Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 152 (Friday, November 30, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 152 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6539-H6561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 821, I call up
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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Pursuant to House Resolution 821,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of
Rules Committee Print 112-34, modified by the amendment printed in
House Report 112-697, is adopted. The bill, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, 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 2014 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section 201(e) had not been repealed by section 3 of the STEM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 2014, 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)
only to the extent of 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) up to, but not
exceeding, 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.
``(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2015, 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) only to the extent of 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 2015 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year.
Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2015 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 2015.
``(v) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2016, 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--
``(I) to the extent of 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 2016 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2015 with respect to aliens
seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b)
were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such
year; and
``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections
204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal
year 2016.
Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 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 2016.
``(vi) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2017, 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--
``(I) to the extent of 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 2017 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2016 with respect to aliens
seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b)
were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such
year; and
``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections
204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal
year 2017.
Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 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 2017.''.
(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.--

[[Page H6540]]

``(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; and
``(ii) 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; and
``(IV) 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) 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
``(iii) 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, 2018, 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, 2013, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.
``Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to
prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from accepting
before such date petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F))
relating to alien beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph
(6) or (7) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b))
(as added by this section).''.

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

[[Page H6541]]

(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, 2013, 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 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 October 1, 2013, 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 October 1, 2013, 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.

SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF THE ``V'' NONIMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM FOR
SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS
AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.

(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``that
was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or
before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration
Family Equity Act,'';
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``3 years or more;'' and
inserting ``1 year or more;'' ; and
(3) in clause (ii), by striking ``3 years or more have''
and inserting ``1 year or more has''.
(b) Provisions Affecting Nonimmigrant Status.--Section
214(q) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1184(q)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Attorney
General'' and all that follows through ``; and'' and
inserting ``the alien may not be authorized to engage in
employment in the United States during the period of
authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant; and''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(3) by striking ``(q)(1)'' and inserting ``(q)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to an
alien who--
(1) applies for nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(V) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V)) on or after such date; and
(2) is the beneficiary of a classification petition filed
under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1154) before, on, or after such date.

SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF GUARANTEE FEES FOR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED
HOUSING ENTERPRISES AND FHA.

(a) GSEs.--Subsection (f) of section 1327 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4547) is
amended by striking ``October 1, 2021'' and inserting
``October 1, 2022''.
(b) FHA.--Subsection (b) of section 402 of the Temporary
Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-78;
125 Stat. 1289) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2021''
and inserting ``October 1, 2022''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

General Leave

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6429, as amended, under
current consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to STEM fields, this is long overdue. This
is not the first time we have considered it, but as we go into the lame
duck session, I'd like the American people to understand why this is so
important. For more than 2 years, the national campaigns have talked in
terms of jobs. STEM means jobs, Mr. Speaker.
Many years ago, Thomas Friedman wrote about an experience of being a
speaker at a commencement, and he watched one after another individuals
cross receiving their masters and doctorate degrees in science, in
math, and in engineering. The amazing thing is, one after another had
names that were almost impossible to pronounce in some cases, and,
clearly, the majority of these engineers and scientists came from other
countries and were being told they must return to them. He made the
statement in his op-ed that, in fact, at the end, rather than just a
diploma, they should be given a diploma and a green card. Mr. Speaker,
I agree with Thomas Friedman on this subject.
For each person we welcome to America with one of these high degrees,
we create jobs, net jobs. We create opportunity for expansion of the
kinds of businesses that, in fact, Americans are prepared to work in,
but often we do not have enough engineers, scientists, or math
professionals. This shortage, particularly at the masters and doctorate
level, is well documented.
This is not something in which Republicans and Democrats are on
different sides; this is something we agree on. There is some
controversy, as you might imagine; there always is. Some would cling to
a lottery that allows 55,000 immigrants to come for no reason other
than they asked and they got

[[Page H6542]]

a lottery. Those 55,000 are, in fact, an example of a great many of our
immigrants. Only 5 percent of immigration visas today are based on
skills of education and other capacities--only 5 percent.

{time} 0920

I support other categories of immigration, including those fleeing
the tyranny of their own countries, those in fact who would be killed
if they remained, or tortured; and I certainly agree that family
reunification continues to be an important part of our immigration
system. But today what we're dealing with is the ability to make a
profound difference of 55,000 opportunity jobs.
We often hear about opportunity scholarships, Mr. Speaker.
Opportunity jobs is what we're talking about today--jobs that are in
great demand. In this high unemployment era, STEM jobs can be not just
below 4, but in some cases below 2, percent. The truth is if you're
qualified and you have these kinds of advanced degrees, the jobs are
far greater than the qualified applicants.
Three-quarters of likely voters support strongly this type of
legislation, and, I believe, properly understood, that for each STEM
immigration visa, the fact is that you would gain net jobs, that by
bringing in these 55,000, we could drop hundreds of thousands of people
from the unemployment rolls because they could become employed. The
benefit to our economy is undeniable. The controversy here today will
simply be, are we willing to act and act now. Many say that little good
happens in a lame-duck session. In this case, I believe both in the
House and hopefully in the Senate we can in fact say, not true.
Some of the groups that have strongly come out in support of this
legislation include: the Institute for Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, an area of shortage; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an area
of commerce; Compete America; the Information Technology Industry
Council; and the Society for Human Resource Management. And, I might
say, the industry I came from, the Consumer Electronics Association,
has long supported these kinds of investments in America.
This bill has the support of the large majority of the House of
Representatives, and on a bipartisan basis. Last September, by an
overwhelming vote, more than 100 votes to spare, the STEM Jobs Act
passed under suspension.
To protect American jobs, employers who hire STEM graduates must
advertise for the position before they can ask for them, and they must
in fact make their jobs available to all existing American workers. In
fact, these protections have long meant that after all that
advertising, employers often enter the H-1B, attempt to get a temporary
worker; but in fact for permanent opportunities and permanent growth,
we should have more permanent jobs than simply a guest technology
worker.
More importantly, I think it's universally recognized by both my
colleagues on the other side and by my colleagues that if you have
somebody who's going to benefit America, having them benefit America
for a short time and then go home and in fact compete against America
is not in America's best interests.
In fact, an Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services has
testified that the diversity fraud in the system that we are attempting
to take these slots from is so huge as to in fact make it effectively
worthless. In those hearings and many others, we've determined that we
do have an opportunity, on a net basis, no net-new immigrants but in
fact a selection of the ones that Americans want would be the best.
There are many other provisions in this bill, but I want to touch on
one, which is family reunification. Under this bill, we're going to set
aside what has been a bad idea for a long time: people who just because
of our bureaucracy often wait for family reunification. Americans, with
green cards or fully naturalized citizens, often wait for many years to
be reunited. Under this bill, I believe broadly supported, we're going
to change that. We're going to make it to where after 1 year, if there
are no other impediments to their coming, they may wait with their
families here for final status. We believe that this is the best
solution to a problem where we have had pervasive slowness in the
process and it's to the detriment of families being together.
So although there will be additional comments, and I intend to make
additional comments, I want to close simply by saying one thing: I was
an employer. I knew that in fact technology and people who could apply
it allowed my company to compete globally. I knew that in fact there
were never enough of those people. I always had an open mind to hire if
I found a smart engineer or a smart scientist.
Mr. Speaker, we can only gain by asking as many people who are smart
and who create opportunities far beyond just their own to be part of
our society. It's smart in business. It's smart in America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I want to begin by pointing out that the same poison pill that
defeated this bill on suspension is now being brought up again with the
same poison pill that pits immigrant and minority communities against
one another and makes the legislation, therefore, unworkable.
Rather than simply creating green cards for STEM graduates, the
majority insists that we must pay for the new visas by completely
eliminating Diversity Visas, a longstanding legal immigration program.
The elimination of the Diversity Visa program will drastically reduce
immigration from African nations because immigrants from Africa
normally comprise half the Diversity Visa program's annual
beneficiaries.
Rather than reaching out to minority and immigrant communities, the
majority is for some reason steamrolling through a bill that we
otherwise agree with that cuts visas for minorities and signals their
continued support for a Grover Norquist-style ``no new green cards''
pledge that says you can't create a green card for one person without
taking one away from someone else.
Even worse, it is shamefully designed to reduce the overall level of
legal immigration. Under current law, unused visas in one immigration
category roll over to immigrants in other categories who are stuck in
decades-long green card backlogs. But H.R. 6429 doesn't do this,
thereby ensuring that unused visas are wasted and legal immigrants must
continue to suffer in long backlogs. This is a naked attempt to satisfy
anti-immigrant groups that have long lobbied for reduced levels of
legal immigration.
If this is a new strategy on immigration, it sure looks a lot like
the old one. A zero-sum rule means our immigration system can never be
fixed. We would not be able to craft solutions for the DREAMers who
were brought here as children, for the agricultural workers growing the
food on our tables, or for the American families whose loved ones are
stuck in decades-long green card backlogs.
We're not fooled by the majority's assertion that this latest version
of the bill actually helps families. In reality, the provision that the
majority touts is a step backwards from the LIFE Act enacted under a
Republican Congress in 2000. Under that act, undocumented spouses and
children of lawful permanent residents were able to obtain V visas and
eventually adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. The bill
offered such family members protection from removal and explicitly
granted work authorization.
In contrast, the provision that my colleagues herald this morning as
helping families grants certain spouses and children who have already
waited abroad for over a year temporary V visas. There is no work
authorization, and undocumented family members would be excluded
altogether from participating in this program.

{time} 0930

While the majority bill provides permanent green cards for
businesses, it provides nuclear families with nothing more than
temporary visas without work authorization--and then, only after a 1-
year separation. And to undocumented children and spouses of lawful
permanent residents, the bill offers nothing at all.
So I regret that this legislation was brought to the floor without
any committee process, without any opportunity for amendment, and
without

[[Page H6543]]

any input from those on this side of the aisle. I hope that in the
coming Congress the majority will cast aside this political theater and
join me in the hard work of finding workable bipartisan solutions to
fix our immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Michigan, 1990 is a
longstanding part of our 236-year history. 1990 is a long part of 236
years. And 55,000 out of 1 million immigrant visas is a large part. I
think on this side of the aisle we know better. We know that in fact
this is a relatively recent provision, the 55,000 Diversity Visa. And
clearly, America continues to be the most generous Nation on Earth when
it comes to welcoming people to our country.
I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and classmate
coming to Congress, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), a cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate this bill coming up. This has been long, long
overdue. Many of us have been working on this issue for years.
Several years ago, when I first got to Congress, I met with some CEOs
of major tech corporations who told me that they have to follow the
talent wherever it goes. Some 65 percent of Ph.D. graduates in the STEM
fields actually are foreign born. They come, are educated here, and
then return home or return somewhere else to compete against us. We
ought to be rolling out the red carpet for them to stay. In fact, what
I was told is we should staple a green card to their diploma.
And so I introduced three Congresses ago and every Congress since
then the Staple Act, which would do essentially that. It would,
basically, get rid of the quotas we have on those who come here, are
educated in our universities, and receive Ph.D.s in the STEM field.
This legislation is similar in that respect to the Staple Act, and I
support it. There's no reason we ought to force those to return home or
elsewhere who are willing to stay here and create jobs. We ought to
roll out the red carpet. As I say, we ought to staple the green card to
their diploma and welcome them here and have them create jobs. That's
why I'm glad that this legislation is before us. I support it, and urge
my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the
ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, who represents the
place where many of these techs come from, Silicon Valley, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have long been a
champion of creating a green card program for foreign students with
advanced STEM degrees from America's great research universities.
Coming from Silicon Valley, I'm fortunate enough to see firsthand the
new technologies, the new companies, the new jobs that such innovators
create every day in the district I represent.
There's no question that a STEM green card program is the right thing
to do for our country. For that reason, it pains me greatly to say I
can't support this flawed bill. I can't support a bill that pits
immigrant communities against each other, that sets a terrible
precedent for addressing our broken immigration system that is
indefensibly designed to reduce immigration while purporting to
increase it, and that harms American workers. I certainly admire the
gentleman from Arizona on his Staple Act. I know that he has pushed for
this over the Congresses. But his Staple Act did not eliminate the
Diversity Visa program, as this does.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that a STEM visa
program is critical to the future of this country--and I agree. But if
that's true, why poison the bill with an unrelated provision to
eliminate the Diversity Visa program? There's no reason that giving a
green card to one person should mean taking one away from someone else,
but that is exactly what the bill asks us to do.
My colleagues are fond of saying they support legal immigration, but
this bill shows quite the opposite. Supporters of legal immigration
would not have to kill 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. If we were to accept a zero-sum premise, how could we craft
meaningful solutions for farmers and agricultural workers; for
DREAMers, who were brought here as children; or for those families with
loved ones waiting abroad in decades-long queues?
This bill, however, is even worse than that. It is actually designed
to reduce legal immigration. Taking 55,000 green cards from one
category and putting them in another may seem like an even trade, but
it is not if the new category is drafted to ensure that green cards go
unused.
According to the National Science Foundation, American universities
currently graduate about 30,000 foreign students with degrees that
would qualify them for green cards under this bill. Assuming every
single one of them wanted to stay and could find an employer willing to
offer them a permanent job, which is certainly not the case, that would
still leave 25,000 green cards unused. This bill shamefully prevents
those green cards from being used to help other employment and family-
based immigrants suffering in long backlogs. And I would note that
those who have their labor certification based on a bachelor of science
degree, if you're born in India, you're facing a 70-year wait. Yet this
bill would not allow the traditional policy of having visas trickle
down when they are unused. That's not the way the immigration system
works. I believe the only reason the bill was written in this fashion
is to satisfy anti-immigrant organizations who have long lobbied for
reduced levels of immigration.
In an attempt to appear more pro-immigrant, the authors point to a
new ``family-friendly'' position. But looks can be deceiving.
Currently, a lack of green cards means that a category of family-based
immigrant--the spouses and minor children of U.S. permanent residents--
have to wait about 2 years overseas before they can rejoin their
families.
Instead of providing critical green cards to these nuclear families,
the STEM bill offers temporary V visas with three significant catches:
the family members must first spend at least 1 year overseas; unlike
the original V visa, created by a Republican Congress in 2000, the new
visas prohibit family members already here from participating; and
unlike the original V visa, recipients are prohibited from working.
With all the talk about moving forward on immigration, this is a step
back from where Republicans were just 12 years ago. When I hear
allegations of fraud in this program, I just have to say that is
absurd. In the year 2007, the General Accountability Office found no
documented evidence that Diversity Visa immigrants posed a terrorist or
other threat. The DV recipients go through the same immigration,
criminal, and national security background checks that everyone goes
through when they seek lawful permanent residence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. In fact, the State Department was the
first to use facial recognition technology to reduce fraud.
Finally, I would say that this does not do enough to protect workers.
I'll give you an example. Computer and information science research
scientists in level one for labor certification may be paid $86,736.
That's what's in the labor cert. But their median income in Silicon
Valley is $133,000. So we have an idea that we shouldn't underpay the
foreign scientists. We should pay them the same as Americans. This bill
fails in that way.

{time} 0940

Finally, I would note that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has
come out against this bill because it has these extraneous and divisive
provisions. We need to move beyond the politics of zero-sum
immigration. Those policies are holding America back. They are holding
our prosperity hostage.
I will place into the Record the Competitive Enterprise Institute
letter in opposition to this bill.

[From the Competitive Enterprise Institute]

STEM Jobs Act a Step Backward on Immigration Reform, Warns Free Market
Group

Washington DC.--Nov. 29, 2012--This Friday, the House of
Representatives will vote

[[Page H6544]]

on the STEM Jobs Act (H.R. 6429). The bill would allocate
55,000 green cards for foreign-born graduates of U.S.
universities with Doctorate and Master's degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, but
it also eliminates all 55,000 visas under the Diversity Visa
Program.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) warned that the
bill will actually hurt legal immigration. CEI immigration
policy analyst David Bier released this statement on the
legislation:
Not only does this bill seek to make immigration reform
into a zero-sum game in which each winner must be matched
with a loser, it seeks to use the illusion of immigration
reform to decrease immigration. Its proponents know there are
not enough foreign-born STEM graduates to fill demand for
this new visa and have refused to allow unused visas to be
reallocated to other categories.
The bill also violates employer privacy by creating an
internet list of those who hire these immigrants, making them
potential targets for harassment, and it undermines immigrant
self-sufficiency by barring spouses of legal residents from
work while they wait for green cards.
This bill sets a dangerous precedent that conservative
reform means eliminating visas for the less-educated to give
them to the highly-educated. Truly free market immigration
reform should expand visas for both categories of immigrants.
The false dichotomy the STEM Jobs Act creates will only make
America's immigration system more discriminatory and restrict
avenues for legal immigration--which inevitably leads to more
of the illegal kind.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will be placing in the Record information
from the U.K.'s U.S. Embassy, as current enough actually to include,
``Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi'' on the same page as it says,
``Diversity Visa Fraud'' warning. I also will be including a press
release from the Embassy of the United States in Dublin, Ireland, that
starts off by saying, ``U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About
Diversity Visa Email Scams,'' and other information, to show the
pervasiveness of this fraud.

Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi

14 September 2012--If you would like to send us an
electronic condolence message that we can forward to
Washington to be shared with the victims' families, please
use this form.

Press Release, Embassy of the United States, Dublin, Ireland

U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About Diversity Visa Email Scams

The U.S. Embassy in Dublin advises residents of Ireland
about a widespread Diversity Visa (DV lottery) scam and to
use caution when working with private entities to apply for
visas to the United States. Reports of fraudulent emails,
websites, and print advertisements offering visa services are
on the rise. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anyone send any
money to any address for participation in the DV Lottery.
One widespread DV lottery scam email instructs recipients
to send money via Western Union to a fictitious person at the
U.S. Embassy in London. If you have received this email, you
have been targeted by con artists. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES
should anyone send any money to any address for participation
in the DV Lottery. The Department of State's Kentucky
Consular Center (KCC) does not/not send email notifications
to DV entrants informing them of their winning entries.
Successful DV-2011 applicants already have been notified by
KCC by letter, not by email.
DV-2011 entrants also can check the status of their entries
at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov until June 30, 2012.
Entrants will not be asked to send money to the KCC or any
U.S. embassy or consulate.
Entrants who completed the online DV-2012 entries will not
receive notification letters from KCC. Rather, they must
check the status of their entries themselves through the
Entrant Status Check available at http://
www.dvlottery.state.gov between May 1, 2011, and June 30,
2012.
Many private websites offer legitimate services to assist
individuals in applying for visas, but some illegitimate
entities claim to provide ``visa services'' as a cover for
scams or identity theft. Some of these websites may attempt
to charge a fee for providing forms and information about
immigration procedures that are available to the public at no
charge on the Department of State (www.state.gov) and
travel.state.gov websites, or through the U.S. Embassy
website at dublin.usembassy.gov/.
The only official way to register for the DV program is
directly through the official U.S. Department of State
website during the specified, limited-time registration
period.
The DV program offers up to 55,000 visa slots annually for
people who wish to apply for immigration to the United
States. Applicants selected in the random drawing are
notified by the U.S. Department of State and are provided
with instructions on how to proceed to the next step in the
process. No other organization or private company is
authorized by the U.S. Department of State to notify DV
program applicants of their winning entries or the next steps
in the process of applying for their immigrant visas. Anyone
who wishes to apply for a U.S. visa should use caution before
sending via email any personal information such as credit
card and bank account numbers.
Images of U.S. emblems such as flags, eagles, monuments, or
official seals do not necessarily indicate a U.S. Government
website. A domain name of ``.gov'' ensures that a website is
a legitimate U.S. Government site where the information is
free and up-to-date. Complaints about unwanted emails that
may be scams can be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice at
www.usdoj.gov/spam.htm.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished incoming chairman
of the full Committee on Foreign Affairs and a long-time expert on this
subject, Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this STEM Jobs Act.
Clearly, the focus on this provision is to try to bring people with
skills here to the United States.
Graduates of American universities in science and in technology and
engineering and math, these STEM fields, are, frankly, behind many of
the innovations, many of the new businesses that are part of our
present and future economic growth. If we want to look at jobs, this is
where those new patents, those new ideas will come from that help
create jobs. So we have talented students from around the world that
contribute to the graduate STEM programs of our universities.
We are trying to focus on a way to make sure our immigration system
here puts our interests first as a country.
We have the most generous level of legal immigration in the world,
but when you think about it, we select only 5 percent of our immigrants
based on the skills and education that they bring to America. Clearly,
what we're trying to do is to make certain that these foreign graduates
of U.S. universities in the STEM fields, because they're in such great
demand here, many of them of course end up on years-long green card
waiting lists and, as a result, many of them give up and go to work for
one of our global competitors. So our focus is: What can we do to
accelerate this?
This bill alters our current immigration system to encourage job
creation by increasing the proportion of new entrants with high levels
of education, with high levels of skills.
We know that skilled immigrants contribute mightily to the rising
U.S. standard of living. They bring capital, as I say, they bring new
ideas, and they produce new companies here. So, with this bill we can
help grow innovation and we can create the jobs in this country. We've
got plenty of examples, frankly, in California of IT firms that are
founded by immigrants from China and from India that were educated here
in our institutions.
This legislation also contains a family reunification provision,
which allows graduates' spouses and children to live in the U.S. while
waiting for their green card application to be processed.
One of the things that seems pretty clear to me is that, because we
roll over the green cards every year for the next 4 years to make sure
that they all are used, that, in point of fact, we believe that more of
them will be used than under the Diversity lottery where they're not
rolled over. So I think it's quite the opposite. I think we, in fact,
focus here on exactly the type of skilled immigration that's most
likely to create jobs here in the United States.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to help
our economy grow.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I just want to address the fraud
warning issue. This is a warning to applicants not to be scammed; it
wasn't a warning that there was fraud.
The idea that you would try, as a terrorist, to come in to be in a
pool of 20 million people--it's been that high--and be in a lottery
that only awards 55,000 is almost as absurd as the ``terror baby''
suggestion of a few years ago.
I would just note that the rollover of visas actually is so
restrictive that you only roll over if you apply that year. This will
not even cure the backlog. It is a fraud.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to a senior member of
the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson
Lee).

[[Page H6545]]

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I think the difference with my friends on the other side of the aisle
is their lack of recollecting that America has always viewed
immigration as good. In fact, I heard a very potent story this morning
about the restoring of the Statue of Liberty that so many of us as
children have had the opportunity to climb to the very top and be
reminded of the welcoming of the huddled poor. That's what this debate
is all about, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I just want to
deviate for a moment in this time of economic tension just to remind
people that tomorrow is World AIDS Day. I want to congratulate the
Thomas Street clinic in my district and remind people that 25 million
people have died since 1981. I just wanted to acknowledge those
individuals as we begin this very important debate.
We are respectful of immigrants. Even in the Democratic Caucus, and I
would imagine in the Conference--my good friend who is now managing had
an immigrant history. Yesterday, we elected a son of immigrants to be
the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. He told a very potent story
about his grandfather coming here to the United States of America. I
can assure you that he did not come with massive degrees, but he built
a foundation for his country and for his family.
Now, I am very much in support of the STEM process and premise, which
is to give opportunity to those who have studied in our universities,
research institutions. Why wouldn't I? Having had children who have had
the opportunity to attend some of the best institutions in this
country, having had my children meet some of those very students, from
Harvard to the University of North Carolina and Duke, I am well aware
of the importance of this. But I would raise the question of whether or
not we can judge the Diversity visas, where people have come from
places like Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, Germany, Ethiopia--one of our
strongest allies in Africa--Liberia, with an African woman as
President, the first on that continent, South Africa. Or maybe we would
choose to ignore our friends in Israel, where Diversity visas were
received; or Albania, where we went to war to ensure the integrity and
the saving of those people; or Hungary or Iceland or maybe our strong
ally Turkey. That's what Diversity visas represent.
There is no reason to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. In fact, if my
friends would really pay attention to the recent charge of the November
6 election, they would know that what America needs is comprehensive
immigration reform. If I might, in this debate of deficit reduction and
the need for increased revenue, we know that if you had comprehensive
immigration reform over 10 years, you would introduce into the economy
$1.5 trillion. That's a reason to come to the floor right now and vote
this bill down and start in the next week and put on the floor the
bills that Luis Gutierrez and myself and Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers
and many others--at one time, Senator McCain wanted to put on the floor
of the Senate and the House.
My concern is that we tried to come in a bipartisan manner. I
introduced legislation--an amendment, rather--in the markup to say that
let's study this issue of fraud with the Diversity visas, or let's
assess what it is, because we have evidence that, in fact, the alleged
fraud was because of a computer error, not the people who are applying.

{time} 0950

Mr. Speaker, 15 million have applied. Only 50,000 have been able to
get the Diversity Visa. And of those, some of them are African
immigrants, 50 percent of them; but they equal only 1 percent of the
legal permanent residents.
This whole question of terrorism just troubles me. I went to the
Rules Committee in a spirit of bipartisanship to say, eliminate the
provision on Diversity Visas. We can then support you. Keep the
underlying premise of this legislation. I even asked that the rollover
be extended because there's no evidence that you can get 55,000 in 4
years.
If you are serious about creating jobs--I am serious about creating
jobs. My colleagues are serious about creating jobs. But I am
disappointed that we would classify the Diversity Visa as bringing in
ne'er-do-wells, people we don't want. Because I will tell you that
America was built on the ne'er-do-wells--maybe those of us who came as
slaves or indentured servants, who came in the late 1800s with not any
money in their pocket but who were determined to serve this Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I recall the story of my colleague whose grandfather served in World
War I. As soon as he got here, he was willing to shed his blood for
this country.
I am on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker. I would not
want to jeopardize one inch of this Nation's security; but I can assure
you, if we look to 9/11, there was no one there with a Diversity Visa.
The terrorists had student visas, and they were overstays.
Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who introduced this, said that
Diversity Visas are at the heart of the definition of America. And as
my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Lofgren said,
Who that was a terrorist would want to stand in line and provide all of
the information that they needed to provide to get a Diversity Visa?
I will enter into the Record a letter from the Archbishop of Los
Angeles, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Committee on Migration, who absolutely opposes H.R. 6429, a church that
believes in the Beatitudes, as we all do.
Committee on Migration c/o Migration and Refugee
Services, USCCB,
Washington DC, November 28, 2012.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to oppose H.R. 6429,
legislation that would eliminate the existing Diversity Visa
program and its 55,000 permanent immigration visas in order
to provide visas to foreign graduates of American
universities with expertise in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
To be clear, USCCB is not opposed to an increase in STEM
visas. We prefer to see Congress authorize additional visas
for this purpose, however, rather than eliminate existing
immigrant visa programs. Our nation should not limit itself
in attracting newcomers who can help contribute to our
economic and cultural growth. And it certainly should not
eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which is one of the few
avenues available for many would-be immigrants from some
African and European countries to immigrate to the United
States.
While we appreciate the spirit of an unrelated provision in
the bill that would permit some beneficiaries of family-based
immigration petitioners to live in the United States while
awaiting their priority dates, we believe that persons
granted such a status should also be granted work
authorization, as has been done in the past, so they can
support themselves during this period.
H.R. 6429 falls well short of what is needed to repair our
flawed immigration system. Indeed, we believe it would
represent a setback compared to current law in that, for the
first time in more than a generation, it would eliminate a
category of legal immigration. We look forward to working
with you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives
to achieve comprehensive immigration reform in the near
future.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,

Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez,

Archbishop of Los Angeles, Chairman,
USCCB Committee on Migration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I can only say, the Catholic Church does
not want terrorists to roam this Nation.
And if we look closely at this allegation of fraud, we will find
computer error. We will find that with the decades of Diversity Visas,
as they were introduced with Bruce Morrison, we will find that this is
not the cause of any cancer of terrorism. If we go into our hearts, we
will know that Diversity Visas reflect the language written so
eloquently by the poet for the Statue of Liberty and that is: ``Give me
your tired, your poor.'' Those are the great Americans.
And I can assure you that in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the
diverse 18th Congressional District in the city of Houston, they
reflect what America is. They are building the jobs.

[[Page H6546]]

I ask my colleagues to oppose this, and let us get back to the
drawing board for a conference on immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 821 the Rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived
bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to
increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants.
As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated
for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a
Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill
the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed 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.
On Wednesday, I once again offered amendments in Rules Committee to
protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican
majority on the Committee voted against it.
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 winners were to be selected via
random selection process.
Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all
Legal Permanent Resident, LPR, admissions.
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 percent of the DV program's
beneficiaries, however only 1 percent of legal permanent residents
recipients.
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.

CHANCE FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM

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.''

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

Diversity Visa Program (DV-2012)--Selected Entrants

The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has
registered and notified the winners of the DV-2012 diversity
lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms
of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and
makes available *50,000 permanent resident visas annually to
persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the
United States. Approximately 100,021 applicants have been
registered and notified and may now make an application for
an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first
*50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to
visa issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-
2012 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2012 (October 1,
2011 until September 30, 2012).
Applicants registered for the DV-2012 program were selected
at random from 14,768,658 qualified entries (19,672,268 with
derivatives) received during the 30-day application period
that ran from noon on October 5, 2010, until noon, November
3, 2010. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic
regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons
born in any single country. During the visa interview,
principal applicants must provide proof of a high school
education or its equivalent, or show two years of work
experience in an occupation that requires at least two years
of training or experience within the past five years. Those
selected will need to act on their immigrant visa
applications quickly. Applicants should follow the
instructions in their notification letter and must fully
complete the information requested.
Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to
apply for adjustment of their status must contact U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the
requirements and procedures. Once the total *50,000 visa
numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2012 will
end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by
September 30, 2012 will derive no further benefit from their
DV-2012 registration. Similarly, spouses and children
accompanying or following to join DV-2012 principal
applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa
status until September 30, 2012.
Only participants in the DV-2012 program who were selected
for further processing have been notified. Those who have not
received notification were not selected. They may try for the
upcoming DV-2013 lottery if they wish. The dates for the
registration period for the DV-2013 lottery program are
expected to be widely publicized at some point during the
coming months.
*The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)
passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to
5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be
made available for use under the NACARA program. The
reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began
with DV-2000.
The following is the statistical breakdown by country of
chargeability of those selected for the DV-2012 program.

DIVERSITY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALGERIA................................................. 1,799
ANGOLA.................................................. 42
BENIN................................................... 511
BOTSWANA................................................ 7
BURKINA FASO............................................ 226
BURUNDI................................................. 56
CAMEROON................................................ 3,374
CAPE VERDE.............................................. 9
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP..................................... 3
CHAD.................................................... 33
COMOROS................................................. 9
CONGO................................................... 105
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE....................... 3,445
COTE D'IVOIRE........................................... 553
DJIBOUTI................................................ 38
EGYPT................................................... 4,664
EQUATORIAL GUINEA....................................... 4
ERITREA................................................. 670
ETHIOPIA................................................ 4,902
GABON................................................... 48
GAMBIA, THE............................................. 113
GHANA................................................... 5,832
GUINEA.................................................. 899
GUINEA-BISSAU........................................... 3
KENYA................................................... 4,720

[[Page H6547]]

LESOTHO................................................. 8
LIBERIA................................................. 2,101
LIBYA................................................... 136
MADAGASCAR.............................................. 17
MALAWI.................................................. 16
MALI.................................................... 76
MAURITANIA.............................................. 29
MAURITIUS............................................... 59
MOROCCO................................................. 1,890
MOZAMBIQUE.............................................. 13
NAMIBIA................................................. 10
NIGER................................................... 32
NIGERIA................................................. 6,024
RWANDA.................................................. 333
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE................................... 0
SENEGAL................................................. 270
SEYCHELLES.............................................. 6
SIERRA LEONE............................................ 3,397
SOMALIA................................................. 175
SOUTH AFRICA............................................ 833
SUDAN................................................... 757
SWAZILAND............................................... 0
TANZANIA................................................ 175
TOGO.................................................... 845
TUNISIA................................................. 113
UGANDA.................................................. 418
ZAMBIA.................................................. 79
ZIMBABWE................................................ 123
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFGHANISTAN............................................. 109
BAHRAIN................................................. 29
BANGLADESH.............................................. 2,373
BHUTAN.................................................. 5
BRUNEI.................................................. 0
BURMA................................................... 370
CAMBODIA................................................ 596
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REGION......................... 54
INDONESIA............................................... 256
IRAN.................................................... 4,453
IRAQ.................................................... 153
ISRAEL.................................................. 175
JAPAN................................................... 435
JORDAN.................................................. 152
NORTH KOREA............................................. 0
KUWAIT.................................................. 108
LAOS.................................................... 1
LEBANON................................................. 274
MALAYSIA................................................ 118
MALDIVES................................................ 0
MONGOLIA................................................ 209
NEPAL................................................... 3,258
OMAN.................................................... 11
QATAR................................................... 19
SAUDI ARABIA............................................ 217
SINGAPORE............................................... 45
SRI LANKA............................................... 708
SYRIA................................................... 160
TAIWAN.................................................. 391
THAILAND................................................ 73
TIMOR-LESTE............................................. 9
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.................................... 92
YEMEN................................................... 149
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBANIA................................................. 1,508
ANDORRA................................................. 1
ARMENIA................................................. 998
AUSTRIA................................................. 130
AZERBAIJAN.............................................. 304
BELARUS................................................. 493
BELGIUM................................................. 105
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA.................................... 83
BULGARIA................................................ 883
CROATIA................................................. 107
CYPRUS.................................................. 26
CZECH REPUBLIC.......................................... 104
DENMARK................................................. 73
ESTONIA................................................. 49
FINLAND................................................. 91
FRANCE.................................................. 574
French Polynesia.................................... 7
New Caledonia....................................... 1
GEORGIA................................................. 620
GERMANY................................................. 1,709
GREECE.................................................. 105
HUNGARY................................................. 325
ICELAND................................................. 56
IRELAND................................................. 213
ITALY................................................... 529
KAZAKHSTAN.............................................. 434
KOSOVO.................................................. 137
KYRGYZSTAN.............................................. 321
LATVIA.................................................. 83
LIECHTENSTEIN........................................... 0
LITHUANIA............................................... 258
LUXEMBOURG.............................................. 8
MACEDONIA............................................... 160
MALTA................................................... 20
MOLDOVA................................................. 1,238
MONACO.................................................. 3
MONTENEGRO.............................................. 18
NETHERLANDS............................................. 149
Aruba............................................... 4
Curacao............................................. 19
St. Maarten......................................... 2
NORTHERN IRELAND........................................ 59
NORWAY.................................................. 84
PORTUGAL................................................ 66
Macau............................................... 19
ROMANIA................................................. 1,327
RUSSIA.................................................. 2,353
SAN MARINO.............................................. 1
SERBIA.................................................. 298
SLOVAKIA................................................ 80
SLOVENIA................................................ 16
SPAIN................................................... 232
SWEDEN.................................................. 200
SWITZERLAND............................................. 229
TAJIKISTAN.............................................. 270
TURKEY.................................................. 3,077
TURKMENISTAN............................................ 143
UKRAINE................................................. 5,799
UZBEKISTAN.............................................. 4,800
VATICAN CITY............................................ 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH AMERICA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAHAMAS, THE............................................ 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCEANIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA............................................... 900
Christmas Island.................................... 3
Cocos Islands....................................... 1
FIJI.................................................... 628
KIRIBATI................................................ 14
MARSHALL ISLANDS........................................ 4
MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF......................... 2
NAURU................................................... 5
NEW ZEALAND............................................. 309
Cook Islands........................................ 6
Niue................................................ 14
PALAU................................................... 5
PAPUA NEW GUINEA........................................ 0
SAMOA................................................... 0
SOLOMON ISLANDS......................................... 0
TONGA................................................... 93
TUVALU.................................................. 0
VANUATU................................................. 8
WESTERN SAMOA........................................... 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA..................................... 9
ARGENTINA............................................... 101
BARBADOS................................................ 25
BELIZE.................................................. 9
BOLIVIA................................................. 84
CHILE................................................... 43
COSTA RICA.............................................. 43
CUBA.................................................... 292
DOMINICA................................................ 18
GRENADA................................................. 24
GUYANA.................................................. 26
HONDURAS................................................ 80
NICARAGUA............................................... 49
PANAMA.................................................. 21
PARAGUAY................................................ 17
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS................................... 7
SAINT LUCIA............................................. 4
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES........................ 16
SURINAME................................................ 15
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO..................................... 175
URUGUAY................................................. 19
VENEZUELA............................................... 925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in
DV-2012: Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong
S.A.R. and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru,
the Philippines, Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern
Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, correcting the record appears to be important
here. So I want to note that earlier, the minority said that there was
no GAO study. Well, I beg to differ. A September 2012 report to
Congress entitled ``Border Security,'' on its request, on page 19:

Because the program does not require a U.S.-based
petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.
Diversity Visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,
Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in
areas where few individuals have independent access to the
Internet.

