[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   OH, CANADA! HOW OUTDATED U.S. IMMIGRATION
                      POLICIES PUSH TOP TALENT TO
                            OTHER COUNTRIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                         TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 117-34

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-086 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
 ====================================================================

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
               
                                 ------
                                 

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                     ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
                    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado, Vice-Chair

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California, 
J. LUIS CORREA, California               Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              KEN BUCK, Colorado
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       CHIP ROY, Texas
                                     VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana

                     BETSY LAWRENCE, Chief Counsel
                    ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, July 13, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.......     2
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California....     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     5
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     6

                               WITNESSES

Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for 
  American Policy
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
Jennifer Grundy Young, Chief Executive Officer, Technology 
  Councils of North America
  Oral Testimony.................................................    32
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    34
Sudip Parikh, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer and Executive 
  Publisher, Science Journals, American Association for the 
  Advancement of Science
  Oral Testimony.................................................    43
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    45
Ronil Hira, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor, Howard University
  Oral Testimony.................................................    50
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    52

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Statements submitted by the Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from 
  the State of California for the record
  Statement from Robert Harrison.................................    70
  Statement from Matthew Culver..................................    71
  Statement from Michael T. Emmons...............................    73
  Statement from Vivian Hsiung...................................    74
  Statement from Connie Wu.......................................    77
  Statement from an Anonymous Person.............................    78
  Statement from John Dale.......................................    80
  Statement from Naved Hossain...................................    82
  Statement from Partha K. Biswas................................    84
  Statement from Stacy Whetzel...................................    85
  Statement from an American Engineer............................    86
Items submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  Arizona for the record
  A document entitled, ``Aligning Federal Contracting and Hiring 
    Practices With the Interests of American Workers,'' Donald 
    Trump, Presidential Document, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 
    152, Thursday, August 6, 2020................................    96
  A press release entitled, ``USCIS Modifies H-1B Selection 
    Process to Prioritize Wages,'' U.S. Citizens Immigration 
    Services (USCIS).............................................    98
  A document entitled, ``Modification of Registration Requirement 
    for Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions,'' 
    Department of Homeland Security, Federal Register, Vol. 86, 
    No. 5, Friday, January 8, 2021, Rules and Regulations........    99
  A press release entitled, ``DHS Delays Effective Date of H-1B 
    Selection Final Rule,'' U.S. Citizens Immigration Services...   159
  An article entitled, ``TVA reverses outsourcing decision after 
    Trump's scolding, executive order,'' Knoxville News Sentinel.   160
  An article entitled, ``Trump fires Tennessee Valley Authority 
    chair over compensation, outsourcing,'' NBC News.............   162
  An article entitled, ``There's a Clear Way to Fix the H-1B Visa 
    Program,'' The Atlantic......................................   165
  An article entitled, ``Unhappy New Year for AT&T's Displaced 
    U.S. Tech Workers,'' Patch...................................   171
  An article entitled, `` `Tucker Carlson Tonight' investigates: 
    How AT&T outsources American jobs, makes employees train 
    replacements,'' Fox News.....................................   176
  An article entitled, ``U.S. companies are forcing workers to 
    train their own foreign replacements,'' Axios................   180
  An article entitled, ``Pink Slips at Disney. But First, 
    Training Foreign Replacements,'' The New York Times..........   188
  An article entitled, ``Verizon Lays Off 44,000; American 
    Workers Left in Lurch,'' U.S. Tech Workers...................   191
  An article entitled, ``Verizon's Board Members Push Armies of 
    H-1B Outsourcing Workers Into Many U.S. Companies,'' 
    Breitbart....................................................   194
  An article entitled, ``Disney sued for replacing American 
    workers with foreigners,'' CNN...............................   209
  An article entitled, ``Legal fight ends for Disney IT workers 
    who trained foreign replacements,'' Orlando Sentinel.........   211
  An article entitled, ``Southern California Edison IT workers 
    `beyond furious' over H-1B replacements,'' Computerworld.....   214
  An article entitled, ``You're Fired--Now Train Your 
    Replacement,'' National Review...............................   220
Items submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  Statement from the American Immigration Council................   234
  Statement from Church World Service............................   239
  Statement from the Department for Professional Employees of 
    AFL-CIO......................................................   240
  An article entitled, ``Attracting (and Keeping) the Best and 
    Brightest,'' Issues in Science and Technology................   243
  Statement from Fiona McEntee, Managing Attorney, McEntee Law 
    Group........................................................   251
  Statement from Ryan Weber, President & CEO, KC Tech Council....   256
  Statement from Bobby Franklin, President and CEO, National 
    Venture Capital Association (NVCA)...........................   257
  Statement from Miriam Feldblum, Executive Director and Jill 
    Welch, Senior Advisor, Presidents' Alliance on Higher 
    Education and Immigration....................................   260
  Statement from Ron Matten, Founder, Attorney at Law, Matten Law 
    Firm.........................................................   267
  Items submitted by Tahmina Watson, Founder, Watson Immigration 
    Law..........................................................   269
  An article entitled, ``Where the tech talent pool is growing,'' 
    Axios........................................................   401
  Statement from Todd Schulte, President, FWD.us.................   405
  Statement from Engine..........................................   411

                                APPENDIX

Statements submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  California for the record
  Statement from Maz Rostamian, Founding Member and Director, All 
    of Us........................................................   416
  Statement from Paul Shearon, President and Matthew S. Biggs, 
    Secretary Treasurer/Legislative Director, International 
    Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE)...   433
  Statement from Sven Burke, Vice President of External Affairs, 
    Carnegie Mellon University Graduate Student Assembly.........   436
Statement from the Honorable Shelia Jackson Lee, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................   438
Statement from the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................   443

 
                     OH, CANADA! HOW OUTDATED U.S.
                     IMMIGRATION POLICIES PUSH TOP
                       TALENT TO OTHER COUNTRIES

                         Tuesday, July 13, 2021

                        House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Zoe Lofgren [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Correa, Garcia, 
Jackson Lee, McClintock, Jordan, Biggs, and Tiffany.
    Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, 
Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services & 
Outreach and Policy Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John 
Williams, Parliamentarian; Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; 
Atarah McCoy, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, Digital 
Director; Betsy Lawrence, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Citizenship; Joshua Breisblatt, Deputy Chief 
Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; Anthony 
Valdez, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide, 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; Ami Shah, Counsel, 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; Julie Rheinstrom, 
Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; Yasser 
Killawi, Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; 
Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; Kiley Bidelman, Minority 
Clerk; and Andrea Loving, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Citizenship.
    Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Citizenship will come to order, a quorum being present. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 
Subcommittee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing, titled 
``Oh, Canada! How Outdated U.S. Immigration Policies Push Top 
Talent to Other Countries.''
    I would like to remind Members that we have established an 
email address and distribution list dedicated to circulating 
exhibits, motions, or other written materials that Members 
might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If you would 
like to submit materials, please send them to the email address 
that has previously been distributed to your offices, and we 
will circulate the materials to Members and staff as promptly 
as possible.
    I would also like to ask everyone to mute their microphones 
when they are not speaking to prevent feedback and other 
technical issues, and you can unmute yourself when you seek 
recognition.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    I would like to welcome our Witnesses and the Members of 
the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee to today's hearing 
to explore how outdated immigration systems damage our ability 
to compete in a global economy.
    This brain-drain problem is unfortunately nothing new, but 
it has taken on a new sense of urgency, as illustrated by this 
quote from the website of a new company based in Canada: Quote, 
``The U.S. work visa crisis continues to worsen. As frustration 
and uncertainty rises for companies losing talent and 
professionals facing U.S. work visa issues, we have a 
compelling solution.'' The compelling solution that this 
company offers is to help U.S. entities establish virtual 
subsidiaries in Canada and relocate highly skilled individuals 
who have been failed by the immigration system out of the 
United States. Companies are now profiting from our outdated 
immigration laws.
    If we want to compete in an increasingly global and 
technology-driven marketplace, we have to do what we've failed 
to do for the past 30 years, and that's reform the immigration 
system so that it is responsive to the changing needs of our 
country.
    The last major overhaul of our legal immigration system 
occurred in 1990. Meanwhile, other countries, like Canada, have 
made great strides in building flexibility and recruitment 
incentives into their systems to attract highly skilled 
immigrants, including those whom we cannot accommodate.
    We're stuck in a time warp. It's like driving around with a 
30-year-old paper map while others easily navigate the road 
with turn-by-turn directions from their smartphones. We're 
falling behind as a result.
    Rather than facilitating the issuance of visas to skilled 
individuals, our current system is plagued with roadblocks that 
are difficult and often impossible to surmount.
    For example, arbitrary numerical caps that date back to 
1990 prevent many, including those who are educated here, from 
putting their knowledge and training to good use for the 
benefit of our country. Temporary visa programs lack the 
flexibility to facilitate industry growth, emerging scientific 
research, and entrepreneurship, as well as robust measures to 
ensure that the wages and working conditions of all workers are 
protected.
    Decades-long wait times for immigrant visas forces 
employees to plan around the expiration of temporary visas. The 
lives of many families are placed on hold while they wait for 
the stability that comes with permanent resident status.
    In contrast, countries like Canada have dedicated programs 
for high-skilled workers and founders of startup companies and 
programs that allow individual provinces to seek out 
individuals with skill sets they need. Temporary work permits 
can be processed in as little as 2 weeks, and applications for 
permanent residents are completed within 6 months. Is it any 
wonder why talented workers are moving to Canada?
    Demand for STEM professionals in the United States is on 
the rise. For the future of our country, we must invest in 
education and do more to encourage American students to pursue 
STEM degrees and to work in STEM fields. We can't rely on 
domestic talent alone to meet the demands of the industries in 
need, from tech startups and research labs to rural hospitals.
    We welcome talented individuals who want to become 
Americans like us. We must--nearly a quarter of all students 
seeking STEM degrees in the United States come from abroad, and 
about half of all U.S. master's degrees and Ph.D.'s in STEM 
fields is awarded to foreign students. What good does it do 
America to encourage foreign students to pursue their studies 
here and then push them out the door so they can apply their 
education to the benefit of our competitors?
    I hope this hearing will shed new light on this important 
issue and help us move towards a system that meets the needs of 
our country now and into the future.
    I will just note that, oddly enough, I got an email on my 
alumni email account from a fellow Stanford grad. He wanted me 
to know that he had gotten his degree and also his graduate 
degree from Stanford in a very esoteric but important and 
highly valuable computer skill.
    He reports that he has paid over $4 million in taxes in the 
last several years and that he has been waiting in vain for the 
ability to get his legal residence, even though he's been 
approved. He finally went to Canada and was approved in 6 
months' time.
    So, that is a real-life example of what we're facing. Oddly 
enough, I told him that we would be having this hearing today. 
Perhaps he's watching.
    So, at this point, I would like to recognize the Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock, for any opening statement that he might wish to 
give.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you.
    Madam Chair, I might point out that Canada's pre-pandemic 
GDP growth was 39 percent lower than the United States; their 
unemployment rate, 60 percent higher; and their average wages, 
38 percent lower. Bringing their economy to ours, for some 
reason, doesn't seem terribly appealing to me. That may be just 
me.
    Madam Chair, the crisis on our southern border that's been 
produced by President Biden's executive orders is continuing 
unabated and unaddressed. The Border Patrol reports well over 1 
million encounters with illegal migrants just since the 
beginning of this year. The number of unaccompanied minors in 
Border Patrol custody has grown tenfold since last year.
    The Mexican crime cartels are reportedly making more money 
in human trafficking than they are in drug trafficking. FBI 
Director Wray confirmed last month that this unprecedented 
influx includes criminal elements that are enforcing staggering 
debts owed by the migrants to the cartels, including through 
indentured servitude--that is, slavery.
    Meanwhile, the Immigration Subcommittee continues to ignore 
this crisis. Committee Republicans have begged the majority to 
have hearings on this unfolding catastrophe, and I make that 
request again today. Meanwhile, Americans are paying the price, 
both as taxpayers and as employees.
    The continuing theme we hear from the left is that, despite 
these jaw-dropping numbers and despite the impact on American 
families as the labor market is flooded with low-wage illegal-
immigrant workers, we need to encourage still more mass 
migration.
    At our first hearing, the Republican Witness documented the 
tremendous negative impact that illegal immigration has had on 
African-American communities. As Peter Kirsanow stated, ``Not 
only do illegal immigrants compete for jobs with African 
Americans, but that competition drives down wages for the jobs 
that are available.''
    At our second hearing, we learned how flooding the market 
with low-wage labor does enormous economic harm to working 
families. We also heard how many guestworker programs allow 
employers to fill positions at wages substantially less than 
the domestic labor market would otherwise command. As I noted 
then, this is at the expense of working Americans whose wages 
stagnated for decades as the immigrants' share of the 
population tripled.
    Today, we will hear from Dr. Ronil Hira of the damage done 
to American workers--and, by the way, to foreign workers as 
well--through abuses in guestworker programs like H-1B, L-1, 
and the Optional Practical Training program and how, despite 
assurances of the left, pay far below the market rates for 
labor and displace skilled American workers.
    This has resulted in continuing scandals, as skilled 
American workers have been ordered to train their foreign 
replacements as a condition of receiving severance pay, 
including major corporations like Southern California Edison, 
Siemens, Disney, AT&T, and the University of California.
    Under the OPT program, employers don't have to pay payroll 
taxes if they hire foreign nationals here on student visas for 
29 months after graduation. If you know a college graduate who 
has a science, technical, engineering, or mathematics degree 
who can't find an entry-level job, you need look no further 
than this discriminatory program.
    Let me make very clear what the Democrats are advocating. 
It comes from the Senate testimony of Leo Perrero, who lost his 
job at Disney because of these abuses. Folks, listen carefully, 
because his experience could well be yours if the Democrats 
prevail.
    This is what he said: ``I walked into a small conference 
room with about two dozen highly respected fellow IT workers. 
The Disney executive made a harsh announcement to us all. `All 
of you in this room will be losing your jobs in the next 90 
days. Your jobs have been given over to a foreign workforce. In 
the meantime, you will be training your replacements until your 
jobs are 100 percent transferred over to them. If you don't 
cooperate, you will not receive severance pay.' ''
    Mr. Chair, American citizens trust this Congress to look 
out for them when they cast their votes every 2 years. Yet, 
this Congress has made very clear, both through its actions and 
its inaction, that it places Americans last and it places 
foreign labor and the big corporations that shamelessly exploit 
it first.
    The Trump Administration issued regulations aimed at 
reforming programs like H-1B to stop these abuses and protect 
jobs and wages for Americans. It's no accident that these 
policies accompanied the strongest wage growth for American 
workers in 40 years, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, 
and the lowest poverty rate in 60 years.
    The Biden Administration and the Democrats in Congress have 
been reversing these policies and, not coincidentally, 
reversing the gains that Americans had won.
    I look forward to the testimony today. I hope that my 
colleagues and I can come to an agreement to do what's best for 
American workers, by reforming the guestworker programs that 
we've allowed to run amok.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, is recognized 
for any opening statement he may wish to offer.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    With today's hearing, we explore the harmful effects that 
our antiquated immigration system has had on our ability to 
compete in the global race for talent, particularly in relation 
to Canada.
    A diverse talent base that includes the best and brightest 
minds from around the world is critical to strengthening our 
STEM advantage and, by extension, our national security 
interests. Toward that end, I note that the bipartisan National 
Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence calls 
immigration reform a national security imperative.
    The last time any significant changes were made to our 
immigration laws was in 1990. Back then, most of us were not 
using the internet, and cell phones had yet to be mass-
produced. Things like text messages and grid computing, which 
paved the way for cloud computing, had not even been invented. 
The Human Genome Project was launched, but our understanding of 
the role that genes play in disease causation was only just 
beginning.
    Things that we take for granted today were the stuff of 
science fiction 30 years ago. Yet, today, we remain bound by an 
immigration system that is frozen in another era. Without 
reforms, there is no doubt that we will lose top scientific 
talent and innovators to both allies and adversaries with 
modernized systems.
    It is instructive to work through how difficult it is for 
STEM professionals to come to the United States.
    First, temporary visa options for highly skilled workers 
are quite limited. Visas are available to individuals who have 
already risen to the very top of their fields, as well as those 
who are transferring from an overseas company to a U.S. 
satellite.
    The graduates of U.S. universities, including those with 
master's and Ph.D. degrees, who wish to start their STEM 
careers here must often compete with thousands of others for 
one of a limited number of specialty occupation visas.
    Those who are fortunate enough to beat the odds and obtain 
a temporary visa face other obstacles if their employer wishes 
to sponsor them for permanent residence. As a result of annual 
caps on employment-based visas, many are forced to wait years 
and, in some cases, decades for an immigrant visa to become 
available.
    Because of these challenges, many immigrants who would 
otherwise pursue the American Dream are now turning to other 
countries, most notably our neighbor to the north.
    Unlike the United States, Canada has embraced a strategy 
grounded in the belief that immigration is an economic driver. 
Consistent with this strategy, Canada has made significant 
strides in building flexibility and incentives into their 
immigration system to attract skilled professionals to their 
shores.
    Programs like Express Entry, the Start-Up Visa, and the 
Global Talent Stream have proven so successful that those who 
have been failed by the U.S. immigration system are now turning 
to Canada. Ironically, Canada's successful Start-Up Visa 
program was inspired by legislation introduced in the House in 
2011 that never became law. The results are paying off, with 
Toronto earning the moniker ``the Silicon Valley of the 
North.''
    It is my hope that, with this hearing, we can begin to 
build some consensus on reforms that are needed to ensure that 
our immigration system works for, not against, the American 
people. I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses today, and 
I thank the Chair for her leadership on this issue and for 
holding this important hearing.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    The Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, is 
recognized for any opening statement he may wish to offer.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would just associate myself with the remarks from Mr. 
McClintock, our Ranking Member. I thought it was right on 
target.
    I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    All other Members, by unanimous consent, may make their 
statements part of the record.
    Ms. Lofgren. It's now my pleasure to introduce today's 
Witnesses.
    Stuart Anderson is the Executive Director of the National 
Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan research 
organization focusing on trade, immigration, and related 
issues. Under President George W. Bush, Mr. Anderson served as 
Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and 
Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Before his role in the executive 
branch, Mr. Anderson spent 4\1/2\ years on Capitol Hill working 
on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee for Republican Senators 
Spencer Abraham and Sam Brownback.
    Jennifer Grundy Young is the Chief Executive Officer of the 
Technology Councils of North America, or TECNA, an association 
of 66 technology trade organizations comprised of more than 
22,000 businesses across the United States and Canada. Prior to 
joining TECNA, Ms. Young served as the director of policy and 
public affairs for Life Sciences PA. She also served nearly 12 
years as the director of government relations and industry 
networks for the Pittsburgh Technology Council.
    Sudip Parikh is the--Dr. Sudip Parikh is the Chief 
Executive Officer of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, the world's largest multidisciplinary 
scientific society, with members in more than 91 countries. Dr. 
Parikh also serves as the Executive Publisher of the Science 
family of journals. Over the course of his career, he has spent 
two decades at the nexus of science, policy, and business, 
working at research and development organizations, and serving 
as a Science Advisor to the United States Senate Appropriations 
Committee.
    Finally, Dr. Ron Hira is an Associate Professor of 
Political Science at Howard University and a Research Associate 
with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, DC. Prior to 
joining Howard University, he served on the faculty of the 
Rochester Institute of Technology. A licensed engineer, Dr. 
Hira also previously worked as a control systems engineer and 
program manager for Sensitech, NIST, and George Mason 
University.
    We want to welcome all our distinguished Witnesses, thank 
them for participating in today's hearing.
    I'll begin by swearing in our Witnesses.
    I ask that each of you turn on your audio and make sure 
that we can see your faces and raise your right hand while I 
administer the oath.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct, to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let it be noted that the Witnesses have responded in the 
affirmative. We will now turn to each of them for their 
testimony.
    Please note that your entire written statements will be 
entered into the record. We ask that your oral testimony be 
about 5 minutes. There is a timer on your screen, and when it 
turns zero, we ask that you do try and summarize so that we can 
hear from all our Witnesses and have time for questions from 
Members of the Committee.
    So, Mr. Anderson, you may begin.

                  TESTIMONY OF STUART ANDERSON

    Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chair Lofgren.
    Highly skilled foreign nationals, including international 
students, are choosing Canada over America. This is because it 
is difficult to gain H-1B status or permanent residence in the 
United States and easy to work in temporary status and acquire 
permanent residence in Canada.
    Between 2016 and 2018, the number of Indian students at 
Canadian universities rose from 76,000 to over 172,000. The 
number of Indians who became permanent residents has more than 
doubled. At the same time, at U.S. universities, Indian 
graduate students in engineering and computer science fell 25 
percent.
    Under the Global Skills Strategy, Canada approves many 
high-skilled temporary visa applicants in 2 weeks. There is no 
numerical limit on high-skilled temporary visas in Canada.
    In the U.S., H-1B visas are essential, because they 
typically represent the only practical way for high-skilled 
foreign nationals, including international students, to work 
long term in America. In March 2021, employers filed 308,000 H-
1B registrations while the law allowed USCIS to select only 
85,000 petitions. That means over 72 percent of H-1Bs were 
rejected.
    While some may argue H-1B visa holders prevent U.S. workers 
from getting jobs, as of July 7, 2021, there were more than 1.2 
million active U.S. job vacancy postings in America in computer 
occupations across different types of companies, according to 
EMSI. That means there are 20 times more vacancies than new 
company H-1B petitions in computer occupations each year.
    The unemployment rate in math and computer occupations was 
2.2 percent in June 2021, lower than before the pandemic began. 
U.S. natives with computer-related degrees earn far higher 
salaries than other native-born degree holders. Economists at 
Utah State, the GAO, and elsewhere found H-1B visa holders earn 
the same or more than comparable U.S. computer professionals.
    Wharton Professor Britta Glennon found H-1B restrictions 
push technology-related jobs out of the U.S. and end up 
benefiting China, India, and Canada, with more innovation 
taking place in those countries rather than in America.
    Forty-eight percent of employers in a 2020 survey said a 
primary driver for placing workers in other countries is an 
inability to secure work authorization in the U.S. 74 percent 
said Canada has better immigration policies for business. In 
Canada, there is no per-country limit, and foreign nationals 
can often transition to permanent residence after working just 
a year in temporary status. Individuals' complete applications 
online and hear back in 6-8 months.
    Canada's program for graduating international students is 
more generous than in the U.S. Students can work for a company 
and get permanent residence without a labor market test or 
prevailing- or median-wage requirements. Provinces allow many 
students to gain permanent residence without a job offer.
    Canada views immigration as essential for economic growth 
and will admit 421,000 immigrants in 2023--approximately three 
times as many immigrants as the United States as a percentage 
of population.
    In the U.S., the annual limit of 140,000 employment-based 
green cards is too low and includes a 7 percent per-country 
limit that burdens immigrants from India, China, and the 
Philippines. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
it will take 195 years to clear the backlog of Indians in the 
employment-based second preference, and the U.S. backlog in 
employment-based categories will exceed 2 million people by 
2030.
    America does not need to adopt the entire Canadian 
immigration system to attract and retain foreign-born talent. 
Most problems can be solved if we increase the annual limit for 
H-1B visas and employment-based green cards; exempt advanced-
degree holders from U.S. universities in science, technology, 
and other fields from those limits; and eliminate the per-
country limit. The Artificial Intelligence Commission 
recommended similar reforms, along with new startup and 
technology visas.
    One final, personal note.
    Back in 2016, I interviewed Noubar Afeyan, a former 
international student at MIT and the immigrant co-founder of 
Moderna, and he told me about the potential benefits to 
humanity of messenger RNA. I remembered that conversation when 
the COVID pandemic hit.
    It was Hungarian-born immigrant Katalin Kariko who produced 
the basic research to make messenger RNA possible for vaccine 
use.
    Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla played a crucial role in the 
speedy development of the vaccines. He is an immigrant, as are 
many key research personnel at Pfizer, which was started by 
immigrants.
    At Moderna, nearly all the key personnel who led to the 
vaccine, including CEO Stephane Bancel, stayed in or came to 
America via an H-1B visa or an employment-based green card.
    I want to thank the immigrants who helped develop the 
Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. If not for them, how much more 
economic damage would America have suffered and how many more 
Americans would have lost their lives and those of their loved 
ones?
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Young, we'd be pleased to hear from you.

                 TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER G. YOUNG

    Ms. Young. Thank you, Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member 
McClintock, and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity 
to discuss the incredible issue we face regarding the future 
economic success of the United States.
    I am Jennifer Grundy Young, CEO of TECNA, which is 
comprised of 66 tech-focused associations in the U.S. and 
Canada who, in turn, represent more than 22,000 tech startups 
and small businesses.
    In meeting with nearly all the TECNA members, I've made two 
key observations: Unemployment among information technology 
workers in the U.S. stands at 2.4 percent as of May, even as 
the national unemployment rate stands at 5.5 percent; and the 
largest inhibitor to growth for TECNA's member companies is 
their inability to secure highly skilled talent.
    TECNA members tell stories of key vacancies in tech 
companies that are impeding organizational function and growth. 
Most often I hear about the inability to find software 
engineers.
    The role of the core software engineer is like yeast in 
bread. The baker can have all the other ingredients--the best 
bakers, the best ovens--but without yeast one will not 
successfully make a loaf of bread. Without the core software 
engineer, the company doesn't have a product.
    The highest-level skilled software engineer is the product 
architect, and their role makes it possible for all other roles 
within a tech company to exist, such as the IT team, the 
coders, and the cybersecurity team. It's impossible to 
overstate the value of a skilled software engineer, and the 
inability to hire for this role is the bottleneck to company 
growth.
    There are only so many highly skilled software engineers 
coming out of our Nation's top universities. The demand far 
outpaces the pipeline of students. Unemployment in the 
technology sector is low, and growth is stymied.
    The U.S. has the honor of educating some of the brightest 
minds in the world at our top universities. These students are 
interested in solving important challenges. U.S. immigration 
policy forces highly skilled foreign-born workers out of our 
economy upon graduation. We force them to move and take their 
valuable American degrees with them.
    With a war for talent being raged across the globe, Canada 
has taken a pragmatic and balanced approach to position their 
country to be a world contender in technology. So, how are they 
doing it? They understand the importance of talent.
    To meet Canada's immediate hiring needs, they created what 
is known as the Global Skills Strategy to fast-track work-
permit and visa processing.
    One element of the strategy, known as the Global Talent 
Stream, is geared toward expediting work permits for the tech 
sector. Fast-growing companies are permitted to hire highly 
skilled foreign talent in as little as a month. Companies must 
submit a plan which outlines their commitment to create 
benefits for the local labor market, with the goal of 
supporting the local pipeline of workers, in exchange for the 
ability to hire highly skilled foreign talent quickly. It can 
take less than 2 weeks for an application to be processed and 
less than 6 weeks to have an employee on the job.
    Canada also leverages an online application submission 
process, which allows for Canadian immigration agencies to 
expedite the gathering of information, to communicate with 
applicants, and render decisions quickly. By comparison, the 
U.S. system is paper-based, causing nearly all applicants 
significant delays in processing. The system's mentality is 
often based on suspecting fraud, rather than expeditiously 
welcoming these highly skilled economic contributors.
    Canada also offers a Start-Up Visa program that creates a 
12- to 16-month process for permanent residency.
    In just the first 2 years of the Global Talent Stream, more 
than 40,000 workers were brought to Canada. In 2019, then-
Canadian Immigration Minister Hussen said the program saw that 
roughly 25 percent of the workers were entering Canada from the 
United States.
    To provide some additional perspective, a former colleague 
of mine, Dr. Ketaki Desai, and her husband were both educated 
in the United States. Upon graduation, they were both fortunate 
to obtain H-1B status. After 18 years of strong economic 
contributions to the U.S. economy and realizing their path to 
permanent residency was looking very bleak, they moved to 
Toronto. Now, Dr. Desai is actively promoting the benefits of 
Canadian residency. We lost two huge economic contributors to 
the U.S. simply because the path to staying in this country as 
permanent residents was next to impossible.
    Under the current U.S. immigration program established more 
than 25 years ago, the cap for the H-1B visa is 65,000, plus an 
additional 20,000 for advanced-degree applicants, totaling 
85,000. Over 60 percent of applications are randomly denied 
each year to STEM occupations.
    With more than 100,000 H-1B cap submissions denied 
annually, the U.S. has turned away millions of qualified highly 
skilled and often U.S.-educated individuals. The U.S. is losing 
them to other countries to contribute to their economies.
    To sum it up, the issue is not an immigration problem; this 
is a workforce problem. The matter of raising or eliminating 
the H-1B visa and per-country immigrant visa caps have often 
fallen victim to incorporation into an overall immigration 
reform bill.
    No one seems to question immigrant professional sports 
players here on visas, because they help us win. That's what 
immigrants help America do: Win. Immigrants play the same role 
in technology companies. They help us win. We need them here, 
and we must make it easier to get them here.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today.
    [The statement of Ms. Young follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Parikh, we'd be very happy to hear from you.

                TESTIMONY OF SUDIP PARIKH, PH.D.

    Mr. Parikh. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member McClintock, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the invitation to 
testify today.
    As CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science and executive publisher of Science magazine, I have the 
privilege of representing 120,000 scientists and engineers from 
every discipline, from agriculture and artificial intelligence 
to X-ray crystallography and zoology.
    For the purposes of this hearing, I think it's important to 
share that I am a scientist, I am an American, and I am the 
product of special expert visas and family migration.
    My uncle, a geologist, came to the United States in the 
1960s to work at NASA. He then taught at Appalachian State 
University and later served as lead geochemist for California. 
He sponsored my father to come to America.
    Leaving Mumbai, a city of millions, and arriving in 
Hickory, a town of thousands in North Carolina, my father came 
home to a place he'd never been before, and he loved it. He 
built a life there. My parents worked in furniture factories 
and textile mills.
    Today, my sister works at the CDC, and I have the privilege 
of leading the AAAS. We exist because of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1965 and our parents' belief in the vision 
of the United States as that shining city on the hill.
    Now, a version of my family's American story is told by 
hundreds of thousands of scientists. The U.S. science and 
technology enterprise includes a strong story line of 
immigration. That's why it's worrisome that immigration by 
scientists and engineers has become more challenging, more 
uncertain, and more opaque, such that it's hurting our ability 
to compete.
    U.S. science and technology have delivered discoveries that 
have enhanced the lives of everybody. Many of these discoveries 
resulted from the contributions of immigrants and non-
immigrants who were inspired to contribute to our enterprise. 
According to the National Science Foundation, more than 50 
percent of postdoctoral researchers and 28 percent of science 
and engineering faculty in the U.S. are immigrants. Thirty-
eight percent of the scientific Nobel Prizes that have been 
awarded to Americans since 2000 were awarded to immigrants.
    Since World War II, the U.S. innovation system has been a 
partnership among government, academia, and industry, all to 
harness science and engineering. Scientific opportunity, 
funding, and human capital have been the key inputs that 
deliver technological advances and economic growth.
    Our global competitors understand the value of this 
ecosystem. They have seen that success and have paid it the 
absolute highest compliment: They're copying us.
    Since 2000, the American share of R&D has declined from 37 
percent to 25 percent. Now, China has accounted for nearly a 
third of the total growth in global R&D in that time, but they 
are not alone. Make absolutely no mistake, we are in a global 
competition. Even our friends like Canada and the United 
Kingdom and other nations are investing in that key ingredient: 
Human capital, people.
    Canada is committed to increasing skilled immigration and 
is increasingly drawing talent from the U.S. through its 
Express Entry program and an economic immigration process that 
targets high-skilled workers. The same holds for the U.K., 
where the roadmap for research and development includes visa 
and immigration reforms to create new paths for highly skilled 
scientists and researchers to study and work.
    We've got to rise to this global competition with our 
uniquely American vision and ambition.
    First, we've got to ensure that we're doing everything we 
can to develop our homegrown talent from every part of the 
United States--every race, gender, angeography.
    Second, we've got to attract the best talent from around 
the world. Students today have many more choices as nations 
actively court them. Our inefficient and Byzantine immigration 
laws and policies threaten this key ingredient to our 
innovation ecosystem.
    Our competitors do immigration policy as a comparative 
advantage. We've got to pay attention to that. I know that 
immigration policy is challenging, and that science and 
technology are just one part, but it is absolutely critical 
that our policies reflect the realities of the competitive 
world.
    We should think of this in the same way that Congress is 
now working on bipartisan, bicameral legislation to grow S&T 
investment. That's also to compete with China. The time has 
come to have immigration policy for scientists and engineers 
that matches the momentum of our investments.
    I look forward to discussing with you how we can ensure our 
human capital, our people, united by the scale of our uniquely 
American ambitions, and who are the descendants of Native 
Americans and Pilgrims and Founding Mothers and Fathers and 
enslaved peoples and Ellis Island arrivals and immigrants from 
everywhere, are able to energize the U.S. research enterprise 
and build a better future for everybody.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Parikh follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Last but certainly not least, Dr. Hira, we'd be pleased to 
hear from you.

                 TESTIMONY OF RONIL HIRA, PH.D.

    Mr. Hira. Thank you, Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member 
McClintock, for inviting me today.
    High-skilled immigration contributes significantly to the 
United States. High-skilled immigrants fill labor market gaps, 
advance research and development, become entrepreneurs, and add 
to the vibrancy of the Nation. Some even become Members of 
Congress.
    America is not fully benefiting from high-skilled 
immigration due to poor policy choices. The system exploits 
foreign workers, harming them as well as U.S. workers.
    The fundamental defect in our high-skilled immigration 
system is that it has become dominated by a rising number and 
an increasingly complex set of temporary guestworker programs 
instead of permanent immigration. The mismatch between 
guestworker and green card policies has placed a large and 
growing number of foreign workers in precarious guestworker 
status for many, many years.
    This hearing's title has the phrase ``top talent.'' 
Designing a system to attract top talent should do two things. 
First, it should set a high standard for admissions and, 
second, offer a fast path to permanent immigration.
    High standards ensure imported workers are indeed the very 
best and fill genuine skills gaps. After meeting those high 
standards, the admitted workers should be offered generous 
terms to stay, with a clear and speedy path to permanent 
residency. Top talent can meet high standards and will be 
attracted to this fast path to permanent residency.
    Our current system does just the opposite. It favors 
quantity over quality and places workers in long periods of 
indentured guestworker status.
    The front-end screening process for our high-skilled 
guestworker programs is weak or nonexistent. Rather than 
setting the bar high, government has set eligibility standards 
so low that most admitted guestworkers possess ordinary 
skills--skills that are already abundantly available from the 
U.S. labor supply. Once admitted, those guestworkers face a 
long and risky path to reach permanent residency.
    The H-1B and OPT programs illustrate these flaws. H-1B 
admission standards are very low. Employers can hire an H-1B 
worker without ever recruiting a single U.S. worker. Let me 
repeat this fact, since it is mistaken by most elected 
officials and the media: Employers hire H-1B workers even when 
there are abundant U.S. workers who can do the job, and it is 
not unusual for H-1B workers to replace U.S. workers.
    Further, H-1B workers can legally be paid lower wages than 
American workers. The Department of Labor sets wages so low 
that it estimates its rules over the next 10 years will take 
$156 billion from H-1B workers' pockets and transfer it to 
corporations. Again, that is $156 billion that are being taken 
from the H-1B workers' wages and being transferred to 
corporations, to the bottom line, to profits.
    Further, if the H-1B program is oversubscribed, USCIS 
allocates visas through a random lottery rather than by highest 
wages. Random selection rewards offshore-outsourcing firms 
while penalizing firms that are actually seeking top talent--
that is top talent. They are penalized.
    As a result, most H-1B workers are competing with, rather 
than complementing, the U.S. workforce. Their hiring adversely 
affects U.S. workers' wages and working conditions, discourages 
investments in workforce development, and undermines efforts to 
diversify the technology workforce.
    Let me briefly turn to the Optional Practical Training 
program, which is the fastest-growing guestworker program and 
deserves far more scrutiny than it's gotten.
    Remarkably, the OPT has no standards for admissions--not 
high standards; it has essentially no standards for admissions. 
Virtually anyone who attends any U.S. university is 
automatically eligible for OPT. With no labor market test or 
wage rules, OPT workers directly compete with recent college 
graduates. The OPT, especially the STEM extension, is an 
entitlement program divorced from any basis in labor shortages 
or any rationale in terms of education.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Hira follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Thanks to each one of the witnesses for their very 
interesting and useful testimony.
    We now have an opportunity for Members to ask questions for 
about 5 minutes. First, we will turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. 
McClintock, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    You are recognized, Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Hira, what do you say to people who claim that the U.S. 
is losing foreign-national talent to Canada?
    Mr. Hira. Well, I think it's a complicated comparison, and 
we've got to look at the data carefully.
    I think that doing comparisons in terms of policy with 
Canada and the U.S. is useful, but it's only useful to an 
extent, right? We have very different labor market institutions 
across Canada and the U.S. By the way, Canada sets the wages at 
the median wage, and it has a labor market test in place.
    So, when we make these comparisons, we should be learning 
from Canada, but learning the right kind of lessons from there. 
I think that's critical. I say that also in my testimony, that 
the details really do matter, in terms of--
    Mr. McClintock. Are you aware of companies sending their 
employees to Canada for 1 year and then transferring them to 
the U.S. on L-1 visas?
    Mr. Hira. Yeah. So, Microsoft--I think it was a Bloomberg 
report. Microsoft actually set up a facility in Vancouver, I 
believe, British Columbia. The reason was, it was as a weigh 
station for working around the H-1B cap by sending workers to 
Canada, and then, once they worked there for a year, they could 
bring them into the U.S. on an L-1.
    So, it was a way of sort of hacking the U.S. immigration 
system. So, it wasn't really losing workers to Canada; it was 
them working their way around on it.
    Mr. McClintock. So--
    Mr. Hira. Go ahead.
    Mr. McClintock. Whose wages and job prospects would you say 
are most negatively affected by an influx of foreign workers?
    Mr. Hira. Well, I'd say that U.S. workers--when you have 
this large influx of foreign workers, they're impacting--if you 
look at the type of worker that's coming in on an H-1B, they're 
mostly what is called Levels 1 and 2. So, these are entry-level 
and early career, based on the positions that are defined. 
These are folks that don't have a lot of skills. So, they're 
directly competing with workers at that entry level and early 
career.
    It's also adversely impacting the pipeline. So, students 
that are graduating, recent graduates who could fill or easily 
fill those jobs are being basically crowded out of the system--
    Mr. McClintock. So, these are not, by and large, world-
renowned biophysicists coming to the United States. The bulk of 
this program are entry-level positions. Is that generally 
correct?
    Mr. Hira. That's correct. The typical H-1B worker is paid 
way below market wages, has, you know, a bachelor's degree, and 
is being defined by employers as having fairly low, ordinary 
skills. They're also being paid way below market wages. That's 
the typical H-1B worker.
    Mr. McClintock. Could you elaborate a little bit on your 
concerns over the OPT program?
    I saw one statistic, that basically only about half of the 
U.S. graduates in the sciences and technology and engineering 
and mathematics--only about half of them that get degrees can 
find entry-level positions.
    Mr. Hira. Yeah. So, the OPT program, there's a lot of 
questions about whether it's really legal. It was just sort of 
created administratively through regulations. The rationale 
behind it was to fill labor shortages, but there's no test for 
a labor shortage.
    Secondly, there's no real good definition of STEM. So, 
what's happened is, lots and lots of degrees that nobody would 
ever credibly call STEM are counted in. So, almost every major 
MBA program, Master's in Business Administration program, is 
now STEM-eligible. There's drama, classics. Even a lot of 
journalist positions are now categorized as STEM in it and are 
benefits of that.
    It's really an entitlement program. It has no real basis in 
terms of what the true labor market needs are of the U.S., and 
so they're competing directly. There are no wage rules at all 
involved, so you can be paid zero wages on OPT. Plus, you, of 
course, have got the payroll tax that's a 15-percent discount 
immediately.
    Mr. McClintock. Right.
    Is there a shortage of genuine STEM workers in the United 
States?
    Mr. Hira. No, there's no indication of a genuine shortage. 
We would see wages rising very fast. You'd see signing bonuses.
    There are ways to measure this. I know people talked about 
the unemployment rates, but they're really misinterpreting the 
unemployment rates. A 2.2 percent unemployment rate is not low 
in IT and computer occupations unless you think a 1 percent 
unemployment rate, that we have a shortage of lawyers. Right? 
There are different unemployment rates based on the 
occupations. So, they're making really misleading comparisons 
in terms of looking at those unemployment rates.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Hira. So, there's no indication. Plus, I'd say that 
there's widespread discrimination in the technology sector. 
There's underrepresentation of minorities, and there's gender 
issues. Then there's, of course, well-known, sort of, open-
secret age discrimination that goes on. If there was a 
shortage, none of that would've happened.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I'm sorry, but my time's 
expired.
    Mr. Hira. Thanks.
    Mr. McClintock. Madam Chair, I would like to make a 
unanimous consent request to enter several statements into the 
record: A statement by Robert Harrison, an American IT worker 
who was displaced by an H-1B worker in 2016 when the University 
of California at San Francisco Medical Center replaced him and 
his coworkers with a staffing company that was made up of 
mostly
H-1B workers. A statement from Matthew J. Culver, a former 
Carnival Corporation employee whose employment was terminated 
after he raised concerns that the IT department in which he 
worked was to be outsourced to foreign workers. A statement 
from Mike Emmons, whose entire department was replaced by 
Indian nationals in the U.S. on H-1B and L-1 visas. He was 
forced to train his replacements. A statement by Vivian Swang 
(ph), an IT worker who was twice laid off and replaced by H-1B 
workers and has had her wages lowered based on a low-wage 
competition by the H1-B workers. A statement by John Deal (ph), 
a software designer and engineer who was let go by NCS Pearson 
after being forced to train the H-1B worker who replaced him. 
Several other statements by U.S. citizens who are IT workers 
who've been victimized on the employment and/or wage level by 
their employers' use of cheap foreign H-1B labor.
    I'd like to ask consent to enter all those statements into 
the record.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, those statements will be 
made part of the record.
    [The statements follow:]

   
                     MR. McCLINTOCK FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. I would now turn to the Chair of our Full 
Committee, Chair Nadler, for any questions that he may have.
    Chair Nadler. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Anderson, we heard a lot from you and Ms. Young about 
how Canada has adapted its immigration laws to attract top 
talent.
    Can you describe what Canada specifically has done, 
compared to the United States, to make it much easier for 
international students to stay in Canada after they graduate?
    Mr. Anderson. Well, what they've done, most importantly, is 
have an easy path. You would get a postgraduate visa as an 
international student. The employer wouldn't have to go through 
any labor market test or any prevailing-wage requirements. 
Generally, within a year or so, you'd be able to apply through 
the permanent residence system, point system in Canada, and an 
international student would be able to get permanent residence.
    Then compared to the U.S., where you have Optional 
Practical Training as an option, which was widely 
misrepresented recently, in that there's no evidence--Madeline 
Zavodny, an economist, for example, did a study that showed 
there's no evidence U.S. workers are harmed by Optional 
Practical Training.
    Then you'd hope to get an H-1B. Again, we already have very 
restrictive system. Over 70 percent of H-1Bs are denied. We 
have a system now where people wait potentially decades for 
green cards. There's over 1.2 million open job vacancies in 
computer occupations, yet we still hear people say that no one 
can get a job because of H-1B visas.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Dr. Parikh, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
show that STEM Ph.D. recipients have the lowest unemployment 
and highest salaries among individuals with other levels of 
educational attainment. STEM Ph.D.s had a pre-COVID 
unemployment rate of 1.1 percent and a median annual salary of 
approximately $100,000.
    What does this data suggest about the ability of our 
economy to accommodate more foreign nationals with STEM Ph.D.s?
    Mr. Parikh. I'm not an economist, but what I can tell you 
is that we are investing more in the sciences in research and 
development. The Congress, in a bipartisan, bicameral way, is 
expanding research and development in the United States. That's 
an extraordinarily good thing.
    We have a workforce that is stretched to the limit. We've 
got to both have homegrown talent and we've got to have talent 
that comes from around the world. We are at crossroads of that 
talent.
    Because of that expansion of research and development, 
there are opportunities, and, frankly, we need the best from 
all over the world to actually create the technologies and the 
discoveries that are going to drive our economy for the next 20 
years.
    Chair Nadler. So, what impact do you think increasing the 
number of foreign nationals in this field have on U.S. workers?
    Mr. Parikh. In Ph.D.s, we have a tremendous amount already, 
and we need that talent from around the world.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Young, in your written testimony, you said something 
that really struck me. You said, the issue of our outdated 
immigration system is not an immigration problem; it's a 
workforce problem. Can you explain what you mean by that?
    Ms. Young. Yes. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    We're educating a number of individuals in this country and 
sending them abroad. For example, we only have 65,000 computer 
science Bachelor of Science degrees conferred annually out of 
the United States universities: 250,000 4-year degrees in all 
engineering fields annually.
    The Department of Commerce believes that, by 2025, there 
will be a need for 1.3 million--there will be a net new job 
growth of 1.3 million people. We don't produce enough in the 
United States to fill those very particular roles in the 
computer sciences. So, we have to do something about that, 
whether we get them--we're going to have to get them from 
outside of the country.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    Mr. Jordan is now recognized for his round of questioning.
    Is Mr. Jordan--I don't see him here? Maybe we will call on 
Mr. Jordan when he returns.
    Let's go to Mr. Biggs.
    You need to unmute.
    Mr. Biggs. Yeah. There you go.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Once again, we're having an Immigration Subcommittee 
hearing that's not focusing on the crisis on the southern 
border. I know that my colleagues hope that, if they do not 
talk about President Biden's inhumane border crisis, the 
American people will forget that it is happening and that the 
Biden Administration policies that created the crisis are 
ongoing.
    I know that the Full Committee Ranking Member and the 
Subcommittee Ranking Member have sent at least three letters 
requesting a hearing on this topic. I join myself to those 
requests.
    I think we need to have a hearing where Secretary Mayorkas 
will come in and answer questions from him. I'd like to hear 
what he has to say. He's already testified before the House 
Homeland Security Committee, the House Appropriations 
Committee, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. I don't think 
it's too much to ask, for this Committee to also have Secretary 
Mayorkas testify about the failed policies that he is 
initiating.
    Dr. Hira, thank you for being here today.
    Are you familiar with Executive Order 13940, entitled 
``Aligning Federal Contracting and Hiring Practices With the 
Interests of American Workers''?
    Mr. Hira. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Biggs. Why was that Executive Order issued?
    Mr. Hira. Well, it was a case of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority forcing their U.S. workers to train foreign 
replacements as a condition of severance, as well as to 
offshore the work abroad to cheaper labor overseas.
    Because the TVA workers protested and were able to speak, I 
think in part because they were unionized--which, most IT 
workers are not unionized and are actually muzzled through 
nondisclosure agreements, nondisparagement agreements that they 
have to sign--it caught the attention of lawmakers from both 
parties.
    Mr. Biggs. So, private companies do this all the time; TVA 
is not alone. In recent years, there have been many high-
profile examples of companies firing American workers and 
replacing them with foreign labor. For example, AT&T, Disney, 
Southern Cal Edison, and many other companies have all 
reportedly engaged in this behavior. I'm sure that there are 
many more instances that we never even hear about.
    Unfortunately, in many of these instances, these companies 
are not violating Federal immigration law.
    How often are American workers replaced with foreign 
workers, Dr. Hira?
    Mr. Hira. We simply don't know the actual number. As you 
point out, that there have been so many reports, I mean, dozens 
and dozens of reports of hundreds or thousands in each case of 
replacements going on. That's a tip of the iceberg of what's 
happened to the sector. So--
    Mr. Biggs. Is this because the foreign workers are more 
qualified than the Americans they're replacing?
    Mr. Hira. All the evidence indicates that they're less 
qualified. In fact, they need to be trained by the Americans 
that they are replacing, so the Americans clearly have more 
skills.
    Mr. Biggs. So, what is the motivator to replace American 
workers with foreign workers?
    Mr. Hira. Because it's more profitable. So, the companies 
that are bringing in the H-1B worker can bring them in at much 
lower wages. The H-1B worker has far fewer rights. They're 
captive to the employer. So, they can pay lower wages and give 
them worse working conditions than American workers.
    Mr. Biggs. So, we've got this issue ongoing. What is your 
recommendation for a solution to this issue?
    Mr. Hira. I think the solution is to raise standards. You 
raise wages significantly. The Trump Administration, the 
previous Administration, had introduced a Rule--the Department 
of Labor introduced a Rule to raise the wages. I think that 
makes a lot of sense.
    There are a number of other rules that Department of Labor 
has moved away from. The wage Rule is still on the table and 
has been delayed, but if they implemented that it will go a 
long way to taking away the wage--the profit incentive of 
hiring the cheaper
H-1B worker.
    Mr. Biggs. So, what is preventing USCIS from implementing 
the rule?
    Mr. Hira. There isn't anything that's preventing either DOL 
or USCIS from implementing any of these rules. They've chosen 
not to.
    Mr. Biggs. Have they issued any kind of public statement 
rationale for why they have just made this policy decision?
    Mr. Hira. They have not publicly stated why they've 
rescinded rules. There are about four or five rules that we can 
get into the details maybe after the hearing, but they have not 
given any public statement for why.
    Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, I realize that my time is about 
done. I've had my staff submit a packet to you or a list of 
information, a packet, that I would like to be made part of the 
record. There are literally--I think there are 16 articles 
dealing with this issue of different companies replacing 
American workers with foreign workers under this program. So, 
I'd like to have them submitted into the record. We'll get you 
the exact--they should be giving you the packet. They should've 
already given you the names.
    Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs.
    [The information follows:]

   
                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Next, we have--I believe it's Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for 
holding this very important hearing.
    I want to thank all our Witnesses for being with us today. 
Hearing your testimony today reminds us, all of us, that we, 
America, are a land of immigrants.
    Ms. Young, if I can start out with you, about a year ago, I 
got a call from a lobbyist, a poultry industry lobbyist, 
calling me for help. He was telling me that in Mississippi 
there was a roundup of 600 undocumented workers in the poultry 
business that essentially had brought to a standstill the local 
economy.
    He told me, he said: ``Look, it's not a matter of wages. 
All the workers are Members of the United Food and Commercial 
Workers Union. We pay them enough. The question is, where do 
you get the workers?'' The locals don't want those jobs. Only--
in his words, ``only refugees are interested in doing those 
jobs.''
    You, in your testimony, said it's not an immigration 
problem; it's a workforce problem. Skilled or unskilled, do we 
have a need for workers in this country?
    Ms. Young. Thank you, Congressman.
    We do have a need. I'm actually sitting in one of our 
Members' offices right now who cannot find software engineers. 
I'm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It's one of the smaller 
markets for this type of thing, and, you know, five new 
software engineers with them would mean ridiculous amounts of 
growth.
    Mr. Correa. How long does it take to train a software 
engineer?
    Ms. Young. Four-year college degree from a top college. So, 
this is not a 2-week program, it's not a 2-year degree. This is 
a 4-year, top-skill college for software engineers typically 
have a job-multiplier effect of seven. So, they create seven 
jobs for everyone that they bring.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you.
    Dr. Parikh, if I may turn to you, sir, I want to bring this 
down to terms that affect Main Street, my neighbors. Twenty-
five percent of all California doctors are foreign-born. Do we 
have a shortage of medical doctors, of nurses in California, 
the United States today?
    Mr. Parikh. In California, I don't know. There are 
definitely shortages of doctors in different parts of the 
country, specifically rural areas of the country. We've always 
had programs ongoing for many years to bring talent into those 
areas, and they have worked sporadically, but--
    Mr. Correa. Our U.S. medical schools training enough 
medical doctors, are our nursing schools training enough nurses 
to take care of our great aging population, like yours truly?
    Mr. Parikh. We need more doctors and more clinicians and 
more nurses. Particularly, the area that I know well is 
research and development. We don't have the talent to do that 
research to create the medicines for those patients.
    Mr. Correa. My wife's a doctor. It took her 20 years to 
become a doctor. Are we ready, prepared to take care of those 
healthcare professionals, that shortage of healthcare 
professionals?
    Mr. Parikh. We have to think about that now to prepare for 
the future.
    Mr. Correa. Let me ask you, sir, a follow-up question. That 
great American, Albert Einstein, he was born in New York?
    Mr. Parikh. No, he was not. No, he was not.
    Mr. Correa. Do you think he would immigrate to the United 
States today?
    Mr. Parikh. It would be very--it becomes challenging, 
because there's uncertainty. He may come here and get his 
Ph.D., but then he would have to get into a temporary visa to 
stay once he graduated with his Ph.D.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you.
    Mr. Hira, you said raising the standards is part of the 
solution. So, you would support a $15 minimum wage in this 
country?
    Mr. Hira. Well, I think we're talking about high-skilled 
immigration, and that's my expertise, is on that labor market.
    Mr. Correa. Let me ask you--
    Mr. Hira. More generally, as an analyst, yes.
    Mr. Correa. You would support a minimum wage of $15? Thank 
you.
    I would ask--you mentioned former President Trump, the work 
he did. I would ask you, did President Trump hire foreign 
workers at his resort?
    Mr. Hira. I really don't know. My understanding from news 
articles is that there were some H-2Bs that were hired at his 
resort.
    Mr. Correa. All what he would've been able to do or 
could've done was just pay them more and he wouldn't have hired 
those foreign workers?
    Mr. Hira. I think that's true.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Tiffany is now recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Hira, I was a little bit surprised--I've just been in 
Congress a little over a year here, and I heard from a number 
of constituents on the campaign trail last year; they said that 
it is not a myth that Americans are being replaced in tech 
jobs. I was rather surprised to hear that. I heard it a number 
of times. I have a district that borders the Twin Cities, 
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
    So, that's not a myth. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hira. That is correct. It's quite common.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the OPT program, do you know specifically 
if UW-Madison, one of the premier research universities here in 
the United States, are they involved with the OPT program?
    Mr. Hira. I don't know off-hand, but almost every 
university is.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay.
    So, I find it really interesting here that we're very 
concerned about lack of people being able to get to work--I 
hear about the poultry workers down in Mississippi--yet here is 
our Federal Government--and this is something that's not being 
talked about on this panel today--that has the enhanced 
unemployment program which runs through September. We're going 
to see many people in the Congress that are going to say, we 
have to extend that enhancement unemployment program.
    We are incentivizing people in America not to work, and 
then we're coming back on the other side here and saying, hey, 
we've got to have more people that come from foreign countries.
    This is where the average person in America sees a real 
disconnect. They don't understand that, when you have these 
programs that encourage people not to work via enhanced 
unemployment--and then they're being told, we've got to have a 
lot more people from foreign countries.
    Then they find out from people like Mr. Hira that these 
people are not paid very highly, that they're actually quite 
low on that prevailing-wage scale.
    So, I understand the advocates of wanting more of these H-
1B programs and the other programs that bring in highly skilled 
people, or are supposed to bring in highly skilled people. What 
is happening with immigration now--and Representative Biggs 
touched on this--is jeopardizing the discussion on this. 
Because the American people, they view this as one big pot as 
an issue, one issue, overarching issue, and that's immigration.
    When they see what's happening on our southern border--
which, I've been down there 12 times this year, as well as I've 
been to Panama to see where the pipeline starts from Southern 
America delivering people to the Rio Grande Valley to be flown 
into the United States, where every State is now a border 
State--these people just go, what in the world is going on 
here?
    Having this uncontrolled immigration--and I've got to tell 
you, when we see what's happening in Haiti, in Cuba right now, 
where those people want freedom, and people are scared to death 
that we're going to see another mass migration that's not going 
to use the Rio Grande Valley but now may include our southern 
border of Florida with those Caribbean nations, they're deeply 
concerned about how this is going to simply become even more 
uncontrolled.
    It just really highlights how disastrous our immigration 
system is. We really need reform from top to bottom to get a 
reasoned immigration system.
    I would just say to all of you, I understand you're very 
sincere about wanting to have more of these high-skilled 
people, who are supposed to be high-skilled people, in. You're 
not going to get them if we continue to see uncontrolled 
immigration into our country. People are deeply concerned about 
it. It is a major issue.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Garcia--I don't know if she is still with us? Her 
camera is not on.
    If not, we will go to Ms. Jackson Lee, in the hopes that 
Ms. Garcia will join us.
    Ms. Jackson Lee, you are recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses that we have.
    I think it's important that we understand the value of how 
this country was built, actually. In the years that I have 
served on this Committee, we are constantly attempting to find 
ways to ensure we have a fair and humane immigration system. I 
remember, when I first came, it was the Filipino community that 
literally aged out awaiting to access legal immigration, and it 
was the Irish that were filled up in our Committee room, 
wearing their green shirts, begging for relief. Then, it was 
the Polish that were in our Committee begging for relief. That 
would be individuals whose family Members were here. So, we 
obviously need to find a way to address this question.
    Then we've allowed ourselves to not have the kind of system 
that would be fair to DACA recipients that I met during 
Hurricane Harvey as EMS workers, certainly during the pandemic 
as workers who were on the front lines--nurses, doctors, EMS 
lifesavers.
    So, it is important that we try to handle this in a way 
that not only looks to what Canada has done--and I do think 
it's an economic engine.
    Madam Chair, you are well aware that I've also made the 
point that we must have a compatible system alongside of the 
communities that are already here. African Americans, in 
particular, need not think of immigration as a threat. It has 
often been used to form a wedge between immigrant communities 
and the African-American community. I think, with the policies 
that President Biden is putting in place--the American Rescue 
Plan, the American Jobs Plan, the American Family Plan, 
investment in climate change--that really have an amazing 
opportunity for all the talent that we have here.
    So, I'd like to pose questions to our Witnesses. I would 
like to--particularly Dr. Parikh of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science.
    I think you are particularly unique. First, you told your 
immigrant story. I think you understand that we are also 
wanting to diversify our science community with Hispanics, 
African Americans, and Asians, different age groups, poor 
people who could rise up and use science. When I say that, I'm 
talking about children coming out of urban and rural schools. 
There's a lot of diversity that we can access.
    Tell me how important it is, and what kind of job 
generators can scientists be, and how helpful it is to find our 
immigrant community to infuse itself into our schools of higher 
learning, into our urban schools and rural areas. Maybe they 
can bring science in a way that all of America benefits from 
it.
    Doctor?
    Mr. Parikh. Thank you, Congressperson.
    It is extraordinary, watching the knowledge flow from our 
faculty at our institutions of higher learning--28 percent of 
that STEM faculty is immigrants--in rural communities, urban 
universities, and universities across this Nation.
    So, when we talk about the fact that our first goal needs 
to be to harness the intellectual capital and the human capital 
here in the United States. We've got to have our scientists 
coming from Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta. We've got to 
have our scientists coming from California, New York, and 
Texas.
    That's not enough. We are at a crossroads for science and 
technology, and what that leads to is economic growth. When you 
talk about a company like Moderna--you heard the example from 
Mr. Anderson--there are thousands, literally thousands, of 
examples like that of companies and technologies that are 
created by diverse teams. We've got a strength of ours that 
nobody else in the world has. We cannot let that go away.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Anderson, let me quickly--my time is waning out. You, 
having been appointed by George Bush to serve as Executive 
Associate Commissioner--how have the gaps in our system gotten 
worse in the 20 years since you served in that role? When I say 
that, the immigration system dealing with high-skilled workers.
    Always keep in mind that we want Americans to know that 
those high-skilled workers will not threaten them. Are they job 
creators? Are they engines of the economy that then spreads to 
our various communities?
    Thank you, Doctor, for your response.
    Mr. Anderson?
    Mr. Anderson. Well, back in 2001, there was a 195,000 limit 
on H-1B, and shortly after I left the Senate, the number 
dropped down to 65,000. Now we have over 71 percent of H-1 
visas are denied because of low numerical limits.
    Our employment-based green card problem was just starting 
to be a big problem then. Senator Abraham and I at the staff 
level and others and Senator Kennedy supported getting rid of 
the per-country limit, but the House Immigration Chair at the 
time opposed that. As a result, we have wait times of 
potentially 200 years for some people.
    So, all the problems have gotten worse. Unfortunately, if 
we adopt some of the policies that were recommended earlier by 
some individuals, we would end up driving more work and more 
innovation to Canada and other places.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That creates work for Americans when we 
have innovation and ideas here in the United States.
    Mr. Anderson. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    I was saying that to Mr. Anderson, but he didn't hear me.
    Mr. Anderson. Yes. I agree.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
    Mr. Anderson. We've done research that showed that over 
half of the billion-dollar startup companies in America had at 
least one immigrant founder. Moderna, as was mentioned, was one 
of them.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I have more questions, but I see my 
time has waned, and I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize myself.
    I think this has been a very useful hearing. I think about 
which part of the elephant are we looking at?
    I remember, when UCSF engaged in what I thought was 
misconduct, frankly, in dismissing their IT workers and having 
them train their replacements, we had a huge fight with the 
then-chancellor of the university system about that. Similarly, 
the situation at Southern California Edison and Disney, that's, 
in my judgment, abusive and not something that we should permit 
under our immigration system.
    On the other hand, I was just thinking about the Stanford 
grad who somehow got my email address. I mean, he got his B.S. 
in computer science and master's in computational biology. He 
is involved in a billion-dollar-investment tech company and 
paid $3 million in Federal and State taxes in the last 3 years. 
That's someone we probably want to keep here. Yet, he has been 
waiting now for 9 years to get his residence and is finally 
giving up and going to Canada.
    So, the question is, how do we structure our system so that 
it best serves America's needs? That's really the bottom line. 
We have family issues on the family immigration side, but on 
the business immigration side it's only what is good for 
America that ought to be driving our inquiries.
    It was interesting to listen to you, Dr. Hira, because much 
of what you have said is things that I've tried to address in 
the past. For example, I had bills in prior Congresses to 
actually eliminate Level 1 in the H-1B program and, when the 
cap is reached, to allocate based on wages, with highest wage 
first so that we would be driving it towards excellence.
    I will say that some of the pushback I received from some 
sectors indicated--and I think it was credible--that there are 
new entrants with their Ph.D.s or postdocs who are also foreign 
students who are in the same situation as American students. 
So, there needs to be at least some understanding of that.
    The question is, how do we best serve the United States? It 
seems to me that our current system almost drives the problems 
that we are concerned about. If you have someone who has no--
they're frozen at a wage once their permanent residence visa 
application is approved, and if they've got to wait for many, 
many years, they can't get an increase in salary that they 
ordinarily would get through professional growth, because then 
they'd have to redo their application. So, you end up with 
foreign-born employees being paid less as a function of the 
system itself. We should fix that; it seems to me.
    All the things that we are concerned about can be fixed by 
us by addressing these issues. That's why I wanted to have this 
hearing today, to see, is there an incentive to do so?
    So, I guess let me just ask you, Dr. Parikh, can you give 
us an example of how the current system has specifically 
stymied scientific innovation in the U.S.?
    Mr. Parikh. Absolutely. I think one thing that's on all our 
minds is artificial intelligence. This is a critical area. 
We've heard statements like, ``Whoever leads in artificial 
intelligence will lead in the next century.''
    According to a report from the Georgetown Center for 
Security and Emerging Technology, the demand for artificial-
intelligence talent has greatly exceeded our domestic supply. 
We see this in the sciences, so not just in industry but also 
in academia. Having the best folks in machine learning and 
artificial intelligence is really hard to get. You can take as 
many as we can produce. That's leading to a large share of 
foreign-born AI students and workers and entrepreneurs in the 
U.S.
    However, because when you come here and you get your Ph.D. 
here there's no certainty as to how you get to that permanent 
residence, and so what ends up happening is they go into the 
same H-1B program that we're talking about for other issues. 
So, you mix and match this highly qualified AI graduate with 
the other types of workers that we've been talking about in 
this hearing.
    It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense as a 
system. It doesn't make sense to us in terms of the comparative 
advantage we'd like to have with other nations. It doesn't make 
sense to that student, who is wanting to be in America, but 
then chooses to go somewhere else because there's no certainty 
for their family.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, and I would add also, I mean, a quarter 
of the physicians in the United States were here--most of them 
are on H-1B visas, and many of them are in backlogs. So, yes, 
we are concerned always about American employees, but if we had 
enough brain surgeons we wouldn't be having a quarter of our 
doctors coming, wanting to be Americans with us.
    Just a final question, because my time is running out, for 
Mr. Anderson.
    It's good to see you again.
    Mr. Anderson. Good to see you.
    Ms. Lofgren. I first met you when you worked for the 
Republicans in the Senate.
    Talk to me--we don't have a startup visa in the United 
States. How would that make us more competitive?
    Mr. Anderson. A startup visa would be great addition to the 
U.S. immigration system. I looked at, along with the Kauffman 
Foundation, had looked at an earlier version of your startup 
visa bill, and we found that you were looking at anywhere 
between
1-3 million more jobs would be created over the course of a 
decade with a startup visa.
    I remember talking to Jyoti Bansal, who waited 7 years, 
sitting on this great idea to start a company, because we were 
in H-1B status. When he finally got his green card, he was able 
to start AppDynamics, and he created over 1,000 jobs, and the 
company became worth over $4 billion.
    So, while we celebrate immigrant entrepreneurs and their 
stories, like Stripe and Zoom, what we find is that those 
individuals overcame the immigration system, rather than had a 
way to use the immigration system in a positive way, such as 
through a startup visa.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    My time has expired, so I would like to ask unanimous 
consent that the following statements be included in the 
record: From the American Immigration Council; Church World 
Service; the Department for Professional Employees of AFL-CIO; 
Mr. Kaushik and Mr. Watney, ``Attracting (and Keeping) the Best 
and Brightest''; from the McEntee Law Group; KgC Tech Council; 
National Venture Capital Association; the President's Alliance 
on Higher Education and Immigration; the Matten Law Firm; ; and 
Tahmina Watson from Watson Immigration Law; FWD.us; a statement 
from Engine.
    I would also like to include an article, just published 
today, from Axios that shows that the tech economy, tech 
talent, between 2015 and 2020, grew in San Francisco, the Bay 
Area, 16.4 percent, but 42.8 percent in Toronto, 31.4 percent 
in Montreal, 53.3 percent in Edmonton. We've got talent fleeing 
the U.S. to Canada, to our economic detriment.
    So, without objection, those articles and statements will 
be made part of the record.
    [The information follows:],

                      MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. We will note that all Members will have 5 
legislative days to include additional material into the 
record.
    Panel, we may have additional questions for you. If we send 
them to you, we would appreciate it so much if you're able to 
answer them for us. We'll keep the record open for that 
purpose. Seeing that we no longer have either Mr. Jordan or Ms. 
Garcia with us to ask their questions, all our questions have 
been asked. We appreciate your service.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

   
                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]