Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is left on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I spoke at length this morning on the issues before us, so I will try and be brief now. First, let me begin by emphasizing how critical this bill is for our country's future. The second vote this afternoon is on the Hatch substitute to the underlying bill, S. 2045. Like the bill, the substitute raises the annual cap on H-1B visas to 195,000 in each of the next three years. The increase in the number of highly skilled temporary workers will help American companies continue to create jobs in this country and maintain their competitiveness in the global economy. But this substitute, however, does a lot more. The use of skilled foreign labor is nothing more than a temporary stop gap solution to a long term problem we face in this Century. The problem is one of ensuring that our high tech industry has an adequate number of highly trained and educated workers to fill the demand. To hear some of my colleagues in recent days, one would think there is nothing in this bill on educating our young people and training our workforce. That is simple and completely inaccurate. The substitute contains important education and training provisions, worked out with my colleagues-- including Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Abraham. Senators Abraham and Kennedy are respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee. These provisions use the fees generated by these visas to finance important education and training programs for our children and our current workforce. These are critical measures for our country. That, Mr. President, is the matter at hand. Unfortunately, however, much of the discussion and debate this week has been on an unrelated and far-reaching immigration matter--the so- called Latino fairness bill. As I noted in some detail this morning, this measure, which purports to simply restore due process to a limited group is a broad, far-reaching and costly new amnesty program, conservatively estimated to cost $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. It provides amnesty to hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal aliens on an ongoing basis--or, in other words, an amnesty, ``rolling'' amnesty--over the next 5 years. That is right, Mr. President--it is a rolling amnesty, obviously creating an incentive for illegal aliens to continue to escape the law because the rewards for those who are most effective at remaining in this country illegally happen to be permanent resident status. But this so-called Latino fairness is no fairness at all--no fairness to the millions of immigrants who have and will continue to play by the rules and follow the legal process. I have said to my friends on the other side, if we are so eager to increase the supply of labor from abroad, if we are so eager to unify families, then perhaps we should examine lifting the caps on legal immigrants or at least cutting down their waiting periods. I am willing to work on that, but I can never get any cooperation from the other side. They want to have a ``rolling'' amnesty for several million illegal aliens in this country who can evade the law for a matter of time and then be eligible for full nonresident status on the way to citizenship. To summarize: First, the so-called Latino fairness bill extends a broad amnesty to illegal immigrants here since 1986. Second, it is a ``rolling'' amnesty, so that over the next 5 years we move the date up to 1991. Third, a conservative CBO estimate, even without considering the ``rolling'' provision, puts the cost of the amnesty at $1.4 billion over 10 years. Fourth, this provision rewards illegal immigrants who have been the most effective in evading law enforcement. What this proposal does not do, and what I think real Latino fairness would be is: First, we should increase the number of legal immigrants allowed in this country annually if such an increase is needed to ensure an adequate labor supply and greater family unification. This would be a wise thing to do. It would be a fair thing to do. It would also be the legal thing to do, compared to what they are trying to do over there. They are trying to enact a bill that they did not even have the foresight to bring up on the floor or to file until July 25 of this year.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut be granted 5 minutes to make whatever speech he desires, and that there be an additional 10 minutes for me to conclude my remarks on this bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard all this talk on the other side about how all these people are supporting what they want to do. It just ``ain't'' true. Let me read this letter dated September 26, 2000: To Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, I wish to clarify our position with regard to the current debate on the H-1B legislation and proposals unrelated to that legislation concerning legalization of certain workers already in the United States. During this afternoon's debate on this issue, there have been misleading statements as to the Chamber's position on provisions relating to updating the registry date, restoring section 245(i), and adjustments for certain Central Americans. While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as part of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, has expressed its general support for these concepts, it strongly opposes efforts to amend the pending H-1B legislation with these provisions. These are completely separate issues and must be considered separately. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten. Executive Vice President Government Affairs. Mr. President, it is remarkable to say all these organizations support this type of extraordinary procedural maneuvering. Because when you really look at what the organizations support, they support a regular process whereby the committee with jurisdiction holds real substantive hearings to determine what is right and what is wrong. The organizations do not support just slamming some bill that would change our immigration laws wholesale--on the floor at the last minute--for no other reason than to try to indicate that they are currying favor with certain groups in this society. In reality this so-called Latino fairness bill would undermine every one of the people who have come here legally, have earned their right to be citizens, and have abided by the rules of this country. That is just not right. I think this type of procedural maneuvering and politicking should not occur on something where most everybody in this body agrees. And we--most everybody--agrees that this bill should pass. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending motion.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I only have a limited period of time, so I have to finish my remarks. Second, we should expedite INS review of petitions by family members of citizens. Let's face it, the INS is in a mess right now, and it could be reformed to expedite the processing of legal immigrants. Third, we should restore the right of persons allowed amnesty back in 1986 to have their claims adjudicated. These three changes in law, in contrast to what is proposed today by our friends on the other side, would be real Latino fairness. It would reward those who have followed the law and played by the rules. So this is where we are. The vote we are about to have on suspending the rules is a ``have it both ways'' vote. My colleagues voted overwhelmingly for cloture yesterday--including almost all Democrats and all Republicans. The last time I looked, cloture meant the inability to consider nongermane amendments. Today, many of these same persons who voted for cloture are voting to suspend the results of that vote and allow debate on this unrelated measure. Tomorrow, they will probably vote for cloture again. So on Tuesday, the high-tech community gets its vote. On Wednesday, many of the same group vote to undo their vote, and on Thursday they vote with high tech again. Oh, it is confusing when you are trying to have it both ways. I hope no one will be fooled by what is happening. I urge my colleagues to oppose suspending the rules, which is an extraordinary procedural move aimed at playing politics. I am told that this procedure of suspending the rules has not been used since 1982. I do not believe it has ever been used in this manner for crass political purposes and maneuvering. I hope it will be overwhelmingly rejected. I hope that, once again, we will vote for cloture on this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated September 26, 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 4178

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the comments made by our colleagues from the other side yesterday and today. We have been on the floor this week supposedly debating the H-1B bill. That is S. 2045. This bill is an extremely important measure. It is aimed at alleviating both short- and long-term problems in the inadequate supply of a highly skilled worker force in our dynamic and expanding high-tech economy. The debate has turned into quite a different matter. My colleagues on the other side stood on the floor yesterday talking about the so-called Latino fairness legislation and insisting, time and time again, for a vote on this unrelated measure. Let's review where we are. The high-tech community wants this H-1B bill without amendment. My colleagues on both sides voted overwhelmingly for cloture; meaning, ending the debate. Cloture would knock out nongermane amendments which, of course, would knock out the so-called Latino fairness amendment as well. The last time I looked, a vote in support of cloture meant that we support consideration of legislation without--I emphasize that word ``without''--unrelated, nongermane amendments, such as the so-called Latino fairness bill. This bill, by the way, was only filed on July 25 of this year. If it was so important, why was it filed so late in the session, without the opportunity for hearings or committee consideration? Talk about trying to have it both ways. I guess this is a brilliant political move if you don't think about it too closely, the ultimate effort to try to have it both ways: Give the high-tech community a cloture vote and at the same time continue to maneuver to get around what that cloture vote means. So there we have it. I don't recall seeing a spectacle of this sort in all of my years in the Senate. Having said that, let me now join my colleagues in this discussion on the so-called Latino fairness legislation. There was a great deal of talk yesterday. Some of it was shameless. The talk was about due process, about the need for more unskilled workers in this country, and about the hardship of the parents of American-citizen children. Much of the rhetoric does not meet reality. My colleagues on the other side argue that they want to vote on S. 2912, the so-called Latino fairness act. I really wonder if most in the Senate understand and appreciate what is involved in this costly, far- reaching bill that has never had a day of hearings. This is no limited measure, to undo a previous wrong to a limited class of immigrants who otherwise might have been eligible for amnesty under the 1986 act. Rather, this is a major new amnesty program, without 1 day of hearings, with a price tag of almost $1.4 billion, with major implications for our national policy on immigration. For years, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have watched the Immigration Subcommittee, and I have helped to steer through and monitor and help make immigration policy in this country. That policy works well, to a large degree, but there are certainly areas that we can improve. I can tell you that some are trying to turn this bipartisan policy upside down. I will begin by saying that I have been a long-time supporter of legal immigration. That is what has built this country. It has made this country the greatest country in the world. I believe in legal immigration. In connection with the 1996 immigration reform legislation, I fought long and hard against those who wanted to cut legal family immigration and other categories. At that and other times, it has