Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6185-H6194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 6429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to
eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6429

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 ``STEM Jobs Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED STEM GRADUATES.

(a) Worldwide Level of Immigration.--Section 201(d)(2) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D)(i) In addition to the increase provided under
subparagraph (C), the number computed under this paragraph
for fiscal year 2013 and subsequent fiscal years shall be
further increased by the number specified in clause (ii), to
be used in accordance with paragraphs (6) and (7) of section
203(b), except that--
``(I) immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph but not required for the classes specified in
paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) shall not be counted
for purposes of subsection (c)(3)(C); and
``(II) for purposes of paragraphs (1) through (5) of
section 203(b), the increase under this subparagraph shall
not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of
the worldwide level under this subsection.
``(ii) The number specified in this clause is 55,000,
reduced for any fiscal year by the number by which the number
of visas under section 201(e) would have been reduced in that
year pursuant to section 203(d) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 note) if
section 201(e) had not been repealed by section 3 of the STEM
Jobs Act of 2012.
``(iii) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2013, but not used for the
classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b)
in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if
they were included in the number specified in clause (ii),
but only to the extent to which the cumulative number of
petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a
labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in
fiscal year 2013 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less than the
number specified in clause (ii) for such year. Such immigrant
visa numbers may only be made available in fiscal years after
fiscal year 2013 in connection with a petition under section
204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification
under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year
2013.
``(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2014, but not used for the
classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b)
during such year, may be made available in subsequent years
as if they were included in the number specified in clause
(ii), but only to the extent to which the cumulative number
of petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for
a labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in
fiscal year 2014 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less than the
number specified in clause (ii) for such year. Such immigrant
visa numbers may only be made available in fiscal years after
fiscal year 2014 in connection with a petition under section
204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification
under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year
2014.''.
(b) Numerical Limitation to Any Single Foreign State.--
Section 202(a)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(5)(A)) is
amended by striking ``or (5)'' and inserting ``(5), (6), or
(7)''.
(c) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based
Immigrants.--Section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) Aliens holding doctorate degrees from u.s. doctoral
institutions of higher education in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics.--
``(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a
number not to exceed the number specified in section
201(d)(2)(D)(ii), to qualified immigrants who--
``(i) hold a doctorate degree in a field of science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States
doctoral institution of higher education;
``(ii) agree to work for a total of not less than 5 years
in the aggregate for the petitioning employer or in the
United States in a field of science, technology, engineering,
or mathematics upon being lawfully admitted for permanent
residence; and
``(iii) have taken all doctoral courses in a field of
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including
all courses taken by correspondence (including courses
offered by telecommunications) or by distance education,
while physically present in the United States.
``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph,
paragraph (7), and sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i)(I) and
212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(III):
``(i) The term `distance education' has the meaning given
such term in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1003).
``(ii) The term `field of science, technology, engineering,
or mathematics' means a field included in the Department of
Education's Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy
within the summary groups of computer and information
sciences and support services, engineering, mathematics and
statistics, and physical sciences.
``(iii) The term `United States doctoral institution of
higher education' means an institution that--

``(I) is described in section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) or is a proprietary
institution of higher education (as defined in section 102(b)
of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b)));
``(II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching on January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-
granting university with a very high or high level of
research activity or classified by the National Science
Foundation after the date of enactment of this paragraph,
pursuant to an application by the institution, as having
equivalent research activity to those institutions that had
been classified by the Carnegie Foundation as being
doctorate-granting universities with a very high or high
level of research activity;
``(III) has been in existence for at least 10 years;
``(IV) does not provide any commission, bonus, or other
incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in
securing enrollments or financial aid to any persons or
entities engaged in any recruitment or admission activities
for nonimmigrant students or in making decisions regarding
the award of student financial assistance to nonimmigrant
students; and

[[Page H6186]]

``(V) is accredited by an accrediting body that is itself
accredited either by the Department of Education or by the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

``(C) Labor certification required.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of
Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for
classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the
Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a
determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the
provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary
of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be
in the national interest, waive this requirement.
``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of
clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an
employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made
under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with
respect to the alien by that employer.
``(7) Aliens holding master's degrees from u.s. doctoral
institutions of higher education in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics.--
``(A) In general.--Any visas not required for the class
specified in paragraph (6) shall be made available to the
class of aliens who--
``(i) hold a master's degree in a field of science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States
doctoral institution of higher education that was either part
of a master's program that required at least 2 years of
enrollment or part of a 5-year combined baccalaureate-
master's degree program in such field;
``(ii) agree to work for a total of not less than 5 years
in the aggregate for the petitioning employer or in the
United States in a field of science, technology, engineering,
or mathematics upon being lawfully admitted for permanent
residence;
``(iii) have taken all master's degree courses in a field
of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics,
including all courses taken by correspondence (including
courses offered by telecommunications) or by distance
education, while physically present in the United States; and
``(iv) hold a baccalaureate degree in a field of science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics or in a field
included in the Department of Education's Classification of
Instructional Programs taxonomy within the summary group of
biological and biomedical sciences.
``(B) Labor certification required.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of
Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for
classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the
Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a
determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the
provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary
of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be
in the national interest, waive this requirement.
``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of
clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an
employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made
under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with
respect to the alien by that employer.
``(C) Definitions.--The definitions in paragraph (6)(B)
shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.''.
(d) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section
204(a)(1)(F) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(F)'' and inserting ``(F)(i)'';
(2) by striking ``or 203(b)(3)'' and inserting ``203(b)(3),
203(b)(6), or 203(b)(7)'';
(3) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting
``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) The following processing standards shall apply with
respect to petitions under clause (i) relating to alien
beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of
section 203(b):
``(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjudicate
such petitions not later than 60 days after the date on which
the petition is filed. In the event that additional
information or documentation is requested by the Secretary
during such 60-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate the
petition not later than 30 days after the date on which such
information or documentation is received.
``(II) The petitioner shall be notified in writing within
30 days of the date of filing if the petition does not meet
the standards for approval. If the petition does not meet
such standards, the notice shall include the reasons
therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for
the prompt resubmission of a modified petition.''.
(e) Labor Certification and Qualification for Certain
Immigrants.--Section 212(a)(5) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii)--
(i) in subclause (I), by striking ``, or'' at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:

``(III) holds a doctorate degree in a field of science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States
doctoral institution of higher education (as defined in
section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)).'';