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters, September 2012

Border Security

state could enhance visa fraud prevention by strategically using
resources and training

Diversity Visas: The Diversity Visa Program was established
through the Immigration Act of 1990 and provides up to 55,000
immigrant visas annually to aliens from countries with low
rates of immigration to the United States. Aliens register
for the diversity visa lottery for free online and applicants
are randomly selected for interviews through a lottery
process. Upon being selected, a winner must apply for a visa,
be interviewed, and be found eligible for the diversity visa.
All countries are eligible for the Diversity Visa Program
except those from which more than 50,000 immigrants have come
to the United States over the preceding 5 years. In 2011,
approximately 16.5 million people applied for the program and
about 107,000 (7 percent) were selected for further
processing. Of those selected, 75,000 were interviewed at
posts for a diversity visa, and approximately 50,000 received
visas. Because the program does not require a U.S.-based
petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.
Diversity visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,
Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in
areas where few individuals have independent access to the
Internet. A typical scenario includes visa facilitators,
travel agents, or Internet cafe operators who help would-be
applicants submit an entry for a fee. Many of these
facilitators withhold the confirmation information that the
entrant must use to retrieve his or her selection status. To
access the lottery notification, the facilitators may require
winning applicants to either pay an additional exorbitant fee
or agree to enter into a marriage with another of the
facilitator's paying clients solely for the purpose of
extending immigration benefits.

The gentlelady from Houston mentioned in depth the question of
diversity. Mr. Speaker, 55,000--and perhaps more in the future--STEM
graduates will bring diversity of employment. The highest levels of
unemployment in America are in the African American community and other
minority communities. That's the diversity we need to work on. The
diversity of unemployment needs to be turned around. That's what the
STEM bill is about, helping employ Americans.
I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), one of the hardest working and most distinguished Members when
it comes to immigration reform.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa), and I applaud the Republican leadership for
bringing this important bill to the floor.
I think it's important that we bring down the decibels and that we
talk about facts. This is an issue where passions are very high, but I
think it's important to bring down the decibels a little bit and speak
about some of the facts.

[[Page H6548]]

Look, we know that America is home to some of the best universities
on the planet; and because of that, people from around the world,
students from around the world, young people from around the world come
to study in our universities. Then, unfortunately, when they're done,
we, in essence, show them the door out; and they have to leave the
country. And they leave the country then and become the best, the
toughest competitors to American enterprise. They create jobs
elsewhere--not in the United States. Talking about outsourcing, this is
the mother of all outsourcing.
So what does this bill do? It tries to solve that issue. It tries to
keep those individuals here. Those are the facts. Now, I would like to
see a large number of that. And I think all of us should be talking
about maybe we can expand those numbers. And that, I think, would be a
wonderful debate to have.
Now, not only does this bill do that, but it also promotes a smarter
immigration system that helps maintain our competitive edge, and it
also helps keep families together. Ensuring that spouses and minor
children remain together is simply the right thing to do; is it not? Is
that not something that is a compassionate principle of the vast
majority of the Members of the House, keeping families together? Of
course it is. This bill helps to do that.
Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of blame on this issue on the floor
today and, frankly, for years. And on immigration reform. And everybody
knows my position on immigration reform.
It has been talked about for years with a lot of inflammatory
rhetoric. And I will tell you, from Republicans and Democrats alike,
the reality is that both sides are to blame for the broken immigration
system that we currently have; and both sides need to come together--
finally lowering the rhetoric--to find lasting, permanent solutions.
This bill is an important step in the right direction. It helps
address and fix a very important part of the broken immigration system.
It does not, Mr. Speaker, solve all the problems. It is not the
panacea. It does not solve all the problems, but it takes a huge step
in an area that we've been talking about in the House here for years--
and both Republicans and Democrats have failed to deal with. This bill
deals with that important part. So I'm glad this legislation is finally
being considered by this body.
I commend the House leadership for their commitment to this issue.
And I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to continuing to bring other issues,
other issues to fix our grossly broken immigration system that is
broken from A to Z. I look forward to bringing other issues; but in
order to do so, Mr. Speaker, we need to lower the decibels. We need to
talk about the facts.
The American people want us to finally fix this issue. They want us
to come up with real solutions. As I mentioned before, nobody's
claiming that this fixes everything; but it's a step in the right
direction. It fixes a part of the problem.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Democratic side
and my Republican colleagues on other such fixes. But I commend this
House. I commend Mr. Issa. I commend the Republican leadership for
taking an important step forward.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one's worked harder on this issue than
Mr. Gutierrez, the gentleman from Illinois; and I am pleased to yield
him 3 minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
We've heard about how important STEM visas are. And we don't want to
debate the point; they're important. That's why when we have the real
immigration debate, the debate that will result in the signature of the
President, the debate that starts in January when Congress is sworn in,
that's why we will have STEM visas in that bill.
So everyone agrees STEM visas are important; and if you didn't know
this before the last election, I hope you know it now. The American
people want us to fix our immigration system.
But the more important message I got from the election is that
American people say that we can solve the immigration issue if
Republicans and Democrats work together, put aside bitterness, come to
the table in an honest manner. It's not enough to talk about lowering
the rhetoric. If we do it in an honest manner, a transparent manner, we
can solve the tough problems of immigration and put it at the top of
our list.

{time} 1000

We need to approach immigration as a faucet of America's past,
present, and future, and solve the problems we have with our current
immigration mess like adults: honestly and openly and in a bipartisan
manner. We need to stop scoring cheap political points and playing
games with immigration and start working together, not bringing bills
without ever discussing and negotiating with the other side of the
aisle. That's not the way to be comprehensive. This is why it is so
disappointing that the majority has decided to undermine an area of
bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with
provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values and the rich
tradition of immigrants to the United States of America.
If you support this bill, you're saying that one group of immigrants
is better than another, that one type of educated, degree-holding
person and their work is more important than others. In order to give
visas to those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees, Republicans make two
demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal
immigration from 50,000 people who may not have Ph.D.s and master's
degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been
an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan, would have been told,
No, America is not for you under this bill, Mr. Gutierrez. It's like
when they used to hang up signs in America saying, ``Help wanted. Irish
need not apply.'' They were part of the diversity program today that
they want to kill.
The second thing this bill requires is that we treat the families of
those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees differently than we treat the
families of those who don't have doctorates. If you have a master's or
a Ph.D., we say, Please, come to America. Bring your wife, bring your
husband, bring your kids. We'll give them all permission to work.
Automatic work permits for spouses, no waiting for STEM-degree holders.
But if you don't have a Ph.D. or a master's degree, we're going to take
away your wife's ability to work legally. We may let her in 6 months
earlier, but--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. It's as though they said to my father, Let's check
your education record, Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, no doctor before your name,
no fancy initials, Mr. Gutierrez, after your name? Well, Mr. Gutierrez,
you and the kids stay home. You can't work.
That is not America. There was no special line for Ph.D. and master's
degree holders on Ellis Island. There was no asterisks on the Statue of
Liberty that said IQ must be there in a higher standard. They are
saying my father--and I resent it--was too stupid to make it, but he
put two kids through college, and one in the House of Representatives.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I might note for the gentleman that, in fact,
there are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields
here in the United States at the advanced level, and almost 1,500
Nigerian-specific students alone getting graduate-level degrees in STEM
fields in America at this time.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, a member of
the Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. King.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding
to me.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have served on the Immigration
Subcommittee for 10 years. In that period of time, I've sat in on
dozens and scores and perhaps hundreds of hearings during that period
of time, and gathered information and a knowledge base on these issues.
I walked into this issue as a freshman Member of Congress 10 years
ago with this statement: the immigration policy that we have in this
country needs to be designed to enhance the economic, the social, and
the cultural well-being of the United States of America. In fact, every
country's immigration policy should fit that standard.

[[Page H6549]]

We can have debates about the definitions of those three words that
are part of that direction, but what's going on here is eliminating a
really foolish policy that we've had, and I have long been for the
repeal of the Diversity Visa lottery program, and I have long been for
setting up a system so that we can promote the economic, social, and
cultural well-being of the United States through our policies.
In some of the information in hearings, we only control with our
immigration policy--depending on whose numbers you want to look at--
between 7 percent and 11 percent of the legal immigrants coming into
this country on merit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
We only control between 7 percent and 11 percent of the legal
immigration into this country on merit. The rest of that doesn't have
anything to do with merit and how they contribute to the U.S. This bill
does do that.
I support H.R. 6429, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York, who's worked on this issue, Congressman Jose
Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
Let's understand what is happening here today. This bill doesn't
increase available visas. It merely transfers them from one program to
another. But it eliminates a Diversity Visa program that allows people
from all over the world to come here.
Sometimes I wish I could be not only a member of this party, but an
adviser to that party, to tell them that they miss opportunities. Here
they have the first immigration statement that they can make after the
people spoke November 6. What do they do? They destroy a great
program--because they just can't help themselves.
What we need is not a piecemeal approach. What we need is not to say
that we will only take certain people with college degrees and with
``doctor'' in front of their names and the rest we will reduce those
visas. No. What we need is to say that we have an immigration issue in
this country. We have 11 million people who are in this country, who
want to stay in this country, and who do a lot for this country. Rather
than be dealing with this approach today, we should seriously be
speaking about comprehensive immigration reform.
To say to those 11 million people, we understand who you are, and
we're going to help you to speak English; we understand who you are,
and we're going to make sure you pay your taxes; we're going to make
sure that you're applying to be a part of this country and you haven't
broken the law. But if you came here to work and if you came here with
children and if you came here with your parents a long time ago, we
want you to stay. That was clear.
If there was any analysis that came from November 6, it is that the
American people want comprehensive immigration reform. That is what we
need to do, not a piecemeal approach that pits one group of people
against the other. If this is an indication of what's coming as people
evolve on the issue, as we're hearing on the talk shows, that they're
evolving on the issue of immigration, if this is evolving, we're in
deep trouble again.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to my
distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia, the majority leader
of the House, and a strong advocate for this and other immigration
reform, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that getting our economy moving again needs
to be our top priority, but jobs will not take off until American
businesses have the workers they need to drive innovation and growth.
The immigrants who come to this country for school and for work have
always been key players in driving our Nation's economy. Unfortunately,
current immigration policies are preventing American businesses from
hiring foreign students who earn advanced degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and math from our best universities.
From growing startups to U.S. multinationals, American employers are
desperate for qualified STEM workers, no matter where they're from.
Microsoft, for example, has over 6,000 job openings waiting to be
filled by scientists, researchers, engineers, and developers. For now,
these openings and many others will remain vacant because too few
American students are graduating with STEM degrees, and foreign STEM
graduates can't get the visas they need.
Every year, the U.S. invests in educating thousands of foreign
students in STEM fields at our top universities only to send them back
to compete against us. Chairman Lamar Smith, along with Congressman
Raul Labrador, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and, of course, the chairman
from California, Mr. Issa, have all been working on this, and we've now
put forward the measure before us to spur job creation by providing a
pathway for American-educated foreign graduates with advanced STEM
degrees to work here and contribute to our economy.

{time} 1010

This bill also keeps immigrant families together by letting the
husbands, wives, and minor children of immigrant workers wait in the
U.S. with their families for their green cards.
The STEM Jobs Act reallocates existing visas currently distributed
through a random lottery and directs them, instead, to the highly
skilled foreign graduates of U.S. universities who have enormous
potential to help grow our economy, which is our top priority.
The Partnership for a New American Economy found that every immigrant
with an advanced STEM degree, working for a U.S. company, creates about
three new American jobs, and one-quarter of all STEM-focused companies
in the U.S. count at least one immigrant as a founder. At American
multinationals like Qualcomm, Merck, GE, and Cisco, immigrants filed up
to 72 percent of the patents filed, giving those businesses a
competitive edge and helping them expand and create jobs here at home.
Our commitment to foreign STEM graduates is a commitment to American
job creation.
Foreign students are drawn to our shores by our world-class
universities, and they want to stay because they know, in America,
there is immense opportunity. We need to bet on the students who bet on
America. We are a Nation that was built by people who risked everything
for the promise of opportunity, and we must continue to be that Nation.
We must make sure that U.S. companies can hire the top foreign talent
we are educating instead of sending those graduates into a bureaucratic
maze--or worse, to our competitors.

