Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:53:14 -0800 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: second Pascrell debate To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter Recall that I recently reported on a debate on CNBC between Rep. Wm. Pascrell and Cato Inst. writer Dan Griswold on the H-1B issue; see http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/PascrellGriswoldDebate.txt Pascrell engaged in a second debate on the issue on Bloomberg TV last week, with Randel Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You can view the TV clip and/or the closed captioning by going to www.bloomberg.com/media/tv/index.html and plugging "Pascrell" into the search engine. My evaluation of the first debate was that Pascrell did quite well overall, but with one small but very important error. Here is what I said at the time: * Pascrell did an excellent job overall in the debate. I was quite * disappointed, though, to see that at the end he cited as the main * problem lack of enforcement. This is absolutely false. The real * problem is that H-1B law is so full of loopholes that there is nothing * to enforce. The employers are underpaying H-1Bs with full compliance * with the law. Sadly, in the second debate, instead of correcting his error, Pascrell magnified it--a LOT. He actually made enforcement his main focus! Here are excerpts from Pascrell's remarks: * The law is not being implemented. We don't have enough resources in the * Department of Labor to do it...I've introduced legislation to stop the * violation of the law of the U.S...The law must have teeth, and the Labor * Department must have the resources to make sure the companies are doing * the right thing by paying the prevailing wage. Again, this is all wrong. The problem is NOT in DOL's enforcement of the prevailing wage law, but rather in THE PREVAILING WAGE LAW ITSELF. This is sad and ironic, because one of the best provisions in Pascrell's bill--in my view, THE best provision--is that it CLOSES THE LOOPHOLES in the prevailing wage law. It has been a rare congressperson indeed who has taken up the H-1B issue on behalf of American (U.S. citizen and permanent resident) programmers and engineers. Pascrell has attracted quite a following among the activists on this issue, some of them even outside New Jersey, and I must say that I admire him too. Thus it is especially frustrating to see Pascrell unwittingly play right into the hands of the industry lobbyists, by basically agreeing with them. The lobbyists' claim has always been that the only need for improvement on the H-1B program is to beef up enforcement, for those rare cases of violation of the law. (Note that I did NOT put quotation marks around the word _rare_ here, because it IS rare, because the real abuse is done legally, via the loopholes.) So by agreeing with the lobbyists that the biggest issue is one of enforcement, Pascrell is greatly undermining his own bill. If the bill ever gets past committee (a big "if"), the political horsetraders will say, "Well, we've got to compromise. Bill Pascrell says that the heart of his bill consists of enforcement measures, so let's keep those and strip off the minor stuff." Result: The bill would be of virtually no help to American engineers and programmers. Later Johnson continued with the enforcement issue: * I think we agree with the congressman conceptually. The program has * safeguards such as you have to pay H-1 workers the same wages as U.S. * workers. Pascrell should have replied, "No, those 'safeguards' are worthless, due to gaping loopholes. My bill would close those loopholes!" Unfortunately, Pascrell didn't challenge the statement, and implicitly agreed with it by continuing to talk about enforcement. (That's when he said, "The law is not being implemented...") And it gets worse. Many of you may recall that in November a firm which uses a lot of H-1Bs, Computech, was fined by the Dept. of Labor for violating various H-1B laws. See my report at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/ComputechFined.txt At the time I said, * Some critics of the H-1B program have been considering this to be a * victory for their side. But it ISN'T. * ... * A House/Senate conference committee will soon decide whether to * approve a 30,000 visa/year expansion of the H-1B program. Those who * question the expansion will undoubtedly be referred to this Computech * case, with the statement, "See, abuse is rare, and in those rare * cases in which abuse occurs, DOL cracks down on them. H-1B is a * fundamental sound program, so we should go ahead with this * expansion." They may even throw in a few more dollars for * enforcement. That H-1B expansion was ultimately turned down, but as the industry lobbyists themselves have said, they intend to try again within the early part of this year. But my point here is that I predicted at the time (November 23, 2005), that the industry lobbyists would point to Computech as an example which they would say proves that "the system is working." Well, that's exactly what the Johnson did in his debate with Pascrell! Johnson said, * I do want to note that the Department of Labor recently fined a * company over $2 million for alleged abuses under the program. So * there is enforcement and there should be enforcement against * employers who abuse the system." Again, Pascrell should have replied, "That case is irrelevant. Enforcement is NOT the issue. Most employers underpay H-1Bs with full compliance of the law. We have to plug the loopholes in the law." But he didn't say that. Instead he just said, "You mentioned [only] one example," implying that there are all kinds of other firms DOL could bring actions against, if DOL only had the resources, i.e. agreeing with the lobbyist that it is primarily an enforcement issue. And last but not least: Near the end of the debate, Johnson said, * No one's going to contest [that] we have a gross shortage of scientists * and engineers in this country... Well, no one there on the show contested it--including Bill Pascrell. Granted, it was near the end, and the moderator gave him only 30 seconds in which to respond to a broader question. But he shouldn't have left that outrageous "shortage" claim stand. He also said we need training--another industry lobbyist favorite obfuscation--again basically agreeing that Johnson's phony "shortage" claim. I still have to admire the congressman for his stand, and I'm sorry if I've offended any of his supporters. But I'm really beginning to fear that he does not really understand his own bill. I'm sure that that's common in Congress, what with all the bills each year, but I can't help but express my disappointment. Norm