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses
(iii) through (v), respectively;
(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) Job order.--

``(I) In general.--An employer who files an application
under clause (i) shall submit a job order for the labor the
alien seeks to perform to the State workforce agency in the
State in which the alien seeks to perform the labor. The
State workforce agency shall post the job order on its
official agency website for a minimum of 30 days and not
later than 3 days after receipt using the employment
statistics system authorized under section 15 of the Wagner-
Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.).
``(II) Links.--The Secretary of Labor shall include links
to the official websites of all State workforce agencies on a
single webpage of the official website of the Department of
Labor.''; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(vi) Processing standards for alien beneficiaries
qualifying under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b).--
The following processing standards shall apply with respect
to applications under clause (i) relating to alien
beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of
section 203(b):

``(I) The Secretary of Labor shall adjudicate such
applications not later than 180 days after the date on which
the application is filed. In the event that additional
information or documentation is requested by the Secretary
during such 180-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate
the application not later than 60 days after the date on
which such information or documentation is received.
``(II) The applicant shall be notified in writing within 60
days of the date of filing if the application does not meet
the standards for approval. If the application does not meet
such standards, the notice shall include the reasons
therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for
the prompt resubmission of a modified application.''; and

(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(2) or (3)'' and
inserting ``(2), (3), (6), or (7)''.
(f) GAO Study.--Not later than June 30, 2017, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall provide to the
Congress the results of a study on the use by the National
Science Foundation of the classification authority provided
under section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II)), as added
by this section.
(g) Public Information.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall make available to the public on the official website of
the Department of Homeland Security, and shall update not
less than monthly, the following information (which shall be
organized according to month and fiscal year) with respect to
aliens granted status under paragraph (6) or (7) of section
203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)), as added by this section:
(1) The name, city, and State of each employer who
petitioned pursuant to either of such paragraphs on behalf of
one or more aliens who were granted status in the month and
fiscal year to date.
(2) The number of aliens granted status under either of
such paragraphs in the month and fiscal year to date based
upon a petition filed by such employer.
(3) The occupations for which such alien or aliens were
sought by such employer and the job titles listed by such
employer on the petition.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--Section 201
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by striking subsection (e).
(b) Allocation of Diversity Immigrant Visas.--Section 203
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c);
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c),''
and inserting ``(a) or (b),'';
(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(4) in subsection (f), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and
inserting ``(a) or (b)''; and
(5) in subsection (g), by striking ``(a), (b), and (c)''
and inserting ``(a) and (b)''.
(c) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section 204
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and
inserting ``(a) or (b)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.

SEC. 4. PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES.

(a) In General.--Section 203 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Permanent Priority Dates.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (h)(3) and
paragraph (2), the priority date for any employment-based
petition shall be the date of filing of the petition with the
Secretary of Homeland Security (or the Secretary of State, if
applicable), unless the filing of the petition was preceded
by the filing

[[Page H6187]]

of a labor certification with the Secretary of Labor, in
which case that date shall constitute the priority date.
``(2) Subsequent employment-based petitions.--Subject to
subsection (h)(3), an alien who is the beneficiary of any
employment-based petition that was approvable when filed
(including self-petitioners) shall retain the priority date
assigned with respect to that petition in the consideration
of any subsequently filed employment-based petition
(including self-petitions).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to aliens who are a beneficiary of a
classification petition pending on or after such date.

SEC. 5. STUDENT VISA REFORM.

(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(F) an alien--
``(i) who--
``(I) is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full
course of study in a field of science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (as defined in section
203(b)(6)(B)(ii)) leading to a bachelors or graduate degree
and who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of
pursuing such a course of study consistent with section
214(m) at an institution of higher education (as described in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))) or a proprietary institution of higher education
(as defined in section 102(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
1002(b))) in the United States, particularly designated by
the alien and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consultation with the Secretary of Education, which
institution shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of
Homeland Security the termination of attendance of each
nonimmigrant student, and if any such institution fails to
make reports promptly the approval shall be withdrawn; or
``(II) is engaged in temporary employment for optional
practical training related to such alien's area of study
following completion of the course of study described in
subclause (I);
``(ii) who has a residence in a foreign country which the
alien has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide
student qualified to pursue a full course of study, and who
seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for
the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent
with section 214(m) at an established college, university,
seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary
school, or other academic institution or in a language
training program in the United States, particularly
designated by the alien and approved by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of
Education, which institution of learning or place of study
shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant
student, and if any such institution of learning or place of
study fails to make reports promptly the approval shall be
withdrawn;
``(iii) who is the spouse or minor child of an alien
described in clause (i) or (ii) if accompanying or following
to join such an alien; or
``(iv) who is a national of Canada or Mexico, who maintains
actual residence and place of abode in the country of
nationality, who is described in clause (i) or (ii) except
that the alien's qualifications for and actual course of
study may be full or part-time, and who commutes to the
United States institution or place of study from Canada or
Mexico.''.
(b) Admission.--Section 214(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is amended by inserting
``(F)(i),'' before ``(L) or (V)''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 214(m)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)) is
amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
striking ``(i) or (iii)'' and inserting ``(i), (ii), or
(iv)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to nonimmigrants who possess or are granted
status under section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) on or after such
date.

