Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution tells us: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' To impeach, which lies within the power of the House, means to accuse or charge with a crime. Only the Senate can actually convict and remove from office. As a distinguished Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee said during the Nixon impeachment proceeding, ``It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the Framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.'' (Opening statement of the House Judiciary Committee, proceedings On the Impeachment of Richard Nixon, by Barbara Jordan) After consideration of all the evidence presented, I am convinced it is sufficient for the House to charge the President with several wrongful actions. I feel the evidence shows that the President committed perjury by lying under oath, obstructed justice, and abused the power of his office. Both historical precedent and current practice support the conclusion that perjury is a ``high crimes and misdemeanor.'' The Constitution applies that same phrase both to the President and to ``all civil officers of the United States.'' Several Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for perjury. That is why the President can be, too. Also, bribery and perjury are equivalent means of interfering with the justice system. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines include bribery and perjury in the same Guideline. Some of the President's defenders would like to change the subject and talk about anybody else but the President and about anything else except the allegations of lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office. Such efforts are an affront to all who value truth over tactics, substance over spin, principles over politics. House Members will be consistent if they follow the precedent established in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee. Individuals from both parties agreed with a Democratic Congresswoman from Texas when she said, ``The President engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions * * * which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions,'' she said, are ``impeachable.'' (Ibid.) By any commonsense measure, the President did not ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,'' as his oath required, when he testified before a judge and then before a grand jury, as many Democrats now admit. We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the President. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States. Not some laws; all laws. Many people have gone to jail for doing what the President did--lying or knowingly making false statements after swearing in court not to do so. However, others have not been punished for failing to tell the truth. So, if the President were just an ordinary person living in the United States, it is not certain that he would be found to have committed a crime. What, then, makes this a case that rises to the impeachment level? I think there are two factors: the repeated and deliberate nature of the lies, and the uniqueness of the Office of the Presidency. It was determined by the independent counsel that, ``On at least six different occasions--from December 17, 1997, through August 17, 1998-- the President had to make a decision. He could choose truth, or he could choose deception. On all six occasions, the President chose deception--a pattern of calculated behavior over a span of months.'' (Statement of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, November 19, 1998) During this time, not only did the President tell a judge and then a grand jury less than the truth, he also told lies to the American people, the news media, Members of Congress, his Cabinet, and senior White House advisors. One of his own former advisors commented, ``President Clinton turned his personal flaws into a public matter when he made the whole country complicit in his cover story. This was no impulsive act of passion; it was a coldly calculated political decision. He spoke publicly from the Roosevelt Room. He assembled his Cabinet and staff, and assured them that he was telling the truth. Then he sat back, silently, and watched his official spokespeople, employees of the U.S. government, mislead the country again and again and again.'' (Column by George Stephanopoulos, Newsweek, August 31, 1998) The President himself, when he was a law professor in Arkansas, defined an impeachable offense this way: ``I think that the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. Another factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office * * *'' The President consciously and persistently made an effort to deceive, give misleading answers, and tell lies. He made statements and engaged in actions designed to impede the investigation of the Independent Counsel. We all know the President still might be deceiving us today were it not for physical evidence that forced him to change his story. As to the uniqueness of the office the president holds, he is a person in a position of immense authority and influence. He influences the lives of millions of Americans. He sets an example for us all. A sixth grader from Chisolm Middle School in Round Rock, Texas, recently wrote me. She said bluntly, ``He has lied to the American people! And although I realize what he lied about has nothing to do with him running the country, then what else would he lie about? He let us down! Kids that think he is a role model now are heart broken! (Letter from Kara Kothmann, November 17, 1998) The President sets an example for adults, too. When he took the oath of office he swore to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The president has rightly been called ``the number-one law enforcement officer of the country.'' (Leon Jaworski in ``The Right and the Power.'') As such, he has a special responsibility to ``take care'' that he not commit any crime, particularly such a serious one as perjury, a felony for which a person can go to jail for up to five years. When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people--their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authoirty--for example a business executive a military officer, or a professional educator--had acted as the evidence indicates the President did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment, had he not resigned, contained this statement: ``The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.'' (Drafted in 1974 with the help of Hillary Rodham, a staff attorney of the Judiciary Committee) The President has a higher responsibility for another reason. The Arkansas Rules of Conduct for attorneys states that ``lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens,'' because they know how important the rule of law is to a stable and civilized society. And the President doesn't hold just any public office, he holds the most powerful one in the world. It is for these two reasons--the President's premeditated and repeated efforts while under oath to tell less than the truth, and the special responsibility that comes with holding the highest office in our country--that I feel the President's actions have reached the level of impeachable offenses. I have been surprised by the assertion of the President's defenders that we should not impeach him for his actions because it would set a precedent. If our actions send a message that future Presidents should not lie under oath, should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth--as President Clinton swore to do when giving testimony before both a judge and then a grand jury; that future Presidents should uphold the law--as President Clinton swore to do when he took the oath of office as President; that future Presidents should not obstruct justice--as President Clinton did for seven months as he admittedly deceived the American people and those associated with the investigation* * * if these are the precedents Congress sets, if these are the standards future Presidents then live by, we need not fear our actions. This will not be an easy task; in fact, it is a difficult ordeal for all Americans. But we will get through it: we are a great nation and a strong people. our country will endure because our Constitution works and has worked for over 200 years. As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The President's actions must be evaluated for one simple reason--the truth counts. As this process goes forward, some good lessons can be reaffirmed. No one is above the law. Actions have consequences. Always tell the truth. We the people should insist on these high ideals. That the President has fallen short of the standard doesn't mean we should lower it. If we keep excusing away the President's actions, we as a nation will never climb upwards because there will be no firm rungs. Let me quote another insightful letter from a student in that same sixth grade class: ``As everyone knows,'' it begins, ``President Clinton is going through hearings about lying under oath and tampering with the evidence. Perjury especially in front of the Grand Jury is unacceptable. These many months of investigation could have been avoided if President Clinton would have told the truth in the beginning.'' She concludes her letter with words I will use to conclude my remarks, ``I know you are being bombarded with letters each with different opinions, but this is a big issue. Now it is up to you and your fellow congressmen to decide to the best of your ability what should happen next. Please take into consideration what I have stated and make a decision that would be the best for America's future.'' (Letter from Brandi Bockhorn, November 19, 1998) That, my colleagues, to me, says it all.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let us return to the Constitution. Members of this House of Representatives have a solemn task specifically assigned to us by the authors of that Constitution. Whatever happens today, whether the President is impeached or not, our Nation is going to endure. We are a strong people and we have a Constitution that works. A quarter of a century ago, we arrived at a similar point. President Clinton's defenders say this is not Watergate. They are right to the extent that the underlying behavior does not involve the bungled break- in of a campaign headquarters; rather, it involves a reckless relationship in the White House itself with a young employee that the President hardly knew. President Nixon did not lie repeatedly to a Federal judge and then to a grand jury of citizens charged with discovering the truth. President Clinton did. But President Clinton, like President Nixon, did obstruct justice by encouraging others to lie, and both abused their offices by violating their oath to uphold the laws of our country. The President has escaped accountability for his actions time after time. His intelligence, pleasing personality and way with words have saved him, so far. Perhaps the most accurate description of his pattern of behavior is a campaign slogan used by a New York senatorial candidate against his opponent this year: ``Too many lies, for too long.'' Last week I listened to the President's most recent apology, and I agree with him. I cannot imagine a greater agony than being ashamed before one's family and friends. But emotions cannot change the evidence or the facts, nor should they control our actions. If the President will not resign, we must go forward. Our entire justice system rests on the rule of law. Without it, we would not enjoy a civilized and democratic society. To carve out exceptions for anyone, particularly the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, would be to undermine this rule of law. For the benefit of our country to set an example for our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we must maintain our high ideals. That the President has failed to meet the standard does not mean we should lower it. Our constitutional duty in the House is to decide whether to impeach or accuse the President of wrongful actions. The Senate's duty is to render judgment and decide punishment. So if a sanction other than removal from office such as censure is ever considered, it should be initiated by the Senate. And, ultimately, any outcome must be supported by the American people. This is not a decision to go forward because of a ``private relationship.'' It involves the most public of relationships, that between a citizen and the justice system, and that between the President and the American people. It is about honor and telling the truth. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the presidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers of the court, respect for women, and ultimately, our own self respect. During this difficult but necessary impeachment process, I've relied on several people for their helpful ideas. Although they shouldn't be held accountable for my views, I do want to thank my perceptive wife, Beth Schaefer, and special friends, Judge Cyndi Krier, John Lampmann, and Judge Tom Rickhoff, for giving me the benefit of their wise counsel. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, The H-1B visa bills passed by the Senate and by the House Judiciary Committee both proposed to increase the quota of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professional workers. Both bills responded to the fact that demand has exceeded the annual quota of 65,000 in each of the past two fiscal years. The reason for this increased demand is thought to be a shortage in America's information technology workforce. While evidence for this shortage is inconclusive, it was my belief that we should give the industry the benefit of the doubt and grant the additional visas. The Senate and House Judiciary Committee bills did have large differences. The Judiciary Committee bill (H.R. 3736, which I introduced in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims) required that employers comply with two new attestations when petitioning for H-1B workers. Employers would have had to promise not to lay off (displace) American workers and replace them with aliens on H-1B visas, and to recruit American workers before petitioning for foreign workers. I felt that these protections for American workers were necessary because of the large number of documented abuses of the H-1B program--instances of companies actually laying off Americans to be replaced by H-1Bs and companies recruiting workers exclusively from overseas. The Senate bill (introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham) contained no comparable provisions. With the assistance and support of the leadership of the House and Senate along with House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairmen Henry Hyde and Orrin Hatch, Senator Abraham and I drafted a workable compromise between the two bills. We then agreed to further changes after negotiations with the White House in order to gain Administration support. H.R. 3736 was brought to the House floor on September 24, 1998. The base text was the compromise worked out with Senator Abraham along with as many of the acceptable changes requested by the White House as could be drafted in time. The bill passed by a vote of 288- 133. Language was then drafted to make the bill fully consistent with the agreement with the White House. A bill encompassing this latter language was included in H.R. 4328, as enacted, which makes omnibus consolidated and emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999. The final bill, entitled the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, is a negotiated agreement. That is the nature of any legislative process. What is important is that we have come up with a bill that both responds to the needs of American industry and adds protections for American workers. Under the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, the H-1B quota will be set at 115,000 in 1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in 2001. Then the quota will return to 65,000 (at which time the attestations will sunset). The employers most prone to abusing the H-1B program are called ``job contractors'' or ``job shops''. Much, or all, of their workforces are composed of foreign workers on H-1B visas. Many of these companies make no pretense of looking for American workers and are in business to contract their H-1Bs out to other companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are contracted benefit in that the wages paid to the foreign workers are often well below what comparable Americans would receive. Also, the companies don't have to shoulder the obligations of being the legally recognized employers--the job contractors/shops remain the official employers. Under the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, the no-lay off/non-displacement and recruitment attestations will apply principally to job contractors/shops, defined in the bill (for larger companies) as those employers 15% or more of whose workforces are composed of H-1B workers. These businesses, designated as ``H-1B- dependent'', will be subject to the attestations in those instances where they petition for H-1Bs without masters degrees in high technology fields or where they plan to pay the H-1Bs less than $60,000 a year. Thus, the attestations are being targeted to hit the companies most likely to abuse the system--job contractors/shops who are seeking aliens without extraordinary talents (only bachelors degrees) or offering relatively low wages (below $60,000). Other employers, who use a relatively small number of H-1Bs, will not have to comply with the new attestations unless they have been found to have willfully violated the rules of the H-1B program. Since a Conference Committee Report was never prepared for the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, I felt it important to supplement the existing legislative history (such as H. Rep. No. 105-657) with the present document. What follows is an explanatory statement as to some of the provisions of the Act. Let me start off by saying that when interpreting the statutory language, each provision should be read in the light most protective of American workers. This was, in my view, the intent of the House of Representatives and the way in which the body would want the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to interpret the language. On September 24, 1998, the House passed H.R. 3736. As consistent with the compromise agreement I had helped negotiate, I supported the bill and opposed the Democratic substitute offered by Representative Watt. However, it should be remembered that a majority of the members of the House that day either voted in favor of the Watt amendment or against H.R. 3736 on final passage (or both). The Watt amendment contained the heightened protections for American workers contained in H.R. 3736 as passed by the Judiciary Committee. It is clear that the members--constituting a majority of the House--who voted for the Watt amendment or against final passage were very concerned about the impact of a large-scale increase in the H-1B quota on American workers in the impacted professional fields. Many of the members who voted against the Watt amendment and in favor of H.R. 3736 on final passage were also concerned about American workers and only voted as they did because they understood that the worker protections in the final compromise would be reasonably interpreted and vigorously enforced. Thus, a large majority of the House of Representatives would want H.R. 3736 read in the light most protective of American workers. Finally, the following legislative history ends after section 413 of the bill. The remaining provisions were deemed self-explanatory, and thus, not in need of further explanation. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 SECTION 401. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a very important bipartisan issue that will need to be addressed in the 106th Congress, that is compensating the families of the Americans who were killed on April 14, 1994 while serving in Operation Provide Comfort over Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I have been very disappointed by the Pentagon's handling of this issue and their refusal to treat fairly the families of the American service personnel who were killed on this incident. I have several constituents whose loved one was killed in this incident and I am disappointed that the Department of Defense has not treated them more fairly. On April 14, 1994, 15 Americans, 14 military personnel and 1 civilian, and 11 foreign nationals, were killed when two Army Black Hawk helicopters, were shot down over the ``No Fly zone'' in Iraq by two Air Force F-15's. According to the General Accounting Office, this loss of life resulted from 130 separate mistakes by the Air Force and the Army. After this incident, the Department of Defense made $100,000 ex gratia payments to the families of the foreign nationals in addition to the other death benefits they received from their own countries. While making these payments to the foreign families, the Administration was unwilling to give the same treatment to the next of kin of the Americans. My subcommittee held a hearing on this issue on June 18, 1998 and heard from both the Pentagon and the families. Before the hearing, I requested the Pentagon be prepared to answer whether authority exists under current law to compensate the families at the same level as the foreign families. During their testimony, the Pentagon was unable to provide a credible answer for why they did not treat the Americans in the same matter as the foreign families. First, they could not answer whether they had the authority to make the payments to the Americans, then after the hearing, when the Department did provide the Subcommittee with a response they did not answer the direct question posed. Rather than providing a statutory bar to payment under Section 127 of Title 10, the Department's response discusses ``limitations that have historically been applied'' and ``compelling reasons against making such payments''. It would appear that historical applications and compelling reasons were compromised when the Department chose to make ex gratia payments to the families of foreign nationals killed in the same incident with Americans. By doing so, the Department has placed the Government in the position of appearing to value foreign nationals lives more than American lives. It is clear that some remedy must be affected to rectify the inequities created by the actions taken by the Department in this incident. Our service personnel deserve to be treated better. I have been working with Congressmen Collins, Conyers, and Watt of North Carolina to fashion a bipartisan solution to this problem. The Subcommittee did not have time to act this year, but we will revisit this issue next year. I hope that the Pentagon will correct this injustice and make the payments to the families without Congress having to take action. However, if the Administration is not willing to act, the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee will consider legislation in the 106th Congress to give the American families the same treatment as the foreign families received.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, others continue to argue or continue to imply that this inquiry is only about a personal relationship, but that is like saying Watergate was only about picking a lock or that the Boston Tea Party was only about tea. During a similar investigation of President Nixon 24 years ago, there was little focus on the burglary. The Committee on the Judiciary and the special prosecutor rightly wanted to know, as we should today, whether the President lied to the American people, obstructed justice or abused his office. While some try to describe this scandal as private, the President's own Attorney General found that there existed credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This is not a decision to go forward with an inquiry into a personal relationship. It is about examining the most public of relationships, between a witness and the courts, between the President and the American people. It is about respect for the law, respect for the office of the presidency, respect for the American people, respect for the officers of the Court, respect for women and ultimately about self-respect.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to compliment the gentleman from New York again on his hard work on this bill, and congratulate him on its imminent passage.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Houston for her general comments. They were generous indeed, both to me and to the originator of the bill the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4293, the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998, provides for a new nonimmigrant visa program to assist the Irish peace process. The author of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has tirelessly supported the Irish peace process. In support of the peace process, he has worked with numerous international organizations and visited Northern Ireland three times in the last year. H.R. 4293 is the result of his dedication on behalf of a cause in which he strongly believes. He is to be commended for his diligence and hard work in generating broad bipartisan support for H.R. 4293 and moving it to the House floor. The bill sets up a 3-year program with 4,000 visas available each year. The visas are reserved for qualified applicants age 35 or under and their spouses and children. The visas are good for 3 years, and the bill requires the INS to monitor and report on any visa overstays so that the purpose of the program is met and the integrity of the United States' immigration system is maintained. Finally, the new visas are offset against the available number of low- skilled employment visas from another nonimmigrant category, so that the overall number of available visas remains constant. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4293. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4293) to establish a cultural and training program for disadvantaged individuals from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced H.R. 4658, which briefly extends the deadline for implementing Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Section 110(a) of the 1996 Act required that the Attorney General establish an automated entry-exit control system for all aliens at all ports of entry--land, air and sea--``no later than two years after the date of enactment'' of the 1996 Act. Since the 1996 Act was enacted on September 30, 1996, the two year deadline for implementation is now. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has indicated that it needs more time to implement a control system at the land and sea ports. As a result, the House of Representatives passed the Solomon bill, H.R. 2920, by a vote of 325 to 90 on November 10, 1997. This bill extends the deadline for implementing Section 110 on land borders to October 1, 1999, and requires that the system ``not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of entry.'' The Senate passed a different version of H.R. 2920. The Senate version does not require the implementation of Section 110 at the land and sea ports. Rather, it merely requires that the Attorney General conduct a 2 year study on the feasibility and cost of developing and implementing an automated entry-exit control system at land and seaports. The report only requires that the INS estimate how long it will take to implement Section 110 but does not require implementation. The Senate also inserted a provision into the Commerce, Justice, State (CJS) appropriations bill that would repeal Section 110. We know that the deadline for implementation is upon us. However, due to other issues that have arisen in recent weeks, the House and Senate have not yet reached an agreement on how to amend Section 110. This bill prohibits the Attorney General from implementing Section 110(a) before October 15, 1998. This brief two-week extension will allow the House and the Senate enough time to come up with a compromise on this issue. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4658) to extend the date by which an automated entry- exit control system must be developed, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, much has been made in the last few minutes about the need to support the Watt substitute because it is the committee bill. I will look forward to the enthusiastic support of my friends on the other side of the aisle on future committee bills commensurate with their support of the Watt substitute tonight. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again that the underlying bill has the support of both the Republican leadership and the administration. And the reason it has garnered such bipartisan support is because it does target companies that have historically been the abusers of the H-1B program. It does target companies who in the past have not hired American workers when they should have, and it targets companies that in the past may have fired American workers and replaced them with foreign workers. In addition to that, it also provides the needed high-tech employees for our high-tech companies which will generate more jobs in the economy and help our economy continue to expand. So, Mr. Speaker, I do want to encourage my colleagues to vote against the Watt amendment and vote for the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the professor from Stanford Law School, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3736. First, some background: The H-1B bills passed by the Senate and by the House Committee on the Judiciary both propose to increase the quota of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professional workers. Both bills responded to the fact that the demand has exceeded the annual quota of 65,000 in each of the past 2 fiscal years. The reason for this increased demand is thought to be a shortage in America's information technology workforce. While evidence for this shortage is inconclusive, I believe we should give the industry the benefit of the doubt and grant the additional visas. The Senate and House Committee on the Judiciary bills had stark differences. The House Committee on the Judiciary bill required that employers comply with two new attestations when petitioning for H-1B workers. Employers would have had to promise not to lay off American workers and replace them with H-1Bs, and to recruit American workers before petitioning for foreign workers. I felt that these protections for American workers were necessary because of the large number of documented abuses of the H-1B program, instances of companies actually laying off Americans to be replaced by H-1Bs and companies recruiting workers exclusively from overseas. The Senate bill contained no comparable protections. With the assistance and support of the House leadership, we wrote a workable compromise. And, in negotiations concluded just yesterday, we made further changes that were supported by the administration. The measure we are considering today embodies those compromises; and, of course, it is a negotiated agreement. That is the nature of any legislative process. What is important is that we have come up with a bill that both responds to the needs of the high-tech industry and adds protections for American workers. The employers most prone to abusing the H-1B program are called job contractors or job shops. Often, much of their workforce is composed of foreign workers on H-1B visas. These companies make no pretense of looking for American workers. They are in business to contract their H- 1Bs out to other companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are contracted benefit by paying wages to the foreign workers often well below what comparable Americans would receive. Also, they do not have to shoulder the obligations of being the legally recognized employers; the job shops remain the official employers. Under the compromise we are considering today, the no-layoff and recruitment attestations will apply to H-1B-dependent businesses in those instances where they petition for H-1Bs without masters degrees and where they plan to pay the H-1Bs less than $60,000 a year. The attestations are being targeted to hit the companies most likely to abuse the system. Other employers who use a relatively small number of H-1Bs will not be affected, unless they have been found to have willfully violated the rules of the H-1B program. Specifically, the no-layoff attestation prohibits an employer from laying off an American worker from a job that is essentially the equivalent of a job for which an H-1B is sought during the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date the employer files a visa petition for the foreign worker. The recruitment attestation requires an employer to have taken good- faith steps to have recruited American workers for the job an H-1B alien will perform and offer the job to an American worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the foreign worker. Other features of the compromise are that the H-1B quota will be set at 115,000 in 1999 and 2000 and 107,500 in the year 2001. Then the quota will return to 65,000, at which time the attestations also will sunset. The Labor Department will enforce all aspects of the program, except in those instances where an American worker claims that a job should have been offered to him or her instead of to a foreign worker. In such cases, an arbiter appointed by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service will decide the issue. Under the compromise, a $500 fee per alien will be charged to all employers except universities and certain other institutions. The funds will go for scholarship assistance for students studying mathematics, computer science, or engineering, for Federal job training services, and for processing and enforcement expenses. The fee will sunset in the year 2001. Under current law, the Labor Department can only investigate a user of the H-1B program if an aggrieved party files a complaint. The compromise will allow the Department to investigate a company in certain instances where it receives specific, credible information that provides it with reasonable cause to believe that the company has committed a willful violation to abide by the rules of the H-1B program, has shown a pattern or practice of failing to abide by the rules, or has substantially failed to meet the rules. While current law requires an employer to pay an H-1B alien at least the prevailing wage for the occupation, the compromise will also require the employer to provide benefits equivalent to those given to American workers. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude with one point of legislative history. The compromise eases requirements on companies when they are petitioning for workers who have advanced degrees. For example, companies who would otherwise have to comply with the two new attestations are relieved of this obligation. The bill actually uses the phrase ``master's or higher degree (or its equivalent).'' The point I want to make is that the term ``or its equivalent'' refers only to an equivalent foreign degree. Any amount of on-the-job experience does not qualify as the equivalent of an advanced degree. The bill is a workable compromise that deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again this compromise bill is supported by both the Republican leadership and the administration because it does two things right. It continues to protect the rights of American workers, and in addition to that it also provides the needed workers for high-tech industry itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who is both chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and, just as importantly, he is a former high- tech executive in the information technology field.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Mr. Watt of North Carolina

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3736, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross-references and punctuation, and to make such stylistic, clerical, technical, conforming and other changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.