Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 24, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1223 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1150

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I will begin by quoting from an article today in Congress Daily by Bruce Stokes. He sets up in one paragraph pretty much what we are going to talk about in this amendment:

The immigration deal under consideration in the Senate raises the number of H-1B visas, a long-sought boon for the high-tech industry that will provide Silicon Valley firms with skilled workers at rock-bottom salaries, who will bolster company profits.

This amendment I am offering now is supported by the AFL-CIO. I will read the few paragraphs of the letter they sent today:

Dear Senator Sanders:

On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to offer strong support for your amendment to the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act.

Your amendment would provide scholarships in math, science, engineering, and nursing for our domestic workforce by increasing fees on H-1B employers.

The last paragraph, signed by William Samuel, director of the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO, writes this:

It is completely irresponsible for Congress to increase yet again the total annual number of available H-1B visas without addressing the myriad well-documented problems associated with the H-1B program, or considering long-term solutions involving access to training and educational opportunities for domestic workers.

That is William Samuel, director of the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO.

The amendment I am offering today also has the support of the Teamsters, the Programmers Guild, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a long and complicated bill. It touches on a number of very important issues, and some of those issues I strongly agree with, no question. The time is long overdue that we control our borders. No question, the time is long overdue that we begin to hold employers--those people who are hiring illegal immigrants--accountable. Those items are long overdue, and we have to deal with them. This legislation does that. I support that.

In my view, this bill is also responsible in how it deals with the very contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country today. This bill carves out a path which eventually leads to citizenship, and that is something I also support.

But--and here is the but: There are a number of provisions in this bill I do not support, that I think are going to be very harmful to the middle-class and working families of this country.

The amendment I am offering right now concentrates on only one aspect of this very long bill and of that problem. That point centers on the state of the economy for working people in our country and the negative impact this legislation will have for millions of workers--low-income workers and professional workers as well.

The fact is there is a war going on in America today. I am not talking about the war in Iraq and I am not talking about the war in Afghanistan; I am talking about the war against the American middle class, the American standard of living and, indeed, the American dream itself.

The American people understand very well that since George W. Bush has become President, an additional 5.4 million Americans have slipped into poverty out of the middle class--5.4 million people who are poor. Nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance. Income for the average American family has fallen by over $1,200 since President Bush has been President, and some 3 million Americans have lost their pensions.

All over this country, from Vermont to California, people get up in the morning and they are working incredibly long hours. People need two incomes in a family to try to make ends meet. Yet, at the end of the day, they are falling further and further behind. There are a lot of reasons for that, but I think this bill, and what this bill proposes to do, is part of the problem.

During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, we were told by President Clinton and many others that, well, yes, globalization and unfettered free trade, such as our trade relations with China, yes, they will cost us blue-collar factory jobs, and the result is that because of our trade agreements, we have lost millions of good-paying blue-collar factory jobs and, in fact, today there are fewer people working in manufacturing than since President Kennedy was in office in the early 1960s.

Yes, we have lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, but what people told us is: Look, don't worry about that. Yes, we are going to lose blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but not to worry because your kids are going to become very sophisticated in terms of using computers, and the future for them is white-collar information technology jobs. We don't need those factory jobs anymore; we have white-collar information technology jobs, and those are the kinds of jobs which are going to be growing. Unfortunately, that has not quite occurred. From January 2001 to January 2006, we lost over 600,000 information technology jobs.

Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, has told us that between 30 and 40 million jobs in this country are in danger of being shipped overseas. In other words, what we are looking at right now is not just the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but we are looking at the loss of significant numbers of white-color information technology jobs. I know that in my State--and I expect in Senator Kennedy's State and all over this country--we have seen white-collar information technology jobs heading off to India and other countries. There is nothing more painful than to see people in my State--I have gone through this experience--having to train people to do their jobs as those people return to India.

Some of the leading CEOs and information technology companies have told us point blank--this is not a secret--that the new location for high-tech jobs is going to be India and China; it is not going to be the United States of America.