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

General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 6429
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
When it comes to STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and
math--American universities set the standard. Our STEM graduates create
the innovations and new businesses that fuel our economic growth and
create jobs.
Many of the world's top students come to the U.S. to obtain advanced
STEM degrees. But what happens to these foreign students after they
graduate? Under the current system, we educate scientists and engineers
only to send them back home where they often work for our competitors.
We could boost economic growth and spur job creation by enabling
American employers to hire some of the best and brightest graduates of
U.S. universities. These students become entrepreneurs, patent holders,
and job creators.
The STEM Jobs Act makes available 55,000 immigrant visas a year for
foreign graduates of American universities with advanced degrees in
STEM fields.
Three-quarters of likely voters strongly support such legislation,
and a wide range of trade associations have endorsed this legislation
as well. These include the Institute for Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Compete America, the
Information Technology Industry Council, and the Society for Human
Resource Management.
To protect American workers, employers who hire STEM graduates must
advertise the position; and if a qualified American worker is
available, the STEM graduate will not be hired.
This bill makes our immigration system smarter by admitting those who
have the education and skills America needs. STEM visas are substituted
for Diversity Visas which invite fraud and pose a security risk.
The STEM Jobs Act generates jobs, increases economic growth, and
benefits American businesses. What more do we want?
Let's put the interest of our country first and support this
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
For more than a decade, I've been working to increase high-skilled
visas for foreign students with advanced STEM degrees from America's
greatest research universities. I'm fortunate enough to see firsthand
the new technologies, the new companies, the new jobs they create every
day in my district in the Silicon Valley. For that reason, it pains me
greatly that I cannot support this bill.
First, although this bill ostensibly seeks to increase STEM visas, it
appears to have another, in my opinion, more sinister purpose--to
actually reduce legal immigration levels. The bill does it in two ways.
On its face, the bill eliminates as many visas as it creates by
killing the Diversity Visa Program which benefits immigrants from
countries that have low rates of immigration to the United States. But
the bill also discreetly ensures that many of the new visas will go
unused by preventing unused visas after 2014 from flowing to other
immigrants stuck in decades-long backlogs. This is not the way our
immigration system works.
I believe the only reason the bill is written in this fashion is to
satisfy anti-immigrant organizations that have long lobbied for reduced
levels of immigration.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that
while they are opposed to illegal immigration, they are very much in
favor of legal immigration. But this bill shows the opposite.
Supporters of legal immigration would not have killed one immigration
program to benefit another, nor would they agree to a Grover Norquist-
style no-new-immigration pledge that will continue to strangle our
immigration system for years to come.
Agreeing to zero-sum rules now means never helping the almost 5
million legal immigrants currently stuck in backlogs.
The Republican bill also expressly allows for-profit and online
schools to participate. While the bill contains language limiting
immediate participation, it unquestionably opens the door to future
participation.
I cannot support a bill that will allow such schools to essentially
sell visas to rich, young foreigners.

[[Page H6188]]

The vast majority of Democrats in this Chamber strongly support STEM
visas. I've introduced a bill that creates STEM visas without
eliminating other visas or including for-profit colleges. It has the
support of the Black, Hispanic, and Asian Caucus chairs. Bring that to
the floor, and you'll see strong support from Democrats. It should also
get strong Republican support.
Republicans in the past, including very conservative Members, have
supported STEM legislation that does not eliminate other types of
visas. In the 110th Congress, I introduced a bill that did just that
with very conservative Republicans such as Texas Members John Carter
and Pete Sessions as cosponsors. If they can support new STEM visas
without offsets, so can Republicans today.
There is a unique opportunity here to craft a balanced, bipartisan
bill that can pass the Senate; but our majority has instead chosen to
jam through a partisan bill that has no chance of becoming law, solely,
I think, to score political points.
It seems the only reason they have chosen to pursue this strategy
right before an election is an attempt to appear more immigrant
friendly than their record proves them to be and perhaps to curry favor
with high-tech groups.
But this is an anti-immigration bill, and it only sets back the high-
skilled visa cause.
I believe if we take a step back and work in good faith on a
bipartisan basis, we can pass a STEM bill with overwhelming support. I
am eager to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
do just that. It's the right thing to do for the district I represent,
and for our country. But this flawed bill is one I cannot support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall), I'm going to yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said at least two things
that are completely inaccurate. Let me correct those statements.
First, she said this bill is going to reduce immigration and that
that was somehow the intent behind the bill. The gentlewoman from
California practiced immigration law, and she knows better than to say
this. Under this bill, and she knows this to be the case, individuals
in other employment categories who are waiting for other types of
employment visas can switch over and apply for these STEM visas if they
are master's or Ph.D. holders in the STEM fields. There's no limit on
those. I expect every year that the number of visas that are not used
directly will be used by these individuals in other employment-based
categories.
I want to make the point, too, that America is the most generous
country in the world. We admit almost 1 million people legally every
year. That's far more than any other nation, and it may well be as many
as every other country combined.
The purpose of this bill is not to increase or decrease immigration,
and I want to make that point, and also the fact that most Americans
agree with this. Gallop recently reported that four out of five
Americans do not want to increase the levels of immigration. Only 4
percent believe that the number of immigrants now entering the U.S. is
too low. This bill reflects what the American people want.
Lastly, in regard to for-profit schools, the gentlewoman made light
of that and seemed to think that this bill was going to be abused by
those types of institutions.
First of all, any institution, even if they are profit-making--and
why do so many Democrats oppose profits and free enterprise? I don't
know--but any profit-making institution, if they otherwise qualify,
which is to say if they grant doctorates or master's in STEM fields and
if they are a research university as deemed by the Carnegie Institute
of Higher Education, yes, they'll qualify. But I want to say to the
gentlewoman from California, today, none of those for-profit
institutions would qualify.

{time} 1550

If they somehow meet the qualifications in the future, why wouldn't
we want them to be eligible to have their graduates--master's and Ph.D.
only--apply for these STEM visas?
I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Science
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend from Texas, Chairman
Smith, for his leadership on the bill today.
As a member of the Science Committee since first elected in 1980,
I've heard repeatedly of talented foreign students who receive advanced
degrees from American universities who would like to stay in the United
States and put those degrees to work and are simply not permitted to do
so. So they return home to their home country and ended up competing
with us.
Likewise, I hear from industry, particularly the technology industry,
that they have ample jobs to fill, but there are not enough qualified
Americans to fill those jobs. If this is true, we want those jobs
filled by Americans and are working to improve STEM education in the
country. But absent that talent now, and with many of these companies
already seeking employees overseas, then it seems to me we should take
advantage of the opportunity in front of us and help those foreign
students who have received their education in the U.S. remain in the
U.S.
I have expressed to the chairman that I remain hopeful that qualified
Americans should always fill available jobs first, and I understand
provisions are in place to ensure this. I further appreciate his
willingness to reach a consensus on broadening institution eligibility.
We must remember that a large number of well-respected institutions
across the country only grant degrees as high as a masters, and
qualified graduates from those universities should also be eligible.
In closing, I support the bill before us today, with the assurance
that the chairman will continue to work with the Science Committee and
with me as we move forward.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to allow the ranking member of the full committee to control the
remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Michigan will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I thank the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren) and yield her such time as she
may consume.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I will be brief. I do feel the need to
address the issue that the chairman has raised; I think he
misunderstands the issue.
We have, in U.S. universities, graduating in STEM fields 10,000 Ph.D.
and 30,000 masters degrees a year. Assuming that all 40,000 want to
stay in the United States--and that is not a valid assumption--we will
not use up all of the 50,000 visas. It is true that the EB2s might
apply, but many of them did not go to American universities. So the
easiest way to make sure these visas are not eliminated is to do what
happens in all the rest of the immigration EB categories, which is to
allow those visas to flow.
Finally, I just have to say I have never once been asked by a high-
tech company to have some online university be the awarder of the Ph.D.
It's not a demand, it's not an interest that anybody in the technology
field has ever expressed to me.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now proudly yield 3 minutes to our
distinguished whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in order to compete in today's global economy, we need
to attract the best and brightest math and science students from around
the world. I think we all agree on that.
American technology and Internet companies--which are far and away
the best in the world--are in dire need of more highly educated
engineers and scientists. We're just not producing enough here. In the
long term, we need to educate more Americans in STEM fields, but we
also must increase the number of STEM visas so that our businesses can
hire the top international graduates of American universities.
This could be a broadly bipartisan bill. It could pass easily. But
once

