Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:15:43 -0800
From: Norm Matloff <matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu>
To: Norm Matloff <matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: What are the Democrats planning for H-1B and F-4?
To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter
First, my usual disclaimer: I am a registered Democrat, and regard the
Republicans as being just as bad as the Democrats on H-1B and related
issues. Pres. Bush just called for an H-1B increase a few weeks ago
So, none of what follows should be construed as Dem-bashing.
But all those Bush-bashing comments I see in H-1B discussion groups are
simply off the mark. Their notion that now that Democrats are in power,
things will be different on H-1B is just wishful thinking. Let's keep
in mind that the H-1B program was enacted by a Democratic Congress under
a Republican president, and its first expansion came under a Republican
Congress and a Democratic president.
People in the House and Senate, regardless of party, cannot afford to
bit the hand that feeds them, meaning the industry and its large
campaign contributions. The two parties are equally bought off
concerning H-1B. Recall the statement of Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
on the 2000 increase in the H-1B cap: "Once it's clear (the visa bill)
is going to get through, everybody signs up so nobody can be in the
position of being accused of being against high tech. There were, in
fact, a whole lot of folks against it, but because they are tapping the
high-tech community for campaign contributions, they don't want to admit
that in public." pending legislation which would increase the H-1B
quota, The same year, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), said, "This is not a
popular bill with the public. It's popular with the CEOs...This is a
very important issue for the high-tech executives who give the money."
Both of these statements were by Republicans, but the Democrats like
campaign money just as much as the Republicans, and will go to the same
lengths to get it.
Please note carefully: Any package that is introduced this session is
sure to include something on F-4. Recall that F-4 is a proposed new
work visa for foreign nationals holding a graduate degree from a U.S.
university. It may or may not be called F-4 in the bills to be
introduced this year, but it is sure to be there. In the next few weeks
or months, whenever you see lobbyists or politicians talking in terms of
"giving foreign students incentives to stay in the U.S. after they
finish their studies," they mean F-4. If enacted, F-4 will be just as
harmful as H-1B. See http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back506.html
I emphasize this because I suspect a scenario in which the Democrats say
they held the line on H-1B while not mentioning the fact that they
enacted F-4. I'm waiting to see how much the organizations that oppose
H-1B do in opposition to F-4. That certainly won't happen with
IEEE-USA, which actually supports F-4 in spite of opposing H-1B.
The Democrats have been strongly in favor of H-1B in recent years.
See the various files whose names begin with "Hillary," "Demo,"
"Kerry" and "Dean" in http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive
So, what are the Democrats planning now for H-1B and F-4?
My first enclosure below is an article in which Rep. Howard Berman, a
key House member on immigration matters, assures an industry trade group
that an H-1B expansion will be enacted by July. Aside from the obvious
pandering, the projected date is interesting. By the way, note the
outrageously false statement that half the students in U.S. engineering
schools are foreign nationals.
Next, I have enclosed an article which features an interview with Sen.
Kennedy, coauthor of an ominbus immigration refor bill last session that
would have hugely expanded H-1B and established the equally dangerous F-4
visa, and Rep. Lofgren, the House's strongest advocate of H-1B. The key
passage is:
# Q: Should foreign worker H-1B visas be capped? Changed?
#
# Lofgren: Whatever we do on H-1Bs we're going to make sure that it does not
# adversely affect American workers. I think there is a weakness in the
# current program, and I want to make sure we address it. On the other hand,
# there are some very talented Americans who were born in other countries who
# have grown the economy. Take Sergey Brin and Google. I'm glad that Google is
# in Mountain View instead of Russia.
#
# Kennedy: H-1B visas offer American businesses vital access to talented and
# highly skilled workers throughout the world. As in any labor program, we
# have to carefully manage the flow of nonimmigrant labor so that it
# complements rather than competes with the American work force.
Of course, the statement about Brin is outrageously false. Brin came to
the U.S. as a child, with his family, not as an H-1B.
