[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 109 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4618-S4619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 386

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an important and bipartisan piece of 
legislation on which I have been a proud sponsor and on which I have 
been proud to work with Senator Harris to bring this bill to fruition.
  It has been many years in the making, and I am pleased to stand 
behind this legislation and to push it forward. There is no question 
that immigration is one of the most important and also politically 
fraught and politically charged issues in front of Congress right now. 
More often than not, we can't even seem to agree on what the problems 
in our immigration system are, let alone come to an agreement about how 
best to solve them.
  That makes it all the more important for us at least to come together 
to get something done in those areas where we can find common ground 
and do so across party lines on issues that are neither Republican or 
Democratic, neither liberal or conservative, but that are simply 
American issues that are central to who we are.
  We are great as a country not because of who we are but because of 
what we do, because of the fact that we choose freedom, we choose to be 
welcoming, and we choose to be that shining city on the hill, where 
anyone can come into this country, be born or immigrate into this 
country as a poor person, and hope and have the reasonable expectation 
that one day, if they work hard and play by the rules, they might have 
the opportunity to retire comfortably, in some cases wealthy.

  We have to find common ground in these areas. The Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act is an important point of common ground.
  Employment-based immigration visas--the one significant area of our 
immigration system based on skills and based on merit--are currently 
issued in accordance with rigid, arbitrary, antiquated, and outdated 
per-country quotas. This means that in a given year, immigrants from 
any one given country cannot, in most cases, be given more than 7 
percent of the total number of visas allocated. As a result of this, 
immigrants from nations with large populations have significantly 
longer wait times to get a green card than do immigrants from smaller 
countries. In some cases, they could be stuck in a backlog of green 
card petitions for decades.
  This makes no sense. This is arbitrary. It is capricious. It is 
unfair. It is un-American. It is not what we do. This is one of the 
many features of our Buddy Holly/Elvis Presley-era immigration code 
that are outdated and that need to be cast into the dustbin of history. 
These per-country visa caps cause serious problems for good people, for 
American businesses and American workers alike, and they cause unfair, 
undue, and immense hardship for the immigrants who happen to be 
unfortunate enough to be stuck in that very backlog.
  While employment-based green cards are supposed to go to immigrants 
with high skills who will help grow the American economy, the per-
country caps distort this system by causing some immigrants to wait 
years before receiving a green card for a reason that may be totally 
unrelated and generally is completely detached from their 
qualifications. This undermines our ability to bring the best and the 
brightest individuals to our country. It is to our harm, and it is to 
our own shame.
  Further, the per-country caps force the immigrants that are stuck in 
this backlog--95 percent of whom are already inside the United States--
to make the difficult choice between, on the one hand, staying in 
America and waiting decades for a green card, or on the other hand, 
leaving and taking their talents to a country that provides a fairer 
process for allocating legal immigrant status as a worker.
  Worse still, because individuals in the green card backlog can only 
sponsor temporary visas for their children while these children are 
younger than 21, the per-country caps force families to choose between 
separating and sending their children back to their country of origin 
as they age out of their visas while their parents keep waiting in the 
United States for their own opportunity to receive a green card or 
giving up entirely on their dreams of becoming lawful permanent 
residents within the United States of America. In many cases, these are 
children who legally immigrated with their parents and did so at an 
early age and who have come to call America their home, adopting our 
customs, our language, our ways of life, having been educated here and 
socialized here.
  Because immigrants in the backlog are also severely limited in their 
ability to change jobs, the per-country caps often force them to work 
under conditions that other employees would justifiably and 
understandably find completely unacceptable. This exposes these 
immigrants to harassment, exploitation, and abuse, without any option 
of switching employers. What is more, because these employees can't 
switch jobs, they have less power to negotiate fair salaries, which 
depresses wages not only for these immigrant workers themselves but 
also for their colleagues, whether or not they are American citizens.
  Fortunately, the solution to these problems is not only 
straightforward but agreed upon by a broad, bipartisan coalition of 
lawmakers. We must eliminate the per-country caps to ensure a fair and 
reasonable allocation of employment-based green cards. That is exactly 
what the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act would accomplish, and 
that is exactly what this bill is all about.
  Without the per-country caps, our skills-based green card system 
would operate on a first-come, first-serve basis, ensuring that 
immigrants are admitted into the United States purely based on merit 
rather than on the arbitrary, outdated, unreasonable basis of their 
country of origin. This, after all, is what the American dream has 
often been about. It is about who we are as a people rather than where 
our parents came from, who they were, what they looked like, and what 
language they might have spoken.
  This reform would also ensure that the hardships caused by decades-
long wait times would be eliminated.
  Importantly, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act also 
contains critical safeguards to ensure that the transition from the 
per-country cap system to a first-come, first-served system would occur 
smoothly and without unduly disrupting existing immigration flows. 
Specifically, this bill includes a 3-year set-aside of green cards for 
immigrants who are not in the backlog to ensure that they can continue 
to enter the country as we process backlog petitions.
  In addition, the bill contains an important ``do no harm'' provision 
to make certain that green card applicants who are at the front of the 
line now will stay at the front of the line and not be faced with new 
delays as we work through the backlog during this transition process. 
These provisions will ensure that we are truly treating all immigrants 
in the employment-based system fairly.

