[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18230-18233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FAIRNESS FOR HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ACT OF 2011

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3012) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based 
immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for 
family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3012

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for High-Skilled 
     Immigrants Act of 2011''.

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

       (a) In General.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``and employment-
     based'';
       (2) by striking ``(3), (4), and (5),'' and inserting ``(3) 
     and (4),'';
        (3) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b) of section 203'' 
     and inserting ``section 203(a)'';
       (4) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``15''; and
       (5) by striking ``such subsections'' and inserting ``such 
     section''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 202 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``both subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 203'' and inserting ``section 
     203(a)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (a)(5); and
       (3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling.--If it is 
     determined that the total number of immigrant visas made 
     available under section 203(a) to natives of any single 
     foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical 
     limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, 
     in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to 
     natives under section 203(a), visa numbers with respect to 
     natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the 
     extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section 
     and section 203) in a manner so that, except as provided in 
     subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made 
     available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 
     203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas 
     made available under the respective paragraph to the total 
     number of visas made available under section 203(a).''.
       (c) Country-specific Offset.--Section 2 of the Chinese 
     Student Protection Act of 1992 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (e))'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d))''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection 
     (e) as subsection (d).
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2011, and 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2012.
       (e) Transition Rules for Employment-based Immigrants.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding paragraphs of 
     this subsection and notwithstanding title II of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (A) For fiscal year 2012, 15 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that was not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant 
     visas during fiscal year 2010 under such paragraphs.
       (B) For fiscal year 2013, 10 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of such paragraphs shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that was not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant 
     visas during fiscal year 2011 under such paragraphs.
       (C) For fiscal year 2014, 10 percent of the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of such paragraphs shall be 
     allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or 
     dependent area that was not one of the two states with the 
     largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant 
     visas during fiscal year 2012 under such paragraphs.
       (2) Per-country levels.--
       (A) Reserved visas.--With respect to the visas reserved 
     under each of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1), 
     the number of such visas made available to natives of any 
     single foreign state or dependent area in the appropriate 
     fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent (in the case of a 
     single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a 
     dependent area) of the total number of such visas.
       (B) Unreserved visas.--With respect to the immigrant visas 
     made available under each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) and not 
     reserved under paragraph (1), for each of fiscal years 2012, 
     2013, and 2014, not more than 85 percent shall be allotted to 
     immigrants who are natives of any single foreign state.
       (3) Special rule to prevent unused visas.--If, with respect 
     to fiscal year 2012, 2013, or 2014, the operation of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection would prevent the 
     total number of immigrant visas made available under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)) from being issued, such visas may be issued during 
     the remainder of such fiscal year without regard to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
       (4) Rules for chargeability.--Section 202(b) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1152(b)) shall apply in determining the foreign state 
     to which an alien is chargeable for purposes of this 
     subsection.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3012, as amended, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled 
Immigrants Act. I would first like to thank Chairman Smith for his work 
and diligence and commitment on this issue. We wouldn't be here today 
without his efforts and his commitment to this. I also want to thank 
Ranking Member Conyers and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe 
Lofgren. She cares deeply about this and has also been very 
instrumental in putting this bill together to make it something that we 
hope will pass today, and I thank her for her work on the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that the total 
number of employment-based immigrant visas made available to natives of 
any single foreign country in a year cannot exceed 7 percent of the 
total number of such visas made available in that year.
  The bill completely eliminates the per-country caps for employment-
based visas and raises the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent 
for family-based visas--all without adding even a single additional 
visa. In other words, there is no net increase in the total number of 
visas. What I want Members on both sides of the aisle to understand and 
recognize is that there is not a net increase in the total number of 
visas; but it does make important adjustments that will allow us to 
better service and fix legal immigration, which is one of the 
commitments that I have in working in this Congress.
  While per-country limits make some limited sense in the area of 
family immigration, they make no sense in the context of employment-
based immigration. American companies treat all highly skilled 
immigrants equally regardless of where they come from. Our immigration 
policy should do the same. H.R. 3012 creates a fair and equitable, 
first-come-first-served system. Under this system, U.S. companies will 
be able to focus on what they do best: hiring smart people to create 
products, services, and jobs for Americans.
  Per-country caps are the antithesis of the free market. Companies 
recruit employees based on their talent, not their country of origin. 
Hiring and keeping the best people, whether from America or around the 
world, is the primary objective of American companies. This bill will 
help ensure that employers meet that objective.
  Fears that these changes will lead to an influx of cheap labor are 
totally unfounded. Two concerns in particular rely on the false 
assumption that the removal of these caps will have a negative impact 
on American workers. The first concern applies to the removal of the 
per-country cap on employment-based visas. Some people argue this

[[Page 18231]]

provision will displace American workers with cheap foreign labor, 
which will not and cannot happen. Current law prohibits U.S. employers 
from hiring foreign workers to fill these jobs unless there are 
insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and 
available. This bill does not change that requirement, but it does 
encourage high-skilled immigrants who are educated in the U.S. to stay 
and help build our economy rather than using the skills they learned 
here to aid our competitor nations.

                              {time}  1610

  The second criticism I hear applies to the provision that raises the 
family-based per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent. The fear 
seems to be that this change will result in an increase of unskilled 
foreign immigrants who will be a burden to our system. To the contrary, 
those who benefit most under the family cap adjustment are the law-
abiding workers who have demonstrated their respect for the rule of law 
by waiting in line for many years, if not decades. An unmarried minor 
child in Mexico, for example, who is the son or daughter of U.S. 
citizens and will receive a green card in November of this year has 
been waiting in line since April, 1993. That's an 18\1/2\-year wait. 
Rewarding those who are patiently waiting to come to this country 
legally will incentivize more people to enter our country legally 
through the means that we have set forth.
  This bill does not add a single new green card to the system. There's 
no trick or compromise involved. We are sending a message we want 
people to come to America legally, and we're sending that message 
without massive comprehensive reforms. This is simple, straightforward, 
and consistent with where I think most Members from both sides of the 
aisle stand on the issue of immigration.
  This legislation is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-family. I would 
like to thank Compete America and Immigration Voice for their tireless 
efforts in helping to get this bill passed, and again thank Chairman 
Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and Ms. Lofgren for their work in 
helping to bring this bill forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also rise in support of this bipartisan proposal that provides two 
small, technical fixes to our country's immigration laws.
  The bill removes the so-called ``per-country'' limits from applying 
to employment-based green cards. Current immigration law provides 
140,000 green cards annually to employment-based immigrants. The law, 
however, prevents any one country from receiving more than 7 percent--
or 9,800--of the total 140,000 visas. Because of this per-country 
limit, a country like India, with a population of 1.2 billion, is 
limited to the same number of visas as a country like Iceland, with a 
population of 300,000 and a lot of ice. This makes no sense and has 
resulted in decades-long backlogs for nationals from India, as well as 
China, and it makes it impossible for certain U.S. employers to attract 
and retain certain essential workers they need to help keep America 
competitive. Indeed, from India and China there are many people trained 
in STEM areas that we need in our country to keep competitive.
  Eliminating the per-country limit for employment-based immigrants 
would level the playing field and treat everyone on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Because the bill does not provide additional green 
cards, it does not address the current overall backlogs. And that's 
unfortunate. But the bill does treat people and those backlogs more 
equitably. And to make sure that there are no unintended consequences, 
the elimination of the per-country limit is phased in slowly over 3 
years.
  The bill also raises the per-country limit for family-based 
immigrants from 7 percent to 15 percent. This would have a similar 
effect of making the treatment of such immigrants more equitable. These 
fixes are small, but they mean a great deal to the people they will 
help.
  H.R. 3012 is supported by quite a few business groups, including the 
United States Chamber of Commerce, Compete America, and the American 
Council on International Personnel. It is supported by advocates for 
American and immigrant families, including the Asian American Justice 
Center and the National Immigration Law Center.
  I, like my colleague on the other side, want to thank the people who 
are above me on the committee level, the chairman in particular, 
Chairman Smith; and the ranking member of our subcommittee, Zoe 
Lofgren, who has worked with Congressman Chaffetz, who has worked so 
hard on this bill, as has Chairman Smith, to get this bipartisan bill 
through the committee and to the floor.
  It's important that we do get bipartisan bills through, and because 
of our chairman, we have that opportunity on occasion to do such a 
thing. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of 
our full committee, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding me time, and I also want to thank him for his sponsorship of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, our immigration system should be designed to benefit 
Americans and our economy. And this bill introduced by Congressman 
Chaffetz does just that, and I'm happy to be a cosponsor.
  The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that the total 
number of family-sponsored and employment-based green cards available 
to natives of any one country cannot exceed 7 percent of the total 
number of green cards available each year. Because of these annual 
numerical caps on green cards and the fact that some countries have 
more of the skilled workers that American employers want, natives of 
these countries must often wait years longer for green cards than 
natives of other countries.
  For foreign professionals with advanced degrees and aliens of 
exceptional ability, green cards are now immediately available to 
approved applicants from most countries. However, because employers 
seek so many workers from India and China, the per-country caps result 
in green cards only being available to these individuals who first 
applied before November 2007, 4 years ago.
  For foreign professionals with bachelor's degrees and skilled 
workers, green cards are now available to applicants from most 
countries who first applied on or before December 2005. However, for 
the same reason, because employers seek so many workers from India and 
China, the per-country cap results in green cards only being available 
to those from China who first applied before August 2004 and for those 
from India before July 2002.
  Similar per-country caps exist in the family-sponsored green card 
categories. That's why natives of most countries who are siblings of 
U.S. citizens will get green cards only if they first applied before 
June 2000, 11 years ago, and the siblings from the Philippines have had 
to wait since 1988.
  H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, eliminates 
the employment-based per-country cap entirely by fiscal year 2015. It 
also raises the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 
percent. This legislation makes sense. Why should American employers 
who seek green cards for skilled foreign workers have to wait longer 
just because the workers are from India or China? American business 
employers have already proved to the U.S. Government that they need 
these workers, that qualified workers are not available, and that 
American workers will not be harmed.
  It makes sense to repeal the employment-based per-country caps. So I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3012. Again, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Utah for sponsoring this legislation.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 56 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I will try to take full advantage of those extra 56 
seconds.

[[Page 18232]]

  Mr. Speaker, I'm a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I 
want to speak on its behalf.
  I heard about a conversation that Bill Clinton had with Steve Jobs. 
Apple Computer has about 200,000 employees outside of the borders of 
the United States, I understand. I believe it's Walter Isaacson in his 
biography of Steve Jobs who talks about a conversation he had with 
President Clinton, where the former President asked, What would it take 
to get all these employees back into the United States? Mr. Jobs said, 
You give me 30,000 highly skilled workers in the United States and 
we'll bring those jobs back.
  And that's what this is about. It's having access within the United 
States to the most highly skilled engineers, scientists, and 
mathematicians, who will in turn generate the kind of economic activity 
that we all want in terms of job creation and national economic growth.
  In the northern Virginia area, we're very fortunate to have a strong 
high-tech sector.

                              {time}  1620

  But for that tech sector to continue to grow and expand, we have got 
to have a workforce not only adequate in terms of quantity, but 
particularly in terms of quality. We know how important technology 
firms are going to be in the global economy of the 21st century; but I 
don't think we fully take into account how important it is to continue 
to attract the best and brightest from around the world who, in fact, 
do want to go to graduate school here and do want to continue residing 
in the United States and to work here applying their talents and 
skills.
  Now, under current law, employment-based and family-sponsored 
immigrant visas for the natives of any particular country can't exceed 
7 percent of the total of those visas made available that year. That 
cap hinders the ability of high-tech firms in the United States to hire 
the top talent from countries like India and China who have a 
disproportionately large number of individuals with the education and 
the experience that are sought after by many of these technology 
companies. It doesn't make sense to continue enforcing outdated, 
arbitrary caps that make it harder for companies to hire the employees 
that they need and that we need to grow and prosper within the United 
States.
  This legislation eliminates per-country limits on the allotment of 
high-skilled green cards without adding a single additional green card 
to the system. It also increases per-country limits from 7 percent to 
15 percent--more than double--in the family-based immigration system, 
helping reduce substantial backlogs in the family-based system as well. 
It doesn't add any additional visas but, rather, it more rationally 
distributes the allotment already available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. MORAN. I will try to be judicious in using that time. I very much 
thank my good friend from Memphis for yielding me the time.
  This legislation is modest in scope, but it is very important because 
it puts this country in the right direction of economic growth.
  Now, I want to say I wish we would set our ambitions higher in the 
whole area of immigration. Our immigration system is broken; it needs a 
fundamental overhaul. We ought to have comprehensive immigration reform 
that makes strategic investments in border security, improves workplace 
verification of employees, and establishes a path to legalization for 
undocumented immigrants currently in the country. But maybe we can use 
this kind of a debate to reflect upon the much broader benefits to our 
country that would accrue by improving our immigration system and 
continuing to pursue a comprehensive solution.
  But regardless of whether we can get the more ambitious legislation, 
the bill before us today fixes a real problem that today harms our 
Nation's competitiveness. That's why it has bipartisan support; that's 
why it's the right thing to do; and I think it's terribly important for 
the area of our economy which is going to produce the most jobs in the 
future, the most competitive jobs, with the highest profit margins that 
we can then sell to the rest of the world.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the sponsors of this legislation and 
would hope that we would get unanimous support for it.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate his 
statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
  I just want to, again, thank Chairman Smith. I also want to recognize 
the good work and the working relationship that I have with Ms. Lofgren 
of California and the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez, who was 
also very instrumental. I think it does demonstrate that we can work in 
a bipartisan way to pass important legislation that really will have an 
effect on businesses, jobs, our economy, and a whole lot of families 
that are deserving.
  I urge support of H.R. 3012, and I would yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this country has needed 
