[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1083-S1084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           H-1B VISA PROGRAM

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many of my colleagues know I have been 
fighting for years to end the abuse of the H-1B visa program and help 
disadvantaged U.S. workers who are harmed by that program. Today I wish 
to draw the attention of my colleagues to a recent incident that 
highlights how some employers are potentially using legal avenues to 
import foreign workers, lay off qualified Americans, and then export 
jobs overseas. I was shocked by the heartless manner in which U.S. 
workers were injured in the case I am about to describe.
  First, I wish to remind my colleagues about how the H-1B program is 
supposed to work. Under the terms of the H-1B program, U.S. employers 
may import into the United States each year up to 65,000 so-called 
specialty occupation workers. The jobs being filled must be a job for 
which a bachelor's degree is necessary. Even though the annual cap is 
65,000, the actual number of foreign workers being imported is much 
more because of numerous exemptions. In fiscal year 2012, for example, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved a total of 262,569 
H-1B petitions--way above the legal limit of 65,000 or I should say the 
supposed limit of 65,000.
  About 60 percent of H-1B workers come to fill computer-related 
occupations. Every year the list of the top 10 H-1B employers is 
dominated by foreign-based companies offering information technology or 
IT consulting services to the clients.
  Under the law, H-1B employers are also required to: No. 1, pay the 
workers the greater of the prevailing wage for that job in that area or 
the wage the employer pays to similarly qualified U.S. workers doing 
the same job and at the same time--or the No. 2 condition--provide 
working conditions that will not adversely affect other similarly 
employed U.S. workers.
  Additionally, H-1B employers may not displace a U.S. worker within 
the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date 
of filing any H-1B petition by that employer.
  Now I will describe what the program lacks. Most people believe 
employers try to recruit Americans before they petition for H-1B 
workers. Yet under the law, not all employers are required to prove to 
the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the 
job first. That is right. American workers do not get the first chance 
at these jobs in the United States, and if there is an equally or even 
better qualified U.S. worker, the company does not have to offer him or 
her that job.
  I have pushed for changes in the legislation in that law. In fact, I 
offered several pro-U.S. worker amendments during consideration of the 
immigration bill in 2013. Every amendment I offered was defeated. The 
majority at that time--meaning the Democratic majority, and it was a 
bipartisan majority that helped defeat it--defeated these pro-American 
worker amendments. They pushed through S. 744, the 2013 immigration 
bill, without this significant, much needed change.
  Let me describe to my colleagues the appalling instance referenced 
above.
  I have described what the H-1B law was and how, during the 
immigration debate of 2013, I tried to amend it and improve it, and I 
wasn't successful. I started my remarks tonight by talking about the 
abuse of H-1B, the law not being followed, overseas companies bringing 
workers in here for an American company to employ, and then in turn 
these jobs are going to be shipped overseas. So now I wish to describe 
this appalling incident I referenced earlier.
  Last August, Southern California Edison started laying off 400 
American workers from its IT department. The company replaced them with 
foreign H-1B workers. According to the company, 100 additional American 
workers who will also be replaced by H-1B workers will leave supposedly 
voluntarily. According to Computerworld, the final major batch of 
layoffs is scheduled for March 6 or March 7.

  The foreign workers who are replacing the American workers at Edison 
are employees of two overseas-based IT consulting companies that are 
also two of the largest users of H-1B visas. In 2013 one of the two 
companies paid the largest immigration fine in U.S. history. That 
company paid $34 million in a civil settlement after allegations of 
systemic visa fraud and abuse.
  The jobs being filled by H-1B workers are manifestly not jobs for 
which Americans are unavailable. I say that because the jobs are 
currently filled by skilled American workers. It is disturbing that not 
only have these American workers been laid off, but also some of them 
have reportedly had to train their very own replacements.
  A columnist for the Los Angeles Times writes that by laying off 
hundreds of its American IT staff and replacing them with relatively 
low-wage foreign contract workers, Edison stands to save as much as 40 
percent in wage costs per laid-off worker. One

[[Page S1084]]

laid-off Edison worker told the columnist that company supervisors told 
a group of workers last year: ``We can get four Indian guys far cheaper 
than the price of you.''
  Worse yet, most of the 500 jobs that had been held by Americans will 
eventually just move overseas. According to the Los Angeles Times, 
Edison admits that eventually about 70 percent of the work will shift 
overseas permanently.
  Edison describes the 400 layoffs as a ``transition'' to the foreign 
IT consulting companies that ``will lead to enhancements that deliver 
faster and more efficient tools and applications for services that 
customers rely on.''
  Then it adds further: ``[T]hrough outsourcing, [Edison's] information 
technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly 
and successfully used by top U.S. companies that [Edison] benchmarks 
against.''
  With respect to replacing American workers with H-1B workers, Edison 
says the company ``is not hiring H-1B workers to replace displaced 
employees.'' Edison's cynical defense is built upon a very shameless 
exploitation of a loophole in the H-1B laws. That loophole says that 
technically Edison isn't the H-1B workers' employer; the two foreign 
consulting companies are. The H-1B workers are just contracted out for 
extended, potentially multiyear periods from the foreign consulting 
companies to the American company, Edison. Thus, Edison argues that it 
is not subject to the requirements under the immigration laws that I 
spoke of earlier. They argue that because they are not the employer who 
petitioned directly for the H-1B workers, they--Edison--don't have to 
abide by the working condition requirements or the 90-day rule.
  The condemnation of this attack on American workers has been very 
quick and, quite frankly, bipartisan. On February 10 over 300 members 
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers rallied in 
Irvine, CA, in support of their fellow Edison employees. Several 
Members of Congress have expressed concern about the situation. On 
February 17 the Economic Policy Institute sent a letter to the 
Secretary of Labor asking him to investigate the Edison layoffs. 
Specifically, the institute asked the Secretary of Labor to determine 
whether Edison, the foreign consulting companies, or any of the parties 
involved in these layoffs violated the requirements that the hiring of 
H-1B workers not ``adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
U.S. workers comparably employed.''
  I echo the request of the Economic Policy Institute. The prohibition 
on adversely affecting U.S. workers can reasonably be applied to 
situations, such as in the Edison case, where the H-1B workers are 
contractors at a worksite rather than employees.
  I also draw your attention to a powerful February 16 Los Angeles 
Times editorial entitled ``End H-1B visa program's abuse.'' The Los 
Angeles Times calls Edison's action ``part of a years-long trend among 
companies of misusing H-1B visas to undercut wages and offshore high-
paying American jobs.'' The Los Angeles Times concludes that the H-1B 
program, although perhaps well-intentioned, is ``broken'' and that 
``Congress needs to fix it.'' And, of course, I could not agree more, 
as evidenced by all the amendments I offered in 2013 on the immigration 
bill.
  This situation with Southern California Edison is not new. It is 
happening time and time again. American workers are losing out because 
the law is not strong enough to protect them, so it needs to be fixed.
  Any proposal to reform the H-1B program must include substantially 
increased protections for U.S. workers such as I have proposed many 
times in the past. These protections must at a minimum include the 
requirement that companies first recruit here at home before they 
import more foreign workers. We also need to reform the H-1B wage 
requirements so that U.S. workers' wages would no longer be undercut by 
H-1B workers' wages. There also needs to be more oversight of the 
program, including random audits of those who use the program.
  Tightening the law to ensure that U.S. workers have the first 
opportunity at high-paying, high-skilled jobs in this country is a no-
brainer. Yet there is so much opposition to this philosophy. I just 
cannot believe the opposition. As I stated earlier, the majority in the 
last Congress--and that happened to be a bipartisan majority--pushed 
for changes to the H-1B program but voted against every single 
amendment I offered to ensure that U.S. workers were given priority.
  Now there is a lot of fanfare and a lot of talk about a high-skilled 
bill that has been reintroduced in the Senate that would increase the 
annual number of H-1B visas. The sponsors of the bill claim it will 
``boost our competitiveness in the global economy.'' This bill only 
makes the problems worse. It doesn't plug the loopholes. It doesn't 
make sure American workers are put before foreign workers. It doesn't 
ensure that employers don't use the program to pay cheaper wages, which 
then in turn disadvantages U.S. workers.
  The H-1B program could be a very worthwhile program. According to the 
original intent, I obviously would support it because we want workers 
to do the jobs that need to be done in America, but it should first be 
people who are already here.
  Our employment-based immigration programs could have served and could 
again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are 
being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker. Reforms 
are needed to put integrity back into the programs and to ensure that 
American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant 
jobs in this country. So I am putting my colleagues on notice that I am 
committed to this effort. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I 
don't intend on allowing legislation to move through this body without 
reforms to the H-1B program that protect American workers.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________