Attracting the Best and Brightest Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 821, I call up the bill (H.R. 6429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes.

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 materials on H.R. 6429, as amended, under current consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to STEM fields, this is long overdue. This is not the first time we have considered it, but as we go into the lame duck session, I'd like the American people to understand why this is so important. For more than 2 years, the national campaigns have talked in terms of jobs. STEM means jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Many years ago, Thomas Friedman wrote about an experience of being a speaker at a commencement, and he watched one after another individuals cross receiving their masters and doctorate degrees in science, in math, and in engineering. The amazing thing is, one after another had names that were almost impossible to pronounce in some cases, and, clearly, the majority of these engineers and scientists came from other countries and were being told they must return to them. He made the statement in his op-ed that, in fact, at the end, rather than just a diploma, they should be given a diploma and a green card. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Thomas Friedman on this subject.

For each person we welcome to America with one of these high degrees, we create jobs, net jobs. We create opportunity for expansion of the kinds of businesses that, in fact, Americans are prepared to work in, but often we do not have enough engineers, scientists, or math professionals. This shortage, particularly at the masters and doctorate level, is well documented.

This is not something in which Republicans and Democrats are on different sides; this is something we agree on. There is some controversy, as you might imagine; there always is. Some would cling to a lottery that allows 55,000 immigrants to come for no reason other than they asked and they got

a lottery. Those 55,000 are, in fact, an example of a great many of our immigrants. Only 5 percent of immigration visas today are based on skills of education and other capacities--only 5 percent.

I support other categories of immigration, including those fleeing the tyranny of their own countries, those in fact who would be killed if they remained, or tortured; and I certainly agree that family reunification continues to be an important part of our immigration system. But today what we're dealing with is the ability to make a profound difference of 55,000 opportunity jobs.

We often hear about opportunity scholarships, Mr. Speaker. Opportunity jobs is what we're talking about today--jobs that are in great demand. In this high unemployment era, STEM jobs can be not just below 4, but in some cases below 2, percent. The truth is if you're qualified and you have these kinds of advanced degrees, the jobs are far greater than the qualified applicants.

Three-quarters of likely voters support strongly this type of legislation, and, I believe, properly understood, that for each STEM immigration visa, the fact is that you would gain net jobs, that by bringing in these 55,000, we could drop hundreds of thousands of people from the unemployment rolls because they could become employed. The benefit to our economy is undeniable. The controversy here today will simply be, are we willing to act and act now. Many say that little good happens in a lame-duck session. In this case, I believe both in the House and hopefully in the Senate we can in fact say, not true.

Some of the groups that have strongly come out in support of this legislation include: the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an area of shortage; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an area of commerce; Compete America; the Information Technology Industry Council; and the Society for Human Resource Management. And, I might say, the industry I came from, the Consumer Electronics Association, has long supported these kinds of investments in America.

This bill has the support of the large majority of the House of Representatives, and on a bipartisan basis. Last September, by an overwhelming vote, more than 100 votes to spare, the STEM Jobs Act passed under suspension.

To protect American jobs, employers who hire STEM graduates must advertise for the position before they can ask for them, and they must in fact make their jobs available to all existing American workers. In fact, these protections have long meant that after all that advertising, employers often enter the H-1B, attempt to get a temporary worker; but in fact for permanent opportunities and permanent growth, we should have more permanent jobs than simply a guest technology worker.

More importantly, I think it's universally recognized by both my colleagues on the other side and by my colleagues that if you have somebody who's going to benefit America, having them benefit America for a short time and then go home and in fact compete against America is not in America's best interests.

In fact, an Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services has testified that the diversity fraud in the system that we are attempting to take these slots from is so huge as to in fact make it effectively worthless. In those hearings and many others, we've determined that we do have an opportunity, on a net basis, no net-new immigrants but in fact a selection of the ones that Americans want would be the best.

There are many other provisions in this bill, but I want to touch on one, which is family reunification. Under this bill, we're going to set aside what has been a bad idea for a long time: people who just because of our bureaucracy often wait for family reunification. Americans, with green cards or fully naturalized citizens, often wait for many years to be reunited. Under this bill, I believe broadly supported, we're going to change that. We're going to make it to where after 1 year, if there are no other impediments to their coming, they may wait with their families here for final status. We believe that this is the best solution to a problem where we have had pervasive slowness in the process and it's to the detriment of families being together.

So although there will be additional comments, and I intend to make additional comments, I want to close simply by saying one thing: I was an employer. I knew that in fact technology and people who could apply it allowed my company to compete globally. I knew that in fact there were never enough of those people. I always had an open mind to hire if I found a smart engineer or a smart scientist.

Mr. Speaker, we can only gain by asking as many people who are smart and who create opportunities far beyond just their own to be part of our society. It's smart in business. It's smart in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Michigan, 1990 is a longstanding part of our 236-year history. 1990 is a long part of 236 years. And 55,000 out of 1 million immigrant visas is a large part. I think on this side of the aisle we know better. We know that in fact this is a relatively recent provision, the 55,000 Diversity Visa. And clearly, America continues to be the most generous Nation on Earth when it comes to welcoming people to our country.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and classmate coming to Congress, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be placing in the Record information from the U.K.'s U.S. Embassy, as current enough actually to include, ``Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi'' on the same page as it says, ``Diversity Visa Fraud'' warning. I also will be including a press release from the Embassy of the United States in Dublin, Ireland, that starts off by saying, ``U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About Diversity Visa Email Scams,'' and other information, to show the pervasiveness of this fraud.

Condolences for Deaths in Benghazi

14 September 2012--If you would like to send us an

electronic condolence message that we can forward to

Washington to be shared with the victims' families, please

use this form.

Press Release, Embassy of the United States, Dublin, Ireland

U.S. Embassy Dublin Issues Caution About Diversity Visa Email Scams

The U.S. Embassy in Dublin advises residents of Ireland

about a widespread Diversity Visa (DV lottery) scam and to

use caution when working with private entities to apply for

visas to the United States. Reports of fraudulent emails,

websites, and print advertisements offering visa services are

on the rise. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should anyone send any

money to any address for participation in the DV Lottery.

One widespread DV lottery scam email instructs recipients

to send money via Western Union to a fictitious person at the

U.S. Embassy in London. If you have received this email, you

have been targeted by con artists. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES

should anyone send any money to any address for participation

in the DV Lottery. The Department of State's Kentucky

Consular Center (KCC) does not/not send email notifications

to DV entrants informing them of their winning entries.

Successful DV-2011 applicants already have been notified by

KCC by letter, not by email.

DV-2011 entrants also can check the status of their entries

at http://www.dvlottery.state.gov until June 30, 2012.

Entrants will not be asked to send money to the KCC or any

U.S. embassy or consulate.

Entrants who completed the online DV-2012 entries will not

receive notification letters from KCC. Rather, they must

check the status of their entries themselves through the

Entrant Status Check available at http:// www.dvlottery.state.gov between May 1, 2011, and June 30,

2012.

Many private websites offer legitimate services to assist

individuals in applying for visas, but some illegitimate

entities claim to provide ``visa services'' as a cover for

scams or identity theft. Some of these websites may attempt

to charge a fee for providing forms and information about

immigration procedures that are available to the public at no

charge on the Department of State (www.state.gov) and

travel.state.gov websites, or through the U.S. Embassy

website at dublin.usembassy.gov/.

The only official way to register for the DV program is

directly through the official U.S. Department of State

website during the specified, limited-time registration

period.

The DV program offers up to 55,000 visa slots annually for

people who wish to apply for immigration to the United

States. Applicants selected in the random drawing are

notified by the U.S. Department of State and are provided

with instructions on how to proceed to the next step in the

process. No other organization or private company is

authorized by the U.S. Department of State to notify DV

program applicants of their winning entries or the next steps

in the process of applying for their immigrant visas. Anyone

who wishes to apply for a U.S. visa should use caution before

sending via email any personal information such as credit

card and bank account numbers.

