Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas.

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.

I will try to take full advantage of those extra 56 seconds.

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 56 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate his statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.

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.