This is a commonsense solution that should have bipartisan support.
Let's pass the STEM Jobs Act to make sure diplomas come with green
cards, not with a spot on a government waiting list.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Deeply embedded in this legislation is a
poison pill, and for that reason and others, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 6429. It eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa program while
failing to address the broader problems of the immigration system.
Highly skilled immigrants contribute much to the U.S. economy through
new businesses and jobs. Indeed, STEM visas should be the cornerstone
of a 21st century immigration system that meets our economic needs; but
the STEM Jobs Act unnecessarily eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa
program, which provides 55,000 visas annually to immigrants who are
underrepresented in the U.S. immigration system.
Because roughly half of these immigrants are blacks from Africa,
eliminating these visas disproportionately affects them. African
immigrants are also disadvantaged by a system that perpetuates their
exclusion. For instance, Africans are unable to take advantage of
immigrant visas issued in the family preference category because few
Africans have existing family ties in the United States. Eliminating
the Diversity Visa program harms America's diversity, which is both
important and necessary.

[[Page H6550]]

It is alarming that Republican supporters of this bill view
immigration as a zero-sum game in which we can only grant STEM visas by
eliminating Diversity visas. That is racist--if not in its intent, then
certainly in its effect. Republicans just received historically low
votes from minorities in the past election, yet they want to create an
immigration system that gives visas with one hand while taking visas
away from minorities with the other. H.R. 6429 fixes one problem while
creating others, undermining a program that is critical to our Nation's
diversity. It is a Trojan horse, and the ugly head of racism will rear
its ugly head if this Trojan horse, H.R. 6429, becomes law.
What America needs is an immigration system that creates
opportunities for new Americans, unites families, and provides for a
robust system for enforcement. Because this bill fails to address these
larger challenges while eliminating an important program for enhancing
diversity, I plan to vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman's statement
about the ugly head of racism was in reference to those of us who
authored this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not render an advisory
opinion regarding the meaning of words spoken in debate.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I am not accusing anybody of racism. I don't
know what is in the heads of those who support this bill, but if it's
not racist in its intent, it's certainly racist in its effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I previously said, more than 12,000 African citizens will be
eligible under this today, and more than 1,500 Nigerian citizens will
be eligible under this today. Out of 1 million people who get to come
to this country today, it's amazing that a program so fraught with
fraud and recognized for fraud would somehow not be the logical place
to expand the merit-based opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, as a point of personal privilege, I must tell you that I
went to college with a lot of people from around the world. They were
very diverse, and the grad students were very diverse. I am personally
insulted that anyone would use even loosely the term of ``racism'' as
part of a statement related to merit-based advanced degrees.
I've been at university graduations. The people graduating and
walking across the aisle are extremely diverse, and I believe the
gentleman needs to go to a few college graduations and see master's and
Ph.D. candidates if he is going to refer to this in any way as racist.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, the STEM Jobs
Act. This is a bill which will provide much-needed employment-based
immigration reform and which will help position our economy for success
in the 21st century.
The STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and math must be
encouraged in our own schools as well as in the new populations of
innovators who want to participate in our economy. These high-tech jobs
help support many middle class communities, which are the bedrock of
the American economy, including the communities of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, from which I hail.
While we continue to encourage STEM education here at home and while
still protecting American workers, we must also welcome those who
earned advanced degrees in a STEM field from an American university and
who want to become part of our economy. This is exactly what the STEM
Jobs Act accomplishes.
As we engage these high-tech innovators in our economy, the STEM Jobs
Act also rightly recognizes the need to support and to prioritize
families. The pro-family expansion of the V Nonimmigrant Visa program
within this bill is an important element of a fair immigration system.
The STEM Jobs Act appropriately prioritizes jobs and families. It's a
very good bill. It's a fair bill for the 21st century. I encourage my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think it's important that we have the facts from the National
Science Foundation on immigration from Africa.
According to NSF, there are about 13,000 students from Africa. The
vast majority of them are bachelor's degree candidates who are not
eligible for visas under this bill, and the vast majority of those in
graduate school are not in STEM fields. Again, they're not eligible for
visas under this bill.
Mr. ISSA. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

{time} 1020

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my
friend from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this bill has been brought
before this House for consideration, so it's clear my Republican
friends recognize the urgency for expanding the number of visas for
high-skilled workers, particularly students with STEM graduate
degrees--a worthy goal.
Yet rather than simply increase the number of visas, my Republican
colleagues once again are presenting us with a false choice. Just like
the previous bill, which failed, this one deceptively expands the
number of STEM visas, but only at the expense of the successful
Diversity Visa program, which has been the primary pathway used by
generations of immigrants in American history.
This bill not only eliminates that program, but it would also reduce
the total number of available visas by preventing unused slots from
rolling over to be transferred to another visa program. That just shows
my colleagues still haven't gotten it from the recent election in which
immigrants and minorities played a growing role, and it casts doubt on
whether we're going to be able to come together to achieve meaningful
immigration reform, frankly, with that attitude.
The business community, particularly the high-tech employers in my
district in northern Virginia, they get it about the need to expand the
STEM program. But here again, this bill fails the reasonability test by
creating a new process in which employers have to file an application
with the State or Federal Government to certify that issuing that STEM
visa is in the national interest. Talk about unnecessary regulation.
And now the manager's amendment delays implementation of the bill by a
year. We already know the economic benefits of expanding the high-
skilled visa pool, and employers have said we can't afford to wait any
longer.
Mr. Speaker, this does not have to be a zero-sum game. If my
Republican colleagues truly want to help our employers and our economy,
we could bring up a clean version of this bill, one for example which
was introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). Or
we could bring up another bipartisan bill, the Startup 2.0 Act, which I
am proud to cosponsor with our colleague, Michael Grimm of New York.
That would not only expand the number of visas for STEM graduates, but
also those entrepreneurs looking to start up a business and create jobs
right here in America.
Here is an opportunity for us to fulfill the mandate from the
election and actually compromise on something that will benefit the
economy. This bill, sadly, does not meet that test.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the truth is persistent. According to DHS,
where they study student tracking, this is their source, not mine, I
will read verbatim once again for the gentlelady from California: There
are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields in the
United States.
Of course, some currently could be undergraduate.
Almost 1,500 Nigerian students alone are getting a graduate-level
education in STEM fields.

[[Page H6551]]

Yes, this bill will encourage those able to go on and get graduate
degrees in STEM fields to do so because, yes, that's going to give them
an opportunity. But don't we want the best and the brightest? Isn't
that the goal? Isn't job creation the goal?
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise
today in support of the STEM Jobs Act, and I thank Chairman Smith for
his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
This is a critical piece of legislation that narrowly failed to pass
when the House considered it in September, and I'm very pleased that
we're considering it again here today.
Over the past few weeks when I was back in my district, the job
creators in central Arkansas that I spoke with emphasized the need to
once again bring this bill up, and I want to share a little bit about
those conversations.
First of all, Welspun Tubular is in my district. It made the pipe for
the Keystone XL pipeline. They need advanced STEM graduates to train
workers.
Power Technology is a company that needs highly skilled workers to
design, develop, and manufacture laser products. They say that they
need this bill passed.
These companies have struggled to find the specific talent they need,
and this bill would help them create jobs. This is a jobs bill. I want
to emphasize that this bill will not take away from American jobs.
These STEM visas will be made available only for foreign graduates of
U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees--Ph.D.s in the first
instance, followed by foreign-born graduates of master's degree
programs of which we have a shortage. Companies that offer jobs to
foreign STEM graduates also must have certified that there are no
American workers able, willing, or qualified and available for the job.
We are currently educating highly skilled Ph.D.s and master's and
sending them back home to compete against us after they graduate. Where
I'm from, that's like recruiting the best football players from Texas,
teaching them the Arkansas offense, and then sending them back to Texas
to compete against us. That doesn't make any sense, and people get
that. Let's fix it. Let's pass this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the November elections, there has been a
growing consensus that it is time to undertake comprehensive
immigration reform. There are many good reform proposals out there;
but, unfortunately, this is not one of them. Although this bill does
have some merits, those merits are more than offset by the bill's
defects.
One glaring problem is that this bill treats immigration as a zero-
sum game. It seems to operate under the assumption that anytime a door
is opened to a new class of entrants, it must slam the door shut on
another.
This bill would totally eliminate the longstanding Diversity Visa
program that now provides one of the few legal pathways to enter the
United States. Currently, the Diversity Visa program only issues 50,000
visas a year. And in 2013, almost 8 million people worldwide have
applied for this visa. For anyone looking to find a legal way to come
to this country right now, the chances are pretty slim. The zero-sum
approach of this bill reduces those chances even further. It achieves
almost the opposite of what the American people have asked us to do.
Fortunately, there are better bills out there, bills that address
some of the core concerns, bills that are ready to go. For instance,
the Attracting the Best and the Brightest Act, Zoe Lofgren's bill, H.R.
6412, would create a new green card for people with graduate degrees
from U.S. research universities in the STEM disciplines.
According to a recent article in the New York Times, currently we
have in our country about a million engineers, scientists, and other
highly skilled workers on H-1B temporary visas. And when these visas
expire, we just send them home. We train them in the STEM disciplines
that our high-tech economy so badly needs, and then we just send them
home. That is absolutely crazy.
The Democratic bill, H.R. 6412, would help us retain some of that
valuable, highly trained talent we helped to create. The EB-6 visa
would require all applicants to have an advanced degree from an
accredited public or nonprofit university. It would provide 50,000 of
these STEM visas, but it would not eliminate other visa programs which
are helpful, such as the Diversity Visa.
There is also a bill I authored with Senator Kerry, the Start-Up Visa
Act. Our bill would recognize the great contributions being made to our
economy by these job creators, and it would establish an employment-
based, conditional immigrant visa. Applicants would have to be
immigrant entrepreneurs seeking to establish a start-up company or
already have a business in the U.S., and it would have to have
sufficient financial backing.
We do need more talented people going into the STEM disciplines in
our economy. Let's refuse to slam the door on other immigrants. Let's
vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's vote ``yes'' on the Democratic bills
that provide STEM visas and provide help to our economy.

{time} 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Adams) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mrs. ADAMS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, before I speak specifically to this
bill, I think it's important to note, I know my colleagues from the
other side of the aisle are decrying this bill and its immigration
stances, but I would submit for your consideration, when you had
control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, you did not pass
immigration reform. So let's stop treating this issue like a political
football.
As the first American of Hispanic descent to represent Washington
State here in the United States House, I want us to tackle this issue.
But let's keep the facts the facts, and not use it as a political
football, because it's important to millions of Americans and millions
of immigrants who want to come here.
And why wouldn't you? This is a land of opportunity, and we want the
best and the brightest here in the United States creating jobs and
growing our economy, because in southwest Washington, where I'm from,
we need jobs.
Today we're here to focus on commonsense solutions. And
unfortunately, under the current setup, we're literally educating
foreign men and women and then requiring them to go to India and China
and be our competitors.
Under this scenario, who wins? Well, China and India win. Our
competitors win.
Who loses? The American worker because, as the best and the brightest
internationally want to come here and we tell them go away, go start a
business to compete with our jobs, those jobs aren't going to grow in
southwest Washington.
Fortunately, today we have the opportunity to change that, and then
we can go on and tackle some of the other issues that my colleagues are
bringing up because they're important and they're valid.
This STEM jobs bill ensures that employers are opening their doors
and their job opportunities to Americans first. And if there aren't
enough Americans to fill these highly skilled job openings, then we
invite those foreign STEM graduates to apply. That's all this bill
does. And it's an important piece that's going to open up economic
opportunity for the men and women that I serve and that we all serve
across this great Nation.
Right now, large employers--Microsoft was mentioned, that's from my
home State, they have over 6,000 jobs that they're trying to fill. And
you know what? They want to fill them with American workers. If they're
not able to, then I think they should have the ability to offer those
options to immigrants from China and India, South America, Mexico,
Africa.
Whoever wants to come here and be a part of the economic engine that
creates opportunities, let's open those doors. Why not?