[[Page H6189]]

again, unfortunately, we have chosen a good bill and inserted a
partisan poison pill, making it impossible to pass the Senate or
attract broad bipartisan support. How sad it is that that's been the
history of this Congress. That poison bill is, of course, the
elimination of the Diversity Visa Program, which ensures that
individuals from a broad array of countries have the opportunity to
seek a better life here in America. The Statue of Liberty, with her
torch raised, is being brought down just a little bit.
We don't know where our next great innovators will come from, and we
ought to not close the doors on those who have been waiting patiently
to have their number called in some far off corner of the world. That
lottery is not only their salvation, but also our benefit. It's part of
what makes America great.
I call on the Republican leadership to withdraw this bill and instead
take up the bill introduced by my friend, the gentlewoman from
California, Representative Lofgren, which accomplishes the objective I
think we all want to accomplish. That version would create
opportunities through a new STEM visa program without taking current
opportunities away. I commend Ms. Lofgren for her work on this issue
and for helping to sustain that yearning for America that still moves
the hearts of millions around the world.
In light of what I have just said, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
gentleman from Texas if he will yield for the purpose of allowing me to
make a unanimous consent to amend his bill by striking all after the
enacting clause and replacing the text with that of the gentlewoman
from California's alternative, H.R. 6412, the Attracting the Best and
Brightest Act of 2012. I tell my friend that will accomplish the
objectives that you've talked about and I've talked about in getting
high-tech people, the availability, for our companies here in America.
They need them, we want them, we ought to get them; and we ought to do
it in a bipartisan way.
This is an opportunity for bipartisanship that unfortunately has not
come as often as we would like. I would ask my friend to allow me to
make that unanimous consent, that we agree to that. And I guarantee the
gentleman we will get very substantial numbers of votes on this side of
the aisle for that proposition, and I hope on your side as well.
Would the gentleman yield for that unanimous consent? The gentleman
has been instructed not to yield to me for that unanimous consent, I
understand? I regret that your side of the aisle wouldn't give me that
opportunity for America--for America and our high-tech businesses.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on the way to yielding to the
majority leader of the House, I'd like to respond very quickly to what
the gentleman from Maryland just said.
I want to make, again, the points that the Diversity Visa invites
fraud, and absolutely means that we would have a security risk if we
were to continue it.
I want to quote the assistant Secretary of State. The assistant
Secretary of State for Visa Services has testified that Diversity Visa
fraud includes:

Multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education or work
experience, pop-up spouses or family members, relatives added
after the application is submitted, and false claims for
employment or financial support in the United States.

The State Department's Inspector General has testified that the
Diversity Visa program:

Contains significant risk to national security from hostile
intelligence officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to
use the program for entry into the United States as permanent
residents.

We've already had one individual who was admitted on a Diversity Visa
try to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. He killed six people and
injured hundreds of people. That's why this program is not good for
this country.
I'm more than happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor), the majority leader for the House of Representatives.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, since we were elected to the majority, the House
Republicans have put forward solutions to spur job creation and
economic growth by, frankly, focusing on and helping small businesses
get off the ground to grow and hire. We've worked hard to drive small
business job creation and innovation by enacting patent reform, the
JOBS Act, and the removal of regulatory and tax burdens that are
impeding small businesses' growth.
The STEM Jobs Act we are voting on today is part of our commitment to
help small businesses, to help them create jobs by ensuring that top
foreign students in American universities have the opportunity to
launch or work for American businesses.
The bipartisan STEM Jobs Act takes 55,000 visas currently awarded
based on a lottery and instead awards them to foreign graduates of U.S.
universities with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. This legislation provides students with the
opportunity to stay here in America where they can contribute to the
American economy rather than leaving for other countries, taking their
venture capital with them to compete against America and her
businesses.

{time} 1600

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, as well as
Congressman Henry Cuellar for introducing this legislation. I'd also
like to note that Congressman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Congressman
Raul Labrador from Idaho have also been instrumental in getting us
here.
But there's a reason why we in America are the world's leading
innovators and have within our borders the world's leading innovators
and why they choose to launch their companies here. Our Nation offers
immense opportunities to those who come to our shores.
My grandparents, just like so many others who immigrated to America,
knew what foreign students know today: that America has always been a
place which puts a premium on ensuring that, no matter who you are or
where you're from, everyone here should have the opportunity to go and
achieve and earn success.
According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, 40 percent
of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.
So we must start to take advantage of our status as a destination for
the world's best and brightest. We must continue to do that. We want
job creation and innovators to stay here and help us compete.
Over the past two decades, the number of international graduate
students enrolled in our Nation's top-notch universities has grown.
But, as the Congressional Research Service shows, the percentage of
these students who gain visas has largely remained the same since 1990.
The STEM Jobs Act says to our foreign graduates, You choose America and
America chooses you.
More talent in our workforce will mean more innovation, more start-
ups, more entrepreneurship, more jobs and a better economy. It's time
our visa system adopted this commonsense advancement. It's time for us
to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope there is a broad bipartisan
base of support when the vote occurs.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to Judy Chu,
an active member of the Judiciary Committee who, additionally, heads
the Asian Pacific Caucus.
Ms. CHU. I rise today in opposition to this bill which will further
damage our already broken immigration system. I strongly support
increasing visas for STEM foreign students so they can stay, work, and
innovate here. But while this bill claims to do that, it actually
reduces the number of overall visas available and lets unused STEM
visas disappear by 2014.
The bill also gets rid of 50,000 legal immigrant visas each year
under the Diversity Visa Program, which gives every immigrant, no
matter their background, a chance of immigrating to the United States
and is so important to immigrants who don't fall into other categories.
Supporters of legal immigration should not have to kill other
immigration programs to help our economy maintain its competitive edge.
This is not a zero-sum game.
Anyone in support of fair legal immigration should oppose this bill.
And I urge both sides to come together to work on a bipartisan STEM
visa bill