[[Page S4619]]

  For many years, this critical legislation was stalled because of the 
concerns of some Members that any reform to the employment-based visa 
system should be accompanied by new protections against fraud and abuse 
in the H-1B program. To address those concerns this Congress, I 
negotiated an amendment to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act 
with Senator Grassley to include new protections for American workers 
in how we process applications for H-1B visas.
  This amendment negotiated with Senator Grassley does three things: 
First, the Grassley amendment would strengthen the Department of 
Labor's ability to investigate and enforce labor condition application 
requirements. In addition, it would reform the labor condition 
application process to ensure complete and adequate disclosure of 
information regarding the employer's H-1B hiring practices. Finally, it 
would close loopholes by which employers could otherwise circumvent the 
annual cap on H-1B workers.
  Importantly, the Grassley amendment--like the underlying bill 
itself--consists of provisions that have long enjoyed support from 
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle and from every point 
along the ideological spectrum. They are drawn from an H-1B reform bill 
that has been championed both by Senator Grassley and by Senator 
Durbin.

  I am grateful that Senator Grassley was willing to come to the table 
and work in good faith on achieving a reasonable compromise on this 
bill. I believe the deal we have struck is a fair and evenhanded way to 
address longstanding concerns about our H-1B system while eliminating 
country-of-origin discrimination in how we allocate skills-based green 
cards.
  The reason the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act enjoys such 
broad, solemn, deep, and unwavering bipartisan support is because it 
does not include any of the typical partisan poison pills and other 
controversial provisions that so often undermine and in many cases doom 
other immigration reform efforts. This is a narrow, surgical reform--
one that is necessary, one that is palatable, and one that is long 
overdue.
  I would like to conclude by thanking Senator Harris, who has been an 
indefatigable partner with me on this bill. I have been proud to work 
side by side with her to eliminate the country-of-origin discrimination 
and bring about a system of fairness in how we allocate employment-
based green cards.
  This is an important and, indeed, essential reform to our immigration 
laws and one that has been a long time coming.
  Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 386 and 
that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I have offered a modest 
compromise amendment to this legislation. I stand ready and open to 
negotiate and discuss this. We have often discussed it in private and 
in public. I will object until we can get to negotiating terms, and we 
can hopefully pass this bill once we enter into a dialogue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I approach with great sadness and 
disappointment the response just brought about by my distinguished 
colleague, my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky. I have a great 
deal of respect for him. The fact that he and I have worked on so many 
issues side by side together in order to improve government makes this 
not easier but makes it more difficult.
  The reforms to which my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator 
from Kentucky, refers are themselves born of a genuine desire to 
improve our immigration system. But, alas, the reforms he has proposed 
are not, in my view, compatible with the scope of this bill, nor are 
they compatible with something that can reasonably pass through this 
body. That is one of the reasons I have introduced the legislation as I 
have.
  I worked on this nearly the entirety of the 8\1/2\ half years I have 
had the opportunity and great privilege to serve the people of Utah in 
the Senate. This is by far the closest we have ever come to having a 
deal, and we achieved that deal by keeping this bill focused on the 
very things this legislation deals with.
  The suggestions that Senator Paul has made, while born of great 
concern for our country and a noble degree of commitment to serving the 
people of his State, are not themselves compatible with the scope of 
this legislation, nor are they compatible with what would likely be 
passed by this body.
  We have an opportunity right now to pass this. This could pass this 
body right now. I find it greatly disappointing that my colleague and 
my friend has chosen not to allow this to pass this body today. This is 
something that could and should and otherwise would pass this body 
today without that objection.
  I would respectfully but with all the urgency I am capable of 
communicating implore my colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky, to reconsider his objection and allow this to pass.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________