John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, has said:

China will become the IT center of the world, and we can have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 2040. What we're [in Cisco] trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company.

The founder of Intel predicted in the Wall Street Journal that the bulk of our information technology jobs will go to China and India over the next decade. That is the reality. That is what the heads of the information technology industry are telling us.

Over the last few days, a number of us have expressed the concern about the impact of bringing low-wage workers into this country and what that
would mean to Americans at the lower end of the economic ladder. Today, I wish to address a concern I have about what language in this bill could do to the middle class and, indeed, the upper middle class, people who hold professional jobs and who often earn a very good income.

The bill we are discussing today substantially increases the number of well-educated professionals coming into the United States from overseas. This bill, in fact, would allow 115,000 new professionals to come into this country each year, and that number could go up to 180,000.

This program which allows well-educated professionals to come into our country is called the H-1B program. It is currently capped at 65,000 visas a year. Under the language in this bill, the number would increase at least by 50,000 and by as much as 115,000.

The argument that corporate America is using in supporting this increase is that there are just not enough highly educated, highly skilled Americans to fill available job openings in the high-tech industry and in various science fields. Proponents of the H-1B visa program also say it allows us to bring in the ``best and the brightest'' from around the world to help America's competitiveness position. That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.

First, we should be clear that H-1B visas are not being used only in the high-tech and highly specialized technology and science fields. That is the argument often made, but it is really not true. The reality is that a whole host of jobs in various categories are going to H-1B visa holders.

Let's take a look at some of the jobs that corporate America is telling us that there are just not enough Americans who are smart enough, who are educated enough to perform. Here they are: information technology computer professionals--I guess we can't do that kind of work; university professors--oh, my word, I guess we just don't have enough people to be university professors; engineers, health care workers, accountants, financial analysts, management consultants, lawyers--lawyers, I love that one. Is there anyone in America who doesn't think we have too many lawyers? I guess we need to bring some lawyers in as well. Architects, nurses, physicians, surgeons, dentists, scientists, journalists and editors, foreign law advisers, psychologists, market research analysts, fashion models--Madam President, fashion models--teachers in elementary or secondary schools. In America, we do not have enough people to become teachers in elementary or secondary school. Does anyone really believe that we cannot, with proper salary inducements, bring people into secondary and primary education?

Given that we all know there are many Americans who have college degrees and advanced degrees in these fields who cannot find work, why is it that we need to bring in more and more professional workers from abroad? For those who believe that the law of supply and demand applies to labor costs, the evidence shows there is no shortage of college-educated workers in America. What we learn in economics 101 is if you cannot attract people for certain jobs, you pay them higher wages and you give them better benefits. Unfortunately, in America today, from 2000 to 2004, we have seen the wages of college graduates decline by 5 percent. So on one hand, corporate America says: Oh, my goodness, we can't find people as professionals to fill these jobs, but amazingly enough, wages have gone down for college graduates from 2000 to 2004 by 5 percent. Maybe somebody is not trying hard enough to find American workers to fill these jobs.

In truth, what many of us have come to understand is that these H-1B visas are not being used to supplement the American workforce where we have shortages but, rather, H-1B visas are being used to replace American workers with lower cost foreign workers.

There are studies which conclude that H-1B workers earn less than what U.S. workers make in similar jobs at similar locations. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, wages for H-1B workers average $12,000 a year below the median wage for U.S. workers in computer fields. Another study by Programmers Guild found that foreign tech workers who came to the United States with H-1B visas are paid about $25,000 a year less than American workers with the same skill.

According to the GAO:

Some employers said that they hired H-1B workers in part because these workers would often accept lower salaries than similarly qualified U.S. workers.

What is very important to mention here is that some in corporate America are giving the impression that most of the jobs within the H-1B program are for highly specialized technical work which just can't be found in the United States. The truth is that most of the H-1B visas go to people who do not have a Ph.D., who do not have a master's degree, but only have a bachelor's degree, a plain old college degree.