The statements by Lofgren and Kennedy suggest that the Democrats will
throw American programmers and engineers some kind of bone, designed to
look like a "protection" but in reality worthless. For example, look
for some kind of increased funding in enforcement of H-1B law. As I've
mentioned often, this would be worthless, because the main problem with
H-1B is the huge loopholes. It is perfectly LEGAL to pay H-1Bs
below-market wages, due to those loopholes.
After that, I am enclosing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement on
innovation. As I've explained before, this use of the word _innovation_
is studied and deliberate. The word has become the Buzzword of 2007 in
Congress. The PR ("government relations") people are the best in the
business. They know what sells, and this year innovation sells. It
sounds great, but what it is in reality is a way to excuse a bunch of
government giveaways to Big Business. One of those giveaways is the
proposed F-4 visa. Pelosi says:
# Create a special visa for the best and brightest international doctoral
# and postdoctoral scholars in science, technology, engineering and
# mathematics.
The vast majority of H-1Bs do nothing for innovation; they are ordinary
people doing ordinary work. For instance, even though Bill Gates
claimed in his Washington Post op-ed last week that Microsoft needs
H-1Bs for innovation (he used the word _innovation_ no less than six
times, again deliberate), only 50 of the more than 4,000 applications
Microsoft made to the Dept. of Labor last year for permission to hire
H-1Bs involved job titles that were research-related. The same would be
true for most people who would be granted an F-4 visa.
However, Pelosi's statement is interesting in its scope, with the
qualifiers "doctoral" and "best and the brightest." The F-4 proposal
would include Master's degree holders as well as PhDs, and it has no
"best and brightest" requirement. Does Pelosi really mean what she
said?
It'very unlikely that she meant that "best and brightest" would be a
criterion for getting the visa. There are already provisions (which I
support) in immigration law for bringing in the best and brightest,
either temporarily (O-1 visa) or permanently (National Interest Waiver
in the employer-sponsored green card series). Clearly employers want
more from Congress than this.
But it's possible that she did mean to restrict the visa to PhDs. If
so, that would be a good compromise. Mind you, I still don't think F-4
would be justified, but the numbers of people involved would be much
lower if Master's degree holders were not covered. If Pelosi really did
mean to restrict the visa to PhDs, I will have to give the Democrats
a lot of credit. I doubt that this is the case, but let's see.
Finally, some material on Sen. Barak Obama: a letter from him to a
constituent on H-1B, and a statement by John Templeton, who heads an
organization concerned with African-Americans in the tech area. I agree
with John's assessment that Obama's ties to Wade Randlett, a Democratic
tech lobbyist, show that Obama would be just as beholden to the tech
industry campaign contributions as the other Democrats have been. Sure
enough, his letter to his constituent on H-1B is vintage Democratic.
He incorrectly states that H-1B law requires employers to give hiring
priority to Americans, and predictably calls for better enforcement of
the law.
A grim picture, as usual.
Norm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129396-c,techrelatedlegislation/article.html
U.S. Immigration Reform Bill Could Pass by July
A U.S. congressman tells the Tech Industry Summit that Congress could pass an
immigration reform bill by July.
Robert Mullins, IDG News Service
Monday, February 26, 2007 02:00 PM PST
A U.S. congressman who chairs a House Judiciary subcommittee says Congress
could pass an immigration reform bill by July, including lifting the limit
on how many high-tech engineers can come to the U.S. for jobs.
Representative Howard Berman, a Democrat from California, made the
prediction while speaking at the first ever Tech Industry Summit in San
Jose, California.
"It could pass both houses by July, go to conference and could be on the
president's desk by September," Berman said.
Immigration reform deals largely with the 12 million illegal immigrants
living and working in the U.S., but another provision of the bill affects
technology companies in particular.
Tech companies want the limit on H1-B visas raised to 115,000 per year, from
65,000, a limit that has already been reached for 2007. H1-B is the type of
visa granted to skilled foreign workers in "specialty occupations,"
including IT, so that they can work in the U.S.
"There is significant urgency on this issue," said Pamela Passman, vice
president of global corporate affairs for Microsoft Corp., also speaking at
the summit.
About half the students enrolled in engineering schools in the U.S. are
foreign nationals, Passman said, who have to return to their home countries
after earning their degrees, depriving U.S. companies of the chance to hire
them.
Republican President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program for
illegal immigrants but opposition from within his own party kept the
legislation from passing in 2006. Now, with Democrats in control of both
houses of Congress, and Democrats generally endorsing the guest worker
program, passage is more likely, Berman said.
Berman is chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property,
which will be considering patent reform legislation.
Tech companies have long complained about people who buy up patents just to
collect license fees, but many small inventors own patents and don't have
the means to bring the patented products to market, so they license the
patents to others. Reform is also expected to focus on the quality of
patents granted. Tech groups have pushed for better funding for the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office and a post-patent review process as a way to
challenge patents that may not be deserved.
"I think determining validity and infringement could be settled more quickly
in a nonfederal court system environment," said Berman.
The Tech Policy Summit is expected to draw 300 people to Silicon Valley,
including technology industry figures, organizers of technology lobbying
groups in Washington, D.C., and lawmakers.
Technology companies had not been active in lobbying the federal government
20 years ago, but have been forced to get involved as Internet related
issues such as privacy protection, cybersecurity and intellectual property
disputes have emerged, said Gary Fazzino, vice president of governmental
affairs at Hewlett-Packard Co.
U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON - The debate about how to reform the nation's immigration system
will soon heat up again on both sides of the Capitol.
With the Democratic takeover of Congress, two lawmakers long active in this
issue will lead the House and Senate immigration subcommittees where policy
decisions start. At his news conference Wednesday, President Bush reiterated
his support for a comprehensive fix and said he believed this was an issue
he could work on with the new majority.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, leads the House panel, and Sen. Edward
Kennedy, D-Mass., heads the Senate subcommittee.
Lofgren recently sat down with The Orange County Register to talk about her
plans for immigration. Kennedy declined an interview but answered by e-mail
the questions posed to Lofgren.
Here are excerpts.
Q: What is your main goal as chair of the subcommittee?
Lofgren: Craft and guide to passage a comprehensive bipartisan, practical
immigration reform bill.
Kennedy: We all agree that America's immigration system is broken. Millions
of families wait for years to be reunited with their loved ones. Tens of
thousands of employers are unable to obtain immigrant visas for the workers
they depend on. The result is a growing crisis of illegal immigration.
There's an urgent need for legislation and policies to fix the broken
system.
Q: What will it take to get that done?
Lofgren: We're going to start right away and build on the work we did last
year. The House passed the Sensenbrenner bill (an enforcement-only measure
by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.), but most House members really never
had the full issue before them. There's an educational effort that will have
to happen here in the House and some reaching out to some people who think
they disagree, and find common ground with them.
Kennedy: Right now, we have the elements in place to enact the reforms the
American people have been calling for. The president and the House of
Representatives are genuine partners in this debate. I am confident we can
pass a tough but fair immigration plan that protects our borders, upholds
our values, strengthens our laws and ensures our prosperity.
Q: Why has getting a comprehensive bill been so difficult?
Lofgren: People have strong views on this subject. I think that the section
of the Republican caucus that Mr. (Tom) Tancredo (R-Colo.) seems to speak
for seems very adamant about their opposition to immigration, and I don't
expect that he and I are likely to find common ground. That doesn't mean we
can't find common ground with others on the other side of the aisle. I think
also that it was an issue that some thought could be used to political
advantage, and there was a lot of angry rhetoric that made it more difficult
to reach agreement. What I've been talking to some of my colleagues about is
if we just stop yelling about this and just methodically work our way
through the outstanding issues, we'd probably get a lot further.
Kennedy: On the issue of immigration, emotions run high, and divisiveness
gets in the way of progress.
Q: The conventional wisdom is that the Senate will act on a comprehensive
bill first. Is that so? Will something get to Bush's desk this year?
Lofgren: They probably will. We want to act promptly, and we also want to be
inclusive. But we have some work to do. They did a lot of that already, and
there's some things that we didn't have a chance to do last Congress. (Q: So
you think it will get to the president this year?) Yes. I'm an optimist so I
hope we will.
Kennedy: Yes, we can. (Sen.) John McCain (R-Ariz.) and I are working
together to put forward a solid bill that will pass both the House and the
Senate this year. The Senate spent weeks on our bill last year, so it makes
sense for the Senate to take the lead. But our colleagues in the House are
just as determined to pass a good bill, and we're working closely together.
Q: Is there one element of a comprehensive bill that's the most difficult?
Lofgren: I don't know yet. We've got disparate elements of American society
pulling in different directions. People worry, and they have a right to say
we don't want to do 1986 (amnesty) all over again. I don't either. I want
something that is workable and lasting, which means we have to have a system
that accommodates our current problem but will also work for the orderly
movement of people across our borders and enforcement of our laws in the
future.
Kennedy: The legalization provisions have been a source of controversy from
the start, but they shouldn't be. It's wrong for opponents to call it
amnesty.
Q: A plan that legalizes many of the 12 million illegal immigrants here.
Isn't that amnesty?
Lofgren: The question is what kind of punishment. You don't have the death
penalty for trespass. What kind of sanction is appropriate? Is it fines? Is
it some other things? The word "amnesty" has some people very agitated, but
I'm trying to listen to what that means to people in the House. What level
of sanction will make people feel that there's justice? That's what we're
trying to find out.
Kennedy: Not at all. Amnesty means a free pass. Our plan is tough but fair.
Illegal immigrants already here can earn citizenship by working hard for
years, paying a big penalty, passing all background checks, learning English
and civics, and then going to the back of the line. They should be able to
obtain a temporary visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time.
Q: Some say we don't need to deport the 12 million - that if we enforce the
rules, the jobs won't be there, and they'll go home. Do you agree?
Lofgren: I don't think most observers believe that that's the case. I think
I count myself among them. We should have better workplace enforcement, and
that's going to be an element of the comprehensive bill. But you also need a
system that works.
Kennedy: The primary cause is not too little enforcement, but too few visas.
Employers insist on hiring immigrants to meet their labor needs. Family
reunification is an essential goal as well. Our immigration system is broken
because the American economy demands low-skilled workers, but our current
immigration system doesn't grant enough visas to meet the demand.
Enforcement alone cannot address these fundamental imbalances.
Q: Should the Real ID Act, which bans illegal immigrants from getting
driver's licenses, be repealed?
Lofgren: I don't know. It's a huge unfunded mandate. We're not going to take
that up as part of this bill. We need to take a look at certainly the costs
to states and localities.
Kennedy: I had many concerns about the act. The provisions were highly
controversial, harmful and unnecessary. We need to revisit that piece of
legislation and correct its harmful effects. The threat of terrorism hasn't
ended, so we must do all we can to enact genuine measures to stop terrorists
before they act and to see that law-enforcement officials have the full
support they need. The provisions of the Real ID Act do not improve these
efforts. They don't make us safer or prevent terrorism. What they are is an
invitation to gross abuses and a false solution to national and border
security
Q: Should foreign worker H-1B visas be capped? Changed?
Lofgren: Whatever we do on H-1Bs we're going to make sure that it does not
adversely affect American workers. I think there is a weakness in the
current program, and I want to make sure we address it. On the other hand,
there are some very talented Americans who were born in other countries who
have grown the economy. Take Sergey Brin and Google. I'm glad that Google is
in Mountain View instead of Russia.
Kennedy: H-1B visas offer American businesses vital access to talented and
highly skilled workers throughout the world. As in any labor program, we
have to carefully manage the flow of nonimmigrant labor so that it
complements rather than competes with the American work force.
Contact the writer: 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
The Innovation Agenda
The talent, intellect, and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people
have made this nation the leader in economic and technological advancements.
House Democrats believe American leadership is fueled by national
investments in an educated and skilled workforce, groundbreaking federal
research and development by public and private sectors, and a steadfast
commitment to being the most competitive and innovative nation in the world.
America's global leadership in technological advancement and innovation is
being seriously challenged by other countries. The warning signs could not
be clearer. The rest of the world is increasing its capacity, its
investments, and its will to catch up with us. We cannot ignore this
challenge. Americans again must innovate in order to create new thriving
industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better
future for our children.
We must make the decision now to ensure that America remains the world
leader. Working with leaders from the high-technology, venture capital,
academic, biotech and telecommunications sectors, we have identified and are
committed to priorities that will guarantee our national security and
prosperity, expand markets for American products, and assert economic
leadership throughout the world. Together, America can do better.
House Democrats are proud to present a bold INNOVATION AGENDA: A COMMITMENT
TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA #1 to:
Create an educated, skilled workforce in the vital areas of science, math,
engineering, and information technology;
Invest in a sustained federal research and development initiative that
promotes public-private partnerships;
Guarantee affordable access to broadband technology for all Americans;
Achieve energy independence in 10 years by developing emerging
technologies for clean and sustainable alternatives that will strengthen
national security and protect the environment; and,
Provide small businesses with the tools to encourage entrepreneurial
innovation and job creation.
The future prosperity and competitiveness of America demand that we initiate
this sustained financial and intellectual investment in innovation. We must
also ensure that our children and grandchildren are not burdened by failed
policies that have exploded the national debt. That is why House Democrats
will submit these priorities to the rigors of “pay-as-you-go†budgeting to
ensure that new spending or tax cuts do not add to the deficit.
House Democrats believe the American people have always excelled at leading
the world. With this bold agenda, our nation will continue to be the world
leader in education, innovation, and economic growth.
A NEW GENERATION OF INNOVATORS
America’s greatest resource for innovation resides within classrooms across
the country. We must give our students more opportunities to be
highly-trained in math, science, and technology so they can turn ideas into
innovations. Future innovators must reflect the diversity of our country,
and we must provide opportunities for every qualified student, including
minorities and women. Democrats will create a new generation of scientists,
engineers, and mathematicians and will ensure that today’s students get the
job skills they need at all levels of learning.
To achieve this goal, Democrats will:
Educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in the next
four years by proposing a new initiative, working with states, businesses,
and universities, to provide scholarships to qualified students who commit
to working in the fields of innovation.
Place a highly qualified teacher in every math and science K-12 classroom
by offering upfront tuition assistance to talented undergraduates and by
paying competitive salaries to established teachers working in the fields
of math and science; institute a “call to action†to professional
engineers and scientists, including those who have retired, to join the
ranks of our nation’s teachers.
Create a special visa for the best and brightest international doctoral
and postdoctoral scholars in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics.
Make college tuition tax-deductible for students studying math, science,
technology, and engineering.
A SUSTAINED COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Independent scientific research provides the foundation for innovation and
future technologies. But U.S. federal funding for research and development
has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound science has been
compromised by political interference. We can do better. Over the next five
years, Democrats will double the federal commitment to research aimed at
developing the next generation of sound scientific breakthroughs, and we
will promote the public-private partnerships necessary to translate these
new ideas into marketable technologies.
To achieve this goal, Democrats will:
Double overall funding for the National Science Foundation, basic research
in the physical sciences across all agencies, and collaborative research
partnerships; restore the basic, long-term research agenda at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to conduct long-range,
high-risk, and high-reward research.
Create regional Centers of Excellence for basic research that will attract
the best minds and top researchers to develop far-reaching technological
innovations and new industries, and modernize existing federal and
academic research facilities.
Modernize and permanently extend a globally competitive R&D tax credit to
increase domestic investment, create more U.S. jobs, and allow companies
to pursue long-term projects with the certainty that the credit will not
expire.
AFFORDABLE BROADBAND ACCESS FOR EVERY AMERICAN WITHIN FIVE YEARS
Nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband Internet and mobile
communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the
United States. Just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband and
mobile communications will dramatically increase the productivity and
efficiency of our economy in the future. In education, broadband will
provide greater access to information, expanded curriculum, and real-time
collaboration across borders and boundaries. In health care, broadband will
enable advanced electronic health technology to improve patient care and
vastly reduce costs. In communications, broadband will make the convergence
of information, media, and telecommunications a reality, and services such
as Voice over IP and video on demand will be pervasive. Democrats will
ensure that the United States has the world’s most advanced
telecommunications infrastructure to bridge the digital divide so that every
American has access to affordable broadband Internet service and
communications technology.
To achieve this goal, Democrats will:
Implement a national broadband policy that doubles federal funding to
promote broadband for all Americans, especially in rural and underserved
communities; create new avenues of Internet access including wireless
broadband technologies, broadband over power lines, and affordable
community-based options.
Ensure the continued growth of Internet-based services and provide a
stable regulatory framework to attract investment by existing providers
and new entrants.
Enact a broadband tax credit for telecommunications companies that deploy
broadband in rural and underserved parts of America to ensure that every
region of the country benefits from our innovation investments.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN 10 YEARS
America will achieve energy independence from Middle East oil in the next 10
years by developing emerging technologies that work in synergy with the
existing energy infrastructure. A sustained investment in research and
development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow us
to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on
America’s vast renewable natural resources.
To achieve this goal, Democrats will:
Substantially reduce the use of petroleum based fuels by rapidly expanding
production and distribution of synthetic and bio-based fuels, such as
ethanol derived from cellulosic sources, and by deploying new engine
technologies for fuel-flexible, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and biodiesel
vehicles.
Create a new DARPA-like initiative within the Department of Energy to
provide seed money for fundamental research needed to develop high-risk,
high-reward technologies and build markets for the next generation of
revolutionary energy technologies, such as those emerging from
biotechnology, nanotechnology, solar, and fuel-cell research.
A COMPETITIVE SMALL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION
Small businesses are the catalysts for technological innovation. The
evolution from idea to marketable product, guided by a successful small
business plan, has led to entrepreneurial successes that have fueled our
technological revolution and will be the key to continued job growth in the
future. Yet small businesses face significant hurdles, both regulatory and
market-based, that thwart the effort to transform ideas into jobs. Removing
these hurdles is a key component of this Innovation Agenda.
To achieve this goal, Democrats will:
Bridge the “valley of death†that destroys innovative ideas before they
become marketable products due to lack of financing and technical support
by doubling funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), modernizing the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (SBIR), and fully funding SBA 7(a) loans to
ensure that American small businesses have the resources and technical
assistance they need to successfully innovate.
Reward risk-taking and entrepreneurship by promoting broad-based stock
options for rank-and-file employees.
Protect the intellectual property of American innovators worldwide,
strengthen the patent system, and end the diversion of patent fees.
Require specifically-tailored guidelines for small public companies to
ensure Sarbanes-Oxley requirements are not overly burdensome.
Provide universal, affordable access to health insurance, beginning with a
50 percent tax credit and multi-insurer pools to help small businesses
provide affordable and comprehensive health care coverage for their
employees.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:10:23PM -0800, John William Templeton wrote:
As Sen. Barack Obama visits with Silicon Valley elites Monday, his
support for an increase in the H1-B visa puts him at odds with the
interests of African-American professionals such as himself. Although
his announcement speech described the impact of globalization on
neighborhoods and workers where he worked as an organizer, this program
negatively impacts those same groups.
In 2000, a coalition of civil rights, labor and professional groups
began a successful effort to prevent any further increases in the guest
worker programs based on the abysmal equal opportunity record of high
technology companies. Obama's campaign has resurrected former tech
lobbyist Wade Randlett as a fundraiser.
His stand is contrary to that of more experienced Democrats such as Sen.
Byron Dorgan, author of Take This Job and Ship It, and to the will of
voters in races like the Virginia Senate primary in 2006 and the
Michigan general election in 2000 when H1-B advocates were soundly
beaten. Sen. Obama should visit a site from his home town
brightfuturesjobs.org to see how his own constituents are being
adversely affected.
Summary of Sen. Byron Dorgan's Take This Job and Ship It which includes
Stanford alumnus Natasha Humphries account of how she was replaced by
Indian workers whom she trained. Our trade deficit increases by $2
billion a day. Pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists have such
influence in Washington that Medicare, by current law, is not allowed to
negotiate lower drug prices. We import oil on an ever-increasing scale,
putting ourselves into dept with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other
Middle Eastern nations. With their windfall profits, they continue to
buy American assets. ChinaÂ’s booming economy and abundance of cheap
labor are threatening our economic survival. We have mortgaged our
fortunes, our principles, and our way of life. In this comprehensive
look at the real, human toll of AmericaÂ’s unsound trade policy,
Senator Byron Dorgan exposes the myth of “free trade.” Indeed,
free trade is not free; it is something that is slowly but surely
draining away American prosperity. Sure, Chinese labor can drive down
prices at Wal-Mart; at the same time, however, those saved
wages—dollars that would have gone to buy these cheaper goods—are
gone. Too soon, it will all come crashing down. Major U.S. corporations
continue to ship jobs overseas by the millions and, because of their
influence in Washington, avoid paying a kingÂ’s ransom in taxes. Many
billions of dollars that these companies fleece from the government and
the American people go overwhelmingly to investments in expanding
production capabilities overseas. In short, our government is in the
grip of corporate and foreign interests, and the American worker has
born the brunt of this culture of corruption. How can we stem the tide
of outsourcing? Why has the White House done nothing? Will the middle
class survive? From describing corporate profiteering to calling to
action a lethargic, inactive government, Byron Dorgan exposes the truth
about the destructive relationship between corporations and Congress and
proposes strategies for what can really be done to preserve AmericaÂ’s
preeminence in the world.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:27:03PM -0800, John William Templeton wrote:
From: senator_obama@ obama.senate. gov [mailto:senator_obama@ obama.senate. gov]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
Dear *********** :
Thank you for writing me with your concerns. I agree that the H-1B visa
program should be continually monitored, but I do believe that the
limited increase in visas for highly skilled immigrants will benefit the
economy.
I understand and have heard your concerns about the H1-B visa program
and its potential effects on the jobs and wages of American workers. The
intent is that H1-B visas only be issued if qualified American workers
are unable to take the jobs in question. Also, H1-B visa holders should
be paid a fair market wage for their work, not less than what an
American worker would make for performing the same work. The intent of
the program is not to undercut existing wage structures by importing
foreign workers.
The demand for these workers is clear. When the H-1B annual numerical
limits reverted to 65,000 from 195,000 the Fiscal Year 2004 limit was
reached in mid-February 2004, and the Fiscal Year 2005 limit was reached
on October 1, 2004, the first day of the fiscal year.
I believe that within limits, skilled immigrants play a valuable role in
our economy. I understand that we need to create more jobs for American
workers. And, using the technology sector as an example, the economic
production of companies assisted by workers on H1-B visas in 1998
created more than $16.8 billion in sales and over 58,000 jobs. The great
majority of these news jobs are going to American workers. Immigrants
are not the cause of the squeeze on middle class families. Tax,
workforce, and infrastructure policies that favor the wealthy at the
expense of greater deficits hurt working class Americans. Failing to
address the health care crisis in America while favoring pharmaceutical
companies hurts working Americans. Scapegoating immigrants will not help
us rise to meet these challenges.
But I fully agree that H1-B hires should be a last recourse as a matter
of labor policy. I support the efforts of the Departments of Labor and
Homeland Security to ensure that employers and H1-B applicants follow
the intent and restrictions of the program. It is incumbent upon the
Department of Labor to monitor the wages being paid to H1-B visa holders
and enforce the H1-B programÂ’s provision that wages reflect the
current job market.
As this debate continues, I believe it is important for Congress to
assess how the H1-B visa affects job opportunities for Americans and
wages in the relevant sectors. I look forward to working with the
Departments of Labor and Homeland Security and my colleagues in Congress
to determine where there may be gaps in the enforcement of the program
as it stands. I would also like to explore increasing the burden on
employers to prove that all attempts had been made to hire qualified
American workers. I then will take the appropriate steps to protect the
interests of American workers.
Again, thank you for writing me about the H1-B visa program. Please stay
in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator