[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 94 (Monday, June 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5060-H5063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
              EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM EXTENSION

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5569) to extend for 5 years the EB-5 
regional center pilot program, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5569

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amended by striking ``shall 
     set aside'' and all that follows through ``eligible for 
     admission'' and inserting ``shall set aside 3,000 visas 
     annually for 20 years to include such aliens as are eligible 
     for admission''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent 
     practicable, qualifying investments under section 610 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 
     note) should be made in targeted employment areas (as defined 
     in section 203(b)(5)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii))), including 
     rural areas (areas other than an area

[[Page H5061]]

     within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer 
     boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or 
     more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United 
     States)) and high unemployment areas (areas that have 
     experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the 
     national average rate).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Today, we move to extend an immigration program proven to promote 
investment and to create jobs for American workers. H.R. 5569 would 
extend the EB-5 regional center pilot program for 5 years. Unless 
Congress acts, the regional center pilot program will sunset on 
September 30 of this year.
  Congress created the fifth employment-based preference, known as EB-
5, immigrant visa category in 1990 for immigrant investors. To qualify 
for a green card, the investor must prove that the investment is in a 
commercial enterprise that will benefit the United States economy and 
create at least 10 full-time jobs.
  In general, investors must invest at least $1 million. However, that 
amount can be reduced to $500,000 if the investment is made in a rural 
or high unemployment area.
  Approximately 10,000 visas have been made available in the EB-5 green 
card category each year. But the category has been underutilized ever 
since it came into being.
  To help further encourage this program, Congress created a temporary 
pilot program in 1993. The regional center pilot program allocates 
3,000 visas each year, out of the 10,000 available, for EB-5 investors 
who invest in so-called designated regional centers.
  Under the immigrant investor pilot program, an applicant seeking EB-5 
status must make the qualifying investment within an approved regional 
center. The requirement to create at least 10 new jobs, however, can be 
met by showing that, as a result of the new enterprise, such jobs will 
be created either directly or indirectly.
  The regional center program is vital for our economy. For example, in 
fiscal year 2007, a total of 806 investors and family members 
immigrated to the United States in the EB-5 category.
  That is not very many people, but even at that level, the EB-5 
immigrant investor program is expected this year to generate an annual 
rate of $1 billion in aggregate immigrant investment, creating more 
than 20,000 new direct and indirect jobs. Usage of the program is 
expanding as new regional centers get approved.
  The regional center program helps get investment money to some of the 
Nation's poorest communities, creating jobs and revitalizing 
communities. In Vermont's poorest county, for example, a regional 
center investment has put $17.5 million into a ski resort at Jay Peak. 
This project is expected to create close to 2,000 jobs in the area, 
according to the New York Times.
  It is important that Congress reauthorize the EB-5 regional center 
program. The pilot program has been renewed several times, and is 
currently due to expire, as I said earlier, on September 30 of this 
year. This bill would extend the EB-5 regional center pilot program for 
5 years, until September 30, 2013.
  When the subcommittee reviewed this bill, we had a discussion about 
looking at the level of investment and also the possibility of 
including venture capital-driven investments, where it's really the 