been my view that our emphasis ought to be on combating illegal, not legal, immigration. The bill before us, however, while termed ``Latino fairness,'' does nothing to increase or preserve the categories of legal immigrants allowed in this country on an annual basis. It does nothing to shorten the long waiting period or the hurdles that persons waiting years to come to this country--people who play by the rules and wait their turn--have to go through. In contrast, what we hear now is an urgent call to grant broad amnesty to what could be up to 2 million illegal aliens. Let's be clear about what is at issue here. Some refer to the fact that a certain class of persons who may have been entitled to amnesty in 1986 have been unfairly treated and should therefore be granted amnesty now. That is one issue--and I am certainly prepared to discuss that issue in our committee, with full hearings, and resolve any inequities that exist. I am certainly prepared to discuss that, but only outside the context of S. 2045, a bill that virtually everybody in this body wants because it will allow us to stay in the forefront of our global, high-tech economy. Again, I am prepared to discuss, outside of this bill, what we might be able to do to help that so-called 1982 class of immigrants. But that is not really what S. 2912 is about. This bill that some now want to attach to the H-1B bill, would ensure its death in the House of Representatives; it would never see the light of day. The fact is--this bill also covers that 1982 class, but also hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal aliens who were never eligible for amnesty under the 1986 act. This is a difficult issue and one with major policy implications for the future. When we supported amnesty in 1986--and I believe there were several million people granted amnesty at that time--it was not with the assumption that this was going to be a continuous process. What kind of signal does this type of ``urgency'' send? On one hand, the Government spends millions each year to combat illegal immigration and deports thousands of persons each year who are here illegally. But if an illegal alien can manage to escape law enforcement for long enough, we reward that person with citizenship, or at least permanent resident status, followed by the right to apply for citizenship after 5 years of living here. That is a slap in the face to all of those who have abided by the rules and who have been here legally. If there are inequities, I am willing to work them out, but let's do it through hearings, through a thorough examination. Let's not do it through a political sham that has been thrust upon us on the floor for no other reason than because they are worried on the other side that George Bush appeals to the Hispanic community. We know he gets about 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in Texas, and there is good reason for it. Hispanic children are now reading at better levels. The Hispanic people have been helped greatly in Texas by the Bush administration. Our colleagues on the other side are deathly afraid that if he continues to do that, the Hispanic vote--which they just take for granted--is going to suddenly go to George Bush and the Republicans. Well, I don't blame them for that, because I think that is what is going to happen. As chairman of the Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force, which I helped to start years ago, I know that the Hispanics are out there watching both parties and seeing who really has their interests at heart. We have done more with that task force--not just by throwing money at problems--than the other side ever dreamed of. Further, I hope my colleagues are aware of the cost of this bill to American taxpayers. I don't mind the costs if we are doing something that is absolutely right. As I said, I am willing to go through the appropriate hearing process. I do that every day in my work as a Senator in solving immigration problems--as a lot of Senators do. But we ought to take into consideration the costs of this to the American taxpayers--giving amnesty to up to 2 million illegal aliens. Specifically, a draft and preliminary CBO estimate indicates this bill comes with a price tag just short of $1.4 billion over 10 years. But that is a conservative estimate because the amendment actually filed yesterday goes way beyond S. 2912 on amnesty. Not only was S. 2912, the so-called the Latino Fairness Act, filed on July 25, but the amendment filed yesterday goes even beyond what their original bill. The amendment's proponents argue that it just consists of a simple due process restoration. But, in fact, it not only gives hundreds of thousands, if not millions, additional illegal immigrants amnesty who have been here since 1986, it appears to be a rolling amnesty measure! In this highly charged political area, we ought to try and get together in a bipartisan manner. But some of my friends on the other side seem to want to play politics with this issue. They try to act as if they are for Hispanics. But what they are in fact doing is ignoring those who play by the rules, who are here legally, in favor of those who are here illegally and who have broken the rules. It is a slap in the face to all of those who have played by the rules. What do I mean by a rolling amnesty measure? It means the amnesty provision continues and expands for the next 6 years. That is right, Mr. President. If illegal aliens can manage to avoid authorities until 2006--if they can avoid authorities for that long--they automatically get amnesty, and that is a stepping stone to citizenship for people who have violated our laws and are here illegally. Again, if there are people who are being injured who should not be, people who really have due process rights, or who ought to have consideration, I am willing to work on that with my colleagues on the other side in a bipartisan way to do something that really works. We do that regularly anyway. But to just throw this open on a rolling amnesty basis for 6 solid years is not the way to go; we are talking about millions of people who are here illegally being