Images of U.S. emblems such as flags, eagles, monuments, or

official seals do not necessarily indicate a U.S. Government

website. A domain name of ``.gov'' ensures that a website is

a legitimate U.S. Government site where the information is

free and up-to-date. Complaints about unwanted emails that

may be scams can be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice at

www.usdoj.gov/spam.htm.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished incoming chairman of the full Committee on Foreign Affairs and a long-time expert on this subject, Mr. Royce.

Mr. Speaker, correcting the record appears to be important here. So I want to note that earlier, the minority said that there was no GAO study. Well, I beg to differ. A September 2012 report to Congress entitled ``Border Security,'' on its request, on page 19:

Because the program does not require a U.S.-based

petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.

Diversity Visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,

Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in

areas where few individuals have independent access to the

Internet.

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters, September 2012

Border Security

state could enhance visa fraud prevention by strategically using

resources and training

Diversity Visas: The Diversity Visa Program was established

through the Immigration Act of 1990 and provides up to 55,000

immigrant visas annually to aliens from countries with low

rates of immigration to the United States. Aliens register

for the diversity visa lottery for free online and applicants

are randomly selected for interviews through a lottery

process. Upon being selected, a winner must apply for a visa,

be interviewed, and be found eligible for the diversity visa.

All countries are eligible for the Diversity Visa Program

except those from which more than 50,000 immigrants have come

to the United States over the preceding 5 years. In 2011,

approximately 16.5 million people applied for the program and

about 107,000 (7 percent) were selected for further

processing. Of those selected, 75,000 were interviewed at

posts for a diversity visa, and approximately 50,000 received

visas. Because the program does not require a U.S.-based

petitioner, it is particularly susceptible to fraud.

Diversity visa fraud is rampant in parts of South Asia,

Africa, and Eastern Europe, and is particularly acute in

areas where few individuals have independent access to the

Internet. A typical scenario includes visa facilitators,

travel agents, or Internet cafe operators who help would-be

applicants submit an entry for a fee. Many of these

facilitators withhold the confirmation information that the

entrant must use to retrieve his or her selection status. To

access the lottery notification, the facilitators may require

winning applicants to either pay an additional exorbitant fee

or agree to enter into a marriage with another of the

facilitator's paying clients solely for the purpose of

extending immigration benefits.

The gentlelady from Houston mentioned in depth the question of diversity. Mr. Speaker, 55,000--and perhaps more in the future--STEM graduates will bring diversity of employment. The highest levels of unemployment in America are in the African American community and other minority communities. That's the diversity we need to work on. The diversity of unemployment needs to be turned around. That's what the STEM bill is about, helping employ Americans.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), one of the hardest working and most distinguished Members when it comes to immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I might note for the gentleman that, in fact, there are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields here in the United States at the advanced level, and almost 1,500 Nigerian-specific students alone getting graduate-level degrees in STEM fields in America at this time.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, a member of the Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. King.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia, the majority leader of the House, and a strong advocate for this and other immigration reform, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman's statement about the ugly head of racism was in reference to those of us who authored this bill.

I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I previously said, more than 12,000 African citizens will be eligible under this today, and more than 1,500 Nigerian citizens will be eligible under this today. Out of 1 million people who get to come to this country today, it's amazing that a program so fraught with fraud and recognized for fraud would somehow not be the logical place to expand the merit-based opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, as a point of personal privilege, I must tell you that I went to college with a lot of people from around the world. They were very diverse, and the grad students were very diverse. I am personally insulted that anyone would use even loosely the term of ``racism'' as part of a statement related to merit-based advanced degrees.

I've been at university graduations. The people graduating and walking across the aisle are extremely diverse, and I believe the gentleman needs to go to a few college graduations and see master's and Ph.D. candidates if he is going to refer to this in any way as racist.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, the truth is persistent. According to DHS, where they study student tracking, this is their source, not mine, I will read verbatim once again for the gentlelady from California: There are more than 12,000 African students studying in STEM fields in the United States.

Of course, some currently could be undergraduate.

Almost 1,500 Nigerian students alone are getting a graduate-level education in STEM fields.

Yes, this bill will encourage those able to go on and get graduate degrees in STEM fields to do so because, yes, that's going to give them an opportunity. But don't we want the best and the brightest? Isn't that the goal? Isn't job creation the goal?

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response.

There we go again, looking at the numbers rather than the merit.

Mr. Speaker, the merit of this piece of legislation is to get America working, to use the opportunity that is being squandered to get America working again. For each advance degreed STEM immigrant, we, in fact, create three jobs. That's not being disputed by the minority. It's not being disputed certainly by the 30 or so members of the minority that voted for this bill previously.

When we bring up, under this legislation, the opportunity to more quickly reunify families of legal immigrants, what we get told is, you're not doing it immediately. Now, of course, if we did it immediately, without any sort of process and opportunity to make sure that they're eligible for reunification, we'd be criticized for that.

You're moving up the speed with which families can be reunited, you get no credit. You're giving an opportunity for hundreds of thousands of American jobs for existing Americans to be created by recruiting people that could help create jobs, you're being criticized. If one country wins and other one loses a few thousand slots, you're being criticized.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a million or so people come to this country every year. This is a small part of it. And this is a part of it that history is quite clear on.

Senator Kennedy, and a few others, created this particular item for their own purposes because they looked at the outcome of Irish, basically, to a certain extent getting to come here under this visa. And now everyone's wanted to use the Diversity Visa lottery for years, and I've seen it gamed all over the world, in Lebanon, in Bangladesh, and in other places. There's no questions it has a lot of fraud. But that's not really the discussion today.

The real discussion is American jobs, the diversity of employment. And as the gentlelady from California, my colleague on the committee, knows, this also is a piece of legislation that will encourage men and women from around the world, brilliant men and women, to choose American universities to get their degrees from, to choose America to be the place in which they invest, not just their God-given talents, but their American-acquired talents in.

And yes, it will encourage people from countries like Africa and other places who are smart to come here to get their advanced degrees in greater numbers. What part of a good idea can't we accept?

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just can't stop finding it hard to understand. We roll over these slots specifically because we understand in the first year, bureaucracy in our government often makes things not happen. But we preserve for 4 years these slots.

The gentlelady from California is quite right about one thing: we certainly should look together at additional areas of skills and degrees that, if they came to America, would add to America, and put them at the front of the line.

And I'm going to say, I guess lastly, lastly, to the immigrant population, to the people who are new Americans, you came here with a belief in America, and you came here wanting to add to America. And we want the next people that come behind you to add to what you're adding, not to undermine a job that you currently have, but in fact, to help create more jobs.

I believe in the immigrant history of America and immigrant future of America or I wouldn't be supporting this and other bills. In just a few weeks, I hope that in the new Congress we'll be taking up additional comprehensive legislation. But if you can't take yes for an answer on a significant portion, then I suspect we will have a very difficult time taking yes for an answer on the harder decisions to come on immigration reform.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so are we. I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to have a discussion on outcome, my distinguished colleague from Detroit, Michigan, and I could endlessly quote figures. I'm going to quote a few because I think they're germane to the last speaker's close.

In 2009, the numbers of the top three Diversity visas were as follows: Ethiopia, 3,829; Nigeria, 3,720; and Egypt, a country I visited many, many times, 3,336. No question at all they're all on the continent of Africa. But as recently as 1994, earlier on in this longstanding 30-year piece of set-aside, it went more like this: Poland, 17,396; Ireland, 15,659; the United Kingdom--Great Britain-- 3,174.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the Diversity Visa is, in fact, it's a question of whether you've put in all the names in the phone book or not. It's a question of who's gaming the system. It doesn't have any sort of, if you will, set-aside to ensure an outcome. And within the outcome, whether you're taking from Poland, Ireland, United Kingdom, or, in 1999, a few years later, it switched to Bulgaria, Nigeria, and Albania.