to eliminate the ``per country'' limits for employment-based 
immigrants, and increase those for family-based immigrants, for a very 
long time.
  Although these are relatively small fixes, and a great deal more 
needs to be done, these fixes represent a balanced approach to 
addressing some of the long-standing problems in our broken immigration 
system. And they are the right thing to do.
  We all know that our immigration system is severely broken, and it 
has been broken for decades. At the heart of this broken system are the 
outdated employment- and family-based immigration systems, which suffer 
under decades-long backlogs. In combination with the per country 
limits, these backlogs keep nuclear families apart for decades, while 
preventing U.S. employers from accessing and retaining the employees 
they need to stay competitive.
  H.R. 3012 begins to address these problems by eliminating the 
employment-based per-country limits and adjusting the family-based per-
country limits to make the system fairer for people caught in the 
backlogs. This is a good step that will lead to more equitable 
outcomes.
  But I must note that until we do something about the backlogs 
themselves, we will continue to have a dysfunctional system. This bill 
will help certain Indian nationals, who now face a wait of 70 years to 
get green cards,; But because the bill does not address the scope of 
the backlogs, it will increase the wait time for many others. Under 
this bill, everyone seeking an employment-based third preference green 
card will have to wait 12 years. That may be more equitable, but it 
doesn't fix the underlying problem.
  In any event, the bill makes the system fairer, and that is why I 
support it. I just hope that we can come together, as we have done 
today, to fix other areas of our immigration law.
  Hopefully, this type of balanced legislation, in combination with 
true cooperation across the aisle, can serve as a model for addressing 
other areas of our broken immigration system. This country desperately 
needs that we try.
  I thank the author of the bill, Jason Chaffetz, as well as Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, for 
working with me on this bill and addressing some of my concerns.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3012, The 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.
  I congratulate my colleague from Utah and my colleague, the esteemed 
chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, for moving this bill through 
the committee process and bringing it to the floor. I am pleased to be 
a cosponsor.
  This bill will eliminate per-country limits on employment-based 
immigration, which limit the total employment-based immigration from 
any one country to just seven percent of the overall number of visas 
allowed.
  While there may have been a rationale for per-country limits in the 
past, currently they have created a bottleneck for those seeking to 
legally emigrate from high population countries. These high population 
countries also happen to be countries from which a large percentage of 
high-skilled workers come.
  Simply put, H.R. 3012 will reform our employment-based immigration 
such that our economy will have better access to the best and the 
brightest in the world.
  The value of foreign-born, high-skilled talent simply cannot be 
overstated.

[[Page 18233]]

  For example, researchers at Duke University and University of 
California--Berkeley found that, from 1995 to 2005, more than a quarter 
of engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at 
least one foreign-born founder and in 2006 these companies employed 
450,000 workers and produced $52 billion in sales.
  Facilitating U.S. industry having access to the best and the 
brightest from around the world is crucial to ensuring that we stay on 
the leading edge of global innovation.
  Given the economic realities we face, these reforms could not come at 
a better time and this legislation has received support from 
CompeteAmerica, the Information Technology Industry Council, 
TechAmerica, and Immigration Voice.
  This bill is the right policy at the right time and it is my hope 
that it moves through the legislative process and ultimately lands on 
the President's desk expeditiously.
  In addition, Congress can and should continue to look for fixes to 
our current approach to legal immigration that will benefit our 
economy.
  For example, there is a growing consensus that steps should be taken 
to ensure that we are able to retain foreign-born graduates with 
advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, as 
opposed to losing them to countries with which we compete.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues on 
commonsense reforms that can help the U.S. retain its competitive edge 
and remain at the forefront of the global marketplace.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 3012, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________