[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6517-H6524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6429, STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 821 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 821
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-34,
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of December 6, 2012, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, which
will allow the House of Representatives to consider H.R. 6429, the STEM
Jobs Act of 2012.
As I am sure my colleague from Colorado will point out, H. Res. 821
is a closed rule. The fact is that like Mr. Polis, I prefer an open-
amendment process. Open rules let us come together on both sides of the
aisle and contribute ideas to help make a bill better.
Today's rule will be closed, but that's because the crafting of the
STEM Jobs Act has been in a collaborative process for the last few
months. Chairman Smith, the author of this legislation, has already
worked with his committee, Republicans, Democrats, and even the Senate
to come up with a bill that, hopefully, everybody could support.
Unfortunately, we've since been informed that our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber are looking to play
politics with the STEM Jobs Act. However, that doesn't change the fact
that Chairman Smith worked diligently to make sure this legislation was
filled with bipartisan ideas.
The STEM Jobs Act would eliminate the flawed Diversity Lottery Green
Card program and reallocate up to 55,000 green cards a year to new
green card programs for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with
advanced STEM degrees.
According to a study by the National Science Foundation and the
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, in 1990 about
91,000 full-time foreign graduate students were studying in STEM fields
in the United States. That number had jumped to almost 149,000 by 2009.
It was 149,000 in 2009. However, the vast majority of these highly
skilled, highly educated innovators are leaving the United States where
they once received their education.
We're training hundreds of thousands of highly skilled engineers,
technicians, and scientists at American universities and then sending
them back home to compete against us in other countries.
{time} 1230
They aren't moving to other countries because they want to leave the
United States. They're moving because the immigration system forces
them out.
Currently, we only select 5 percent of our Nation's legal immigrants
based on skills and education they bring to America. So the vast
majority of foreign students who come to America for advanced degrees
and get their education find themselves on a years-long green card
waiting list and give up on the idea of staying here in the United
States.
When they leave our country, they take with them all their training
and all of their potential to go work for America's business
competitors in Canada, Europe, and Asia. The exodus of U.S.-trained
STEM professionals has been referred to as reverse brain drain.
The STEM Act of 2012 would reverse this trend. It would establish a
program to prioritize green cards for immigrants with graduate-level
degrees in the STEM fields. To offset the number of green cards that
would be given to the STEM Visa program, the bill would eliminate the
diversity lottery green card program, a program that has been
repeatedly highlighted as a threat to our national security.
The result is that there would be no net increase in the number of
green cards we give out as a Nation. The difference is that we will get
immigrants who have the training and the skills that we need to keep
American businesses competitive in a globalized and increasingly
technical age. In the process, we will eliminate a visa lottery system
that's rife with fraud and abuse and the State Department stated
contains significant threats to our national security.
In the Rules Committee meeting last night, some opponents to H.R.
6429 said that fraud and security concerns are old problems and that
they've been fixed. My colleagues were right in that these are old
problems, but the State Department inspector general report published
in 2003 listed the widespread abuse in the diversity lottery visa
program. The inspector general pointed to identity fraud, forged
documents, and national security threats. That's their words.
However, my colleagues were absolutely wrong to say that the problems
have been fixed. In fact, just 2 months ago, the GAO released a study
discussing the ways the State Department could reduce fraud in our
immigration system, and it highlighted the diversity lottery program.
Moreover, the STEM Jobs Act does this without putting American jobs at
risk.
This legislation includes provisions that would require the
petitioning of an employer to submit a job order to the appropriate
State workforce agency. The job opening would then be posted in the
agency's official Web site in an effort to publicize available jobs for
Americans.
In addition to reforming the green card process for foreign students
with advanced STEM degrees, H.R. 6429 also includes provisions that
would help reunite families waiting on the immigration process. As it
currently stands, family green cards can take 6 or 7 years to process
and be approved. During these long years, families are separated. A
spouse or parent can be living as a permanent resident in the United
States while their loved ones wait back home hoping to be reunited
somewhere down the line. This pro-family legislation would help reduce
the time these families need to spend apart without speeding up or
preempting the actual green card process.
Provisions contained within the STEM Jobs Act would expand the V
nonimmigrant visa program to allow spouses and minor children of
permanent U.S. residents to come to the United States to live with
their loved ones once they have spent 1 year on the green card waiting
list. The bill expressly states that these folks would not be allowed
to work, taking jobs away from American citizens, nor would they
inherently be entitled to any government welfare programs because of
the V visa in and of itself.
Similarly, the expanded V visa program won't speed up or expedite the
green card process in any way. All it does is this: It ensures that
families don't have to live separately and in uncertainty as to when
they can be reunited at an unknown time down the line. It brings
families back together.
