[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S358-S367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mrs. 
        Gillibrand):
  S. 168. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, 
race, or national origin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, on January 29, 2009, President Obama 
signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

[[Page S359]]

Act. It was a proud day and I was there for that. A critical law, the 
first legislation signed into law by President Obama after his first 
election, reversed the outrageous Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v 
Goodyear and made clear that a worker such as Lilly Ledbetter, who does 
not learn of her pay inequities for years, still had recourse to 
challenge her wage discrimination.
  Today we celebrate the anniversary of the enactment of this important 
law, but at the same time we must recognize it was only a first step. 
We need to do much more to ensure that all workers in our society are 
paid fairly for their work and are not shortchanged because of the 
their gender, race or other personal characteristic. That is why, 4 
years after enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I am proud 
to introduce once again the Fair Pay Act, a bill I have introduced in 
every Congress since 1996.
  Let me give some background. In 1963, Congress enacted the Equal Pay 
Act to end unfair discrimination against women in the workplace. At 
that time, 25 million female workers earned just 60 percent of the 
average pay for men. While we have made progress toward the goal of 
true pay equity fully a half century later, too many women still do not 
get paid what men do for the same or nearly the same work. Let's be 
clear about this. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 has to do with women doing 
the same jobs as men. But still, on average, as we know, for every $1 a 
full-time male worker earns, a woman earns just 77 cents. So we have 
gone from 60 cents, in all those 60 years, to 77 cents for every $1 a 
man makes.
  What does that translate into? You might say, OK, 7 cents is that a 
big deal? Yes, it is. Over a lifetime of work it means an average of 
$400,000 that a woman loses because of the unequal pay practices.
  I will say that again later on, but that $400,000 is not just the pay 
she loses during her lifetime. Think about the retirement benefits that 
woman loses because she has been underpaid all those years. That is why 
we have a system in America, when a woman retires, a man retires, they 
had the same kind of work, a man gets a lot more retirement than a 
woman because they paid in more because they were paid more during 
their lifetime.
  This system is wrong, it is unjust, and it threatens the economic 
security of our families. The fact is millions of American families are 
dependent on a woman's paycheck just to get by, to put food on the 
table, to pay for childcare, to deal with rising health care costs.
  In today's economy, few families have a stay-at-home mother. In fact, 
71 percent of mothers are in the labor force. They are a major 
contributor to their familie's income. Two-thirds of mothers bring home 
at least one-quarter of their familie's earnings and in more than 4 of 
10 families with children, a woman is the majority or sole breadwinner.
  That means in today's economy, when a mother earns less than her male 
colleagues, her family must sacrifice basic necessities, as well as 
face greater difficulty for these kids to save for college, afford a 
home, live the American dream. The lifetime of earning losses all women 
face, including those who are without children or whose children are 
grown, affects not only their well-being during their working lives, as 
I said earlier, but it affects their ability to save and have a decent 
retirement.
  The evidence shows that discrimination accounts for much of the pay 
gap. In fact, according to one study, when we look at all the reasons 
there is a wage gap--we have race, 2.4 percent; 3.5 percent union 
status; labor force experience; industry category; occupational 
category--41 percent unexplained. They cannot explain why it is. The 
fact is, that is because of discrimination. It is because our laws have 
not done enough to prevent this discrimination from occurring. That is 
why the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a critical first step. That is 
why it is important to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  That bill was introduced last week by Senator Mikulski. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor. She has always championed that. What that 
does is start to close a lot of the loopholes and barriers to effective 
enforcement in our existing law to close that 41 percent unexplained 
gap. We need to strengthen penalties and give women the tools they need 
to confront discrimination.

  It is outrageous that the Senate has not yet passed the Paycheck 
Fairness Act. In the last two Congresses this bill got more than a 
majority of support. In 2010 58 United States Senators, a large 
majority, voted to pass this legislation. If we had 58 votes, why 
didn't we get it? Because of Republican obstructionism, we could not 
even proceed to debate the bill. This was a filibuster on a motion to 
proceed to the bill. We got 58 votes, but we could not even debate it.
  Since we just went through a recent debate on rules reform, I want 
the American people to understand this. The Republicans, the minority 
party has continuously prevented the Senate from even considering the 
issue of unequal wages and gender discrimination. Millions of women and 
their families are concerned about the fact that they get paid less 
than their male colleagues. It is unfair; it is unjust. Nevertheless, 
repeatedly, the Republicans have filibustered even debating the issue.
  Just last week we had a vote in the Senate to change the rules. We 
made some modifications of the rules. I truly hope those modifications 
which were made will now enable us to get over this hurdle so we can 
bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act and debate it. If they want to offer 
amendments, that is fine, but let's debate it. Let's have amendments 
and then let's vote to pass the bill. I hope the changes in the rules 
last week will enable us to do so.
  As I said, the Lilly Ledbetter bill was a first step. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act will start to close some of the loopholes and make sure 
the penalties will be enforced. But there is one more step which needs 
to be taken, and I think it is the most critical one of all--equal pay, 
yes. We have had that since 1963; that is, women and men doing the same 
job. The Lilly Ledbetter Act allows us to go back and get the back 
wages that were due, but that is sort of after the fact.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will make sure we have penalties and 
enforceability. However, there is one other huge, glaring 
discrimination that is ongoing in our society today against women; that 
is, as a nation we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by 
women even when they require comparable skills to the jobs 
traditionally performed by men.
  Today millions of what we call female-dominated jobs, such as social 
workers, teachers, childcare workers, nurses, those who care for our 
elderly in assisted living care or in nursing homes--most of these jobs 
are equivalent in skills and working conditions to male-dominated jobs, 
but the female-dominated jobs pay significantly less. This is unfair 
and unjust discrimination.
  Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a maid worth 
less than a janitor? Eighty-nine percent of maids are female; 67 
percent of janitors are male. While the jobs are equivalent in skills, 
effort, responsibility, and working conditions, the median weekly 
earnings for a maid are $387 and for a janitor it is $463. Computer-
support workers--a job that is 72 percent male--have median weekly 
earnings of $949. In contrast, secretaries and administrative 
assistants, which is 96 percent female, have median weekly earnings of 
$659. Why do we value someone who helps with computers more than 
someone who makes the entire office function? That is not to say the 
men are overpaid, it is just to say that jobs we have long considered 
in our country as ``women's work'' or ``women's jobs'' are grossly 
underpaid.
  Now to address this more subtle, deep-rooted discrimination, today I 
introduced the Fair Pay Act. As I said, this is a bill I have 
introduced--along with Congresswoman Norton--every year since 1996. The 
bill will ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are 
equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
  People have asked: How do we do that? Well, we have some history. In 
1982 the State of Minnesota implemented a pay equity plan for its 
State, and I think, also, municipal employees. The State found that 
women were segregated into historically female-dominated jobs and that 
women's jobs paid 20 percent less than male-dominated jobs. Pay equity 
wage adjustments

[[Page S360]]

were phased in over 4 years, leading to an average pay increase of $200 
per month for women in female-dominated jobs.
  In 1983, in my home State of Iowa, the Iowa Legislature--a Republican 
legislature and a Republican Governor, I might add--passed a bill 
stipulating that the State shall not discriminate in compensation 
between predominately male and female jobs deemed to be of comparable 
worth. That was in 1983. I am proud of Iowa. I just want to say this 
was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican 
Governor.
  Toward that end, the State engaged a professional accounting firm to 
evaluate the value of 800 job classifications in State government. The 
final recommendations, which were made in April of 1984, proposed that 
10,751 employees should be given a pay increase. After being 
implemented in March 1985, female employees' pay had increased at that 
time by about 1.5 percent. Think of what that means from 1985 to now 
and how much more those women are paid over all those years. This can 
be done as well for the women in this country who are currently being 
paid less, not because of their skills or education but simply because 
they are in undervalued ``female jobs.'' Making sure they receive their 
real worth will make a real difference for them and the family who rely 
on their wages.
  Again, many of these jobs are jobs that we don't know what we would 
do without them. Have you ever visited someone in your family who was 
in a nursing home? Who is taking care of those people? Women. If we 
take someone who is in a situation like that, they have to lift and 
move heavy people. They have to be strong, and they care for people. 
Then we look at truckdrivers. Most truckdrivers are men. Truckdrivers 
have power steering and power brakes. A person doesn't have to be 
strong to drive a truck. They are making a lot more money than that 
woman who is working in a nursing home and taking care of our 
grandparents. Why? Skills, effort, responsibility, and working 
conditions are about the same.
  What my bill would do would be very simple. It would require 
employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay 
scales. Got it? Employers would publicly disclose their job categories 
and pay scales without requiring specific information on individual 
employees. I am not asking anyone to say what they are paying an 
individual employee. We just want to know job categories and pay 
scales. If we give women information about what their male colleagues 
are earning, they can insist on a better deal for themselves in the 
workplace.
  Right now women who believe they are the victim of pay discrimination 
must file a lawsuit and endure a drawn-out legal discovery process to 
find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. With 
pay statistics readily available, this process could be avoided. In 
fact, I remember when Lilly Ledbetter first testified before our 
committee--the committee I now chair and the committee on which the 
distinguished occupant of the chair is proud to serve.
  I had provided Lilly Ledbetter information on the Fair Pay Act--the 
one I am talking about. I asked her if the Fair Pay Act had been law, 
would it have averted her wage discrimination case. She made it very 
clear that had she had the information about pay scales, which our bill 
provides, this would have given her the information she needed to 
insist on being paid a fair salary from the beginning rather than 
having to resort to litigation years after the discrimination began.
  Four years after President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act, let's make sure what happened to Lilly never happens again by 
recommitting ourselves to eliminating discrimination in the workplace 
and making equal pay for equivalent work a reality.
  I have introduced this bill in every Congress since 1996. We get 
focused on Lilly Ledbetter, and that is important. We are focused on 
paycheck fairness as well. Let's think about the millions of American 
women out there who are in these traditional women's jobs which require 
the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions that are 
similar to a man and yet they are grossly underpaid.
  If Minnesota and Iowa--and there may be some other States I don't 
know about; I just know about those two. If they can do it--and they 
did this in the 1980s for State employees as well as municipal 
employees in Minnesota--surely we can do this nationwide. If we really 
want to stop the discrimination in pay in this country between women 
and men, the Fair Pay Act is the one that will do it.
  I am going to continue to push for this as long as I am here. 
Hopefully, we can have some hearings on it again, which I will, and 
hopefully we can begin to move on it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Coons, 
        Mr. Flake, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Heller, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
        Hoeven, Mr. Warner, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Schatz):
  S. 169. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
authorize additional visas for well-educated aliens to live and work in 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration 
Innovation--or I-Squared--Act of 2013. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator 
Chris Coons, without whom this bill would not have materialized. All 
four of us worked very closely together, and each one of us deserves 
total credit for this bill. Together, we have crafted one of the first 
bipartisan immigration bills in this Congress, one that is designed to 
address the shortage of high-skilled labor we face in this country. 
This shortage has reached a crisis level. For too long, our country has 
been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--fields. As 
a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets, such as Silicon 
Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Salt Lake City, are in desperate 
need for qualified STEM workers.
  It is critical that we not only recognize this shortage of high-
skilled workers but also understand why it exists. Increasingly, 
enrollment in U.S. universities in the STEM fields comes from foreign 
students, and despite our urgent need for workers in these fields, we 
continue to send these foreign students--potential high-skilled workers 
trained at American universities--back to their home countries after 
graduation.
  Recently I was in a meeting with several leaders in the technology 
industry where it was mentioned that between 2010 and 2020, the 
American economy will annually create more than 120,000 additional 
computer science jobs that will require at least a bachelor's degree, 
and that is just mentioning one aspect of this. This is great news for 
many of our computer science students. Unfortunately, that is the end 
of the good news. Each year only about 40,000 American students 
received bachelor's degrees in computer science. In other words, there 
are approximately 80,000 new computer science positions every year in 
the United States that cannot be filled by the available American 
workforce. I might add that these are positions which need to be filled 
so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. Simply put, 
U.S.-based companies have a great need for those trained in the 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field, but at least 
right now, there are not enough Americans trained and ready to fill 
these jobs.
  We cannot continue to simply hope American companies do not move 
operations to countries where they have greater access to individuals 
trained in these STEM fields. We cannot continue to ignore this 
problem; it is that simple. Continued inaction causes us to miss out on 
an important opportunity, especially since, as the American Enterprise 
Institute has confirmed, 100 foreign-born workers with STEM degrees 
create an average of 262 additional jobs for native-born workers. Those 
countries would love to have their American-educated Ph.D.s and other 
highly educated individuals return and boost their economy--not only 
from their acquired skills but also by creating these new jobs as well. 
An updated, high-skilled immigration system is directly tied to 
creating jobs

