Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding work of Mr. Jamie Fleet as Democratic Staff Director for the Committee on House Administration as he departs the House of Representatives next week for service in the U.S. Senate.

During his tenure at the Committee, Jamie has used his wide-ranging skills to steadfastly guide the operations of the House with an eye on history while embracing the evolving operations of the House required in the 21st century. Jamie helped oversee the expansion of House technology options for personal and committee offices and a needed upgrade to the House's information security infrastructure. Whether the matter involved contested federal elections or contested parking spots, Jamie has worked to solve the multi-faceted issues facing the House with an informed touch. And, he has done so in a way that brought bipartisan applause while never losing sight of his commitment to the values of the Democratic Party. For that, Jamie has earned the respect of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle, as well as the officers of this House, for his fair approach to managing this often partisan institution.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that Jamie has proven to be one of the most competent staffers I have had the privilege of working with during my more than twenty years working and serving in the House of Representatives. On behalf of my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration and in the House of Representatives, I thank Jamie for his dedicated and loyal service to this institution and wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am wondering why a member of the Judiciary Committee is not managing on the part of the majority. The chairman is here. We recessed our markup so that all members of the Judiciary Committee could be present.

It is generally our practice for members of the committee of jurisdiction to manage on both sides, and so the inquiry is why are we departing from that practice?

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I will not object. I just thought it was an unusual procedure.

I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in opposition to this bill. This will be the 10th vote we've had to restrict women's access to health care since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, and there are plenty of other things we should be doing.

The bill imposes a nationwide 20-week abortion ban. It's unconstitutional, but it's also dangerous to the health and safety of American women. The narrow health exception in the bill only allows for abortions that are necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. It's shortsighted at best and cruel at worst.

Many things can go wrong in pregnancy, and this bill would force a doctor to wait until a woman's condition was life-threatening before performing an abortion.

Nonlife-threatening conditions couldn't be treated if this bill were law, which could result in permanent health problems for some women, including infertility.

Severe or fatal conditions may also arise with a fetus later in pregnancy and, if enacted into law, this bill would require some women to carry a fetus to term, even in the situation where that fetus has been diagnosed with a lethal medical condition, a heartbreaking scenario.

The rape and incest exceptions are insulting and excessively narrow. The rape and incest exceptions that were added to the bill after the committee's markup are just incredibly disappointing. They require reporting the crime to law enforcement prior to seeking care. It shows a distrust of women and a lack of understanding of the reality of sexual assault.

Only 35 percent of women report sexual assaults, and there are many reasons for that that are complex, including fear of reprisal--78 percent of rape victims know their offender--shame, wanting to put the incident behind them.

Also, this bill is unconstitutional. It's a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, where the Court held that, prior to viability, abortions may be banned only if there are meaningful exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. For over four decades these principles have been upheld, and this bill blatantly disregards them.

Finally, I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It's an attack on women's health, on our constitutional freedoms, and it seeks to take important medical decisions out of the hands of women, their doctors and their families and instead entrust those decisions to Congress. It's a misguided effort.

I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

May I inquire how much time remains?

Before yielding to the ranking member, I'd just like to note the situation of my friend, Vicky Wilson, who found out, unfortunately, in the 20th week of her pregnancy that her much-wanted and desired child had all of her brains formed outside of the cranium and would not survive, and if she carried the fetus to term, likely her uterus would have ruptured. Under this bill, Vicky would have been forced into that heartbreaking situation. I think that's simply wrong.

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Madam Chair, before yielding to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, I would just like to note that we do not need to change the law. Dr. Gosnell was convicted and he's doing two life sentences in prison for murder under current law.

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, from California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a much-valued member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Judy Chu.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Deutch of Florida.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee from New York, an excellent lawyer and a new Member of the House, Representative Hakeem Jeffries.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a leader for women's health.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a nurse and valued member of our delegation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), a former prosecutor and valued Member of our Congress.

I wonder if the gentlelady has additional speakers, because I would reserve. We have no additional speakers at this time, and if she has additional speakers, she can call them, then we will both wrap up.

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

I think this is, in many ways, a very sad day for this House. As we know, last week there was an uproar in the country relative to a statement that few women become pregnant from rape. That, of course, is not correct. There's no science to support that.

And of course, this week, we have a bill that's been altered to add a very limited exception for rape and incest that would be available only if the victim has reported the crime to the authorities.

And of course, as our last speaker has indicated, this actually makes the situation for the victim of violence, a victim of rape more onerous than for the perpetrators of the violence, something that I think is really quite wrong.

The bill attacks the rights of women, guaranteed by our Constitution, to seek a safe, legal procedure when they need it.

I have two children. I was thrilled when I became pregnant. Most women are thrilled and look forward to a safe childbirth. But for some, pregnancy can be dangerous, and the restrictions that are imposed in this bill that do not have adequate health exceptions can endanger these women.

At the subcommittee, we heard from a witness, a professor at George Washington University, Ms. Christy Zink, about her story. She courageously told her story of seeking abortion care after her much- wanted pregnancy was diagnosed with severe fetal anomalies at the 21st week; in fact, an anomaly that would mean that the much-wanted child would not survive and that, in fact, her health could be compromised had she proceeded.

Under this bill, she would not have the opportunity to preserve her own health. She would be required to carry a nonviable fetus to term, and I just think that's wrong. I don't think that's something that the country is asking the Congress to do.

The idea that the exception for incest only applies to those under 18 is another mystery. If a girl is molested and raped by her father at age 18, is she less worthy of the protection of her health and the right to get abortion care than her sister at age 17? I think not. It simply makes no sense at all for that provision.

I'd like to comment also briefly on the repeated discussion of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. He is a monster. There's no one that I have heard in this Congress or in this country who defends what Dr. Gosnell did. In fact, he's in prison, serving a double life sentence for murder.

What he did was illegal, in addition to being abhorrent in every way. We don't need to change the law to put someone like Dr. Gosnell behind bars. In fact, he's behind bars right now.

I think that the use of this case as a rationale for denying American women health care that they may need is terribly wrong. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce Pastor Mark Turner of South Valley Community Church in Gilroy, California, as our guest who delivered this morning's opening prayer.

Over a decade ago, Pastor Turner left his career to answer a higher calling to serve his fellow persons in the ministry. In serving others, Pastor Turner has become a respected leader in our community, making a difference in people's everyday lives.

Working with local partners and businesses, Pastor Turner and hundreds of volunteers serve our community through outreach projects that feed children, seniors, and underprivileged residents. They help local children through programs that encourage them to be active and strive for success, and they bring compassion and services to people in need.

Answering a call to serve something larger than one's self is a trait we deeply admire and value as Americans. So it is a pleasure to welcome Pastor Turner to our Nation's Capitol today and to thank him for his service to our community and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, to mourn the passing of Quinn Boyer. He still had much to do, but he led a full and extraordinary life that was devoted to others. Quinn's promising young life was cut short on April 4, 2013 at the age of 34.

Quinn grew up in Oakland and graduated from Sonoma State University, the Santa Rosa Fire Academy, and Foothill College's paramedic program.

In 2008, Quinn began his career as a paramedic in Santa Clara County. During his short time on the job, he saved countless lives. Quinn's colleagues described him as someone loved by everyone, an amazing paramedic and caregiver. He was a Big Brother and volunteer at the Order of Malta Clinic in Oakland. He was recently married and accepted into Stanford's physician's assistant program.

It is with sadness that we pay tribute to Quinn Boyer's life. His family, and indeed our country, will forever remember and cherish his kindness, service, and hope in a better future. We join with our communities in mourning his passing. While we know Quinn's family, friends, and colleagues feel his loss, we can draw comfort from his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Michael Pritchard upon his retirement from Pathway Society, Inc.

Michael has been the Executive Director at Pathway Society, Inc. since 1991. Pathway is the oldest and largest community-based nonprofit organization in Santa Clara County providing low-income residents with substance abuse treatment, intervention, education, and prevention. In 1970, Michael graduated from Western Michigan University, where he majored in Psychology. In 1976, he received his Masters Degree in Psychology at California State University at Los Angeles.

Michael's leadership expanded Pathway's programs, budget, and staffing. During Michael's nineteen years as the Executive Director, Pathway helped 60,000 people lead healthy lives. 25,000 youth stopped using drugs and escaped gangs during his tenure. When Michael joined Pathway in 1991, the organization served around 550 people annually. Today, Pathway serves around 3,500 people annually.

While at Pathway, Michael helped implement one of the first substance-abuse day treatment programs in the country specifically focused on helping gang-involved Latinos get off drugs and out of gangs. He is a founding member of San Jose Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force Policy Team, which supports these efforts.

