[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16293-16295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             STEM JOBS ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this last week the House of 
Representatives passed a bipartisan piece of legislation called the 
STEM Jobs Act. For those who are unfamiliar with the term STEM, it 
stands for science, technology, engineering, and math--the hard 
sciences programs that we have too few graduates from in our colleges 
and universities. This bill passed in the House of Representatives with 
245 votes and was originally sponsored by my friend and colleague Lamar 
Smith of Texas. It is very similar to a piece of legislation I myself 
introduced earlier this year.
  The goal of this legislation is one that I think enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, and that is to help the United States retain more 
of the highly skilled immigrants who come to study at our colleges and 
universities. In particular, this bill would make eligible for a green 
card those who graduate from the STEM fields who get a master's degree 
or a Ph.D. We would not add to the net number of green cards that would 
be eligible. There are 55,000 diversity lottery visa green cards that 
would be substituted for by these STEM green cards.
  We all know America's immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, it 
causes self-inflicted wounds in many respects, but particularly by 
driving away highly skilled foreign workers who want to start 
businesses and create jobs right here in America. This is not about 
hiring foreign workers to perform jobs where we have qualified 
Americans waiting in line for these jobs. The fact of the matter is, we 
do not produce enough American-born workers to fill the job vacancies 
in these fields.
  Many of these potential job creators and entrepreneurs attend our 
colleges and universities. You might even say that the American 
taxpayer helps subsidize their education because many of them received 
world-class training at our public and private colleges and 
universities and then reluctantly return home to pursue their careers 
because they cannot get a visa or cannot get a green card here in 
America. We are cultivating human capital and then sending those 
individuals back home.
  This is an area where there is broad support. My colleague Senator 
Moran recently wrote a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which points out that 
roughly--he cites in the letter that more than three-quarters of voters 
support a STEM-type visa. He quotes in this letter, dated July 20, 
2012, 87 percent of Democrats polled, 72 percent of Republicans polled, 
and 65 percent of Independents support the creation of a STEM visa. Of 
course if you think about it, it is common sense. Why in the world 
would we want to subsidize the education of these students from other 
countries, train them in these highly specialized and highly desirable 
fields, and then simply send them home?
  I have introduced legislation over the past years that would increase 
the number of H1B visas, which are not green cards. They are actually 
temporary visas that would allow more of these foreign national 
students, trained in these STEM fields, to stay here in the United 
States and help create jobs here in the United States. This bill 
actually goes a step further. What it does is it provides them a green 
card, which is the first step toward a path to citizenship.
  If you believe our current policy is a self-inflicted wound on our 
economy, you are exactly right. We are educating brilliant students and 
then compelling them to go to work in Shanghai or Singapore rather than 
San Antonio or the Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, we are handing out tens 
of thousands of diversity visas to immigrants chosen by random lottery, 
without regard to any qualifications they may have when it comes to job 
creation and entrepreneurship. It makes absolutely no sense.
  I believe we need an immigration policy that serves our national 
interests. If there is one thing that we need more than anything else 
now, we need job creators and entrepreneurs in the United States. We 
know in the global economy it is people with special skills in science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics who are the ones who are going 
to help us create jobs and

[[Page 16294]]