[[Page H6518]]
The simple fact is that our current immigration system is
ineffective. We educate the world's best and brightest and then send
them away to be our competitors. We only prioritize about 5 percent of
our visas based upon what they actually contribute to our economy. We
have a diversity lottery system that is subject to widespread abuse and
opens up our country to entry of hostile intelligence officers,
criminals, and terrorists. We separate spouses, parents, and minor
children for unknown years on end.
We can do better with the STEM Jobs Act. It is an important step
towards doing better. It makes the American green card process smarter,
safer, and more family oriented. It protects American jobs and workers
while still supporting the American innovation industry, which is why
over 100 major companies and councils have supported H.R. 6429.
I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the underlying
bill, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. It is important to talk
about, in consideration of this rule and this bill, what it is and what
it isn't.
Here we are with a looming fiscal cliff, and yet Congress has allowed
no issue to fester longer than immigration. Whether one is on the left
or the right or in the middle, I'm sure my colleague from Florida would
agree that whatever we're doing now in immigration is not working very
well. We have over 10 million people here illegally. There is rampant
violation of the law. There is lackluster enforcement. Families are
torn apart.
What's before us, regardless of the merits, which we'll get into in a
moment, clearly does not address the problems in our immigration
system. Whether this bill becomes law or not, our immigration system
will continue to have problems, and there will continue to be over 10
million people here in violation of the law, many working illegally, in
some cases taking jobs away from American citizens.
So instead of a solution, we have a bill before us that asks us to
weigh two goals of our immigration policy in many ways against one
another. There might very well be room for a noncontroversial
immigration bill that catches up and includes some of the less
controversial provisions, including a STEM program, and there could
very well be room for that short of comprehensive immigration reform.
I support and am a cosponsor of the IDEA Act, which does that. I
tried to amend into this bill and allow for the consideration of this
body yesterday in the Rules Committee a bill that I have for the
permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 visa program, a program that is
not very controversial and has strong support from both sides but
suffers from temporary reauthorizations. This is a critical program for
creating jobs for Americans because it allows companies to attract
capital from investors, and those investors are able to be part of
those companies and grow those companies, creating jobs for Americans.
This program could be much more successful if the Rules Committee
yesterday had, on a party-line vote, not allowed that amendment to come
to the floor. I'm confident that that amendment would have passed with
near universal support, and certainly strong support from both sides.
Instead of trying to catch and move forward on some of the less
controversial aspects of immigration which in no way, shape, or form,
again, prevent the need for a comprehensive solution, but instead of
even moving forward on the noncontroversial aspects, we have a bill
before us that is controversial because it weighs two important goals
of immigration against one another. So rather than create a STEM Visa
program as the IDEA Act does, as the STAPLE Act, which I'm a cosponsor
of with my colleague Congressman Flake from Arizona who has introduced
it in past sessions, rather than do that, it asks the question of this
body: Would we rather have a Diversity Visa concept or would we rather
have a STEM Visa concept? In reality, I think many in this body would
agree that both are desirable.
{time} 1240
Diversity Visas essentially go to immigrants that are from countries
other than the main countries that send us immigrants. What are the
main countries that send us immigrants? Obviously, Mexico. In addition
to that, there are China, Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, and
several others. We have a lot of immigrants from Mexico and these other
countries. What the Diversity Visa says is, shouldn't we also give
opportunities to some residents of countries, like the Ukraine or
Albania or Ethiopia, and have them also come so that they're not just
crowded out by applicants from Mexico, India, and China?
If we don't have a Diversity Visa, a higher percentage of our
immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. Now, that's okay--
it's certainly not the end of the world--but there is value in having
immigrants from across the world. There is value in having Ukrainians
come to this country. There is value in having Ethiopians. In addition,
there is value in people having diverse social backgrounds and ethnic
backgrounds coming to this country to facilitate assimilation into this
country and integration into this country. So I think that it was well
thought out in having a concept whereby people who don't happen to be
from Mexico, India, China or the other main countries have a way of
getting here. It's a good program.
So, too, having a STEM visa program is absolutely critical as it is
important to our country to make sure that we can retain the talent
that we attract to our universities. There is something that is so
frustrating to me as an American and to many of our constituents, and I
talk about it frequently back home with my representing both of our
major State universities in Colorado as well as private universities in
my district:
Here we are educating people from across the world, and if you look
at our engineering grad schools, we see a high number of foreign
nationals on student visas. We are educating computer programmers and
aerospace engineers with the skills they need to compete in a 21st-
century workforce. Upon giving them their master's degrees or Ph.D.s,
we tell them, do you know what, you're not allowed to work here in this
country. You have to move back to another country and compete against
us. Guess what? The jobs follow them. In the digital age, employers
care less where an employee is based. They care where the talent is. If
the best computer programmer is only available for hire or if an
aerospace engineer is only available for hire in India or in Mexico or
in the U.K., the companies will--and increasingly are--setting up
divisions in those countries to hire them rather than hiring here. So
the lack of having a STEM job pathway is actively destroying American
jobs every day.