These top names that occur have a lot to do with how many people throw their name in a hat and nothing to do with whether or not they really want to be Americans, whether they really have the qualifications, whether they have any connection to America that would allow them to get a job.

Not long ago, The Wall Street Journal, I believe, put a whole page into this, taking one after another of anecdotal examples of people who came, having won the lottery, with the American Dream and found out that they couldn't find a job--maybe a taxi driver, maybe not. They weren't making it, and they were thinking about going back. This is all too common in those visas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to use my closing time to address a couple of points because they're important for the American people to understand. Because what you heard here just a few seconds ago was a statement that we just had a referendum. Well, I remember all the election talk and very little of it was on immigration--sadly, much more of it should have been. We had a referendum on each of us individually. So each of us returning men and women to Congress, we've had a referendum in our district.

My district was asking me for jobs. I have Calcom in my district. I have a lot of high-tech companies, particularly in telecommunications and biotechnology; and they were asking me for, believe it or not, more H-1B temporary visas. If they could get permanent immigrants, they could use them all up.

There was a statement made about the numbers--and we could argue over 29,000 or some other number--as though this bill only pertained to next year's college graduates. It doesn't. There is a backlog of tens and hundreds of thousands of people in the STEM field who have already received degrees who would love to come here. They graduated a year ago, 2 years ago. They're here on an H-1B--they're not here, but

they would come back here. There is a wealth of people that fit this category so that that first 4 years, that first 220,000 number, in fact, will be well filled. I'm confident it will be filled and overfilled.

I'm confident that Ms. Lofgren's desire to deal with some of the other areas in which we have critical shortages of skilled people-- computer sciences being certainly a possibility--that those will be clamored, once this is passed, to be added. As a matter of fact, I'm confident that my colleague from California will probably be somebody wanting to add them very quickly, and I suspect I will strongly support her.

Now, we've had a discussion, mostly from the minority, about winners and losers. The last, the closing side on the minority side said things like: you only want smart people. You only want people that will add to our economy. You don't want the people who come without skills, just with hope. Well, we do take a lot of those people, but my colleague was right in a sense. We want to put to the head of the line the people that on every single one of them that comes, net creates jobs. So that we know that the immigrant coming, at least in the case of 55,000 a year, for each one that comes, three great jobs are created in America. And for each of those that come, even if they bring their family, they're not likely to be a burden on our society, just the opposite: they're going to be a net positive to our economy. They're going to send their children to our colleges and universities, of course, and the world is better because America is better.

I also heard a lot of discussion--and I've spent 12 years on Judiciary. I love what we deal with on that committee--the Constitution, immigration, intellectual property; that's why I came to that committee. But when you say what you're doing, like if you take from this particular category, that somehow you're being bad, let's think about some of the other categories.

What if we took from family reunification? What would be the cry? It would be, My goodness, these are people just trying to be with the rest of their family. Be compassionate. And they would be right. Maybe if we took from E-B5, a program that I'm personally supportive of and want to make better, a program where people invest in America, create net jobs, and get a visa as a result, we can take from that, but that wouldn't be good for jobs. We certainly could, theoretically, take from people who are the victims of terrorism, of persecution; but America would never do that.

So when you look at this vast number, more than half of all immigrants going anywhere in the world come to America. In other words, we produce more new Americans by importation than the entire rest of the world combined. So if out of that vast number we choose a small amount, 5 percent, and say we can do better, we hear a human cry that we can't do better, that this isn't better.

Mr. Speaker, I will say, as someone who was listening to my constituents upon my reelection, you better believe this is better. We are bringing the best and the brightest. We are encouraging the front of the line be given to a small portion of immigration for people who will help create jobs. They will create jobs for people of all colors, all races. They will create jobs for people who just came to this country and can't find a job. We are trying to do the right thing for the American people, at least in a small way; and I believe this is a great start.

So as I vote for this piece of legislation, I'm voting for it because I know, as a former businessman, I know as someone who just had a referendum on my own returning to Congress that jobs and the economy are what people want us to work on. This is a good down-payment. These slots will be filled and oversubscribed. We will look at this as a beginning of a turn toward looking at immigrants as a positive part of our economy and making it happen.

So I believe that the minority, although well-intended, has basically misled the American people with some of their assumptions because their assumptions simply aren't right. We will fill these slots. We will bring in 55,000 job creators. We will have diversity from around the world in these individuals. We will encourage people from all over the world, if they want to get a master's or Ph.D. and they're already in London or they're in Poland or they're in Nigeria, that maybe when they finish their master's there, they get their Ph.D. here and become eligible.

With that, I urge support of the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the STEM Jobs Act (H.R.

6429). I have long been a proponent of visa reform and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Our current visa system is inadequate. Many of the world's top students come to the United States to obtain advanced degrees from some of the best universities and colleges in the world to gain competitive science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) skills.

We desperately need to retain these skills to boost our economy. The high-tech and biotech companies in California would benefit from increased STEM visas by creating new, innovative jobs in our communities. However, instead of encouraging these highly skilled students to stay in America, current law forces these individuals to return home, or to third-party countries where they become innovators and entrepreneurs creating prosperity and capital for American competitors.

The STEM Act is an important step towards reforming our immigration system and getting our economy back into working order. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that we need the growth these highly trained individuals are creating elsewhere. Making STEM visas more readily available will foster innovation and job creation in our workforce.

I urge my colleagues to help generate jobs, boost the economy and increase American competitiveness by passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the underlying bill, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. It is important to talk about, in consideration of this rule and this bill, what it is and what it isn't.

Here we are with a looming fiscal cliff, and yet Congress has allowed no issue to fester longer than immigration. Whether one is on the left or the right or in the middle, I'm sure my colleague from Florida would agree that whatever we're doing now in immigration is not working very well. We have over 10 million people here illegally. There is rampant violation of the law. There is lackluster enforcement. Families are torn apart.

What's before us, regardless of the merits, which we'll get into in a moment, clearly does not address the problems in our immigration system. Whether this bill becomes law or not, our immigration system will continue to have problems, and there will continue to be over 10 million people here in violation of the law, many working illegally, in some cases taking jobs away from American citizens.

So instead of a solution, we have a bill before us that asks us to weigh two goals of our immigration policy in many ways against one another. There might very well be room for a noncontroversial immigration bill that catches up and includes some of the less controversial provisions, including a STEM program, and there could very well be room for that short of comprehensive immigration reform.

I support and am a cosponsor of the IDEA Act, which does that. I tried to amend into this bill and allow for the consideration of this body yesterday in the Rules Committee a bill that I have for the permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 visa program, a program that is not very controversial and has strong support from both sides but suffers from temporary reauthorizations. This is a critical program for creating jobs for Americans because it allows companies to attract capital from investors, and those investors are able to be part of those companies and grow those companies, creating jobs for Americans.

This program could be much more successful if the Rules Committee yesterday had, on a party-line vote, not allowed that amendment to come to the floor. I'm confident that that amendment would have passed with near universal support, and certainly strong support from both sides.

Instead of trying to catch and move forward on some of the less controversial aspects of immigration which in no way, shape, or form, again, prevent the need for a comprehensive solution, but instead of even moving forward on the noncontroversial aspects, we have a bill before us that is controversial because it weighs two important goals of immigration against one another. So rather than create a STEM Visa program as the IDEA Act does, as the STAPLE Act, which I'm a cosponsor of with my colleague Congressman Flake from Arizona who has introduced it in past sessions, rather than do that, it asks the question of this body: Would we rather have a Diversity Visa concept or would we rather have a STEM Visa concept? In reality, I think many in this body would agree that both are desirable.