In today's Congress Daily, there is a very insightful article on H-1B visas which is relevant to this debate:

As Ron Hira, a professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, points out ..... the Labor Department acknowledges that ``H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of a foreign worker.''

The article goes on to state:

The median wage for new H-1B computing professionals was $50,000 in 2005, far below the median for U.S. computing professionals, according to the annual report of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

These findings are extremely troubling given the promises made to the American people that the future for our economy was with high-skilled, high-paying, high-tech jobs. What we have found is that in the last 4 years, wages for college graduates are going down, and we are finding that people from abroad are coming in and doing jobs American professionals can do and they are doing them for lower wages.

To bolster their argument for increased H-1B visas, proponents point to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the jobs of the future. That is what it is entitled, ``Jobs of the Future.'' According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the next decade, 2 million jobs will be created in mathematics, engineering, computer science, and physical science. That equates to about 200,000 jobs a year times 10--2 million jobs. Under this legislation, the number of H-1B visas would increase to as many as 180,000 a year. That means virtually every job--about 90 percent--that will be created in the high-tech sector over the next 10 years could conceivably be taken by a H-1B visa holder. What sense does that make? What are we telling our young people? We are saying: Go to college, get the best education you can, and we have all kinds of jobs available to you, except those jobs in a significant way are going to be taken by people from another country.

We would hope that companies in the United States would have just enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would work to hire qualified American workers.

But if you look at the statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who are pushing extreme globalization.

Let me take one case study, and that is Microsoft. In 2003, Microsoft's vice president for Windows engineering was quoted in Business Week as saying:

It is definitely a cultural change to use foreign workers. But if I can save a dollar, hallelujah.

The CEO of Microsoft, Steven Anthony Ballmer, has said, and this is an interesting quote, very relevant to today's discussion:

Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to $50,000, and it won't make sense for employers to put up with the hassle of doing business in developing countries.

In other words, if we lower wages for professionals in this country, maybe our companies won't outsource and go to India or China.

The economic benefit of H-1B visas, though, is not limited to American companies. The truth is, as my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley, have pointed out, the top companies applying for H-1B visas are actually outsourcing firms from India, known in the industry as ``body shops.'' According to a February 7, 2007, article in BusinessWeek:

Data for the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September, showed that 7 of the top 10 applicants for H-1B visas are Indian companies. Giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro took the top two spots, with 22,600 and 19,400 applications respectively.

In fact, 30 percent of the H-1B visas approved last year went to nine Indian outsourcing firms. In other words, the very same companies that are involved in the H-1B program of supplying American companies with cheap foreign labor are exactly the same corporations that are involved in outsourcing, providing cheap labor to these very same companies when they move to India. Two sides of the same coin.

In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.

I do wish to commend Senators DURBIN and GRASSLEY for their work to reform the H-1B program and their efforts to include in the substitute some provisions that strengthen protection for American workers. But as important as these strengthened protections are, the H-1B program, which will be increased from 65,000 slots to 115,000 slots, and potentially even 180,000 slots, continues to pose a threat to American jobs and American wages.

The question is: Where do we go from here? What is our response to this problem? I could certainly offer an amendment to remove the increase in H-1B visas or even to restrict them below the current 65,000 level. But that amendment would be defeated. So where do we go? What is the sensible thing to do? How do we bring people together around this issue?

I think the author of the Congress Daily article I referred to earlier said it quite well when he wrote:

More importantly for the American taxpayer, the current allocation system for H-1B visas conveys a valuable resource--access to talented workers who add value to a company's bottom line--at almost no cost. This is a subsidy in violation of market principles for firms that are too quick to appeal to market forces when they are fighting Washington over export controls or other issues.

The amendment I am offering has two goals. First, raising the H-1B visa fee from $1,500 to $10,000 will go a long way in telling corporate America they are not going to be able to save money by bringing foreign professionals into this country, and they may want to look at the United States of America to find the workers that they need. If they have to pay $10,000, that will cut back on their margin.

