[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9048-H9052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
H-1B NON-IMMIGRANT WORKERS FEE INCREASE
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill
(H.R 5362) to increase the amount of fees charged to employers who are
petitioners for the employment of H-1B non-immigrant workers, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
[[Page H9049]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my distinguished colleague on the
Committee on the Judiciary, for an explanation and a discussion of the
purpose of the bill that he offers.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill adds the final piece to the H-1B legislation
that we passed earlier this week. There is widespread consensus that
the $500 fee for an H-1B visa application should be increased. The
money collected in fees goes toward job training for American workers
and scholarships for American students studying math and science. These
programs will provide the long-term solution to the shortage of
information technology workers plaguing our economy.
H.R. 5362 raises the fee to $1,000. With the new H-1B quota of
195,000, this increased fee could raise almost $200 million a year for
job training and scholarships.
The bill also exempts primary and secondary schools and universities
from having to pay the fee. These institutions are already doing their
part to train American students for the jobs of the future.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand the amendment, the fee charged to
employers for sponsoring an H-1B worker will double from $500 to
$1,000. I support the increased fee, because we have a critical need to
retrain America's workers and educate our children to meet the demands
of the new economy and to better administer and enforce the H-1B
program.
In fact, in my view, a larger fee increase may have been appropriate,
in light of the urgent need for qualified American high-tech workers,
particularly in minority and under-represented communities.
The allocation of the new fee makes the training and education of
American workers and America's children a priority. Over half the fees
will be used by the Labor Department to provide technical skills
training for U.S. workers. Over 35 percent of the fees will go to
scholarships for low-income persons and the National Science Foundation
competitive grants for K-12 math, technology, and science education.
Now, it is common knowledge that the administration of the H-1B
program by the Immigration Service and the Labor Department could be
far better than it is. We have increased the funds allocated to each
agency so that they can better administer and enforce the programs, as
well as reduce the horrendous backlogs in applications currently faced
by employers.
We will review the implementation of the H-1B program in the next
Congress, and I fully expect to see improvements in how these agencies
handle the H-1B program. In other words, they should be held rather
strictly accountable.
Mr. Speaker, because the fee increase will begin to address the needs
of the American workforce, I support the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues on the
Committee on the Judiciary, first, for bringing this up.
This fee increase is one which was struck through an agreement in
legislation that my colleague next to whom the gentleman is standing,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I worked, beginning
last October.
It is very important for us to recognize that while just 2 days ago
we were able to pass legislation which does bring about that increase
to 195,000 the number of H-1B visas, it is important for us to realize
the long-term solution is to do exactly what my friend from Michigan
has said, focus on scholarships for the National Science Foundation,
increase math and science education at the K through 12 level, and
realize that if we are going to have a workforce that is going to be
globally competitive, we must have them trained and educated here in
the United States.
Until that time, we have increased the H-1B visa level. We have had a
bipartisan agreement to do that. It seems to me that this legislation,
which I was very proud to introduce, after we passed the H-1B visa
bill, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, is one which we
can move immediately.
Again, I would like to compliment my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and
others who have worked long and hard on trying to move ahead with the
package.
On this issue of education and math and science education, I
specifically want to mention the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers),
who has done a great deal of work focusing on the importance of math
and science training.
So I hope we can move ahead just as quickly as possible. Again, I
congratulate all those who have been involved in this effort.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from California (Chairman Dreier). The gentleman reminds me that I have
been discussing with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren)
about how, in the next term, if we are fortunate enough to come back to
Congress elected by our constituents, that we really begin to work on a
larger plan that coordinates all of the efforts that some employers are
engaged in; that the Department of Labor should certainly be working
very hard at; that the Department of Education, for example, should be
doing more.
{time} 1415
But I am still looking for, and I am willing to create with
interested Members in the Congress, the omnibus inclusive program that
really gets at the problem of the training, which, as we know, has the
start in the very first grades. You cannot bring in a technical program
for people who have not been prepared for the course studies.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, as well as the
gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the Committee on Rules.
I very much believe that this is the right thing to do today. As the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) referenced, this was the fee
that was included in the bill here in the House. Because of the glitch,
and I cannot argue with the parliamentarian in the other body, it could
not be included, because revenue increases can only be instigated in
the House and thus this is an essential thing to do. I do agree.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman will yield further?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that glitch happens to be article 1, section
7 of the U.S. Constitution.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the
reminder of the Committee on Judiciary members, the origin of the
glitch.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, though, that I think that the issue
of H-1Bs is more complicated than training programs; 98 percent of the
H-1B visa holders have at least a bachelor's degree, half of them have
a master's degree or Ph.D., so I am very much for the job training
programs that are included in this. It is important, but it is a
different employee group than the H-1B visa holders.