Diversity Visas essentially go to immigrants that are from countries other than the main countries that send us immigrants. What are the main countries that send us immigrants? Obviously, Mexico. In addition to that, there are China, Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, and several others. We have a lot of immigrants from Mexico and these other countries. What the Diversity Visa says is, shouldn't we also give opportunities to some residents of countries, like the Ukraine or Albania or Ethiopia, and have them also come so that they're not just crowded out by applicants from Mexico, India, and China?

If we don't have a Diversity Visa, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. Now, that's okay-- it's certainly not the end of the world--but there is value in having immigrants from across the world. There is value in having Ukrainians come to this country. There is value in having Ethiopians. In addition, there is value in people having diverse social backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds coming to this country to facilitate assimilation into this country and integration into this country. So I think that it was well thought out in having a concept whereby people who don't happen to be from Mexico, India, China or the other main countries have a way of getting here. It's a good program.

So, too, having a STEM visa program is absolutely critical as it is important to our country to make sure that we can retain the talent that we attract to our universities. There is something that is so frustrating to me as an American and to many of our constituents, and I talk about it frequently back home with my representing both of our major State universities in Colorado as well as private universities in my district:

Here we are educating people from across the world, and if you look at our engineering grad schools, we see a high number of foreign nationals on student visas. We are educating computer programmers and aerospace engineers with the skills they need to compete in a 21st- century workforce. Upon giving them their master's degrees or Ph.D.s, we tell them, do you know what, you're not allowed to work here in this country. You have to move back to another country and compete against us. Guess what? The jobs follow them. In the digital age, employers care less where an employee is based. They care where the talent is. If the best computer programmer is only available for hire or if an aerospace engineer is only available for hire in India or in Mexico or in the U.K., the companies will--and increasingly are--setting up divisions in those countries to hire them rather than hiring here. So the lack of having a STEM job pathway is actively destroying American jobs every day.

Here we are as a body being asked to say under a closed rule, Is it more important to have immigrants from countries other than Mexico, India, and China? Is it more important to have some Ukrainians and Ethiopians and Albanians? I use those examples because those are some of the leading countries that have used the Diversity Visa, but there are a broad number of countries that do. Is that something that's important? How does its importance compare to making sure that those we train here are able to deploy their talents here and create jobs in America rather than overseas?

Again, it's a very frustrating proposition in the way the Republicans have chosen to bring this to the floor: a, it obviously doesn't address the underlying issues of our immigration crisis in this country. It doesn't change the fact that there are 10 million people here illegally, and it doesn't prevent people from coming here illegally; b, it asks us to choose between two valuable programs. Rather than simply passing the Staples Act, rather than passing the IDEA Act, it says that we're going to have to choose as a country to benefit either from STEM graduates or from people from other countries other than Mexico, India, and China. It's a false dilemma.

There were amendments that were offered by Zoe Lofgren that would

have addressed that which were turned down by the Rules Committee. Again, there were strong bipartisan concepts like EB-5 permanent authorization that I offered, put forward, that were also shut down in committee. In addition, at a time of budget deficits and the looming fiscal crisis, this bill would increase the budget deficit by over $1 billion over the next 5 years; and that is unpaid for as well.

There are many ways that immigration can be looked at to reduce our budget deficit, and there are many concepts of comprehensive immigration reform either through fees paid by those who violate the law, penalties paid. Increased taxes going forward for those who would have to pay taxes under immigration reform would actually reduce our deficit; but here we are with a solitary idea around immigration that forces all Members of this body to weigh two valuable programs against one another, and at the same time it costs taxpayers over $1 billion over the next 5 years. It's a choice that Congress shouldn't face.

There are also very legitimate concerns that, not only does this bill weigh two valuable programs and asks us to choose, but, in effect, it's a backdoor way to reduce the number of legal immigrants. There should be no hesitation in saying that, by reducing the number of legal immigrants, we will increase the number of illegal immigrants. This bill will likely increase the number of illegal immigrants to this country because the math doesn't work.

Now, why doesn't the math work? The bill purports to offset 55,000 STEM green cards by eliminating 55,000 green cards in the Diversity program. Now, if that were a one-on-one trade, that would be the same net number of immigrants. The issue is, as to our institutions of higher education that give master's degrees and Ph.D.s in the eligible areas to students on foreign visas, there are not 55,000 foreign students who receive them every year. There were, in fact, 29,904 last year, so about 30,000. There is a backlog so that, after several years, the 55,000 would no longer be able to be met; but then after 3 or 4 years and after the backlog was met, this would likely lead to a reduction in legal immigration and to an increase in illegal immigration because only 29,000 foreign nationals are matriculating with master's and Ph.D.s in the included areas; yet 55,000 visas would be removed from the program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and people from countries that are not Mexico, India, China, and the other 12 from coming to this country legally.

So I have very sincere concerns that, rather than addressing the issue of illegal immigration, this bill because of the math and because of the numbers that have been brought to my attention could actually increase illegal immigration by reducing legal immigration, which is the last thing that we need to do with regard to solving in a bipartisan way our immigration crisis.

As a former Internet entrepreneur myself and in representing our universities, I know firsthand about the critical need to pass a STEM visa program. Not only would it create more high-paying, high-tech jobs for Americans, but it would produce tax revenues. It would make our country stronger and our economy stronger. Yet rather than take up the IDEA Act or the Staples Act, we're here with a backdoor attempt by the Republicans to increase the number of illegal immigrants in our country, which I would argue is not the right direction for immigration reform. Immigration reform should be predicated around solving the crisis of illegal immigration. Rather than increasing the number of illegal immigrants from 10 million to 12 million to 14 million, we need to find a way to reduce that number to as close to zero as is feasible, and that should be the goal of immigration reform.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to a leader on immigration issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Curson), a new Member of our body.

It is my honor to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any remaining speakers he's expecting.

Mr. Speaker, seeing as I am the last speaker from my side, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As articulated by the gentleman from Oregon, this bill presents a difficult decision for Members of this body, and I certainly have great respect for people on both sides of the issue.

I want to go over, again, some of the pros and cons. The program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and Albanians to come in to make sure that a disproportionate number of our immigrants are not just from a small number of countries is important. Absent that, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. So again, if this bill passes, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from the major countries that send people here.

Now, it's not the end of the world, but there's added value in having people from all corners of the world come here to become part of our great country and, in many cases, this is the only way that people from Nepal or Albania or Ethiopia have a shot at coming to this country and succeeding.

We also need people in this country across all different skill levels in our labor market. And whether that labor includes toiling in the field or toiling in downtown buildings at night or programming computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of our economy--yes, in STEM, but not just in STEM.

So we are asked to choose, asked to choose between people with graduate degrees whom we want to keep here in science, technology, engineering, and math. In many cases, if they're not allowed to stay, they will have to return to other countries, and the jobs will follow them, costing our country jobs.

Choose between them and allowing people here from countries other than Mexico, India, and China, some of whom are high-skilled, some of whom are low-skilled, a diverse group across the board. Looking back at many of our own forebears, certainly mine, my family came to this country in the late 19th century, and early 20th century, 1890s, 1905. They didn't have master's degrees. They didn't have Ph.D.s. They didn't have college degrees. And that's the case for many of our forebears.

Here today their great-grandson sits as a Member of Congress, and had a program not existed whereby they could arrive at Ellis Island and be here, I wouldn't be here today.

Now, my father has a Ph.D., but that's the legacy of his hard-working immigrant grandparents that came to this country without a college degree and, in many cases, without something that's the equivalent of even a high school degree today. To work hard, to live the American Dream, and for their descendents, to be able to serve in this august body.

So it's a cause for reflection. Both are important. And again, the closed process of the bill doesn't allow for a discussion of the IDEA Act or the STAPLE Act, which would simply create a new STEM immigrant visa program.