[[Page H6552]]

With this bill, we'll continue to educate talented people to fuel our
economy, and instead of sending them home to compete with us and our
workers, we'll get to grow those jobs right here.
This is a compassionate bill that will drive economic innovation and
create jobs. It is pro-family. It actually provides incentives to those
folks. Those immigrants who go about this process in the right way,
they'll be able to be united with their family here in the United
States because of this bill.
There are safeguards.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. This will allow them, and those family members
who are waiting to immigrate legally, to come here and be with their
mother, their father, who are here working. This has a lot of
opportunities, and it also has safeguards for the American worker.
Those jobs are first available to those citizens who may be able to
fill the qualification.
So I'd ask my colleagues here today to support this very good bill.
It's a piece of the puzzle. It's not the whole thing, but we need to
take this a piece at a time, a solution at a time. And quite frankly,
right now, solutions are what the American people are asking for, and
this is a very good one.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to correct
the record. I recall when Democrats were in the majority, we passed the
DREAM Act. We only got 8 Republican votes to pass that DREAM Act.
Further, the way this bill is written, if you were brought here as a
baby in violation of the immigration law, but now you're getting your
Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University, you're not eligible
for one of these visas. This is written in a way to divide people. It's
not even an honest effort to capture the best and brightest.
And further, on African immigration, last year we had 6,218 Diversity
Visa recipients from Nigeria. Taking the chairman's number of 1,200--I
don't want to get in an argument--in master's and Ph.D. in STEM fields,
that's the enrollment. As you know, most Ph.D. programs are 6-year
programs, most Master's programs are 2-year programs. So those actually
graduating would be a small fraction of that, a few hundred each year.
So we would be seeing, for example, a huge reduction in immigration
from Nigeria, just as an example.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in
response.
There we go again, looking at the numbers rather than the merit.
Mr. Speaker, the merit of this piece of legislation is to get America
working, to use the opportunity that is being squandered to get America
working again. For each advance degreed STEM immigrant, we, in fact,
create three jobs. That's not being disputed by the minority. It's not
being disputed certainly by the 30 or so members of the minority that
voted for this bill previously.
When we bring up, under this legislation, the opportunity to more
quickly reunify families of legal immigrants, what we get told is,
you're not doing it immediately. Now, of course, if we did it
immediately, without any sort of process and opportunity to make sure
that they're eligible for reunification, we'd be criticized for that.
You're moving up the speed with which families can be reunited, you
get no credit. You're giving an opportunity for hundreds of thousands
of American jobs for existing Americans to be created by recruiting
people that could help create jobs, you're being criticized. If one
country wins and other one loses a few thousand slots, you're being
criticized.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to remind my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, a million or so people come to this country every year. This
is a small part of it. And this is a part of it that history is quite
clear on.
Senator Kennedy, and a few others, created this particular item for
their own purposes because they looked at the outcome of Irish,
basically, to a certain extent getting to come here under this visa.
And now everyone's wanted to use the Diversity Visa lottery for years,
and I've seen it gamed all over the world, in Lebanon, in Bangladesh,
and in other places. There's no questions it has a lot of fraud. But
that's not really the discussion today.
The real discussion is American jobs, the diversity of employment.
And as the gentlelady from California, my colleague on the committee,
knows, this also is a piece of legislation that will encourage men and
women from around the world, brilliant men and women, to choose
American universities to get their degrees from, to choose America to
be the place in which they invest, not just their God-given talents,
but their American-acquired talents in.
And yes, it will encourage people from countries like Africa and
other places who are smart to come here to get their advanced degrees
in greater numbers. What part of a good idea can't we accept?
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just can't stop finding it hard to understand.
We roll over these slots specifically because we understand in the
first year, bureaucracy in our government often makes things not
happen. But we preserve for 4 years these slots.
The gentlelady from California is quite right about one thing: we
certainly should look together at additional areas of skills and
degrees that, if they came to America, would add to America, and put
them at the front of the line.
And I'm going to say, I guess lastly, lastly, to the immigrant
population, to the people who are new Americans, you came here with a
belief in America, and you came here wanting to add to America. And we
want the next people that come behind you to add to what you're adding,
not to undermine a job that you currently have, but in fact, to help
create more jobs.
I believe in the immigrant history of America and immigrant future of
America or I wouldn't be supporting this and other bills. In just a few
weeks, I hope that in the new Congress we'll be taking up additional
comprehensive legislation. But if you can't take yes for an answer on a
significant portion, then I suspect we will have a very difficult time
taking yes for an answer on the harder decisions to come on immigration
reform.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close on this side, if
the gentleman on the other side is ready.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, so are we. I reserve the right to close.

{time} 1040

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield our remaining time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let's look at what we've debated here this morning.
The truth is, as the gentleman from California so rightfully notes,
this is something we can all agree on, and that is STEM visas to supply
the need for that economic engine of our economy. That's not really the
question here. The question is: At what cost do we allow this to
happen? And what we are saying is it is almost as though November 6
came and went and my friends on the other side of the aisle just never
listened to the verdict of the people. And what they said to us was,
Stop picking winners and losers. Stop dividing and pitting one American
against another.
How many countless occasions have we heard our friends on the other
side of the aisle decry us for class warfare, and yet they come with a
proposal here today, and we can use their very words: They want smart
people; they want educated people; they want people that are going to
add something to the economy. Well, let me just suggest that we, many
of us in this Congress today, came from very humble roots.
And, yes, I resent the fact that people come before the well of the
House to tout the virtues of their moms and dads and say, My mom worked
really hard. She scrubbed pots; she stayed up; she mopped people's
homes; she worked so hard. She had nothing left on her fingers so that
I could get an education and I could come to the Congress of the United
States. And yet they come and propose something that will deny other
people that same opportunity to come here to work hard, to sweat and to
toil

[[Page H6553]]

and to one day maybe send their son or daughter to the Congress of the
United States.
We can find these speeches throughout the history of the Congress of
the United States; but the difference today is that this side of the
aisle wants to be honest and consistent with that story, that virtuous
story of immigrants who have come here to sweat and to toil from all
kinds. We don't want to go back to the day of ``Irish need not apply.''
We know the history of immigration in this country when they were
saying, Well, not those people, not those that are not educated, not
those that are hungry, not those that are famished, they should not
come here. That's an old argument and we shouldn't be making it today,
especially after the election that we just had.
All we're saying to the other side of the aisle is: Why is it that
you couldn't sit down with this side of the aisle in a bipartisan
manner? Because that's what people said during the election. They said,
Listen, guys, we want you to settle down. We want you to work this out
for the good of the American people.
I'm going to tell you why I believe you couldn't negotiate with us.
Because you have to negotiate with NumbersUSA. Why don't we just say
it. They're the party that's not here in the well of the House, but
they're here in spirit and in the legislative policy that we are
reiterating here today. You can't negotiate with us because you have to
negotiate with the most extreme element of American society on
immigration and not with those that want to bring about comprehensive
immigration reform and reform in our immigration system.
And what is NumbersUSA? In short, NumbersUSA, a short, descriptive
modifier should call it an immigration reduction organization.
So who did you negotiate with? The immigration reduction
organization. And that's why you have to put up the visas, these visas
that have allowed tens of thousands of people to come to this country
and to work hard and to sweat and to toil and to make this a greater
Nation for all of us.
Now, how does it reduce the numbers? It's simple. You know it and we
know it. Every graduate, master's, and Ph.D. on an annual basis in the
United States, what is the number? What is the number? That's the
number we should be cognizant of here today. It's 29,000. Now it's
55,000 visas.
So why is it that we're offering 55,000 visas for 29,000 possible
graduates? And wait a minute. That's if every graduate doesn't go back
to their country. And we know many of them return to their countries to
build those nations, and we want that to continue. We want them to come
to the United States of America and go back to their country and foster
democracy and goodwill. So many of them do that. But not all the 29,000
stay here. So what happens? You eliminate 50,000 visas. You say we're
going to give you 55,000. You know you only can use 29,000. It's a net
loss.
The people on the other side of the aisle keep telling us, Why don't
they come through the legal way? Why don't they come through the legal
way? Why do they always have to go under and around? They should come
here legally because we're for legal immigration.
Today you're not for legal immigration because, in the end, you
reduce the ability of people to come legally to the United States of
America, and that is the Diversity program.
And lastly, let me just be very, very clear. When we look at this and
we talk about the continent of Africa, we think it's important that
every continent of the world be able to come here and contribute to the
great Nation that is because that is the diversity and the greatest
tradition of America: Ellis Island, bring me everyone from everywhere
to sweat and to toil and to make America a greater Nation. But think
about it a moment. Just do the math. If half of the 55,000 Diversity
visas come from the continent of Africa, and there are only 29,000
total STEM, come on, just do the numbers and you can see why it is that
on our side of the aisle.
Let's sit down. Let's have a hearing. Let's bring in the experts.
Let's have a discussion and a debate. Let's work together. Let's sit
back. But if we're going to move America forward, then we have to stop
negotiating with those that want to keep us in the past, and that's
NumbersUSA. It's NumbersUSA who said to you self-deportation should be
the rule of law in America; S.B. 1070 is great and should be
institutionalized in every State of the Union.
We rejected that this last election. In this last election, there was
a referendum and there were those of us on one side that said to the
American people, We want an immigration system that is fairer and sets
aside the political bickering to the one side and allows us to fix our
immigration system, and another that said, We want to stand in the
past.
Let's work together to build a better future for all of us. I
honestly and earnestly want that to happen, but I cannot in good
conscience vote for a bill that offends my sense of fairness, that
offends my sense of the great American tradition that is our
immigration tradition.
Thank you so much.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to have a discussion on outcome, my
distinguished colleague from Detroit, Michigan, and I could endlessly
quote figures. I'm going to quote a few because I think they're germane
to the last speaker's close.
In 2009, the numbers of the top three Diversity visas were as
follows: Ethiopia, 3,829; Nigeria, 3,720; and Egypt, a country I
visited many, many times, 3,336. No question at all they're all on the
continent of Africa. But as recently as 1994, earlier on in this
longstanding 30-year piece of set-aside, it went more like this:
Poland, 17,396; Ireland, 15,659; the United Kingdom--Great Britain--
3,174.
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the Diversity Visa is, in fact,
it's a question of whether you've put in all the names in the phone
book or not. It's a question of who's gaming the system. It doesn't
have any sort of, if you will, set-aside to ensure an outcome. And
within the outcome, whether you're taking from Poland, Ireland, United
Kingdom, or, in 1999, a few years later, it switched to Bulgaria,
Nigeria, and Albania.
These top names that occur have a lot to do with how many people
throw their name in a hat and nothing to do with whether or not they
really want to be Americans, whether they really have the
qualifications, whether they have any connection to America that would
allow them to get a job.

