Mr. President, I am proud to be a supporter of the Hutchison amendment. This is a model for the way things should work for seasonal workers. I hope this construct is one that could be agreed to, perhaps, in conference with broader…
Mr. President, I am proud to be a supporter of the Hutchison amendment. This is a model for the way things should work for seasonal workers. I hope this construct is one that could be agreed to, perhaps, in conference with broader application. Many of the criticisms of the current system with which I agreed are addressed by this amendment.
Workers come to America to fill jobs unwanted by Americans, but they are staying and they are not going home. Workers who declared an intent to leave, instead, are requesting permanent residency and a path to citizenship.
This is not the way things used to be when workers came to the United States, worked a spell, and then returned to their foreign homes and families.
The Hutchison amendment returns to those days. Workers have to apply for the program from outside. They come in for 10 months to work and then must return home for 2 months. They cannot bring their family for the temporary work, and they may not apply for renewal within the United States or for permanent residency.
I am also delighted Senator Hutchison has taken the suggestion to ensure that enough visas remain midyear for cooler States, such as Missouri, where our seasonal agricultural work does not begin until the late spring or after. Many Missourians claim to me that past programs allowed all visas to be issued in waiver States at the beginning of the season, and that left out the northern States.
I heard these concerns, and Senator Hutchison accommodated them, for which I am grateful. I hope this amendment is agreed to as a model in conference for the seasonal work program.
I also use this opportunity to talk about a modest little amendment I have, No. 4071. Senator Gregg is a cosponsor of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent additional cosponsors be added, including Senator Hutchison, Senators Alexander, Allen, Burns, Coburn, Sununu, and Warner.
Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4071, for the benefit of America's workers, America's universities, and America's economy.
While we rightfully have spent a lot of time in the debate so far discussing low-skilled, undocumented workers, I want to spend some time discussing our vital need for legal, high-skilled, high-tech workers.
America's workers face a battle for their jobs. They are the finest workers in the world. American workers grow, harvest, and mine some of the world's highest quality and most plentiful raw materials.
American manufacturing workers made the U.S. a global giant, turning back fascism, and lifting millions into the middle-class.
American workers are not just out in the fields or on the assembly line. They are in the storefront serving customers. They are in the backrooms placing orders and balancing books. They are on the streets delivering wares. They are on the floors stocking products.
And who do all these workers count upon? What does every company need to compete and succeed in today's modern economy? They all need high technology, innovation, and invention.
It has become increasingly clear that if American workers are not supporting high tech products in demand today, they are losing their jobs.
If Americans are not using cutting edge technology to extract raw materials efficiently, or produce record harvests, they are losing their jobs. If American workers are not part of innovative companies making the next new gadget or gizmo, they are losing their jobs.
Where will tomorrow's innovations and inventions come from? Where does the brainpower needed to make a cell phone smaller, a plasma TV bigger, or digital camera clearer come from? Where does the know-how to make disease-resistant crops, infection-killing drugs, and cars and power plants emitting only water come from?
These are the products that will cause new orders--the products that will stock shelves and bring in customers--the products that most importantly will provide new, plentiful, good-paying jobs.
They will come from our best and brightest, our engineers, our scientists. They will come from our mathematicians. They will come from our technology experts, full of new ideas and know-how.
They are among us even now--at our universities across the Nation. They are in physics class. They are in computer science class. They are doing their papers, their thesis, their dissertations.
They are graduating with their masters degrees and their PhDs. They are completing their post-doctoral work. And they are vital to every worker in the Nation.
They call these people STEM students--for science, technology, engineering, and math. They form the lynchpin of our high-tech economy. Without them, there is no innovation, no invention.
Who are these STEM students? Increasingly, many STEM students graduating from U.S. universities are from other countries. We can all picture them. Engineering students from India, science majors from China. Foreign students are earning 30 percent today's U.S. doctorates in engineering, 50 percent in math, and computer sciences.
We are lucky to have them because the number of U.S. citizens enrolling in science and engineering is way down. From 1993 to 2000 it dropped 14 percent in total, 32 percent in math, and 25 percent in engineering.
U.S. undergraduate programs in science and engineering report the lowest retention rates among all disciplines. Less than half of all U.S. undergrads who attempt engineering or science majors complete a degree in one of these subjects.
American companies are calling, regardless of the student's home country. The companies of every manufacturing worker, every accountant, every stockperson, every salesman, are vying for our STEM graduates.
Employers hiring international students from Missouri universities last year included: Cisco Systems, Intel, Honeywell, Proctor & Gamble, Black & Veetch, Emerson, Cummins, and Deere among others.
And what are we doing with many of our international students? We have put so much money into them, with tuition grants, loans and fellowships. We have poured so much time into their instruction, tutoring, and study. What are we doing with this vital resource?
We are kicking many of them out of the country. We are giving them insufficient time for U.S. companies to place them. We are requiring them to leave for 2 years before coming back. We are hurting their employment chances by putting their long-term residency in doubt. All of these are ways that our antiquated visa system is out of touch with the needs of our 21st century economy.
This at the very time American workers need them the most--at the very time American workers are struggling to meet the 21st century economy, we are undercut by outdated student visa rules.
At the same time, China and India are exploding with new engineers and scientists. Last year, according to Fortune Magazine, China graduated over 600,000 new engineers, India 350,000, and the U.S. only 70,000.
China is pouring government funds into research and development. They recently decided to double such funding to 2\1/2\ percent of their GDP. India just boosted R&D by 10 percent.
The result as the Wall Street Journal recently portrayed: ``Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for R&D.''
Foreign-invested R&D centers in China more than tripled from 4 years ago. U.S. companies such as Procter & Gamble, Motorola, IBM, and others are opening research centers in China.
Motorola now has 16 R&D offices in five Chinese cities, with accumulated investment of about $500 million. Emerson, based in my home State in St. Louis, MO, a global leader in electronics engineering and technology, recently established four R&D centers in Asia--three in China and one in India.
What are we doing to counter this tidal wave? Many would say we need to invest in U.S. research and students--produce more U.S. scientists and engineers.
I would agree Wholeheartedly. I have long supported doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation. I am a cosponsor of the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act. It calls for more investment in U.S. science and research funding and education.
But it also recognizes that encouraging more U.S. kids to go into science and math is not enough. It won't produce enough scientists and engineers. Our U.S. employers will not get the brainpower they need by this alone.
The National Academy of Sciences that produced the recommendations on which the PACE legislation is based said as much.
They document America's high-tech needs in their report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.''
A section of that report addresses the need of U.S. universities to get international STEM students--the need of U.S. employers to get international STEM students--the need for us to change our visa rules to allow us to keep our STEM graduates here at home, to the benefit of U.S. workers and the U.S. economy.
A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted this need. It begins with: ``Last year, Stanford University awarded 88 PhDs in electrical engineering, 49 of which went to foreign-born students. U.S. business would like to hang on to these kind of prized graduates and not lose them to the world.''
And so I am thrilled that the Judiciary Committee, under Senator Specter's fine leadership along with Senator Kennedy, included provisions trying to answer this call. Similar provisions were included in Leader Frist's bill and in the Protecting America's Competitive Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor along with 61 of my colleagues.
We seek to provide an answer to U.S. workers losing out on good- paying jobs in manufacturing, raw material supply, distribution, advertising, sales, and administration when their employers can't get the high-tech innovators and inventors they need to compete with foreign companies in the 21st century economy.
We seek to answer taxpayers who are sending billions of dollars to U.S. universities to fund research and student education, only to see the product of that hard work and money, U.S. university graduates from other countries, forced to leave the country to the benefit of foreign competitors.
We seek to update U.S. immigration laws to meet the needs of 21st century educators and workers. S. 2611's underlying provisions update visa requirements so that U.S. universities can get the students they need and U.S. companies can get the U.S. STEM graduates they need.
It provides U.S. advanced STEM degrees graduates up to 1 year after graduation to be placed with a U.S. company in their field of study. This will stop these valuable U.S. graduates from being forced out of the country before they have time to be placed with a U.S. company needing their expertise. It will also make the U.S. competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting talented high-tech workers to America's detriment.
It also makes U.S. advanced STEM degree graduates placed with a U.S. company eligible for permanent residency and gives them the time they need to process their application. This will allow U.S. companies to keep U.S. graduates to the benefit of U.S. jobs and the economy. Again, it will also make the U.S. competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting talented high-tech workers to our detriment.
With my amendment I want to ensure that we do not leave a portion of these valuable STEM students behind. It ensures that in addition to the advanced STEM degree students on F-
visas, we also include those same types of students on J-visas.
Most advanced STEM degree students come to the U.S. on an F-visa. This is the primary student visa. But many may not know, including those who advocate and practice in the immigration arena, that many advanced STEM degree students also come to the U.S. on J-visas.
What's the difference with these students? Nothing really when you look at who they are. They are STEM students pursuing advanced studies in biology, biomedical engineering, and similar disciplines. They are PhDs and they come to pursue and complete their postdoctoral studies at leading universities across the nation.
In Missouri, J-visa holders make up 10 percent our University of Missouri advanced STEM degree students. At Washington University in St. Louis they form 25 percent of the advanced STEM degree student body. I think every Senator in this body will have advanced STEM degree students on J-visas at universities in their states and thus will benefit from this amendment.
There is no substantive reason to include advanced STEM degree students on F-visas and not on J-visas. Indeed, I think it may have been just an oversight.
My amendment applies strictly to advanced degree STEM students on J- visas. Other persons on J-visas in the U.S. for other reasons will not qualify for this program.
So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am thankful for the support of Senator Gregg, along with Senators Allen, Alexander, Coburn and Sununu cosponsoring this amendment. It is a modest set of provisions, but its impact will be great.
Our workers need this amendment, our universities need this amendment, the Nation's competitiveness in the 21st century needs this amendment.
This amendment I am not calling up now because I understand it will be included--I hope it will be--in the managers' package.
I will tell my colleagues what it does and also alert many Members who are interested in it because it will keep our best and brightest students from abroad, the science, technology, engineering, and math students who come here for postgraduate degrees, in the United States.
Right now, there is a provision in the bill for the F-visa students to stay here, but it omits the J-visa students. American students who come from overseas and study in our institutions, which we proudly support, ought to be making their contributions to the well-being of the economy, to the knowledge and the skill base. I believe these students, if they want to stay here, ought to be given the opportunity to stay here.
Right now, under the J-visa system, you come in and you can be working postdoctorate in a science area which is exploding and creating the jobs of the future, and then the J-visa system says you have to go home for 2 years. By the way, they go home for 2 years, and guess what. They have started a business there, they have hired people in their country, and instead of having their skills, knowledge, and expertise that was gained in the United States put to work here, they are putting it to work in other countries. It does not say they have to stay here, but right now, the current system says you have to go home. We put a lot of money into training these great students. They are a wonderful resource.
I have visited many colleges in my State, and I have talked to the master degree student, doctorate degree, and postdoctorate international students working there. They want to stay here. And, reasonably, the universities want them to stay here because they form a tremendous support base for the universities.
These are people who not only can earn a good living for themselves, but their scientific know-how, their technical, managerial, engineering, and mathematical skills can provide opportunities to put all of these workers with their skills into the hiring of workers in the United States.
Regrettably, too many American students are choosing not to go into science, engineering, and mathematics.
If there is time before 2:45, after Senator Hutchison completes her statement, I ask to utilize that time.
Mr. President, I definitely don't want to preempt the manager from his comments, but if there is additional time, I would like another 5 minutes after the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Texas have made their comments.
Fine. That is most gracious.
Sure.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, who are very generous.
I should have stated at the beginning that I very much support the provision that Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy put in the underlying bill. There were similar provisions in Leader Frist's bill, in the Protecting America's Competitive Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
Amendment No. 4071
Mr. President, this underlying bill provides that U.S. advanced STEM degree graduates--that is science, technology, engineering, and math-- get up to 1 year after graduation to be placed with a U.S. company in their field of study. It will make sure they can find a place to work, and then get permanent residency to process their applications. It will allow U.S. companies to keep U.S. graduates to the benefit of U.S. jobs. And it will make our country much more competitive with other countries with the same reform now attracting high-tech workers to our detriment because they go overseas.
The amendment I have offered ensures that we do not leave a portion of these students behind. The underlying bill says it applies to students on F-visas. We include those same types of students on J- visas.
There are a significant portion of J-visa students studying in my State, pursuing advanced studies in biology, biomedical engineering, and, particularly in my State, genetic engineering and plant biotechnology. They are Ph.Ds. They come to pursue and complete their post-doctorate studies at leading universities in Missouri and across the Nation.
In Missouri, J-visa holders make up 10 percent of our University of Missouri advanced STEM degree students. At Washington University in St. Louis, they make up 25 percent. I think every Senator will have J-visa STEM students at universities in their States. There is no substantive reason not to include them in the underlying bill. I assume it was merely an oversight.
When you bring in these workers, as I was saying earlier, American manufacturing workers are getting good jobs because they have the science and the math, the technology that is enabling them to produce 21st century products and to do the kind of work that 21st century science enables them to do.
It is becoming increasingly clear that if American workers are not supporting high-tech products in demand today, they are losing their jobs. As a recent book by Tom Friedman, ``The World Is Flat,'' explains, those high-tech jobs can go anywhere in the world and be linked up by computer. So Americans need to be using cutting-edge technology. Whether it is some of our basic activities--extracting raw materials efficiently or producing record harvests--we need to use the technology that is being developed. And with today's and tomorrow's innovations and inventions, they are going to have to come from students who are studying at our universities.
Right now, foreign students are earning 30 percent of today's U.S. doctorates in engineering, 50 percent in math and computer sciences. We are lucky to have them in the U.S. because the number of U.S. citizens enrolling in science and engineering is way down. It dropped 14 percent in total from 1993 to 2000; 32 percent in math, 25 percent in engineering.
Amendment No. 4101
Mr. President, I reiterate my support for the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas. I am very proud to support her SAFE Visa Program amendment because I do think the system she has laid out is one that is appropriate in a much broader field. I would like to see this measure in the bill because I think when the conferees start looking at how we deal with guest workers, they are going to want a commonsense solution.
That solution is to say, you can come for 10 months. We want to make it possible for you to come here and work, knowing you can come back and forth freely, knowing you are not locked in here, so you can go home and see your family and so you can take money home; and when you finish work here, you will have that portion of Social Security taken out of your paycheck as your own savings account.
This will be a tremendous boom for them, and enable them to go back to
their villages or cities, or wherever they came from, and be able to provide for themselves and their families, and also, we hope, invigorate the economies of those communities from which they came.
So I am very proud to support the Senator from Texas, and I urge my colleagues to join with her in supporting the amendment.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.