grow the economy--not just for these individuals but for the people who 
are hired by the startup businesses they will create.
  The STEM Jobs Act would mitigate the problem with the diversity 
lottery visa, which again does not distinguish between immigrants based 
upon the qualifications they have or their ability to create jobs or be 
entrepreneurs. It would mitigate this problem by making our immigration 
system more economically sensible. It would establish new visa 
categories for 55,000 STEM graduates of American research institutions 
and would eliminate the random diversity lottery visa to offset these 
new green cards.
  Our competitors abroad are observing this brain drain that America is 
experiencing and they are taking advantage of it. In a global economy 
they are more than happy to take the best and the brightest foreign 
students who come and train in the United States and to encourage them 
to come to their countries and create jobs and economic growth there. 
This relatively minor change to our immigration system could deliver a 
major boost to U.S. economic growth. I realize many of our colleagues 
have different priorities when it comes to fixing our broken 
immigration system, but the reforms contained in the STEM Jobs Act 
enjoy bipartisan support.
  I urge my colleagues, let's show the world we can agree on this 
commonsense, bipartisan immigration reform. Let's do something for our 
economy and let's take this first step in solving our broken 
immigration system.
  Before I turn the floor over to my colleague from Kentucky, who I 
know has some comments on this topic, let me address two issues 
quickly. I can anticipate hearing from some of our colleagues that this 
does not solve all of what is broken in our immigration system, and I 
concede that is correct. But what we need more than anything is to 
develop some confidence-building measures for the American people to 
demonstrate that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
and do what needs to be done which almost everybody agrees is common 
sense and then we can follow on with other solutions on a targeted 
basis for our broken immigration system.
  I once believed, back in 2005, when Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona and 
I introduced something we called the Comprehensive Border Security and 
Immigration Reform Act of 2005, we should address this issue 
comprehensively. We tried in 2007. That bill failed on the Senate floor 
when Senator Reid pulled the bill from the floor.
  I believe now, given the temper of the times and given the skepticism 
with which the American people view us here in Congress, the only way 
we are going to crack this nut is to start small in targeted reforms 
such as the STEM Jobs Act. I believe this is the beginning and not the 
end of fixing what is broken about our immigration reform system. But 
if we cannot do this--if we cannot do this--I have next to no 
confidence we can do the rest that needs to be done as well.
  A final point. I believe we should be family-friendly when it comes 
to our immigration system. This STEM Jobs Act takes a very important 
step in making sure families can be unified. Under the current law, 
someone who has a green card is not entitled to bring their immediate 
family into the United States to live with them while they are waiting 
for their eligibility for a green card. The STEM Jobs Act, though, 
addresses that by recreating the V visa, which would help us retain 
more of the potential job creators but it would also help unify the 
immediate families of U.S. permanent residents. Right now, the spouses 
and children of U.S. permanent residents have to wait outside, to wait 
in line for their green card, which causes families to be separated--
something that none of us believes is an optimal situation. The STEM 
Jobs Act would let them wait inside the United States, unified with 
their loved ones until they are off the waiting list, which takes 
several years, and thus would promote family unification. That is yet 
another reason why this bill deserves our support.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, who I know 
supports this approach, for any comments he would care to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. I compliment the Senator from Texas for being a leader in 
immigration reform. There are many of us in the Republican Party who 
wish to have immigration reform. I do wish it be noted for the Record 
today that we can take a small step forward toward immigration reform 
today. This bill that would allow Ph.D.s, master's, successful 
graduates to come into this country with a green card could be passed 
today. This bill is at the desk and we will ask consent from the 
majority party today to pass this bill.
  I will also note the President and the Members of the majority party 
will object. The President has said he will not pass this unless he can 
get everything he wants. When I go home or when I talk to folks with 
the media, they say: Why can't you guys get along? Why can't you do 
anything in Washington? Why is this system so horribly broken?
  This is precisely why. We agree on this bill. I think the other side 
will stand and say they like the concept, but they do not want to do it 
yet. They want to wait until we agree on everything. Guess what. We are 
never going to agree on everything so we are never going to get 
immigration reform if we cannot start agreeing to some things and 
moving the ball forward.
  This is the same on tax reform. This is the same on entitlement 
reform. We lurch from deadline to deadline. There will be a deadline, 
the so-called fiscal cliff coming up, and the President has announced 
that we do not have enough time to do entitlement reform. We don't have 
enough time to do tax reform. We don't have enough time to do 
immigration reform.
  When are we going to start? When is there going to be a committee 
hearing designated toward entitlement reform? I have been here 2 years. 
There is no such committee. When will there be hearings on immigration 
reform? There will not be time. Deadlines will pass.
  But not break things up into smaller pieces? Why have to have some 
enormous fiscal cliff or whatever that everybody has to agree to a 
thousand moving parts? We are of different persuasions, of different 
parties, of different beliefs. We are never going to agree on a 
thousand things. Why don't we start passing some things we can agree 
to? This is a small step forward. We can pass this bill today.
  Does the Senator have an explanation that can help me understand why 
we have to have empty partisanship, why we cannot move forward to pass 
some small things for immigration reform?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say in response to the Senator 
from Kentucky that I have been in the Senate for some time now. I have 
been engaged in the immigration debates for a long time. I think one of 
the biggest challenges is we have tried to deal with this in a 
comprehensive way that has so many moving parts it is almost impossible 
to find a majority in the Senate, much less the House, in order to 
support all the various components of it. That is one of the things I 
like about this bill. It is narrow, it deals with a consensus reform--
commonsense reform--and it avoids a lot of the controversy associated 
with other parts of the immigration subject. I do believe we owe it to 
the American people not to stop here, but it is a good place to start. 
Once we pass this legislation and people see that we have acted 
responsibly and in America's best interests, then we can regain their 
confidence that we can deal with other broken parts of the immigration 
system.
  Mr. PAUL. I think another important point to make about this is we 
truly have different philosophical differences with people on the other 
side. But what people at home ask me is when you agree with the other 
side, when the other side says we want this part of immigration reform, 
why can't we do it? That to me is empty partisanship. Are we afraid to 
give Republicans credit for introducing immigration reform in the 
Republican-controlled House? Are we afraid it might be perceived as a 
Republican idea? That to me is empty