automatically given the right to apply for citizenship in a few years. Mr. President, what are we doing here? We devote hundreds of millions of dollars each year to try and control illegal immigration. What does this so-called fairness bill do? It rewards persons for their illegal activity. It says let's keep fighting illegal immigration, but if certain persons succeed in evading the law for long enough, they get rewarded by being allowed to stay, get permanent resident status, and 5 years later can apply for citizenship, in contrast to all of those millions who have legally come into this country under legal immigration rules and regulations, who have abided by the law, and who basically have paid the appropriate price to get here. We have also heard about the need for more workers. I agree with that. Why don't we address and examine this need, however, in the right way? Why don't we examine increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed to come here? Why don't we consider lifting certain of those caps? I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle arguing for that. It would seem to me if they want to argue for having more immigrants in this country--and I might go along with this--that we ought to lift the caps. I have to admit that there are those in this body who do not want to lift those caps--but at least in the other body for sure. That is the appropriate way to do that. During our debate in the 1996 act, the Democrats offered, and the committee unanimously agreed, to curb the number of legal, unskilled workers coming to this country. Why did they do that? Because their No. 1 supporters in the country--the trade union movement in this country-- believe that they would take jobs; that if we lifted the caps there would be more legal immigrants coming into this country that would take jobs away from American workers. It is amazing to me that they wouldn't allow the caps lifted then for that reason, and now they want the broad amnesty. They want to allow up to 2 million illegal immigrants in here because everybody realizes there is a shortage of workers right now. I am willing to consider lifting those caps, and do it legally and do it the right way. I would be willing to do that. But without hearings, and without a really thorough examination of this, I am not willing to just wholesale have a rolling amnesty provision that would allow millions of illegal aliens who haven't played by the rules to have a wide open street to citizenship while many people who are applying legally can't get in and who really need to get in. I agree with the need to reexamine our position on lifting the caps on legal immigration. Let's do that. I am willing to hold hearings, or make sure the subcommittee holds the hearings on that. By the way, they have held some hearings. I have to say that generally the two leaders on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Abraham from Michigan and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, have worked well together. But all of a sudden, there's a chance to score political points, they think. I don't think they are getting political points. If I was a legal Hispanic, or a legal Chinese, or a legal person from any other country, I would resent knowing how difficult it was for me to become a legal immigrant while people who are trying to make it possible for those who are illegally here to be able to become citizens without obeying the same rules. I suspect there is going to be a lot of resentment, if people really understand this. While we are at it, why don't we do something to get the INS to move more swiftly--the Immigration and Naturalization Service--to move more swiftly on applications for legal immigrants? That would be real Latino fairness. That is what we ought to be doing on the floor. There isn't a person in this body who cares more for family unification than I do. There are some who are certainly my equal here. But nobody exceeds my desire to bring families together, a point brought out yesterday. I fought for years on this issue. Every day we are working on immigration problems to try to solve the problem of bringing families together in my offices in Utah and here. If we really care about family reunification, why don't we do something about the Immigration and Naturalization Service? Why should parents, children, and spouses have to stay on a waiting list for years? I would like to hear more comments from the other side on that. But every time you try to lift the caps, their friends in the union movement come in and say: You can't do that. You might take jobs away from union workers. Under the H-1B bill, we are not taking jobs away from union workers or from anyone else. We are trying to maintain our dominant status throughout the world in the high-tech world. We are trying to make sure we keep the people here who can really help us do that. That bill provides that those who are highly educated in our universities have a right to stay here and work. This is the bill we are talking about. It is a step in the right direction to get us there. What does this so-called Latino fairness amendment, or bill, that they filed so late in this Presidential year say to families who played by the rules? It doesn't say obey the laws and wait your turn. It says we are going to make special favors for those of you who are here illegally, and we are going to do it on a rolling amnesty basis over the next 6 years. They are just going to have the right to become citizens, while others have had to abide by the rules--rules that have been set over decades and decades. I challenge anybody on the other side to work with me in helping to resolve these problems. I am willing to do that. I don't need a lecture from people on the other side about families who have been split up. I think it is abysmal to have families split up. I am willing to work to try and solve that problem, but it takes both sides to do it. Last but not least, it is no secret that our committee handles intellectual property in many of the high-tech issues in this country. Last year we passed one of the most important bills