[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5323-H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            FAIRNESS FOR HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ACT OF 2019

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1044) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based 
immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for 
family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1044

       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 ``Fairness for High-Skilled 
     Immigrants Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE FOREIGN STATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``and employment-
     based'';
       (2) by striking ``(3), (4), and (5),'' and inserting ``(3) 
     and (4),'';
       (3) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b) of section 203'' 
     and inserting ``section 203(a)'';
       (4) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``15''; and
       (5) by striking ``such subsections'' and inserting ``such 
     section''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 202 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--

[[Page H5324]]

       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``both subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 203'' and inserting ``section 
     203(a)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (a)(5); and
       (3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling.--If it is 
     determined that 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, 
     in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to 
     natives under section 203(a), visa numbers with respect to 
     natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the 
     extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section 
     and section 203) in a manner 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).
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2019, and 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2020.
       (e) Transition Rules for Employment-Based Immigrants.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding paragraphs of 
     this subsection and notwithstanding title II of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (A) For fiscal year 2020, 15 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of 
     section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that is not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of 
     approved petitions for immigrant status under such 
     paragraphs.
       (B) For fiscal year 2021, 10 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of such paragraphs shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that is not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of 
     approved petitions for immigrant status under such 
     paragraphs.
       (C) For fiscal year 2022, 10 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of such paragraphs shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that is not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of 
     approved petitions for immigrant status under such 
     paragraphs.
       (2) Per-country levels.--
       (A) Reserved visas.--With respect to the visas reserved 
     under each of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1), 
     the number of such visas made available to natives of any 
     single foreign state or dependent area in the appropriate 
     fiscal year may not exceed 25 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.
       (B) Unreserved visas.--With respect to the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of 
     section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) and not 
     reserved under paragraph (1), for each of fiscal years 2020, 
     2021, and 2022, not more than 85 percent shall be allotted to 
     immigrants who are natives of any single foreign state.
       (3) Special rule to prevent unused visas.--If, with respect 
     to fiscal year 2020, 2021, or 2022, the operation of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection would prevent the 
     total number of immigrant visas made available under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)) from being issued, such visas may be issued during 
     the remainder of such fiscal year without regard to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
       (4) Transition rule for currently approved beneficiaries.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 202 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act, 
     immigrant visas under section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be allocated such 
     that no alien described in subparagraph (B) receives a visa 
     later than the alien otherwise would have received said visa 
     had this Act not been enacted.
       (B) Alien described.--An alien is described in this 
     subparagraph if the alien is the beneficiary of a petition 
     for an immigrant visa under section 203(b) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) that was approved 
     prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (5) Rules for chargeability.--Section 202(b) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1152(b)) shall apply in determining the foreign state 
     to which an alien is chargeable for purposes of this 
     subsection.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1044, the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, a bipartisan bill that would make a 
modest, but important change to our immigration laws to alleviate 
hardships associated with lengthy visa backlogs.
  Let me begin by explaining what this bill does do and does not do. 
H.R. 1044 does not increase the overall number of immigrant visas that 
are available each year. Although raising the ceiling on visas is the 
only viable way to eliminate backlogs, there is, in my view, 
unfortunately, no consensus on that issue at this time.
  But there is broad consensus that we should do what we can to make 
the system more equitable. This is the focus of H.R. 1044. By 
eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based visas, all 
immigrant visa applicants will eventually be restored to a level 
playing field, where one's country of nationality has no bearing on 
their place in line.
  Under our immigration laws, employment-based visas are granted to 
individuals under a five-tiered ``preference system.'' The first three 
preference categories are reserved for priority workers, individuals 
with advanced degrees, and other professionals and skilled workers.
  To be eligible for a visa under one of these categories, the 
applicant must generally have an offer of employment from a U.S. 
employer, and must submit extensive documentation of their 
qualifications for the job and the relevant preference category. The 
applicant's country of birth is simply not a factor, and rightfully so. 
What does a person's nationality have to do with their merit as an 
employee?
  However, country of birth does become relevant after the applicant 
has qualified for a visa and is waiting in line for a visa number. The 
so-called ``per-country'' limit prohibits any one country from 
receiving more than 7 percent of the immigrant visas that are available 
each year.
  Because of this, the visa backlogs have a particularly harsh impact 
on nationals of countries with high populations, and thus, high demand 
for visas, such as India. As a result, it can now take a decade or more 
for an Indian physician working in a medically-underserved area, or a 
particle physicist with a Ph.D. from MIT to receive a green card. How 
is this good for our country?
  Our immigration system is in desperate need of reform. We all know 
too well the plight of Dreamers and the undocumented population. We 
know now more than ever that our agriculture sector, which relies 
heavily on immigrant workers, is struggling to satisfy its labor needs 
and provide a safe domestic food supply.
  We are reminded daily of the concern we have of the situation 
unfolding at the border.
  On top of these very real and very serious issues, we also remain 
inextricably bound by the imperfections of an immigration framework 
that was formulated nearly 30 years ago and is out of touch with the 
needs of the 21st century.
  Major reforms are required to truly fix our outdated legal system. 
But as we all know, such reforms have been hard to come by for a long 
time.
  If we want to get anything done, if we want to do what is right for 
our country, we have to find common

[[Page H5325]]

ground, and we have to compromise. On an issue as contentious as 
immigration, our failure to work together in a fully bipartisan fashion 
can only result in legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate.
  H.R. 1044 is one of those rare proposals where we can agree. H.R. 
1044 has strong bipartisan support, with more than 200 Democratic and 
more than 100 Republican cosponsors. In 2011, the House passed a 
version of this bill by a margin of 389-15. I urge all of my colleagues 
to once again vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak about this important 
legislation that I am proud to sponsor, the Fairness for High-Skilled 
Immigrants Act.
  I also want to thank my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Citizenship. I have appreciated working with the gentlewoman to 
make a meaningful change that will make our employment-based 
immigration into an equitable system, one that is based on merit, not 
on where you were born.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why this bill has a special place in 
my heart. Two years ago, as I was traveling through my district, I met 
with a group of individuals who were here legally but felt that they 
were being put at a disadvantage by our government's immigration 
policies. They were resolute that I, and Congress, more broadly, could 
change their futures for the better.
  As we sat together, my new friends shared their stories of coming to 
the United States with a great sense of hope. They came here for any 
number of reasons, but every single person arrived seeking a new 
opportunity to succeed and realize their own American Dream.
  During our conversation, we talked about a bill, but what we really 
were discussing was these individuals' hopes and dreams for a future 
that will be brighter because of this legislation.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, our immigration policies are leaving these 
hardworking people stuck between a rock and a hard place. They had made 
the difficult decision to pack up their lives and come to the United 
States, seeking the opportunity to live and work in the greatest 
country in the world. But now these same people found themselves caught 
in a decades-long backlog to receive a green card, waiting to open 
their own businesses, create American jobs.
  At this moment, there are approximately 1.5 million high-skilled 
immigrants living in the United States on an employment-based visa. 
They are working hard and paying their taxes, yet face decades-long 
waits, sometimes up to 70 years to receive a green card.
  Worst of all, Congress created this state of limbo by instituting an 
arbitrary annual cap on the number of individuals who may receive a 
green card from any single country.
  This system doesn't make sense. Our employment-based immigration 
system has a single purpose, bringing in the best and brightest. We 
shouldn't hamstring our economy by placing artificial caps on who can 
get a green card quicker based solely on where you are born.
  As the Cato Institute and National Review deftly pointed out, we 
aren't considering that countries have different population sizes. 
India has a population 2\1/2\ times greater than the European Union, 
but has an employment-based green card cap that is 4 percent of the 
European Union's cap. This policy is not helping to develop our high-
skilled economy.
  Additionally, studies based on the Department of Labor's own 
statistics show that the per-country caps are depressing the average 
wage for employer-sponsored immigrants by $11,592. These arbitrary caps 
are depressing wages, hurting American workers, and hindering further 
economic growth.
  We shouldn't be punishing highly-skilled individuals who come to this 
country legally. People who do everything the right way, and are only 
seeking an opportunity to work hard, contribute to the U.S. economy and 
support their families.