patents and ideas that are creating the jobs. We hope to be able to 
work with the minority to further pursue those ideas at a subsequent 
date. It should not deter us from proceeding today with this program 
that has proven to be valuable to our Nation by creating jobs for 
Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the investor visa program is designed to attract 
entrepreneurial talent and capital to the United States and to create 
American jobs. Under this program, permanent resident visas are 
available each year to aliens who establish a new business in the 
United States and invest between $500,000 and $1 million in the 
business and eventually create at least 10 full-time jobs for American 
workers.
  Once the Department of Homeland Security approves an alien business 
plan, the alien receives conditional permanent residence status. Two 
years later, the Department of Homeland Security determines whether the 
above requirements have, in fact, been met. If they have, the alien 
receives permanent residence.
  To further encourage economic development, back in 1993, Congress 
created a temporary pilot program that set aside 3,000 investor visas 
each year for aliens who invested at least $500,000 in designated 
regional centers.
  A regional center is any economic unit, public or private, which is 
involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased 
export sales or improved regional productivity or job creation or 
increased domestic or capital investment.
  Further, a regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited 
geographical area which shall be described in the proposal and 
consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in 
defined economic zones.
  The establishment of a regional center may be based on jobs that will 
be created, directly or indirectly, as a result of such capital 
investments and the other positive economic effects such capital 
investments will have.
  I should acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that one of the operating pilot 
projects is the Iowa New Farm Family Project, under which host 
communities are inviting farm families to establish modern dairy farms 
in Iowa.
  And according to Iowa State University, which is our resident 
authority on the subject matter, ``The project has the potential to 
enrich Iowa communities with young families who establish value-added 
agricultural businesses . . . and foster healthy economic development . 
. . The . . . project,'' which is the Iowa New Farm Family Project, Mr. 
Speaker, ``creates opportunities to increase the population of rural 
communities, support agriculture, expand value-added agriculture, and 
maintain Iowa's existing dairy processing industry.'' That's as 
described by Iowa State University, the Iowa New Farm Family Project.
  I want to point out that it has been successful, and it's not just 
agriculture. It can be urban, too, depending on the region and the zone 
as it's defined. It has been quite helpful to us in Iowa, and I am 
grateful for the initiatives that have been taken by Members of this 
House, Members of the Senate who have not just reached out in support 
of this legislation but reached out to individuals and helped pave the 
way through the bureaucratic nightmare to get investors to come into 
the United States and establish themselves here, where often they will 
find their economic opportunities have been dried up because of, let's 
say, capital exchange or regulation.
  It happens to be the case with our dutch dairy families that come in, 
that the regulations have gotten so heavy in The Netherlands that they 
want to continue their skill, their family tradition.
  I note that the individual that stood at this particular microphone 
ahead of me was the gentleman from California who has a dairy tradition 
in his family, and you look back through generations. This establishes 
a generational linkage, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very grateful for, and it 
comes at a particularly good time, especially in the Midwest where we 
are a center for renewable energy.
  Some 6 or 7 years ago, we had almost no industry to produce ethanol, 
and yet it began back in about 1978 and it began in my neighborhood in 
my region. And as the first gallon of ethanol was pumped, it became 
part of an alternative fuel that had been initiated in the late 1970s, 
came to fruition about 6 or 7 years ago, and since the time I've come 
to Congress, it has built such an

[[Page H5062]]

industry in my region that we now, the Fifth District of Iowa, are the 
number one renewable energy producing congressional district in America 
out of all 435.
  Because we have the ethanol industry in Iowa, it has been very 
helpful to our dairy farmers because a byproduct of corn ethanol is the 
dried distiller strain, or the mash if it comes in a wet form. And the 
dairy farms have been able to utilize this, as well as anyone has, and 
it's added value to all of our feed. It's added value to our rough 
feed, and it's provided a high quality feed which makes it more 
attractive for our dairy producers to move into the region.
  So, the pressure that we're under today with $4 gas, and, by the way, 
I just happened to check a receipt here, and I paid $141 for a tank of 
gas, $141.52 on Saturday, Mr. Speaker. That's enough money to put into 
a gas tank, and that was at $3.85. The folks on the west coast that are 
over $4 a gallon feel this.
  But what we've done is created a renewable energy industry in the 
Midwest to help take on some of that burden of providing energy for 
America. And when we do that, and as of the 2007 crop it hasn't really 
brought forward the food versus fuel argument. We have produced more 
corn than ever before, exported more corn than ever before, and still 
left more corn for domestic consumption than ever before, and we have 
produced over 9 billion gallons of ethanol. And the byproduct of that 9 
billion, you get about a third of the weight of corn out into ethanol. 
You get a third of the weight of corn that goes into feed for these 
dairy cows, for example, and about a third of it goes off in 
CO2. That's the simple breakdown, which I'll go into more 
detail with perhaps a Special Order that I can get into the details, 
Mr. Speaker.
  But I want to point out that we need these dairy farmers in Iowa. The 
energy situation is actually a plus because $4 gas holds up the price 
of corn and holds up the price for ethanol and helps make these systems 
work, and they're feeding the byproduct in a fashion that's producing 
more milk in the Midwest. We are still today a net importer of milk in 
a rural State like Iowa. So we can use some more.
  But the regional center program expires in September. The bill will 
extend the program an additional 5 years. I think this is a very 
valuable program, and I support the passage of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that we will 
pass this bill. We have broad bipartisan support for it. But one of the 
values of debating these bills is not just to enact law but to let the 
public know of opportunities that the law provides to them.
  And it might be instructive to citizens who are observing our 
proceedings to know that these projects that are being investment-
driven through this program are in rural, as well as urban, 
communities. The regional center staff--actually, it seems to me this 
pilot project has proven--make this thing work.
  And so there are areas in the country today that are having economic 
problems. I would encourage those areas, through their local 
governments, to look very carefully at whether they may want to utilize 
this program as one piece of putting their economy on the road to 
recovery.
  I note that our colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee expressed her interest 
in making sure that urban disadvantaged areas be looked at, and I note 
that Houston, Texas, has actually one of the largest applications of 
all. It is expected that they will have 7,000 jobs and a $350 million 
investment.
  So this is a great opportunity for America. I would hope that we will 
pass this expeditiously. It is part of getting our economy on the move 
again.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point made by the gentlelady 
from California about this is, of course, not by any means a complete 
solution to the immigration circumstances, but we agree on some of 
these points, and on this point of attracting investors to the United 
States who will invest in businesses that create jobs and create 
wealth, more importantly create wealth. Without the creation of wealth, 
there's no money to pay the wages. Companies have to make money. It 
takes capital of course and it takes labor, it takes ideas, it takes 
energy, it takes a free market environment and a low regulatory 
environment. The United States looks better than some of these other 
countries in the world.
  This sends the right message here today that this Congress is 
interested in opening up and laying out the welcome mat, at least in 
this specific case, where we ask investors to come into the United 
States under this EB-5 program.
  Then I would add that there are other interests that we at least 
philosophically agree on, and one of those is highly skilled immigrants 
coming into the United States and those that are highly educated. When 
we can do the calculation on what kind of return we get from someone 
who comes into the United States as a legal immigrant to work here, to 
invest here, to start and run a business here, and we can see what they 
will do from a prosperity perspective, what their contribution will be 
to the economy and to the society, there are many records that help 
support that.
  What we do see, though, Mr. Speaker, is that between 89 and 93 
percent of the legal immigration in America isn't based upon merit like 
this program is.