My other concern with this bill, as I mentioned, is that it would increase the number of illegal immigrants here in this country. Simply by the way that the math works, the number of STEM graduates is lower than the number of STEM visas that are available each year.

Now, it would be one thing if that was allowed to trickle down to other categories, or, for instance, the overflow was allowed to be used for diversity visas. There might be room for compromise. But instead, those excess visas disappear. So after the backlog of three or 4 years is dealt with, these 55,000 visas that are being taken away from Albania and the Ukraine and Ethiopia and Africa and Asia, the back of those 55,000 visas will only result in 20,000 or so net immigrants.

Now 29,000 graduates graduating from institutions of higher education. Now, keep in mind, not everybody wants to stay here. As attractive as our country is, some people do want to learn here and go back to their other countries, and that's certainly fine as well. But many will want to stay here.

But in losing some of those visas, again, we are only increasing the immigration problem, the illegal immigration problem, and moving in the opposite direction of addressing immigration in this country. There is little to be proud of with regard to the current state of affairs in immigration.

It's very different than when my great-grandparents came here and got off at Ellis Island and registered and, albeit with a misspelled name, were able to go to work the next day. It's becoming harder and harder.

The absence of a legal way of immigrating that is in touch with our labor market in this country, the lack of having an operative immigration system has led to over 10 million people being here illegally, working illegally, as my colleague from Oregon said, in many cases, integrated into our communities. Many of them have American children, are parents of American kids, and yet, without any way, currently, of getting right with the law.

What we need to do in immigration reform is require that people who are here illegally get right with the law, rather than prevent them from getting right with the law, which is what we do currently.

So, again, while STEM immigration is very important, my colleagues are being asked, in a closed process, to weigh that with the issue of immigrants from countries like the Ukraine and Albania. At the same time, again, this bill will increase the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Perhaps increasing the number of illegal immigrants will redouble the efforts of this Congress to address this issue.

But, given the enormous dimension of the problem already and the complete lack of consideration of any meaningful immigration bill by this Congress to solve a broken immigration system, I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The zero-sum bill on the floor asks us to weigh one class of immigrants at the expense of another, in effect, trying to play politics and avoid solving our immigration crisis.

I think it's time for a transparent and open debate. It's time for compromise. It's time to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, one that strengthens our economy, one that creates jobs for Americans, one that makes our Nation's immigration system more humane and makes it workable and enforceable.

This bill, for all its merits, for all its problems, I think, we, both proponents and opponents can agree it falls short on that account of fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works. It has no additional enforcement provisions, no border security provisions. It provides no requirement for people who are here illegally to get right with the law.

Rather, it does create an excellent program to keep high-tech graduates here. It destroys another valuable program to keep people from countries other than Mexico and India and China and the UK here. It likely will increase illegal immigration by 10 or 20,000 a year, and provides no solution.

So a difficult decision for all Members of this body. And I'd like to think that Members on both sides, hopefully, would agree that we can do better. We need to do better. We've been called upon by the voters of this country to do better.

And I encourage, whether it's in this Congress or the next Congress, to take up the difficult but critical issue of replacing our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, creates prosperity for America, helps reduce our budget deficit, is humane, is enforceable. No one said it would be easy, but that's what the people send us here to do.

And regardless of the outcome of this particular bill, we are simply taking another week in avoiding addressing the real issues of the immigration crisis in this country.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which was a closed process and doesn't allow for consideration of even noncontroversial amendments such as my EB-5 amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 821 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, which will allow the House of Representatives to consider H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012.

As I am sure my colleague from Colorado will point out, H. Res. 821 is a closed rule. The fact is that like Mr. Polis, I prefer an open- amendment process. Open rules let us come together on both sides of the aisle and contribute ideas to help make a bill better.

Today's rule will be closed, but that's because the crafting of the STEM Jobs Act has been in a collaborative process for the last few months. Chairman Smith, the author of this legislation, has already worked with his committee, Republicans, Democrats, and even the Senate to come up with a bill that, hopefully, everybody could support.

Unfortunately, we've since been informed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber are looking to play politics with the STEM Jobs Act. However, that doesn't change the fact that Chairman Smith worked diligently to make sure this legislation was filled with bipartisan ideas.

The STEM Jobs Act would eliminate the flawed Diversity Lottery Green Card program and reallocate up to 55,000 green cards a year to new green card programs for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees.

According to a study by the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, in 1990 about 91,000 full-time foreign graduate students were studying in STEM fields in the United States. That number had jumped to almost 149,000 by 2009. It was 149,000 in 2009. However, the vast majority of these highly skilled, highly educated innovators are leaving the United States where they once received their education.

We're training hundreds of thousands of highly skilled engineers, technicians, and scientists at American universities and then sending them back home to compete against us in other countries.

They aren't moving to other countries because they want to leave the United States. They're moving because the immigration system forces them out.

Currently, we only select 5 percent of our Nation's legal immigrants based on skills and education they bring to America. So the vast majority of foreign students who come to America for advanced degrees and get their education find themselves on a years-long green card waiting list and give up on the idea of staying here in the United States.

When they leave our country, they take with them all their training and all of their potential to go work for America's business competitors in Canada, Europe, and Asia. The exodus of U.S.-trained STEM professionals has been referred to as reverse brain drain.

The STEM Act of 2012 would reverse this trend. It would establish a program to prioritize green cards for immigrants with graduate-level degrees in the STEM fields. To offset the number of green cards that would be given to the STEM Visa program, the bill would eliminate the diversity lottery green card program, a program that has been repeatedly highlighted as a threat to our national security.

The result is that there would be no net increase in the number of green cards we give out as a Nation. The difference is that we will get immigrants who have the training and the skills that we need to keep American businesses competitive in a globalized and increasingly technical age. In the process, we will eliminate a visa lottery system that's rife with fraud and abuse and the State Department stated contains significant threats to our national security.

In the Rules Committee meeting last night, some opponents to H.R. 6429 said that fraud and security concerns are old problems and that they've been fixed. My colleagues were right in that these are old problems, but the State Department inspector general report published in 2003 listed the widespread abuse in the diversity lottery visa program. The inspector general pointed to identity fraud, forged documents, and national security threats. That's their words.

However, my colleagues were absolutely wrong to say that the problems have been fixed. In fact, just 2 months ago, the GAO released a study discussing the ways the State Department could reduce fraud in our immigration system, and it highlighted the diversity lottery program. Moreover, the STEM Jobs Act does this without putting American jobs at risk.

This legislation includes provisions that would require the petitioning of an employer to submit a job order to the appropriate State workforce agency. The job opening would then be posted in the agency's official Web site in an effort to publicize available jobs for Americans.

In addition to reforming the green card process for foreign students with advanced STEM degrees, H.R. 6429 also includes provisions that would help reunite families waiting on the immigration process. As it currently stands, family green cards can take 6 or 7 years to process and be approved. During these long years, families are separated. A spouse or parent can be living as a permanent resident in the United States while their loved ones wait back home hoping to be reunited somewhere down the line. This pro-family legislation would help reduce the time these families need to spend apart without speeding up or preempting the actual green card process.

Provisions contained within the STEM Jobs Act would expand the V nonimmigrant visa program to allow spouses and minor children of permanent U.S. residents to come to the United States to live with their loved ones once they have spent 1 year on the green card waiting list. The bill expressly states that these folks would not be allowed to work, taking jobs away from American citizens, nor would they inherently be entitled to any government welfare programs because of the V visa in and of itself.

Similarly, the expanded V visa program won't speed up or expedite the green card process in any way. All it does is this: It ensures that families don't have to live separately and in uncertainty as to when they can be reunited at an unknown time down the line. It brings families back together.

The simple fact is that our current immigration system is ineffective. We educate the world's best and brightest and then send them away to be our competitors. We only prioritize about 5 percent of our visas based upon what they actually contribute to our economy. We have a diversity lottery system that is subject to widespread abuse and opens up our country to entry of hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists. We separate spouses, parents, and minor children for unknown years on end.

We can do better with the STEM Jobs Act. It is an important step towards doing better. It makes the American green card process smarter, safer, and more family oriented. It protects American jobs and workers while still supporting the American innovation industry, which is why over 100 major companies and councils have supported H.R. 6429.

I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume

To my good friend from Colorado, we agree on so many issues, particularly as it relates to immigration reform. We agree. I think this is the first step in regards to where we need to go. You have sold a very persuasive argument in regards to why it is so important, so important, that we have a STEM visa program; why it's important to us to keep that brain power that we educated in the United States, keep them

here in this country to support our businesses and our manufacturing so we can be more competitive on a global market. You have made my case on that argument.

I'll agree with you that this immigration system that we have is broken. I wasn't here 2 years ago or 4 years ago when the Democrats were in power in both the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and they moved nothing forward that we're talking about today.

It's disappointing when you have all the levels of government and you don't accomplish anything as it relates to this. And now we want to turn it around and say that this is a flawed bill. At the end of the day, this meets the needs of our corporations of creating more jobs here in America, about putting more people to work, and it also rectifies an issue on the V-Visa program in regards to instead of having families split because someone has a legitimate green card as a resident here, that he has to be split or she has to be split from their family. The mother of their children or their children are kept from coming in the United States. Because today, the way the program is, they are kept from coming to the United States. So they don't have an opportunity to get a job, anyhow.

But what this does do is it rectifies a problem that allows parents to be reunited with their children. I don't know, but that's important to me as a father of three. I would much rather have had my family here if I was a resident alien here. I would rather have my family here so I could reach out and touch them and help encourage them and move them forward in the American principles--that's what I would want to do-- versus trying to talk across great distances to try to bring a family together. That's no way to raise a family. But they do it because they have to. This rectifies that problem. While it doesn't allow them to go out and get a job, it does bring the family unit back together again. I know, Mr. Polis, you have a son. You would rather have your son with you than a thousand miles away, as I would.

So this is a step in the right direction. This is moving us forward, not moving us backwards. This is actually taking an approach that should have been taken 4 years ago, and the Democrats punted it down the field. In September, we voted on this initial STEM bill and we had 30 Democrats across the aisle vote with us. We didn't meet the threshold of two-thirds because it was under suspension.

I truly believe that this bill has the ability to cut across the aisle. And we heard our good friend from Oregon talk about it--for the right reasons. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean we should just throw it in the scrap heap. And I agree that we can pass this bill and send it to the Senate. The Senate has the option to bring it up, debate it, vote on it, amend it, and send it back to the House. Do your job. I agree that that's what they should do. At least have the discussion. When the Senate comes out and says, We're going to ignore it, we're not going to do anything with it, that's a disservice to the American public, it's a disservice to those that create jobs, and those Americans that need jobs.

You talk about a zero sum game. This is not a way to reduce immigration. I don't know where my good friend got the numbers about how this is going to increase the number of illegal immigrants to this country. I've never heard that before. I've never seen anything in writing as relates to that. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't know that. I think it just sounds like a good number. What we don't want to do is scare people to be opposed to something that is good for America.

We made an investment as a Nation in these foreign students when they came here, when we allowed them here in the STEM fields. Why let that investment leave? Why would we ignore that investment and say, you know what? we don't care, when it has a direct negative impact on this country--not on any other country--on this country it has a direct negative impact. It's just common sense. And I guess that's the problem. Sometimes common sense and Washington, D.C., are vast worlds apart.

While looking at this, it's just a small, commonsense reform to our immigration policy. But what it does do is addresses a dangerous Diversity Visa problem. Even the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services testified in front of the Judiciary Committee that visa lottery fraud includes multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education and work experience, pop-up spouses or family members, and false claims of employment or financial support in the United States. His words, not mine.

For example, one third-party agent in Bangladesh entered every single name from a phone book in Bangladesh into the lottery system in order to extort money. If your name got pulled he would go to you and extort money so you can come to the United States. Or, guess what? Sell that winning slot to someone else.

That's not what the whole program was designed for. I would suggest to you that students that are coming from foreign countries come across-the-board. We have them from China, we have them from the Ukraine, as you like to keep pointing out, and from all over the world to come to our universities, particularly for those STEM degrees, advanced degrees. So I would suggest to you that you're going to continue that diversity by getting people that have gone to the max that are going to be so productive here in America to help us. It's not a sum game. It's just a rational game.

I really wish that I knew that if we passed this today, that it would become law. The President has already kind of said he wouldn't sign it. I don't know how you can have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about STEM, those individuals who have come to our universities and graduate with a degree in those STEM sciences, how we can just ignore them and say, Listen, this is good for America.

Instead of making this a Republican or Democratic idea, why don't we just pass it because it's the right idea? Let's do something for once that's good for America. Let's do something once that's good for those green card holders that are currently here in the United States, bringing their families together so they can become productive in whatever sense their family decides. Wouldn't we want to do that? I would want to do that. I want to see families reunited, not split apart, not kept because of some arcane rule that's going to take them 6 or 7 years, maybe, to get a green card so they can bring their family here in the United States, where this would allow them to come 1 year after being on the waiting list, they get the opportunity to come here and be reunited with their family.

For all that we hear about Democrats are always for families, this time I guess they're not. This time I guess because they're from some other country, maybe they're just not that important. They are to me. I think it's important. Here's once where the Republicans are stepping forward on an immigration issue that's good for America, it's good for the people that are currently here on green cards legally. It allows them to reinvest. How can this be bad for America? Is it because it's a Republican idea? Is that the reason why this is a bad piece of politics? I would hope not. I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle will be like Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon and look at the real merits of it.

While not perfect in any sense of the word, as is any legislation that comes out of this place, at least it's a move and a step in the right direction. And let the Senate do their job. Let the Senate bring it up. Let the Senate vote on it and amend it and send it back to the House. Let the Senate for once do their job. And then, Mr. President, you can make a decision whether you're going to veto it or not. But let's quit playing politics with immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my good friend from Colorado because we agree on so many issues as it relates to this. We just don't agree on everything.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I have long been a champion of creating a green card program for foreign students with advanced STEM degrees from America's great research universities. Coming from Silicon Valley, I'm fortunate enough to see firsthand the new technologies, the new companies, the new jobs that such innovators create every day in the district I represent.

There's no question that a STEM green card program is the right thing to do for our country. For that reason, it pains me greatly to say I can't support this flawed bill. I can't support a bill that pits immigrant communities against each other, that sets a terrible precedent for addressing our broken immigration system that is indefensibly designed to reduce immigration while purporting to increase it, and that harms American workers. I certainly admire the gentleman from Arizona on his Staple Act. I know that he has pushed for this over the Congresses. But his Staple Act did not eliminate the Diversity Visa program, as this does.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that a STEM visa program is critical to the future of this country--and I agree. But if that's true, why poison the bill with an unrelated provision to eliminate the Diversity Visa program? There's no reason that giving a green card to one person should mean taking one away from someone else, but that is exactly what the bill asks us to do.

My colleagues are fond of saying they support legal immigration, but this bill shows quite the opposite. Supporters of legal immigration would not have to kill one immigration program to benefit another; nor would they agree to a Grover Norquist-style ``no new immigration'' pledge that will continue to strangle our immigration system for years to come. If we were to accept a zero-sum premise, how could we craft meaningful solutions for farmers and agricultural workers; for DREAMers, who were brought here as children; or for those families with loved ones waiting abroad in decades-long queues?