Michael served as board member and officer of Treatment Communities of America, a national consortium of over 600 programs providing an array of integrated services in substance abuse treatment and behavioral health. He is a past officer of California Therapeutic Communities, a statewide organization of addiction treatment providers. He served as president of the Alcohol and Drug Contractors Association, a countywide network of community-based organizations providing substance use prevention, treatment, recovery, and supportive transitional housing to adolescents and adults in Santa Clara County.

Michael is retiring after 22 years of devoted leadership of Pathway Society. I commend his decades of contribution and service to the betterment of our society. The community is very fortunate to have benefited from his dedication, commitment, and advocacy. I wish Michael the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 613 Azerbaijanis who died 21 years ago today in the massacre at Khojaly. This is a time for solemn reflection, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering those who lost their lives that day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Kristina ``Kristy'' Marie Sermersheim. I first met Kristy more than 30 years ago. I was a brash candidate for office not backed by the establishment and not expected to win. Kristy was a union activist who didn't know the meaning of the word ``no''. Together we challenged the conventional wisdom. Voters decided that an emphasis on children and families was what they cared about. I was elected to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County. That same year, in 1981, she became a full-time Service Employees International Union (SEIU) staff member.

The financial roof fell in on the county shortly thereafter, the impact of Proposition 13. Neither of us wanted a reduction in services to people in need. But we faced the imperative of reductions.

We worked together to cut the budget, to make sure that as we dealt with the budget reality we protected the most vulnerable and never scapegoated our employees. Kristy Sermersheim proved her bona fides in those tough times. She was smart, pragmatic but idealistic. She had values. She stood up for her members and she stood up for those in need. She was a star.

She continued to represent workers for another 32 years. As a passionate advocate for workers' rights, she held a range of positions on various local, state, national, and international organizations, including SEIU Local 715, SEIU International Union, South Bay American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Labor Council, California Labor Federation, SEIU Public Services Division, and SEIU California State Council. Kristy assumed the leadership role of SEIU local 715, the largest union representing employees of Santa Clara County.

Born in New Albany, Indiana, during elementary school, her family lived in Michigan, San Diego, and Long Beach, California. In 1961, her family moved to San Jose. In 1967, she graduated from Leigh High School. Kristy's good grades earned accolades as a National Merit Scholar Finalist and she was voted ``Most Likely to Succeed'' by her classmates. After she graduated, she took classes at San Jose State University and began working as a Santa Clara County Social Services Eligibility Worker in the Welfare Department.

Kristy has devoted her life to social justice and workers' rights. She served 11 years as a member leader for the Santa Clara County Employees Association.

As head of the former SEIU Local 715 in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, Kristy expanded the union from 5,000 members working for four employers to more than 30,000 members with over 20 different contracts. She led the consolidation of five unions, including Local 715, to form the new SEIU Local 521. As Chief Elected Office of SEIU 521, she fought on behalf of 57,000 workers throughout North and Central California. Under her leadership, the County of Santa Clara and SEIU negotiated an $80 million settlement that established pay equity by removing discrimination in wage-setting for women and people of color.

We worked together for rights for women. Kristy helped make sure that the union represented a female worker in the county roads department in an affirmative action case that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. County government was her partner in the case. I remember so well listening to the oral arguments on that case as a young County Supervisor. We were proud that local government and the union were partners in the quest for equal rights for women.

The case confirmed that government agencies must consider previous discrimination history as well as qualifications when making hiring decisions. In recognition of over 40 years of contributions to the social and political advancement of women, Kristy was awarded the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council's 2012 COPE Award for Service Above Self.

Throughout her career, Kristy worked together with public workers to obtain improvements in working conditions, wages, and benefits. She forged alliances with other unions and community groups to improve public services to the residents union members serve. Kristy is now retired and lives in Morgan Hill with her two sisters, Andrea and Teresa. The three sisters have collectively raised their brother's children after he passed away. They live with their niece Flori, a little dog, and three cats. In her retirement, Kristy wants to help the developmentally disabled community and volunteer where she can make a difference. I join in honoring her decades of contribution and service to the betterment of our society. The community is very fortunate to have benefited from her advocacy, dedication, and leadership. She has left her mark in the community and I know she will continue to play a positive role.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Sig Sanchez.

Sig was born to Spanish immigrant parents, as the second of eleven children. His mother worked in a cigarette factory in San Francisco and his father was an agricultural laborer. In 1942, Sig moved to Gilroy because of his involvement in agriculture. For 20 years, Sig owned a melon-packing operation with two of his brothers and a 600-acre farm to the south of Los Banos.

