One of the great ironies of this Congressional session is occurring here today. The high technology industry, which prides itself on identifying and quantifying problems with unbiased, technical thoroughness and then solving them in a scientific manner, will come before this Subcommittee and ask us to solve an ''alleged'' worker shortage problem that it can neither identify nor quantify. As one of the leading lights of the industry said recently, ''Let's stop arguing about the numbers and solve the problem.''

    There is a ''conspiracy'' going on to benefit employers and discriminate against American workers, especially older workers. Its purpose is to make Congress believe that this nation has such a shortage of information technology workers and such an inability to ever meet the demand that the doors to foreign workers must immediately be flung wide open in the form of increased H–1B visas. Otherwise, life on the high-technology planet as we know it will disappear. One distressed industry spokesman described the future as the industrial age without a single ingot of iron. This alleged shortage is so important to our national well-being that the Commerce Department now issues periodic bulletins on ''America's New Deficit.''(see footnote 76) It must be pointed out, however, that this is the same department that determined there was a shortage months before beginning its research.(see footnote 77) This is also the same administration that told us if we passed NAFTA and GATT, Americans would lose low-wage jobs, but would gain high-wage jobs.

The conspirators are what we loosely call the high technology industry, the agencies that supply temporary computer programmers and other technology workers, university foreign student advisers, immigration lawyers, government officials and politicians trying to curry favor with these interests. They are supported by industry reports of labor ''shortages'' that have no credibility in the world of labor statistics, but generate great press headlines. However, serious studies which question these reports, such as the one my Committee commissioned from the General Accounting Office and you will receive testimony on today and that of the Urban Institute, are treated with great skepticism and disfavor. Nor is any one listening to the Educational Testing Service, which recently stated that the Administration is using only industry number, while ignoring those of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ''becoming an employment service for the high-tech industry'' and giving the wrong message to American young people.(see footnote 78)

    These shortage headlines continue even as the same industry is beginning what the Wall Street Journal recently called

a steady drumbeat of layoff announcements in industry sectors that until recently have complained about personnel shortages. In Silicon Valley, layoffs have occurred at Seagate Technology Inc., Silicon Graphics, Netscape Communications Corp., Apple Computer Inc., Sybase Inc. and others. Some firms have cut hiring plans; help-wanted advertising has slumped since the start of this year. Elsewhere, high-tech giants are shedding staff. Last week, Xerox Corp. announced the layoff of 9,000 people.

  Some think high-tech payrolls still look bloated. . . .(see footnote 79) (Emphasis added; Attachment 1)

    Given the normal volatility in labor markets and economic outlooks and the growing numbers of Americans training for information technology jobs, increasing foreign information technology workers now could very quickly result in an oversupply and rapidly dropping wages. But according to the industry's chief spokesman recently in the New York Times, that is exactly what it wants. ''[T]he wage stability that is the bedrock of this country's low inflation'' will disappear if these visa numbers are not immediately raised, Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America said.(see footnote 80)

    How quickly we forget that it was only a little over two years ago that American computer programmers were being laid off by the hundreds and replaced by cheaper H–1B workers in cost-cutting moves by this same industry. Congress took testimony from some of those laid-off programmers, and the industry just barely managed to kill an attempt to reduce the H–1B cap. Its argument was only a little different than it is today: The story was that Americans got paid too much, and temporary foreign workers should be used to keep down wages. Otherwise, the work would go to India.(see footnote 81) Some of the work has gone to India—and Ireland and the Philippines and the Ukraine—but industry is still unhappy with the wages.

    But there are many qualified U.S. workers still being left behind. Unfortunately, no one in Congress wants to hear their story. Yesterday, I received a letter from Stephen Schultz of Modesto, California. He is a consulting engineer who was laid off last November. He could not get another job until his old company called him back to—in his own polite phrasing—''mentor'' a foreign engineer who now does his job. Mr. Schultz asks the question that we in Congress must also answer, ''What shortage?''

    Last week, the San Francisco Examiner (see footnote 82) ran an unprecedented series of letters from readers concerning the alleged shortage of information technology workers. Their conclusion: age discrimination was pushing out many qualified American workers, and employers want cheaper, more exploitable foreign labor.

    I want to quote at length from some of these letters because we in Congress are too busy rushing through legislation to please the high-tech industry to hear from the American workers who already have and will continue to lose their jobs.

  At job fairs, many older people, myself included, are rudely treated by young recruiters from human resources. In one blatent case, I saw a recruiter from a major local computer manufacturer and software firm refuse to talk to anyone who looked over 35. Resumes from older people were tossed in one pile. Resumes from younger people were put in another with attached notes from a mini interview. (Emphasis added)
—An older computer consultant

  I would state that most of the H–1B workers I have worked with are of mediocre quality. Most of the training they receive is on the job. They have in essence taken the place of a U.S. worker who could have been trained for this.
—Consulting engineer specializing in system software components for Windows 95

  In fact, the shortage of technical talent should first be corrected by training older workers. . . . What the high-tech companies really want is servile, cheap labor for very ordinary programming tasks . . . I would be much more inclined to support some broadening of the visa program if the high tech businesses would commit, on their part, sufficient resources to first retrain older programmers in newer languages and concepts.
—A programmer with 30 years' experience

    With letters like this, it should not surprise anyone that in FY 1997 the top users of H–1B temporary, high-tech guest workers were companies bringing in hundreds and sometimes thousands of foreign workers to do contract work here in the U.S. (See Attachment 2) Some of these companies are composed of 80 percent or more foreign workers. And this is totally legal. So much for the jobs being created for Americans.

    Mastech Systems, a company from my home state of Pennsylvania, was the top user of H–1Bs last year. It relies almost completely on foreign H–1B workers. Recently, in the Pittsburgh Business Times (Attachment 3), one of Mastech's recruiters was quoted as saying that a shortage of visas had forced the company to develop ''an ambitious program to train local people; we are recruiting throughout the United States . . .''(see footnote 83) This statement demonstrates better than any other how temporary workers can distort the labor market and deny valuable training to our own workers.

    Another company close to the top of the list of users is Syntel. In 1994, Syntel was investigated by the Labor Department for not paying the prevailing wage to H–1B employees. Under a consent decree, it was barred from using the program until September of 1997. Like Mastech, it was then forced to—as its 10–K filing states—''significantly increase its U.S. domestic recruiting and hiring efforts throughout 1996.'' Nonetheless, Syntel still managed to get 750 petitions for H–1Bs approved by September 30, 1997. Syntel employs only 1,260 persons in the U.S.

    I want to mention two other groups I have heard from this week who are greatly affected by this debate and not present here: the physical and occupational therapists. Senator Abraham's bill carved out a new H–1C category for them without even looking at the labor needs of those occupations. I have attached an excellent study from the American Physical Therapy Association finding the profession currently in balance between supply and demand and projecting an oversupply of 20 to 30 percent by 2005 because of changes in health care and expanded domestic training programs. (Attachment 4) The occupational therapists have expressed the same concern to me. But neither group was heard from in the Senate or is here today.

    One of the tragedies of every immigration debate is that proponents of increased foreign workers allege that any questions about their claims of need are really based on hidden xenophobic agendas. But, like Senator Abraham, I am the grandson of immigrants. But I also know that my responsibility here in Congress is to have all the facts I need to do the best job that I can for American workers. I know that H–1B workers are too often high-tech braceros, with their destiny in the U.S. completely in the hands of their sponsoring employers. This can, and does, lead to abuse.

    We all do ourselves a disservice if we cannot hear from all parties and make measured decisions based on the most credible information we have available.