Here we are as a body being asked to say under a closed rule, Is it
more important to have immigrants from countries other than Mexico,
India, and China? Is it more important to have some Ukrainians and
Ethiopians and Albanians? I use those examples because those are some
of the leading countries that have used the Diversity Visa, but there
are a broad number of countries that do. Is that something that's
important? How does its importance compare to making sure that those we
train here are able to deploy their talents here and create jobs in
America rather than overseas?
Again, it's a very frustrating proposition in the way the Republicans
have chosen to bring this to the floor: a, it obviously doesn't address
the underlying issues of our immigration crisis in this country. It
doesn't change the fact that there are 10 million people here
illegally, and it doesn't prevent people from coming here illegally; b,
it asks us to choose between two valuable programs. Rather than simply
passing the Staples Act, rather than passing the IDEA Act, it says that
we're going to have to choose as a country to benefit either from STEM
graduates or from people from other countries other than Mexico, India,
and China. It's a false dilemma.
There were amendments that were offered by Zoe Lofgren that would
[[Page H6519]]
have addressed that which were turned down by the Rules Committee.
Again, there were strong bipartisan concepts like EB-5 permanent
authorization that I offered, put forward, that were also shut down in
committee. In addition, at a time of budget deficits and the looming
fiscal crisis, this bill would increase the budget deficit by over $1
billion over the next 5 years; and that is unpaid for as well.
There are many ways that immigration can be looked at to reduce our
budget deficit, and there are many concepts of comprehensive
immigration reform either through fees paid by those who violate the
law, penalties paid. Increased taxes going forward for those who would
have to pay taxes under immigration reform would actually reduce our
deficit; but here we are with a solitary idea around immigration that
forces all Members of this body to weigh two valuable programs against
one another, and at the same time it costs taxpayers over $1 billion
over the next 5 years. It's a choice that Congress shouldn't face.
There are also very legitimate concerns that, not only does this bill
weigh two valuable programs and asks us to choose, but, in effect, it's
a backdoor way to reduce the number of legal immigrants. There should
be no hesitation in saying that, by reducing the number of legal
immigrants, we will increase the number of illegal immigrants. This
bill will likely increase the number of illegal immigrants to this
country because the math doesn't work.
Now, why doesn't the math work? The bill purports to offset 55,000
STEM green cards by eliminating 55,000 green cards in the Diversity
program. Now, if that were a one-on-one trade, that would be the same
net number of immigrants. The issue is, as to our institutions of
higher education that give master's degrees and Ph.D.s in the eligible
areas to students on foreign visas, there are not 55,000 foreign
students who receive them every year. There were, in fact, 29,904 last
year, so about 30,000. There is a backlog so that, after several years,
the 55,000 would no longer be able to be met; but then after 3 or 4
years and after the backlog was met, this would likely lead to a
reduction in legal immigration and to an increase in illegal
immigration because only 29,000 foreign nationals are matriculating
with master's and Ph.D.s in the included areas; yet 55,000 visas would
be removed from the program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and
people from countries that are not Mexico, India, China, and the other
12 from coming to this country legally.
So I have very sincere concerns that, rather than addressing the
issue of illegal immigration, this bill because of the math and because
of the numbers that have been brought to my attention could actually
increase illegal immigration by reducing legal immigration, which is
the last thing that we need to do with regard to solving in a
bipartisan way our immigration crisis.
As a former Internet entrepreneur myself and in representing our
universities, I know firsthand about the critical need to pass a STEM
visa program. Not only would it create more high-paying, high-tech jobs
for Americans, but it would produce tax revenues. It would make our
country stronger and our economy stronger. Yet rather than take up the
IDEA Act or the Staples Act, we're here with a backdoor attempt by the
Republicans to increase the number of illegal immigrants in our
country, which I would argue is not the right direction for immigration
reform. Immigration reform should be predicated around solving the
crisis of illegal immigration. Rather than increasing the number of
illegal immigrants from 10 million to 12 million to 14 million, we need
to find a way to reduce that number to as close to zero as is feasible,
and that should be the goal of immigration reform.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to a leader on
immigration issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and distinguished
member of the Rules Committee for yielding time to me.
Despite bipartisan support for a clean STEM visa bill, this is a
partisan bill that picks winners and losers in our immigration system
and requires the elimination of the Diversity Visa program before a
single STEM visa can be issued. In other words, we want to pick
immigrants we like and then eliminate immigrants we don't like as
though some are better than others. The interesting thing is that most
of the Members of the House can look back into their own personal
histories and find their own family members and ancestors who come from
the countries that are being eliminated.
{time} 1250
After the historic elections we've just witnessed, it flies in the
face of our diverse American electorate to precondition STEM visas on
the elimination of Diversity Visa immigrants, 50 percent of whom come
from the continent of Africa. Like STEM graduates, they have much to
contribute to the United States.
We've seen this poison pill before--pitting immigrant against
immigrant--when the House voted down H.R. 6429 under suspension. But it
gets worse. Inserted in the new version of the bill is an amendment to
the V Visa program that the majority claims helps families and makes
the bill balanced and bipartisan.
Let me be clear: this was not a provision negotiated with us on the
Democratic side. It was negotiated with anti-immigrant groups and
extremists in the Republican Party.
H.R. 6429 takes the V visa, a bipartisan visa created more than 10
years ago, and amends it to deny V visa holders eligibility to work and
cuts out of the program spouses and minor children already living in
the U.S. This backhanded, so-called family fix should offend anyone who
truly cares about families.
But the family provisions are even worse than that. Families of STEM
visa holders are treated fairly, but the families of ``ordinary'' green
card holders are treated as second class. If you are a STEM degree
holder, your spouse and minor children can immediately come to the
United States and your spouse is granted a work permit. My colleagues
on the other side of the aisle know this. However, if you're an
``ordinary'' green card holder who applies to bring your spouse and
children to the United States through our regular family immigration
channels, you will make your spouse and children wait at least a year
before joining you in the U.S., and we will not allow your spouse to
work once he or she gets here.
I agree that STEM holders should be able to bring their families--
their children and their wives or their husbands--and that their
spouses should be able to work legally in the United States. However, I
resent that the spouses and children of other family-based immigrants
are treated differently and unfairly. Apparently Republicans' devotion
to family extends only to families where the principal immigrant is
smart enough to earn a Ph.D. or master's degree in a STEM field, and
that is something that I resent. And that is something that all
Americans should abhor. It goes against the immigration diversity that
we have, as a Nation, created.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Curson), a new Member of our body.
Mr. CURSON of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 6429 because I have grave concerns with the bill's elimination of
the Diversity Visa program. The Diversity Visa program has given people
from around the world the opportunity to win the most precious lottery:
the chance to come to the United States, to work hard, and to earn the
right to be an American. The program increases our Nation's ethnic
diversity and provides one of the few legal pathways for immigration
from countries that are impoverished, persecuted, or unfree.
I do support increasing STEM visas to foreign graduates. That will
increase our pool of high-skilled workers that will promote new ideas,
new technologies, and help our businesses stay on the cutting edge of
new things to come. But we should not reward one class of individuals
and deny another class that's not so blessed with the opportunity to
prove themselves.
H.R. 6429 would actually reduce legal immigration levels by not
allowing the rollover of unused visas. It's disappointing that there's
no opportunity
[[Page H6520]]
to craft sensible, bipartisan legislation on an issue that so many
Democrats and Republicans agree on.
H.R. 6412, the Democratic version, requires that employers offer
wages to STEM graduates that do not undercut actual wages paid to U.S.
workers with similar levels of experience. I have witnessed over the
last decade unscrupulous employers who dramatically eroded wages, not
for competitive reasons, but solely to transfer wealth from workers to
executives. They were successful only because workers were hungry for
jobs and willing to work for nearly any wage. The median household
income dropped by $3,700 in that time while executive pay skyrocketed,
even as our economy tanked. By contrast, the bill we are debating today
does not include wage protections and does not adequately ensure that
American workers are protected.
Equally important is that H.R. 6412 preserves the Diversity Visa
program, ensuring equal opportunity to work in our great land.
Democrats and Republicans alike have forwarded great wisdom towards
this issue. Now is the time to cooperate with one another and craft a
truly bipartisan approach to immigration reform that provides for
equality of opportunity for all those who seek the benefit of U.S.
citizenship.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
for yielding me this time, and I identify with a number of the
reservations that he mentioned about this legislation.
A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over
the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly
12 million immigrants, who, for the most part, are already part of the
fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often
already integrated into existing families.
A consequence of this recent election may well be a new reality on
the American political scene when it comes to immigration, a
willingness to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more
thoughtful direction. We are already hearing some of these signals from
the Senate this week. In a small way, the legislation before us today
may provide an additional opportunity to move forward.
I voted against its earlier incarnation--reluctantly--because it was
designed to fail. While I will vote today against the rule, tomorrow I
will be voting for the legislation which would create the STEM Visa
program and give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and masters
graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical
fields. Dealing with this in regular order is encouraging. The bill was
also made marginally better. I think we have an opportunity here for us
all to help break this logjam. Creating a STEM Visa program should be a
no-brainer.
This legislation is certainly not perfect, and I agree, as I
mentioned, with some of the reservations that have been advanced.
Frankly, unless our objections are addressed, it will not pass the
Senate. We don't support the philosophy that immigration needs to be
zero sum. We need not eliminate the Diversity Visa program in order to
add this program. The Senate, as I said, will fix these provisions, if
they take it up at all. Frankly, I hope they do take it up and they do
fix it. This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we
can and must move forward on broader immigration reform, like the
comprehensive immigration reform, that Senator McCain previously
supported with the late-Senator Kennedy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. America needs to unite families, to protect and give
justice to young people, strengthen business from high tech to
agriculture and help us live up to our ideals as a Nation of
immigrants.
