|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
< Go back to Immigration Daily
[Congressional Record: October 3, 2000 (House)]
[Page H8699-H8706]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr03oc00-93]
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ACT OF 2000
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2045) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with
respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2045
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 ``American Competitiveness in
the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN VISA ALLOTMENTS.
In addition to 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 (8
U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), the following number of aliens
may be issued such visas or otherwise provided such status
for each of the following fiscal years:
(1) 80,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(2) 87,500 for fiscal year 2001; and
(3) 130,000 for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH FACILITIES,
AND GRADUATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS.
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph
(1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a
visa or otherwise provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)--
``(A) who is employed (or has received an offer of
employment) at--
``(i) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or
``(ii) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental
research organization; or
``(B) for whom a petition is filed not more than 90 days
before or not more than 180 days after the nonimmigrant has
attained a master's degree or higher degree from an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))).
``(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer
described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a
nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b),
be counted toward the numerical limitations contained in
paragraph (1)(A) the first time the alien is employed by an
employer other than one described in paragraph (5)(A).''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.
(a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per
country limitation if additional visas available.--If the
total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter
exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise
be issued such visas, the visas made available under that
paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical
limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the
remainder of the calendar quarter.
``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent
area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of
visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number
of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the
state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection
(e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in
applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have
been required for the classes of aliens specified in section
203(b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``paragraphs
(3) and (4)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
(2) Section 202(e)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``the
proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting ``except as
provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa
numbers''.
(c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, any alien who--
(1) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section
204(a) for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of section 203(b); and
(2) would be subject to the per country limitations
applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs but for this
subsection,
may apply for, and the Attorney General may grant, an
extension of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's
application for adjustment of status has been processed and a
decision made thereon.
SEC. 5. INCREASED PORTABILITY OF H-1B STATUS.
(a) In General.--Section 214 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2)
who was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is
authorized to accept new employment upon the filing by the
prospective employer of a new petition on behalf of
such nonimmigrant as provided under subsection (a).
Employment authorization shall continue for such alien
until the new petition is adjudicated. If the new petition
is denied, employment authorization shall cease.
``(2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a
nonimmigrant alien--
``(A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United
States;
``(B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a nonfrivolous
application for new employment or extension of status before
the date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by
the Attorney General; and
``(C) who has not been employed without authorization in
the United States before or during the pendency of such
petition for new employment.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to petitions filed before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED STAY IN CASES OF LENGTHY
ADJUDICATIONS.
(a) Exemption From Limitation.--The limitation contained in
section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with
respect to the duration of authorized stay shall not apply to
any nonimmigrant alien previously issued a visa or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on
whose behalf a petition under section 204(b) to accord the
alien immigrant status under section 203(b), or an
application for adjustment of status under section 245 to
accord the alien status under section 203(b), has been filed,
if 365 days or more have elapsed since the filing of a labor
certification application on the alien's behalf, if such
certification is required for the alien to obtain status
under section 203(b), or if 365 days or more have elapsed
since the filing of the petition under section 204(b).
(b) Extension of H1-B Worker Status.--The Attorney General
shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies for an
exemption under subsection (a) in one-year increments until
such time as a final decision is made on the alien's lawful
permanent residence.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.
(a) Attestation Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii)) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001''
and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
(b) Fee Requirements.--Section 214(c)(9)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)(A)) is
amended in the text above clause (i) by striking ``October 1,
2001'' and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
(c) Department of Labor Investigative Authorities.--Section
413(e)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (as contained in title IV of division
C of Public Law 105-277) is amended by striking ``September
30, 2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002''.
SEC. 8. RECOVERY OF VISAS USED FRAUDULENTLY.
Section 214(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184 (g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations
of paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are
filed for such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a
visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted
against the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found
to have been issued such visa or otherwise provided such
status by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact
and such visa or nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one
number shall be restored to the total number of aliens who
may be issued visas or otherwise provided such status under
the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year
in which the petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal
year in which the petition was approved.''.
SEC. 9. NSF STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ``DIGITAL DIVIDE''.
(a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall conduct a
study of the divergence in access to high technology
(commonly referred to as the ``digital divide'') in the
United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall submit a report to Congress setting forth
the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 10. MODIFICATION OF NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT
PROVISIONS.
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Section 286(s) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``56.3 percent'' and
inserting ``36.2 percent'';
[[Page H8700]]
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``28.2 percent'' and
inserting ``30.7 percent''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``4 percent'' and
inserting ``2.5 percent''.
(b) Low-Income Scholarship Program.--Section 414(d)(3) of
the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of
1998 (as contained in title IV of division C of Public Law
105-277) is amended by striking ``2,500 per year.'' and
inserting ``3,125 per year. The Director may renew
scholarships for up to 4 years.''.
(c) National Science Foundation Grant Program.--Section
286(s)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1356(s)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) National science foundation competitive grant program
for k-12 math, science and technology education.--(i) 25.8
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 to carry out a
direct and/or matching grant program to support private-
public partnerships in K-12 education.
