[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.
____________________