[[Page 16295]]

partisanship. I routinely vote with the other side on some issues that 
some on this side object to because I believe in the issue. This is an 
issue where we all should be able to agree on immigration reform. Yet 
the other side will object to moving the ball forward on immigration 
reform. That I don't understand and that I see as empty partisanship, 
and that is the dysfunction of this body when we agree on something we 
still cannot pass it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6429

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask the Senator to withhold for a moment because I do 
have a unanimous consent request. I understand the Senator likely will 
have an objection to that. We have other Senators who are going to 
speak. Given the limitation on our time, what I wish to do, Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 559, H.R. 6429, that the bill 
be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be made and 
laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, and I will object and 
explain my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. OK.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Very simply, I heard my colleague from Kentucky say if 
we agree on something, let's pass it. We do agree on increasing STEM 
visas. I am offering a proposal that does that and does it in a more 
fulsome way than the proposal of my friend from Texas. But what we do 
not do is take away other visas or add in other extraneous positions.
  I would say the logic of my friend from Kentucky is impeccable, but 
because of constraints on the other side they could not pass a plain 
bill that just added STEM visas. They had to take away other visas that 
my colleague from Texas does not like--but many people do. They had to 
add in a few other provisions.
  I would simply say that if my colleague from Kentucky says we should 
join together on something we agree with, I will bet he agrees with our 
proposal as well. And I will bet he agrees with it even more than the 
other proposal because we add two things that are not in the bill of 
the Senator from Texas. No. 1, we allow unused STEM visas to be used to 
reduce the backlog of employment green cards. There are 200,000 people 
waiting. It may well be that the 55,000 visas in the bill of the 
Senator from Texas are not going to be used up. That is what experts 
say. Second, we allow STEM green cards to be used by entrepreneurs, a 
bill that has been introduced by I believe Senator Coons, Senator 
Moran--bipartisan--Senator Warner as well.
  I am going to object to this bill, not because it increases STEM 
visas and not for some larger purpose--although I do understand that if 
we pick off all the pieces each of us wants, we are not going to get 
comprehensive reform, and that is why the Hispanic Caucus opposes the 
bill of the Senator from Texas but supports our bill. I understand 
that. But if we just want to do STEM and do it in the best way possible 
without other provisions, because that is what we agree on, I would 
urge my friend from Kentucky, and those Members on the other side, to 
support our bill.
  So I object to the Cornyn bill, and I will be offering a bill on the 
same subject that is purer, cleaner, and more full on STEM visas than 
the proposal that was made by my good friend from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from New 
York has objected, and of course here we go again making the perfect 
the enemy of the good and not moving forward on commonsense immigration 
reform in an area where there is a consensus.
  There are several problems with the Senator's proposal. One is that 
it has not passed the House and this one has. It also has a 2-year 
sunset provision, as I understand, and there is no family unification 
provision. Also, it doesn't eliminate the diversity lottery visa which 
allows people to get green cards without regard to the qualifications 
that they bring to this country to create jobs and start new 
businesses.
  I know we have the distinguished Senator from North Dakota here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if I might be recognized to offer my 
proposal? I have let my friend from Texas respond, but I have the--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have four Senators who are prepared to 
speak, and I just want to make sure we have adequate time to speak. I 
ask that any time that is used by the distinguished Senator from New 
York not be added to or subtracted from our time. We have retained a 
total of 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Under those circumstances, I agree to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________