{time} 1050

Not long ago, The Wall Street Journal, I believe, put a whole page
into this, taking one after another of anecdotal examples of people who
came, having won the lottery, with the American Dream and found out
that they couldn't find a job--maybe a taxi driver, maybe not. They
weren't making it, and they were thinking about going back. This is all
too common in those visas.
Mr. Speaker, I want to use my closing time to address a couple of
points because they're important for the American people to understand.
Because what you heard here just a few seconds ago was a statement that
we just had a referendum. Well, I remember all the election talk and
very little of it was on immigration--sadly, much more of it should
have been. We had a referendum on each of us individually. So each of
us returning men and women to Congress, we've had a referendum in our
district.
My district was asking me for jobs. I have Calcom in my district. I
have a lot of high-tech companies, particularly in telecommunications
and biotechnology; and they were asking me for, believe it or not, more
H-1B temporary visas. If they could get permanent immigrants, they
could use them all up.
There was a statement made about the numbers--and we could argue over
29,000 or some other number--as though this bill only pertained to next
year's college graduates. It doesn't. There is a backlog of tens and
hundreds of thousands of people in the STEM field who have already
received degrees who would love to come here. They graduated a year
ago, 2 years ago. They're here on an H-1B--they're not here, but

[[Page H6554]]

they would come back here. There is a wealth of people that fit this
category so that that first 4 years, that first 220,000 number, in
fact, will be well filled. I'm confident it will be filled and
overfilled.
I'm confident that Ms. Lofgren's desire to deal with some of the
other areas in which we have critical shortages of skilled people--
computer sciences being certainly a possibility--that those will be
clamored, once this is passed, to be added. As a matter of fact, I'm
confident that my colleague from California will probably be somebody
wanting to add them very quickly, and I suspect I will strongly support
her.
Now, we've had a discussion, mostly from the minority, about winners
and losers. The last, the closing side on the minority side said things
like: you only want smart people. You only want people that will add to
our economy. You don't want the people who come without skills, just
with hope. Well, we do take a lot of those people, but my colleague was
right in a sense. We want to put to the head of the line the people
that on every single one of them that comes, net creates jobs. So that
we know that the immigrant coming, at least in the case of 55,000 a
year, for each one that comes, three great jobs are created in America.
And for each of those that come, even if they bring their family,
they're not likely to be a burden on our society, just the opposite:
they're going to be a net positive to our economy. They're going to
send their children to our colleges and universities, of course, and
the world is better because America is better.
I also heard a lot of discussion--and I've spent 12 years on
Judiciary. I love what we deal with on that committee--the
Constitution, immigration, intellectual property; that's why I came to
that committee. But when you say what you're doing, like if you take
from this particular category, that somehow you're being bad, let's
think about some of the other categories.
What if we took from family reunification? What would be the cry? It
would be, My goodness, these are people just trying to be with the rest
of their family. Be compassionate. And they would be right. Maybe if we
took from E-B5, a program that I'm personally supportive of and want to
make better, a program where people invest in America, create net jobs,
and get a visa as a result, we can take from that, but that wouldn't be
good for jobs. We certainly could, theoretically, take from people who
are the victims of terrorism, of persecution; but America would never
do that.
So when you look at this vast number, more than half of all
immigrants going anywhere in the world come to America. In other words,
we produce more new Americans by importation than the entire rest of
the world combined. So if out of that vast number we choose a small
amount, 5 percent, and say we can do better, we hear a human cry that
we can't do better, that this isn't better.
Mr. Speaker, I will say, as someone who was listening to my
constituents upon my reelection, you better believe this is better. We
are bringing the best and the brightest. We are encouraging the front
of the line be given to a small portion of immigration for people who
will help create jobs. They will create jobs for people of all colors,
all races. They will create jobs for people who just came to this
country and can't find a job. We are trying to do the right thing for
the American people, at least in a small way; and I believe this is a
great start.
So as I vote for this piece of legislation, I'm voting for it because
I know, as a former businessman, I know as someone who just had a
referendum on my own returning to Congress that jobs and the economy
are what people want us to work on. This is a good down-payment. These
slots will be filled and oversubscribed. We will look at this as a
beginning of a turn toward looking at immigrants as a positive part of
our economy and making it happen.
So I believe that the minority, although well-intended, has basically
misled the American people with some of their assumptions because their
assumptions simply aren't right. We will fill these slots. We will
bring in 55,000 job creators. We will have diversity from around the
world in these individuals. We will encourage people from all over the
world, if they want to get a master's or Ph.D. and they're already in
London or they're in Poland or they're in Nigeria, that maybe when they
finish their master's there, they get their Ph.D. here and become
eligible.
With that, I urge support of the bill and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, an
unnecessarily partisan bill to increase the number of visas for foreign
students graduating with advanced degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While I strongly believe we should
increase the number of visas for these students, I oppose this bill
because it eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. There is broad
bipartisan support to increase the number of STEM visas. It is
unfortunate that the Republican Leadership brought this bill to the
floor. President Obama highlighted his support for increasing the
number of STEM visas in his 2012 State of the Union Address, when he
stated that it made no sense to train foreign students with advanced
STEM degrees and then ``send them home to invent new products and
create new jobs somewhere else.''
This bill is virtually identical to the version the House considered
last September. However, Republicans added a provision to reauthorize
the temporary ``V visa'' program. I support the ``V visa'' program,
because it unites families. Unfortunately, the Republicans restricted
the ``V visas'' by eliminating the ability to obtain work authorization
and by not allowing spouses and children already here to participate in
the program.
This bill is flawed and we can do better. I wish the Republican
Leadership would have brought to the floor a bill introduced by Rep.
Zoe Lofgren to increase the number of STEM visas without eliminating
the Diversity Visas Program. I support that legislation.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will be
voting on H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act. This bill would terminate the
visa lottery program (diversity immigrant program) and allocate those
visas to foreign graduates in the fields of STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) degrees. I am highly supportive of ending
the visa lottery program. However, at a time when so many Americans are
unemployed in my district and all over the country and when American
college graduates cannot find jobs, I cannot, in good conscience, vote
to give American jobs to foreigners. That is why I plan to vote against
the STEM Jobs Act. As always, I will continue to support legislation
that enforces our laws and secures our borders.
Mr. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R.
6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the
Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of
visas available for STEM applicants.
As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated
for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a
Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill
the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed 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.
On Wednesday, I once again I offered amendments in Rules Committee to
protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican
majority on the Committee voted against it.
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 winners were to be selected via
random selection process.
Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all
Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions.
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 percent 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.

[[Page H6555]]

chance for the american dream

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.''

NO SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF A SECURITY RISK

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 we 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.
We must address comprehensive immigration reform this bill does not
address this issue in the right way. As I have repeatedly stated I
strongly support the advancement of STEM careers. I believe that we can
address the potential future shortage of qualified applicants in STEM
fields by not only welcoming those from other countries who choose to
study in the United States to remain in the United States to work but
also to encourage Americans to pursue careers in STEM.
Science, technology, engineering and math education play a crucial
role in determining our Nation's level of innovation, which has been
the backbone of the American economy since the Industrial Revolution.
If we are to strengthen our economy, we must strengthen our STEM
education system.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the Nation's
education report card--shows that fewer than forty percent of students,
at every grade level tested, are proficient in math and science.
Furthermore, recent statistics provided by the Engineering Workforce
Commission indicate a large disparity in STEM education between men and
women, and between minorities and Caucasians.
In 2008, 77,671 women were enrolled in an undergraduate engineering
program across the United States, while 365,281 men were enrolled in
engineering programs in the same year. In the same year, 301,483
Caucasian Americans were enrolled in engineering programs, while only
24,771 African Americans were enrolled. Respectively, 41,919 Hispanics
were enrolled in engineering programs across the Nation.
In order to encourage women and minorities to pursue degrees in STEM,
it is absolutely essential that we level the educational field and
provide equal, high quality education for everyone across the United
States.
Internationally, the Programme for International Student Achievement
(PISA), an international education benchmark last conducted in 2009 by
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
finds the United States is barely average in reading and science and
below average in math. The United States ranked 25th out of 34 nations
in math.
More than 3 million job openings in STEM related fields will be
created by 2018 that will require a bachelor's degree or higher
(Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce). At our current
rate, the United States falls short of those needs by more than a
million workers (National Science Foundation).
The United States must mobilize for excellence in mathematics and
science education so that ALL students--not just a select few, or those
fortunate enough to attend certain schools--achieve much higher levels
of math and science learning.
Significant improvement in math and science education will be much
more likely if the American people, especially young people, understand
what's possible and demand it. We must consider the Nation's teaching
force to be our primary asset, and as such, we must reinvent our
strategies for recruiting, inducting, assessing, compensating, and
retaining the best and brightest talent for our classrooms.
A new focus on elevating and reinvigorating the profession of
teaching must be matched with a new culture of schooling and teaching,
that encourages effective teachers to remain in the classroom, rewards
them for performance, and creates a career ladder that is a greater
incentive for attracting them to the profession.
Upgrade human capital management throughout U.S. schools and school
systems toward ensuring that every student has access to effective
teachers, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Teachers and students need access to math and science instructional
materials that are challenging, content-rich, motivating, engaging, and
connected to the world in which we live today.
We must explore a range of new delivery options grounded in the
latest technologies and cognitive sciences that tap into the vast
resources we have in our institutions of higher learning, museums, and
other science-rich community institutions.
We must create understanding among students about the relationship of
effective math and science education to their future success,
regardless of their chosen field of study.
It is important to encourage African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,
and women to enter into STEM fields. We can do more to fund programs at
Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and
Community Colleges to reach all segments of society to train homegrown
STEM professionals. As we already predict that the jobs of the future
will include millions of new jobs in STEM fields it makes sense that we
would train American citizens to fill these jobs.
I believe this can be done in a balanced way. We can improve access
to STEM for African American, Hispanics, and poor Americans.
America's ability to extend its arms and welcome immigrants is more
than a cultural tradition; it is a fundamental promise of our
democracy. The Diversity Immigration Visa Program is designed to give a
very small diverse percentage of immigrants the opportunity to attain a
green card and live the American dream. It's a popular program, it's a
successful program and it reflects core American values of inclusion
and opportunity.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan
legislation. Rather than simply creating a program that offers visas
for students graduating in fields we need, this legislation picks
``winners and losers'' among our Nation's immigrants. Rather than
tackling the tough issues surrounding immigration reform by building
consensus, once again our Republican colleagues are pushing divisive
legislation that punishes certain immigrant groups and rewards others.
We have another option. My Democratic colleagues have put forth a
straightforward STEM proposal that would offer visas to graduates
fields like science, mathematics and engineering. Instead, we are
debating a measure that would reduce overall immigration levels and
create a series of false choices.
All of us recognize the value of bringing more immigrants with
certain skills and educational backgrounds. Where we seem to disagree
is this--those of us on our side of the aisle also recognize that we
should not be penalizing other hardworking immigrants from more humble
backgrounds.
I say to my colleagues--reject this bill. Let us instead focus on
real immigration reform that is based on consensus and focuses on
making our system fairer and better.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the STEM
Jobs Act (H.R.

[[Page H6556]]

6429). I have long been a proponent of visa reform and am proud to be
an original cosponsor of this bill.
Our current visa system is inadequate. Many of the world's top
students come to the United States to obtain advanced degrees from some
of the best universities and colleges in the world to gain competitive
science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) skills.
We desperately need to retain these skills to boost our economy. The
high-tech and biotech companies in California would benefit from
increased STEM visas by creating new, innovative jobs in our
communities. However, instead of encouraging these highly skilled
students to stay in America, current law forces these individuals to
return home, or to third-party countries where they become innovators
and entrepreneurs creating prosperity and capital for American
competitors.
The STEM Act is an important step towards reforming our immigration
system and getting our economy back into working order. Republicans and
Democrats alike agree that we need the growth these highly trained
individuals are creating elsewhere. Making STEM visas more readily
available will foster innovation and job creation in our workforce.
I urge my colleagues to help generate jobs, boost the economy and
increase American competitiveness by passing this bill.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, every year, competitive students from
all over the world come to America to attend some our top schools,
including the University of Texas--Austin, for advanced degrees in the
STEM fields.
While these students are in school, many of these students fall in
love with America, and our way of life.
I don't blame them . . . who wouldn't fall in love with Austin, Texas
and want to stay?
And the thing is, there are employers right there in Austin and all
over the country that want to hire these folks because there are not
enough Americans graduating with these types of degrees every year.
Sounds like a marriage made in heaven right?
The problem is . . . the students often face a difficult time getting
VISA's to stay when they graduate, even though there are employers who
want to hire them.
To rectify this, the STEM Jobs Act will cancel the diversity visa
program and redistribute up to 55,000 VISA's to the best qualified
graduates of American universities with STEM degrees.
This legislation makes sense not only for the students, but it makes
sense for America.
Studies have shown that STEM graduates, on average over the course of
their careers, create 2.6 American jobs.
In fact, between 1995 and 2005, foreign-born STEM workers founded
half of the firms in Silicon Valley. Think of how many jobs, and how
much wealth, these firms created here in America.
Wouldn't we rather have these jobs created here in the United States
then in China or India?
Do we really want the next Google to be created abroad?
America has given birth to so many innovations over the past 150
years. The assembly line, electricity, the automobile, the airplane,
the telephone, the personal computer, the Iphone, the list goes on and
on. These innovations have changed our world for the better.
America has always been the birthplace of innovation, let's keep it
that way.
Let's allow the world's best and brightest to come to the land of
opportunity.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6249, the STEM
Jobs Act of 2012. While proponents of this legislation claim that they
are making a serious effort at immigration reform, nothing could be
farther from the truth. True to their pattern throughout the 112th
Congress, the Republican Majority has once again chosen to bring a
divisive, partisan bill to the floor rather than seeking compromise and
middle ground.
I have long called for comprehensive immigration reform, and am
pleased to hear this sentiment echoed by others recently. Reducing the
backlog for immigrant graduates from American universities who are
studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is a worthy
and laudable goal. Sadly, H.R. 6429 is not the right way to achieve it.
Instead of increasing the number of STEM visas that are available, this
legislation would completely eliminate the Diversity Visa program,
which provides visas to countries with low immigration rates to the
United States. We do not need to rob Peter to pay Paul to help improve
our immigration system. We just need some common sense.
Our immigration system has been broken for long enough. Let's
dedicate ourselves to finding a workable compromise to this serious
problem instead of making a half-hearted attempt at reform. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 6429.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, regretfully, I have to oppose H.R. 6429
although this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There
is a need for legislation that attracts and allows highly-skilled
immigrants and students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees to live
and work in the United States. The STEM Jobs Act of 2012, however,
fails to address fundamental issues while creating additional
inequities in immigration.
It is increasingly necessary to American industries to keep these
highly qualified individuals, whom we have educated, to help develop
and grow our businesses instead of forcing them to take their talents
elsewhere. The number of full-time graduate students in STEM fields who
were foreign students (largely on F-1 nonimmigrant visas) grew from
91,150 in 1990 to 148,923 in 2009, with most of the increase occurring
after 1999. Despite this rise in foreign student enrollment, the
percentage of STEM graduate students with temporary visas in 2009 (32.7
percent) was comparable to 1990 (31.1 percent). The visas are not
increasing to keep up with the talent; and according to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, ``growth in STEM jobs was three times as fast
as growth in non-STEM jobs'' over the past 10 years.
Clearly we must create a way to incorporate this untapped potential
into our own economy instead of creating a ``brain-drain'' and sending
these highly-skilled immigrants overseas. Our economy needs the growth
that comes with filling these jobs.
If enacted, this bill would allocate immigrant visas to a select
group of individuals and would eliminate the long-standing Diversity
Visa program that allows individuals from countries with low rates of
immigration access to visas. It places a band-aid on an issue that
needs a real long-term solution, and does not allow for equal and fair
access to visas. H.R. 6429, as constructed, is a poison pill that
obscures the true need for comprehensive immigration reform.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 821, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. LOFGREN of California. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 6429 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

