The H-1B visa program was originally created to assist American employers who were having trouble finding American high-tech workers for their businesses. It allowed a fixed number of foreign workers come to the United States to “temporarily” fill those positions while the American companies and the federal government invested time and money in upgrading the training of American workers to meet the new skill levels required.

Although the program was originally designed to benefit American businesses, it has now become a program that benefits foreign companies with offices in America, rather than American companies, because the majority of the H-1B visas are now going to foreign-owned companies. Data just released by the federal government shows that offshore outsourcing firms, mostly from India, dominate the list of companies awarded H-1B visas in 2007. Indian outsourcers accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program. These statistics should set off some alarms in congress that the H-1B visa program is not working as it was intended. Aqccording to data from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Infosys Technologies and Wipro, two companies based in Bangalore, top the list of visa beneficiaries in 2007, with 4,559 and 2,567 approved visa petitions, respectively. Microsoft and Intel were the only two traditional U.S. tech companies among the top 10. Microsoft received only 959 visa petition approvals, or one fifth as many as Infosys, while Intel got only 369. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The H-1B work visa program was supposed to be used to bolster the U.S. economy by helping American-owned companies. Under the program, American companies can use the speciality visa to hire foreign software programmers or computer scientists with rare skills in order to encourage innovation and improving competitiveness. Instead, foreign companies such as Infosys and Wipro are using our own government program to undermine the American economy by wiping out American jobs. These foreign-owned companies are bringing low-cost workers into the U.S., training them in the offices of American business clients, and then rotating them back home after a year or two so they can provide low cost, out-sourced tech services that causes American IT workers to lose their jobs. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

Even though approximately 80,000 Americans lost their jobs in the first two months of 2008, incredibly some members in the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to help these big foreign-owned international corporations bring in an increasing number of foreign workers that will put even more Americans out of work. Since its inception, the H-1B Visa program has been rampant with fraud. In the first half of 2006, the Programmer’s Guild, a group representing U.S. worker interests, filed over 300 discrimination complaints against companies who posted “H-1B visa holders only” ads on internet job boards. It’s obvious that these foreign-owned companies are only targeting foreign workers and undermining the system by bypassing the American worker. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

While a bill to reduce illegal immigration (HR-4088) is stalled in Congress with the House leadership refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote, Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) has introduced “The Innovation Employment Act” (HR-5630) that would increase the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 a year to 130,000 a year. In addition, there would be no cap on H-1B applications for foreign graduate students attending U.S. colleges and studying science, technology and related fields. Currently, there's a 20,000 student-a-year cap on visas for graduate students in all fields. The legislation would eventually increase the H-1B cap to 180,000 and the total number of foreigners admitted under this work and graduate education proposal could reach almost 300,000 a year. To make matters worse for the American IT workers, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the “Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act” (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009 and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) wants to make Rep. Smith’s increase permanent. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

There is no real shortage of American information technology workers. It’s just that the large high-tech international companies want to turn these hard earned information technology skills into as cheap a labor commodity as possible at the American workers’ expense. On March 12th Bill Gates appeared before Congress calling for an increase in H-1B visas. Two days later, without soliciting comments from any representatives of American IT workers, Congress introduced two bills that would double or triple the H-1B base cap. Why weren’t the representatives of American IT workers allowed to be heard? Could the average of $25 million dollars a year that members of congress receive in bribes (I mean campaign contributions) from the Computer Equipment and Services Industry, have something to do with this? Here’s some interesting campaign contribution statistics compiled by the Center for Responsible Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org/ that shows why congress may be so eager to support the requests of the Computer Equipment and Services Industry over the American IT workers. Here’s how much the high-tech industries have contributed to federal campaigns:

2000 - $38.9 million
2002 - $26.7 million
2004 - $29.0 million
2006 - $18.4 million
2008 - $15.5 million (partial)

These two bills (H.R. 4088 and H.R. 5642) will do nothing to curb the fraud in the H-1B visa program and they will have serious consequences for American citizens that are employed in the information technology field. The proposed legislation will displace even more American IT workers and outsource their good paying, high-technology jobs to foreign off-shore companies. We must learn from our mistakes. The current H-1B visa program has not served the best interests of American workers nor American companies. The current program has actually helped foreign competitors, with branch offices in the USA, hire almost no Americans and shift as many American jobs overseas as possible. How is this helping American workers and American businesses?

The current H-1B Program, as designed, is detrimental and harmful to the welfare of American workers and American high-tech businesses. It should be abolished. In it’s place and only if it is needed, H-1B type legislation should be written in a way that actually benefits American companies, American workers and American students thinking of embarking on a high-tech career.

Any new H-1B Visa legislation should be simple and have the following criteria to help Americans only:

IT MUST BENEFIT BOTH AMERICAN WORKERS AND AMERICAN COMPANIES: The H-1B Visa Program was originally designed to help American companies. Any new H-1B Visa Program should apply ONLY to American-based business entities and the H-1B visas should only be issued to foreign employees after proof is supplied that no American worker has either applied or is otherwise qualified for the position.

BENEFIT FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS: Companies that hire H-1B visa holders should pay an annual fee for each visa holder they hire to be used to fund scholarships for American citizen high school and college students interested in high-tech careers and enrolled in STEM educational programs (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics).

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.freedomcandidate.com/

 

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will again be the winners and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners.

The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatable with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than "legalized bribery."

As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way.

There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return.

Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate:

Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected?

Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website:

Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000.

Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000.

Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000.

No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large bundled contributions from Goldman Sachs have something to do with it?

I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return.

Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of the American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step.

 

In Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States granted Congress the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” The people never gave congress the constitutional power to delegate this money-creating and regulating responsibility to any private group. Yet this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did. The bill was publicly promoted as a plan to reform the nation's monetary system and stabilize the currency by taking control of it out of the hands of big bankers. In reality, of course, the Federal Reserve Act was written by the big bankers for the purpose of solidifying their control over our currency.

Many Americans today wrongfully believe that the Federal Reserve is somehow part of the federal government, possibly even the Treasury Department. Many do not know that the Federal Reserve is actually a cartel of private banks that was given the power to be the sole issuer of U.S. money, with full control over its quantity and thus its value. Since this group of private bankers (the Fed) provides credit to the U.S. government when we spend money we don’t have, the Fed also is able to profit handsomely from the ever-increasing national debt. Because the Fed makes more money when the country goes deeper into debt, there is no incentive for the Fed to support any reductions in federal deficit spending. The more credit we need, the more money this cartel of private banks will make.

The actions the Fed takes can drastically affect the economy simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. The president, congress, big business, investors, home buyers and anyone else with an interest in our economy waits with baited breath every time the Federal Reserve Board meets. If they decide to raise interest rates, politicians and industries could fall, homes might not be purchased and jobs could be lost. If the Fed decides to lower the interest rates, politicians, industries, investors and consumers may prosper. There is too much power vested in a handful of people whose names would not be recognized by most Americans.
Why do we allow such a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board to wield so much power over our country’s economic well-being? As average Americans strive to earn a living, cope with rising costs of food, fuel and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. On a daily basis, every dollar they have is being devalued.

Even though most Americans seem unaware of the current plight of the US dollar, especially in relation to the Euro, there is definitely a dollar crisis in the world economy because of the immense size of the international debt of America. America has now become the largest debtor in history, owing somewhere between $70 and $100 Trillion. The reckless deficit spending by our government, coupled with Federal Reserve currency devaluation, has become one of the greatest threats facing America today. Because Congress is routinely spending more than it can tax or borrow and the Fed is routinely printing “Fiat Money” (Dollars backed by nothing) out of thin air to make up the difference, this classic “one-two punch” threatens to further destroy the value of our dollars.

The actions of both major political parties would seem to indicate that they want the Fed to print more “Fiat Money” to support their extravagant and unchecked spending habits. Most politicians want the printing presses to run faster and faster, create more credit, issue rebate checks, etc., so that the economy will somehow be magically healed by this dangerous financial potion, or so they believe. The President and members of Congress may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects and earmarks, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our American dollars.

Issuing “Fiat Money” has allowed our government to live well beyond its means, but that practice cannot continue much longer as it is slowly destroying the value of our dollars. History shows us that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, as the actions of our congress and the Fed would indicate, nearly everyone suffers and both the economic and political structure becomes unstable. The Federal Reserve System has been the tool used by the major bankers to allow them to gain control over the smaller regional and local banks. The Fed has also acted as the financing agency for Congress' unprecedented deficit spending on an ever growing, more intrusive federal bureaucracy and the expansion of the welfare state. Some people believe that the private bankers in the Federal Reserve wield so much power that they can intentionally manipulate the economy in order to influence the results of our presidential elections.

Our government and the American people do not need the help of any private banking cartel to manage our monetary system. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and return control of our currency to Congress where it belongs, as was the intent of our Founders. We also need to have a serious national discussion about how real currency reform can be achieved. As long as the private bankers in the Federal Reserve have control over our nation's money, Congress' control of the purse-strings will not have the benefits the country’s Founders intended.

I support legislation introduced by Congressman Ron Paul, of Texas, entitled “Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (H.R. 2755) that will restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve.

REF: H.R. 2755: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will again be the winners and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners.

The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatable with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than "legalized bribery."

As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way.

There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return.

Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate:

Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected?

Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website:

Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000.

Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000.

Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000.

No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large bundled contributions from Goldman Sachs have something to do with it?

I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return.

Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of the American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step.