[[Page S361]]

and spurring growth across all sectors of our economy. We cannot afford 
any further inaction on this issue.
  The I-Squared Act of 2013 addresses the immediate short-term need to 
provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers 
while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America's STEM 
education. I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our 
country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy.
  I mentioned my three prime cosponsors on this bill, each one of whom 
deserves credit for this bill, each one of whom has been a pleasure to 
work with, each one of whom adds a great deal to getting this bill 
passed. I personally thank the Senators for working with me on this 
issue and allowing me the privilege of working with them on this issue.
  Let me turn some time over to Senator Klobuchar, who, along with 
Senators Coons and Rubio, has been a prime mover on this piece of 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Rubio and 
Senator Coons. I also thank the Senator from Utah for his incredible 
leadership. We have worked as a team. I think that is what this is, a 
team--team America. We must be a country that makes stuff again, 
invents things, and exports to the world. In order to do that, we need 
the world's talent, and that is what this bill is about.
  As everyone can see by looking at the four of us here on the Senate 
floor, it is something on which both parties can agree. In order to get 
this done and get comprehensive immigration reform done, we must work 
in a bipartisan manner. I support the comprehensive immigration 
principles that were outlined yesterday for reform and look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to get this done.
  The I-squared bill is about encouraging engineers, inventors, 
innovators, and entrepreneurs to work here in this country and 
discouraging companies from contracting out with people in other 
countries. I cannot say how many Minnesota companies--small companies--
have told me that they could not bring someone over because of the caps 
and they contracted with that person in another country. Well, guess 
what. That person then hired assistants and other people to work with 
them, but in one case they hired French people instead of hiring 
Americans.
  In fact, a recent study headed by Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Mayor 
Castro of San Antonio, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, and others showed 
that every H-1B visa creates 1.8 American jobs. Those are jobs in 
Hawaii and those are jobs in Minnesota.
  Take a look at the Fortune 500 companies. Ninety of those companies 
were founded by immigrants, and over 200 were founded by immigrants or 
their children, including Medtronic and 3M in my home State. This has 
meant an extraordinary number of good American jobs, and we want more. 
We want the next pacemaker or Post-it note, which were invented in my 
State, to be invented again in the United States of America.
  I want to quickly lay out the four areas of reform that are included 
in the I-squared bill.
  First of all, we reformed the H-1B visa system to meet the needs of a 
growing science, engineering, tech, and medical community and to help 
the workers who form the backbone of those businesses.
  Second, we make changes to student visas to encourage students who 
get degrees here to stay in this country so we don't just say: Hey, go 
back to India or China or some other country and start the next Google 
over there. We want them to start it here.
  Third, we improve the green card system.
  Finally, and one of the most important aspects of this bill, we 
actually change the visa funding structure so that companies that bring 
in these high-tech and science and engineering immigrant workers will 
also be spending some money on funding all of the education efforts we 
need to do in this country for science, engineering, technology, and 
math, the STEM education that is going on in this country. Even by a 
conservative estimate, that would be $300 million a year and something 
like $3 billion in 10 years. That is real change, and it can change the 
system.
  I am very appreciative of the work of my colleagues. I know Senator 
Rubio, who has shown great leadership on this issue, is next and will 
talk about the H-1B and student visa reforms. I thank Senator Hatch and 
Senator Coons for their leadership on this issue. We are very excited 
about moving ahead on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot in the news over the last 24 
hours about immigration as an issue that confronts our country. I 
wanted to put this in the context of that and then talk specifically 
about the details that are within this.
  First of all, in the context of immigration reform, there are things 
I think the vast majority of Americans would agree. One is this: We 
have a legal immigration system that is not working for the country. I 
think that despite the debate which exists about illegal immigration 
and how to deal with that reality--and that is a real debate that needs 
to happen--one of the things everyone agrees on is that legal 
immigration is good for this country. It is an important part of our 
history and critical part of our future. The legal immigration system 
we have in place right now does not work for America, and it really 
does not work for the 21st century.
  Let me be clear about one thing: I support family-based immigration. 
That is how my parents came to this country. I don't want us to do 
anything that undermines it. I also know that in the 21st century, we 
can no longer afford to have an immigration system where literally less 
than 10 percent of the people who come here do so based on the skills 
they bring to this country.

  Think about this for a moment: If I said to my colleagues that the 
NBA should be a collection of the best basketball players in the world, 
who would disagree with that? If I said Major League Baseball should be 
a collection of the best baseball players in the world, who would 
disagree with that? How, then, can we disagree about that when it comes 
to our economy? How can we disagree that we should want the smartest, 
hardest working, most talented people on this planet to come here? I, 
for one, have no fear our country is going to be overrun by Ph.Ds. I 
have no fear this country is going to be overrun by nuclear physicists 
and inventors and entrepreneurs. We have to create a system where that 
can happen in a rational, organized, and legal way. That is what we are 
attempting to do because that is not what we have right now in the 
United States.
  What we have, in fact, is a system--and Senator Hatch has discussed 
this. It was startling when I heard this. Yearly, our Nation has a 
demand for 120,000 computer science engineers, but our universities 
only produce 40,000 people a year. This is an indictment of our 
educational system. We need to fix that. We need to get to a point in 
this country where we have 120,000 people graduating to meet the 
demand. But in the short term--right now--we have to deal with the fact 
that if those 80,000 graduates for those jobs are not created here, 
those jobs are still going to exist; they are just not going to exist 
here. Those companies are not going to wait for us to produce more 
graduates. These countries are not going to wait for us to fix our 
immigration system. They have a business to run. If they can't find the 
people they need to fill these jobs, they will send those jobs to 
another country.
  What that means in practical terms is these high-paying jobs in these 
industries will be paying the taxes in some other country, will be 
stimulating the economy in some other country, will be laying down 
roots in some other nation. Do people want to know why one of the 
reasons America is special? Because for over 200 years we have been a 
collection of the world's best and brightest, a magnet that attracts 
people here. Now we have an immigration system that in the 21st century 
is making that very difficult to achieve. That is what this effort 
does.
  The other concern I have heard is what about the folks in this 
country now. This is a legitimate concern.

