THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Clearly if it was my decision to make, I would not redevelop the Homestead Air Force Base as a commercial airport. We are approving a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan which will involve Federal and State expenditures of $7.8 billion. I believe it would be irresponsible to approve an investment of billions of dollars in the restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, while at the same time ignoring a re-use plan for Homestead Air Force Base that is incompatible with the restoration objectives.
[Page: S8907] GPO's PDF
My preference would have been to elevate the decision on Homestead redevelopment from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense to make the decision in conjunction with the Department of Interior, the EPA, and the Department of Commerce.
This approach was not acceptable because of perceptions that it would interfere with the process and cause a delay in the decision. I have agreed instead--and it is in this bill--to a sense-of-the-Senate provision that conveys the concern of the Senate about potential adverse impacts of Homestead redevelopment and about the need for consistency in redevelopment and restoration goals. This approach was endorsed by environmental interests, and it is my hope that it will make a difference in the ultimate decision on Homestead.
I know that through all of this I have been sometimes categorized as an opponent of Everglades Restoration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe my efforts have helped assure that this effort can move forward. I look forward to passage of WRDA 2000 and the opportunity to get started on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the other critical water resources projects contained in the bill.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that the senior Senator from Massachusetts is going to address the Senate for about an hour. It is my understanding, with his courtesy, that he will allow the Senator from Virginia to send to the desk an amendment and ask for its consideration, with the understanding that it will be laid aside for such period of time as the senior Senator from Massachusetts desires. Am I correct in that?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator VOINOVICH, an amendment. In two or three sentences, the amendment simply does the following: Since 1986, the Senate has operated under a law whereby projects built by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to the process of authorizing projects, are then, upon completion, carried by the States--the financial burden of the operation and maintenance of those projects.
The current legislation along the Everglades--and I am going to vote for the Everglades provision--changes that law by virtue of setting a precedent whereby the Federal taxpayer will pay half the cost of operation and maintenance for the life of the project.
Now, with due respect to my distinguished chairman and good friend, Senator SMITH, and others, who have written this legislation, I cannot understand any valid reason for changing a law that has been in effect for 14 years and served this Nation so well for this single project. My colleague from Ohio shares these concerns. That is the purpose of this amendment--to strike only a few words, providing the exception for this particular Florida project, and saying the Florida project will be treated just as all the other projects that have been authorized by the Congress in the past 14 years and presumably in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLARD). The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that under the agreement I have up to an hour, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
ISSUES THE SENATE SHOULD CONSIDER
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering legislation on the preservation of our water resources. That is an important issue and it should be debated, but in the short time remaining in this session, we also must answer the call of the American people for real action on key issues of main concern to working families. We still must raise the minimum wage. We must pass a Patients' Bill of Rights--a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We must enact a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare. We must invest in education in ways to make a real difference to our children. We must strengthen our laws against hate crimes. We must adopt sensible gun control to keep our communities and our schools safe.
But the Congress has done little more than pay lip service to these concerns of working families. In fact, this year, we have done little work at all. By the time this Congress is scheduled to adjourn only 2 weeks from now, the Senate will have met for only 115 days. That is the lowest number since 1956. It is only 2 days shy of the record set by the famous do-nothing Congress in 1948.
We know what the Senate leader has said about how he wanted to spend the last few weeks of this Congress, and that we would work day and night to get the business done. We were supposed to work on legislation by day and on appropriations bills by night. Specifically, Senator LOTT said, on September 6:
We will focus the greatest time commitment on four other priorities. The four worthy are the permanent trade relations with China, completion of the 11 remaining appropriations bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1, raising the annual limits for protected savings in 401(k), individual retirement accounts, and the elimination of some unfair taxes like the telephone tax.
In a letter to GOP Senators, Senator LOTT wrote:
The Senate will focus on the completion of the remaining appropriations, the China trade bill, and on the votes to override the President's vetoes of our bipartisan bills to end the marriage penalty and the death tax.
There was no mention of key priorities such as prescription drugs, Patients' Bill of Rights, or the minimum wage.
Senator LOTT said:
When we return to session after Labor Day, there will be long days, but we will do our best to keep Senators advised, after communicating with leadership on both sides of the aisle, on what the schedule will be.
The Senate is still waiting for an answer to our unmet priorities, and so are the American people.
H-1B HIGH-TECH LEGISLATION
Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally taking steps to debate and vote on the H-1B high tech visa legislation. Our nation's economy is experiencing a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity. The strong economic growth can, in large measure, be traced to the vitality of the highly competitive and rapidly growing high technology industry.
I'm proud to say that Massachusetts is leading the nation in the new high tech economy, according to a recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute. Thanks to our world-class universities and research facilities, Massachusetts is a pioneer in the global economy of the information age. We are home to nearly 3,000 information technology companies, employing 170,000 people, and generating $8 billion in annual revenues.
With such rapid change, the nation is stretched thin to support these new businesses and their opportunities for growth. Nationally, the demand for employees with training in computer science, electrical engineering, software, and communications is very high.
In 1998, in an effort to find a stop-gap solution to this labor shortage, we enacted the American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act, which increased the number of temporary visas available to skilled foreign workers. Despite the availability of additional H-1B visas, we have reached the cap before the end of the year in the last two fiscal years.
We need to be responsive to the nation's need for high tech workers. We know that unless we take steps now to address this growing workforce gap, America's technological and economic leadership will be jeopardized. I believe that the H-1B visa cap should be increased, but in a way that better addresses the fundamental needs of the American economy. Raising the cap without addressing our long-term labor needs would be a serious mistake. We cannot count on foreign sources of labor as a long-term solution.
These are solid, middle class jobs that Americans deserve under the H-1B program. The median salary for H-1B high tech workers is $45,000. Approximately 57 percent of H-1B workers have earned only a bachelor's degree. More than half of these workers will be
[Page: S8908] GPO's PDF
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the comments he is making. I ask him if he would draw a historical parallel to the situation we faced in the late fifties, when the Russians launched Sputnik and we, as a nation, decided to devote resources into a National Defense Education Act, so that we would have the scientists and engineers to be able to compete then with the Russians in the space race. President Kennedy followed on with our exploration into space.
Aren't we facing a similar challenge today regarding whether we will be able to compete in the 21st century with the scientists and engineers and skilled employees with all the other nations competing for the very best jobs?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly right. That is why, when we do have the measure before us, we will offer amendments to try to develop the support in the Senate, and also in the House, for the funding of a program that will help ensure that this deficit, in terms of the highly skilled who are being addressed by the H-1B visa, will be eased. We will utilize very effective services. For example, the National Science Foundation, which has a good deal of skill and understanding and awareness in giving focus and attention to encouraging highly specialized vocations and support for these types of programs.
We will welcome the opportunity to join with my friend from Illinois in bringing this to the attention of the Senate when we actually have the measure before us. We are very hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address it and not have steps taken in the Senate that will foreclose both the debate and discussion on this issue.
The fact is that the great majority of these H-1B jobs have good, middle-income salaries, and they are the kinds of jobs that would benefit any family in America. For a number of reasons, which I think many of us are familiar with, we have not developed the kinds of training programs and support programs for the development of the skills in these areas that we need. But the question that will be before us is, Should we throw up our hands and say we won't do that and we will depend upon a foreign supply of these workers in the future?
I think not. I think we should take the steps now to make sure this provision actually becomes an anachronism.
Perhaps we will also need opportunities for those who have the very highly specialized skills to come here and to benefit and fit into some aspect of either industry or academia. We ought to recognize that. But to rely on the kind of jobs where only 57 percent of H-1Bs earned a bachelor's degree and the average income is only $45,000--this is a long way from those. I think most Members of the Senate and I certainly think most Americans would say H-1B is a superscientist that is going to go to a very specialized company or that will generate thousands of jobs. That may be true for very few that are included. But the fact is, for the most part, these are the kinds of jobs that can be filled with American labor if they have the right kind of skills, and we ought to be able to develop that effort as we go into this program.
We also hear countless reports of age and race discrimination as rampant problems in the IT industry. The rate of unemployment for the average IT worker over age 40 is more than 5 times that of other workers. Just when we should be doing more to bring minorities into technology careers, we hear that organizations in Silicon Valley cannot get companies to recruit from minority colleges and universities, or hire skilled, educated minorities from neighboring Oakland. The number of women entering the IT field has also dramatically decreased since the mid-1980s. If the skill shortage is as dire as the IT industry reports, we can clearly do more to increase the number of minorities, women and older workers in the IT workforce.
Any credible legislative proposal to increase the number of foreign high tech workers available to American businesses must begin with the expansion of high-skill career training opportunities for American workers.
Now more than ever, employer demand for high-tech foreign workers shows that there is an even greater need to train American workers and prepare U.S. students for careers in information technology. As Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated,
The rapidity of innovation and the unpredictability of the directions it may take imply a need for considerable investment in human capital ..... The pressure to enlarge the pool of skilled workers also requires that we strengthen the significant contributions of other types of training and educational programs, especially for those with lesser skills.
When we expanded the number of H-1B visas in 1998, we created a training initiative funded by a visa fee in recognition of the need to train and update the skills of members of our workforce. Today, as we seek to nearly double the number of high tech workers, we must ensure that legislation signed into law includes a significant expansion of career training and educational opportunities for American workers and students.
I propose that we build on the priorities in current H-1B law. The Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, will provide grants to local workforce investment boards in areas with substantial shortages of high tech workers. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis for innovative high tech training proposals developed by workforce boards collaboratively with area employers, unions, and higher education institutions. Annually, this program will provide state-of-the-art high tech training for approximately 50,000 workers in primarily high tech, information technology, and biotechnology skills.
More than ever, today's jobs require advanced degrees, especially in math, science, engineering, and computer sciences. We must encourage students, including minorities to pursue degrees in these fields. We must also increase scholarship opportunities for talented minority and low-income students whose families cannot afford today's tuition costs. We must also expand the National Science Foundation's merit-based, competitive grants to partnership programs with an educational mission. Equally important, closing the digital divide must be a part of our effort to meet the growing demand for high skilled workers.
The only effective way for Congress to responsibly ensure more high skill training and scholarships for students is to increase the H-1B visa user fees. High tech companies are producing record profits. They can afford to pay a higher application fee. According to public financial information, for the top twenty companies that received the most H-1B workers this year, a $2,000 fee would cost between .002% and .5% of their net worth. A $1,000 fee would cost them very little. Immigrant families with very modest incomes were able to pay a $1,000 fee to allow family members to obtain green cards.
The H-1B debate should not focus solely on the number of visas available to skilled workers. It should also deal with the professional credentials of the workers being admitted. It makes
sense to expand the number of H-1B visas to fill the shortage of masters and doctoral level professionals with specialized skills that cannot be easily and quickly produced domestically. We should insist that a significant percentage of the H-1B visa cap be carved out and reserved for individuals with masters or higher degrees.
In the days to come, we will have the opportunity to debate these issues and pass legislation that meets the needs of the high technology industry by raising the visa cap and also by ensuring state-of-the-art skills training for American workers. Clearly, however, the immigration agenda is not just an H-1B high-tech visa agenda. Congress also has a responsibility to deal with the critical issues facing Latino and other immigrant families in our country. To meet the needs of these immigrants, my colleagues and I have introduced the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
[Page: S8909] GPO's PDF
The immigrants who will benefit from this legislation should have received permanent s tatus from the INS long ago. These issues are not new to Congress. The Latino community has been seeking legislation to resolve these issues for many years. The immigrant community--particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the fundamental fairness that this legislation will provide.
This measure is also critical for businesses. All sectors of the economy are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, but this growth cannot be sustained without additional workers. With unemployment levels at 4 percent or even lower, many businesses find themselves unable to fill job openings. The shortages of highly skilled, semi-skilled and low-skilled workers are becoming a serious impediment to continuing growth.
Information technology companies are not the only firms urging Congress to provide additional workers. An equally important voice is that of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of businesses and trade a ssociations, and other organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, health care and home care associations, hotel, motel, restaurant and tourism associations, manufacturing and retail concerns, and the construction and transportation industries.
These key industries have added their voices to the broad coalition of business, labor, religious, Latino and other immigrant organizations in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Conservative supporters of the Act include Americans for Tax Reform and Empower America. Labor supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Union of Neeletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents