Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering on the floor today represents a good faith compromise between differing H-1B measures, one passed by the Senate and one passed by the House Committee on the Judiciary. It is not perfect, but compromises seldom are. What the bill does do is take a middle role between varying viewpoints as to the H-1B visa program. The H-1B program is being abused by firms known as job shops or job contractors. These companies do not bring in a few H-1B aliens a year to plug skill gaps in their work forces. Instead, many, and sometimes all, of their personnel are in fact H-1B workers. Job contractors make no pretense of looking for American workers. They are in the business of contracting out their H-1Bs to other companies. The companies to which the H-1Bs are contracted benefit by paying wages to the H-1Bs often well below what comparable Americans would receive. In order to achieve this benefit, they have been known to lay off American workers and replace them with H-1B foreign workers from job contractors. In order to stem this abuse, H.R. 3736 requires job contractors, defined as companies where 15 percent or more of the workforce is composed of H-1Bs, to make good faith efforts to recruit American workers, to not lay off Americans and replace them with foreign workers, and to not contract H-1Bs to other companies who use them to replace other American workers. If we are to have an increase in the H-1B quotas and protect American workers at the same time, it will be through H.R. 3736, and not the Watt amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I also want to make a final point: You might get the impression from listening to some of the opponents of the bill and to some of the proponents of the Watts substitute that there is nothing in the bill to protect American workers. The opposite is true. We are going to protect American workers, and, in fact, we are going to target the companies that have in fact been the abusers in the past. So there are lots of protections for the American workers in the bill. That will continue, that is in the compromise. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to my friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who is also a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The self-executing amendment to H.R. 3736 includes a provision to provide math, engineering and computer science scholarships to needy students and a provision to provide additional worker training programs. There are a number of pilot programs being developed around the country to provide high-tech training to American workers. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has just mentioned, DePaul University has developed just such a pilot program to address the shortage of qualified U.S. high-tech workers in conjunction with corporate and local entities that might well serve as a good model for other programs across the country. Programs like the one developed by DePaul University are what we had in mind when the training provisions were drafted. Again I thank the gentleman from Illinois for helping us make sure that this provision was in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank my friend from California for his very articulate and trenchant remarks. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Watt amendment and for the underlying bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 513, I call up the bill (H.R. 3736) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrants, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to make the point, again, that this is a bill that is supported by both the Republican leadership and the administration. This is an unusual conjunction of sometimes opposing forces agreeing on a bill, and that is yet another reason why Members should support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the next chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his generous words about me and for his accurate words about the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains for each side?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that that is my understanding, and I thank the gentleman for making that valid point.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues this bill does, in fact, target businesses that are called H-1B dependent. Businesses who hire more than 15 percent of these type of foreign workers are targeted, and we do have safeguards for the American worker. We do have safeguards that include the fact that the businesses cannot fire an American worker and hire an overseas worker, and they have to make good-faith efforts to hire American workers first. So the abusers of the program are being targeted by the compromised bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to reassure my colleague from California that we do have that $500 fee in this bill that every business will pay for every H-1B worker that business brings into the country. That is a huge pot of money. It is going to be used largely for job training and also for scholarships, particularly for college students who major in either computer science or math or engineering. I hope that that will reassure the gentleman and answer and address some of his concerns. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our country's history, and we must proceed with the utmost care in fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, wherever it might take us. It is altogether fitting that the independent counsel's report be made available to the American people, Members of Congress, and the President simultaneously. From the outset, this process must be open and fair to all, with advantage to none. As we go forward, we do so not as partisans, but as fact-finders and truth-seekers. And we go forward together, the American people and their representatives in Congress, united in our love of country and in our desire to seek a wise and just result. There is a passage in the scriptures where King Solomon says, ``Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart * * *'' That is what is needed during this time of our national tribulation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that is correct. It is my understanding that the INS will not be prepared to implement section 110 by the statutory deadline. Let me emphasize that section 110 should be implemented in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on trade, tourism or other legitimate traffic across our land borders.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. This section should not be implemented if it would significantly disrupt legitimate border traffic. I will support going forward with this section only if it will not impede that cross-border travel and trade that I understand the gentleman from Washington has a legitimate concern about. At the same time I must emphasize that section 110 was included in the 1996 act because a comprehensive and efficient entry/exit is vital for our national security. Without such a system, our government has no idea who is coming to the United States and whether they leave when they are supposed to do so. It is particularly important that the United States protect its citizens from terrorism, drug smuggling and illegal aliens.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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 H.R. 3633, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley). The letters referred to are as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 16, 1998. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Tom: Thank you for your letter regarding your Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3633, the Controlled Substance Trafficking Prohibition Act. I acknowledge your interest in this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in moving the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I appreciate your cooperation and agree to work with you as this legislation moves forward. I further agree that your decision to forego further action on the bill will not prejudice the Commerce Committee with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R. 3633, or similar legislation. Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of additional points that are important and that may not have been evident from my initial remarks: that is, to reemphasize that this bill does not apply just to our border with Mexico but applies equally to the border with Canada as well. This clearly addresses the possibility of a problem with drug trafficking of controlled substances that come across our northern border as well as our southern border. I might say that this emphasis on both borders is supported, I understand, by the administration as well as by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that it is my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who deserves the credit for recognizing the problem and then coming up with the solution that we are discussing today. It is with much appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all his hard work on this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2759) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the requirements for the admission of nonimmigrant nurses who will practice in health professional shortage areas, as amended.

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 bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I concur with the comments made by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Mr. Speaker. Because of a shortage of nurses in the late 1980's, Congress passed the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989. That Act created for five years the H-1A temporary visa program for registered nurses. When the program sunseted, the House of Representatives decided against extending it. There does not appear to be a national nursing shortage today--so, there is no need to revise the H-1A program. However, a number of hospitals with unique circumstances are still experiencing great difficulty in attracting American nurses. Hospitals serving mostly poor patients in inner city neighborhoods have special difficulties. So do certain hospitals in rural areas. H.R. 2759, the ``Health Professional Shortage Area Nursing Relief Act of 1998'', introduced by our colleague Bobby Rush, has been drafted very narrowly to help precisely these kinds of hospitals. It would create a new temporary registered nurse visa program designated ``H- 1C'' that would provide up to 500 visas a year and that would sunset in four years. To be able to petition for an alien, an employer would have to meet four conditions. First, the employer would have to be located in a health professional shortage area as designated by the Department of Health and Human Services. Second, the employer would have to have at least 190 acute care beds. Third, a certain percentage of the employer's patients would have to be Medicare patients. Fourth, a certain percentage of patients would have to be Medicaid patients. The H-1C program created by this bill would adopt those protections for American nurses contained in the expired H-1A program. For instance, for a hospital to be eligible for H-1C nurses, it would have to agree to take timely and significant steps to recruit American nurses. In addition, H-1C nurses would have to be paid the prevailing wage. Additional protections have also been added. For instance, an amendment by John Conyers was adopted at the Judiciary Committee providing that H-1C nurses can not comprise more than 33% of a hospital's workforce of registered nurses and that a hospital can not contract out H-1C nurses to work at another facility. Our goal should be that set out by the Immigration Nursing Relief Advisory Committee, created by the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989. We need to ``balance both the continuing need for foreign nurses in certain specialties and localities for which their are not adequate domestic registered nurses and the need to continue to lessen employers' dependence on foreign registered nurses and protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. registered nurses.'' I believe this bill successfully balances both these needs. Because it is so narrowly drafted, it is not opposed by the American Nurses Association. The bill contains one modification from the version reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill now provides a limited exemption from section 212(a)(5)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section provides for a certification process for aliens seeking to enter the United States to work as non-physician health care workers. The section is designed to ensure that the credentials of alien health care workers are authentic and that they have sufficient training and English language ability to adequately perform their jobs. The bill provides that section 212(a)(5)(C) shall not apply to an alien seeking to work as a nurse where the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools or another credentialing organization certifies that the alien (1) has a valid and unrestricted license in the state of intended employment and such state verifies the alien's license as authentic and unencumbered, (2) the alien has passed the National Council Licensure Examination, and (3) the alien is the graduate of a nursing program in which the language of instruction was English and it is determined that the quality of nursing education in that country, and the English language proficiency of those who complete the program, is of sufficient quality. Nurses who meet all these requirements clearly are of the standard that section 212(a)(5)(C) is trying to ensure. Therefore, it is not necessary that the section apply to such nurses. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.