[[Page S362]]

When people raise it, I don't get upset because it is a very legitimate 
concern: The kids who are born here and raised here and go into these 
industries, will they be hurt? As we have seen, the need far exceeds 
what we are producing, so that is not an immediate concern. But here is 
the other, and that is the startling figure that was used earlier; that 
for every 100 foreign-born STEM workers, we are creating 260-some-odd 
jobs. It is indisputable that these jobs create jobs for people right 
down the line in this process. If someone is an entrepreneur who is an 
immigrant, they create jobs for all kinds of people, and most of them 
were born here. If someone creates some new technology or develops it, 
they create jobs and opportunities for people who work here, live here, 
and were born here. This is a net positive for our economy. That is why 
this issue is so critical to be confronted.
  By the way, as we talk about meeting the demand with our entire 
immigration system, we can't modernize America's legal immigration 
system if we don't have a way to get the world's best and brightest to 
come here in a way that is expedient and in a way that is cost-
effective, in a way that is safe, and in a way that is legal. That is 
what we are attempting to do.
  This bill is not in competition with any other effort; it compliments 
it. In fact, it is an indispensable part of it. We cannot 
comprehensively reform America's legal immigration system if it does 
not include VISA provisions for graduates in science, technology, 
engineering, and math.
  My final point: It makes no sense to invite people to come to the 
United States, to study at our universities, to become the best and 
brightest in the world at their subject matter, and then ask them to 
leave. Think about that for a moment. We tell people: Come to America. 
We are going to let you go to our best schools and teach you everything 
we know and then we want you to go somewhere else and use the knowledge 
you gained here. That is crazy. That is not just nonsensical, it is 
crazy. We can't keep doing that. Hopefully, we will begin to change it 
now.
  It has been a pleasure to work with all the folks involved with this 
effort. The leadership of Senator Hatch has been extraordinary, as well 
as that of Senator Klobuchar. We have a good group working together. 
Our final colleague who has been a part of this, and an indispensable 
one, who has also worked in the context of another piece of legislation 
which we are hopeful to get moving soon--startup 2.0--which is an issue 
for another day, we are obviously interested in hearing from Senator 
Coons from Delaware about this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to 
work with the Senator from Florida on this legislation and other 
legislation we are focused on about how to create jobs and how to drive 
our economy forward. I am grateful for the leadership of Senator Hatch 
and Senator Klobuchar as well as for their companionship as we serve 
together on the Judiciary Committee and as the four of us this day 
introduce this bill of which we are so proud, the Immigration 
Innovation Act of 2013.
  For decades, the United States enjoyed the commanding advantage of 
being home to all the world's top universities, particularly in science 
and technology, engineering and math, and the so-called STEM fields; 
and we were the best place for the graduates of those universities and 
their advanced science programs to stay and launch a new business.
  But today that field has changed. Our competitors are vying to 
provide more supportive environments for innovators, inventions, and 
startup companies. There has been a sea change in the field of 
opportunity back home for those foreign nationals who, in increasing 
numbers, are educated in the United States and whom we then force to 
return to their nation of origin.
  Even though many of the most talented young people from around the 
globe still pour into the United States to obtain their master's or 
doctoral degrees in STEM, now more than ever they are not just tempted 
to take their education home with them and start businesses elsewhere, 
but they are attracted by their home countries and forced by our 
outdated immigration system. What an unwise way to compete in the 
global economy. Our outdated immigration system hasn't adapted to the 
modern world.
  Half of all master's and doctoral degrees in STEM fields at American 
universities are today earned by foreign-born students who then face an 
uncertain, expensive, and unwieldy path to pursuing their dreams in the 
United States. Our country is hemorrhaging innovations and the 
inventors who make them and the jobs that come with them because 
America's immigration laws have failed to keep up with the demands of 
the modern age. We cannot afford to keep educating the world's 
brightest students at our leading universities which, I will remind my 
colleagues, are subsidized by U.S. tax dollars and American charitable 
giving, and then tell them they cannot repay those investments by 
contributing to the U.S. workforce. It is both bad policy and bad 
business.

  That is why I have been working on this issue since I arrived in the 
Senate, introducing three bills and calling for the creation of a new 
class of green card for immigrants who have earned an advanced STEM 
degree from American universities.
  I was especially glad to see the bipartisan framework released 
yesterday by Senators McCain, Schumer, Rubio, and others, which moves 
us toward comprehensive immigration reform and embraces this vital core 
premise. I also welcome President Obama's contributions to this 
discussion and look forward to hearing what he has to say today in Las 
Vegas.
  There is, indeed, broad bipartisan agreement that it is long past 
time to reform our immigration system to make room for foreign-born, 
American-educated experts who want to apply their skills, start 
businesses, and raise their families here. At the same time, we have to 
dramatically improve STEM education available to American citizens to 
fill this dramatic gap in these fields. As Senator Hatch said just a 
few minutes ago, if we take the example of computer science, by 2020, 
the U.S. economy will need 120,000 men and women to fill these jobs. 
Yet just 40,000 graduates with degrees in computer science will be 
Americans. How to fill that gap?
  The bipartisan legislation we introduce today tackles both sides of 
this problem, by reforming our outdated immigration system to allow 
highly skilled engineers and researchers to stay, rather than leaving 
and taking their jobs and future opportunities with them and by 
funneling the hundreds of millions of dollars in fees these experts pay 
for their green cards back into improving U.S.-based STEM education. It 
is a win-win.
  The Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 will open the door, will 
recapture unused green cards, and will move away from the outdated 
model of country caps and overall caps to better compete with countries 
such as our neighbors to the north in Canada where these caps don't 
exist, and where Microsoft is eager to open a new massive development 
facility at our expense and loss.
  One of the most important parts of this legislation, as I mentioned, 
is that we are using fees from these newly expanded H-1B visas and 
green cards to fund State initiatives on STEM. This will keep America 
at the cutting edge of science and technology and fuel economic growth 
for this country and generations to come.
  While each of the coauthors of this legislation have made substantial 
contributions, I am especially grateful to Senator Hatch of Utah for 
his leadership.
  I yield to the Senator from Utah to tell us a little bit more about 
this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Coons, Senator 
Klobuchar, and Senator Rubio. As my colleagues can see, it is a real 
pleasure to work with these three partners and others as well. I 
particularly wish to thank each of my colleagues for the helpful 
overview they have given on this bill. It has been a real pleasure for 
me to work with these three very innovative leaders in the Senate.
  As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, by eliminating per-
country