And for that, I am hopeful that we will be able to do additional
funding and additional emphasis on math and science education, so that
poor children who are in great numbers are not getting to colleges they
should be and not getting into the Ph.D. programs as they should be
will have that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I would further note that this is about not just
shortage but excellence, and we will always want the ability to recruit
worldwide. A country that would not want somebody like Linus Torvalds
to be in America and want to be one of us is a country that is
inexplicable.
So we will always want to be able to do that, but that does not
obviate the
[[Page H9050]]
need for putting massive effort and attention and additional resources
especially into poor schools for poor children. We were losing bright
minds. It is an outrage for those families and those kids, but further
it is something that this country can no longer afford to do. So I am
eager to support this.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
ranking member, for yielding to me. I am hopeful that next year we can
do much, much more.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Houston,
Texas (Mrs. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, continuing on the reservation
of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), let me thank the
gentleman very much.
Let me acknowledge that there are elements in this UC that I
certainly do appreciate. In particular, language taken out of H.R.
4227, the Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act, that has a
recognition of the burden on primary and secondary educational
institutions with respect to paying the fee.
These are entities that would put teachers into the primary and
secondary public schools and, of course, this language came out of our
bill. It was language that I drew from the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green) in working with our local school districts, so I am very
gratified that this lessens the burdens on our local school districts.
In addition, I think it is vital that we increase the fee, because,
of course, one of the elements that many of us are concerned about with
the H-1B philosophy, if you will, is the training that is necessary for
American workers.
What I would say, however, as well, is that I wish we would have
captured an opportunity to allow us for a full debate when this
particular legislation came to the floor of the House, my reservations
are that in that instance, we might have been able to go from 195,000
to 225,000. As the gentleman well knows, the industry said they need
millions, but we did not do that.
I think we missed a very valuable opportunity, and I would just like
to share with my colleagues just a few brief points on the continuing
reservation.
There is nothing in this bill that requires H-1B tech employees to
recruit, hire or train minority American workers. African Americans are
only 11 percent of the high-tech industry, and they continue to be
underemployed. There is nothing that requires H-1B employees to make
efforts to continually train and update the existing skills incumbent
on American workers and to promote such employees where possible.
There is nothing in the bill that requires the employers to take
constructive steps to recruit qualified American workers who are
members of underrepresented minority groups, recruit historically black
colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and advertise
jobs to reach out to older and disabled Americans.
There is nothing in this bill that deals with rural communities.
Under the leadership of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton), we have been working in our Congressional Black Caucus to
deal with these kinds of needy groups. There is nothing in this bill
that deals with protecting American workers and ensuring that the
salaries are competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the industry and I applaud the idea that jobs
in America creates jobs; we know that. But we missed a very valuable
opportunity, both in the legislation on Tuesday and as well as in the
UC, to be able to respond to those groups who obviously need to be
addressed.
Let me conclude, as I continue my reservation, I am gratified that
the bill that I sponsored, Kids 2000, is in the legislation that deals
with boys and girls club grants, and glad that the DOL will be getting
training money. My only angst is that the training money should be
directed toward historically black colleges and other institutions to
specifically focus on groups that need to be encouraged to participate
in this very vital and vibrant industry.
I hope that in working with the administration, this time around, and
working next time in the 107th Congress, if we are lucky enough to come
back, Mr. Speaker, that we will look to these issues that are very
important, that the training dollars will not randomly be sent to the
State, but they will be designated to work on these issues that we
think are so very important.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) because she had a bill directed at the points that she
made; unfortunately, it was unable to be heard in the committee on
which she is the ranking member. I think it gives us a direction for
where we really must go in the next Congress. This is a good start, but
it is only that.
I hope that the gentlewoman will join in the dialogue that I have
just begun today with members of the committee to put together an
omnibus package that goes way beyond just increasing the fee and
passing it on.
We have to have a targeted national program if we are to get these
youngsters that we all want to train into the pipeline to be able to
get into the technical courses that would make them prepared to go into
the high-tech field.
And so I only remind the Members of this, because the gentlewoman has
been working tirelessly on this subject ever since she became the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would
continue to yield so I may respond. I look forward to working with the
gentleman on this omnibus effort as I think my colleague who will speak
next, and we will continue to work in every direction that we can to
really respond to the general need that we have on this very important
issue of technology in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I yield to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her discussion under
our reservation.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for his generosity in yielding the time. I thank him for his
leadership, and I thank all of those who are interested in raising the
fees so that American workers can have the opportunity for training. I
certainly thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has
provided untireless hours and vigorous leadership on this issue.
I guess part of my reservation is both process and substance. The
process is that we did not have an opportunity to have just this kind
of dialogue which apparently we agree on when we could have had this
opportunity to enhance this bill.