``(ii) Types of programs covered.--The Director shall award
grants to such programs, including, those which support the
development and implementation of standards-based
instructional materials models and related student
assessments that enable K-12 students to acquire an
understanding of science, mathematics, and technology, as
well as to develop critical thinking skills; provide
systemic improvement in training K-12 teachers and
education for students in science, mathematics, and
technology; stimulate system-wide K-12 reform of science,
mathematics, and technology in rural, economically
disadvantaged regions of the United States; provide
externships and other opportunities for students to
increase their appreciation and understanding of science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology; involve
partnerships of industry, educational institutions, and
community organizations to address the educational needs
of disadvantaged communities; and college preparatory
support to expose and prepare students for careers in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.''.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--Section 414 of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (as
contained in title IV of division C of Public Law 105-277) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) The Secretary of the Department of Labor and the
Director of the National Science Foundation shall--
``(1) track and monitor the performance of programs
receiving H-1B Nonimmigrant Fee grant money; and
``(2) not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this subsection, submit a report to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate--
``(A) the tracking system to monitor the performance of
programs receiving H-1B grant funding; and
``(B) the number of individuals who have completed training
and have entered the high-skill workforce through these
programs.''.
SEC. 11. KIDS 2000 CRIME PREVENTION AND COMPUTER EDUCATION
INITIATIVE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Kids
2000 Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is an increasing epidemic of juvenile crime
throughout the United States.
(2) It is well documented that the majority of juvenile
crimes take place during after-school hours.
(3) Knowledge of technology is becoming increasingly
necessary for children in school and out of school.
(4) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have 2,700 clubs
throughout all 50 States, serving over 3,000,000 boys and
girls primarily from at-risk communities.
(5) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have the physical
structures in place for immediate implementation of an after-
school technology program.
(6) Building technology centers and providing integrated
content and full-time staffing at those centers in the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America nationwide will help foster
education, job training, and an alternative to crime for at-
risk youth.
(7) Partnerships between the public sector and the private
sector are an effective way of providing after-school
technology programs in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
(8) PowerUp: Bridging the Digital Divide is an entity
comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit organizations, major
corporations, and Federal agencies that have joined together
to launch a major new initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills,
experiences, and resources they need to succeed in the
digital age.
(9) Bringing PowerUp into the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America will be an effective way to ensure that our youth
have a safe, crime-free environment in which to learn the
technological skills they need to close the divide between
young people who have access to computer-based information
and technology-related skills and those who do not.
(c) After-School Technology Grants to the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.--
(1) Purposes.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the purpose of
funding effective after-school technology programs, such as
PowerUp, in order to provide--
(A) constructive technology-focused activities that are
part of a comprehensive program to provide access to
technology and technology training to youth during after-
school hours, weekends, and school vacations;
(B) supervised activities in safe environments for youth;
and
(C) full-time staffing with teachers, tutors, and other
qualified personnel.
(2) Subawards.--The Boys and Girls Clubs of America shall
make subawards to local boys and girls clubs authorizing
expenditures associated with providing technology programs
such as PowerUp, including the hiring of teachers and other
personnel, procurement of goods and services, including
computer equipment, or such other purposes as are approved by
the Attorney General.
(d) Applications.--
(1) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, an applicant for a subaward
(specified in subsection (c)(2)) shall submit an application
to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, in such form and
containing such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require.
(2) Application requirements.--Each application submitted
in accordance with paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a request for a subgrant to be used for the purposes of
this section;
(B) a description of the communities to be served by the
grant, including the nature of juvenile crime, violence, and
drug use in the communities;
(C) written assurances that Federal funds received under
this section will be used to supplement and not supplant,
non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this section;
(D) written assurances that all activities funded under
this section will be supervised by qualified adults;
(E) a plan for assuring that program activities will take
place in a secure environment that is free of crime and
drugs;
(F) a plan outlining the utilization of content-based
programs such as PowerUp, and the provision of trained adult
personnel to supervise the after-school technology training;
and
(G) any additional statistical or financial information
that the Boys and Girls Clubs of America may reasonably
require.
(e) Grant Awards.--In awarding subgrants under this
section, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America shall consider--
(1) the ability of the applicant to provide the intended
services;
(2) the history and establishment of the applicant in
providing youth activities; and
(3) the extent to which services will be provided in crime-
prone areas and technologically underserved populations, and
efforts to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of
the grant awards.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to
carry out this section.
(2) Source of funds.--Funds to carry out this section may
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
(3) Continued availability.--Amounts made available under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.
Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to H-1B
nonimmigrant aliens, and to establish a crime prevention and
computer education initiative.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
General Leave
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on S. 2045, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of this
legislation. I am pleased that we are moving forward on this vital
issue for our economy.
America is ascendant. We have a strong, consumer-driven, innovative
economy that is continuing to grow. We have more high-tech products
available to our citizens than any other country in the world. Low-
cost, high-speed access to the Internet is becoming a reality for every
person in America. The latest employment numbers show that this high
technology-driven economy has created 340,000 new jobs and the
unemployment rate is at 3.9 percent, a 30-year low.
The legislation before us today will help this economic prosperity
continue by meeting the critical need for skilled workers, workers we
cannot get enough of. A key but little known fact about this booming
high-tech economy is that it is dependent upon skilled workers. We need
those. That is like lifeblood for us.