A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over
the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly
12 million immigrants, who for the most part are already part of the
fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often
already integrated into existing families. Strengthening and expanding
legal immigration even helps grow our economy. Conservative economists
for the Cato Institute project that a comprehensive imigration reform
with a pathway to citizenship would add $1.5 trillion to the U.S.
economy over 10 years. Unfortunately, rational immigration policy has
fallen victim to some of the most extreme political cross currents in
our country which not only deny our roots, but violate fundamental
fairness and reality.
Recent immigration legislation is costly, inefficient, and cruel as
it relates to families already here. Young people brought here as
children who know no other life and are American in every sense, but
are still denied the American dream.
A consequence of the election may well be a new reality on the
American political scene when it comes to immigration and a willingness
to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more thoughtful
direction.
There have been shifts in public attitude embracing comprehensive
solutions for some time, but in the political arena this is a more
recent phenomenon. It will take time to do this right, but a
willingness by some on the other side of the aisle to offer their own
version of the DREAM Act in the Senate, for example, is reason for
optimism.
While I strongly support a comprehensive solution that provides a
path to citizenship for people who are willing to play by the rules,
work hard, pay their taxes, and demonstrate citizenship skills, there
are two intermediate steps that should get us moving in the right
direction. The DREAM Act and the creation of a STEM visa program should
be low-hanging fruit that almost everyone can embrace.
The deferred action announced by the administration to give a sliver
of hope to these bright young people who study hard and play by the
rules and who are good citizens was a good step but should be followed
by early action on the DREAM Act. I am proud this was passed by the
previous Congress and I hope it will be the first order of business in
the new Congress. These young people are the lifeblood of America's
future and we should welcome them and do everything possible to ensure
their success.
I will vote for H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act, which creates a STEM
visa program and would give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and
master's graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematical
fields. I reluctantly voted against this in September because it was
brought forward as a last minute suspension bill designed to fail and
create unnecessary political divisions. This time, dealing with this in
regular order is encouraging. It was also made marginally better. For
example, the new version of the legislation decreases the wait time for
certain spouses and children who are planning to join their loved ones
with permanent residency in the United States. It also removed a
concerning provision that forced STEM visa applicants to commit to
working in the United States for five years. While prospects in the
Senate are still dim, the most important change has been the
willingness of my friends on the other side of the aisle to take
another look at immigration and maybe dial down the political rhetoric.
I was personally willing to meet them halfway.
Creating a STEM visa program should be a no-brainer. It will make a
huge difference in keeping the best and brightest from around the world
in the United States. These students come to our colleges and
universities to receive the best education available and it is insane
to send them back home or to other countries if they want to stay here.
It has been said that we should staple a green card to every diploma
for an advanced degree. We should certainly do whatever is necessary
for appropriate verification to ensure national security, but the
overwhelming majority should be welcome to reside, be productive,
create families, and support businesses right here.
The legislation is certainly not perfect and unless our objection is
addressed will not pass the Senate. We need comprehensive immigration
overhaul, not a piecemeal approach. I also do not support the
philosophy that immigration needs to remain zero-sum: we should not
need to eliminate the diversity visa in order to add this program. I am
confident the Senate will fix these provisions.
This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we can
and must move forward on broader immigration reform. America needs to
unite families, to protect and give justice to young people, strengthen
business from high-tech to agriculture, and help us live up to our
ideals as a Nation of immigrants.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has
any remaining speakers he's expecting.
Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, seeing as I am the last speaker from my side,
I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H6521]]
As articulated by the gentleman from Oregon, this bill presents a
difficult decision for Members of this body, and I certainly have great
respect for people on both sides of the issue.
{time} 1300
I want to go over, again, some of the pros and cons. The program that
allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and Albanians to come in to make sure
that a disproportionate number of our immigrants are not just from a
small number of countries is important. Absent that, a higher
percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. So
again, if this bill passes, a higher percentage of our immigrants will
be from the major countries that send people here.
Now, it's not the end of the world, but there's added value in having
people from all corners of the world come here to become part of our
great country and, in many cases, this is the only way that people from
Nepal or Albania or Ethiopia have a shot at coming to this country and
succeeding.
We also need people in this country across all different skill levels
in our labor market. And whether that labor includes toiling in the
field or toiling in downtown buildings at night or programming
computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of
our economy--yes, in STEM, but not just in STEM.
So we are asked to choose, asked to choose between people with
graduate degrees whom we want to keep here in science, technology,
engineering, and math. In many cases, if they're not allowed to stay,
they will have to return to other countries, and the jobs will follow
them, costing our country jobs.
