[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 193 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H9708-H9717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EQUAL ACCESS TO GREEN CARDS FOR LEGAL EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 2022

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1508, I call 
up (H.R. 3648) 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1508, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
part A of House Report 117-590, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 3648

       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 ``Equal Access to Green cards 
     for Legal Employment Act of 2022'' or the ``EAGLE Act of 
     2022''.

     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 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 such 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, immigrant visas shall be allotted 
     to such natives under section 203(a) (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 visas made available 
     under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is 
     equal to the ratio of the total visas made available under 
     the respective paragraph to the total 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 ``(as defined in 
     subsection (e))'';
       (2) by striking subsection (d); and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
       (d) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply beginning on the date that is the first day of the 
     second fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (e) Transition Rules for Employment-Based Immigrants.--
     Notwithstanding title II of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the following transition rules 
     shall apply to employment-based immigrants, beginning on the 
     date referred to in subsection (d):
       (1) Reserved visas for lower admission states.--
       (A) In general.--For the first nine fiscal years after the 
     date referred to in subsection (d), immigrant visas under 
     each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 203(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be 
     reserved and allocated to immigrants who are natives of a 
     foreign state or dependent area that is not one of the two 
     foreign states or dependent areas with the highest demand for 
     immigrant visas as follows:
       (i) For the first fiscal year after such date, 30 percent 
     of such visas.
       (ii) For the second fiscal year after such date, 25 percent 
     of such visas.
       (iii) For the third fiscal year after such date, 20 percent 
     of such visas.
       (iv) For the fourth fiscal year after such date, 15 percent 
     of such visas.
       (v) For the fifth and sixth fiscal years after such date, 
     10 percent of such visas.
       (vi) For the seventh, eighth, and ninth fiscal years after 
     such date, 5 percent of such visas.
       (B) Additional reserved visas for new arrivals.--For each 
     of the first nine fiscal years after the date referred to in 
     subsection (d), an additional 5.75 percent of the immigrant 
     visas made available under each of paragraphs (2)

[[Page H9709]]

     and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be allocated to immigrants who 
     are natives of a foreign state or dependent area that is not 
     one of the two foreign states or dependent areas with the 
     highest demand for immigrant visas. Such additional visas 
     shall be allocated in the following order of priority:
       (i) Family members accompanying or following to join.--
     Visas reserved under this subparagraph shall be allocated to 
     family members described in section 203(d) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(d)) who are accompanying 
     or following to join a principal beneficiary who is in the 
     United States and has been granted an immigrant visa or 
     adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)).
       (ii) New principal arrivals.--If at the end of the second 
     quarter of any fiscal year, the total number of visas 
     reserved under this subparagraph exceeds the number of 
     qualified immigrants described in clause (i), such visas may 
     also be allocated, for the remainder of the fiscal year, to 
     individuals (and their family members described in section 
     203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(d))) who are seeking an immigrant visa under paragraph 
     (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) to enter the United States 
     as new immigrants, and who have not resided or worked in the 
     United States at any point in the four-year period 
     immediately preceding the filing of the immigrant visa 
     petition.
       (iii) Other new arrivals.--If at the end of the third 
     quarter of any fiscal year, the total number of visas 
     reserved under this subparagraph exceeds the number of 
     qualified immigrants described in clauses (i) and (ii), such 
     visas may be also be allocated, for the remainder of the 
     fiscal year, to other individuals (and their family members 
     described in section 203(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(d))) who are seeking an 
     immigrant visa under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)).
       (2) Reserved visas for shortage occupations.--
       (A) In general.--For each of the first seven fiscal years 
     after the date referred to in subsection (d), not fewer than 
     4,400 of the immigrant visas made available under section 
     203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)(3)), and not reserved under paragraph (1), shall be 
     allocated to immigrants who are seeking admission to the 
     United States to work in an occupation described in section 
     656.5(a) of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     successor regulation).
       (B) Family members.--Family members who are accompanying or 
     following to join a principal beneficiary described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be entitled to a visa in the same 
     status and in the same order of consideration as such 
     principal beneficiary, but such visa shall not be counted 
     against the 4,400 immigrant visas reserved under such 
     subparagraph.
       (3) Per-country levels.--For each of the first nine fiscal 
     years after the date referred to in subsection (d)--
       (A) not more than 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 visas reserved under paragraph (1) 
     shall be allocated to immigrants who are natives of any 
     single foreign state or dependent area; and
       (B) not more than 85 percent of the immigrant visas made 
     available under each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 
     203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)) and not reserved under paragraph (1), may be 
     allocated to immigrants who are native to any single foreign 
     state or dependent area.
       (4) Special rule to prevent unused visas.--If, at the end 
     of the third quarter of any fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     State determines that the application of paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) would result in visas made available under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) going unused in that 
     fiscal year, such visas may be allocated during the remainder 
     of such fiscal year without regard to paragraphs (1) through 
     (3).
       (5) Rules for chargeability and dependents.--Section 202(b) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(b)) 
     shall apply in determining the foreign state to which an 
     alien is chargeable, and section 203(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(d)) shall apply in allocating immigrant visas to family 
     members, for purposes of this subsection.
       (6) Determination of two foreign states or dependent areas 
     with highest demand.--The two foreign states or dependent 
     areas with the highest demand for immigrant visas, as 
     referred to in this subsection, are the two foreign states or 
     dependent areas with the largest aggregate number 
     beneficiaries of petitions for an immigrant visa under 
     section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1153(b)) that have been approved, but where an 
     immigrant visa is not yet available, as determined by the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security.

     SEC. 3. POSTING AVAILABLE POSITIONS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   LABOR.

       (a) Department of Labor Website.--Section 212(n) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) For purposes of complying with paragraph (1)(C):
       ``(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Equal Access to Green cards for Legal 
     Employment Act of 2022, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish a searchable internet website for posting positions 
     in accordance with paragraph (1)(C) that is available to the 
     public without charge, except that the Secretary may delay 
     the launch of such website for a single period identified by 
     the Secretary by notice in the Federal Register that shall 
     not exceed 30 days.
       ``(B) The Secretary may work with private companies or 
     nonprofit organizations to develop and operate the internet 
     website described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The Secretary shall promulgate rules, after notice 
     and a period for comment, to carry out this paragraph.''.
       (b) Publication Requirement.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     submit to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register and 
     in other appropriate media, a notice of the date on which the 
     internet website required under section 212(n)(6) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as established by subsection 
     (a), will be operational.
       (c) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply beginning on the date that is 90 days after the 
     date described in subsection (b).
       (d) Internet Posting Requirement.--Section 212(n)(1)(C) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(C)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause (ii) as subclause (II);
       (2) by striking ``(i) has provided'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(ii)(I) has provided''; and
       (3) by inserting before clause (ii), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), the following:
       ``(i) except in the case of an employer filing a petition 
     on behalf of an H-1B nonimmigrant who has already been 
     counted against the numerical limitations and is not eligible 
     for a full 6-year period, as described in section 214(g)(7), 
     or on behalf of an H-1B nonimmigrant authorized to accept 
     employment under section 214(n), has posted on the internet 
     website described in paragraph (6), for at least 30 calendar 
     days, a description of each position for which a nonimmigrant 
     is sought, that includes--

       ``(I) the occupational classification, and if different the 
     employer's job title for the position, in which each 
     nonimmigrant will be employed;
       ``(II) the education, training, or experience 
     qualifications for the position;
       ``(III) the salary or wage range and employee benefits 
     offered;
       ``(IV) each location at which a nonimmigrant will be 
     employed; and
       ``(V) the process for applying for a position; and''.

     SEC. 4. H-1B EMPLOYER PETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Wage Determination Information.--Section 212(n)(1)(D) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)(D)) is amended by inserting ``the prevailing wage 
     determination methodology used under subparagraph 
     (A)(i)(II),'' after ``shall contain''.
       (b) New Application Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H)(i) The employer, or a person or entity acting on the 
     employer's behalf, has not advertised any available position 
     specified in the application in an advertisement that states 
     or indicates that--
       ``(I) such position is only available to an individual who 
     is or will be an H-1B nonimmigrant; or
       ``(II) an individual who is or will be an H-1B nonimmigrant 
     shall receive priority or a preference in the hiring process 
     for such position.
       ``(ii) The employer has not primarily recruited individuals 
     who are or who will be H-1B nonimmigrants to fill such 
     position.
       ``(I) If the employer, in a previous period specified by 
     the Secretary, employed one or more H-1B nonimmigrants, the 
     employer shall submit to the Secretary the Internal Revenue 
     Service Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements filed by the 
     employer with respect to the H-1B nonimmigrants for such 
     period.''.
       (c) Additional Requirement for New H-1B Petitions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is further amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (I), the following:
       ``(J)(i) If the employer employs 50 or more employees in 
     the United States, the sum of the number of such employees 
     who are H-1B nonimmigrants plus the number of such employees 
     who are nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) does 
     not exceed 50 percent of the total number of employees.
       ``(ii) Any group treated as a single employer under 
     subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as a single 
     employer for purposes of clause (i).''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (J) of 
     section 212(n)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as added by paragraph (1), may be 
     construed to prohibit renewal applications or change of 
     employer applications for H-1B nonimmigrants employed by an 
     employer on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Application.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to an employer commencing on the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Labor Condition Application Fee.--Section 212(n) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)), as 
     amended by section 3(a), is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(7)(A) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a 
     regulation that requires applicants under this subsection to 
     pay an administrative fee to cover the average paperwork 
     processing costs and other administrative costs.
       ``(B)(i) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts within

[[Page H9710]]

     the general fund of the Treasury in a separate account, which 
     shall be known as the `H-1B Administration, Oversight, 
     Investigation, and Enforcement Account' and shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(ii) The Secretary of the Treasury shall refund amounts 
     in such account to the Secretary of Labor for salaries and 
     related expenses associated with the administration, 
     oversight, investigation, and enforcement of the H-1B 
     nonimmigrant visa program.''.
       (e) Elimination of B-1 in Lieu of H-1.--Section 214(g) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, an alien 
     normally classifiable under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) who 
     seeks admission to the United States to provide services in a 
     specialty occupation described in paragraph (1) or (3) of 
     subsection (i) may not be issued a visa or admitted under 
     section 101(a)(15)(B) for such purpose.
       ``(B) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to 
     authorize the admission of an alien under section 
     101(a)(15)(B) who is coming to the United States for the 
     purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor if such 
     admission is not otherwise authorized by law.''.
       (f) Ending Media Abuse of H-1B.--Section 214(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)), as 
     amended by subsection (e), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(13) An alien normally classifiable under section 
     101(a)(15)(I) who seeks admission to the United States solely 
     as a representative of the foreign press, radio, film, or 
     other foreign information media, may not be issued a visa or 
     admitted under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) to engage in such 
     vocation.''.
       (g) Membership in Totalitarian Party.--Section 214(g) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)), as 
     amended by subsections (e) and (f), is further amended by 
     adding at the end of the following:
       ``(14)(A) Except as provided in this paragraph, an alien 
     who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the 
     Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or 
     affiliate thereof), domestic of foreign, may not be issued a 
     visa or admitted under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i).
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien because 
     of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the 
     satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa 
     (or to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     when applying for admission) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) 
     that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or 
     is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of 
     law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, 
     or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such 
     purposes.
       ``(C) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien because 
     of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the 
     satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa 
     (or to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     when applying for admission) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) 
     that--
       ``(i) the membership or affiliation terminated at least--
       ``(I) 2 years before the date of such application; or
       ``(II) 5 years before the date of such application, in the 
     case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the 
     party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a 
     totalitarian dictatorship as of such date; and
       ``(ii) the alien is not a threat to the security of the 
     United States.
       ``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, waive the application of subparagraph 
     (A) in the case of an alien who is the parent, spouse, son, 
     daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United 
     States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, 
     to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public 
     interest if the alien is not a threat to the security of the 
     United States.''.

     SEC. 5. INVESTIGATION AND DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST 
                   H-1B EMPLOYERS.

       (a) Investigation, Working Conditions, and Penalties.--
     Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended by striking clause (iv) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(iv)(I) An employer that has filed an application under 
     this subsection violates this clause by taking, failing to 
     take, or threatening to take or fail to take a personnel 
     action, or intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, 
     blacklisting, discharging, or discriminating in any other 
     manner against an employee because the employee--
       ``(aa) disclosed information that the employee reasonably 
     believes evidences a violation of this subsection or any rule 
     or regulation pertaining to this subsection; or
       ``(bb) cooperated or sought to cooperate with the 
     requirements under this subsection or any rule or regulation 
     pertaining to this subsection.
       ``(II) An employer that violates this clause shall be 
     liable to the employee harmed by such violation for lost 
     wages and benefits.
       ``(III) In this clause, the term `employee' includes--
       ``(aa) a current employee;
       ``(bb) a former employee; and
       ``(cc) an applicant for employment.''.
       (b) Information Sharing.--Section 212(n)(2)(H) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(H)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(H)(i) The Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services shall provide the Secretary of Labor with any 
     information contained in the materials submitted by employers 
     of H-1B nonimmigrants as part of the petition adjudication 
     process that indicates that the employer is not complying 
     with visa program requirements for H-1B nonimmigrants.
       ``(ii) The Secretary may initiate and conduct an 
     investigation and hearing under this paragraph after 
     receiving information of noncompliance under this 
     subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 6. LABOR CONDITION APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Application Review Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is 
     amended, in the undesignated matter following subparagraph 
     (I), as added by section 4(b)--
       (1) in the fourth sentence, by inserting ``, and through 
     the internet website of the Department of Labor, without 
     charge.'' after ``Washington, D.C.'';
       (2) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``only for 
     completeness'' and inserting ``for completeness, clear 
     indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact,'';
       (3) in the sixth sentence, by striking ``or obviously 
     inaccurate'' and inserting ``, presents clear indicators of 
     fraud or misrepresentation of material fact, or is obviously 
     inaccurate''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``If the 
     Secretary's review of an application identifies clear 
     indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact, 
     the Secretary may conduct an investigation and hearing in 
     accordance with paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Ensuring Prevailing Wages Are for Area of Employment 
     and Actual Wages Are for Similarly Employed.--Section 
     212(n)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), in the undesignated matter following 
     subclause (II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) will ensure that--
       ``(I) the actual wages or range identified in clause (i) 
     relate solely to employees having substantially the same 
     duties and responsibilities as the H-1B nonimmigrant in the 
     geographical area of intended employment, considering 
     experience, qualifications, education, job responsibility and 
     function, specialized knowledge, and other legitimate 
     business factors, except in a geographical area there are no 
     such employees, and
       ``(II) the prevailing wages identified in clause (ii) 
     reflect the best available information for the geographical 
     area within normal commuting distance of the actual address 
     of employment at which the H-1B nonimmigrant is or will be 
     employed.''.
       (c) Procedures for Investigation and Disposition.--Section 
     212(n)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Subject'' and inserting 
     ``(2)(A)(i) Subject'';
       (2) by striking the fourth sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii)(I) Upon receipt of a complaint under clause (i), the 
     Secretary may initiate an investigation to determine whether 
     such a failure or misrepresentation has occurred.
       ``(II) The Secretary may conduct--
       ``(aa) surveys of the degree to which employers comply with 
     the requirements under this subsection; and
       ``(bb) subject to subclause (IV), annual compliance audits 
     of any employer that employs H-1B nonimmigrants during the 
     applicable calendar year.
       ``(III) Subject to subclause (IV), the Secretary shall--
       ``(aa) conduct annual compliance audits of each employer 
     that employs more than 100 full-time equivalent employees who 
     are employed in the United States if more than 15 percent of 
     such full-time employees are H-1B nonimmigrants; and
       ``(bb) make available to the public an executive summary or 
     report describing the general findings of the audits 
     conducted under this subclause.
       ``(IV) In the case of an employer subject to an annual 
     compliance audit in which there was no finding of a willful 
     failure to meet a condition under subparagraph (C)(ii), no 
     further annual compliance audit shall be conducted with 
     respect to such employer for a period of not less than 4 
     years, absent evidence of misrepresentation or fraud.''.
       (d) Penalties for Violations.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking ``a 
     condition of paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E), or (1)(F)'' and 
     inserting ``a condition of paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E), (1)(F), 
     (1)(H), or (1)(I)''; and
       (B) in subclause (I), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``$3,000'';
       (2) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
     ``$15,000'';
       (3) in clause (iii)(I), by striking ``$35,000'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000''; and
       (4) in clause (vi)(III), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000''.
       (e) Initiation of Investigations.--Section 212(n)(2)(G) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(G)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``In the case of an 
     investigation'' in the second sentence and all that follows 
     through the period at the end of the clause;
       (2) in clause (ii), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``and whose identity'' and all that follows through ``failure 
     or failures.'' and inserting ``the Secretary of Labor may 
     conduct an investigation into the employer's compliance with 
     the requirements under this subsection.'';
       (3) in clause (iii), by striking the second sentence;

[[Page H9711]]

       (4) by striking clauses (iv) and (v);
       (5) by redesignating clauses (vi), (vii), and (viii) as 
     clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
       (6) in clause (iv), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``clause (viii)'' and inserting ``clause 
     (vi)''; and
       (B) by striking ``meet a condition described in clause 
     (ii)'' and inserting ``comply with the requirements under 
     this subsection'';
       (7) by amending clause (v), as so redesignated, to read as 
     follows:
       ``(v)(I) The Secretary of Labor shall provide notice to an 
     employer of the intent to conduct an investigation under 
     clause (i) or (ii).
       ``(II) The notice shall be provided in such a manner, and 
     shall contain sufficient detail, to permit the employer to 
     respond to the allegations before an investigation is 
     commenced.
       ``(III) The Secretary is not required to comply with this 
     clause if the Secretary determines that such compliance would 
     interfere with an effort by the Secretary to investigate or 
     secure compliance by the employer with the requirements of 
     this subsection.
       ``(IV) A determination by the Secretary under this clause 
     shall not be subject to judicial review.'';
       (8) in clause (vi), as so redesignated, by striking ``An 
     investigation'' in the first sentence and all that follows 
     through ``the determination.'' in the second sentence and 
     inserting ``If the Secretary of Labor, after an investigation 
     under clause (i) or (ii), determines that a reasonable basis 
     exists to make a finding that the employer has failed to 
     comply with the requirements under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall provide interested parties with notice of 
     such determination and an opportunity for a hearing in 
     accordance with section 556 of title 5, United States Code, 
     not later than 60 days after the date of such 
     determination.''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) If the Secretary of Labor, after a hearing, finds 
     that the employer has violated a requirement under this 
     subsection, the Secretary may impose a penalty pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C).''.

     SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Adjustment of Status for Employment-Based Immigrants.--
     Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Adjustment of Status for Employment-Based 
     Immigrants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(3), an 
     alien (including the alien's spouse or child, if eligible to 
     receive a visa under section 203(d)), may file an application 
     for adjustment of status if--
       ``(A) the alien--
       ``(i) is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful 
     admission as a nonimmigrant, other than a nonimmigrant 
     described in subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (S) of section 
     101(a)(15), section 212(l), or section 217; and
       ``(ii) subject to subsection (k), is not ineligible for 
     adjustment of status under subsection (c); and
       ``(B) not less than 2 years have elapsed since the 
     immigrant visa petition filed by or on behalf of the alien 
     under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 204(a)(1) was 
     approved.
       ``(2) Protection for children.--The child of a principal 
     alien who files an application for adjustment of status under 
     this subsection shall continue to qualify as a child for 
     purposes of the application, regardless of the child's age or 
     whether the principal alien is deceased at the time an 
     immigrant visa becomes available.
       ``(3) Travel and employment authorization.--
       ``(A) Advance parole.--Applicants for adjustment of status 
     under this subsection shall be eligible for advance parole 
     under the same terms and conditions as applicants for 
     adjustment of status under subsection (a).
       ``(B) Employment authorization.--
       ``(i) Principal alien.--Subject to paragraph (4), a 
     principal applicant for adjustment of status under this 
     subsection shall be eligible for work authorization under the 
     same terms and conditions as applicants for adjustment of 
     status under subsection (a).
       ``(ii) Limitations on employment authorization for 
     dependents.--A dependent alien who was neither authorized to 
     work nor eligible to request work authorization at the time 
     an application for adjustment of status is filed under this 
     subsection shall not be eligible to receive work 
     authorization due to the filing of such application.
       ``(4) Conditions on adjustment of status and employment 
     authorization for principal aliens.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the time an application for 
     adjustment of status under this subsection is pending and 
     until such time an immigrant visa becomes available--
       ``(i) the terms and conditions of the alien's employment, 
     including duties, hours, and compensation, must be 
     commensurate with the terms and conditions applicable to the 
     employer's similarly situated United States workers in the 
     area of employment, or if the employer does not employ and 
     has not recently employed more than two such workers, the 
     terms and conditions of such employment must be commensurate 
     with the terms and conditions applicable to other similarly 
     situated United States workers in the area of employment; and
       ``(ii) consistent with section 204(j), if the alien changes 
     positions or employers, the new position is in the same or a 
     similar occupational classification as the job for which the 
     petition was filed.
       ``(B) Special filing procedures.--An application for 
     adjustment of status filed by a principal alien under this 
     subsection shall be accompanied by--
       ``(i) a signed letter from the principal alien's current or 
     prospective employer attesting that the terms and conditions 
     of the alien's employment are commensurate with the terms and 
     conditions of employment for similarly situated United States 
     workers in the area of employment; and
       ``(ii) other information deemed necessary by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to verify compliance with subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(C) Application for employment authorization.--
       ``(i) In general.--An application for employment 
     authorization filed by a principal applicant for adjustment 
     of status under this subsection shall be accompanied by a 
     Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability (or any 
     form associated with section 204(j)) attesting that--

       ``(I) the job offered in the immigrant visa petition 
     remains a bona fide job offer that the alien intends to 
     accept upon approval of the adjustment of status application; 
     or
       ``(II) the alien has accepted a new full-time job in the 
     same or a similar occupational classification as the job 
     described in the approved immigrant visa petition.

       ``(ii) Validity.--An employment authorization document 
     issued to a principal alien who has filed an application for 
     adjustment of status under this subsection shall be valid for 
     three years.
       ``(iii) Renewal.--Any request by a principal alien to renew 
     an employment authorization document associated with such 
     alien's application for adjustment of status filed under this 
     subsection shall be accompanied by the evidence described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i).
       ``(5) Decision.--
       ``(A) In general.--An adjustment of status application 
     filed under paragraph (1) may not be approved--
       ``(i) until the date on which an immigrant visa becomes 
     available; and
       ``(ii) if the principal alien has not, within the preceding 
     12 months, filed a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or 
     Portability (or any form associated with section 204(j)).
       ``(B) Request for evidence.--If at the time an immigrant 
     visa becomes available, a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer 
     or Portability (or any form associated with section 204(j)) 
     has not been filed by the principal alien within the 
     preceding 12 months, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     notify the alien and provide instructions for submitting such 
     form.
       ``(C) Notice of intent to deny.--If the most recent 
     Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability (or any 
     form associated with section 204(j)) or any prior form 
     indicates a lack of compliance with paragraph (4)(A), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a notice of intent 
     to deny the application for adjustment of status and provide 
     the alien the opportunity to submit evidence of compliance.
       ``(D) Denial.--An application for adjustment of status 
     under this subsection may be denied if the alien fails to--
       ``(i) timely file a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or 
     Portability (or any form associated with section 204(j)) in 
     response to a request for evidence issued under subparagraph 
     (B); or
       ``(ii) establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
     compliance with paragraph (4)(A).
       ``(6) Fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall charge and 
     collect a fee in the amount of $2,000 to process each 
     Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability (or any 
     form associated with section 204(j)) filed under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Deposit and use of fees.--Fees collected under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be deposited and used as follows:
       ``(i) Fifty percent of such fees shall be deposited in the 
     Immigration Examinations Fee Account established under 
     section 286(m).
       ``(ii) Fifty percent of such fees shall be deposited in the 
     Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(7) Application.--
       ``(A) The provisions of this subsection--
       ``(i) shall apply beginning on the date that is one year 
     after the date of the enactment of the Equal Access to Green 
     cards for Legal Employment Act of 2022; and
       ``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall cease 
     to apply as of the date that is nine years after the date of 
     the enactment of such Act.
       ``(B) This subsection shall continue to apply with respect 
     to any alien who has filed an application for adjustment of 
     status under this subsection any time prior to the date on 
     which this subsection otherwise ceases to apply.
       ``(8) Clarifications.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `similarly situated United States workers' 
     includes United States workers performing similar duties, 
     subject to similar supervision, and with similar educational 
     backgrounds, industry expertise, employment experience, 
     levels of responsibility, and skill sets as the alien in the 
     same geographic area of employment as the alien.
       ``(B) The duties, hours, and compensation of the alien are 
     `commensurate' with those offered to United States workers in 
     the same area of employment if the employer can demonstrate 
     that the duties, hours, and compensation are consistent with 
     the range of such terms and conditions the employer has 
     offered or would offer to similarly situated United States 
     employees.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 245(k) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(k)) is amended 
     by adding ``or (n)'' after ``pursuant to subsection (a)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

[[Page H9712]]

  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in part B of House Report 
117-590, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3648.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 3648, the EAGLE Act, 
a bipartisan bill that raises the per-country caps on family-sponsored 
immigrant visas and phases out the per-country caps on employment-based 
immigrant visas. The bill also includes significant improvements to the 
H-1B visa program that add protections for U.S. workers.
  Our immigration system has not been significantly updated since 1990, 
and it really just follows the basic outlines for the bill that was 
enacted in 1965. The failure to evolve the immigration system has 
significantly damaged America's ability to compete in an increasingly 
global economy. The system is supposed to encourage immigration based 
on an individual's family ties to the United States or their ability to 
contribute to our economy. It often falls short.
  For example, there are backlogs for families seeking reunification. 
That could be legal residents of the United States trying to get their 
spouse a legal residence visa. There are backlogs in some countries but 
none for Western Europe. In addition, in the employment-based context, 
before a foreign national can apply for a green card--here is the 
process--their employer has to advertise and demonstrate that there are 
no U.S. workers who are here who can do the job that they are being 
offered. This is to make sure that green card applicants are providing 
services and skills that are not readily available in America.
  But after this initial test, which is merit-based, the per-country 
caps kick in. For example, under current conditions, an individual from 
Western Europe, a Western European country, applying for a green card 
in the employment-based second preference category based on a 
bachelor's degree would be able to gain their permanent residency in 
about a year. In contrast, an Indian national with a Ph.D. and 
potentially superior skills might have to wait approximately 200 years. 
That doesn't help America.
  I would note also that the individuals who would ultimately benefit 
from the elimination of what amounts to a racist system of allocating 
visas, 95 percent of those individuals are already in the United States 
legally working on a temporary visa, but in limbo. As that limbo 
continues, their children who have been raised in the United States age 
out, and when they hit 21, they have to go back to the country their 
parents are from, but their parents remain legally in the United 
States.
  We are losing individuals who we need in America, including 
physicians--25 percent of the MDs in the United States are foreign-
born; many of them are from India. I have personally met physicians 
whose children have aged-out who decided they have to move to Canada 
where they can get a green card equivalent in under 6 months.
  Now, the disparity, as I mentioned, in the family-sponsored context, 
there are some family-sponsored immigrants from Mexico whose wait time 
is over 200 years before they are eligible to receive a green card.

                              {time}  1230

  That doesn't make any sense at all, and in fact, it is a fraud on 
those applicants.
  We have been trying to change this system for over a decade. The 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an earlier version of this 
legislation, first passed the House in 2011 and again last Congress. 
Iterations of this bill have been led by both Democrats and 
Republicans, received over 350 ``yes'' votes in the House, and passed 
by unanimous consent in the Senate.
  The EAGLE Act is based on a bill that passed the Senate last 
Congress, with additional restrictions to protect American workers and 
a longer transition period to ensure that no country's nationals are 
excluded from receiving visas while the per-country caps are phased 
out.
  Why is this important? People base their expectations on the 
situation as it exists. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed 
this bill and stated that no one currently in line is negatively 
impacted by this legislation.
  I thank Representative   John Curtis from Utah for working with me to 
introduce the EAGLE Act. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who have previously supported this legislation, and I urge 
that we, once again, vote in favor of this bill.
  A system that is based on where you are born instead of what you can 
do is not what serves America well. A system that is designed to 
advantage someone born in Western Europe over the entire rest of the 
world doesn't really recognize merit, which is what this bill is all 
about. We should have a system based on competitiveness, not the 
country where you were born.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, ironically, this bill doesn't even serve the interests 
of immigrants from around the world except for two countries, China and 
India.
  By removing the per-country caps on employment-based visas, the 
practical effect of this bill is that, for the foreseeable future, the 
citizens of only two countries, China and India, will be admitted to 
work here. Workers from every other country will have to wait many 
years until that backlog clears.
  Supporters contend that no one currently awaiting a green card will 
be adversely affected. That may be true as far as it goes. But what 
they leave out is that this bill will produce long delays for future 
applicants from every country except for China and India.
  Even the liberal American Immigration Lawyers Association points out 
that ``many applicants will now face longer wait times.''
  Now, supporters are fond of comparing the populations of various 
countries as an argument that uniform percentage caps are unfair. But 
what they forget is that when a country's allotment isn't reached, its 
vacant slots then spill over to higher-demand countries. India, for 
example, accounted for 35 percent of the green cards issued last year, 
five times their percentage cap. But that, apparently, isn't enough for 
the left.
  The bill also threatens our national security. China has been 
stealing U.S. technology for years through programs like the H-1B visa.
  According to The Washington Post, one such initiative resulted in 
``the arrests of six Chinese researchers accused of lying on their visa 
applications about their ties to the People's Liberation Army'' and 
``more than 1,000 researchers who had hidden their affiliation with the 
Chinese military'' fleeing the U.S. within months.
  The supporters assure us that anyone with direct ties to the Chinese 
Communist Party is not eligible, but that completely ignores the fact 
that the CCP exerts coercive control over all Chinese nationals, 
whether or not they are CCP members, so this assurance is meaningless.
  As currently drafted, this bill would also result in the immediate 
exclusion from green cards special immigrant religious workers from 
around the world for the next few years. Those cards will, instead, go 
to special immigrant juvenile green cards for unaccompanied alien 
children from the Northern Triangle countries.
  It is precisely this provision that has been exploited by the crime 
cartels in trafficking unaccompanied minors into this country, and this 
bill makes it worse.

[[Page H9713]]

  But the most pernicious provision allows certain temporary visa 
holders to file an application for adjustment for status despite the 
fact that no green card is available to them. That is the reason you 
have the long delays that the gentlewoman mentioned.
  The result is that many temporary visas will essentially become 
permanent because the alien visa holders will be able to live and work 
in the U.S. as if they had a green card.
  That raises an important question: What is it that the Democrats have 
against American workers?
  This bill is a direct attack on their job opportunities and 
livelihoods. So much for the advice to unemployed fossil fuel workers: 
Well, just learn to code.
  All this becomes a theater of the absurd in light of the mass illegal 
migration that the Democrats have aided, abetted, and encouraged since 
they reversed the Trump border measures that had finally secured our 
borders.
  It was no coincidence that as the flood of illegal migration slowed 
to a trickle, working-class families saw their biggest wage gains in 
decades, and the income gap between rich and poor began to narrow.
  Now that the borders have been collapsed by the Democrats, those wage 
gains have been wiped out as millions of illegal aliens are 
deliberately allowed into the country to compete with those struggling 
American families. The Democrats remain silent on this continuing 
crisis.
  The American people had trusted the Democrats to look out for their 
interests, and they are now discovering how tragically misplaced that 
trust has been. That is the crux of this bill, a big fat middle finger 
to America's working families, and I am afraid that won't change until 
the people responsible for these policies are turned out of office.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize my colleague from the 
Judiciary Committee, I would just like to note that the issue about the 
EB-4, which is the children, is not correct.
  Under current law, if you are a minor and have been abandoned by your 
parent, you can go to State court, and the State court will make a 
finding that you have been abandoned by your parent. Then, you can 
become eligible for legal permanent residence in the EB-4 category.
  By the way, you are not, under law, able to then petition for a 
parent once the parent abandons you. They are out of the picture. That 
is backlogged right now from Central America. This bill will have the 
effect of easing those backlogs for orphans from Central America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for her 
tremendous leadership, not only on this bill, but also on the 
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee as our chairwoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the EAGLE Act.
  I believe I may be the only one, or one of very few, Members of 
Congress who has actually been on an H-1B visa back when processing 
times to transition to a green card weren't nearly as bad as they are 
today. It still took me 17 years and a multitude of visas to become a 
U.S. citizen.
  Today, an estimated 1.6 million people in the family backlog and 
200,000 in the employment backlog will die, in some cases, before they 
receive green cards because of an arcane system that puts a 7 percent 
per-country limit on employment and family-sponsored green cards.
  Many of the people who are stuck in this backlog are Asian 
immigrants, people who were denied the right to become U.S. citizens 
for most of U.S. history, from 1790 to 1952, through the Chinese 
Exclusion Act and the Supreme Court's 1923 decision barring Indians 
from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Anti-Asian policies have 
informed these future anti-immigrant efforts.
  As the first South Asian American woman elected to the House, I am 
very aware that Congress did not repeal that Supreme Court decision 
until 1946.
  The employment and family immigration process established in 1965 
provided the first meaningful ways for Asian immigrants to come to the 
United States, and it remains the main method of entry for Asian 
immigrants because many Asian immigrants cannot access other pathways, 
such as asylum or refugee status or diversity visas.
  However, because of the per-country caps, there are lengthy backlogs 
to secure permanent status. Those backlogs can last for decades or even 
lifetimes.
  Someone from India or Mexico currently experiences a 200-year wait to 
secure a green card, while nationals of other countries wait as little 
as 2 years or less.
  The EAGLE Act would simply ensure fairness by moving to a first come, 
first served system that would no longer discriminate by country of 
birth. Moreover, thanks to the bill's 9-year transition period 
beginning in October 2024, it would not harm anyone that is currently 
in the backlog.
  The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that our immigration system is deeply 
broken, and it needs reform on every level. This is something that I 
dedicated two decades of my life to before coming to Congress. Whether 
you are from Africa, Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean, we do not 
have a functioning immigration system that allows people to come to 
America and do the work that we need, or escape from war-torn or 
economically devastated countries, or join family members.
  Congress has punted on comprehensive, humane immigration reform for 
too long, so we are forced to pursue piecemeal efforts for principled 
compromise to address the many broken parts of the immigration system 
while ensuring that no community suffers harm as another benefits. That 
is the nature of principled compromise.
  This is one of those bills that certainly does not accomplish fixing 
the broken immigration system. It does not do that, but it does do 
something very important, which is to fix one piece of an immigration 
system that has been put together by these individual pieces that 
affect different parts of the population.
  It does so, Mr. Speaker, without harming any other community.
  To those of you who have waited too long for a green card as you have 
put down roots here and raised families and helped communities thrive 
across the country, I am here to say: We see you.
  A previous iteration of this bill passed the Chamber with 365 
bipartisan votes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the EAGLE 
Act.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  I oppose the EAGLE Act and encourage all Members to do the same.
  The Biden administration has created the absolute worst border crisis 
in our history, and congressional Democrats have done nothing to 
address it. They won't even acknowledge that there is a crisis, with 
the exception of the gentleman in the Chair.
  The crisis is real. It is having a negative impact on communities 
across the country, but President Biden has more important things to do 
than visit the border.
  I visit the border on a regular basis, and every time I do, I hear a 
similar message.
  First, the brave men and women of the Border Patrol are being 
overrun. They are tired of the administration not supporting their 
efforts to secure the border.
  Second, illegal aliens enter every day because they believe that the 
Biden administration is going to let everyone stay.
  Thirdly, our communities are running out of resources to deal with 
the real-world impacts of the Biden border crisis. Cities like New York 
City and Washington, D.C., complained when a few hundred illegal aliens 
were sent to their communities, but cities in Arizona are dealing with 
large groups of illegal aliens every day. We are now told, with title 
42 expiring, that they will do direct releases into Arizona's 
communities because there is just simply no place to even hold them to 
process them.

  Since President Biden took office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
has encountered more than 4 million illegal aliens at the southwest 
land border. During the same time, the Biden administration has simply 
released

[[Page H9714]]

more than 1.4 million of those illegal aliens into the country.
  Under this administration, those aliens will never be removed from 
the country, and the 4 million number does not include the hundreds of 
thousands, probably more than a million, got-aways who enter the 
country illegally without being apprehended by the Border Patrol.
  For example, in November alone, there were more than 73,000 known 
got-aways, with estimates of at least one unknown got-away for every 
known got-away. That is a total of 150,000 people. We don't know where 
they came from. We don't know where they are going. We don't know what 
their intentions are.
  The numbers continue to get worse. Over the weekend, Border Patrol 
reported more than 16,000 encounters in 2 days, and that does not 
include known and unknown got-aways.
  But according to DHS Secretary Mayorkas, the border is secure. In 
fact, he testified under oath that DHS has operational control of the 
border. A week later, he backtracked on that statement because DHS does 
not have operational control of the border, despite the fact that he is 
required to achieve and maintain operational control of the border.
  Congress even defined what operational control means so that there 
would be no ambiguity. It is this: ``The term `operational control' 
means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, 
including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of 
terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.''

                              {time}  1245

  I look forward to Secretary Mayorkas testifying before the Committee 
on the Judiciary next year and explaining whether he stands by his 
previous testimony that he is maintaining operational control of our 
border.
  We know what he will say, because last month he told the Committee on 
Homeland Security that he believes the border is secure.
  The Democrat-led Committee on the Judiciary hasn't held a single 
hearing on the crisis, and many Democrats on the committee deny that 
there is a crisis. At a hearing earlier this year, one Democrat 
committee member referred to this crisis as the ``supposed crisis at 
the southern border.''
  I wonder if she still thinks it is just a supposed border crisis. 
Some of us in this room today know the reality of that border crisis.
  The committee hasn't held a single hearing on the flow of fentanyl 
into this country.
  The committee hasn't held a single hearing on the increase in the 
number of Border Patrol encounters with illegal aliens on the terrorist 
watch list.
  You would think that the committee would be concerned with the fact 
that in fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol reported encountering 98 
illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list.
  To put that in perspective, for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 
combined, Border Patrol only reported encountering 11 illegal aliens on 
the terrorist watch list.
  Secretary Mayorkas couldn't even tell the committee if any of the 
illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list who were encountered by CBP 
were still in the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, he has no idea where those individuals are.
  Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary have repeatedly asked 
for hearings. Those requests have been ignored.
  Instead of conducting oversight, Democrats have advanced bills to 
provide amnesty and further weaken our security, which are incentives 
to those who wish to illegally enter the United States of America.
  The EB-4 issue, as explained by my colleague from California, Ms. 
Lofgren, it does not change the impact, as it provides an incentive for 
the cartels in their human trafficking expeditions.
  The EAGLE Act will do nothing to secure our border or address the 
crisis that this administration has created, but it will dramatically 
alter our illegal immigration system in ways that most Members do not 
understand or fully appreciate.
  Even the American Immigration Lawyers Association has opposed the 
bill. They acknowledge that the bill will benefit immigrants from a few 
countries, namely China and India, while adversely impacting those 
wishing to legally immigrate to the United States from almost all other 
countries.
  Instead of rushing to pass this bill today, the House should be 
debating and passing legislation to require Secretary Mayorkas to 
enforce the law, to finish construction of the border wall, and to 
provide CBP and ICE with the resources they need to enforce the law.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3648, the Equal 
Access to Green cards for Legal Employment, or the EAGLE Act of 2022.
  While I, like many others here today, would prefer to see a more 
robust approach to fixing our broken immigration system, the bill 
before us today is an important step in the right direction. This bill 
will have a large impact on many immigrants and notably an overwhelming 
impact on Asian immigrant workers who have been historically barred 
from applying for U.S. citizenship.
  Right now, there are approximately 1.4 million individuals trapped in 
our backlogs waiting for available employment-based visas. The vast 
majority, as high as 80 percent, are Asian immigrants who are currently 
facing waiting times as high as 90 years from India or 44 years from 
China.
  Critically, the bill also more than doubles the per-country limit on 
family-sponsored visas from 7 to 15 percent, bringing relief to the 
nearly 4 million people who are forced to languish in limbo due to a 
backlogged and broken family-sponsored system. This backlog keeps 
families separated; causes birthdays, weddings, and funerals to be 
missed; and hampers the ability of immigrants to build their lives here 
in the United States while their families are waiting overseas.
  Additionally, while not all communities are facing the same impact as 
ours, I want to reassure everyone that this bill does not adversely 
affect immigrants from other countries and those who do not benefit 
directly from these provisions.
  Finally, I am proud that this bill does not include the racist anti-
Chinese language that was added at the request of former President 
Trump to the previous iteration of this bill. Instead, the manager's 
amendment before us today simply replicates what is in current law for 
all green card applicants.
  While I will continue to push forward for more comprehensive action 
that addresses many other parts of our immigration system for all 
immigrant communities, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. We must pass this bill today in order to help hundreds of 
thousands of immigrants who are stuck in our employment visa backlogs.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the hearing on this 
bill in the markup in April before the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
raised an amendment or proposed an amendment that we protect the United 
States, if this bill were to pass, by providing that the Chinese 
Communist Party not be allowed to abuse it.
  I submitted for the record evidence that Chinese technicians under H-
1B visas had been part of the censorship routine at Facebook, that H-1B 
visa holders were involved in the Confucius Institutes in colleges and 
universities across the country.
  We ought to, at a minimum, provide that the Chinese Communist Party 
does not use our immigration tools as a means to impair American 
national security and favor inculcation of the Chinese Communist 
Party's influence in the United States.
  In response to the amendment, the bill's sponsor argued that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act already provided for defense against 
this threat. In fact, she gave a particular section of the code, 
section 212(a)(3)(D), which already fully took care of this problem. 
Except in further debate on the amendment, it became apparent after a 
while that, no, section

[[Page H9715]]

212(a)(3)(D) only addressed risks involving aliens, not immigrants. 
That was finally conceded, but the problem was not addressed in the 
markup.
  Now, as the bill comes to the floor today, it comes with a manager's 
amendment, not vetted in the Committee on the Judiciary as it should 
have been that day, and it doesn't do the job. It is loaded with 
exceptions that raise subjective questions that may be circumvented by 
agents of the Chinese Communist Party to come into the United States 
exploiting this greater latitude for these visas.
  I believe the bill sponsor spoke to it in her opening comments, that 
there is an exception. Yeah, okay, the Chinese Communist Party can't 
take advantage of this. But if somebody is an involuntary member in the 
Chinese Communist Party or they accept membership in the Chinese 
Communist Party for the purpose of obtaining employment, well, they are 
not going to be excluded.
  Well, who won't say that is what happened? And who is to decide now 
who was an involuntary member or one who was eager to participate? 
There are exceptions for close family members and exceptions for past 
membership.
  We will offer a motion to recommit that will eliminate those 
exceptions. The motion to recommit would prevent the Department of 
Homeland Security from issuing an H-1B visa to anyone who is or was a 
member of a communist party or totalitarian party. It is just that 
simple.
  Why, if this is harmless and helpful, is the Democratic Party so 
reluctant to provide for the most elemental of protections for the 
American people, that it not be exploited by the Chinese Communist 
Party, the most notorious adversary of the United States in the world, 
and to be done simply and completely so that, above all, we protect 
America in the course of doing this?
  Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the 
Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 3648 to 
provide real safeguards against Chinese Communist Party influence and 
espionage.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the issue of membership in the 
Communist Party. It has long been part of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act that if you were a member, you are not admissible. I 
will read the section. ``Any immigrant who is or has been a member of 
or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or 
subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is 
inadmissible.''
  Now, there are some exceptions, for example, if your membership was 
not willing. We do know that in some cases, and not just in China, 
Russia signed up, essentially, Boy Scouts as members of the Communist 
Party against their will, and they were 12 years old. So the consular 
officer can find exceptions based on that, and that is sensible.
  Now, the one point that the gentleman did make in committee had to do 
with applying this Communist Party inadmissibility provision explicitly 
to H-1B applicants, and we did take him up on that suggestion. In fact, 
that is a reasonable thing to do. The gentleman made that point because 
H-1B visa applicants have dual intent. So the application is eminently 
reasonable when it comes to those dual-intent immigrants.
  Although we did not draft the amendment at the markup, we did contact 
the gentleman's legislative director and went back and forth with the 
lawyers on the staff, so there was full knowledge of this provision, 
and I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.
  There have been complaints that we haven't had hearings. We have had 
a lot of hearings on this issue. In fact, I can recall so well, 
physicians--a quarter of the physicians in the United States are 
foreign born. Most of those medical doctors were born in India, and 
they are providing medical services to underserved communities 
throughout the United States. I have met many of them. We have had 
testimony from them at our hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  To tell the people who are getting their medical care from these 
physicians that it doesn't matter, these physicians have to go to 
Canada and leave them without a doctor in their small town, that is not 
reasonable. Failure to act will result in that type of situation. In 
fact, it is already resulting in that type of situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, every one of us here have significant groups of 
constituents and people across this country from the communities in 
question, from the Chinese-American communities, from the Indian-
American communities, who have interest in wanting to make sure their 
communities can be represented and might well support some of this. But 
of course they do. Of course they do.
  What are we going to do here but pick winners and losers? That is 
what this Congress does every single day, pick winners and losers.
  Who are the losers on this? It is not Big Tech, it is not all the big 
corporations that are all happy to collude with the people's House in 
order to get their labor supply, what they need.
  But who are going to be the losers? A lot of the hospitals. Why did 
the hospital association oppose this?
  Could it be that there are Filipino nurses and others who are going 
to be left behind or are going to have to go to the back of the line? 
The Filipino nurses that were crowding the room in which I was being 
treated for cancer at M.D. Anderson, which is chock-full of Filipino 
nurses?
  We are picking winners and losers here based on nationalities and 
specific countries.
  The gentlewoman from California just tried to mount a defense that we 
are not going to open the door to Chinese Communists coming to the 
United States but conveniently leaves out of the code all of the 
exceptions: exception for involuntary membership, exception for past 
membership, exception for close family members. I mean, any idiot could 
drive a truck through those holes.
  This is not a hard thing to understand what is happening. At the 
eleventh hour, at the end of the 117th Congress, while Democrats are 
colluding with a bunch of weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate to pass 
a bunch of money that we don't have, to borrow more money that we don't 
have, to jam through a massive omnibus spending bill at the expense of 
the American people, this body is about to jam through a garbage 
immigration bill that will undermine people around the world seeking to 
come here who are going to be put to the back of the line while 
colluding with Big Tech and big corporate interests to do it. That is 
what is happening right now on the floor of the House.
  We never actually have full-throated debates about this stuff, 
contrary to what the gentlewoman said. She just dismissed it: Oh, we 
had a couple hearings.
  One witness mentioned something in a hearing and that constitutes a 
hearing?
  We are not having an actual debate here on the floor. We are having 
30 minutes of each side getting up and saying their talking points. 
Then we will have a vote, and then we will move on.
  We are not going to be able to offer amendments on the floor because 
nobody in this body, none of the leadership on that side of the aisle 
or, frankly, often this side of the aisle, gives a damn about my right 
to be able to offer an amendment on this floor of this House as my 
constituents gave me the power to do.
  We are here trying to defend the interests of having an immigration 
policy that is not based on the interests of one industry at the 
expense of countless other industries and at the expense of an 
immigration system that actually works while our border is wide open, 
being exploited by cartels and China to kill 72,000 Americans last 
year, and my Democratic colleagues don't give a rip about a wide-open 
border exploiting the American people and migrants getting abused in 
the process.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H9716]]

  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a note on the issue of nursing, 
which is very important. As you know, we have had a very tough time 
with nurses in America. They have been through COVID; the trauma has 
been enormous, and we have a need for more nurses while nurses are 
leaving the profession for understandable reasons.
  Part of the answer is nurses who want to come to the United States 
and practice nursing. That is not the whole answer, but it is part of 
the answer, and so at the request and suggestion of Senators who we 
have been talking about, there is a carve-out of 4,400 visas for nurses 
and physical therapists during the transition period. We think once the 
transition is over, we will be adequately accommodated, but during the 
transition, that is included.
  I would note that the Society of Hospital Medicine does support this 
bill.
  We had three hearings in the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee 
on this topic, and I think we had an understanding on the subcommittee 
kind of on what all the issues were.
  This is our best effort at dealing with those issues. It has received 
broad support in the past, bipartisan support in the past, and I hope 
it would do so again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close. I think it is important to note why we have those per-country 
caps. Ours is a Nation of immigrants. Except for those descended from 
Native Americans, every one of us is an immigrant or the descendant of 
an immigrant.
  The American people are drawn from every country on this Earth; and 
from these disparate and diverse populations, we have created one great 
Nation, the American Nation. Here there is only one race, the American 
race.
  This remarkable achievement is made possible by a single word--
assimilation. Our immigration laws were written specifically to 
accommodate that process. They were written to assure that as 
immigrants come to our country they bring with them a sincere desire to 
become Americans, to raise their children as Americans, to acquire a 
common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of 
American principles. That is the only possible way to blend so many 
discordant, disparate, and diverse populations into a common people 
devoted to the same principles that have produced the happiest, most 
just, most prosperous, most free, most advanced, and most envied 
civilization in the history of mankind.

  But assimilation is hard. As Winston Churchill said from that very 
rostrum: ``We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, 
across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies because we 
are made of sugar candy.''
  Becoming an American requires learning a new language, accepting and 
adopting new customs, adapting to a new culture, and accepting new 
beliefs. Assimilation breaks down if the concentration of immigrants 
from any single country reaches a level where assimilation is no longer 
necessary for that population. Instead of e pluribus unum, from many 
nations one great nation, from many people one great people, we instead 
see e unum pluribus: from one nation, many isolated, insular, and 
segregated communities that become foreign enclaves rather than an 
integral part of our national identity.
  We have all heard the heartbreaking tales of American workers not 
only being displaced by foreign workers but being forced to train their 
replacements as a condition of severance pay. This bill assures a 
never-ending supply of foreign labor for American corporations.
  Under this bill, any alien on an employment-based green card waiting 
list for more than 2 years could apply for adjustment of that status. 
Once an alien has filed an adjustment of status application, he or she 
is eligible for a work permit. However, unlike an employment-based 
green card, which generally requires a showing that the wages and 
conditions of Americans are not adversely affected, this work permit is 
considered an open-market employment authorization document, meaning 
the alien can take any job at any wage, and there are no protections 
for American workers.
  So this bill essentially converts temporary visa holders to permanent 
status at the expense of American tech workers. This rewards the very 
same companies who for years have fired their American workers only to 
replace them with cheaper foreign labor.
  American workers, particularly Black and Hispanic Americans, are 
going to be particularly hard hit. Pew Research estimates that each 
group only accounts for about 9 percent of the STEM workforce, and this 
measure assures that competition for those positions will become much 
greater and the wages much lower.
  The per-country caps exist to assure that the population of no single 
nation can come to dominate the overall immigrant population coming to 
these shores. Thus, under current law immigrants from one nation cannot 
claim more than 7 percent of the visas, but under this bill, the 
employment-based limit is eliminated.
  If this is allowed to happen, assimilation breaks down and the entire 
foundation of a nation of immigrants is shattered. As I said earlier, 
the practical effect of this bill is that the population of only two 
countries, China and India, will almost exclusively dominate the 
receipt of employment-based green cards for the foreseeable future at 
the expense of the people of virtually every other country in the 
world. Instead of an equitable distribution of green cards across all 
countries, they will in effect be limited to two.
  In one employment-based green card category, EB-5, all the green 
cards will go to Chinese nationals for several years. In another 
category, EB-4, religious workers will be precluded from getting green 
cards. Instead, these will go to the alien juveniles from Northern 
Triangle countries who crossed our border illegally. This imbalance 
would undermine the fundamental mechanism of assimilation, and I fear 
that is the point.
  Assimilation has become a dirty word to the left. They seek not 
unity, not one united people but, rather, a people divided into 
warring, racial, and ethnic factions, divided by language, culture, 
ethnicity, and ultimately grievances. No nation can survive very long 
tearing itself apart this way.
  The collapse of our southern border and refusal of the Democrats to 
defend the sovereignty of our Nation from the unprecedented illegal 
mass migration that they have unleashed will spell the end of this 
Nation if it is allowed to continue much longer. This bill is a small 
part of that policy, and it is destructive in its effect if not its 
intent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple of notes. First, this bill does not add 
any additional visas to the visa system. There were efforts to do that, 
plans to recapture visas. That was never agreed to by the Senate, and 
so this is an allocation of existing visas. It doesn't add a single 
visa.
  As I said before, 95 percent of the individuals who would be impacted 
are already here legally in the United States. They are legally working 
in the United States. So it is no new people coming in, either. It is 
people who are already here, no additional visas.
  We asked the Congressional Research Service to do an analysis because 
people wanted to know--and they were right to want to know--is there 
any adverse impact on Africa or the Caribbean, and CRS told us there 
was no impact on Africa or the Caribbean.
  Referring to the EB-5 category, I think those who are concerned don't 
realize that we actually changed the EB-5 Act through the Integrity Act 
earlier this year, and due to those changes, 32 percent of the green 
cards available every year for investments go to a new category. It is 
completely current. There is no backlog.
  I just want to talk a little bit about what we are doing here. My 
colleague from California said we are talking about picking winners and 
losers.
  In 1965, the Congress did pick winners and losers when they designed 
this structure. The winners were Western Europe, and the losers were 
everyone else. Now, that system, although not, I am sure, intended to 
be called racist, did advantage people from Western Europe to the 
disadvantage of the rest of the world, and we are still working on that 
system today.

  I think it is time to change that system. It is time to move to 
merit, not to

[[Page H9717]]

race, not to the country you were born in. I am not accusing any 
critics of this bill, I am not talking about their motivation, but the 
fact is, if we don't change this system, we are supporting something 
that we did in 1965 that really has an effect of having race play a 
role in who gets a visa instead of merit on the employment side. I 
don't think that serves our country well.
  Put aside for a minute our ideals just to discuss the economic 
impact. We do well economically when the very most able people who want 
to come here and be Americans, to start companies, to invent things are 
able to do so. The current system throws a wrench into that, and it is 
not good for the United States of America.
  I hope, once again, that we can vote to approve this bill. It doesn't 
do everything I would like to do in reforming immigration law. As the 
gentleman knows, I have worked for many decades to do a variety of 
improvements, but this fixes something.
  Let's not say we can't do anything unless we do everything. That is a 
path toward mediocrity.
  Let's do what we can do to make this system work better, to move it 
away from its racist origins and have a system based on merit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  The Chair understands that the amendment printed in part B of House 
Report 117-590 will not be offered.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bishop moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3648 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Bishop of North Carolina 
is as follows:

       In paragraph (14) of section 212(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)), as proposed to be amended 
     by section 4(g) of the bill, strike subparagraphs (B) through 
     (D), and redesignate provisions accordingly.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. 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 question are postponed.

                          ____________________