                              {time}  1545

  Most of it is based on familial connections, who are you related to, 
as opposed to what can you do for the United States of America?
  And I have said for years, we need an immigration policy that's 
designed to enhance the economic, the social, and the cultural well-
being of the United States of America. Every Nation has to have an 
immigration policy that is for them. And we held a hearing a year or 
two ago about the point system that some of the countries have 
established. Canada has one established; the United kingdom is 
implementing a point system; New Zealand has one; and I believe 
Australia is looking at one. Those countries come to mind, where they 
give certain points for certain categories that demonstrate how a 
person can contribute to society.
  For example, higher education is one category that offers significant 
merit. The next one is job skills; so that's earning capacity. Another 
one is language skills, which says how easily they will be able to 
assimilate in a society. It's not a barrier not having the language, 
but it's easier to assimilate, of course, if you are fluent in the 
language of the host country.
  And another component is youth. If we bring people in here that are 
65 years old, that qualify right away for Social Security and Medicare, 
of course they're not going to be contributing to our economy. And so I 
plugged myself into the Canadian equation and found out--I don't think 
the welcome mat is open for me in Canada because I'm a little over the 
hill, Mr. Speaker.
  Youth is a big, important thing because, if you come in at age 22 
with a college education, you can contribute to the economy for, let's 
just say, 43 years before you retire. So youth is an important 
criteria, as is education, as is job skills, as are language skills. 
These things are all things that a wise country should reach out for 
and craft an immigration policy that will enhance the economic, the 
social, and the cultural well-being of the United States of America, 
where 89-93 percent of our legal immigrants are not measured that way; 
about seven to 11 percent are measured that way.
  This is a measure on merit. It is strictly a capital investment, and 
then meeting the other criteria about establishing the jobs in the 
business. But I fully support it. It is a bipartisan effort. And it is 
something that we agree on the theme and the philosophy. I wanted to 
point out that I believe that we need to set a hard cap on our overall 
immigration, and then start to shift within those visa allotments so 
that we get a higher percentage of merit coming in legally into the 
United States. And of course control the border, stop the bleeding 
there; none of this matters unless we can do that, Mr. Speaker.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we will 
likely have an extended debate next year when we visit again the issue 
of comprehensive immigration reform. I don't

[[Page H5063]]

want to get into a debate today, I will just say a core principle of 
immigration law has always been that the United States Government 
doesn't tell American citizens who they get to fall in love with and 
marry. And a second core principle is, when our U.S. citizen marries 
somebody from another country, the American doesn't have to move to 
France, his wife gets to move here. So that's something that we will 
protect as this debate goes forward.
  This bill has bipartisan support, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 
5569. I am proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this timely 
legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe 
Lofgren, Chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee, for her leadership 
on sponsoring this legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Blake 
Chisam, counsel on the Immigration Subcommittee, and Mr. Arthur Sidney, 
of my staff, for their important work in including my amendment in the 
bill.
  By way of background and explanation, H.R. 5569 extends for five 
years the EB-5 regional center pilot program. Congress created the 
fifth employment-based preference, EB-5, immigrant visa category in 
1990 for immigrants seeking to engage in a commercial enterprise that 
will benefit the U.S. economy and create at least 10 full-time jobs.
  The basic amount required to invest is $1 million, although that 
amount may be $500,000 if the investment is made in a ``targeted 
employment area.'' Of the approximately 10,000 numbers available for 
this preference each year, 3,000 are reserved for entrepreneurs who 
invest in targeted employment areas. A separate allocation of 3,000 
visas is set aside for entrepreneurs who immigrate through a regional 
center pilot program.
  In 2003, Congress asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 
GAO, to study the EB-5 program. The GAO report concluded that the 
program has been under-used for a variety of reasons, including the 
rigorous application process and the failure to issue regulations 
implementing the 2002 law. The report found that even though few people 
have used the EB-5 category, EB-5 participants have invested an 
estimated $1 billion in a variety of U.S. businesses.
  My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that, to the extent 
possible, qualifying investments should be made in targeted employment 
areas, including rural areas and areas of high unemployment. My 
amendment defines rural areas as an area other than an area within a 
metropolitan statistical area within the outer boundary of any city or 
town having a population of 20,000 or more based upon the most recent 
decennial census of the United States. My amendment also defines an 
area of high unemployment as an area that has experienced unemployment 
of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.
  The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that all of America will 
benefit from greater development and investment. The amendment is a 
bold first step in ensuring that all Americans have a seat at the table 
and are able to progress and advance as a result of foreign investment 
as Americans in the wealthy cities and suburbs. I have long championed 
the rights of Americans in the rural areas and in underserved 
communities. These Americans are our brothers and sisters. To be sure, 
no Americans should be left out from investment. My amendment makes 
sure that these groups that are often forgotten are not left out.
  Ms. ZOE, LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5569, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to extend for 5 years 
the EB-5 regional center pilot program, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________