[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.
____________________