John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) because she had a bill directed at the points that she made; unfortunately, it was unable to be heard in the committee on which she is the ranking member. I think it gives us a direction for where we really must go in the next Congress. This is a good start, but it is only that. I hope that the gentlewoman will join in the dialogue that I have just begun today with members of the committee to put together an omnibus package that goes way beyond just increasing the fee and passing it on. We have to have a targeted national program if we are to get these youngsters that we all want to train into the pipeline to be able to get into the technical courses that would make them prepared to go into the high-tech field. And so I only remind the Members of this, because the gentlewoman has been working tirelessly on this subject ever since she became the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Mrs. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the amendment, the fee charged to employers for sponsoring an H-1B worker will double from $500 to $1,000. I support the increased fee, because we have a critical need to retrain America's workers and educate our children to meet the demands of the new economy and to better administer and enforce the H-1B program. In fact, in my view, a larger fee increase may have been appropriate, in light of the urgent need for qualified American high-tech workers, particularly in minority and under-represented communities. The allocation of the new fee makes the training and education of American workers and America's children a priority. Over half the fees will be used by the Labor Department to provide technical skills training for U.S. workers. Over 35 percent of the fees will go to scholarships for low-income persons and the National Science Foundation competitive grants for K-12 math, technology, and science education. Now, it is common knowledge that the administration of the H-1B program by the Immigration Service and the Labor Department could be far better than it is. We have increased the funds allocated to each agency so that they can better administer and enforce the programs, as well as reduce the horrendous backlogs in applications currently faced by employers. We will review the implementation of the H-1B program in the next Congress, and I fully expect to see improvements in how these agencies handle the H-1B program. In other words, they should be held rather strictly accountable. Mr. Speaker, because the fee increase will begin to address the needs of the American workforce, I support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, because I support the bill, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her discussion under our reservation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, after consulting with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the other committee, that we cut our time in half, all of us, because I have been besieged by Members who have commitments and plane tickets; and that is the only reason that I would do that. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to all of the committees be cut in half.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon for his work, and I just wanted to ask a question in colloquy. Am I correct that it is the intent of the Congress that Aimee's Law shall apply prospectively; that is, only if offenders whose first sentence for a covered offense occurred on or after the effective date of this law, which is January 1, 2002?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very important measure which would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to permit parties to automobile manufacturers and automobile dealer agreements to accept or reject arbitration of disputes. Essentially, H.R. 534 prohibits binding arbitration in contracts between automobile manufacturers and automobile dealers. This legislation deals with an increasing problem of motor vehicle manufacturers forcing small business automobile and truck dealers into non-negotiated agreements containing mandatory binding arbitration clauses. As a result of these clauses, binding arbitration becomes the sole remedy for resolving disputes between the manufacturer and the dealer. Although arbitration is a valuable form of alternative dispute resolution, when its use is forced upon automobile dealers, they are denied use of courts and other state forums otherwise available to resolve such disputes. Such restrictive contractual terms are frequently proffered to the dealer on a ``take it or leave it'' basis with the threat of loss of manufacturer support for the dealer. H.R. 534 responds to this problem by allowing the use of arbitration as a method to settle contract controversies if both parties consent in writing. This would ensure that dealers are not forced to give up their legal rights to obtain or maintain their business. In addition, this legislation will send a strong message regarding the inequitableness of mandatory binding arbitration and will act as an incentive for broader legislation that prohibits mandatory arbitration contract clauses for consumers as well. Requiring dealers to agree to mandatory binding arbitration as a condition of obtaining, renewing, or maintaining their dealership is contrary to fundamental fairness. The intent of this proposed legislation is to make arbitration of disputes between dealers and manufacturers absolutely voluntary and I support it wholeheartedly. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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.

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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.