It is not the issue of not increasing it, because we are not anti the
opportunity of getting the kind of technological skills in order to
make our companies ever profitable and allow it to expand and the
growth opportunities there but the uncertainty of the fact that we
could not have this honest democratic discussion about how we bring
various parts.
I represent rural America, so I bring that bias or that perspective.
In rural America, we do not have access to the Internet, nor do we use
the Internet in the same proportion, and that is exacerbated,
obviously, by the persistent poverty, the sparsity of population, the
distance they have to travel.
So we are finding ourselves with acts like this and others further
disenfranchising digitally because we do not have the infrastructure,
and to allow this opportunity to pass and not to allow American
citizens and children and workers in rural America to benefit from this
is not to suggest that we should not recruit others. And I agree with
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), we certainly
would be very narrow minded if we did not want to get the best minds
worldwide.
But should we get the best minds at the expense of the best minds
here? Should we indeed not do both? We can achieve both. I want to
applaud what the gentleman is doing here, but I do not want the
gentleman to think that I think we cannot do better this session. We
ought to still stay engaged with the President and still stay engaged
with that process to let him know we can perfect this.
The opportunity seems to me that we indeed ought to structure some of
these funds so it, indeed, will go to those targeted areas.
[[Page H9051]]
My final comment is this, when America saw itself challenged 3
decades ago scientifically and astronomically, when we found ourselves
behind the Russians, we made a commitment not just to recruit the
Russian scientists here, we made a commitment to invest in our
children, in our school. We are not making that kind of commitment.
And for my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) who remarked this
is short term; the gentleman is absolutely right, this is short term.
It is short term, and if we keep doing it, it is going to become the
most expedient way to do it, because it costs less to do this.
I want to make the plea to my colleague, we have to invest in our
communities. We have to invest in our children. We have to invest in
our workers. We have to invest in rural America so we can be a Nation
that is proficient and enjoying the rising tide of this new economy,
and we have to make that kind of effort.
It is not at the exclusion of bringing the best minds. This is not
antiimmigration. This is an inclusive way, and it is to suggest that
the information technology people, they understand the value of having
a workforce here in America.
It seems to me that we short sighted their vision if we suggest that
their only solution is that they must keep recruiting all their talents
somewhere else. We did this in auto, and guess what? We found ourselves
as American countries having competition all over.
I just want to challenge us, the most important integration bill we
had on this House, we missed the opportunity to have this kind of give
and take and discussion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this
important topic. I am in agreement with much of what I have heard
today, but we have to recognize, as the previous speaker, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), commented, this is a
long-term problem. It is also something that I have been involved in
since 1967 when I was a physics professor and became very concerned
with what was called at that time scientific illiteracy.
{time} 1430
It was clear the Nation had a major problem, so I dedicated myself as
a professor of physics, first at Berkeley, then at Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, to trying to eradicate scientific illiteracy in
the areas in which I dealt. I taught special courses designed for
students who were not scientists, so they would begin to understand
science and comprehend it.
That interest has continued, and I agree with the previous speaker,
that this is a long-term problem that we have to address.
I have developed three bills which I introduced this past year. We
have over 110 cosponsors of those bills, and I had hoped that we could
act on them this year, but due to various circumstances, that did not
happen, although one of the bills was reported out of the Committee on
Science.
It is essential that we continue this. I have a brochure which I have
handed out to many Members, and I will be happy to make available to
any other Members.
The key point to recognize, first of all, we have a very serious
problem in this country, but we also have a real blessing going on
right now. The blessing is the tremendous economic boom we have enjoyed
for almost a decade, which, according to Alan Greenspan and many other
experts, is grounded entirely in the science and math developments of
the recent past.
The research we have done has paid off, but we have not produced the
manpower to keep the boom going, so we are forced to import
scientifically, technically trained people from other countries. That
is why we need the H-1B visas.
But that is a short-term solution. We need to do a better job of
educating our citizens in math, science, engineering, technology, from
pre-school through graduate school, if we want to continue to be
competitive as a nation.
It is absolutely essential that we do that. The best place to start
is our weakest link, K through 12 education. For a series of reasons,
we are not doing a good job there. Evidence of that, of course, is the
H-1B visa problem. Another evidence is that in any graduate school of
science and engineering in this country, we will find over half of the
students are from other nations. Our students cannot compete with
students from other nations.
Another example of this is that we have 365,000 jobs open in this
country unfilled because we do not have qualified people to fill those
jobs.
So in an attempt to solve that, I have introduced these three bills.
I hope next year we can get this through. I hope we will be able to use
some of the funding from the H-1B visa fee to propagate this and
actually get at and solve the problem.