[[Page S363]]

limits for employment-based green cards, recapturing lost employment-
based immigrant visas, exempting certain classes of immigrants from the 
annual green card limit, and creating a new and sustainable funding 
stream to enhance the U.S. STEM education pipeline, we will help 
America's innovative industries recruit and retain high-skilled talent 
to more effectively compete in today's global marketplace, and it will 
make us more competitive.
  We have heard from many industry stakeholders that support the I-
Squared Act of 2013. To date, we have received letters of support from 
the following organizations that support this bill: Microsoft, Oracle, 
Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard Company, Facebook, Texas Instruments, 
Qualcomm, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, BSA The Software Alliance, Compete America, the 
Semiconductor Industry Association, TechNet, the Technology Association 
of America, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Software and 
Information Industry Association, the Internet Association, the 
Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Information 
Technology Industry Council, the Information Technology and Innovation 
Foundation, TechServe Alliance, the Association for Competitive 
Technology, the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA--The 
Wireless Association, Sabre Holdings, the Council of Chief State School 
Officers, and just to mention one other, Immigration Voice.
  Mr. President, working with Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons, I 
have to say is a real privilege for me. These are three very fine 
additions to the Senate. In the case of Senator Klobuchar and Senator 
Coons, they are two respected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and Senator Rubio, in my view, is one of the most knowledgeable 
Senators we have on immigration policy and, as we can see, a terrific 
leader in so many other ways. We send a strong message that both sides 
of the aisle can come together to craft bipartisan legislation to 
address one of our country's most urgent economic needs.
  Yesterday, eight of our colleagues unveiled a framework to overhaul 
our Nation's immigration system. I am proud of them. I commend them for 
their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to reform our immigration 
laws. It is very much needed. One of the leaders is, of course, our own 
Senator Rubio, as well as Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, and 
others as well whom I hate to not mention, but I think my colleagues 
get the point. Similarly, the work of Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Coons, 
and I have done in crafting the I-Squared Act of 2013 was no easy task 
and represents hours of negotiations with interested stakeholders and 
has garnered, as my colleagues can see, widespread industry support.
  The I-Squared Act makes sense. I hope our language to reform the 
high-skilled immigration system is considered by this body in the 
immediate future. I would surely like to hear a little bit more from 
Senator Klobuchar, if she would care to make some additional points. I 
don't mean to take all the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. 
I wanted to actually follow up a little bit with Senator Rubio's 
analogy on the teams and the sports because I did note he mentioned 
basketball and baseball but not hockey. As my colleagues know, 
Minnesota is a State of hockey. In fact, we are very happy the NHL is 
back playing again and that our team The Wild is playing. I actually 
looked at some of the numbers similar to what Senator Rubio was talking 
about and, in fact, a significant number of our players on our 
professional hockey team come from other countries. As my colleagues 
know, there are a lot of Canadian hockey players and players from all 
over the world in all these sports.
  You wonder: Why is that? With all the talk about immigration backlogs 
and the visa shortages, you wonder how all these great athletes are 
contributing to our teams. The answer is, there is no cap on visas for 
athletes. Again, there is no limit on how many athletes can come over 
and play on our sports teams. As a result, athletes from across the 
globe can compete here, and we have the best sports leagues in the 
world.
  Why shouldn't we apply the same principles to engineering, to 
innovation, to science, to medical development? That is what we should 
be doing. In this bill, we do have some caps. But we are raising those 
caps because we think it is time to compete with the rest of the world.
  Immigrants have always played a crucial role in these disciplines in 
the United States. In fact--and this was an interesting statistic we 
got--of the U.S. Nobel Prize winners, 30 percent of them, I say to 
Senator Hatch, have been immigrants--30 percent of them.
  One of those was Mario Capecchi. He was born in Italy in 1937. His 
mother survived a Nazi concentration camp and was eventually able to 
bring him to the United States. In 2007, he won the Nobel Prize in 
medicine for his work on altering genes in mice through the use of stem 
cells. Obviously, this is an exciting area of work that gives us great 
hope to solve many diseases.
  Medtronic, a Minnesota institution that has pioneered medical devices 
for years, started in a garage and was started by the child of an 
immigrant.
  So why would we want to prevent the next person who would come in who 
could cure cancer, who would create a new energy source, who would 
bring in new means of communication to our country? This bill is about 
moving our country forward. This bill is about competing in the world 
economy. If we can do it in baseball, in basketball, and I would add, I 
say to Senator Rubio, hockey, we can do it in engineering, science, 
technology, and math.
  I thank my colleagues and turn it over to Senator Rubio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, let the Record reflect I did not mean to 
offend hockey fans. On the contrary, we have two hockey teams, the 
Florida Panthers and the Lightning in the Tampa Bay area, which 
actually has won the Stanley Cup before, and the Florida Panthers were 
in the playoffs last year. So we like hockey too. We cannot play it 
outdoors in Florida. But in any event, I think the point is well taken 
that we do want the best and brightest.
  The one point I wish to make is the one point I have picked up on, on 
the immigration issue, in general, over the last 24 to 48 hours; that 
is, how important it is that accurate information reach the American 
people about what it is we are working on and what it is we are not 
working on.
  Immigration is a complicated issue. We hear a lot of discussion about 
immigration. I will have more to say about it later today. But 
immigration is a complicated process. The one we have now is 
complicated. It is important for people to understand what it is we are 
trying to do and what it is not. I think that is true for the entire 
issue of immigration but particularly important for this one.
  To that end, I guess I wish to issue a public challenge to the 
companies that in the past have gotten engaged in the public discourse 
and in the public debate on issues that involve the issues of 
technology.
  Just a few months ago--and it is a sore spot in some places, I 
imagine--we had this issue of SOPA and PIPA and all these other things 
that were going to impact the freedom of the Internet and the freedom 
of communicating online, and a lot of groups got involved to speak 
about that and to try to clear up the record about what they were for 
and what they were against.
  I hope they will do the same thing on this. I hope they will use the 
platforms on this to openly discuss what this is about.
  I guess this is a challenge to the Facebooks and the Googles and the 
Twitters of the world: Get engaged in letting people know what is at 
stake. If we like these innovations that have radically changed the way 
we live in this country--just think about this for a moment. If a 
decade ago we would tell someone we are going to Google them, they 
would be offended because that did not mean anything a decade ago. Now 
it means something. If we were to say a decade ago that we were going 
to tweet something, people would look at us funny. Now it actually 
means something.
  These are innovations that happened in America that have not only 
changed the way we live and made our lives