[[Page H6190]]

that will help keep our economy competitive without making our
backlogged immigration system worse.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa), who is the chairman of the Government
Oversight Committee.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, for 12 years, my greatest ambition here in
Congress has been my membership in Judiciary and my activities of
trying to bring real immigration reform that's a plus to our country.
My district has two notable areas: one, the agricultural areas that
so desperately need a guest worker program; the other, throughout San
Diego and Orange County, the high-tech areas that in many ways rival
the best in the world, that, in fact, run out of H-1Bs on the day that
they're offered. So I support the STEM skills reform because it's
necessary.

But let me just go through two or three things quickly that are so
obvious here in this debate.
One is: People who are detractors from this say, We'd love to have
it; we simply want an expansion in the total number of immigrants.
Let's understand, America allows more people to immigrate to our shores
than the entire rest of the world, combined, does to theirs. We're
already the most generous, and there has to be a number and that number
has been set.
Secondly, it doesn't take away from anyone who has a valid need or
reason to come here. It's not going to limit reunification. It's not
going to limit those who have been tortured or in some other way
affected in their foreign country.
But I think the most telling one is the CBO, our independent,
nonpartisan organization that, in fact, has said that making this
change will save over $1 billion in costs from the dependency that many
diversity candidates prove to have, in spite of the regulations saying
they shouldn't.
And lastly, and the most important one, as an employer of a high-tech
company, a founder and employer for many years, America has to be like
every high-tech company. You are always open to hire somebody who will
make your company grow. America will grow in four jobs or more for each
person who applies and receives one of these visas. That is about
getting the economy going again and jobs happening again.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I thank you, because there's only one problem separating the two
views that have been presented by both sides of the aisle here this
afternoon. But the proposal of those on the other side, of steamrolling
through today, simply does not provide for new visas for STEM
graduates. Instead, it completely eliminates diversity visas, a
longstanding legal immigration program. And, as surely everyone
understands on both sides of the aisle, we strongly oppose a zero-sum
game that trades one legal immigration program for another. I heard
someone suggest that.
The elimination of the Diversity Visa Program will drastically
decrease immigration from African countries. It's as simple as that. In
recent years, African immigrants have comprised approximately 40 to 50
percent of the Diversity Visa Program's annual beneficiaries. And so we
just say simply: That is not fair. There's no point in us having to
swallow this poison pill. And I can assure you that there's no
intention that that be done.
Second, the Diversity Visa Program plays an important foreign policy
role for the United States. As a former Ambassador testified the year
before last at a Judiciary Committee hearing:

The program engenders hope abroad for those that are all
too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for
reunification with family in the United States, and hope for
a chance to use their God-given skills and talent.

And so I ask my colleague to please consider how we can move the STEM
issue forward without eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee and an original cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the
chairman of the committee, for his fine work on this legislation, and I
rise in support of it.
You know, this House has twice passed through the entire House
legislation eliminating the visa lottery program--55,000 visas, not
given based upon family reunification needs, not given based upon job
shortages in the United States, but based upon pure luck. And it's
unfair to people from more than a dozen countries around the world that
stand in long lines, on waiting lists, and then watch somebody have
their name drawn out of a computer at random, with no particular job
skills, no ties in this country, and they get to go right past them
into a green card in the United States.

{time} 1610

So, if you're from Mexico, you're not eligible for the visa lottery
program. If you're from Canada, you're not eligible for the visa
lottery program. If you're from China or India or the Philippines or
from more than a dozen countries, you are not eligible for this program
at all.
Let me just say that far more people with far greater contributions
to make to our economy, to our system, will benefit from using those
visas for STEM--for science, for technology, for engineering, and math.
In fact, most African immigrants to the U.S. do not come through the
diversity program, and many will benefit from a STEM visa program.
There are more than 3,000 students from Nigeria alone who are studying
in STEM fields in the United States. They will be able to stay in the
U.S. because of the STEM Jobs Act.
This is a good proposal that is fair to people who want to come to
this country to better their lives for themselves but to also help the
United States in these difficult economic times find people who are
needed here or who have legitimate family reunification needs, not
simply based on pure luck. Our immigration system is in need of more
reform than this, but this is great reform, and I urge my colleagues to
pass this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the distinguished
gentleman from California, George Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan bill. It's
unfortunate. Maintaining this country's advantage in science and
technology is an important issue, and it should not be a partisan
issue. Democrats have long supported efforts to increase STEM careers
in this country and to address the question of STEM visas.
We all recognize how important these careers are to the future
economic strength of this country. We could be working together in a
bipartisan way to address these issues in a fair and thoughtful manner,
but this bill does not do that. Instead of working together, the
majority has chosen a partisan route.
This route puts American workers' wages at risk at a time when they
can ill afford it. It allows a dangerous race to the bottom that will
drive wages down for American workers. It allows employers to pay visa
holders less than the actual wages paid to similarly situated workers
at those employers. A U.S. worker and a visa holder could be working
right next to one another, doing the same work, and the foreign worker
is cheaper. We know what this will mean for U.S. workers' pay and job
opportunities. Depressing families' wages is not what our country
needs. That's why I joined with Congresswoman Lofgren on legislation
that would require a visa holder to be paid at least the actual wage
being paid to a U.S. worker with similar experience.
I also have deep concerns that this partisan bill is also a payoff
for predatory for-profit education institutions. The Republican bill
includes language that specifically allows for-profit institutions to
participate in this program. Why is that? Tech and other high-skilled
employers have not been pushing to get more foreign graduates from for-
profit schools. This provision would allow these institutions to find
new, potentially lucrative revenue streams for their shareholders
without regard

[[Page H6191]]

to the actual needs of the American labor market.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have made it clear that they are fed
up with the powerful special interests gaming the system to increase
their bottom line. They are fed up with partisan exercises meant to
gain political advantage during an election cycle. It is no surprise
that for 2 years this Congress had an opportunity to have a full and
open debate on this very important issue but that the Republicans have
chosen partisanship, obstruction, and polarization over moving this
country forward. That's why we see this bill at the last minute, and
that's why we see this bill requiring a two-thirds vote.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Under this bill, the employers have to pay the
prevailing wage. I don't know from where the gentleman got his
information.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Griffin), a distinguished and active member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs
Act, and I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about some job creators in my
district who would benefit from this bill. Welspun Tubular, which made
the pipes for the Keystone pipeline, needs advanced STEM graduates to
train workers. Power Technology needs highly skilled workers to design,
develop, and manufacture laser products. These companies have struggled
to find the specific talent they need, and this bill would help them
create jobs.

