[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.
____________________