The previous speaker referred to the effort after the Russians
reached space first. I have given a number of speeches entitled,
``Where is Sputnik when we need it,'' because we need another Sputnik
now to reenergize our people, to reenergize our Congress, and get this
in, address this problem.
It can be addressed, and it is not all that expensive. We simply have
to set our minds to it and do it, and do it right, so that we can
produce a workforce that is technically trained, scientifically
trained, and able to deal with the economy we have now, and keep this
economic boom going so that we will all continue to enjoy a better life
in the future.
Mr. CONYERS. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I
yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. I did not appropriately thank him for his leadership,
and the members of the committee; and also for having the passion and
understanding that though this came through the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims, it is a Committee on the Judiciary issue, a
full committee issue.
I am delighted that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) talked
about the reeducating of our youth. The point I wanted to focus on is
that this is a continuing effort, this is not a one-time effort, as
everyone has said.
But this is a time to speak to my colleagues who would think that it
is a narrow issue. The issue should be that we leave, and I have heard
this said before, we leave no one behind. Right now, even though we can
focus on those K through 12 students which we want to excite about math
and science, to project them into the future, let me just remind my
colleagues that we do have existing American workers who, with cross-
training, what we call incumbent worker training, engineers graduated
from historically black colleges or Hispanic-serving institutions or
individuals in rural America who are now ready to stand alongside of
the immigrant visas we are giving.
It must be said as much as we fought on the issue of helping
immigrants, particularly trying to restructure the INS, making things
less bureaucratic, we know this is not an attempt to discard the
talents that they bring, but it is to recognize that there are existing
workers today, Hispanics, African-Americans, people who live in rural
communities, people who live in urban communities, who can benefit from
the recruitment of the industry that we would like to see, from the
collaboration and training in institutions that these individuals could
get cross-training in, and as an engineer, be able to write software
technology.
That is why I was saddened at the opportunity we missed with this
legislation. I am gratified that the fees are raised, so we know we are
committed to training; gratified that those public schools that need
teachers coming in from foreign countries to teach, because we have a
teacher shortage, now do not have to pay the fee; gratified that we
have the Kids 2000 technology aspect; but hope that my colleagues, in
keeping with the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
about an omnibus approach in the future, that we will be reminded of
those underserved, underutilized communities, and underutilized
American workers we have.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
[[Page H9052]]
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to take a moment to thank those involved in this bill, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has worked indefatigably on this
issue, as has the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We
appreciate that. Her great leadership on the committee has been
helpful.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has worked very, very hard
on these issues. We appreciate his comments, and those of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who just spoke
eloquently. We appreciate her concerns and leadership on the issue.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us contains technical
corrections and clarifications to the H1-B visa legislation which
passed the House by voice vote on Wednesday and the Senate 96 to 1.
This bill will increase the H1-B visa fee which will be used to train
American workers in high tech jobs. It also goes further to protect
non-profits affiliated with educational institutions, like teaching
hospitals. This training money is a positive step. It is overwhelmingly
supported by members in both bodies and on both sides of the aisle. I
want to thank my colleague David Dreier for his leadership on this
issue.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman
Dreier and Congressman Joe Moakley for including my bill into the H-1B
visa bill. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act
of 1998 developed a new filing fee which must be paid by employers when
they file H-1B petitions for ``aliens in specialty occupations'' before
October 1, 2001. Certain employers are exempt from paying the filing
fee, including institutions of higher education, nonprofit
organizations or a Government research institute, it is my regret that
this preferential treatment does not extend to grades K-12. With this
in mind, elementary and secondary-level education institutions that
qualify as nonprofit organizations under the appropriate sections of
the Internal Revenue Code do not qualify as ``institutions of higher
education,'' as defined by the ACWIA, and are thus not exempt.
In response to this confusion, The Department of Labor has identified
the need to clarify the definition of exemption provisions as they
apply to elementary and secondary-level education institutions. We
offered H.R. 1573 to ensure that the same policies and objectives
served by the ACWIA be extended to include elementary and secondary-
level education providers.
The fee was paid by our public schools from property tax dollars to
I.N.S. This bill will save our public schools scarce property tax funds
to use for education.
I hope we can pass this legislation that would provide our elementary
and secondary schools a chance to hire experts and teachers through the
H1-B Visa program and save local tax dollars.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, because I support the bill, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 5362
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF FEES.
Section 214(c)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(excluding'' and all
that follows through ``2001)'' and inserting ``(excluding any
employer that is a primary or secondary education
institution, an institution of higher education, as defined
in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001(a), a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated
with any such institution, a nonprofit entity which engages
in established curriculum-related clinical training of
students registered at any such institution, a nonprofit
research organization, or a governmental research
organization) filing before October 1, 2003''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$500'' and inserting
``$1000''.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendment made by section 1(2) shall apply only to
petitions that are filed on or after the date that is two
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________