Choose between them and allowing people here from countries other
than Mexico, India, and China, some of whom are high-skilled, some of
whom are low-skilled, a diverse group across the board. Looking back at
many of our own forebears, certainly mine, my family came to this
country in the late 19th century, and early 20th century, 1890s, 1905.
They didn't have master's degrees. They didn't have Ph.D.s. They didn't
have college degrees. And that's the case for many of our forebears.
Here today their great-grandson sits as a Member of Congress, and had
a program not existed whereby they could arrive at Ellis Island and be
here, I wouldn't be here today.
Now, my father has a Ph.D., but that's the legacy of his hard-working
immigrant grandparents that came to this country without a college
degree and, in many cases, without something that's the equivalent of
even a high school degree today. To work hard, to live the American
Dream, and for their descendents, to be able to serve in this august
body.
So it's a cause for reflection. Both are important. And again, the
closed process of the bill doesn't allow for a discussion of the IDEA
Act or the STAPLE Act, which would simply create a new STEM immigrant
visa program.
My other concern with this bill, as I mentioned, is that it would
increase the number of illegal immigrants here in this country. Simply
by the way that the math works, the number of STEM graduates is lower
than the number of STEM visas that are available each year.
Now, it would be one thing if that was allowed to trickle down to
other categories, or, for instance, the overflow was allowed to be used
for diversity visas. There might be room for compromise. But instead,
those excess visas disappear. So after the backlog of three or 4 years
is dealt with, these 55,000 visas that are being taken away from
Albania and the Ukraine and Ethiopia and Africa and Asia, the back of
those 55,000 visas will only result in 20,000 or so net immigrants.
Now 29,000 graduates graduating from institutions of higher
education. Now, keep in mind, not everybody wants to stay here. As
attractive as our country is, some people do want to learn here and go
back to their other countries, and that's certainly fine as well. But
many will want to stay here.
But in losing some of those visas, again, we are only increasing the
immigration problem, the illegal immigration problem, and moving in the
opposite direction of addressing immigration in this country. There is
little to be proud of with regard to the current state of affairs in
immigration.
It's very different than when my great-grandparents came here and got
off at Ellis Island and registered and, albeit with a misspelled name,
were able to go to work the next day. It's becoming harder and harder.
The absence of a legal way of immigrating that is in touch with our
labor market in this country, the lack of having an operative
immigration system has led to over 10 million people being here
illegally, working illegally, as my colleague from Oregon said, in many
cases, integrated into our communities. Many of them have American
children, are parents of American kids, and yet, without any way,
currently, of getting right with the law.
What we need to do in immigration reform is require that people who
are here illegally get right with the law, rather than prevent them
from getting right with the law, which is what we do currently.
So, again, while STEM immigration is very important, my colleagues
are being asked, in a closed process, to weigh that with the issue of
immigrants from countries like the Ukraine and Albania. At the same
time, again, this bill will increase the number of illegal immigrants
in this country. Perhaps increasing the number of illegal immigrants
will redouble the efforts of this Congress to address this issue.
But, given the enormous dimension of the problem already and the
complete lack of consideration of any meaningful immigration bill by
this Congress to solve a broken immigration system, I'm certainly not
holding my breath.
The zero-sum bill on the floor asks us to weigh one class of
immigrants at the expense of another, in effect, trying to play
politics and avoid solving our immigration crisis.
I think it's time for a transparent and open debate. It's time for
compromise. It's time to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually
replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our
country, one that strengthens our economy, one that creates jobs for
Americans, one that makes our Nation's immigration system more humane
and makes it workable and enforceable.
This bill, for all its merits, for all its problems, I think, we,
both proponents and opponents can agree it falls short on that account
of fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that
works. It has no additional enforcement provisions, no border security
provisions. It provides no requirement for people who are here
illegally to get right with the law.
Rather, it does create an excellent program to keep high-tech
graduates here. It destroys another valuable program to keep people
from countries other than Mexico and India and China and the UK here.
It likely will increase illegal immigration by 10 or 20,000 a year, and
provides no solution.
So a difficult decision for all Members of this body. And I'd like to
think that Members on both sides, hopefully, would agree that we can do
better. We need to do better. We've been called upon by the voters of
this country to do better.
And I encourage, whether it's in this Congress or the next Congress,
to take up the difficult but critical issue of replacing our broken
immigration system with one that works for our country, creates
prosperity for America, helps reduce our budget deficit, is humane, is
enforceable. No one said it would be easy, but that's what the people
send us here to do.
And regardless of the outcome of this particular bill, we are simply
taking another week in avoiding addressing the real issues of the
immigration crisis in this country.
I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which was a
closed process and doesn't allow for consideration of even
noncontroversial amendments such as my EB-5 amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
To my good friend from Colorado, we agree on so many issues,
particularly as it relates to immigration reform. We agree. I think
this is the first step in regards to where we need to go. You have sold
a very persuasive argument in regards to why it is so important, so
important, that we have a STEM visa program; why it's important to us
to keep that brain power that we educated in the United States, keep
them
[[Page H6522]]
here in this country to support our businesses and our manufacturing so
we can be more competitive on a global market. You have made my case on
that argument.
I'll agree with you that this immigration system that we have is
broken. I wasn't here 2 years ago or 4 years ago when the Democrats
were in power in both the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and
they moved nothing forward that we're talking about today.
{time} 1310
It's disappointing when you have all the levels of government and you
don't accomplish anything as it relates to this. And now we want to
turn it around and say that this is a flawed bill. At the end of the
day, this meets the needs of our corporations of creating more jobs
here in America, about putting more people to work, and it also
rectifies an issue on the V-Visa program in regards to instead of
having families split because someone has a legitimate green card as a
resident here, that he has to be split or she has to be split from
their family. The mother of their children or their children are kept
from coming in the United States. Because today, the way the program
is, they are kept from coming to the United States. So they don't have
an opportunity to get a job, anyhow.
But what this does do is it rectifies a problem that allows parents
to be reunited with their children. I don't know, but that's important
to me as a father of three. I would much rather have had my family here
if I was a resident alien here. I would rather have my family here so I
could reach out and touch them and help encourage them and move them
forward in the American principles--that's what I would want to do--
versus trying to talk across great distances to try to bring a family
together. That's no way to raise a family. But they do it because they
have to. This rectifies that problem. While it doesn't allow them to go
out and get a job, it does bring the family unit back together again. I
know, Mr. Polis, you have a son. You would rather have your son with
you than a thousand miles away, as I would.
So this is a step in the right direction. This is moving us forward,
not moving us backwards. This is actually taking an approach that
should have been taken 4 years ago, and the Democrats punted it down
the field. In September, we voted on this initial STEM bill and we had
30 Democrats across the aisle vote with us. We didn't meet the
threshold of two-thirds because it was under suspension.
I truly believe that this bill has the ability to cut across the
aisle. And we heard our good friend from Oregon talk about it--for the
right reasons. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean we should
just throw it in the scrap heap. And I agree that we can pass this bill
and send it to the Senate. The Senate has the option to bring it up,
debate it, vote on it, amend it, and send it back to the House. Do your
job. I agree that that's what they should do. At least have the
discussion. When the Senate comes out and says, We're going to ignore
it, we're not going to do anything with it, that's a disservice to the
American public, it's a disservice to those that create jobs, and those
Americans that need jobs.
You talk about a zero sum game. This is not a way to reduce
immigration. I don't know where my good friend got the numbers about
how this is going to increase the number of illegal immigrants to this
country. I've never heard that before. I've never seen anything in
writing as relates to that. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't
know that. I think it just sounds like a good number. What we don't
want to do is scare people to be opposed to something that is good for
America.
We made an investment as a Nation in these foreign students when they
came here, when we allowed them here in the STEM fields. Why let that
investment leave? Why would we ignore that investment and say, you know
what? we don't care, when it has a direct negative impact on this
country--not on any other country--on this country it has a direct
negative impact. It's just common sense. And I guess that's the
problem. Sometimes common sense and Washington, D.C., are vast worlds
apart.
While looking at this, it's just a small, commonsense reform to our
immigration policy. But what it does do is addresses a dangerous
Diversity Visa problem. Even the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Visa Services testified in front of the Judiciary Committee
that visa lottery fraud includes multiple entries, fraudulent claims to
education and work experience, pop-up spouses or family members, and
false claims of employment or financial support in the United States.
His words, not mine.
For example, one third-party agent in Bangladesh entered every single
name from a phone book in Bangladesh into the lottery system in order
to extort money. If your name got pulled he would go to you and extort
money so you can come to the United States. Or, guess what? Sell that
winning slot to someone else.
That's not what the whole program was designed for. I would suggest
to you that students that are coming from foreign countries come
across-the-board. We have them from China, we have them from the
Ukraine, as you like to keep pointing out, and from all over the world
to come to our universities, particularly for those STEM degrees,
advanced degrees. So I would suggest to you that you're going to
continue that diversity by getting people that have gone to the max
that are going to be so productive here in America to help us. It's not
a sum game. It's just a rational game.
I really wish that I knew that if we passed this today, that it would
become law. The President has already kind of said he wouldn't sign it.
I don't know how you can have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. When we talk
about STEM, those individuals who have come to our universities and
graduate with a degree in those STEM sciences, how we can just ignore
them and say, Listen, this is good for America.
Instead of making this a Republican or Democratic idea, why don't we
just pass it because it's the right idea? Let's do something for once
that's good for America. Let's do something once that's good for those
green card holders that are currently here in the United States,
bringing their families together so they can become productive in
whatever sense their family decides. Wouldn't we want to do that? I
would want to do that. I want to see families reunited, not split
apart, not kept because of some arcane rule that's going to take them 6
or 7 years, maybe, to get a green card so they can bring their family
here in the United States, where this would allow them to come 1 year
after being on the waiting list, they get the opportunity to come here
and be reunited with their family.
For all that we hear about Democrats are always for families, this
time I guess they're not. This time I guess because they're from some
other country, maybe they're just not that important. They are to me. I
think it's important. Here's once where the Republicans are stepping
forward on an immigration issue that's good for America, it's good for
the people that are currently here on green cards legally. It allows
them to reinvest. How can this be bad for America? Is it because it's a
Republican idea? Is that the reason why this is a bad piece of
politics? I would hope not. I would hope that my colleagues across the
aisle will be like Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon and look at the real
merits of it.
While not perfect in any sense of the word, as is any legislation
that comes out of this place, at least it's a move and a step in the
right direction. And let the Senate do their job. Let the Senate bring
it up. Let the Senate vote on it and amend it and send it back to the
House. Let the Senate for once do their job. And then, Mr. President,
you can make a decision whether you're going to veto it or not. But
let's quit playing politics with immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my good friend from Colorado because
we agree on so many issues as it relates to this. We just don't agree
on everything.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res.
821, the Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs
Act,'' a bill which eliminates the Diversity Visa Program.
Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family
members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa
Program under which only 50,000 visa
[[Page H6523]]
winners were to be selected via random selection process.
Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4% of all Legal
Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions.
SEEDS OF DIVERSITY
Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us
develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It
serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African
immigrants have comprised about 50% of the DV program's beneficiaries.
Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity
Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and
professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents.
The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration
laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging
prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to
attempting to enter without permission.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS
The Diversity Visa sustains the American Dream in parts of the world
where it represents the only realistic opportunity for immigrating to
the U.S.
Former Rep. Bruce Morrison--one of the architects of the Diversity
Visa--testified in 2005 that the program advances a principle that is
``at the heart of the definition of America''; the principle that ``all
nationalities are welcome.''
Ambassador Johnny Young, Executive Director of Migration and Refugee
Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified at a 2011
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 talents.''
AMENDMENTS OFFERED IN JUDICIARY AND RULES
During the Judiciary Committee's markup of a bill earlier this year
to kill the Diversity Visa program, I offered an amendment directing
the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on
steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks
in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and
defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every
Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment.
Once again I offered 2 amendments in Rules Committee to protect the
Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the
Committee voted against it.
NO SIGNIFCANT EVIDENCE OF A SECURITY RISK
No substantive evidence has been given that the Diversity Program
poses a significant risk to our national security. There are
organizations like Numbers USA who are not just advocating against
illegal immigration but also wish to place caps on or decrease legal
immigration as well.
As former Congressman Bruce Morrison testified in 2005: ``[I]t is
absurd to think that a lottery would be the vehicle of choice for
terrorists.'' 12 to 20 million people enter the Diversity Visa lottery
each year and no more than 50,000 visas are available.
In 2007, GAO ``found no documented evidence that DV immigrants . . .
posed a terrorist or other threat.''
Diversity Visa recipients go through the same immigration, criminal,
and national security background checks that all people applying for
Lawful Permanent Residence undergo. They also are interviewed by State
Department and Department of Homeland Security personnel.
FRAUD
Since the State Department OIG first raised concerns about fraud in
1993, significant changes have been made. In 2004, State implemented an
electronic registration system. This allows State to use facial and
name recognition software to identify duplicate applications and to
share date with intelligence and law enforcement agencies for necessary
immigration and security checks.
In 2012 there was an incident where 20,000 people were erroneously
notified that they were finalists in the Diversity program. They would
have the opportunity to enter the lottery. The OIG investigated and
found this was due to a computer error. There was no evidence of
intentional fraud, as a safety precaution and because of the principle
of fairness the State Department did the lottery again.
The Diversity Visa program has led the way in applying cutting edge
technology to reduce fraud and increase security. The program was one
of the first in the government to use facial recognition software to
analyze digital photographs.
I join the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues in supporting an
expansion of the STEM program. H.R. 6429 attempt to increase the STEM
Visa program is an admirable one; however, I firmly believe it should
not come at the expense of the Diversity Immigration Visa Program and
should include a broader range of institutions.
I firmly support Rep. Lofgren's bill, H.R. 6412 which is a clean STEM
Visa bill and creates a visa program for students graduating with
advanced STEM degrees from U.S. research universities, without
eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.
Frankly, it appears there are Republicans who have been needlessly
targeting this program, as a means to decrease legal immigration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 170, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 611]
YEAS--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--170
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
[[Page H6524]]
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Ackerman
Austria
Barber
Costello
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Lee (CA)
Manzullo
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Payne
Pence
Roybal-Allard
Schmidt
Stark
Sullivan
Towns
Turner (OH)
{time} 1342
Messrs. HONDA, ELLISON, CARNEY, CLEAVER, and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 611, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________