We cannot produce enough of these highly skilled workers quickly
enough from our own education system to keep pace with the demand. For
years we have had a special immigration program, the H-1B visa, which
allows highly skilled workers to come to this
[[Page H8701]]
country temporarily to work for American companies in order to meet
critical shortages of skilled personnel.
Unfortunately, the current program still does not provide enough
visas to meet the growing demands and the growing shortfall of
domestically educated high-tech workers. The current ceiling of 115,000
visas per year was reached in March, less than halfway through the
current fiscal year.
All the world wants to come to this land of opportunity to develop
and market their ideas. We want them to come. We want everyone to be
able to follow his or her dreams and enrich themselves and enrich this
country. The fact that the best and the brightest from the rest of the
world want to come here and work and learn, to invent and build
businesses is the ultimate compliment to our system. We should welcome
them with open arms. This is how America spreads democracy and the rule
of law. The people will make our country and our economy better while
they are here and will take our concept of freedom back to their homes
and initiate change there.
We have worked hard on this H-1B legislation to open the doors wide
to educated people, so that they can come to the United States and give
us the benefits as they develop their ideas. This is the American
dream. It should be available to everyone everywhere.
The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 will
feed the high-tech economy with these vital workers by providing
195,000 H-1B visas in fiscal 2000, and that is 80,000 in addition to
the 115,000 we currently have; 195,000 for the fiscal year 2001, and
195,000 for fiscal 2002.
Our opponents complain that a greater focus on education of American
workers is the answer. But this long-term solution cannot meet today's
critical need.
{time} 1830
American companies will always want to recruit the top professionals
they can find, but there is no reason why they should have to choose
between hiring the most qualified employees now to meet their immediate
needs and support long-term excellence in our schools in the high-tech
workforce. They can do both. We can do both.
The supporters of this legislation read like a who's who of the most
innovative, fastest-growing companies in America, the companies who
drive this economy forward: Microsoft, Intel, Sysco Systems, Sun
Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, and Texas Instruments. Their demands are
infinitely reasonable. The only shame in all this is that we have to
spend a year working with Congress to allow them to hire people and
create more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I plan to support this bill before us, even though it
got out of the Senate only hours ago; yesterday sometime.
The legislation before us today would adjust the H-1B visa cap to
meet the immediate and critical needs of our high-technology economy.
To tell the truth, the bill is a significant improvement to the
committee-passed bill in the Judiciary, which would have imposed
significant new restrictions that would have made it far more difficult
for American employers to utilize the H-1B program.
This enormous success of our American economy has, in large part,
been driven by our information technology industry. As a matter of
fact, the Department of Commerce estimates that more than 1.3 million
technology workers will be needed over the next decade. Where are we
going to get them? Ensuring that the United States has sufficient,
qualified, high-technology personnel will be a critical determinant of
the success of our national economy over the years to come. So I
believe it is imperative that we add some temporary visas, that we
provide for greater permanent visas, and that we attempt to educate our
own citizens so that we can meet these needs.
But I must point out that there are some concerns that I have with
the manner that this legislation came to the floor. First off, we are
taking up the Senate-passed bill under suspension of the rules; there
is only one copy in this room, and it is at the Speaker's desk. There
is no opportunity for amendment by anyone in the Congress. In this
respect, I would note that the bill before us does not contain the
increase in visa fees provided under the Lofgren-Dreier bill. This is
not a good occasion. By contrast, that bill would have increased fees
by $500 and then allocated 90 percent of the additional revenue to the
existing math, computer science, engineering and science related
enrichment and regional skills alliances designed to train current
workers.
In other words, our measure would have allowed us to begin to prepare
qualified high-tech workers inside the United States. The Clinton
administration likewise has some excellent proposals in the fee area,
and I hope that this language will be added to some other piece of
legislation before we adjourn.
Number two, the bill fails to contain any of the Latino Fairness
provisions that those of us in the House, particularly the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, led by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard), and specifically worked on by our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and other
Members in the House and Senate who have been pushing these provisions
urged by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and by the Congressional
Black Caucus. These provisions would provide immigration parity for
Central Americans and Haitians, would grant late amnesty to individuals
unfairly denied relief under the 1986 law, and restore section 245(i)
relief to persons seeking to adjust their immigration status in the
United States.
In my view, if we are going to open our borders to hundreds of
thousands of foreign nationals who do not live here to fill employment
needs under the H-1B program, the very least we can do is address the
existing inequities faced by persons who already live and work here and
have family ties in this country.
Yet the majority continues to ignore these very reasonable proposals.
They have refused to give us a hearing in the Committee on the
Judiciary; and, thus, we have not had a markup. Today we do not even
have the opportunity of offering an amendment so that we can vote our
conscience on the House floor.
In terms of the immigration parity provisions, relief is needed to
correct unfair and discriminatory provisions enacted by the majority in
the last two Congresses. In 1996, this Congress made it almost
impossible for deserving immigrants to obtain suspension or deportation
relief. In 1997, they compounded the problem by offering relief from
the 1996 law to Cubans and Nicaraguans but not other Central Americans
or Haitians.