Sig entered public service over 55 years ago when one of his tractors broke down. He went to repair his tractor and the owner of the shop was on the Gilroy City Council. The councilmember proceeded to encourage Sig to join him on the council. Sig served for five years as a councilman and another five years as the mayor. He then served 16 years on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. As a county supervisor, Sig advocated for the merger of the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District with the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District to better address floor management and water importation. In all his years of public service, he tried to never leave his office without returning every phone call.

In 1980, Sig was appointed as an at-large director to the water district board. He was a key player in the 1987 merger of the Gavilan Water District in South County with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which allowed for full integration of all the county's reservoirs and groundwater facilities. Sig was a charter board member in the 1992 development of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, a joint organization of 32 water and irrigation agencies that contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation for water from the Central Valley Project. He was also instrumental in water importation into Santa Clara County with the county Board of Supervisors, South Bay Aqueduct, water district board, and the San Felipe project. As the longest serving member of the water district's board of directors, Sig guided the agency on pressing water quality problems, steered the valley through both floods in the 1980s, and helped it survive the 1987-1992 drought.

Sig has served as a board member of HOPE Rehabilitation, Wheeler Hospital Foundation, and the Gilroy Elks Club. As a passionate advocate for water and flood control issues, he has been an active member of national, state, and local water resource organizations, including the Agricultural Water Advisory Committee, Central valley Project Authority, Pajaro River Watershed Flood Prevention Authority, San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority Board and Finance Committee, Uvas/ Llagas Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Ad Hoc Audit Committee, and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority.

In recognition of his service and contributions, Sig was inducted into the Gilroy Hall of Fame in 1991. A building in San Martin is named after Sig. He also has a 10-mile portion of state Highway Route 101, the Sig Sanchez Freeway, named in honor of his 12-year effort to lobby various government agencies to build the highway.

Sig is being honored as the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce's 2013 Man of the Year on February 9. I join in honoring his decades of contribution and service to the betterment of our society. The community is very fortunate to have benefited from his dedication, commitment, and advocacy. He has left his mark in the community and I know he will continue to play a positive role in the years to come.

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 668, a congressional reference bill concerning the trust-related claims of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma.

Now, congressional reference bills are rare in Congress. The House hasn't considered such a bill since 2002 in the 107th Congress, but the fact that this procedure is a rare one doesn't mean that it isn't a useful one.

Unlike most other legislation, reference bills require passage in only one Chamber to take effect. If passed by either the House or Senate, the bill would simply refer a claim against the U.S. Government to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for consideration.

The court, however, as the chairman has indicated, would not be authorized to render a final ruling on the claim. Rather, it would only be authorized to consider evidence and to submit a report to Congress with its findings and recommendations. Congress could then decide, based on the court's report, whether or not to enact a private claims bill or appropriate funds to the claimant in the interest of justice.

In this case, H. Res. 668 would refer the bill, H.R. 5862, a bill relating to members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, to the Court of Federal Claims. And as amended, the bill would authorize the court to determine whether the tribe and its members have trust-related legal or equitable claims against the U.S., other than legal claims that are currently pending before the court.

We have consulted with the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior on this matter, and both agencies agree that the Quapaw Tribe has legitimate claims against the United States concerning certain tribal lands that were held in trust by the Federal Government. The only real dispute is the value of the claim.

This makes this congressional reference bill an appropriate measure to help bring this matter to a final resolution. By referring the case to the Federal claims court, they can consider all the evidence, submit a report on what the court believes to be the appropriate value of the tribal claim, and then, based on that court's findings and conclusions, Congress can play its appropriate role to consider whether or not it is in the interest of justice to pass a private claims bill or otherwise appropriate funds to satisfy the claim.

This procedure will help the Congress do the right thing, and that's why we're sent here, to do the right thing.

So I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. I commend Congressman Cole for his diligent pursuit of this matter of justice.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank you, Mr. Watt and Mr. Goodlatte. I am pleased that we've come together to support this good bill. This bill is going to allow consumers to share their video viewing habits as they see fit, and it will actually enhance consumer privacy without causing any significant detriment to providers of digital services.

I agree that the Senate amendments actually improve the bill, and I think, also, that passing this bill is going to support and enhance emerging online video companies to grow and expand their services. I think it's important that we come together to make sure that our laws actually work well in the Internet environment, which this bill now does.

I look forward to Congress working to do the same thing when it comes to the Electronic Privacy Act reforms we know that are necessary, even copyright reform, to make sure that the laws actually work with modern Internet services. The VPPA is a great start down this road. I look forward to voting in favor of it, and I commend all who worked on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Mike Honda, to acknowledge and honor Councilmember Nancy Pyle upon her retirement from the San Jose City Council.

Nancy has been the San Jose City Councilmember for District 10 since 2005, representing approximately 100,000 residents from Almaden and Blossom Valley. She graduated from LeMoyne College in Syracuse, New York, where she majored in French. She received her Masters Degree in Educational Administration from the U.S. International University in San Diego. In 1960, Nancy moved to San Jose with her family where she served as a teacher, Community Relations Manager, and Legislative Analyst for San Jose Unified School District. Nancy is a former San Jose/Evergreen Community College Board Trustee.

On the City Council, Nancy worked hard to maintain our streets and parks, keep our neighborhoods safe, invest resources in youth and senior programs, and make city government more accountable. When the City's general fund deficit threatened to eliminate the Domestic Violence Prevention Program, Nancy pledged $20,000 from her office budget to help temporarily fund the City's Domestic Violence Prevention Coordinator position. When San Jose Family Camp was struggling to meet the cost-recovery requirements set by the City Council, she sought the help of Congresswoman Eshoo, Congressman Honda, and myself. At her request, we sent a letter to the National Forest Service for a special five-year permit for San Jose's Family Camp at Yosemite. In November 2010, in order to increase public safety, Nancy proposed that San Jose adopt a Social Host Ordinance to hold adults accountable for underage drinking on private property. After advocating for nearly a year and a half, the City Council passed the ordinance last spring.

In 2010, Nancy worked with the San Jose Redevelopment Agency to open the first Whole Foods in San Jose. The opening brought new life and energy to the area and paved the way for many other businesses to successfully open their doors in the same shopping center. Nancy was honored this spring to accept the City's largest gift to date, $4.2 million dollars privately donated to help fund a City partnership with the San Jose Unified School District for two more turf fields at Allen at Steinbeck School.

Councilmember Nancy Pyle is retiring and we wish her all the best in the years to come. We commend Nancy for her valuable service. The community is very fortunate to have benefited from her advocacy, passion, and commitment. She has left her mark in San Jose and we know she will continue to play a positive role in our community during her retirement.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Director Joe Judge upon his retirement from the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Joe has been a Director at the Santa Clara Valley Water District since 1986, when the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors appointed him as At Large Director to represent North County. He was elected to the Board of Directors in 1996 to represent District 2, which includes central and downtown San Jose, portions of East San Jose, and Willow Glen.

During his tenure, he served as vice chairman in 1995 and 2009. Joe also served as chairman in 1989, 1996, and 2004. Joe championed the importance of Santa Clara County's water supply and flood protection. He gained community support for eighteen flood protection projects totaling $529 million for District 2, including eight projects for the Guadalupe River, four projects for Calabazas Creek, mitigation plantings at the Children's Discovery Museum, erosion repair along the Los Gatos Creek, and the construction of a local child care center. He played a key role in the development of the Guadalupe River Park as a collaborative effort within the District.

While at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, he was able to help ensure that the county had a plentiful pure water supply, improve our water infrastructure, and preserve our watersheds, creeks, and trails. He advocated for state and federal policies to resolve long-standing Delta issues, including the restoration for the Delta ecosystem and a reliable Delta conveyance system.

Joe graduated from San Jose State University with a degree in business administration. He owns and operates his construction firm, Judge Construction. As a local businessman, he provided an open channel of communication between the business community and government, which advanced water conservation countywide. As a dedicated public servant for 26 years, his presence will be missed.

Director Joe Judge is retiring and I wish him all the best in the years to come. I commend Joe for his valuable service and wish him the best in his future endeavors. The community is very fortunate to have benefited from his expertise, passion, and commitment. He has left his mark in Santa Clara County.

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

For more than a decade, I've been working to increase high-skilled visas for foreign students with advanced STEM degrees from America's greatest research universities. I'm fortunate enough to see firsthand the new technologies, the new companies, the new jobs they create every day in my district in the Silicon Valley. For that reason, it pains me greatly that I cannot support this bill.

First, although this bill ostensibly seeks to increase STEM visas, it appears to have another, in my opinion, more sinister purpose--to actually reduce legal immigration levels. The bill does it in two ways.

On its face, the bill eliminates as many visas as it creates by killing the Diversity Visa Program which benefits immigrants from countries that have low rates of immigration to the United States. But the bill also discreetly ensures that many of the new visas will go unused by preventing unused visas after 2014 from flowing to other immigrants stuck in decades-long backlogs. This is not the way our immigration system works.

I believe the only reason the bill is written in this fashion is to satisfy anti-immigrant organizations that have long lobbied for reduced levels of immigration.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that while they are opposed to illegal immigration, they are very much in favor of legal immigration. But this bill shows the opposite.

Supporters of legal immigration would not have killed 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.

Agreeing to zero-sum rules now means never helping the almost 5 million legal immigrants currently stuck in backlogs.

The Republican bill also expressly allows for-profit and online schools to participate. While the bill contains language limiting immediate participation, it unquestionably opens the door to future participation.

I cannot support a bill that will allow such schools to essentially sell visas to rich, young foreigners.

The vast majority of Democrats in this Chamber strongly support STEM visas. I've introduced a bill that creates STEM visas without eliminating other visas or including for-profit colleges. It has the support of the Black, Hispanic, and Asian Caucus chairs. Bring that to the floor, and you'll see strong support from Democrats. It should also get strong Republican support.

Republicans in the past, including very conservative Members, have supported STEM legislation that does not eliminate other types of visas. In the 110th Congress, I introduced a bill that did just that with very conservative Republicans such as Texas Members John Carter and Pete Sessions as cosponsors. If they can support new STEM visas without offsets, so can Republicans today.

There is a unique opportunity here to craft a balanced, bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate; but our majority has instead chosen to jam through a partisan bill that has no chance of becoming law, solely, I think, to score political points.

It seems the only reason they have chosen to pursue this strategy right before an election is an attempt to appear more immigrant friendly than their record proves them to be and perhaps to curry favor with high-tech groups.

But this is an anti-immigration bill, and it only sets back the high- skilled visa cause.

I believe if we take a step back and work in good faith on a bipartisan basis, we can pass a STEM bill with overwhelming support. I am eager to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do just that. It's the right thing to do for the district I represent, and for our country. But this flawed bill is one I cannot support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow the ranking member of the full committee to control the remainder of the time.

I will be brief. I do feel the need to address the issue that the chairman has raised; I think he misunderstands the issue.

We have, in U.S. universities, graduating in STEM fields 10,000 Ph.D. and 30,000 masters degrees a year. Assuming that all 40,000 want to stay in the United States--and that is not a valid assumption--we will not use up all of the 50,000 visas. It is true that the EB2s might apply, but many of them did not go to American universities. So the easiest way to make sure these visas are not eliminated is to do what happens in all the rest of the immigration EB categories, which is to allow those visas to flow.

Finally, I just have to say I have never once been asked by a high- tech company to have some online university be the awarder of the Ph.D. It's not a demand, it's not an interest that anybody in the technology field has ever expressed to me.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a disappointing day at a time when we look for leadership on the part of the majority to bring us together. Instead, we have a partisan bill before us.

We have 54 cosponsors on the bill that we've introduced. The remarkable thing is that we have support across the entire breadth of the Democratic Caucus for STEM visas. The things that have been said about the Diversity Visa today are simply wrong.

They remind me of the warnings we got a short while ago about the ``terror babies'' who would somehow emerge after 21 years. It's absurd.

We need to vote against this bill, but I think we can quickly reconvene and get to the bipartisan effort that this country deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my fellow Congress members Anna Eshoo and Mike Honda to honor the 100th Anniversary of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332.

For over a century, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332 has worked to ensure the safety and well-being of its members.

Established on August 25, 1912, with only fourteen members, it has grown today to include 2,700 men and women striving for the highest level of excellence in their trade. Their concern for safety, and pursuit for high quality education, led to the creation of one of the top electrical training facilities in the United States.

In fact, these skilled workers have been instrumental in building Silicon Valley into the globally renowned location it is today. Members of the Local 332 have participated in nearly every major construction project in Santa Clara County in the last 100 years; from field-pumps and canneries of the early 20th century, to the high tech companies that drive Silicon Valley's economy today.

Just as these tradesmen helped build our homes, schools, hospitals, and civic facilities, they also have helped shape our community and grow our economy.

Indeed, Local 332's members contributions extend beyond the workplace to building a better community. Its members are active volunteers and generous supporters of numerous community and non-profit organizations.

Their civic work has improved the opportunities and lives of not only their own members, but also countless people in Santa Clara County.

Along with myself, Representatives Anna Eshoo and Mike Honda also wish to congratulate the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on its 100 year anniversary, and commend them for their work on behalf of workers' rights, craftsmanship, and their commitment to community in Silicon Valley.