in patent changes in the history of the country--certainly in the last 50 years. We passed a number of other high-tech bills to make a real difference. We have done an awful lot to make sure our high-tech world in this country stays at the top of the ladder. I just came from the Finance Committee upon which I sit where I made a principal argument that we need to get this new bill through that Chairman Roth is working on with the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, to have a broadband tax credit which we need now. S. 2045 is one of the most important high-tech bills in this Congress. Everybody here, except for about three people, believes it should pass. Almost everybody on both sides of the floor has said it should pass. Everybody says it is a very important bill. The fact is, there are people in this body who are scared to death that Republicans might make inroads with the Hispanic community. I know that because I am chairman of the Republican Senatorial Standing Task Force. We have been working for better than 10 years on Hispanic affairs. We don't care whether Democrats, Independents, or Republicans are on our task force. In fact, we have all three there. We don't care if they are Conservatives, Liberals, or Independents. They are all there. I have to tell you that we have been working hard on every Hispanic issue that this country has. There is basically no end to what we will all try to do, to help assimilate the Hispanic people who are immigrants in this country into every aspect of opportunity that this country has to offer. To be honest with you, our country is the No. 1 high-tech country in the world. The reason we are is because we have worked together in many respects to get some of these high-tech bills through that make a difference. I prefer to see my colleagues on the other side work with us rather than against us, as they are doing right now. I don't want to pull this bill down, but it is coming down if we can't get this bill passed in a relatively short period of time. By tomorrow, there will be three cloture votes overwhelmingly for this bill. If Democrats don't want this bill, why are they voting for cloture? If they want to vote against cloture tomorrow, I can live with that. We will pull the doggone bill down and say to the high-tech community, we are not going to support you this year because we can't get enough support from our friends on the other side. That is exactly what I will tell them, and it won't be one inch far from the truth. The fact is, everyone on the other side knows that this is a critical bill. It has taken bipartisan support to get it this far. It has great hope for the high-tech industry in this country. It will provide more high-tech workers and more high-tech jobs. Now, we may have some difficulty getting the House to go along with everything we are doing here. If we keep playing around with this and delaying it beyond this week, it will make impossible to pass it in the end. I know how important this legislation is. I have worked on high-tech issues for all of my Senate career, and have worked patent, copyright, and trademark laws throughout the country. I don't think anyone can say I haven't made a strong bipartisan effort to make sure we stay at the top of the high-tech world. The best way we can do it right now is to pass broadband tax credit and to pass this H-1B legislation and get the House to go along with it. It is the best thing we can do. We are in an inane battle on the floor because some people want to score some political points. I was almost embarrassed by some of the comments yesterday--not almost, I was embarrassed for some of these people. Is there no length to which they will go at the end of this session to score political points? I don't like it on my side, and I certainly don't like it on the other side. This is a time for cooperation, to help our country get through this year, and to hopefully spur us into the next year, whoever is President. I intend to do that. I want to have some bipartisan support in getting it done. I suppose we will have to go through another cloture vote tomorrow-- three cloture votes on one bill that almost everybody is for. I think it is time to quit scoring political points and get the job done. This H-1B bill is a critical bill for America. It is a critical bill for American children and American workers. It contains critical bipartisan training and education provisions to equip our workforce for the 21st century. Those are provisions we worked out with the other side in order to get this bill, something I agree with 100 percent, that I will fight for in Congress. One would think they would want to do this and quit playing around with the bill. The longer we go on this bill, if we go beyond this week, it seems to me it makes it more problematic whether we can ever pass an H-1B piece of legislation with these wonderful, critical provisions to help train our children for the future workforce, for the high-tech world they are going to enter. I have met with people today who are prescient with regard to the future. We have been talking broadband all morning. We have been talking about wireless. We have been talking about cable. We have been talking about the critical infrastructure industries. We have been talking about software. Almost all of it is dependent upon whether we pass an H-1B bill. The rest of the world isn't standing still while we are sitting here treading water week after week, debating whether we will allow an H-1B final vote. If this were the final vote to pass this bill, I could wait another few days. But we still have to deal with the House. We are going to have to work that out. That will take some time. We don't have a lot of time. It seems to me we ought to get rid of politics. I hope people watching this will listen to the other side and realize how political they have been. Yesterday it was almost shameful--no, it wasn't; it was shameful--the arguments made on the floor. It is all done just for political advantage. Frankly, I don't think they get any advantage. I believe the millions of legal immigrants with green cards