to
all of those whose systems break down why it is that happened, because
one of the problems we are having confronting the Year 2K problems is
an inadequate number of people to perform all of the various
information technology jobs required to be conducted for those problems
to be fixed. That is just one aspect of it. It is late in the evening
so I am not going to go into all of the many others, but I think that
any study that has been conducted by serious researchers reveals that
there not only exists, but will continue to be, an ever larger number
of vacancies in this area.
This legislation that was stopped tonight not only covers increasing
the number of high-tech workers, it also is a very important piece of
legislation to our academic institutions--in two respects. First,
regarding many of the high-tech jobs, many of the H-1B visa users are
in fact employed on our campuses teaching American kids how to perform
these high-technology jobs so we can meet the demand in this area in
the future. If we do not have these scientists, these educators, we are
going to continue to fail to meet the challenge.
In addition, our academic institutions were relying on the passage of
this legislation to address a very serious problem created by the
Hathaway decision with regard to the prevailing wage they must pay
people who come in under the H-1B Program. So this does not just affect
the private sector, it affects our academic institutions as well.
In addition, the Senator from Iowa and others who question the
problem do not need to just listen to people on our side of the aisle.
They can listen to the President of the United States who, I believe
just 2 weeks ago this evening, was in Silicon Valley in California
before a group of executives from the high-tech industries there
talking about this issue. The day after his staff and my staff and I
reached agreement on the legislation that has been blocked this
evening, he took credit for the ability, that we were then apparently
going to have, to move forward to it and acknowledged the need for the
legislation in taking credit for the settlement and agreement we had
reached.
Obviously, whether it is the White House, the Department of Commerce,
Virginia Tech University, or any one of a number of other sources,
there is an acknowledged existence of a problem here that has to be
addressed. I am extremely disappointed at what has transpired this
evening.
I would just say, in conclusion, we have not, obviously, reached the
end of this session. There is still some time, hopefully, for
reconsideration by the Senator from Iowa and any others who may have
concerns. I hope they will rethink this. I hope they will realize, in
undermining this legislation, in stopping it at this time, they are
going to be hurting not just the business sector and the information
technology sector, but the academic sector. They are also going to
prevent us from instituting a whole new array of job training programs
and scholarship programs that were going to be launched by this
legislation. So I hope they will take a look at that, reconsider, and
if they look at the numbers a little more closely, I think they will
reach the same conclusions we have.
Mr. President, I close by saying I hope the Senator from Iowa, and
others who might share his position, again will look closely at the
statistics I have talked about tonight, examine all the other aspects
of this legislation and what it will mean if it does not move forward
in all the different contexts I have outlined and the many others I
have not had time for, rethink whether or not it is appropriate to put
this off to some future date, and think about the consequences, whether
it is in the context of the Y2K problems or the current economic
conditions we have in the world marketplace where America's high-tech
industries' growth is essential to the maintenance of our economic
strength, and reconsider their position.
I yield the floor.

____________________