I want to quickly add that our Cuban American Members of Congress
joined us in supporting a modification that would include Central
Americans and Haitians, and I compliment them for that.
The individuals we want to protect came to our shores fleeing
persecution at home. They have jobs and families and roots in this
country. They deserve the same consideration we have given other groups
of immigrants.
As for the late amnesty provisions, there is a need to restore
fairness to those immigrants who were eligible to apply for
legalization in the mid-1980s but were not able to do so because the
Immigration and Naturalization Service misinterpreted the law that the
Congress passed. Had their application been timely processed, most of
these immigrants would already be citizens.
In 1996, the majority compounded the problem once again by stripping
the courts of their authority to grant relief for the wronged
legalization applicants. Updating the registry date to 1986 will avoid
all of these problems.
So I support the bill with these reservations. It is a marked
improvement over our committee product, but I pledge today that our
work should not be considered yet done on immigration in this Congress.
We must increase the fees, otherwise we will be giving our children and
workers the short shrift in terms of education funding. We have people
here that can and deserve to be high-tech workers in the computer
industry, and we must provide some equity to Latino and Haitian
immigrants who are already here.
Please, members of this committee, as a nation of immigrants, we
cannot shut our doors and hearts to these individuals.
[[Page H8702]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his limited support
of this bill. It is an important bill.
I would just point out that the Senate version has been around for a
very long time. There are at least two copies; the Speaker has a copy
and my staff has a copy here. So the issue has been around for a while
and it is a very important issue that we need to move forward with
under the current circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize two Members on
the House floor tonight. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
who is chairman of the House Committee on Rules, has been a tireless
advocate on behalf of the high-tech industry. I do not know of anyone
who has worked harder, invested more time and energy, or is more
responsible for the bill that we are considering tonight being on the
House floor, and I would like to congratulate him in advance on the
expected passage of this bill.
Second of all, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who just yielded
me the time, is an active member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims, and he too has been a steadfast advocate of the high-tech
industry. The gentleman from Utah himself is an entrepreneur and he
understands firsthand the needs of the high-tech industry.
Mr. Speaker, although there is still no objective credible study that
documents the shortage of American high-tech workers, the INS said
recently that the demand for highly skilled foreign workers is running
at least 50,000 ahead of last year. Such a demand can indicate an
actual shortage of American workers, a spot shortage, a preference for
cheap labor or replacement workers, or something else. But because of
the importance of the high-tech industry to our economy, I think we
should give the industry the benefit of the doubt.
But giving high-tech companies the benefit of the doubt is not
without risk, unless we safeguard American workers. We need to
recognize the opposition of the American people to an H-1B visa
increase, Mr. Speaker. Two major polls demonstrate that the vast
majority of Americans do not want to see the number of high-tech visas
increased so much and worry that it will hurt American workers.
A Peter Hart poll conducted in March found that 73 percent of
Americans do not want to see immigration law changed to allow the entry
of more foreign high-tech workers. Only 20 percent wanted more foreign
workers.
A Harris poll, released in September 1998, found that 82 percent of
Americans do not want to see the H-1B quota increased. The poll found
that 77 percent of Americans believe that an increase in H-1B visas
reduces employment opportunities for American workers. And 86 percent
of Americans believe that U.S. companies should train U.S. workers to
perform jobs in technical fields, even if it is faster and less
expensive to fill the jobs with foreign workers.
To satisfy the concerns of the American people, we need to protect
American workers from being undercut by foreign workers in the H-1B
program. S.2045 contains no significant provisions to protect these
American workers. It does not require most companies to make a good-
faith effort to recruit U.S. workers before hiring foreign workers. It
allows all but a small handful of firms to lay off American workers and
replace the American workers with foreign workers.
Why would anyone oppose these common sense safeguards? What amazes me
is that in all the discussions I have had with representatives of high-
tech companies, not a single one has expressed any concern about the
impact of this legislation on American workers. How could anyone oppose
a safeguard that says American workers could not be fired and replaced
by a foreign worker? How could anyone not agree to advertise for
American workers before hiring from abroad? How could anyone oppose
paying foreign workers what the average beginning salary is for
American college graduates, unless they want to undercut American
wages?
The Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill, H.R. 4227, that
contains an additional crucial safeguard for American workers. The
Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill that set a floor on wages for
these workers; $40,000 per year. This wage is a good starting point for
any high-tech professional. It is a salary that American students fresh
out of college are making. This crucial safeguard would prevent U.S.
companies from hiring foreign workers to undercut the wages of American
workers.
Strong anti-fraud measures are also necessary to address known
abuses. An article in last Thursday's ``San Francisco Chronicle'' says
it all: ``Federal authorities have started nationwide investigations
into the hiring of foreign high-tech workers, including charges of visa
fraud and allegations that the practice is riddled with abuse.'' The
Chronicle quotes Bill Yates of the INS as stating, ``But are we
catching most of the fraud? The truthful answer is that we are not. If
it is the intention of the employee or the employer to defraud the
government, you may not be able to ferret it out.''
A just-released Government Accounting Office report states, ``There
is not sufficient assurance that INS reviews are adequate for detecting
program noncompliance or abuse. The program is vulnerable to abuse,
both by employers who do not have bona fide jobs to fill or do not meet
required labor conditions, and by potential workers who present false
credentials.