This bill, however, is even worse than that. It is actually designed to reduce legal immigration. Taking 55,000 green cards from one category and putting them in another may seem like an even trade, but it is not if the new category is drafted to ensure that green cards go unused.

According to the National Science Foundation, American universities currently graduate about 30,000 foreign students with degrees that would qualify them for green cards under this bill. Assuming every single one of them wanted to stay and could find an employer willing to offer them a permanent job, which is certainly not the case, that would still leave 25,000 green cards unused. This bill shamefully prevents those green cards from being used to help other employment and family- based immigrants suffering in long backlogs. And I would note that those who have their labor certification based on a bachelor of science degree, if you're born in India, you're facing a 70-year wait. Yet this bill would not allow the traditional policy of having visas trickle down when they are unused. That's not the way the immigration system works. I believe the only reason the bill was written in this fashion is to satisfy anti-immigrant organizations who have long lobbied for reduced levels of immigration.

In an attempt to appear more pro-immigrant, the authors point to a new ``family-friendly'' position. But looks can be deceiving. Currently, a lack of green cards means that a category of family-based immigrant--the spouses and minor children of U.S. permanent residents-- have to wait about 2 years overseas before they can rejoin their families.

Instead of providing critical green cards to these nuclear families, the STEM bill offers temporary V visas with three significant catches: the family members must first spend at least 1 year overseas; unlike the original V visa, created by a Republican Congress in 2000, the new visas prohibit family members already here from participating; and unlike the original V visa, recipients are prohibited from working.

With all the talk about moving forward on immigration, this is a step back from where Republicans were just 12 years ago. When I hear allegations of fraud in this program, I just have to say that is absurd. In the year 2007, the General Accountability Office found no documented evidence that Diversity Visa immigrants posed a terrorist or other threat. The DV recipients go through the same immigration, criminal, and national security background checks that everyone goes through when they seek lawful permanent residence.

In fact, the State Department was the first to use facial recognition technology to reduce fraud.

Finally, I would say that this does not do enough to protect workers. I'll give you an example. Computer and information science research scientists in level one for labor certification may be paid $86,736. That's what's in the labor cert. But their median income in Silicon Valley is $133,000. So we have an idea that we shouldn't underpay the foreign scientists. We should pay them the same as Americans. This bill fails in that way.

Finally, I would note that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has come out against this bill because it has these extraneous and divisive provisions. We need to move beyond the politics of zero-sum immigration. Those policies are holding America back. They are holding our prosperity hostage.

I will place into the Record the Competitive Enterprise Institute letter in opposition to this bill.

[From the Competitive Enterprise Institute]

STEM Jobs Act a Step Backward on Immigration Reform, Warns Free Market

Group

Washington DC.--Nov. 29, 2012--This Friday, the House of

Representatives will vote

on the STEM Jobs Act (H.R. 6429). The bill would allocate

55,000 green cards for foreign-born graduates of U.S.

universities with Doctorate and Master's degrees in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, but

it also eliminates all 55,000 visas under the Diversity Visa

Program.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) warned that the

bill will actually hurt legal immigration. CEI immigration

policy analyst David Bier released this statement on the

legislation:

Not only does this bill seek to make immigration reform

into a zero-sum game in which each winner must be matched

with a loser, it seeks to use the illusion of immigration

reform to decrease immigration. Its proponents know there are

not enough foreign-born STEM graduates to fill demand for

this new visa and have refused to allow unused visas to be

reallocated to other categories.

The bill also violates employer privacy by creating an

internet list of those who hire these immigrants, making them

potential targets for harassment, and it undermines immigrant

self-sufficiency by barring spouses of legal residents from

work while they wait for green cards.

This bill sets a dangerous precedent that conservative

reform means eliminating visas for the less-educated to give

them to the highly-educated. Truly free market immigration

reform should expand visas for both categories of immigrants.

The false dichotomy the STEM Jobs Act creates will only make

America's immigration system more discriminatory and restrict

avenues for legal immigration--which inevitably leads to more

of the illegal kind.

I just want to address the fraud warning issue. This is a warning to applicants not to be scammed; it wasn't a warning that there was fraud.

The idea that you would try, as a terrorist, to come in to be in a pool of 20 million people--it's been that high--and be in a lottery that only awards 55,000 is almost as absurd as the ``terror baby'' suggestion of a few years ago.

I would just note that the rollover of visas actually is so restrictive that you only roll over if you apply that year. This will not even cure the backlog. It is a fraud.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it's important that we have the facts from the National Science Foundation on immigration from Africa.

According to NSF, there are about 13,000 students from Africa. The vast majority of them are bachelor's degree candidates who are not eligible for visas under this bill, and the vast majority of those in graduate school are not in STEM fields. Again, they're not eligible for visas under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to correct the record. I recall when Democrats were in the majority, we passed the DREAM Act. We only got 8 Republican votes to pass that DREAM Act.

Further, the way this bill is written, if you were brought here as a baby in violation of the immigration law, but now you're getting your Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University, you're not eligible for one of these visas. This is written in a way to divide people. It's not even an honest effort to capture the best and brightest.

And further, on African immigration, last year we had 6,218 Diversity Visa recipients from Nigeria. Taking the chairman's number of 1,200--I don't want to get in an argument--in master's and Ph.D. in STEM fields, that's the enrollment. As you know, most Ph.D. programs are 6-year programs, most Master's programs are 2-year programs. So those actually graduating would be a small fraction of that, a few hundred each year. So we would be seeing, for example, a huge reduction in immigration from Nigeria, just as an example.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days in the Rules Committee, during debate on the rule, and in today's debate, we've had a common refrain from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Over and over, they say there's agreement on STEM visas, and we shouldn't let politics get in the way. For the good of America and our economy, they say, we should come together on this bipartisan issue and do what's right. I agree.

By all accounts, there is nothing but support for a STEM visa program to attract and retain the best and brightest minds from around the world, and we support STEM visas. They support STEM visas. Everybody supports STEM visas. So why on Earth aren't we just voting on STEM visas?

According to our colleagues, that's the message we should take away from the election. Even though we may not agree on everything, we should put partisanship aside and find areas of common ground for the good of the country, and that's exactly what this motion to recommit would do.

This motion presents us with a clean STEM visa program, copied word for word from the underlying bill, but without the unrelated measures. If it's true that this vote is about creating STEM visas and not about eliminating unrelated immigration programs, then you should vote for this motion. We should put words into action and vote for a clean STEM bill.

As we all know, this motion will only amend the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. The bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Let's be clear, a vote against this motion is a vote against STEM visas. It says that you care more about eliminating the unrelated Diversity Visa program than you care about getting a STEM visa program. Eliminating the Diversity Visa program has absolutely nothing to do with STEM visas. It's an unfortunate attack on immigrants and minorities, and it has no place in the STEM bill.

It's also remarkably tone-deaf, considering the recent election just 3 weeks ago. The minority and immigrant communities sent a powerful message to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Our friends say they heard that message. They acknowledged the need to reach out to those communities and take a different tack with respect to immigration.

Well, actions speak louder than words. If you really want to reach out to minorities, perhaps you shouldn't start with a bill that eliminates the Diversity visas. And if you want to reach out to immigrants, perhaps you shouldn't start with a bill that pits immigrant communities against each other.

The choice between STEM immigrants and Diversity immigrants is one we are being forced to make. We do not need to make it.

When we discuss offsets in the budget context, it's about money and deficits and debt, but here we're talking about people. Is that who we are as a country? I, for one, do not believe we should offset families, spouses, or children. If you care about immigrants, you know they help grow our economy and renew our spirit. They are not pawns in a zero-sum game.

The motion to recommit also includes critical protections for U.S. workers absent from the underlying bill. We all acknowledge that a STEM visa program is important. It can grow our economy, but surely it should not come at the expense of the salaries of American workers. We should not have a race to the bottom on wages.

You know, a lot of the discussion today about the zero-sum theory on which this bill has been presented seems to imply that unless you have a graduate degree, you are not really going to contribute to this country. That's simply false. When you think about some of the great innovators--Sergey Brin, born in Russia, cofounder of Google, in my county, that employs thousands and thousands of Americans, he didn't come here because of his degree. He came with his parents. Jerry Yang, founder of Yahoo!, grew up in east San Jose. He didn't come because he got admitted to Stanford. He came with his family. Andy Grove, a legend in Intel, he didn't come because of his degree. He came as a refugee.

I am reminded of my grandfather and what he brought to this country. At age 16, he got on a boat. He never saw his parents again. He never got a degree. He came to America because he wanted to be free. He worked hard all his life. I went to Stanford University. I was the first in my family to go to college. But I am here today in Congress because my grandfather--without an education but with a lot of heart, with enough get-up-and-go to get up and go--came to become an American.

I am sure that if you examine the history of so many Members of Congress, you would find in their family trees people who had enough get-up-and-go to come to the United States. We are now proud Members of Congress in that tradition of America.

I urge you, support the motion to recommit. Don't turn our backs on immigration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I think the difference with my friends on the other side of the aisle is their lack of recollecting that America has always viewed immigration as good. In fact, I heard a very potent story this morning about the restoring of the Statue of Liberty that so many of us as children have had the opportunity to climb to the very top and be reminded of the welcoming of the huddled poor. That's what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I just want to deviate for a moment in this time of economic tension just to remind people that tomorrow is World AIDS Day. I want to congratulate the Thomas Street clinic in my district and remind people that 25 million people have died since 1981. I just wanted to acknowledge those individuals as we begin this very important debate.

We are respectful of immigrants. Even in the Democratic Caucus, and I would imagine in the Conference--my good friend who is now managing had an immigrant history. Yesterday, we elected a son of immigrants to be the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. He told a very potent story about his grandfather coming here to the United States of America. I can assure you that he did not come with massive degrees, but he built a foundation for his country and for his family.

Now, I am very much in support of the STEM process and premise, which is to give opportunity to those who have studied in our universities, research institutions. Why wouldn't I? Having had children who have had the opportunity to attend some of the best institutions in this country, having had my children meet some of those very students, from Harvard to the University of North Carolina and Duke, I am well aware of the importance of this. But I would raise the question of whether or not we can judge the Diversity visas, where people have come from places like Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, Germany, Ethiopia--one of our strongest allies in Africa--Liberia, with an African woman as President, the first on that continent, South Africa. Or maybe we would choose to ignore our friends in Israel, where Diversity visas were received; or Albania, where we went to war to ensure the integrity and the saving of those people; or Hungary or Iceland or maybe our strong ally Turkey. That's what Diversity visas represent.

There is no reason to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. In fact, if my friends would really pay attention to the recent charge of the November 6 election, they would know that what America needs is comprehensive immigration reform. If I might, in this debate of deficit reduction and the need for increased revenue, we know that if you had comprehensive immigration reform over 10 years, you would introduce into the economy $1.5 trillion. That's a reason to come to the floor right now and vote this bill down and start in the next week and put on the floor the bills that Luis Gutierrez and myself and Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers and many others--at one time, Senator McCain wanted to put on the floor of the Senate and the House.

My concern is that we tried to come in a bipartisan manner. I introduced legislation--an amendment, rather--in the markup to say that let's study this issue of fraud with the Diversity visas, or let's assess what it is, because we have evidence that, in fact, the alleged fraud was because of a computer error, not the people who are applying.

Mr. Speaker, 15 million have applied. Only 50,000 have been able to get the Diversity Visa. And of those, some of them are African immigrants, 50 percent of them; but they equal only 1 percent of the legal permanent residents.

This whole question of terrorism just troubles me. I went to the Rules Committee in a spirit of bipartisanship to say, eliminate the provision on Diversity Visas. We can then support you. Keep the underlying premise of this legislation. I even asked that the rollover be extended because there's no evidence that you can get 55,000 in 4 years.

If you are serious about creating jobs--I am serious about creating jobs. My colleagues are serious about creating jobs. But I am disappointed that we would classify the Diversity Visa as bringing in ne'er-do-wells, people we don't want. Because I will tell you that America was built on the ne'er-do-wells--maybe those of us who came as slaves or indentured servants, who came in the late 1800s with not any money in their pocket but who were determined to serve this Nation.

I thank the gentleman.

I recall the story of my colleague whose grandfather served in World War I. As soon as he got here, he was willing to shed his blood for this country.

I am on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to jeopardize one inch of this Nation's security; but I can assure you, if we look to 9/11, there was no one there with a Diversity Visa. The terrorists had student visas, and they were overstays.

Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who introduced this, said that Diversity Visas are at the heart of the definition of America. And as my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Lofgren said, Who that was a terrorist would want to stand in line and provide all of the information that they needed to provide to get a Diversity Visa?

I will enter into the Record a letter from the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration, who absolutely opposes H.R. 6429, a church that believes in the Beatitudes, as we all do.

Committee on Migration c/o Migration and Refugee

Services, USCCB,

Washington DC, November 28, 2012.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of

Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to oppose H.R. 6429,

legislation that would eliminate the existing Diversity Visa

program and its 55,000 permanent immigration visas in order

to provide visas to foreign graduates of American

universities with expertise in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

To be clear, USCCB is not opposed to an increase in STEM

visas. We prefer to see Congress authorize additional visas

for this purpose, however, rather than eliminate existing

immigrant visa programs. Our nation should not limit itself

in attracting newcomers who can help contribute to our

economic and cultural growth. And it certainly should not

eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which is one of the few

avenues available for many would-be immigrants from some

African and European countries to immigrate to the United

States.

While we appreciate the spirit of an unrelated provision in

the bill that would permit some beneficiaries of family-based

immigration petitioners to live in the United States while

awaiting their priority dates, we believe that persons

granted such a status should also be granted work

authorization, as has been done in the past, so they can

support themselves during this period.

H.R. 6429 falls well short of what is needed to repair our

flawed immigration system. Indeed, we believe it would

represent a setback compared to current law in that, for the

first time in more than a generation, it would eliminate a

category of legal immigration. We look forward to working

with you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives

to achieve comprehensive immigration reform in the near

future.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez,

Archbishop of Los Angeles, Chairman,

USCCB Committee on Migration.

I can only say, the Catholic Church does not want terrorists to roam this Nation.

And if we look closely at this allegation of fraud, we will find computer error. We will find that with the decades of Diversity Visas, as they were introduced with Bruce Morrison, we will find that this is not the cause of any cancer of terrorism. If we go into our hearts, we will know that Diversity Visas reflect the language written so eloquently by the poet for the Statue of Liberty and that is: ``Give me your tired, your poor.'' Those are the great Americans.

And I can assure you that in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the diverse 18th Congressional District in the city of Houston, they reflect what America is. They are building the jobs.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this, and let us get back to the drawing board for a conference on immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 821 the Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment.

On Wednesday, I once again offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it.

Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process.

Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident, LPR, admissions.

Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries, however only 1 percent of legal permanent residents recipients.

Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents.

The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment.

On Wednesday, I once again I offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it.

Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process.

Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions.

Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries.

Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents.

The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission.

chance for the american dream

The Diversity Visa sustains the American Dream in parts of the world where it represents the only realistic opportunity for immigrating to the U.S.

Former Rep. Bruce Morrison--one of the architects of the Diversity Visa--testified in 2005 that the program advances a principle that is ``at the heart of the definition of America;'' the principle that ``all nationalities are welcome.''

Ambassador Johnny Young, Executive Director of Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified at a 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing: ``The Program engenders hope abroad for those that are all too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for reunification with family in the United States, and hope for a chance to use their God-given skills and talents.''