                              {time}  1500

  We should be celebrating this and helping to create an equitable 
system that benefits both U.S. companies and employment-based visa 
holders. I am happy to say that is exactly what this bill does.
  The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act creates an equitable 
system that eliminates the arbitrary per-country caps on employment-
based green cards and replaces it with a first-come-first-served 
system.
  This important change will free U.S. companies to focus on what they 
do best: hiring smart people to create products, services, and jobs in 
our districts, while ensuring all employment-based visa applicants are 
evaluated on their merit, not where they come from.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress fixes this policy once and for 
all. Seventy-year backlogs are only going to dissuade talented 
individuals from coming to the United States and further hamper our 
economy. We need to create an equitable system that helps our 
businesses and is fair to the individuals who came here looking to 
achieve their own dream to live and work in the greatest country in the 
world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, end the backlogs, 
and make our employment-based green card system first come, first 
served, not based on where you are born.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna), my colleague.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and esteemed 
chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for 
moving this bill to the floor. Representative Lofgren has worked 
tirelessly for years to get us to this point.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Put simply, this 
bill is good for American workers, and it is good for the American 
economy.
  For too long, people in this country have been unable to get a green 
card simply based on where they were born. As a result, people have 
been stuck on H-1B visas, and we all know that foreign outsourcing 
firms have abused these H-1B visas. They are underpaying people stuck 
on these visas, and that is depressing American wages, and it is 
hurting American workers.
  The solution is to stop corporations from abusing the H-1B visa 
system and to move people on to green cards. Once we do that, American 
wages will go up. These companies will no longer be able to hold people 
in indentured servitude and force American workers to have cuts in 
their wages.
  So anyone who is for American workers, who believes that the H-1B 
visa program is being abused, and who wants to stand up for a path for 
American workers to get the wages they deserve should be for this bill. 
If you oppose this bill, you are actually supporting the abuse of the 
H-1B visa process.
  I want to thank, again, Representative Lofgren for her leadership.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Curtis), my friend.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of the 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.
  In recent years, Utah has witnessed incredible growth in our tech and 
innovation sector, bringing thousands of jobs and strengthening our 
economy. However, everywhere I go, I hear from business leaders that 
they do not have enough high-skilled workers.
  Even as we work to strengthen STEM education and bolster the number 
of homegrown engineers and programers, the demand continues to outstrip 
the supply. Current limitations in our immigration system are forcing 
talented engineers who have trained in our universities to remain on 
temporary visas or leave entirely for competing countries, while 
important jobs go unfilled and economic opportunities are lost.
  This legislation will create a first-come-first-served system, 
providing certainty to workers and families and enabling U.S. companies 
to flourish and compete in a global economy as they hire the brightest 
people to create products, services, and jobs, regardless of where they 
were born. As these companies expand operations with greater input from 
high-skilled workers, they create countless more American jobs.

[[Page H5326]]

  Mr. Speaker, with the debate around our broken immigration system 
growing increasingly challenging in recent years, I have been thrilled 
to see this bipartisan groundswell of support around this effort. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 1044, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation with over 300 
cosponsors.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her excellent leadership on 
this legislation which will end discrimination based on national origin 
in our employment-based immigration system and strengthen our economy.
  Our current system limits the number of employment-based green cards 
to 7 percent per country, regardless of population. As a result, high-
skilled workers from certain countries face backlogs of upwards of 70 
years, while applicants from other countries go to the front of the 
line. That is not fair. This legislation ensures that all high-skilled 
visa applicants have an equal opportunity to contribute to American 
economic development, regardless of their country of birth.
  Many highly educated and high-skilled workers who come to this 
country on temporary visas in the tech industry and other sectors raise 
their children here, are a part of our communities, pay their taxes, 
and want the opportunity to become lawful, permanent residents. This 
legislation helps keep families together, and it helps American 
businesses retain top talent, growing and making them more prosperous.
  Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we end the discriminatory per-
country cap on employment-based visas. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan legislation. I salute the bipartisan cooperation 
between Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Buck.