Secondly, to the degree it is true that the United States does not have a significant number of skilled workers in certain categories--and in certain categories that may well be true--this new revenue will be dedicated toward providing scholarships to students who are studying in areas where we currently lack professionals.

Specifically, my amendment would create a new American Competitive Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation that would provide merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 a year, and which are renewable for up to 4 years, to students pursuing degrees in math, science, engineering, medicine, nursing, other health care fields, and other extremely important fields vital to the competitiveness of this Nation. These new scholarships would create the incentive for the best and the brightest of American students to enter these fields where there is reputedly a shortage.

In other words, we have the absurd situation today where we are bringing people from all over the world into this country to do this job, yet we have large numbers of middle-class, working-class families who can't afford to send their kids to college or to graduate school. Well, maybe we ought to pay attention to American workers and American families first.

How will this program be paid for? Under current law, companies applying for H-1B visas pay a $1,500 fee. That fee is split up in a number of ways, with some of it going to scholarships and retraining programs. Unfortunately, it is too small to effectively create a scholarship program of the scale needed to address the claimed shortage in math, science, and technology specialists. This amendment imposes an $8,500 surcharge on those companies seeking H-1B visas. This fee would only apply to those who are required to pay the current $1,500 fee. Therefore, universities and schools would be exempt, as they are under current law. Companies with less than 25 employees would pay only half the fee.

I am sure corporate America will tell us this $8,500 fee is too expensive; that they can't afford it. After all, many of these people are the same exact people who opposed raising the minimum wage above $5.15 an hour. However, this fee represents a very small amount compared to the incredible economic benefits that companies realize from bringing in foreign H-1B visa workers.

H-1B visas are valid for 3 years. So the $8,500 surcharge on an annual basis is only $2,800. Compared to the median $50,000 wage of a new H-1B computing professional, it is only about 5.5 percent of that wage. For this small fee, what would be the benefit to American students and our families? If there are 115,000 H-1B visas issued for which fees are paid, we could provide over 65,000 scholarships each year to our students--65,000. If the number of H-1B visas goes to 180,000, we could provide scholarships to over 100,000 American students.

If the Members of this body believe we need H-1B visas to compensate for a shortage of skilled American professionals, this amendment will attract tens of thousands of America's best and brightest to those fields.

One of the reasons I am offering this amendment, which will provide much needed scholarships for the American middle class, is I was very interested in reading an article that appeared in BusinessWeek on April 19, 2004. In that article, BusinessWeek reported that:

To win favor in China, Microsoft has pledged to spend more than $750 million on cooperative research, technology for schools, and other investments.

If Microsoft and other corporations have billions of dollars to invest in technology for schools, research, and other needs in China and other countries, these same companies should have enough money to provide scholarships for middle-class kids in the United States of America.

Another major supporter of the H-1B program is IBM. Last year, IBM made $9.5 billion in profits. Meanwhile, IBM has announced it will be investing $6 billion in India by 2009 and--get this--IBM has also signed deals to train 100,000 software specialists. Where? In Massachusetts? In Vermont? In California? No, in China, according to an August 4, 2003, article in BusinessWeek.

Other major supporters of increasing H-1B workers include Intel, which made $5 billion in profits last year; Bank of America, Caterpillar, General Electric, Boeing, and Lehman Brothers. All of these companies, making billions and billions of dollars in profit, can't afford to pay American workers the wages they need. Well, if they can't do that, at least let them contribute to an important scholarship program.

Let me conclude by saying a vote for this amendment is a vote for preserving American competitiveness in the 21st century, it is a vote for giving our children a brighter future, and it is a vote--unfortunately all too rare--to help middle-income families in this country who are struggling so hard to make sure their kids can have the education they need.

Madam President, I am not quite sure of the proper legislative approach, but on this amendment, I will be calling for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1223, AS MODIFIED

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his amendment. The amendment is so modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source