{time} 1845
``The goals of preventing abuse of the program and providing
efficient services to employers and workers are not being achieved.
Evidence suggests that program noncompliance or abuse by employers may
be more prevalent than under other laws.''
Mr. Speaker, any H-1B bill should contain effective antifraud
measures as are contained in the Committee on the Judiciary-passed H.R.
4227. S. 2045 contains no such antifraud measures.
Mr. Speaker, in return for giving high-tech companies hundreds of
thousands of more foreign workers, all we ask on behalf of American
workers is some minimal, basic, common sense safeguards to ensure that
businesses do not want to hire cheap foreign workers at the expense of
American workers. While this bill has taken significant steps to
alleviate the presumed shortage with more training for American
workers, such provisions will not yield benefits for many years.
Supplying future workers is a different issue altogether from
shielding today's American workers from the consequences of admitting
so many workers from other countries.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should not turn its back on American workers.
Again I appreciate and recognize the work done by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) and by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and
congratulate them.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who worked harder on this
measure than any other member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill that should become
law. I am a little bit surprised that we are standing here tonight. We
did not realize that the bill would be brought up this evening and
actually when I learned that it would be, I was standing in line buying
a new computer to replace my computer which had its memory burned out
in a power surge recently. I was glad I was able to get into the car
pool lanes and get here in time to talk about why this bill deserves
our support.
It was about a year ago that I began drafting some of the measures
that ultimately found their way into the bill passed by the Senate last
night. But I was not the only one on our side of the aisle who worked
on this bill. A core group, including the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) really put in the extra effort as a drafting committee and
certainly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking
member, has been a leader in moving this forward along with the
gentleman from
[[Page H8703]]
California (Mr. Matsui), and finally our hero in this on our side of
the aisle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority
leader, who has been stalwart in his efforts to make sure that we would
get a bill such as this passed.
Mr. Speaker, I have to give the Senate credit. This bill is better
than any of the other bills that have been put together, including the
one we drafted, because it takes the best of so many measures and
includes them all. It does things that are important in reforming the
permanent side of the immigration system which is almost broken because
of bureaucratic delay. It allows for portability of H-1B status as well
as portability of I-140s and labor certifications. It does something
about the per-country limits that would, absent a remedy, mean that
scientists from certain Asian countries would be disadvantaged versus
scientists from European countries. This fixes that problem. There is
lots of good news in this bill, and we should all support it.
There are, however, two things that are not in the bill that I think
we need to fix. The first has been mentioned by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and that has to do with the Central American
refugee issue as well as the legalization era from the Reagan
administration. We hoped that those two measures would become law this
year as part of the Commerce-State-Justice bill. The President has
threatened to veto the bill if these Latino fairness issues are not
included, and 152 Democrats last week wrote a letter to the President
saying he would sustain his veto if Latino fairness issues are not
included in the Commerce-State-Justice bill. So we are sure that that
is going to happen.
The second issue is the fee issue that has already been mentioned.
The Senate parliamentarian correctly ruled that the fee in the Senate
bill was a revenue increase and therefore could not be initiated on the
Senate side. I do not believe we should stop this process of moving the
bill forward. We should pass this bill just as it is so we do not have
to conference it. But that means we are going to have to include a fee
in another measure, probably an appropriations bill that is moving
forward. I am sure that we will get the support of our colleagues
across the aisle to make sure that happens because there was broad
bipartisan support for a fee that would fund education and training
programs.
I think that we have cleared the deck for approval of this bill. It
is the best bill that has been considered yet. I would urge all of us
to vote for it and to vote for it with some great degree of enthusiasm.
As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, much of our economic prosperity is
very much related to the Ph.D's who have come in from all around the
world to come and be Americans with us. We are the better for that.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation. This legislation is nothing more than a betrayal of
American working people. Why should we bring in 240,000 foreigners in
order to depress the wages in the United States of America? That is
exactly what we are talking about here.
There are enough Americans to do these jobs. The only thing that is
lacking is the pay levels and the training. So instead of requiring our
companies to train people to do these high-tech jobs who are unemployed
now, like laid-off aerospace industries, or to pay a little bit more
money to attract our kids coming out of school, no, instead we are
going to bring in 240,000 foreigners to keep wages low. In times of
prosperity if you believe in free enterprise, that is when wages are
supposed to go up. But if we bring in 240,000 foreigners to take these
good, high-paying tech jobs, those high-paying jobs which are now
$60,000 that should go to 70 or $80,000 will stay at that level.
What this bill does is, number one, betray our own people who are out
of work who need that training, need those jobs, that are 50 years old;
but the Bill Gates billionaires of the world would rather bring in
foreigners and not have to pay for the training and not have to pay
perhaps for the health benefits of someone who is a lot younger. We
should not be subsidizing these billionaire high-tech companies and
these billionaires who have made money up in the Silicon Valley. They
should pay their workers more money, they should train them and, yes,
let us have an incentive for more of our young people to go into these
high-tech companies and high-tech skill areas. If we keep wages low,
our students are not going to be attracted to these high-tech areas.