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), my friend and the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Colorado and also the gentlewoman from California, but, Mr. Speaker, I 
rise today, and I am in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1044. This is not 
something I would like to be, but this bill could be better. In fact, 
it is not going to do what it said it will do, and that is a problem.
  Current law states that nationals of one country can receive no more 
than 7 percent of employment-based green cards allotted each year. H.R. 
1044 removes the 7 percent cap, effectively moving the employment-based 
green card categories to a first-come-first-served basis. Okay. That is 
fine. The bill also raises the current annual per-country cap on 
family-based green cards to 15 percent. Okay.
  But to be clear, I agree with the concept of eliminating the per-
country caps on employment-based green cards. In fact, I think that 
there probably should not have been a cap from the onset of this, but 
Congress did not place a statutory per-country limit on green card 
issuance, and a result has been an extremely large backlog of nationals 
from certain countries who have approved green card petitions but whose 
green card is not available and will not be for several years.
  So I understand the desire of many, including the distinguished lady 
from California, whom I have great respect for in this field, and also 
my ranking member and many others who have signed on to this bill, but 
I believe many people who signed on to this bill signed on to a bill 
that would actually be put together and actually be able to work. They 
did not sign on to a statement bill that will not be able to work, in 
which the agencies have already said they can't.
  Before anybody says that there are 300-plus cosponsors, remember, 
this Congress also took up a bill which had almost 400 cosponsors but 
still went through the process of actually being changed and marked up, 
which is a distinct difference in this bill.
  So just because you have a lot of cosponsors doesn't mean, always, 
that it is right and can't still be perfected. In fact, it is wrong to 
tell communities that this bill will help them when, in actuality, it 
won't.
  This is the problem I have. The bill was introduced in February. It 
was placed on a Consensus Calendar last month and now on a suspension 
calendar today. Neither the subcommittee nor full committee had a 
hearing to look at this issue in this Congress or any potential 
ramifications of the legislation, and the committee did not mark up 
this bill. So those of us who support the intent but have concerns 
about the factual text have no opportunity to formally hear from 
agencies affected by this legislation or even outside groups and 
individuals affected.
  When my colleagues took over, they promised regular order. This isn't 
regular order, especially with a bill of this importance. Lack of 
process is a big concern of mine, but even more troubling are the 
standard provisions of the bill and how they are not ambiguous at times 
but unworkable. I will give some examples.
  Section 2(e)(1) of the bill states that, during an implementation 
transition period, visas ``shall be allotted to immigrants who are 
natives of a foreign state or dependent area that is not one of the two 
states with the largest aggregate numbers of natives who are 
beneficiaries of approved petitions for immigrant status under such 
paragraphs.''
  What does that mean, and how is the USCIS supposed to interpret it? 
Does it mean the largest aggregate number from the time the green cards 
were first issued or does it mean something else?
  I know that previous versions of this bill have tied such transition 
to a specific fiscal year. But the language here is ambiguous and is 
based on interpretation by the agencies. That could have very different 
ramifications. In fact, the agencies have said they don't know how to 
interpret this. The agency that will be in charge of this said, We 
can't do this. That should ring true with every Member in this body.
  More concerning, however, is section 2(e)(4), which portends to 
ensure that aliens with currently approved green card petitions are not 
adversely affected by lifting of the caps. The bill states that the 
visas ``shall be allocated such that no alien described in subparagraph 
(B) receives a visa later than the alien otherwise would have received 
said visa had this act not been enacted.''
  But the premise of the bill and the idea that approved aliens cannot 
be adversely affected is not true. Either the visas are first come, 
first served or they are not. And the agencies that would have to carry 
out this legislation would not be able to move people up in line to 
comply with first come, first served while, at the same time, ensuring 
visas for already approved beneficiaries are taken care of.
  There are a finite number of visas available every year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. So I will be reluctantly standing here 
against a bill that I inherently agree with. In fact, the speakers who 
have spoken already, I agree with, and the speakers who are going to 
come forward, I agree with them, except for one thing: Don't promise 
something to groups of people that you can't deliver on. We can't 
deliver with this bill.
  We have an opportunity to say no right now, fix this, and come back 
and have a unanimous vote. But don't send a bill just because it makes 
us feel good and was promised to somebody. This is not my issue with 
this bill.
  My issue with this bill is that it is not right. It is not ready for 
prime time, and it is definitely not ready for the suspension calendar. 
We need to make it right when we come to this floor.

  I think the chairwoman has done a great job in trying to get it 
there. I believe my ranking member wants to work on that, and I am 
willing to, as I expressed to the chairwoman, as well, to make this 
right. This is not the time, even though we have a lot of cosponsors.
  If the cosponsors would simply read the bill and understand the 
problems with the agencies and then go back to the communities 
advocating for this, they cannot look them in the eye and say, ``This 
is your fix.'' As I have said

[[Page H5327]]