We are currently educating highly skilled Ph.D.'s and masters and are
sending them back home to compete against us after they graduate.
That's like Arkansas recruiting the best college football players from
Texas, training them on our offense and sending them back to Texas to
compete against us. That doesn't make any sense. Let's fix it. Let's
pass this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) as few have worked harder on this with Zoe
Lofgren.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much.
It might appear like we are having a debate about whether we should
send STEM graduates--those with advanced degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and math--to faraway lands to work for
companies to compete against us, but this debate is not about that
because, on the need for STEM visas, there is no debate. The real
debate we are having today, in creating STEM visas, is whether to shut
the door to opportunity to others who contribute to the United States
of America.
I haven't seen one letter from Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Intel or the
high-tech industry that says to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 visas to
those from Africa and give them to the high-tech industry. I haven't
seen one letter that says that, and they know that. It's just something
they want to do, and they want to poison this well with what I think is
bad policy. Based on the immigrant stories we heard from almost every
speaker at the Republican and Democratic conventions, I would guess all
of us here would welcome to the U.S. any decent, hardworking person
with enough heart and guts to pursue his biggest dreams, but that's not
what this bill does. I wish it did.
Imagine if those millions who passed through Ellis Island had been
given a test when they arrived. If they were gifted in science and
math, they were in. If they were simply hardworking men or women in
search of better lives, prepared to sweat and toil in the fields or in
our factories, they wouldn't have been good enough under this bill.
Think about it. Where would we all be if we had to pass that test--the
Pelosis and the Palazzos, the Boehners and the Blumenauers, the
Schakowskys and the Lipinksis, the Kennedys and the Kuciniches, the
Romneys and--yes--the Rubios?
When my parents came from Puerto Rico, they didn't need a visa. They
just had a sixth-grade education and a ninth-grade education. Under
this bill, they would say, Not here and not in this America. You're not
welcome. My mom worked in a factory, and my dad drove a cab, and they
worked hard every day. They worked hard every day to make this. They
sent their children to college, and one of them today serves in the
Congress of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. They lived the story of America. They came with
nothing but hopes, and they played by the rules and achieved great
things, not necessarily for themselves but for their children and now
their grandchildren.
Has America benefited? Could we attract the smartest and the
brightest? Yes. But America is also a better Nation because we attract
those with the most heart and soul to make something of themselves.
Let's defeat that bill so we can continue that great American
tradition.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, no one is hurt more by the diversity visa program than
unemployed Hispanics and black Americans. The unemployment rate for
Hispanics with only a high school education is almost 14 percent. The
unemployment rate for African Americans with only a high school
education is almost 19 percent. The diversity visa program forces these
unemployed Americans to compete for very scarce American jobs with
those other individuals who don't have more than a high school
education. Why do we want to do this to our own people?
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), an
original cosponsor of this legislation who is very active on this
subject.
Mr. LABRADOR. I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs Act of 2012.
This bill addresses one of the bipartisan issues we ought to be able to
solve here in the House of Representatives.
Both President Obama and Governor Romney have spoken about the need
to reform our immigration system in order to keep more of the best and
the brightest minds in America. I am very pleased to have worked with
Chairman Smith on this bill, and I want to thank him for his
leadership. I also want to thank Mr. Goodlatte and the majority leader
for their commitment to bringing this jobs bill to the floor.
The future of our economy is in the STEM fields. New printers from
Hewlett-Packard, new semiconductors from Micron, and new phones from
Apple all rely on retaining the world's best and brightest students and
on harnessing their ingenuity to create jobs here in America. Even in
an economic downturn, there aren't enough U.S.-born graduates to meet
the needs of high-tech employers. Right now, foreign-born students are
benefiting from our education system and are then going home to compete
with us.

{time} 1620

This legislation allows us to retain their skills and innovation. We
know that every American with an advanced STEM degree creates two to
three new American jobs. We are replacing a broken, inefficient visa
program with one that works, rewards innovation, and makes jobs for our
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the other side talk about this bill all day
today. This other side controlled the House, the Senate, and the
Presidency for 2 years and did nothing to improve the immigration
system. They didn't pass immigration bills, yet the President campaigns
on the issue of immigration reform. Once again, faced with actually
passing a bill that improves the immigration system, they're making a
stand against immigration reform and against economic growth.
Let me clarify one thing. I have a great deal of respect for
Congresswoman Lofgren. She and I have talked about this issue for the
entire 1\1/2\ to 2 years that I've been here in Congress, and I
recognize that she's been a leader on this issue over the years. I'm
also an immigration attorney. I've been an immigration attorney for 15
years. I must clarify that unused diversity visas have never rolled
over, and to oppose this bill on those grounds is just proof that this
is more about politics than policy.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to gain the previous speaker's
attention. The House, of which you are a Member, passed the DREAM Act
216-208, and we enjoyed the support of eight Republican Members.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the
Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee.

[[Page H6192]]

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm most grateful. Thank you
very much.
To the Speaker and to my colleague from Texas, this is the perfect
infrastructure for collaboration and bipartisanship. We have worked
together on this issue, and we have confronted the issue that I
mentioned to Congresswoman Lofgren on which we will continue to work,
which is to ensure the outreach to Historically Black Colleges and
Hispanic-serving colleges for the engineers and scientists who are
prepared to work in America's technology industry, and I expect that
that will happen. I am supportive of STEM visas to provide for the
infrastructure of workers for the dynamic technology, Silicon Valley
software, Austin, Texas, and beyond to be able to be vibrant and
thriving.
But as I just left the President of Malawi, a woman who has inspired
Malawians to look to the future, and as they look to the future, we
have said that we want to ensure that America has a future with the
continent. To remove the diversity visas that create diversity, to take
away opportunities from a continent that, by and large, has been an
ally and friend to the United States, whose African citizens have come
to be reunited with families, who have generated outstanding
businesses, from South Africans, to Kenyans, to Guineans, to those from
Cote d'Ivoire and those from Nigeria--in my town, Nigerians have
created the most successful brand of small businesses from being
seamstresses to doctors and lawyers and others.
I cannot vote for a bill that will allow us to remove the component
for diversity visas as an exchange or substitute for this kind of
approach. We must have balanced and comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let's put our own unemployed
Hispanics and black Americans first. They should come first.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray), who is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
piece of legislation.
All over America, Americans are having to make priority decisions in
their families. The fact is this Congress needs to make some priority
decisions. It is not only the right, but the responsibility, of this
Congress and this Nation to make sure that our immigration policy is
good for America first and foremost.
This bill will replace a failed system that actually gambled with
America's future by having a lottery. It replaces it with bringing good
scientists in. Let me just give you the numbers from just recently.
This is going to create 55,000 jobs. Do we want to have 6,000
Iranians coming here or do you want 6,000 scientists and researchers
coming in? Do we want to set aside an area where we have over 2,000
Moroccans being given a set-aside for their country rather than
treating individuals that have proven that they have an asset that we
need in this country?
The real issue here is, Mr. Speaker, whether we are willing to
correct a mistake of the past to move forward with a fair system that
judges individuals based on their merit, not based on the country that
they're coming from.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady, Ms. Sheila Jackson
Lee, 25 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If we pass the American Jobs Act, we will
help Hispanic youngsters, Anglo youngsters, African American
youngsters, and all Americans.
However, what an insult to America's values to suggest that those who
come to this country to give by way of a legal process, diversity
visas, are not contributing. I do not want to insult anyone who comes
with the idea of helping America. That means wherever they've come
from: Africa, Iran, elsewhere.
If they come for a good reason through the diversity visa to reunite
with their family, that is the American way. Immigration by law, that
is the American way.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
very patient Member from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 6429, the
Republican STEM proposal before the House today under suspension of the
rules.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce and vice chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and members of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the
Asian American Caucus in strongly opposing this Republican STEM
proposal, misguided legislation that would curtail legal immigration to
the United States.
As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I support this legislation because
it would allow advanced STEM graduates to remain in the United States
and contribute to our Nation's scientific discovery and technological
innovation, increasing our Nation's global competitiveness. This bill
reduces backlogs for STEM-degree recipients by attracting and retaining
critical talent and creating a new EB-6 green card category for persons
with advanced degrees in STEM from research universities in the United
States.
I must underscore that this bill does not eliminate or weaken our
immigration programs to increase STEM visas. This bill targets only the
best and the brightest foreign students. Unlike the Republican
proposal, this legislation, H.R. 6412, does not allow foreign graduates
of for-profit colleges to receive STEM visas, including degrees earned
by mail or over the Internet.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to strengthen our Nation's global
competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 6429, the Republican STEM
proposal, before the House today under suspension of the rules.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training and Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
(CHC), I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join me and
members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black
Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in strongly
opposing the Republican STEM proposal, misguided legislation that would
curtail legal immigration to the United States.
Instead, I encourage my colleagues in this chamber to support H.R.
6412, ``The Attracting the Best and the Brightest Act of 2012''
sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren.
As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I support this legislation because
it would allow advanced STEM graduates to remain in the United States
and contribute to our Nation's scientific discovery and technological
innovation, increasing our Nation's global competitiveness.
This bill reduces backlogs for STEM ``degree recipients by attracting
and retaining critical talent and creating a new ``EB-6 green card
category for persons with advanced degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) from research universities in the
United States.
I must underscore that this bill does not eliminate or weaken other
immigration programs to increase STEM visas. While H.R. 6412 provides
the same number of STEM visas (50,000) as the Republican proposal, it
does so without eliminating the long-standing Diversity Visa program,
which ensures diversity among new immigrants and provides one of the
few legal pathways to enter the United States.
This bill targets only the best and the brightest foreign students,
and requires that these individuals have an advanced degree from an
accredited public or nonprofit university classified by the National
Science Foundation as a research institution or as otherwise excelling
in STEM instruction.
Unlike the Republican proposal, this legislation H.R. 6412 does not
allow foreign graduates of ``for-profit colleges'' to receive STEM
visas, including degrees earned by mail or over the internet.
H.R. 6412 includes a provision which provides wage protections for
U.S. workers and requires that the offered wage to the STEM graduate
meets or exceeds the actual wage paid to U.S. workers with similar
levels of experience.
The Republican proposal does not include this provision and does not
adequately ensure that American workers are protected.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to strengthen our Nation's global
competitiveness by opposing the misguided Republican STEM proposal and
cosponsoring H.R. 6412, ``The Attracting the Best and Brightest Act of
2012.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who has long been active on the subject of
immigration.

[[Page H6193]]

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in strong support of the STEM Jobs Act.
For the past three Congresses, I've worked on this issue with the
introduction of the STAPLE Act, which would do much the same as this
bill does, as well as support for other pieces of legislation that do
what this piece of legislation does, which is allow those who are
trained in our universities here to contribute to the U.S. economy.
We all know that it's not government that creates jobs, that the job
of government is to enable the private sector to create jobs. I can
think of no better way than to allow the private sector access to the
brainpower and knowledge of those who have been trained in our
universities to stay here and help create jobs.
This is a good piece of legislation. It's one of the few pieces of
immigration legislation that has bipartisan support. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce), who is also chairman of the Foreign
Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the STEM Jobs
Act. It is time to alter the current immigration system. It is time to
substantially increase the proportion of new entrants with high levels
of education and skills.
Today, we are educating many of the best and brightest from around
the world, and then, ironically, we're sending them back to work for
our competitors. This makes no sense.