[[Page S364]]

more interesting and in some ways more productive but are transforming 
the world.
  Think about the political movements here and around the world. There 
was a time when one could not even engage in public discourse in 
America if they did not have an organization to back them. Now any 
single individual can become the leader of a movement fairly quickly by 
using the platforms that have been created by innovators.
  A disproportionate number of the people who develop this stuff are 
immigrants or the children of immigrants or children or people we have 
trained in this country who, thank God, we did not send back home.
  We have a chance to do that, and I hope those who have a vested 
interest in this issue passing will use the platforms they own and 
operate to clearly inform the American people about what is at stake on 
the issue of immigration as a whole but in particular on this issue of 
high-skill immigration.
  I guess for some additional thoughts, I wish to turn it over to 
Senator Coons, who has a unique insight into innovation. We worked on 
the Startup 2.0. I will plug it again because it is an important piece 
of legislation we would like to get done fairly soon. A lot of it is 
based on investor visas and things of that nature.
  I think Senator Coons has more to add about our effort here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coons, would the Senator 
yield just for a moment for a compliment?
  Mr. COONS. Certainly. I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I just wish to compliment my colleague 
from Florida. As I gave a number of interviews yesterday on his 
initiatives with regard to comprehensive immigration--not to speak of 
the issue at hand, more about the specialized necessity of visas, but 
on overall comprehensive immigration, which I certainly favor and have 
voted for in the past--a huge step was taken because of the initiative 
of a number of courageous Senators, among whom I would include my 
colleague from Florida.
  Thank you.
  Mr. COONS. I thank Senator Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Florida in thanking 
and recognizing the junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, for his 
great work on the issues of job creation and innovation through Startup 
2.0 and other bills we have worked on together but also through the 
comprehensive framework that was released yesterday. The framework 
released by Senators Schumer, McCain, Rubio, and others takes the right 
approach to ensuring that the United States has a modern, efficient, 
effective, and compassionate immigration system.

  I was glad to see it addressed family-based immigration challenges, 
including creating an expedited path to citizenship for young people 
brought here as children through no fault of their own--people we 
rightly call DREAMers.
  While the Immigration Innovation Act we are introducing today 
recognizes the vital, the critical contributions immigrants have made 
and will continue to make in highly technical fields, we also must 
recognize the essential contributions immigrants make along the entire 
labor spectrum, across the whole breadth of this country--to building 
up this country in the past and to giving it a brighter future.
  As you heard from Senator Klobuchar before, if Team USA is to play 
competitively globally, we need the best and the brightest contributors 
to our future. Why would we educate the best inventors and innovators 
in the world and send many of them back to compete against us from 
other countries rather than embracing them and allowing them to invent, 
to invest, and create companies and jobs in the United States?
  While I am eager to move ahead on family-focused reform, I am equally 
eager to have us move ahead with reform for STEM degree holders. 
Comprehensive immigration reform is a necessity for the hard-working 
people of Delaware and around the country, for those who want nothing 
more than to play by the rules, build a better life for their children, 
and contribute to the American dream.
  That is what any of us would want, the chance to work hard, to see 
our children grow up happy and healthy, with the education and 
opportunities that make their dreams come true, and to contribute to a 
stronger America.
  That is why I am committed to a comprehensive overhaul of our 
immigration system, one that supports children and families, as well as 
our economy and our vital technology sector, and that welcomes 
immigrants into the rich fabric of this country, as the United States 
has done since our founding.
  As someone who trained in chemistry, as someone who worked for a 
high-technology, materials-based science company, as someone who met 
just yesterday with a Delaware company complaining of the challenges 
that visa caps and limits place on their ability to do research and 
development and to compete in the global economy, I am grateful for the 
leadership Senator Hatch and Senator Klobuchar and Senator Rubio have 
shown in crafting this piece--this vital piece--of the total picture of 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I say to Senator Hatch, does the Senator have some closing comments 
as we conclude this colloquy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to particularly thank my 
colleagues--Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar--for 
their work on this bill. It is obvious from their statements here today 
they have a great deal of commitment to these important issues.
  I-squared is a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have 
come to be educated in our American universities have the ability to 
stay with their families and contribute to our economy and our society.
  This bill is good for workers, it is good for businesses trying to 
grow, and it is good for our economy.
  I am pleased with the momentum we already have seen on this bill 
through industry support and within the Senate itself.
  I am pleased to announce that Senators Flake, Shaheen, Heller, 
Blumenthal, Hoeven, Nelson, and Warner have agreed to be original 
cosponsors of the I-Squared Act, and I encourage many more of my 
colleagues to support and help pass this bill. It is long overdue. It 
is well thought out. We have run it by the top people in this country. 
Frankly, it has a lot of support so far. We have not even gone out and 
tried to get cosponsors, and they are starting to come naturally. I 
hope we can get the Senate to call up this bill. Of course, I think we 
are all interested in going beyond this bill too, in doing true 
immigration reform that will help our country to continue to maintain 
itself as the greatest country in the world.
  I wish to thank my colleagues. This has been a real privilege to 
serve with them on the floor today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record as follows:

                                 S. 169

       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 ``Immigration Innovation Act 
     of 2013'' or the ``I-Squared Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

              TITLE I--EMPLOYMENT-BASED NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

Sec. 101. Market-based H-1b visa limits.
Sec. 102. Employment authorization for dependents of H-1b 
              nonimmigrants.
Sec. 103. Eliminating impediments to worker mobility.

                        TITLE II--STUDENT VISAS

Sec. 201. Authorization of dual intent.

              TITLE III--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS

Sec. 301. Elimination of per-country numerical limitations.
Sec. 302. Recapturing lost employment-based immigrant visas.
Sec. 303. Aliens not subject to direct numerical limitation.

[[Page S365]]

                    TITLE IV--STEM EDUCATION FUNDING

Sec. 401. Funding for STEM education and training.
Sec. 402. Promoting American Ingenuity Account.
Sec. 403. STEM education grant application process.
Sec. 404. Approved activities.
Sec. 405. National evaluation.
Sec. 406. Rule of construction.

              TITLE I--EMPLOYMENT-BASED NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

     SEC. 101. MARKET-BASED H-1B VISA LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 214(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``(beginning with fiscal year 1992)''; and
       (B) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed the 
     sum of--
       ``(i) the base allocation calculated under paragraph 
     (9)(A); and
       ``(ii) the allocation adjustment calculated under paragraph 
     (9)(B); and'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, until the number 
     of aliens who are exempted from such numerical limitation 
     during such year exceeds 20,000.'' and inserting ``; or'';
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking subparagraphs (B)(iv) and 
     (D);
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (10) as subparagraph (D) of 
     paragraph (9);
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9)(A) The base allocation of nonimmigrant visas under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for each fiscal year shall be 
     equal to--
       ``(i) the sum of--
       ``(I) the base allocation for the most recently completed 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the allocation adjustment for the most recently 
     completed fiscal year;
       ``(ii) if the number calculated under clause (i) is less 
     than 115,000, 115,000; or
       ``(iii) if the number calculated under clause (i) is more 
     than 300,000, 300,000.
       ``(B)(i) If the number of cap-subject nonimmigrant visa 
     petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) during 
     the first 45 days petitions may be filed for a fiscal year is 
     equal to the base allocation for such fiscal year, an 
     additional 20,000 such visas shall be made available 
     beginning on the 46th day on which petitions may be filed for 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) If the base allocation of cap-subject nonimmigrant 
     visa petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for 
     a fiscal year is reached during the 15-day period ending on 
     the 60th day on which petitions may be filed for such fiscal 
     year, an additional 15,000 such visas shall be made available 
     beginning on the 61st day on which petitions may be filed for 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(iii) If the base allocation of cap-subject nonimmigrant 
     visa petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for 
     a fiscal year is reached during the 30-day period ending on 
     the 90th day on which petitions may be filed for such fiscal 
     year, an additional 10,000 such visas shall be made available 
     beginning on the 91st day on which petitions may be filed for 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(iv) If the base allocation of cap-subject nonimmigrant 
     visa petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for 
     a fiscal year is reached during the 185-day period ending on 
     the 275th day on which petitions may be filed for such fiscal 
     year, an additional 5,000 such visas shall be made available 
     beginning on the date on which such allocation is reached.
       ``(v) If the number of cap-subject nonimmigrant visa 
     petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a 
     fiscal year is at least 5,000 fewer than the base allocation, 
     but is not more than 9,999 fewer than the base allocation, 
     the allocation adjustment for the following fiscal year shall 
     be -5,000.
       ``(vi) If the number of cap-subject nonimmigrant visa 
     petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a 
     fiscal year is at least 10,000 fewer than the base 
     allocation, but not more than 14,999 fewer than the base 
     allocation, the allocation adjustment for the following 
     fiscal year shall be -10,000.
       ``(vii) If the number of cap-subject nonimmigrant visa 
     petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a 
     fiscal year is at least 15,000 fewer than the base 
     allocation, but not more than 19,999 fewer than the base 
     allocation, the allocation adjustment for the following 
     fiscal year shall be -15,000.
       ``(viii) If the number of cap-subject nonimmigrant visa 
     petitions approved under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a 
     fiscal year is at least 20,000 fewer than the base 
     allocation, the allocation adjustment for the following 
     fiscal year shall be -20,000.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       (1) timely upload to a public website data that summarizes 
     the adjudication of nonimmigrant petitions under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(b)) during each fiscal year; and
       (2) allow the timely adjustment of visa allocations under 
     section 214(g)(9)(B) of such Act, as added by subsection (a).

     SEC. 102. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR DEPENDENTS OF H-1B 
                   NONIMMIGRANTS.

       Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by amending subparagraph (E) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(E) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
       ``(i) authorize an alien spouse admitted under subparagraph 
     (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) who is accompanying or 
     following to join the principal alien to engage in employment 
     in the United States; and
       ``(ii) provide the spouse with an `employment authorized' 
     endorsement or other appropriate work permit.''.

     SEC. 103. ELIMINATING IMPEDIMENTS TO WORKER MOBILITY.

       (a) Deference to Prior Approvals.--Section 214(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The Secretary of Homeland Security may not deny a 
     petition to extend the status of a nonimmigrant admitted 
     under subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) in 
     which the petition involves the same alien and petitioner 
     unless the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) there was a material error with regard to the 
     previous petition approval;
       ``(B) a substantial change in circumstances has taken place 
     that renders the nonimmigrant ineligible for such status 
     under this Act; or
       ``(C) new material information has been discovered that 
     adversely impacts the eligibility of the employer or the 
     nonimmigrant.''.
       (b) Effect of Employment Termination.--Section 214(n) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(n)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) A nonimmigrant admitted under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) whose employment relationship terminates 
     before the expiration of the nonimmigrant's period of 
     authorized admission shall be deemed to have retained such 
     legal status throughout the entire 60-day period beginning on 
     the date such employment is terminated if an employer files a 
     petition to extend, change, or adjust the status of the 
     nonimmigrant at any point during such period.''.
       (c) Visa Revalidation.--Section 222(c) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(c)) is amended by 
     inserting ``The Secretary of State shall authorize an alien 
     admitted under subparagraph (E), (H), (L), (O), or (P) of 
     section 101(a)(15) to renew his or her nonimmigrant visa in 
     the United States if the alien has remained eligible for such 
     status.''.

                        TITLE II--STUDENT VISAS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF DUAL INTENT.

       (a) Definition.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) 
     is amended by striking ``which he has no intention of 
     abandoning''.
       (b) Presumption of Status; Intention to Abandon Foreign 
     Residence.--Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(L) or (V)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), (L), or (V)''; and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``(H)(i)(b) or (c)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), (H)(i)(b), (H)(i)(c)''.

              TITLE III--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS

     SEC. 301. ELIMINATION OF PER-COUNTRY NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored immigrants.--
     Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the total number of 
     immigrant visas made available to natives of any single 
     foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) in any 
     fiscal year may not exceed 15 percent (in the case of a 
     single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a 
     dependent area) of the total number of such visas made 
     available under such section in that fiscal year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 202 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``both subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 203'' and inserting ``section 203(a)''; 
     and
       (B) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling.--If the total 
     number of immigrant visas made available under section 203(a) 
     to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will 
     exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection 
     (a)(2) in any fiscal year, the number of visas for natives of 
     that state or area shall be allocated under section 203(a) so 
     that, except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion 
     of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs 
     (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of 
     the total number of visas made available under the respective 
     paragraph to the total number of visas made available under 
     section 203(a).''.
       (c) Country-specific Offset.--Section 2 of the Chinese 
     Student Protection Act of 1992 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (e))'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d))''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection 
     (e) as subsection (d).

[[Page S366]]

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to 
     fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2014.

     SEC. 302. RECAPTURING LOST EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS.

       Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-based Immigrants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The worldwide level of employment-based 
     immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(A) 140,000; and
       ``(B) the number computed under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Unused visas.--The number computed under this 
     paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
       ``(A) the sum of the worldwide levels established under 
     paragraph (1) for fiscal years 1992 through the current 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 
     203(b), subject to this subsection, during such fiscal 
     years.''.

     SEC. 303. ALIENS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT NUMERICAL LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(F) Aliens who are the spouse or a child of an alien 
     admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 
     203(b).
       ``(G) Aliens who have earned a master's or higher degree in 
     a field listed on the STEM Designated Degree Program List 
     published by the Department of Homeland Security on the 
     Student and Exchange Visitor Program website from an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))).
       ``(H) Aliens for whom a petition for an employment-based 
     immigrant visa under paragraph (A) or (B) of section 
     203(b)(1) has been approved.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and 
     inserting ``12 percent'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and 
     inserting ``36.9 percent''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and 
     inserting ``36.9 percent'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).

                    TITLE IV--STEM EDUCATION FUNDING

     SEC. 401. FUNDING FOR STEM EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       (a) Nonimmigrant Fee Adjustment and Allocation.--Section 
     214(c)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1184(c)(9)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) The amount of the fee imposed under this paragraph 
     shall be--
       ``(i) $1,250 for each such petition filed by an employer 
     with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are 
     employed in the United States (determined by including any 
     affiliate or subsidiary of such employer); and
       ``(ii) $2,500 for each such petition filed by an employer 
     with more than 25 such employees.''; and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     distributed as follows:
       ``(i) Of the amounts collected pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B)(i)--
       ``(I) $750 shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance 
     with section 286(s); and
       ``(II) $500 shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 286(w).
       ``(ii) Of the amounts collected pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)--
       ``(I) $1,500 shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 286(s); and
       ``(II) $1,000 shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 286(w).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 286(s)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(1)) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence and inserting ``There 
     shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into the account a 
     portion of the fees collected under paragraphs (9) and (11) 
     of section 214(c).''.
       (c) Immigrant Fee.--Section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(7) Funding for stem education and training.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fee of $1,000 
     on each I-140 immigrant visa petition filed under this 
     subsection. Amounts collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited into the Treasury in accordance with section 
     286(w).''.

     SEC. 402. PROMOTING AMERICAN INGENUITY ACCOUNT.

       Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Promoting American Ingenuity Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `Promoting American Ingenuity Account'. There shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts into the account fees 
     collected under section 203(b)(7) and a portion of the fees 
     collected under section 214(c)(9). Amounts deposited into the 
     account shall remain available to the Secretary of Education 
     until expended.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Promoting American 
     Ingenuity Account are to enhance the economic competitiveness 
     of the United States by--
       ``(A) strengthening STEM education, including in computer 
     science, at all levels;
       ``(B) ensuring that schools have access to well-trained and 
     effective STEM teachers;
       ``(C) supporting efforts to strengthen the elementary and 
     secondary curriculum, including efforts to make courses in 
     computer science more broadly available; and
       ``(D) helping colleges and universities produce more 
     graduates in fields needed by American employers.
       ``(3) Allocation of funds.--
       ``(A) National activities.--The Secretary of Education may 
     reserve up to 5 percent of the amounts deposited into the 
     Promoting American Ingenuity Account for national research, 
     development, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination 
     activities carried out directly or through grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements, including--
       ``(i) activities undertaken jointly with other Federal 
     agencies, such as STEM mission agencies; and
       ``(ii) grants to non-profit organizations for nationally 
     significant activities consistent with the purposes of the 
     Immigration Innovation Act of 2013.
       ``(B) Allocations to states.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of 
     Education shall proportionately allocate the remaining 
     amounts deposited into the account to the States each fiscal 
     year in an amount that bears the same relationship to the 
     remainder as the amount the State received under subpart 2 of 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for the preceding fiscal 
     year bears to the amount all States received under that 
     subpart for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Minimum allocations.--No State shall receive less 
     than an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the total amount made 
     available to all States from the Promoting American Ingenuity 
     Account. If a State does not request an allocation from the 
     Account for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reallocate the 
     State's allocation to the remaining States in accordance with 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 403. STEM EDUCATION GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS.

       (a) Application.--Each State desiring to receive an 
     allocation from the Promoting American Ingenuity Account 
     established under section 286(w) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(w)) submit an application to 
     the Secretary of Education that describes how the State plans 
     to improve STEM education to meet the needs of employers in 
     the State, at such time, in such form, and including such 
     information as the Secretary may prescribe.
       (b) Approval.--The Secretary of Education shall approve any 
     application submitted under subsection (a) that meets the 
     requirements prescribed by the Secretary if the Secretary 
     determines, after evaluating the recommendations of peer 
     reviewers, that the State's plan for the use of funds would 
     be successful in making progress toward meeting the purposes 
     set forth in section 286(w)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(w)(2)).

     SEC. 404. APPROVED ACTIVITIES.

       A State or other entity that receives funding from the 
     Promoting American Ingenuity Account may use such funding--
       (1) to strengthen the State's academic achievement 
     standards in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics (STEM);
       (2) to implement strategies for the recruitment, training, 
     placement, and retention of teachers in STEM fields, 
     including computer science;
       (3) to carry out initiatives designed to assist students in 
     succeeding and graduating from postsecondary STEM programs;
       (4) to improve the availability and access to STEM-related 
     worker training programs, including community college courses 
     and programs; and
       (5) for other activities approved by the Secretary of 
     Education to improve STEM education.

     SEC. 405. NATIONAL EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--Using amounts reserved under section 
     286(w)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added 
     by section 402, the Secretary of Education shall conduct, 
     directly or through a grant or contract, an annual evaluation 
     of the implementation and impact of the activities funded by 
     the Promoting American Ingenuity Account.
       (b) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report 
     describing the results of each evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a) to--
       (1) the President;
       (2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
       (3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives
       (4) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate; and
       (5) the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall make the findings 
     of the evaluation widely available to educators, the business 
     community, and the public.

     SEC. 406. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title may be construed to permit the 
     Secretary of Education or any other Federal official to 
     approve the content

[[Page S367]]

     or academic achievement standards of a State.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Manchin):
  S. 170. A bill to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, 
hunting, and recreational shooting on Federal public land and ensure 
continued opportunities for those activities; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
bipartisan Recreational Fishing and Hunting Opportunities Act.
  My bill is cosponsored by my friend from West Virginia, Senator 
Manchin, and is a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation. It 
enjoys support from over 39 separate organizations from the hunting, 
shooting, recreational fishing and wildlife conservation community. In 
addition, my staff has worked diligently with environmental and 
conservation organizations such as the Wilderness Society and the 
National Parks Conservation Association to alleviate their concerns 
with previous versions of the bill by removing references to the 
Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, 
this legislation specifically exempts National Park Units, National 
Wildlife Refuges and land held in trust for the benefit of Native 
Americans.
  Our bill would acknowledge the importance of hunting and fishing on 
our BLM lands and in our National Forests by requiring hunting and 
fishing to be recognized activities on those lands. We are talking 
about traditional American activities, and they are activities that 
deserve the same consideration as other traditional uses of our public 
lands. Our legislation would establish an ``open unless closed'' policy 
for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on BLM and Forest 
Service land. It is important to note, though, that this would not give 
these activities special priority, but merely level the current playing 
field between these traditional activities and other uses of our public 
lands.
  I would like to thank Senator Manchin, an original cosponsor of this 
bill, for his and his staff's hard work in moving this bill forward. It 
is our hope that this bill will receive quick but careful consideration 
as many sportsmen across this country have been eagerly awaiting 
passage of this measure for quite a long time.

                          ____________________