many times from this floor before in the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, 
what makes you feel good, doesn't often heal you.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank our wonderful 
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee chair for her tremendous work 
over the years on all issues related to immigration and for her 
leadership on this particular issue.
  I am very proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 1044, the Fairness 
for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to provide relief to thousands of 
families that have been waiting for decades in employment visa 
backlogs. Among Indian nationals, the wait is upwards of 70 years.
  I also want to thank the ranking member of the Immigration and 
Citizenship Subcommittee for his support, as well.
  This is a truly bipartisan bill because these long backlogs are a 
result of our broken, outdated immigration system, and they are 
affecting States across the country. Despite the high demand for 
employment-based green cards, the system hasn't been updated in nearly 
30 years.
  This bill solves one piece, by making sure that our colleagues and 
our neighbors who have been working in our tech sector and our 
hospitals, innovating in our communities can stay with a roadmap to 
citizenship.
  But, Mr. Speaker, our work is not done. We cannot tolerate the fact 
that we have no orderly functioning process for people to come to 
America, whether it be for family unity, to bring their talents to our 
economy, to serve the needs of our economy, or to seek safety.
  This bill, and the fact that we have 300 cosponsors on it, reminds me 
of another time when there were 68 bipartisan votes in the United 
States Senate in 2013 for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and 
I deeply hope that, as we pass this bill off the floor with bipartisan 
support, that we can get back to the place where we can once again 
agree on a bipartisan basis that comprehensive immigration reform 
benefits our country, benefits our future, and is absolutely necessary.
  So I thank so much, again, Chairwoman Lofgren for her fierce 
determination and her years of service, and I look forward to passing 
this bill off the floor of the House.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the Record that one of the 
reasons that I am so proud to sponsor this bill is it is not an amnesty 
bill. This is a bill that is based on merit, and it even further 
enhances the merit aspects of this program. I am proud to sponsor this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), my good friend.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Colorado for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, fixing our broken immigration system has been a top 
priority of mine while I have been in Congress. Today, we in the House 
have an opportunity to address one small piece of our broken system, 
but a very important one.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act. This bipartisan legislation takes an important 
step toward ensuring the United States can continue to recruit and 
maintain the highest caliber of educated professionals in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, under current law, the quota of 
employment-based immigrants for a country like Iceland with a 
population of 338,000 people is the same as the quota for India, which 
has a population of more than 1.3 billion people.
  Eliminating arbitrary per-country caps and addressing the employment-
based green card backlog from highly populated countries will allow 
high-skilled professionals, many of whom are already living and working 
in the United States on a temporary visa, to continue contributing more 
fully to our local communities and economies.
  It will also provide certainty to the employers and communities that 
rely upon these highly skilled workers.
  Mr. Speaker, in my district, many of these high-skilled professionals 
are world-class medical scientists, including oncologists and 
cardiologists. I have heard from and met with many of these 
professionals, just like Mr. Buck from Colorado has, throughout my 
State in central Washington.
  Dr. Obulareddy and her husband, Dr. Chithiri, came to the United 
States in 2006 to study medicine. Dr. Obulareddy is now a specialist in 
oncology serving my constituents in Yakima and surrounding communities. 
She states, ``We always wanted to give something back to this great 
country, and hence, we decided to move to rural America, which is 
experiencing an acute shortage of physicians for a long time now. This 
shortage is more severe for specialist physicians like me.''
  She and her husband, and many like them, also dream of opening 
businesses to create more American jobs, but their temporary status 
does not allow them to do so.
  Dr. Obulareddy and Dr. Chithiri are from India and have been told the 
backlogged wait time for them to obtain their green cards is--now, get 
this, Mr. Speaker--between 70 and 150 years. This demonstrates just how 
seriously flawed the current program is and why we need this 
legislative fix.
  We should continue to recruit and retain these highly educated, 
highly trained individuals in order to meet the demands of our local 
communities and economies.
  The need for rural healthcare specialists is a problem across my 
district and across rural America, which is why I am grateful for these 
professionals who are helping address these problems facing our local 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, as I continue to work toward addressing other components 
of our broken immigration system, I am proud that this bill takes a 
step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the points made by the ranking 
member of the full committee.
  This bill has been around a while. It was introduced in 2011. At that 
point, we did have a hearing and even a markup. We have had it on the 
floor before. We have, at this moment, 312 Members on the bill, 
bipartisan.
  Addressing the issue that he was reading, and I don't think it is at 
all confusing, the Department of State is actually the agency that 
allocates the priority dates. They keep track of the visas. We have 
communicated with them frequently over the years.
  We provided in this bill a transition period because as time has gone 
on, the delays have gotten even worse for large countries, so we wanted 
to put a transition period in the bill. That is what the section that 
he read about would do.
  We do think that this has become an emergency in some sectors.
  I recently met with a physician and his wife, who is also a 
physician, who are here on H-1B visas, and they have been for a number 
of years. They are serving a medically underserved community. Their 
children, who are here legally as dependents, are about to ``age out.'' 
They haven't been back to the country of their birth in who knows how 
long; they don't speak the language; they don't have anybody in the 
country of their birth; and they are about to be out of status even 
though they have played by all the rules.
  Those two physicians told their patients that they were going to 
close their practice and move to Canada because they just couldn't go 
on like this.
  That is not a situation we can countenance. That is happening all 
over the country. We need to fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does fix it, and I hope that we can support 
it. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, Congress can create a truly fair and equitable 
employment-based immigration system. The Fairness for High-Skilled 
Immigrants Act will fundamentally change our employment-based 
immigration system for the better by ensuring our employers can hire 
people based on qualifications and ability to do the job, not the 
country of origin.