might resent rolling amnesty for 6 years to millions of illegal immigrants who don't abide by the rules. This is an important bill. We can no longer afford to play the political games that were played yesterday and apparently will be played through a cloture vote tomorrow. I think the other side ought to allow the vote or just admit they really aren't for this bill in spite of the overwhelming cloture votes we have had so far. I would like to see that in this body, especially at the end of this year. There are those on our side who really would like to work with our colleagues on the other side in a bipartisan manner. I know the Presiding Officer is one, and I believe there are a lot of others who want to see that done. There is a strong suspicion among many in the media and many on our side that there is a deliberate slowdown, with filibusters, even motions to proceed, for no other reason than a political advantage. It really gets old. I think once in a while we really ought to put the best interests of our country ahead of everything else. This is a bill where we ought to do that. We have so much support for this bill, if it is allowed to be voted upon. Supporters ought to be allowed to express themselves in a vote for or against this bill. This is one bill where we can be together. We had 94 votes on this bill, in essence, yesterday; only 3 against. I suspect if we got the other 3, they would be for it, too, so it would be 97 with, 3 against; if they were against, it would be 94-6. But, no. Steady delay. Day in, day out, steady filibusters. Now they will say they are not filibustering. Then why are they forcing a cloture vote every day?--to have cloture votes on a bill that virtually everybody admits is a good bi-partisan bill. By the way, I want to thank Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman, and of course Senator Abraham. We have all worked together on this bill. We have accommodated Democrats. We have shown good faith. I thank them for helping. I think it is time to end this charade, end the political posturing we have had. Let's pass this bill. Start doing what is right. Live up to what everybody in this body, except for the three, I suppose, has told the high-tech world--we are going to get H-1B passed. But I tell you we are not going to get it passed if this kind of charade continues because I myself will bring this bill down and then we will start over again next year and hopefully we will have a more bipartisan approach towards it. I would hate to do that; I sure would, after all the work we put in trying to get this bill passed when I know that could delay it 6 to 9 months before we really are helping our people in the high-tech world who drastically need help. I have been there. I have been out there. I know the people, the top people, the top CEOs in almost all of these companies. I have been meeting with a bunch of them this morning, everybody from ATT, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Novell--you name it. I know them all. I don't think they are partisan. I think they like both parties, and I think they help both parties, and I think they deserve our help. Frankly, to put us through another cloture vote--it seems to me to be inane. I do not want to accuse anybody of lacking good faith, but I will tell you after what I heard yesterday, I say, my gosh, how can they stand there and make those kinds of comments, when you know if you want to really help get jobs and get people in here to take jobs, let's lift the caps on legal immigration but not change the laws with one stroke of the pen, without 1 day of hearings, and allow up to 2 million people on a rolling amnesty over a 6-year period to really become citizens, flashing in the face of everybody who paid the price to abide by the rules, it is just not right. Frankly, I am getting tired of it. That is why I have gone on and on today, because I am tired of it. I think it is time for us to do something good for a change, to work together and get it done. I am going to be here to try to get it done in the next day or so. If we do not, then we will pull the bill down. Then we will just throw our hands in the air and say it is too political a Congress to do something worthwhile for our country. Everybody on my side is going to vote for this bill--they have been there from day 1--at least I believe everybody, certainly the vast majority, are going to vote for this bill in the end because they believe our future depends on being able to solve some of these problems that this bill will solve. I believe we will have a tremendous number of votes on the Democratic side because we have some of the top leaders in this area on this bill. I mentioned some of them a few minutes ago. We have accommodated them in language in this bill that makes sense. I am saying on the floor of the Senate that I would fight for that language because of our Democrat friends who have worked with us to put that good language together. I will do it in a bipartisan way. But the high-tech companies are not the primary beneficiaries. They are beneficiaries, no question about it. The primary beneficiaries are the children who will benefit from the education proposals here and the American workers who will benefit from the critical training provisions that we have in this bill. Let's pass this bill for them. I have to admit the high-tech industry will benefit tremendously, too. What the Daschle motion says is let's ignore the rules of the Senate. Let's take the easy route. Their Latino fairness bill says let's ignore all these immigration laws we have all fought over in a bipartisan way for years--and many us on this side have helped those on the other side. Let's ignore those immigration laws. Let's take the easy route. There is a similar theme here. Some want to have it both ways. This sort of double-speak is why so many Americans have grown tired of Washington politics as usual. I hope I have at least made the case we on this side stand ready to pass this bill a minute from now if the other side will allow a vote up and down on this bill. If they do not, we will go to cloture again, and