But if we let wages increase as the market would suggest, we will have
our students go in that direction to try to get those jobs.
For someone who believes in the market and supposedly the Republicans
believe in the market, this bill is a betrayal of our principles but a
betrayal of America's working people. Let us not bring in 240,000
foreigners to take jobs that could be done by Americans if they had the
training and the pay levels to get those jobs.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished
ranking member from Michigan, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). A number of
other of our colleagues have worked very hard on this legislation. It
is good legislation. It is essential legislation. It benefits a great
many industries critical to the health of our economy.
But foremost among those sectors benefited is the high technology
industry. The reason for that is that in the next few years the demand
for skilled technology workers will mushroom worldwide. In the United
States alone we will need 1.4 million more computer programmers,
computer scientists and engineers by the year 2003. Today, 2.5 million
workers work directly in the high technology industry; and while
American firms dominate information technology markets worldwide, there
are some 350,000 unfilled high technology jobs in the United States
alone. To keep pace with demand each year for the next 10 years, the
United States will have to train and hire an additional 130,000
computer scientists, engineers, and systems analysts.
And unlike many of those countries that are falling behind us, our
strength is in our openness, openness to the flow of goods and services
and capital and people. The warnings from the left and particularly
from the right that more trade and immigration would throw native-born
Americans out of work, destroy jobs and drive down wages have proven to
be spectacularly wrong. I am looking for my friend from California,
because our economic expansion has continued at the highest pace ever.
That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), certainly not
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who obviously
understands the need.
In the last decade trade and investment with and in the United States
economy has reached record levels while the influx of legal immigrants
has averaged close to a million per year. And yet contrary to all the
isolationists' dire predictions, unemployment has fallen to a 30-year
low, 22 million new jobs have been created, real wages have been rising
all across the income scale, and the current economic expansion has
just set a record as the longest in United States history.
Until workforce training catches up to workforce demand, it is
incumbent upon us to ensure that our employers have the ability to fill
gaps in their workforce with qualified foreign national professionals.
By allowing and encouraging the best and the brightest from around the
globe to bring their knowledge and skills to the United States, and we
are a Nation of immigrants, that is one of the reasons it is working so
well, we can preserve our high-tech advantage over other countries
while at the same time making sure that those same jobs do not move
overseas. This is preventing those jobs from moving overseas.
As we have heard, this legislation if enacted will ensure that
Americans have the education skills and training to take these jobs if
they choose to pursue the training opportunities that this bill will
provide. The dedicated fees generated by this bill will ensure that
current American workers can be retrained for high-tech, new economy
jobs. That is why we need to support it.
I thank the White House and the Democratic and Republican leadership.
[[Page H8704]]
It is a fair and productive matter. Let us vote for it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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, the process is a betrayal. The process by
which this important legislation has been brought to the floor is a
betrayal of all of the reasonable Members of this House who are ready
to move to meet an emergency. We understand that there is a great need
for more workers to be brought in. We understand that there is a
shortage, those figures are not rigged, that there is a shortage and it
is mushrooming. We understand that we are going into a cyber-
civilization and brain power is very important and we cannot hesitate
and slow down the process. We understand the need to do something.
But why have it brought to the floor in the form of a suspension bill
and not have it debated on the floor of the House fully and not allow
amendments to be introduced which would be very useful for this
process? What we are doing here is steamrolling through a cap. We will
have a cap which amounts to almost 600,000 people over a 3-year period.
600,000 people are going to be brought in without any further
discussion of the process of creating brain power. We are going to let
nations like India and China, et cetera, create or let their school
systems fill this need for us because we are not willing to debate and
really come to grips with the process that is needed to generate and
develop this kind of brain power in our own country.
We have a $230 billion surplus this year and all of the proposals for
education have been milquetoast proposals. We are not coming to grips
with the fact that we need to invest very heavily in infrastructure,
very heavily in computers and equipment. In the area of immigration
alone, we are overlooking a supply of manpower that is already here.
There are large numbers of young people who come out of our high
schools, they are undocumented, they come out of the high schools
because they are allowed to go to public schools, but they cannot go to
college and receive scholarships because they are undocumented. They
have the brain power. I wanted to offer an amendment where they would
be allowed special status, also. There are numerous amendments that
were waiting to be attached to this bill to make it better, and we have
violated the trust of the people who wanted to make this happen.
{time} 1900
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just had a phone call from the president and CEO of
Intel, Mr. Craig Barrett, whose view of this is that we can either
import workers, or export jobs. I think that is really what this comes
down to.
Part of the criticism of this bill has come from people who believe
that bringing in new workers would keep wages low. As a practical
matter, these people that are coming in with high skills and high
education are making the pie bigger. They are making us all wealthier.
That is just the fundamental distinction between the sides here.
I would like to speak for a moment about this new economy and what is
going on here. We talk about the new economy, the Internet economy, the
e-economy, and yet is there any part of our economy that is not
affected by this?
Consider, for instance, trucking. The first company in the country
that adopted global satellite positioning for its trucks was from my
district in Utah, England Trucking. Their profitability skyrocketed
initially when they did that, but now every other trucking company in
the country is using that technology. And what has happened? The cost
of trucking has plummeted because of that technology. Their greatest
problem is getting enough drivers these days.
If you look at every other element of our economy, take farming, for
instance. The price of a bushel of corn today is the same as it was
essentially in 1950, unadjusted for inflation. That is because our
farmers have been at the very cutting edge of technology.
What we are doing with this bill is bringing in the people that will
actually accelerate the rate at which we grow our economy and which we
develop new technologies. The amazing thing is that the rate at which
we are absorbing new technology is accelerating, and the rate at which
we have opportunities to expand technology are accelerating.
For instance, the Proteon project now, which is the application of
the knowledge we have developed through the human genome project, is
mammoth; and the opportunities for human health and other development
from just that one issue alone are tremendous.
So we do not have a dearth of jobs; we have a dearth of people to
carry these great opportunities forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in central Texas, workforce development is the number
one, overriding high-tech issue. From the work that my office does with
one technology company after another in helping get H-1B visas
processed, I know that such visas represent one short-term answer to
our needs.
One reason that Austin, Texas prospers is by living the lyrics of
that great Texan Lyle Lovett, who sings, ``Oh no, you're not from
Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.'' We have attracted the best and
brightest people from all over the world in part, through this H-1B
program, to sustain our high-tech industries.
A high-tech leader in Austin, only a couple of months ago, was
telling me that his situation in not being able to get qualified people
to do the jobs that needed to be filled yesterday is not unlike a steel
mill that cannot get an adequate supply of iron ore.
Because we have such a serious problem, with unemployment at an all-
time low, in being able to get needed workers, I joined with a
bipartisan coalition back in March to increase the supply of visas and
to reform the process by which they are provided. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) has been entirely too modest tonight. Without
her determined leadership in forging a bipartisan coalition, we would
not have secured H-1B legislation this year. My regret is that it is
here in this fashion, and that so little has been done to address the
other critical needs such as for modernizing immigration services with
on-line filing and monitoring.
I am here not because I think this is a good bill, but because it is
the only bill that the House leadership will permit us to consider on
this issue. To schedule this debate 3 hours after Members were told
they could leave the Capitol because there would be no further votes,
to schedule it in a way that limits the debate time to a few minutes,
to deny all perfecting amendments, is all too typical of the way this
House has operated this year under the Republican leadership. But after
months of inaction on much a critical high tech issue, this unfortunate
approach shortchanges both this House and our high-tech industry.
In what will hopefully be a much better Congress next year, I will
continue seeking more comprehensive legislation to reform the visa
process and to create a separate ``tech visa.'' At the same time we
must also make much more effective use of visa fee revenue to develop
the skills of young Americans to fill future tech job openings so that
even more of our neighbors can share our economic success.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) for her outstanding leadership on this issue. She has been
working a long time at it and has done a tremendous job, and this is
very important to the future of our economy.
I too regret a little bit the way this bill has come to the floor,
but it is still a critical issue if we are going to move forward with
the high-tech economy and keep our economy moving.
We all know that the long-term solution to the skills gap we have in
this country is not going to be immigrants from other countries. The
long-term
[[Page H8705]]
solution definitely involves improving our education system, and we are
working to do that and we must work to do that. But in the short-term
it is to our country's advantage to go out and take the best and
brightest from the rest of the world and bring them to the U.S. to help
grow our economy.
I guess the strongest disagreement I have with the opponents of this
legislation is their claim that it is going to cost us jobs. It is
going to create jobs. In the Seattle-Puget Sound corridor, every high-
tech job has an incredible multiplier effect. It creates jobs. Bringing
in people who can fill these jobs is going to allow not just the
Microsofts and the Boeings, but hundreds, if not thousands, of small
companies in my district and my region to grow, by getting the skilled
workers they need to enable them to continue to compete in our global
economy and grow and actually create jobs.
It is in our best interest to bring the best and the brightest from
the rest of the world here to help our economy. That is the competitive
and wise thing to do.
This bill moves us in the right direction. There are many other
immigration issues that need to be addressed. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) once again has been an outstanding leader on
all of those issues. We should address them, and we will work on them.
But expanding the number of skilled workers that our businesses in this
country have access to is the most critical issue facing business.
Every business I go to, when I ask them what issues are most
important to them, they always tell me the same thing: workforce. ``We
can't get the people we need to grow to the level that we could be
growing if we had those employees.''
This is a critical issue. I urge this House to pass this. It is not a
perfect process. Nobody ever said Congress was a perfect process. But
it is a good bill that we should support.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to close. Let me point out that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has been the fire and the
work behind the bill in getting it to this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in less than 2 hours millions of Americans
are going to be watching what will certainly be a very exciting and
stimulating debate that will take place between Governor Bush and Vice
President Gore. It is going to be a very partisan debate, and that is
why I am happy that we in the House of Representatives just 2 hours
before that debate are able to participate in a very important
bipartisan effort here. It is one, as my friend, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), said, that began over a year ago. And, yes,
it was about a year ago that we began working together on this issue.
I want to say, first of all, that the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims (Mr. Smith), has been extremely helpful in
moving this process ahead, and there are a litany of people on our side
who have always worked very hard on this: the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon), who is managing this bill now; the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers),
who has the very important component which really has not been
mentioned a lot, and that is the issue of education, his focus on math
and science education, which will create a scenario where we do not
have to rely on H-1B visas for these jobs to be filled in the United
States.
That is the long-term solution. I should say that is why my
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, and I have joined just a
little while ago in introducing H.R. 5362, which takes the very
important component in our legislation which is designed to increase
the fee from $500 to $1,000. Why? So that we can have the resources
necessary to address these very important issues which the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has focused on.
Now, let me say that, again, this has been a bipartisan effort, and I
want to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren). We have gone through some bumpy times on this issue; but we
have come, again, to accept this very, very great piece of legislation
that our colleagues in the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1 have passed.
Also there are other people on the other side of the aisle who have
worked hard on this, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran);
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who just spoke very eloquently
about the fact that we will be creating jobs right here in the United
States by increasing the number of H-1B visas.
Today there are about 300,000 jobs that need to be filled, and those
jobs have not been filled. Why? Because we do not have the expertise
here in the United States to do that. Now, what is it that can allow us
to fill them? To make sure that we break down barriers and allow that
expertise, regardless of where it is in the world, to be right here in
the United States.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) just quoted the chairman of
Intel, Craig Barrett, who said very appropriately that we can either
choose to import workers, or export jobs. The fact is there are
countries in the world today that would very much like us to see not
only the jobs, but actually the bases for these operations, the
headquarters, to move to Singapore, Ireland or other spots in the
world. We need to do everything we can to break down government
barriers, so that we can make sure that that expertise is here.
Now, a number of people have mentioned the fact that we have seen
tremendous strides in the area of biotechnology. The gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon) just spoke eloquently about the genome project. When
you look at the fact that we want to cure a wide range of diseases that
are out there, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, we need
to make sure that we continue with innovation. That is why the
pharmaceutical industry, which I know has been criticized in this
presidential debate, is very key. They have to have the expertise
available to do this. Also in the technology sector, again, that ripple
effect which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) mentioned is so
key, because jobs will be created right here.
What we have is a situation where we are relying on people and brain
power, not steel and machines. That is the wave of the future. So for
us to break down a governmental barrier is the best thing for us. That
is why, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we are going to move forward
in doing the right thing.
The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader, have worked long and hard and
have been very supportive of this. I am pleased that having gone
through this challenging time, that we have come together in a
bipartisan way.
I hope that we can overwhelmingly pass this, take this language, send
it down to the President for his signature, and improve the quality of
life for the people in the United States and around the world, and
increase the number of American jobs right here for Americans.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. 2045, the
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000.
In the summer of 1999, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims held hearings to investigate the workforce
shortage affecting America's high-tech industry. The high-tech
industry's explosion in the U.S. has created over 1 million jobs since
1993 and has produced an industry unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. As
a result, our nation's economy has soared and the American people are
enjoying the highest standard of living in history.
However, the United States' computer and information technology
industry does not have access to growing numbers of highly skilled
personnel. Lack of skilled workers threatens our nation's ability to
maintain robust economic growth and expanding opportunities. The H-1B
visa program allows foreign professionals to enter and work
``temporarily'' in the U.S. There are currently over 364,000 unfilled
positions in the high-tech industry. In Northern Virginia alone, there
are 28,000 openings. The Department of Labor projects that this deficit
will increase by 1 million workers in the next decade. At the present
time, the annual limit for granting H-1B visas is 115,000, which was
reached in March, 2000.
[[Page H8706]]
America needs to sustain its position as the world leader in the
information technology industry. The critical need for highly-skilled
information technology workers demands that we take action now to
ensure our continued strength in light of today's global economy. There
is no question that we need to educate our children and retrain our
current workers to fulfill the demands of an IT workplace. But these
are long-term challenges that we are attempting to address in this
legislation and through education programs and IT training tax
incentives, among others.
We must ease the short-term skilled worker shortage that is a
function of a booming industry that has increased employment and
contributed to a growing budget surplus. And we need to do so by
increasing American companies' access to the best-educated and best-
trained minds if we are to maintain our position as the leader of the
Information Age. Indeed, many of these workers are trained in American
universities. Yet we send them back home to use those skills on behalf
of our competitors. Let us keep these minds within America's borders
for the benefit of American citizens.
There have been concerns expressed that companies want foreign
skilled workers in order to avoid paying American citizens' higher
wages to do the same job. However, temporary employees are not paid any
less than their counterparts. In fact, I find it difficult to believe
that a company would endure the time-consuming process and cost of
attracting a foreign worker instead of hiring home-grown talent.
As an original sponsor of the Dreier-Lofgren HI-TECH Act, I am very
pleased that we are moving quickly to pass the H-1B legislation
approved by the other body. I am a firm believer in the market system.
Here, the information technology industry is experiencing a shortage of
highly-trained and skilled workers, forcing them to look abroad for
such trained professionals. With this legislation, we can be certain
that as we shift the focus of our early educational efforts to
fulfilling the demands of an Information Economy, that in the meantime,
the best and brightest minds will guide America into the new
millennium. For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in
favor of S. 2045.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the Senate bill, S. 2045, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
 Follow @ilwcom Share this page | Bookmark this page The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |