[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1857-H1860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                 ARTS REQUIRE TIMELY SERVICE (ARTS) ACT

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1312) to expedite adjudication of employer petitions for 
aliens of extraordinary artistic ability, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1312

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arts Require Timely Service 
     (ARTS) Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYER PETITIONS FOR 
                   ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY ARTISTIC ABILITY.

       Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)(D)--
       (A) by striking ``(D) Any'' and inserting ``(D)(i) Any'';
       (B) by striking ``Once the'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in clause (ii), once the''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjudicate 
     each petition for an alien with extraordinary ability in the 
     arts (as described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i)), an alien 
     accompanying such an alien (as described in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(O)), or an alien described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(P) (other than an alien described in 
     section 214(c)(4)(A) (relating to athletes)) not later than 
     30 days after--
       ``(I) the date on which the petitioner submits the petition 
     with a written advisory opinion, letter of no objection, or 
     request for a waiver; or
       ``(II) the date on which the 15-day period described in 
     clause (i) has expired, if the petitioner has had an 
     opportunity, as appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence.
       ``(iii) If a petition described in clause (ii) is not 
     adjudicated before the end of the 30-day period described in 
     clause (ii) and the petitioner is an arts organization 
     described in paragraph (3), (5), or (6) of section 501(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code for the taxable year preceding 
     the calendar year in which the petition is submitted, or an 
     individual or entity petitioning primarily on behalf of such 
     an organization, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide the petitioner with the premium-processing services 
     referred to in section 286(u), without a fee.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, H.R. 1312 is a bipartisan measure 
intended to address the extended delays in visa processing faced by 
nonprofit arts organizations when they invite foreign artists to 
perform in the United States.
  Hosting a performance by a foreign artist or arts group requires, 
obviously, a great deal of planning. And the host organization has to 
calendar the event, advertise it, and sell tickets far in advance. And 
these efforts are made with the expectation that the visa petitions 
filed by the guest performers will be adjudicated in time for their 
arrival in the United States. If their adjudication is delayed, it 
causes a tremendous disruption and has led some arts organizations in 
the world to stop engaging foreign artists altogether because they 
can't risk the expensive canceling of performers.
  Performances by foreign artists give American audiences the 
opportunity to experience a variety of arts traditions. And when 
they're called off, it's not just the host organization and the 
audience that bears the cost, the cancelled show impacts the local 
economy as well.
  Current law requires the Department of Homeland Security to process 
petitions for O and P visas within 2 weeks of receipt of a completed 
petition. And the Department has implemented a premium 15-day 
processing for a $1,000 fee, but when a visa is required to be 
processed in 14 days, it seems particularly unreasonable to ask a 
nonprofit entity to pay $1,000 for a 15-day service. So, what we do in 
this measure is strike a balance by giving the Department 30 days, more 
than twice the current processing time, and if the visa is not 
processed in 30 days and the petitioner is a nonprofit organization, 
the bill requires the Department to provide premium processing for no 
additional fee.
  I'm happy to say that my colleagues, the former Judiciary Committee 
Chair, James Sensenbrenner, and the current ranking member, Lamar Smith 
of Texas, have tried and worked with us to arrive at a solution similar 
to the one laid out in this bill.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his 
generous comments a while ago, and I certainly appreciated working with 
him on this bill as well.
  Performing arts organizations use O and P visas to bring many 
talented foreign artists to our country to perform

[[Page H1858]]

before American audiences. Despite the fact that the Immigration 
Nationality Act provides that the Department of Homeland Security shall 
adjudicate O and P visas within 14 days, adjudication of up to 180 days 
has been reported. These long delays create the risk that performances 
involving international artists must be cancelled, creating high 
economic risks to arts institutions and the local economies they 
support.
  Henry Fogel, President of the American Symphony Orchestra League, has 
stated that, ``nonprofit arts organizations confront long waits and 
uncertainty in gaining approval for visa petitions for foreign guest 
artists. This degree of uncertainty can prove too risky for many 
performing arts organizations and is having a direct impact on their 
ability to present foreign guest artists. Orchestras must sell tickets 
in advance, creating a financial obligation to their audiences. 
Performances are date, time and location specific, and the nature of 
scheduling, booking and confirming highly sought after guest soloists 
and performing groups requires that the timing of the visa process be 
efficient and reliable.''
  The INA does provide that the Department of Homeland Security can 
charge a fee of $1,000 to provide premium processing for employment-
based visa petitions, adjudication within 15 days. However, many 
nonprofit arts organizations cannot afford to pay this extra amount 
either because they are a small, cash-strapped institution, or because 
they sponsor many foreign artists over a year's time. The Arts Required 
Timely Service, ARTS, Act provides that if a nonprofit organization's 
petition for an O visa or for a P visa is not adjudicated within 30 
days, it will receive premium processing free of charge.
  I support this bill. And I want to thank the chairman and Mr. Berman 
for their bipartisan amendment in committee that clarified that only 
arts organizations that are qualified as tax exempt under 501(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code can receive the fee waiver, and that 
organizations petitioning for athletes do not qualify for this waiver.
  Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa and the ranking member of the 
Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, offered a number 
of amendments in the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill. For 
example, one provided that only small and nonprofit arts organizations 
should be eligible for the fee waiver. These amendments would have, in 
fact, improved the bill. Unfortunately, they were not adopted.
  On the whole, however, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, although there is great support for this 
bill, I have no other requests for time. And in full confidence and 
trust of the other side, I return the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the chairman that I 
will not take advantage of his yielding back the time. I do, however, 
yield 4 minutes to Mr. King, the gentleman from Iowa, the ranking 
member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and the chairman for his graciousness.
  I appreciate the privilege to address this issue under these 
circumstances. And I make no pledge about taking advantage of the 
situation, but I will stay with the attitude and the comity that the 
chairman demonstrates always, and that is that I come to the floor here 
to rise in opposition to this bill.
  First I want to explain that premium processing is in the event that 
the normal application for the visa isn't processed in time, then the 
performing arts organization, which is a 501(c) nonprofit organization, 
can then apply. If they want to pay $1,000 premium to turn that around 
quickly, they can do that today.
  So, I'm looking at this thing from the perspective of this is a fee-
based system that we have. We fund USCIS through fee-based, and we had 
hearings in the committee and we brought that forward and it's clear. 
So, it becomes a zero sum game. If you decide that you're going to 
provide a premium processing service for one organization, that means 
the burden of the cost of that gets distributed across all the other 
applicants.
  So, I'm stuck with this image of, let me just say the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art. I'm very convinced, and have not been there, that people 
arrive there in limousines wearing tuxedos and formal gowns, and at the 
same time, I know that they have a foundation that is quite 
significant. For example, assets of $2,424,000,000 in the foundation, 
an annual revenue stream of $326 million. Now, out of $326 million in 
annual revenue or $2.4 billion in the foundation, it seems to me that 
those kind of very wealthy, not-for-profit wealthy organizations could 
come up with the extra thousand dollars, particularly because people 
are arriving in tuxedos and getting out of limousines at the expense of 
the poor person who is in blue jeans and sneakers. And that's my 
argument here.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, Steve King, for yielding to me.
  In other words, you're recommending that we should have had a two-
tier system, because there are some aspiring jazz performers in Europe 
who want to come over, and they have considerably less than $2 billion 
in accumulated assets.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I would submit that the wealthy 
foundations have the revenue to be able to provide for the premium 
processing in the event that they didn't plan far enough ahead to get 
their application in on time. I would think those with the highest 
wealth should be the ones that have the most ability to plan ahead or 
to pay if they fail to plan ahead.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, it's so uncharacteristic of you to want to sock 
the rich and not just charge everybody the same amount.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman and I appreciate his remarks. 
And there is probably some basis for him to make that argument.
  Just to close this argument, I will argue first that I offered a 
series of amendments which Mr. Smith addressed, and I exempted those 
foundations with less than $1 million in annual revenues. Then I went 
up the line to $10 million and then $50 million. I was trying to find 
that place by which it would get to somebody's conscience on the 
Judiciary Committee or in this Congress that we should say, you have 
enough money to manage this yourself. We never found that plateau. I 
actually wrote one that would have been a googolplex, kind of an 
unlimited number, but I'm confident it would have been rejected as 
well.
  So, I would just submit that the one organization that I've singled 
out here, Metropolitan Museum of Art, would have revenue in the 5 
minutes we've discussed this to be able to pay for the premium 
processing of a single artist and accumulate in that hour about enough 
for 14 artists.
  So, I think we should have drawn the line at taking care of our small 
foundations, and for that reason I am opposing this bring. And I 
appreciate the sentiment that brings it to the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren) who, like Mr. King, is a member of the 
Immigration Subcommittee. He will be our last speaker.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the 
time, and I rise in support of this bill.
  I was with my 90-year-old mother on Sunday back in Sacramento. And I 
remember when my mom used to drag me and my six brothers and sisters 
off to the Long Beach Symphony Orchestra. And I remember when she 
worked with the leaders of the orchestra to bring other performers over 
to perform. It's not an easy thing when you have an organization like 
that. I know the gentleman from Iowa is talking about some of the more 
expensive organizations, but we're talking in this bill about all of 
these nonprofits being able to have the flexibility to bring foreign 
artists over here.
  Interestingly, the Congress, a number of years ago, asked the agency 
involved to have a flexible system which would allow them to make the 
request up to 1 year before. And what happened was the agency turned it 
around and

[[Page H1859]]

said well, you couldn't do it unless it was at least 6 months or a year 
before. So, it sort of defeated the very flexibility Members of 
Congress asked for to allow this to happen.
  We should understand that what we've been trying to do is get the 
agency to deal with these applications in a timely fashion. And the 
idea that you would get premium service is really kind of an 
interesting idea, to ask the government to do what it should do, but to 
do it on time we now charge you for it. Well, we do that in some 
circumstances because we do have difficulty with budgets, but here 
we're talking about only nonprofit art organizations.
  So many times on this floor, it seems to me, we do more than we 
should; we go out and we solve problems that aren't there. We often 
pass legislation in search of a problem. This is not that case. This is 
a problem that does exist. These organizations, the Alabama Symphony 
Organization, the Florida West Coast Symphony, the Fort Wayne 
Philharmonic, the Hubbard Street Dance in Chicago, the Louisville 
Orchestra, the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra, Opera of Cleveland, Paul 
Taylor Dance Company, Pittsburgh Opera, Sarasota Opera, Florida Grand 
Opera, I mean, you can go down and down and down, and you see this is 
all over the country, a request of community organizations that are not 
profit that are just asking for the flexibility to be able to bring 
foreign artists here, which also creates an environment for U.S. 
artists to go overseas. And I'm old enough to recall during the Cold 
War that was one of the things we thought was a good thing. In fact, if 
you think about it, the Soviets, that's one of the things they didn't 
want, they didn't want American artists over there and they didn't want 
their artists over here. Why? Because it really began to open the eyes 
of many people as to some of the greatness that we have and the freedom 
that we have and the artistic merit that exists in a country such as 
ours.
  So, I would just hope that we would support this bill. It should not 
be controversial. Hopefully, it will be a unanimous vote.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has 
explained the problem addressed by H.R. 1312. I just want to add a 
short history of the bipartisan work on this issue. I also want to 
express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers for moving the bill and to 
some of my colleagues who have been advocating for this solution for 
quite some time.
  For several years now, a bipartisan group of Members has been urging 
USCIS to find and administrative remedy for lengthy processing times 
experienced by arts organizations petitioning for O and P visas. In 
October 2003, I was joined by 15 Members in sending a letter to USCIS 
Director Aguirre encouraging him to implement a number of reforms in 
the processing of arts-related visas. At the time, arts organizations 
filing for O and P visas were in a real catch-22. They were not allowed 
to file visa petitions earlier than 6 months before a performance, but 
USCIS was routinely taking longer than 6 months to adjudicate the 
petitions.
  To their credit, USCIS did what they could to remedy the problem by 
regulation. But USCIS could not do administratively what we 
recommended, which was to create a consequence for failing to meet the 
required processing time for O and P petitions. That was the impetus 
for this bill.
  The only remedy available without the bill was to pay for premium 
processing. Telling a nonprofit arts organization to pay $1,000 for 
expedited process is in effect saying: ``You've paid $390 to file this 
petition that we're required by law to process in 14 days, but for an 
extra $1000, we might process in 15 days.'' That just doesn't make any 
sense.
  What we've done in this bill is create an incentive for timely 
processing.
  Solving this problem has been a joint effort. We have had the benefit 
of input from the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the 
cooperation of Ranking Member Lamar Smith, who worked with us to 
tighten the language of the bill at markup. I want to express my 
appreciation for the collaboration of my colleagues Mr. Lungren, Mr. 
Nadler, Mr. Chabot, our former colleague on the Judiciary Committee, 
Mrs. Blackburn, and the many other Members who joined in the efforts 
leading up to this legislation.
  International arts exchange is, in a sense, cultural diplomacy. Just 
a few weeks ago, the New York Philharmonic made a historic trip to 
Pyongyang. I understand that the 300-member delegation was the largest 
U.S. presence in North Korea since the end of the Korean war. The 
Philharmonic's musical director called the visit ``a gesture of 
friendship and goodwill from one people to another.'' These exchanges 
may not resolve the world's conflicts, but they create bonds that can 
pay substantial dividends in years to come.
  The ARTS Act is meant to encourage and facilitate these exchanges, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1312, the ``Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act,'' introduced 
by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Berman. 
This important legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to allow for the expedited adjudication of an employer petition for an 
alien of extraordinary artistic ability, an alien accompanying such 
alien, or an alien who is an athlete or entertainer.
  Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase President John F Kennedy, the true 
greatness of a nation can be measured by its accomplishments in the 
domain of the arts and culture. America has always benefited from the 
free flow of foreign artistic talent, some of which has served this 
country with great distinction, to mention but the late great cellist 
and Soviet dissident Mstislav ``Slava'' Rostropovich. Our immigration 
system is an important gateway for artists and musicians from abroad 
and as such it should serve the broader cultural goals of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, by inviting foreign artists to perform, arts 
organizations in the United States provide American audiences the 
opportunity to experience a variety of artistic talent and encourage a 
supportive climate for American artists to perform abroad. In the last 
several years, nonprofit arts organizations have confronted dramatic 
delays and uncertainties in the processing of visa petitions for 
foreign guest artists. These delays not only impact the immediate 
availability of foreign artists to perform alongside American artists, 
but also threaten to impede the ability of U.S. artists to perform 
abroad.
  When a nonprofit arts organization invites a foreign performer, or an 
entire symphony for that matter, the organization must calendar, 
advertise, and ticket performances far in advance, all on reliance that 
they will successfully petition for a visa for their guest performer. 
In the last several years, delays in processing have led many smaller 
arts organizations to stop engaging foreign artists altogether because 
they cannot risk the potential expense of canceling a performance as a 
result of slow visa processing. Those organizations that have 
persevered have seen increasingly frequent situations in which 
performances involving foreign guest artists must be cancelled because 
the U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services, USCIS, cannot process 
visa petitions within a 6-month period before the performance. This is 
an issue not only for the arts organizations bringing in a foreign 
artists, but also American artists who are slated to be part of these 
performances, as well as all of the support staff employed by the 
organizations as a result of a performance.
  Most nonprofit arts organizations cannot afford the current $1,000 
fee for premium processing, a program that was adopted primarily at the 
request of for-profit corporations. Yet, regular visa processing can 
now take up to 180 days--too long for arts organizations to 
accommodate. These delays in the visa process can harm nonprofit 
institutions and the local economies in which they exist.
  Since 2003, a bipartisan group of Members has urged USCIS to remedy 
this problem administratively. In October of that year, 16 members sent 
a letter to the USCIS Director encouraging him to implement a number of 
reforms including reducing processing for O and P petitions filed by or 
on behalf of nonprofit organizations to 30 days or automatically remove 
those petitions to premium processing at no additional fee. To date, 
these reforms have not been made administratively, and in discussions, 
USCIS has represented that they are not certain they could make such 
changes without legislative action.
  The ARTS Act would address visa processing delays facing nonprofit 
arts organizations by amending section 214(c) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to require USCIS to shift to premium processing without 
additional fees any O or P visa that is not processed within 30 days of 
filing a complete petition if the petitioner is or is filing on behalf 
of a qualified nonprofit organization.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not by accident that I wrote a letter on this 
subject to then USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre. This act exemplifies 
the bipartisan spirit in which we should approach this important matter 
so that our Nation could continue to shine in the cultural field as it 
shines in other domains.
  Mr Speaker, this legislation speaks directly to principles of 
cultural and intellectual exchange that our great Nation was founded 
upon. I am proud to support this legislation and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting H.R. 1312.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1312, the 
Arts Require Timely

[[Page H1860]]

Service Act, or the ARTS Act, and I thank Congressman Berman and 
Chairman Conyers for their leadership on this important issue.
  Under immigration law, foreign artists or groups must obtain a visa 
in order to perform in America. However, over the last few years, this 
process has been severely delayed, leading some nonprofits to stop 
planning events that include foreign artists altogether. These delays 
not only impact the immediate availability of foreign artists to 
perform alongside American artists, but also threaten to impede the 
ability of U.S. artists to perform abroad.
  The ARTS Act would address these delays by requiring the Government 
to expedite--without any additional fees--visas for foreign artists 
that are not processed within 30 days of filing, if the visa petition 
is filed on behalf of a qualified nonprofit organization.
  The ARTS Act will help end the delays and uncertainties in the 
processing of visa petitions for foreign guest artists coming to the 
United States.
  America is a great land of opportunity for artists, and in my 
district, this is particularly true. New York City prides itself as 
being an international center for the arts, yet the current system is 
failing it. It is becoming increasingly difficult for too many foreign 
artists to come to America to perform. Foreign artists bring to America 
their own unique artistic abilities, and every time they are 
essentially prevented from performing in America, we do a disservice to 
the arts and to ourselves.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1312, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________