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.

[[Page H6557]]

``(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2015, 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) only to the extent of 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 2015 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year.
Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2015 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 2015.
``(v) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2016, 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--
``(I) to the extent of 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 2016 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2015 with respect to aliens
seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b)
were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such
year; and
``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections
204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal
year 2016.

Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 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 2016.
``(vi) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2017, 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--
``(I) to the extent of 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 2017 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under
paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not
exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2016 with respect to aliens
seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b)
were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such
year; and
``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections
204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal
year 2017.

Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2017 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 2017.''.
(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) 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; and
``(iii) have an offer of employment from an employer and
will receive a wage level from the employer that is at least
the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other
individuals with similar experience and qualifications for
the specific employment in question.
``(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));
``(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; and
``(IV) 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) 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;
``(iii) 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; and
``(iv) have an offer of employment from an employer and
will receive a wage level from the employer that is at least
the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other
individuals with similar experience and qualifications for
the specific employment in question.
``(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

[[Page H6558]]

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:

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

(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(2) or (3)'' and
inserting ``(2), (3), (6), or (7)''.
(f) Further Protecting American Workers.--Section 212(p) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(p)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(5) To satisfy the requirement under paragraph
(6)(A)(iii) or (7)(A)(iv) of section 203(b), an employer must
demonstrate that the total amount of compensation to be paid
to the alien (including health insurance, stock options, and
other benefits provided by the employer) must meet or exceed
the total amount of compensation paid by the employer to all
other employees with similar experience and qualifications
working in the same occupational classification.''.
(g) GAO Study.--Not later than June 30, 2018, 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.
(h) 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.
(i) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.
Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to
prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from accepting
before such date petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F))
relating to alien beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph
(6) or (7) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b))
(as added by this section).

SEC. 3. PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES.

SEC. 4. STUDENT VISA REFORM.

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF GUARANTEE FEES FOR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED
HOUSING ENTERPRISES AND FHA.

[[Page H6559]]

Ms. LOFGREN of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading be waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
Mr. LABRADOR. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.

{time} 1100

Mr. LABRADOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the
motion.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days in
the Rules Committee, during debate on the rule, and in today's debate,
we've had a common refrain from our friends on the other side of the
aisle. Over and over, they say there's agreement on STEM visas, and we
shouldn't let politics get in the way. For the good of America and our
economy, they say, we should come together on this bipartisan issue and
do what's right. I agree.
By all accounts, there is nothing but support for a STEM visa program
to attract and retain the best and brightest minds from around the
world, and we support STEM visas. They support STEM visas. Everybody
supports STEM visas. So why on Earth aren't we just voting on STEM
visas?
According to our colleagues, that's the message we should take away
from the election. Even though we may not agree on everything, we
should put partisanship aside and find areas of common ground for the
good of the country, and that's exactly what this motion to recommit
would do.
This motion presents us with a clean STEM visa program, copied word
for word from the underlying bill, but without the unrelated measures.
If it's true that this vote is about creating STEM visas and not about
eliminating unrelated immigration programs, then you should vote for
this motion. We should put words into action and vote for a clean STEM
bill.
As we all know, this motion will only amend the bill. It will not
kill the bill or send it back to committee. The bill will immediately
proceed to final passage, as amended.
Let's be clear, a vote against this motion is a vote against STEM
visas. It says that you care more about eliminating the unrelated
Diversity Visa program than you care about getting a STEM visa program.
Eliminating the Diversity Visa program has absolutely nothing to do
with STEM visas. It's an unfortunate attack on immigrants and
minorities, and it has no place in the STEM bill.
It's also remarkably tone-deaf, considering the recent election just
3 weeks ago. The minority and immigrant communities sent a powerful
message to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Our friends say
they heard that message. They acknowledged the need to reach out to
those communities and take a different tack with respect to
immigration.
Well, actions speak louder than words. If you really want to reach
out to minorities, perhaps you shouldn't start with a bill that
eliminates the Diversity visas. And if you want to reach out to
immigrants, perhaps you shouldn't start with a bill that pits immigrant
communities against each other.
The choice between STEM immigrants and Diversity immigrants is one we
are being forced to make. We do not need to make it.
When we discuss offsets in the budget context, it's about money and
deficits and debt, but here we're talking about people. Is that who we
are as a country? I, for one, do not believe we should offset families,
spouses, or children. If you care about immigrants, you know they help
grow our economy and renew our spirit. They are not pawns in a zero-sum
game.
The motion to recommit also includes critical protections for U.S.
workers absent from the underlying bill. We all acknowledge that a STEM
visa program is important. It can grow our economy, but surely it
should not come at the expense of the salaries of American workers. We
should not have a race to the bottom on wages.

You know, a lot of the discussion today about the zero-sum theory on
which this bill has been presented seems to imply that unless you have
a graduate degree, you are not really going to contribute to this
country. That's simply false. When you think about some of the great
innovators--Sergey Brin, born in Russia, cofounder of Google, in my
county, that employs thousands and thousands of Americans, he didn't
come here because of his degree. He came with his parents. Jerry Yang,
founder of Yahoo!, grew up in east San Jose. He didn't come because he
got admitted to Stanford. He came with his family. Andy Grove, a legend
in Intel, he didn't come because of his degree. He came as a refugee.
I am reminded of my grandfather and what he brought to this country.
At age 16, he got on a boat. He never saw his parents again. He never
got a degree. He came to America because he wanted to be free. He
worked hard all his life. I went to Stanford University. I was the
first in my family to go to college. But I am here today in Congress
because my grandfather--without an education but with a lot of heart,
with enough get-up-and-go to get up and go--came to become an American.
I am sure that if you examine the history of so many Members of
Congress, you would find in their family trees people who had enough
get-up-and-go to come to the United States. We are now proud Members of
Congress in that tradition of America.
I urge you, support the motion to recommit. Don't turn our backs on
immigration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is just one more
illustration of Democrats being unserious on immigration reform. We
don't even need to talk about the merits or whether the MTR is good
policy or bad policy. For my friends on the other side, it has always
been just good politics.
Before I came to Congress, I was an immigration attorney for 15
years. That was one of the finest 15 years of my life. I have seen how
broken the system is, and I have seen how few people there are on the
other side who actually want to fix the problems instead of just
playing political football. And sadly, the captain of the political
football team is sitting in the White House. Actually, today he is
sitting somewhere else doing more politicking.
Actions speak louder than words. I actually agree with the minority
on this. The President of the United States made a promise to fix a
broken immigration system during his first term, a promise which he
could have kept, by the way, without making a single compromise. He had
a majority of both Houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof majority for
2 years, and he did absolutely nothing. The other side could have had
100 percent of what they wanted when they controlled the House; the
Senate was filibuster-proof, and they had the President.
When they wanted health care legislation and they wanted good policy,
they passed it without any help from the Republican Party. But somehow,
they come here today, and they claim that they could not pass
immigration legislation during those first 2 years and that they
actually want to do something about immigration reform.
Why didn't they solve it then? Because the political football would
have gone away. The game would have been over, and they would not have
been able to play this political football game every 2 years.
I want reform. I want no more games.
So now we sit here in a familiar position. Our side proposing
solutions, their side asking for concessions. And each time we grant
one concession, three more arise.
This year, just this year in this Chamber, the President of the
United States said he wanted a STEM bill. He said that it didn't have
to be comprehensive. This was his exact quote:

But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on
a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling
responsible young people who want to staff our

[[Page H6560]]

labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a
law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I
will sign it right away.

My friends, this is that bill. It is exactly what the President asked
for. And what has he done now? He's pulled the football away again. He
now says that, in fact, it does need to be comprehensive:

The administration is deeply committed to building a 21st
century immigration system that meets the Nation's economic
and security needs, but it has to be comprehensive.

So he went from saying that he didn't need a comprehensive bill to
saying that he needs a comprehensive bill. He says now that he, in
fact, needs comprehensive reform when he said a year ago that he
didn't.
How do I feel? I feel like Charlie Brown. My friends, this is a good
bill. The President continues to move the ball. The Democrats continue
to move the ball. Every time Republicans want to do something positive
on immigration, on the economy, they keep moving the ball away from us.
Let's stop being Charlie Brown.
My friends, this is a good bill. It will strengthen our economy, it
will create jobs, and it is exactly what the President asked for a year
ago. Let's call his bluff and send him a bill to create jobs and
opportunities here in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on the passage of H.R. 6429, if ordered, and the
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 157,
nays 231, not voting 44, as follows:

[Roll No. 612]

YEAS--157

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sires
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NAYS--231

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
DeFazio
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
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)
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
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
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 (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--44

Akin
Baldwin
Barber
Berman
Bilbray
Bonner
Boren
Burton (IN)
Carnahan
Carter
Chandler
Costa
Costello
Culberson
DeGette
Edwards
Fattah
Filner
Gallegly
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McClintock
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Pence
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Schmidt
Schwartz
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Towns
Waters
Watt
Young (AK)

{time} 1131

Messrs. NUNES, CRAVAACK, WALBERG, LUETKEMEYER, TURNER of New York,
FINCHER, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, REICHERT, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of
California, CHABOT, McHENRY, GOHMERT and Ms. HAYWORTH changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mrs. MALONEY, Messrs. LEVIN, WELCH, and
Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 612, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 139, not voting 48, as follows:

[Roll No. 613]

YEAS--245

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack

[[Page H6561]]

Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
DeFazio
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)
Garamendi
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
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--139

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--48

Akin
Baldwin
Barber
Berman
Bilbray
Black
Bonner
Boren
Burton (IN)
Carnahan
Chandler
Costello
Culberson
DeGette
Edwards
Fattah
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McClintock
Murphy (CT)
Owens
Pence
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Schmidt
Schwartz
Schweikert
Shuler
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1139

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613, on 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, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while I was in the well
trying to get the Speaker's attention, rollcall vote 613 was gaveled
before I was able to vote. I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 613, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 612 and 613 I would have
voted ``nay'' on the former, the motion to recommit, and ``yea'' on the
latter, passage.

personal explanation

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 30, 2012, I was unable
to cast my vote on rollcall vote 612, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of
2012 and the Motion to Recommit 613, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012.
Had I been present, I would like the Record to reflect that I would
have voted in opposition of rollcall vote 612 and I would have voted in
favor of the Motion to Recommit 613.
I oppose H.R. 6429 because it eliminates the long-standing Diversity
Visa program and prevents unused STEM green cards from being reused as
another visa.

personal explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote Nos. 612 and 613. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 612 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 613.

____________________