  We must continue working to build the U.S.-based high-skilled 
workforce, but in the meantime, we simply do not have enough U.S. 
workers to fill our employment needs. Congress must address the system 
to ensure that we are

[[Page H5328]]

not welcoming high-skilled workers here and then promptly leaving them 
in a limbo that may last a lifetime.
  It is time that we fix the system to create a merit-based, first-
come-first-served system that is fair for all employment-based 
immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the excellent work he has 
done on this bill; the collaboration that we have had on bringing it 
forward so it could be considered today; and the tremendous 
bipartisanship that has been exhibited throughout dealing with this 
question, going back for nearly 10 years of work on this.
  I would note that the vast majority, way over 90 percent, of 
employment-based immigrants who have been sponsored for green cards are 
already working in the United States on some form of temporary visa. 
This doesn't bring in additional people. These are people who are 
already here.
  The question is, are they going to be able to get the stability that 
legal permanent residence provides? If they do, it will be good for our 
country in several ways.
  One, they are contributing to our economy, whether they are 
physicians serving in medically underserved areas, whether they are 
scientists breaking new ground, or whether they are H-1B nurses who are 
serving in underserved areas.
  Further, we know from studies that people who are legal permanent 
residents are not vulnerable to those who might be abusive employers 
trying to suppress their wages. So, this is good for American workers 
as well as those who would gain bargaining power by gaining legal 
permanent residence.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can have a great vote of support for this 
bill today. I thank all the cosponsors and those who worked so hard to 
get us here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1044, 
the ``Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019.''
  H.R. 1044 will help alleviate the massive immigrant visa backlog by 
eliminating the 7 percent ``per-country'' limit on employment-based 
visas and increasing the family-based per-country limit from 7 percent 
to 15 percent.
  The bill will also ease backlogs for certain family-sponsored 
immigrants by modifying the per-country limits in the family-sponsored 
green card system.
  Specifically, H.R. 1044 provides for the phased elimination over 
three years of the ``per country'' cap for employment-based immigrant 
visas so that all workers are treated fairly.
  The legislation raises the ``per country'' cap from 7 percent to 15 
percent for family-sponsored immigrant visas and restores 1,000 
employment-based visas per fiscal year to the People's Republic of 
China, that have historically been set aside for green card applicants 
under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States makes 140,000 green cards available 
every year to employment-based immigrants, including many who first 
come here on temporary H-1B or L visas.
  Current law, however, provides that no more than 79 percent of these 
green cards can go to nationals of any one country--even though some 
countries are more populous than others.
  This bipartisan bill alters the per-country limits for employment-
based immigrants so that all are treated equally regardless of their 
country of birth.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the H-1B program.
  Without it, American employers would not be able to hire enough 
highly educated professionals for the ``specialty occupations.''
  A ``specialty occupation'' is employment requiring the theoretical 
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.
  This includes doctors, engineers, professors and researchers in a 
wide variety of fields, accountants, medical personnel, and computer 
scientists.
  An American employer who wants to bring an H-1B employee to the 
United States must, among other requirements, attest that it will pay 
the H-1B employee the greater of the actual compensation paid to other 
employees in the same job, or the prevailing compensation for that 
occupation.
  Additionally, the employer must attest that it will provide working 
conditions for the H-1B visa holder that will not cause the working 
conditions of the other employees to adversely be affected; and that 
there is no applicable strike or lockout.
  The employer also must provide a copy of the attestation to the 
representative of the employee bargaining unit or, if there is no 
bargaining representative, must post the attestation in conspicuous 
locations at the work site.
  Mr. Speaker, as important as it is that the H-1B program enables our 
country to benefit from the services of foreign professionals who have 
skills and knowledge that are in short supply in this country, is the 
fact that American businesses use the program to alleviate temporary 
shortages of U.S. professionals in specific occupations and to acquire 
special expertise in overseas economic trends and issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1044 
to help alleviate the immigrant visa backlogs and enhance the nation's 
economic competitiveness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1044, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________