then we will see what we can do postcloture to get this thing brought to a close where people can vote for it. Then, assuming we will pass this bill, we will go to work with the House and see if they will take this bill. If they will not take this bill, we will go to conference and fight very hard with everything I have to make sure there are these provisions in this bill; that we have 195,000 high-tech workers allowed into this country and that we have the right for those who are highly educated, in American institutions, to stay here to work in our high-tech world, and that we have these provisions to help train our children. Those are pretty important provisions. This is a very important bill. To stand here and say everybody in business and all these companies want all these illegal immigrants to be naturalized--so what? We ought to abide by the law. That is why we have immigration laws. Where there are inequities, we ought to work to resolve them. I promise you, I will work to resolve them. I have been doing it for my whole 24 years in the Senate, and I am not going to stop now. We can resolve them if we work together. If we do not work together, we cannot. I hope both sides will get serious about this bill. I hope we can pass this bill. I hope we can get this matter resolved. I would like to do it today, if we can, but certainly by tomorrow. We will look at it and see if we have to pull it down if we can't get this resolved.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. This isn't the first time.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator allow the Chair to state the answer to my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. HATCH. Just this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the 9 minutes to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise this morning to implore my colleagues to support cloture and to quit playing around with this bill. There is no reason to have a filibuster on the motion to proceed on bills as important as this. There has been a filibuster on the bill. It seems to me we need to work together in moving forward to enact the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act, S. 2045. One of our greatest priorities is, and ought to be, keeping our economy vibrant and expanding educational opportunities for America's children and its workers. That is my priority for this country and for my own home State of Utah. I am proud of the growth and development in my own home State that has made Utah one of the leaders in the country and in the world in our high-tech economy. Utah's IT--or information technology--vendor industry is among Utah's largest industries and among the top 10 regions of IT activity in the United States. Notably, Utah was listed among the top 10 IT centers in the world by Newsweek magazine in November 1998. The growth of information technology is nowhere more evident and dramatic than in my own home State of Utah. According to UTAA, the Utah Information Technologies Association, our IT vendor industry grew nearly 9 percent between 1997 and 1998 and consists of 2,427 business enterprises. In Utah and elsewhere, however, our continued economic growth and our competitive edge in the world economy require an adequate supply of highly skilled high-tech workers. This remains one of our greatest challenges in the 21st century, requiring both short- and long-term solutions. This legislation, S. 2045, contains both types of solutions. Specifically, a tight labor market, increasing globalization, and a burgeoning economy have combined to increase demand for skilled workers well beyond what was forecast when Congress last addressed the issue of temporary visas for highly skilled workers in 1998. Therefore, my bill, once again, increases the annual cap for the next 3 years. But that is nothing more than a short-term solution to the workforce needs in my State and across the country. The longer term solution lies with our own children and our own workers and in ensuring that education and training for our current and future workforce matches the demands in our high-tech 21st century global economy. Thus, working with my colleagues, I have included in this bill strong, effective, and forward-looking provisions directing the more than $100 million in fees generated by the visas toward the education and retraining of our children and our workforce. These provisions are included in the substitute which is before us today. We are here today, however, as this session of Congress comes to a close, with the fate of this critical legislation extremely uncertain. Frankly, when this bill was reported by the committee by an overwhelming vote of 16-2, I thought we were on track to move this rapidly through the Senate. I offered to sit down with other Members, including Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Lieberman, to work with them on provisions regarding education and training. We have done that. I am pleased to report that the substitute to which I have referred reflects many of their ideas and proposals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days to try to avoid a confrontational process. I hope we can get this done for American workers and children and for our continued economic expansion. The situation, as I understand it, is that there is little disagreement on this bill itself. I have heard no arguments that the high-tech shortage is not real or that we should not move forward with this short-term fix. Rather, it appears that the only dispute has been whether or not we use the bill as a vehicle for other major and far- reaching changes in our immigration policy over which there is much contention and which could scuttle this bill. And I think those who are trying to get us in that posture understand that. I sincerely hope we can move forward today. I hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support this modest H-1B increase and quit delaying this bill. Let's get it through. This bill has important training and education proposals for the children and workers in the 21st century. The Hatch substitute amendment to