{time} 1630

Skilled immigrants can contribute to a rising U.S. standard of
living. They bring capital, they bring ideas, and they produce new
companies. With this bill, we can help grow innovation, and we can
create jobs in the U.S. We've got plenty of examples of IT firms in
California that are founded by immigrants from China and India that
were educated in our institutions.
Let's pass this bill and help our economy grow.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), who is a member of the Education and
the Workforce Committee.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, while I would have preferred the Lofgren
approach, I rise in support of the STEM Jobs Act because it's critical
to keeping America competitive in the global economy. The United States
has the best institutions of higher education in the world,
particularly when it comes to the STEM fields.
Yet U.S. businesses frequently express concerns over the availability
of qualified workers to perform jobs that are available and need to be
filled once we educate and train these students for jobs. We send them
back to their home countries to compete against us. This simply makes
no sense.
By passing this bill, we will help ensure that the best and brightest
in the world aren't working for our competitors abroad, but that
America keeps that talent here at home and they play on our team
instead of competing against us.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren), who is chairman of the House
Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, let's remember
where we are. Up until 1965, we had a quota system that essentially
gave advantages to certain countries to get their people in here versus
others.
We removed that in 1965. We went to a worldwide quota system based on
the fact that everyone around the world would have an equal chance to
get to the United States based on their talents and their reason for
coming here.
In about 1981, there was a cry that we weren't getting enough Irish
coming in here. Tip O'Neill--I recall, I was here on the floor at this
time--Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy worked together to create the
Diversity program that allowed anybody to apply for it at 12:01 a.m.
one morning.
What do you know, only the Irish knew about it. We got essentially
Irish in. That worked for a while. Then we changed it so that they and
others were no longer allowed, and we only allowed certain countries
in. We're going back to a quota system by country. It doesn't make
sense. It ought to be a worldwide quota system.
In addition, I would just say that most African American immigrants
in the U.S. do not come through the Diversity program. We have many who
are engaged in the STEM program study here. Just 3,000 from Nigeria
alone would be able to participate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a
disappointing day at a time when we look for leadership on the part of
the majority to bring us together. Instead, we have a partisan bill
before us.
We have 54 cosponsors on the bill that we've introduced. The
remarkable thing is that we have support across the entire breadth of
the Democratic Caucus for STEM visas. The things that have been said
about the Diversity Visa today are simply wrong.
They remind me of the warnings we got a short while ago about the
``terror babies'' who would somehow emerge after 21 years. It's absurd.
We need to vote against this bill, but I think we can quickly
reconvene and get to the bipartisan effort that this country deserves.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the STEM Jobs Act spurs economic growth and spurs job
creation by enabling American employers to hire some of the best and
brightest foreign students who graduate from American universities. The
American public, American employers, and the high-tech community all
support this bipartisan piece of legislation.
I urge my colleagues to vote for jobs, vote for innovation, and vote
for economic growth. Let's put the interests of America first.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as a proud original co-sponsor of the STEM
Jobs Act, I urge my colleagues to support this carefully-crafted
legislation. The American economy faces many challenges today, from
burdensome regulations to uncertainty over taxes. One of our biggest
challenges, especially in the manufacturing sector, is the skills gap--
a lack of highly trained workers with the expertise to perform certain
manufacturing jobs, or a shortage of scientists and engineers to
develop new technologies. Manufacturing in America relies on innovation
and skill, but too many factories slow down, too many opportunities are
missed, and too many jobs are lost because of this skills gap. And
worse, America's universities train and educate some of the most
promising scientists and engineers from around the world, but our
immigration laws force us to send them away to compete against American
companies.
It makes no sense to educate foreign students in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, only to send them
overseas once they complete their studies. Rather than force these
innovators and experts to join companies overseas to be in direct
competition with American high-technology manufacturing firms, we
should keep innovation and entrepreneurship here at home. The STEM Jobs
Act will allow these bright minds who study at top American
universities and are already in this country legally under a student
visa, the option to stay and work for American companies, build our
economy, and help create American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will not increase the total number of green
cards offered to immigrants, and it will not allow foreign workers to
take jobs that Americans are available to do. Instead, the STEM Jobs
Act makes our immigration laws smarter and guarantees that these green
cards are available only to fill jobs that Americans can't fill. This
bill will enhance America's competitiveness in the global marketplace
and will lead to the economic growth and job creation that American
workers need.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to
H.R. 6429, the misnamed STEM Jobs Act.
Make no mistake about it, this bill is designed to reduce legal
immigration to the United States.
H.R. 6429 doesn't just increase STEM visas, it also eliminates the
Diversity Visa program--a legal immigration program that makes visas
available to immigrants from countries that have low rates of
immigration to the United States.
It is wrong to force Congress to eliminate one immigration program,
in an effort to support another.
This misguided legislation also eliminates rollover provisions for
unused visas.

[[Page H6194]]

Unfortunately, H.R. 6429 lets unused visas go to waste, and forces
legal immigrants to continue to suffer in long backlogs.
In addition, I have serious concerns that this legislation
automatically allows for-profit and on-line schools to participate in
the new STEM green card program.
It's not too late for my Republican colleagues to change course, and
sit down with Democrats to work on a bipartisan bill that strengthens
the STEM visa program without limiting legal immigration.
I urge my colleagues to stand in solidarity and vote ``no'' on this
attempt to reduce legal immigration.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, the
misnamed STEM Jobs Act of 2012.
The ability our nation to attract the world's best and brightest has
contributed greatly to the creation of American jobs and the success of
American businesses large and small. However, many foreign students who
graduate from our best universities in the science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields become victims of a broken
visa system. The absence of specific visas for graduates in these
critical fields has resulted in long wait times and forces many to move
back home, taking their valuable skills out of the American economy.
Clearly, the time has come for change.
Unfortunately, H.R. 6429 isn't the change we need. It follows the
pattern of the Republicans' approach of giving with one hand while
taking with the other. This bill would create STEM visas at the expense
of eliminating the Diversity Visa Program. Diversity visas provide a
legal path for people from countries with low rates of immigration to
the United States. Half the recipients are from Africa and almost a
third are from Asia.
Democrats and Republicans agree that we should establish a STEM visa
program, but unfortunately Republicans inserted a poison pill in this
bill that guarantees it will not pass. It is also clear that the Senate
will not take up the bill with this provision included.
We in Hawaii know that diversity is a strength. Hawaii has been
enriched by the diverse immigrants who call it home, hailing from
places like the Philippines, Japan, Samoa, Portugal, and around the
Pacific Rim. While I believe we should be looking for ways to encourage
the best and brightest to come to our shores and create American jobs,
we don't need to do it at the expense of the Diversity Visa Program.
As an immigrant, I know the promise America offers and the hopes of
those who come to our shores seeking a better life. That's why I
support efforts to improve our immigration system and encourage those
with needed skills to come and work for our businesses. Furthermore, a
strong economic foundation depends on a world class American education
system that prepares the young people of our country to compete in the
STEM fields. I am convinced we can find a way to come together to
create a fair STEM Visa Program and to strengthen our STEM education so
more Americans can get these jobs.
H.R. 6429 is a flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 6429.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________