S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, is a comprehensive legislative proposal to insure America's continued leadership edge in the Information Age. It takes both short-term and long-term steps. Let me summarize the proposal. With regard to long-term steps, this bill invests in the American workforce through a designated stream of funding for high-tech job training; K-12 education initiatives; authorizes a new program which provides grants for after school technology education; and helps our educational and research communities by exempting them from the cap on high-skilled professionals. No. 2., the short-term steps: This bill addresses immediate skilled worker needs by authorizing a modest increase in temporary visas for high-skilled professionals. When skilled professionals are at a premium, America faces a serious dilemma when employers find that they cannot grow, innovate, and compete in global markets without increased access to skilled personnel. Our employers' current inability to hire skilled personnel presents both a short-term and a long-term problem. The country needs to increase its access to skilled personnel immediately in order to prevent current needs from going unfilled. To meet these needs over the long term, however, the American education system must produce more young people interested in, and qualified to enter, key fields, and we must increase our other training efforts, so that more Americans can be prepared to keep this country at the cutting edge and competitive in global markets. The Hatch substitute to S. 2045 addresses both aspects of this problem. In order to meet immediate needs, the bill raises the current ceiling on temporary visas to 195,000 for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, and fiscal year 2002. In addition, it provides for exemptions from the ceiling for graduate degree recipients from American universities and personnel at universities and research facilities to allow these educators and top graduates to remain in the country. The Hatch substitute to S. 2045 also addresses the long-term problem that too few U.S. students are entering and excelling in mathematics, computer science, engineering and related fields. It contains measures to encourage more young people to study mathematics, engineering, and computer science and to train more Americans in these areas. Under predecessor legislation enacted in 1998, a $500 fee per visa is assessed on each initial petition for H-1B status for an individual, on each initial application for extension of that individual's status, and on each petition required on account of a change of employer or concurrent employment. Under the Hatch substitute, this money is used to fund scholarships for low income students and training for U.S. workers. Using the same assumptions on the rate of renewals, changes of employer and the like that the committee and the administration relied on in estimating the impact of the 1998 legislation, the increase in visas should result in funding for training, scholarships and administration of H-1B visas of approximately $150 million per year over fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, and fiscal year 2002 for a total of $450 million. This should fund approximately 40,000 scholarships. This is important. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for cloture today. I hope we can put this bill to bed. I hope there won't be any postcloture filibusters. I hope there won't be any postcloture delays. Let us get this bill passed. It is critical to our country. It is critical to our information technology age, to our high-tech communities, and it is critical to keep us the No. 1 Nation in the world. It makes sense, and it has widespread support throughout Congress. It is being delayed by just a few people in this body--maybe not so few but a number of people who basically claim they are interested in the information technology industries and high-tech industries themselves but who want to play politics with this bill. I think we ought to quit playing politics and do what is right for our country. This is a bipartisan bill that really ought to be passed today. With that, how much time do both sides have remaining?

Mr. HATCH. I don't think so.

Mr. HATCH. My colleague is always gracious. I have heard this comment about this being the first time anybody has called up another person's amendment. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this the first time? As I recall, last year Senator Reid called up an amendment of Senator Jeffords.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a----

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH. What seems interesting to me is I helped to lead the fight years ago in 1996 in my own committee to increase legal immigration in this country. I have led the fight for that. We are talking about giving amnesty to illegal immigrants while not increasing the caps on legal immigration. Something is wrong.

Mr. HATCH. Let me complete my question. In order to make my question clear, I have to make these points. We can't get caps lifted on legal immigration. It is my understanding that on the H-1B bill--which just had a 94 to 3 vote and that should pass right out of here, has had hearings, and everything else--you want to hold it hostage because you want to give amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants.

Mr. HATCH. Let me ask my question. Is it not true that this major new amnesty program, which has not had one day of hearings, if it passes would legalize up to 2 million people? I know there are those on your side who say there are one-half million illegal immigrants. Is it not true that the price tag for this major new amnesty program to legalize up to 2 million people is almost $1.4 billion, and that the underlying bill that we are trying to pass here--the H-1B bill--would basically provide the high-tech workers that we absolutely have to have?

Mr. HATCH. I did. Isn't it going to cost us $1.4 billion to give amnesty to these illegal immigrants?

Mr. HATCH. Illegally in this country.

Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry.