All articles in House section

STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012
(House of Representatives - November 30, 2012)

Text of this article available as:
        


[Pages H6539-H6561]
                         STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012

  Mr. ISSA. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Pursuant to House Resolution 821, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 112-34, modified by the amendment printed in 
House Report 112-697, is adopted. The bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6429

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``STEM Jobs Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED STEM GRADUATES.

       (a) Worldwide Level of Immigration.--Section 201(d)(2) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D)(i) In addition to the increase provided under 
     subparagraph (C), the number computed under this paragraph 
     for fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal years shall be 
     further increased by the number specified in clause (ii), to 
     be used in accordance with paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 
     203(b), except that--
       ``(I) immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph but not required for the classes specified in 
     paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) shall not be counted 
     for purposes of subsection (c)(3)(C); and
       ``(II) for purposes of paragraphs (1) through (5) of 
     section 203(b), the increase under this subparagraph shall 
     not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of 
     the worldwide level under this subsection.
       ``(ii) The number specified in this clause is 55,000, 
     reduced for any fiscal year by the number by which the number 
     of visas under section 201(e) would have been reduced in that 
     year pursuant to section 203(d) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment 
     and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 note) if 
     section 201(e) had not been repealed by section 3 of the STEM 
     Jobs Act of 2012.
       ``(iii) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2014, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii) 
     only to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2014 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year. 
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2014 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2014.
       ``(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2015, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     during such year, may be made available in subsequent years 
     as if they were included in the number specified in clause 
     (ii) only to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2015 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year. 
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2015 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2015.
       ``(v) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2016, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii), 
     but only--
       ``(I) to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2016 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
       ``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2015 with respect to aliens 
     seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) 
     were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such 
     year; and
       ``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections 
     204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal 
     year 2016.
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2016.
       ``(vi) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2017, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii), 
     but only--
       ``(I) to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2017 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
       ``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2016 with respect to aliens 
     seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) 
     were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such 
     year; and
       ``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections 
     204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal 
     year 2017.
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2017.''.
       (b) Numerical Limitation to Any Single Foreign State.--
     Section 202(a)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(5)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``or (5)'' and inserting ``(5), (6), or 
     (7)''.
       (c) Preference Allocation for Employment-based 
     Immigrants.--Section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Aliens holding doctorate degrees from u.s. doctoral 
     institutions of higher education in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics.--

[[Page H6540]]

       ``(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a 
     number not to exceed the number specified in section 
     201(d)(2)(D)(ii), to qualified immigrants who--
       ``(i) hold a doctorate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education; and
       ``(ii) have taken all doctoral courses in a field of 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including 
     all courses taken by correspondence (including courses 
     offered by telecommunications) or by distance education, 
     while physically present in the United States.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     paragraph (7), and sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i)(I) and 
     212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(III):
       ``(i) The term `distance education' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1003).
       ``(ii) The term `field of science, technology, engineering, 
     or mathematics' means a field included in the Department of 
     Education's Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy 
     within the summary groups of computer and information 
     sciences and support services, engineering, mathematics and 
     statistics, and physical sciences.
       ``(iii) The term `United States doctoral institution of 
     higher education' means an institution that--

       ``(I) is described in section 101(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) or is a proprietary 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 102(b) 
     of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b)));
       ``(II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the 
     Advancement of Teaching on January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-
     granting university with a very high or high level of 
     research activity or classified by the National Science 
     Foundation after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 
     pursuant to an application by the institution, as having 
     equivalent research activity to those institutions that had 
     been classified by the Carnegie Foundation as being 
     doctorate-granting universities with a very high or high 
     level of research activity;
       ``(III) has been in existence for at least 10 years; and
       ``(IV) is accredited by an accrediting body that is itself 
     accredited either by the Department of Education or by the 
     Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

       ``(C) Labor certification required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for 
     classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a 
     determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be 
     in the national interest, waive this requirement.
       ``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of 
     clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an 
     employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made 
     under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with 
     respect to the alien by that employer.
       ``(7) Aliens holding master's degrees from u.s. doctoral 
     institutions of higher education in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any visas not required for the class 
     specified in paragraph (6) shall be made available to the 
     class of aliens who--
       ``(i) hold a master's degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education that was either part 
     of a master's program that required at least 2 years of 
     enrollment or part of a 5-year combined baccalaureate-
     master's degree program in such field;
       ``(ii) have taken all master's degree courses in a field of 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including 
     all courses taken by correspondence (including courses 
     offered by telecommunications) or by distance education, 
     while physically present in the United States; and
       ``(iii) hold a baccalaureate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics or in a field 
     included in the Department of Education's Classification of 
     Instructional Programs taxonomy within the summary group of 
     biological and biomedical sciences.
       ``(B) Labor certification required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for 
     classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a 
     determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be 
     in the national interest, waive this requirement.
       ``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of 
     clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an 
     employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made 
     under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with 
     respect to the alien by that employer.
       ``(C) Definitions.--The definitions in paragraph (6)(B) 
     shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (d) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section 
     204(a)(1)(F) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(F)'' and inserting ``(F)(i)'';
       (2) by striking ``or 203(b)(3)'' and inserting ``203(b)(3), 
     203(b)(6), or 203(b)(7)'';
       (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The following processing standards shall apply with 
     respect to petitions under clause (i) relating to alien 
     beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of 
     section 203(b):
       ``(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjudicate 
     such petitions not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the petition is filed. In the event that additional 
     information or documentation is requested by the Secretary 
     during such 60-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate the 
     petition not later than 30 days after the date on which such 
     information or documentation is received.
       ``(II) The petitioner shall be notified in writing within 
     30 days of the date of filing if the petition does not meet 
     the standards for approval. If the petition does not meet 
     such standards, the notice shall include the reasons 
     therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for 
     the prompt resubmission of a modified petition.''.
       (e) Labor Certification and Qualification for Certain 
     Immigrants.--Section 212(a)(5) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``, or'' at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (ii) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) holds a doctorate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)).'';

       (B) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses 
     (iii) through (v), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) Job order.--

       ``(I) In general.--An employer who files an application 
     under clause (i) shall submit a job order for the labor the 
     alien seeks to perform to the State workforce agency in the 
     State in which the alien seeks to perform the labor. The 
     State workforce agency shall post the job order on its 
     official agency website for a minimum of 30 days and not 
     later than 3 days after receipt using the employment 
     statistics system authorized under section 15 of the Wagner-
     Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.).
       ``(II) Links.--The Secretary of Labor shall include links 
     to the official websites of all State workforce agencies on a 
     single webpage of the official website of the Department of 
     Labor.''; and

       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) Processing standards for alien beneficiaries 
     qualifying under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b).--
     The following processing standards shall apply with respect 
     to applications under clause (i) relating to alien 
     beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of 
     section 203(b):

       ``(I) The Secretary of Labor shall adjudicate such 
     applications not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the application is filed. In the event that additional 
     information or documentation is requested by the Secretary 
     during such 180-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate 
     the application not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which such information or documentation is received.
       ``(II) The applicant shall be notified in writing within 60 
     days of the date of filing if the application does not meet 
     the standards for approval. If the application does not meet 
     such standards, the notice shall include the reasons 
     therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for 
     the prompt resubmission of a modified application.''; and

       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(2) or (3)'' and 
     inserting ``(2), (3), (6), or (7)''.
       (f) GAO Study.--Not later than June 30, 2018, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall provide to the 
     Congress the results of a study on the use by the National 
     Science Foundation of the classification authority provided 
     under section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II)), as added 
     by this section.
       (g) Public Information.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall make available to the public on the official website of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, and shall update not 
     less than monthly, the following information (which shall be 
     organized according to month and fiscal year) with respect to 
     aliens granted status under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 
     203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)), as added by this section:
       (1) The name, city, and State of each employer who 
     petitioned pursuant to either of such paragraphs on behalf of 
     one or more aliens who were granted status in the month and 
     fiscal year to date.
       (2) The number of aliens granted status under either of 
     such paragraphs in the month and fiscal year to date based 
     upon a petition filed by such employer.
       (3) The occupations for which such alien or aliens were 
     sought by such employer and the job titles listed by such 
     employer on the petition.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.
       ``Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to 
     prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from accepting 
     before such date petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) 
     relating to alien beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph 
     (6) or (7) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) 
     (as added by this section).''.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--Section 201 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and

[[Page H6541]]

       (C) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).
       (b) Allocation of Diversity Immigrant Visas.--Section 203 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c);
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c),'' 
     and inserting ``(a) or (b),'';
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
       (4) in subsection (f), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and 
     inserting ``(a) or (b)''; and
       (5) in subsection (g), by striking ``(a), (b), and (c)'' 
     and inserting ``(a) and (b)''.
       (c) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section 204 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and 
     inserting ``(a) or (b)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date.

     SEC. 4. PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Permanent Priority Dates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (h)(3) and 
     paragraph (2), the priority date for any employment-based 
     petition shall be the date of filing of the petition with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (or the Secretary of State, if 
     applicable), unless the filing of the petition was preceded 
     by the filing of a labor certification with the Secretary of 
     Labor, in which case that date shall constitute the priority 
     date.
       ``(2) Subsequent employment-based petitions.--Subject to 
     subsection (h)(3), an alien who is the beneficiary of any 
     employment-based petition that was approvable when filed 
     (including self-petitioners) shall retain the priority date 
     assigned with respect to that petition in the consideration 
     of any subsequently filed employment-based petition 
     (including self-petitions).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to 
     aliens who are a beneficiary of a classification petition 
     pending on or after such date.

     SEC. 5. STUDENT VISA REFORM.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(F) an alien--
       ``(i) who--
       ``(I) is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full 
     course of study in a field of science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics (as defined in section 
     203(b)(6)(B)(ii)) leading to a bachelors or graduate degree 
     and who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of 
     pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 
     214(m) at an institution of higher education (as described in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a))) or a proprietary institution of higher education 
     (as defined in section 102(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1002(b))) in the United States, particularly designated by 
     the alien and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of Education, which 
     institution shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security the termination of attendance of each 
     nonimmigrant student, and if any such institution fails to 
     make reports promptly the approval shall be withdrawn; or
       ``(II) is engaged in temporary employment for optional 
     practical training related to such alien's area of study 
     following completion of the course of study described in 
     subclause (I);
       ``(ii) who has a residence in a foreign country which the 
     alien has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide 
     student qualified to pursue a full course of study, and who 
     seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for 
     the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent 
     with section 214(m) at an established college, university, 
     seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary 
     school, or other academic institution or in a language 
     training program in the United States, particularly 
     designated by the alien and approved by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, which institution of learning or place of study 
     shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant 
     student, and if any such institution of learning or place of 
     study fails to make reports promptly the approval shall be 
     withdrawn;
       ``(iii) who is the spouse or minor child of an alien 
     described in clause (i) or (ii) if accompanying or following 
     to join such an alien; or
       ``(iv) who is a national of Canada or Mexico, who maintains 
     actual residence and place of abode in the country of 
     nationality, who is described in clause (i) or (ii) except 
     that the alien's qualifications for and actual course of 
     study may be full or part-time, and who commutes to the 
     United States institution or place of study from Canada or 
     Mexico.''.
       (b) Admission.--Section 214(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(F)(i),'' before ``(L) or (V)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 214(m)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)) is 
     amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``(i) or (iii)'' and inserting ``(i), (ii), or 
     (iv)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to 
     nonimmigrants who possess or are granted status under section 
     101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) on or after such date.

     SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF THE ``V'' NONIMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM FOR 
                   SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS 
                   AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``that 
     was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or 
     before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration 
     Family Equity Act,'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``3 years or more;'' and 
     inserting ``1 year or more;'' ; and
       (3) in clause (ii), by striking ``3 years or more have'' 
     and inserting ``1 year or more has''.
       (b) Provisions Affecting Nonimmigrant Status.--Section 
     214(q) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1184(q)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Attorney 
     General'' and all that follows through ``; and'' and 
     inserting ``the alien may not be authorized to engage in 
     employment in the United States during the period of 
     authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant; and''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (3) by striking ``(q)(1)'' and inserting ``(q)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to an 
     alien who--
       (1) applies for nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(V) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V)) on or after such date; and
       (2) is the beneficiary of a classification petition filed 
     under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1154) before, on, or after such date.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF GUARANTEE FEES FOR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED 
                   HOUSING ENTERPRISES AND FHA.

       (a) GSEs.--Subsection (f) of section 1327 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4547) is 
     amended by striking ``October 1, 2021'' and inserting 
     ``October 1, 2022''.
       (b) FHA.--Subsection (b) of section 402 of the Temporary 
     Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-78; 
     125 Stat. 1289) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2021'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 2022''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. 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

[[Page H6542]]

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.

                              {time}  0920

  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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I want to begin by pointing out that the same poison pill that 
defeated this bill on suspension is now being brought up again with the 
same poison pill that pits immigrant and minority communities against 
one another and makes the legislation, therefore, unworkable.
  Rather than simply creating green cards for STEM graduates, the 
majority insists that we must pay for the new visas by completely 
eliminating Diversity Visas, a longstanding legal immigration program. 
The elimination of the Diversity Visa program will drastically reduce 
immigration from African nations because immigrants from Africa 
normally comprise half the Diversity Visa program's annual 
beneficiaries.
  Rather than reaching out to minority and immigrant communities, the 
majority is for some reason steamrolling through a bill that we 
otherwise agree with that cuts visas for minorities and signals their 
continued support for a Grover Norquist-style ``no new green cards'' 
pledge that says you can't create a green card for one person without 
taking one away from someone else.
  Even worse, it is shamefully designed to reduce the overall level of 
legal immigration. Under current law, unused visas in one immigration 
category roll over to immigrants in other categories who are stuck in 
decades-long green card backlogs. But H.R. 6429 doesn't do this, 
thereby ensuring that unused visas are wasted and legal immigrants must 
continue to suffer in long backlogs. This is a naked attempt to satisfy 
anti-immigrant groups that have long lobbied for reduced levels of 
legal immigration.
  If this is a new strategy on immigration, it sure looks a lot like 
the old one. A zero-sum rule means our immigration system can never be 
fixed. We would not be able to craft solutions for the DREAMers who 
were brought here as children, for the agricultural workers growing the 
food on our tables, or for the American families whose loved ones are 
stuck in decades-long green card backlogs.
  We're not fooled by the majority's assertion that this latest version 
of the bill actually helps families. In reality, the provision that the 
majority touts is a step backwards from the LIFE Act enacted under a 
Republican Congress in 2000. Under that act, undocumented spouses and 
children of lawful permanent residents were able to obtain V visas and 
eventually adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. The bill 
offered such family members protection from removal and explicitly 
granted work authorization.
  In contrast, the provision that my colleagues herald this morning as 
helping families grants certain spouses and children who have already 
waited abroad for over a year temporary V visas. There is no work 
authorization, and undocumented family members would be excluded 
altogether from participating in this program.

                              {time}  0930

  While the majority bill provides permanent green cards for 
businesses, it provides nuclear families with nothing more than 
temporary visas without work authorization--and then, only after a 1-
year separation. And to undocumented children and spouses of lawful 
permanent residents, the bill offers nothing at all.
  So I regret that this legislation was brought to the floor without 
any committee process, without any opportunity for amendment, and 
without

[[Page H6543]]

any input from those on this side of the aisle. I hope that in the 
coming Congress the majority will cast aside this political theater and 
join me in the hard work of finding workable bipartisan solutions to 
fix our immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. 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. FLAKE. I appreciate this bill coming up. This has been long, long 
overdue. Many of us have been working on this issue for years.
  Several years ago, when I first got to Congress, I met with some CEOs 
of major tech corporations who told me that they have to follow the 
talent wherever it goes. Some 65 percent of Ph.D. graduates in the STEM 
fields actually are foreign born. They come, are educated here, and 
then return home or return somewhere else to compete against us. We 
ought to be rolling out the red carpet for them to stay. In fact, what 
I was told is we should staple a green card to their diploma.
  And so I introduced three Congresses ago and every Congress since 
then the Staple Act, which would do essentially that. It would, 
basically, get rid of the quotas we have on those who come here, are 
educated in our universities, and receive Ph.D.s in the STEM field. 
This legislation is similar in that respect to the Staple Act, and I 
support it. There's no reason we ought to force those to return home or 
elsewhere who are willing to stay here and create jobs. We ought to 
roll out the red carpet. As I say, we ought to staple the green card to 
their diploma and welcome them here and have them create jobs. That's 
why I'm glad that this legislation is before us. I support it, and urge 
my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, who represents the 
place where many of these techs come from, Silicon Valley, Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.

                              {time}  0940

  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

[[Page H6544]]

     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.

  Mr. ISSA. 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. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this STEM Jobs Act. 
Clearly, the focus on this provision is to try to bring people with 
skills here to the United States.
  Graduates of American universities in science and in technology and 
engineering and math, these STEM fields, are, frankly, behind many of 
the innovations, many of the new businesses that are part of our 
present and future economic growth. If we want to look at jobs, this is 
where those new patents, those new ideas will come from that help 
create jobs. So we have talented students from around the world that 
contribute to the graduate STEM programs of our universities.
  We are trying to focus on a way to make sure our immigration system 
here puts our interests first as a country.
  We have the most generous level of legal immigration in the world, 
but when you think about it, we select only 5 percent of our immigrants 
based on the skills and education that they bring to America. Clearly, 
what we're trying to do is to make certain that these foreign graduates 
of U.S. universities in the STEM fields, because they're in such great 
demand here, many of them of course end up on years-long green card 
waiting lists and, as a result, many of them give up and go to work for 
one of our global competitors. So our focus is: What can we do to 
accelerate this?
  This bill alters our current immigration system to encourage job 
creation by increasing the proportion of new entrants with high levels 
of education, with high levels of skills.
  We know that skilled immigrants contribute mightily to the rising 
U.S. standard of living. They bring capital, as I say, they bring new 
ideas, and they produce new companies here. So, with this bill we can 
help grow innovation and we can create the jobs in this country. We've 
got plenty of examples, frankly, in California of IT firms that are 
founded by immigrants from China and from India that were educated here 
in our institutions.
  This legislation also contains a family reunification provision, 
which allows graduates' spouses and children to live in the U.S. while 
waiting for their green card application to be processed.
  One of the things that seems pretty clear to me is that, because we 
roll over the green cards every year for the next 4 years to make sure 
that they all are used, that, in point of fact, we believe that more of 
them will be used than under the Diversity lottery where they're not 
rolled over. So I think it's quite the opposite. I think we, in fact, 
focus here on exactly the type of skilled immigration that's most 
likely to create jobs here in the United States.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to help 
our economy grow.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to a senior member of 
the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).

[[Page H6545]]

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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.

                              {time}  0950

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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.

[[Page H6546]]

  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.


                     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.''


               NO SIGNIFCANT EVIDENCE OF A SECURITY RISK

  No substantive evidence has been given that the Diversity Program 
poses a significant risk to our national security. There are 
organizations like Numbers USA who are not just advocating against 
illegal immigration but also wish to place caps on or decrease legal 
immigration as well.
  As former Congressman Bruce Morrison testified in 2005: ``[I]t is 
absurd to think that a lottery would be the vehicle of choice for 
terrorists.'' 12 to 20 million people enter the Diversity Visa lottery 
each year and no more than 50,000 visas are available.
  In 2007, GAO ``found no documented evidence that DV immigrants . . . 
posed a terrorist or other threat.''
  Diversity Visa recipients go through the same immigration, criminal, 
and national security background checks that all people applying for 
Lawful Permanent Residence undergo. They also are interviewed by State 
Department and Department of Homeland Security personnel.


                                 FRAUD

  Since the State Department OIG first raised concerns about fraud in 
1993, significant changes have been made. In 2004, State implemented an 
electronic registration system. This allows State to use facial and 
name recognition software to identify duplicate applications and to 
share date with intelligence and law enforcement agencies for necessary 
immigration and security checks.
  In 2012 there was an incident where 20,000 people were erroneously 
notified that they were finalists in the Diversity program. They would 
have the opportunity to enter the lottery. The OIG investigated and 
found this was due to a computer error. There was no evidence of 
intentional fraud, as a safety precaution and because of the principle 
of fairness the State Department did the lottery again.
  The Diversity Visa program has led the way in applying cutting edge 
technology to reduce fraud and increase security. The program was one 
of the first in the government to use facial recognition software to 
analyze digital photographs.
  I join the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues in supporting an 
expansion of the STEM program. H.R. 6429 attempt to increase the STEM 
Visa program is an admirable one; however, I firmly believe it should 
not come at the expense of the Diversity Immigration Visa Program and 
should include a broader range of institutions.
  America's ability to extend its arms and welcome immigrants is more 
than a cultural tradition; it is a fundamental promise of our 
democracy. The Diversity Immigration Visa Program is designed to give a 
very small diverse percentage of immigrants the opportunity to attain a 
green card and live the American dream. It's a popular program, it's a 
successful program and it reflects core American values of inclusion 
and opportunity.

          Diversity Visa Program (DV-2012)--Selected Entrants

       The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has 
     registered and notified the winners of the DV-2012 diversity 
     lottery. The diversity lottery was conducted under the terms 
     of section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 
     makes available *50,000 permanent resident visas annually to 
     persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the 
     United States. Approximately 100,021 applicants have been 
     registered and notified and may now make an application for 
     an immigrant visa. Since it is likely that some of the first 
     *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to 
     visa issuance, this larger figure should insure that all DV-
     2012 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2012 (October 1, 
     2011 until September 30, 2012).
       Applicants registered for the DV-2012 program were selected 
     at random from 14,768,658 qualified entries (19,672,268 with 
     derivatives) received during the 30-day application period 
     that ran from noon on October 5, 2010, until noon, November 
     3, 2010. The visas have been apportioned among six geographic 
     regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons 
     born in any single country. During the visa interview, 
     principal applicants must provide proof of a high school 
     education or its equivalent, or show two years of work 
     experience in an occupation that requires at least two years 
     of training or experience within the past five years. Those 
     selected will need to act on their immigrant visa 
     applications quickly. Applicants should follow the 
     instructions in their notification letter and must fully 
     complete the information requested.
       Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to 
     apply for adjustment of their status must contact U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services for information on the 
     requirements and procedures. Once the total *50,000 visa 
     numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2012 will 
     end. Selected applicants who do not receive visas by 
     September 30, 2012 will derive no further benefit from their 
     DV-2012 registration. Similarly, spouses and children 
     accompanying or following to join DV-2012 principal 
     applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa 
     status until September 30, 2012.
       Only participants in the DV-2012 program who were selected 
     for further processing have been notified. Those who have not 
     received notification were not selected. They may try for the 
     upcoming DV-2013 lottery if they wish. The dates for the 
     registration period for the DV-2013 lottery program are 
     expected to be widely publicized at some point during the 
     coming months.
       *The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) 
     passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulated that up to 
     5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas be 
     made available for use under the NACARA program. The 
     reduction of the limit of available visas to 50,000 began 
     with DV-2000.
       The following is the statistical breakdown by country of 
     chargeability of those selected for the DV-2012 program.

                             DIVERSITY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 AFRICA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALGERIA.................................................           1,799
ANGOLA..................................................              42
BENIN...................................................             511
BOTSWANA................................................               7
BURKINA FASO............................................             226
BURUNDI.................................................              56
CAMEROON................................................           3,374
CAPE VERDE..............................................               9
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.....................................               3
CHAD....................................................              33
COMOROS.................................................               9
CONGO...................................................             105
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE.......................           3,445
COTE D'IVOIRE...........................................             553
DJIBOUTI................................................              38
EGYPT...................................................           4,664
EQUATORIAL GUINEA.......................................               4
ERITREA.................................................             670
ETHIOPIA................................................           4,902
GABON...................................................              48
GAMBIA, THE.............................................             113
GHANA...................................................           5,832
GUINEA..................................................             899
GUINEA-BISSAU...........................................               3
KENYA...................................................           4,720

[[Page H6547]]

 
LESOTHO.................................................               8
LIBERIA.................................................           2,101
LIBYA...................................................             136
MADAGASCAR..............................................              17
MALAWI..................................................              16
MALI....................................................              76
MAURITANIA..............................................              29
MAURITIUS...............................................              59
MOROCCO.................................................           1,890
MOZAMBIQUE..............................................              13
NAMIBIA.................................................              10
NIGER...................................................              32
NIGERIA.................................................           6,024
RWANDA..................................................             333
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE...................................               0
SENEGAL.................................................             270
SEYCHELLES..............................................               6
SIERRA LEONE............................................           3,397
SOMALIA.................................................             175
SOUTH AFRICA............................................             833
SUDAN...................................................             757
SWAZILAND...............................................               0
TANZANIA................................................             175
TOGO....................................................             845
TUNISIA.................................................             113
UGANDA..................................................             418
ZAMBIA..................................................              79
ZIMBABWE................................................             123
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFGHANISTAN.............................................             109
BAHRAIN.................................................              29
BANGLADESH..............................................           2,373
BHUTAN..................................................               5
BRUNEI..................................................               0
BURMA...................................................             370
CAMBODIA................................................             596
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN. REGION.........................              54
INDONESIA...............................................             256
IRAN....................................................           4,453
IRAQ....................................................             153
ISRAEL..................................................             175
JAPAN...................................................             435
JORDAN..................................................             152
NORTH KOREA.............................................               0
KUWAIT..................................................             108
LAOS....................................................               1
LEBANON.................................................             274
MALAYSIA................................................             118
MALDIVES................................................               0
MONGOLIA................................................             209
NEPAL...................................................           3,258
OMAN....................................................              11
QATAR...................................................              19
SAUDI ARABIA............................................             217
SINGAPORE...............................................              45
SRI LANKA...............................................             708
SYRIA...................................................             160
TAIWAN..................................................             391
THAILAND................................................              73
TIMOR-LESTE.............................................               9
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES....................................              92
YEMEN...................................................             149
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBANIA.................................................           1,508
ANDORRA.................................................               1
ARMENIA.................................................             998
AUSTRIA.................................................             130
AZERBAIJAN..............................................             304
BELARUS.................................................             493
BELGIUM.................................................             105
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA....................................              83
BULGARIA................................................             883
CROATIA.................................................             107
CYPRUS..................................................              26
CZECH REPUBLIC..........................................             104
DENMARK.................................................              73
ESTONIA.................................................              49
FINLAND.................................................              91
FRANCE..................................................             574
    French Polynesia....................................               7
    New Caledonia.......................................               1
GEORGIA.................................................             620
GERMANY.................................................           1,709
GREECE..................................................             105
HUNGARY.................................................             325
ICELAND.................................................              56
IRELAND.................................................             213
ITALY...................................................             529
KAZAKHSTAN..............................................             434
KOSOVO..................................................             137
KYRGYZSTAN..............................................             321
LATVIA..................................................              83
LIECHTENSTEIN...........................................               0
LITHUANIA...............................................             258
LUXEMBOURG..............................................               8
MACEDONIA...............................................             160
MALTA...................................................              20
MOLDOVA.................................................           1,238
MONACO..................................................               3
MONTENEGRO..............................................              18
NETHERLANDS.............................................             149
    Aruba...............................................               4
    Curacao.............................................              19
    St. Maarten.........................................               2
NORTHERN IRELAND........................................              59
NORWAY..................................................              84
PORTUGAL................................................              66
    Macau...............................................              19
ROMANIA.................................................           1,327
RUSSIA..................................................           2,353
SAN MARINO..............................................               1
SERBIA..................................................             298
SLOVAKIA................................................              80
SLOVENIA................................................              16
SPAIN...................................................             232
SWEDEN..................................................             200
SWITZERLAND.............................................             229
TAJIKISTAN..............................................             270
TURKEY..................................................           3,077
TURKMENISTAN............................................             143
UKRAINE.................................................           5,799
UZBEKISTAN..............................................           4,800
VATICAN CITY............................................               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              NORTH AMERICA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAHAMAS, THE............................................              15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 OCEANIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA...............................................             900
    Christmas Island....................................               3
    Cocos Islands.......................................               1
FIJI....................................................             628
KIRIBATI................................................              14
MARSHALL ISLANDS........................................               4
MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF.........................               2
NAURU...................................................               5
NEW ZEALAND.............................................             309
    Cook Islands........................................               6
    Niue................................................              14
PALAU...................................................               5
PAPUA NEW GUINEA........................................               0
SAMOA...................................................               0
SOLOMON ISLANDS.........................................               0
TONGA...................................................              93
TUVALU..................................................               0
VANUATU.................................................               8
WESTERN SAMOA...........................................               9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA.....................................               9
ARGENTINA...............................................             101
BARBADOS................................................              25
BELIZE..................................................               9
BOLIVIA.................................................              84
CHILE...................................................              43
COSTA RICA..............................................              43
CUBA....................................................             292
DOMINICA................................................              18
GRENADA.................................................              24
GUYANA..................................................              26
HONDURAS................................................              80
NICARAGUA...............................................              49
PANAMA..................................................              21
PARAGUAY................................................              17
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS...................................               7
SAINT LUCIA.............................................               4
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES........................              16
SURINAME................................................              15
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO.....................................             175
URUGUAY.................................................              19
VENEZUELA...............................................            925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in
  DV-2012: Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong
  S.A.R. and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
  Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru,
  the Philippines, Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern
  Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.


  Mr. ISSA. 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. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa), and I applaud the Republican leadership for 
bringing this important bill to the floor.
  I think it's important that we bring down the decibels and that we 
talk about facts. This is an issue where passions are very high, but I 
think it's important to bring down the decibels a little bit and speak 
about some of the facts.

[[Page H6548]]

  Look, we know that America is home to some of the best universities 
on the planet; and because of that, people from around the world, 
students from around the world, young people from around the world come 
to study in our universities. Then, unfortunately, when they're done, 
we, in essence, show them the door out; and they have to leave the 
country. And they leave the country then and become the best, the 
toughest competitors to American enterprise. They create jobs 
elsewhere--not in the United States. Talking about outsourcing, this is 
the mother of all outsourcing.
  So what does this bill do? It tries to solve that issue. It tries to 
keep those individuals here. Those are the facts. Now, I would like to 
see a large number of that. And I think all of us should be talking 
about maybe we can expand those numbers. And that, I think, would be a 
wonderful debate to have.
  Now, not only does this bill do that, but it also promotes a smarter 
immigration system that helps maintain our competitive edge, and it 
also helps keep families together. Ensuring that spouses and minor 
children remain together is simply the right thing to do; is it not? Is 
that not something that is a compassionate principle of the vast 
majority of the Members of the House, keeping families together? Of 
course it is. This bill helps to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of blame on this issue on the floor 
today and, frankly, for years. And on immigration reform. And everybody 
knows my position on immigration reform.
  It has been talked about for years with a lot of inflammatory 
rhetoric. And I will tell you, from Republicans and Democrats alike, 
the reality is that both sides are to blame for the broken immigration 
system that we currently have; and both sides need to come together--
finally lowering the rhetoric--to find lasting, permanent solutions.
  This bill is an important step in the right direction. It helps 
address and fix a very important part of the broken immigration system. 
It does not, Mr. Speaker, solve all the problems. It is not the 
panacea. It does not solve all the problems, but it takes a huge step 
in an area that we've been talking about in the House here for years--
and both Republicans and Democrats have failed to deal with. This bill 
deals with that important part. So I'm glad this legislation is finally 
being considered by this body.
  I commend the House leadership for their commitment to this issue. 
And I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to continuing to bring other issues, 
other issues to fix our grossly broken immigration system that is 
broken from A to Z. I look forward to bringing other issues; but in 
order to do so, Mr. Speaker, we need to lower the decibels. We need to 
talk about the facts.
  The American people want us to finally fix this issue. They want us 
to come up with real solutions. As I mentioned before, nobody's 
claiming that this fixes everything; but it's a step in the right 
direction. It fixes a part of the problem.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Democratic side 
and my Republican colleagues on other such fixes. But I commend this 
House. I commend Mr. Issa. I commend the Republican leadership for 
taking an important step forward.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one's worked harder on this issue than 
Mr. Gutierrez, the gentleman from Illinois; and I am pleased to yield 
him 3 minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  We've heard about how important STEM visas are. And we don't want to 
debate the point; they're important. That's why when we have the real 
immigration debate, the debate that will result in the signature of the 
President, the debate that starts in January when Congress is sworn in, 
that's why we will have STEM visas in that bill.
  So everyone agrees STEM visas are important; and if you didn't know 
this before the last election, I hope you know it now. The American 
people want us to fix our immigration system.
  But the more important message I got from the election is that 
American people say that we can solve the immigration issue if 
Republicans and Democrats work together, put aside bitterness, come to 
the table in an honest manner. It's not enough to talk about lowering 
the rhetoric. If we do it in an honest manner, a transparent manner, we 
can solve the tough problems of immigration and put it at the top of 
our list.

                              {time}  1000

  We need to approach immigration as a faucet of America's past, 
present, and future, and solve the problems we have with our current 
immigration mess like adults: honestly and openly and in a bipartisan 
manner. We need to stop scoring cheap political points and playing 
games with immigration and start working together, not bringing bills 
without ever discussing and negotiating with the other side of the 
aisle. That's not the way to be comprehensive. This is why it is so 
disappointing that the majority has decided to undermine an area of 
bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with 
provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values and the rich 
tradition of immigrants to the United States of America.
  If you support this bill, you're saying that one group of immigrants 
is better than another, that one type of educated, degree-holding 
person and their work is more important than others. In order to give 
visas to those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees, Republicans make two 
demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal 
immigration from 50,000 people who may not have Ph.D.s and master's 
degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been 
an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan, would have been told, 
No, America is not for you under this bill, Mr. Gutierrez. It's like 
when they used to hang up signs in America saying, ``Help wanted. Irish 
need not apply.'' They were part of the diversity program today that 
they want to kill.
  The second thing this bill requires is that we treat the families of 
those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees differently than we treat the 
families of those who don't have doctorates. If you have a master's or 
a Ph.D., we say, Please, come to America. Bring your wife, bring your 
husband, bring your kids. We'll give them all permission to work. 
Automatic work permits for spouses, no waiting for STEM-degree holders. 
But if you don't have a Ph.D. or a master's degree, we're going to take 
away your wife's ability to work legally. We may let her in 6 months 
earlier, but--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. It's as though they said to my father, Let's check 
your education record, Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, no doctor before your name, 
no fancy initials, Mr. Gutierrez, after your name? Well, Mr. Gutierrez, 
you and the kids stay home. You can't work.
  That is not America. There was no special line for Ph.D. and master's 
degree holders on Ellis Island. There was no asterisks on the Statue of 
Liberty that said IQ must be there in a higher standard. They are 
saying my father--and I resent it--was too stupid to make it, but he 
put two kids through college, and one in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. ISSA. 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.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding 
to me.
  I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have served on the Immigration 
Subcommittee for 10 years. In that period of time, I've sat in on 
dozens and scores and perhaps hundreds of hearings during that period 
of time, and gathered information and a knowledge base on these issues.
  I walked into this issue as a freshman Member of Congress 10 years 
ago with this statement: the immigration policy that we have in this 
country needs to be designed to enhance the economic, the social, and 
the cultural well-being of the United States of America. In fact, every 
country's immigration policy should fit that standard.

[[Page H6549]]

  We can have debates about the definitions of those three words that 
are part of that direction, but what's going on here is eliminating a 
really foolish policy that we've had, and I have long been for the 
repeal of the Diversity Visa lottery program, and I have long been for 
setting up a system so that we can promote the economic, social, and 
cultural well-being of the United States through our policies.
  In some of the information in hearings, we only control with our 
immigration policy--depending on whose numbers you want to look at--
between 7 percent and 11 percent of the legal immigrants coming into 
this country on merit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
  We only control between 7 percent and 11 percent of the legal 
immigration into this country on merit. The rest of that doesn't have 
anything to do with merit and how they contribute to the U.S. This bill 
does do that.
  I support H.R. 6429, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, who's worked on this issue, Congressman Jose 
Serrano.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
  Let's understand what is happening here today. This bill doesn't 
increase available visas. It merely transfers them from one program to 
another. But it eliminates a Diversity Visa program that allows people 
from all over the world to come here.
  Sometimes I wish I could be not only a member of this party, but an 
adviser to that party, to tell them that they miss opportunities. Here 
they have the first immigration statement that they can make after the 
people spoke November 6. What do they do? They destroy a great 
program--because they just can't help themselves.
  What we need is not a piecemeal approach. What we need is not to say 
that we will only take certain people with college degrees and with 
``doctor'' in front of their names and the rest we will reduce those 
visas. No. What we need is to say that we have an immigration issue in 
this country. We have 11 million people who are in this country, who 
want to stay in this country, and who do a lot for this country. Rather 
than be dealing with this approach today, we should seriously be 
speaking about comprehensive immigration reform.
  To say to those 11 million people, we understand who you are, and 
we're going to help you to speak English; we understand who you are, 
and we're going to make sure you pay your taxes; we're going to make 
sure that you're applying to be a part of this country and you haven't 
broken the law. But if you came here to work and if you came here with 
children and if you came here with your parents a long time ago, we 
want you to stay. That was clear.
  If there was any analysis that came from November 6, it is that the 
American people want comprehensive immigration reform. That is what we 
need to do, not a piecemeal approach that pits one group of people 
against the other. If this is an indication of what's coming as people 
evolve on the issue, as we're hearing on the talk shows, that they're 
evolving on the issue of immigration, if this is evolving, we're in 
deep trouble again.
  Mr. ISSA. 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. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that getting our economy moving again needs 
to be our top priority, but jobs will not take off until American 
businesses have the workers they need to drive innovation and growth.
  The immigrants who come to this country for school and for work have 
always been key players in driving our Nation's economy. Unfortunately, 
current immigration policies are preventing American businesses from 
hiring foreign students who earn advanced degrees in science, 
technology, engineering, and math from our best universities.
  From growing startups to U.S. multinationals, American employers are 
desperate for qualified STEM workers, no matter where they're from. 
Microsoft, for example, has over 6,000 job openings waiting to be 
filled by scientists, researchers, engineers, and developers. For now, 
these openings and many others will remain vacant because too few 
American students are graduating with STEM degrees, and foreign STEM 
graduates can't get the visas they need.
  Every year, the U.S. invests in educating thousands of foreign 
students in STEM fields at our top universities only to send them back 
to compete against us. Chairman Lamar Smith, along with Congressman 
Raul Labrador, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and, of course, the chairman 
from California, Mr. Issa, have all been working on this, and we've now 
put forward the measure before us to spur job creation by providing a 
pathway for American-educated foreign graduates with advanced STEM 
degrees to work here and contribute to our economy.

                              {time}  1010

  This bill also keeps immigrant families together by letting the 
husbands, wives, and minor children of immigrant workers wait in the 
U.S. with their families for their green cards.
  The STEM Jobs Act reallocates existing visas currently distributed 
through a random lottery and directs them, instead, to the highly 
skilled foreign graduates of U.S. universities who have enormous 
potential to help grow our economy, which is our top priority.
  The Partnership for a New American Economy found that every immigrant 
with an advanced STEM degree, working for a U.S. company, creates about 
three new American jobs, and one-quarter of all STEM-focused companies 
in the U.S. count at least one immigrant as a founder. At American 
multinationals like Qualcomm, Merck, GE, and Cisco, immigrants filed up 
to 72 percent of the patents filed, giving those businesses a 
competitive edge and helping them expand and create jobs here at home. 
Our commitment to foreign STEM graduates is a commitment to American 
job creation.
  Foreign students are drawn to our shores by our world-class 
universities, and they want to stay because they know, in America, 
there is immense opportunity. We need to bet on the students who bet on 
America. We are a Nation that was built by people who risked everything 
for the promise of opportunity, and we must continue to be that Nation. 
We must make sure that U.S. companies can hire the top foreign talent 
we are educating instead of sending those graduates into a bureaucratic 
maze--or worse, to our competitors.

  This is a commonsense solution that should have bipartisan support. 
Let's pass the STEM Jobs Act to make sure diplomas come with green 
cards, not with a spot on a government waiting list.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Deeply embedded in this legislation is a 
poison pill, and for that reason and others, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 6429. It eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa program while 
failing to address the broader problems of the immigration system.
  Highly skilled immigrants contribute much to the U.S. economy through 
new businesses and jobs. Indeed, STEM visas should be the cornerstone 
of a 21st century immigration system that meets our economic needs; but 
the STEM Jobs Act unnecessarily eliminates the Diversity Immigrant Visa 
program, which provides 55,000 visas annually to immigrants who are 
underrepresented in the U.S. immigration system.
  Because roughly half of these immigrants are blacks from Africa, 
eliminating these visas disproportionately affects them. African 
immigrants are also disadvantaged by a system that perpetuates their 
exclusion. For instance, Africans are unable to take advantage of 
immigrant visas issued in the family preference category because few 
Africans have existing family ties in the United States. Eliminating 
the Diversity Visa program harms America's diversity, which is both 
important and necessary.

[[Page H6550]]

  It is alarming that Republican supporters of this bill view 
immigration as a zero-sum game in which we can only grant STEM visas by 
eliminating Diversity visas. That is racist--if not in its intent, then 
certainly in its effect. Republicans just received historically low 
votes from minorities in the past election, yet they want to create an 
immigration system that gives visas with one hand while taking visas 
away from minorities with the other. H.R. 6429 fixes one problem while 
creating others, undermining a program that is critical to our Nation's 
diversity. It is a Trojan horse, and the ugly head of racism will rear 
its ugly head if this Trojan horse, H.R. 6429, becomes law.
  What America needs is an immigration system that creates 
opportunities for new Americans, unites families, and provides for a 
robust system for enforcement. Because this bill fails to address these 
larger challenges while eliminating an important program for enhancing 
diversity, I plan to vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. ISSA. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not render an advisory 
opinion regarding the meaning of words spoken in debate.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I am not accusing anybody of racism. I don't 
know what is in the heads of those who support this bill, but if it's 
not racist in its intent, it's certainly racist in its effect.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. 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. FITZPATRICK. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, the STEM Jobs 
Act. This is a bill which will provide much-needed employment-based 
immigration reform and which will help position our economy for success 
in the 21st century.
  The STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and math must be 
encouraged in our own schools as well as in the new populations of 
innovators who want to participate in our economy. These high-tech jobs 
help support many middle class communities, which are the bedrock of 
the American economy, including the communities of Bucks County, 
Pennsylvania, from which I hail.
  While we continue to encourage STEM education here at home and while 
still protecting American workers, we must also welcome those who 
earned advanced degrees in a STEM field from an American university and 
who want to become part of our economy. This is exactly what the STEM 
Jobs Act accomplishes.
  As we engage these high-tech innovators in our economy, the STEM Jobs 
Act also rightly recognizes the need to support and to prioritize 
families. The pro-family expansion of the V Nonimmigrant Visa program 
within this bill is an important element of a fair immigration system.
  The STEM Jobs Act appropriately prioritizes jobs and families. It's a 
very good bill. It's a fair bill for the 21st century. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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. ISSA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my 
friend from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this bill has been brought 
before this House for consideration, so it's clear my Republican 
friends recognize the urgency for expanding the number of visas for 
high-skilled workers, particularly students with STEM graduate 
degrees--a worthy goal.
  Yet rather than simply increase the number of visas, my Republican 
colleagues once again are presenting us with a false choice. Just like 
the previous bill, which failed, this one deceptively expands the 
number of STEM visas, but only at the expense of the successful 
Diversity Visa program, which has been the primary pathway used by 
generations of immigrants in American history.
  This bill not only eliminates that program, but it would also reduce 
the total number of available visas by preventing unused slots from 
rolling over to be transferred to another visa program. That just shows 
my colleagues still haven't gotten it from the recent election in which 
immigrants and minorities played a growing role, and it casts doubt on 
whether we're going to be able to come together to achieve meaningful 
immigration reform, frankly, with that attitude.
  The business community, particularly the high-tech employers in my 
district in northern Virginia, they get it about the need to expand the 
STEM program. But here again, this bill fails the reasonability test by 
creating a new process in which employers have to file an application 
with the State or Federal Government to certify that issuing that STEM 
visa is in the national interest. Talk about unnecessary regulation. 
And now the manager's amendment delays implementation of the bill by a 
year. We already know the economic benefits of expanding the high-
skilled visa pool, and employers have said we can't afford to wait any 
longer.
  Mr. Speaker, this does not have to be a zero-sum game. If my 
Republican colleagues truly want to help our employers and our economy, 
we could bring up a clean version of this bill, one for example which 
was introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). Or 
we could bring up another bipartisan bill, the Startup 2.0 Act, which I 
am proud to cosponsor with our colleague, Michael Grimm of New York. 
That would not only expand the number of visas for STEM graduates, but 
also those entrepreneurs looking to start up a business and create jobs 
right here in America.
  Here is an opportunity for us to fulfill the mandate from the 
election and actually compromise on something that will benefit the 
economy. This bill, sadly, does not meet that test.
  Mr. ISSA. 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.

[[Page H6551]]

  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).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise 
today in support of the STEM Jobs Act, and I thank Chairman Smith for 
his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  This is a critical piece of legislation that narrowly failed to pass 
when the House considered it in September, and I'm very pleased that 
we're considering it again here today.
  Over the past few weeks when I was back in my district, the job 
creators in central Arkansas that I spoke with emphasized the need to 
once again bring this bill up, and I want to share a little bit about 
those conversations.
  First of all, Welspun Tubular is in my district. It made the pipe for 
the Keystone XL pipeline. They need advanced STEM graduates to train 
workers.
  Power Technology is a company that needs highly skilled workers to 
design, develop, and manufacture laser products. They say that they 
need this bill passed.
  These companies have struggled to find the specific talent they need, 
and this bill would help them create jobs. This is a jobs bill. I want 
to emphasize that this bill will not take away from American jobs. 
These STEM visas will be made available only for foreign graduates of 
U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees--Ph.D.s in the first 
instance, followed by foreign-born graduates of master's degree 
programs of which we have a shortage. Companies that offer jobs to 
foreign STEM graduates also must have certified that there are no 
American workers able, willing, or qualified and available for the job.
  We are currently educating highly skilled Ph.D.s and master's and 
sending them back home to compete against us after they graduate. Where 
I'm from, that's like recruiting the best football players from Texas, 
teaching them the Arkansas offense, and then sending them back to Texas 
to compete against us. That doesn't make any sense, and people get 
that. Let's fix it. Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the November elections, there has been a 
growing consensus that it is time to undertake comprehensive 
immigration reform. There are many good reform proposals out there; 
but, unfortunately, this is not one of them. Although this bill does 
have some merits, those merits are more than offset by the bill's 
defects.
  One glaring problem is that this bill treats immigration as a zero-
sum game. It seems to operate under the assumption that anytime a door 
is opened to a new class of entrants, it must slam the door shut on 
another.
  This bill would totally eliminate the longstanding Diversity Visa 
program that now provides one of the few legal pathways to enter the 
United States. Currently, the Diversity Visa program only issues 50,000 
visas a year. And in 2013, almost 8 million people worldwide have 
applied for this visa. For anyone looking to find a legal way to come 
to this country right now, the chances are pretty slim. The zero-sum 
approach of this bill reduces those chances even further. It achieves 
almost the opposite of what the American people have asked us to do.
  Fortunately, there are better bills out there, bills that address 
some of the core concerns, bills that are ready to go. For instance, 
the Attracting the Best and the Brightest Act, Zoe Lofgren's bill, H.R. 
6412, would create a new green card for people with graduate degrees 
from U.S. research universities in the STEM disciplines.
  According to a recent article in the New York Times, currently we 
have in our country about a million engineers, scientists, and other 
highly skilled workers on H-1B temporary visas. And when these visas 
expire, we just send them home. We train them in the STEM disciplines 
that our high-tech economy so badly needs, and then we just send them 
home. That is absolutely crazy.
  The Democratic bill, H.R. 6412, would help us retain some of that 
valuable, highly trained talent we helped to create. The EB-6 visa 
would require all applicants to have an advanced degree from an 
accredited public or nonprofit university. It would provide 50,000 of 
these STEM visas, but it would not eliminate other visa programs which 
are helpful, such as the Diversity Visa.
  There is also a bill I authored with Senator Kerry, the Start-Up Visa 
Act. Our bill would recognize the great contributions being made to our 
economy by these job creators, and it would establish an employment-
based, conditional immigrant visa. Applicants would have to be 
immigrant entrepreneurs seeking to establish a start-up company or 
already have a business in the U.S., and it would have to have 
sufficient financial backing.
  We do need more talented people going into the STEM disciplines in 
our economy. Let's refuse to slam the door on other immigrants. Let's 
vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's vote ``yes'' on the Democratic bills 
that provide STEM visas and provide help to our economy.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Adams) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. ADAMS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, before I speak specifically to this 
bill, I think it's important to note, I know my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle are decrying this bill and its immigration 
stances, but I would submit for your consideration, when you had 
control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, you did not pass 
immigration reform. So let's stop treating this issue like a political 
football.
  As the first American of Hispanic descent to represent Washington 
State here in the United States House, I want us to tackle this issue. 
But let's keep the facts the facts, and not use it as a political 
football, because it's important to millions of Americans and millions 
of immigrants who want to come here.
  And why wouldn't you? This is a land of opportunity, and we want the 
best and the brightest here in the United States creating jobs and 
growing our economy, because in southwest Washington, where I'm from, 
we need jobs.
  Today we're here to focus on commonsense solutions. And 
unfortunately, under the current setup, we're literally educating 
foreign men and women and then requiring them to go to India and China 
and be our competitors.
  Under this scenario, who wins? Well, China and India win. Our 
competitors win.
  Who loses? The American worker because, as the best and the brightest 
internationally want to come here and we tell them go away, go start a 
business to compete with our jobs, those jobs aren't going to grow in 
southwest Washington.
  Fortunately, today we have the opportunity to change that, and then 
we can go on and tackle some of the other issues that my colleagues are 
bringing up because they're important and they're valid.
  This STEM jobs bill ensures that employers are opening their doors 
and their job opportunities to Americans first. And if there aren't 
enough Americans to fill these highly skilled job openings, then we 
invite those foreign STEM graduates to apply. That's all this bill 
does. And it's an important piece that's going to open up economic 
opportunity for the men and women that I serve and that we all serve 
across this great Nation.
  Right now, large employers--Microsoft was mentioned, that's from my 
home State, they have over 6,000 jobs that they're trying to fill. And 
you know what? They want to fill them with American workers. If they're 
not able to, then I think they should have the ability to offer those 
options to immigrants from China and India, South America, Mexico, 
Africa.
  Whoever wants to come here and be a part of the economic engine that 
creates opportunities, let's open those doors. Why not?

[[Page H6552]]

  With this bill, we'll continue to educate talented people to fuel our 
economy, and instead of sending them home to compete with us and our 
workers, we'll get to grow those jobs right here.
  This is a compassionate bill that will drive economic innovation and 
create jobs. It is pro-family. It actually provides incentives to those 
folks. Those immigrants who go about this process in the right way, 
they'll be able to be united with their family here in the United 
States because of this bill.
  There are safeguards.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

  Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. This will allow them, and those family members 
who are waiting to immigrate legally, to come here and be with their 
mother, their father, who are here working. This has a lot of 
opportunities, and it also has safeguards for the American worker. 
Those jobs are first available to those citizens who may be able to 
fill the qualification.
  So I'd ask my colleagues here today to support this very good bill. 
It's a piece of the puzzle. It's not the whole thing, but we need to 
take this a piece at a time, a solution at a time. And quite frankly, 
right now, solutions are what the American people are asking for, and 
this is a very good one.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. 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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close on this side, if 
the gentleman on the other side is ready.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, so are we. I reserve the right to close.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield our remaining time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let's look at what we've debated here this morning. 
The truth is, as the gentleman from California so rightfully notes, 
this is something we can all agree on, and that is STEM visas to supply 
the need for that economic engine of our economy. That's not really the 
question here. The question is: At what cost do we allow this to 
happen? And what we are saying is it is almost as though November 6 
came and went and my friends on the other side of the aisle just never 
listened to the verdict of the people. And what they said to us was, 
Stop picking winners and losers. Stop dividing and pitting one American 
against another.
  How many countless occasions have we heard our friends on the other 
side of the aisle decry us for class warfare, and yet they come with a 
proposal here today, and we can use their very words: They want smart 
people; they want educated people; they want people that are going to 
add something to the economy. Well, let me just suggest that we, many 
of us in this Congress today, came from very humble roots.
  And, yes, I resent the fact that people come before the well of the 
House to tout the virtues of their moms and dads and say, My mom worked 
really hard. She scrubbed pots; she stayed up; she mopped people's 
homes; she worked so hard. She had nothing left on her fingers so that 
I could get an education and I could come to the Congress of the United 
States. And yet they come and propose something that will deny other 
people that same opportunity to come here to work hard, to sweat and to 
toil

[[Page H6553]]

and to one day maybe send their son or daughter to the Congress of the 
United States.
  We can find these speeches throughout the history of the Congress of 
the United States; but the difference today is that this side of the 
aisle wants to be honest and consistent with that story, that virtuous 
story of immigrants who have come here to sweat and to toil from all 
kinds. We don't want to go back to the day of ``Irish need not apply.'' 
We know the history of immigration in this country when they were 
saying, Well, not those people, not those that are not educated, not 
those that are hungry, not those that are famished, they should not 
come here. That's an old argument and we shouldn't be making it today, 
especially after the election that we just had.
  All we're saying to the other side of the aisle is: Why is it that 
you couldn't sit down with this side of the aisle in a bipartisan 
manner? Because that's what people said during the election. They said, 
Listen, guys, we want you to settle down. We want you to work this out 
for the good of the American people.
  I'm going to tell you why I believe you couldn't negotiate with us. 
Because you have to negotiate with NumbersUSA. Why don't we just say 
it. They're the party that's not here in the well of the House, but 
they're here in spirit and in the legislative policy that we are 
reiterating here today. You can't negotiate with us because you have to 
negotiate with the most extreme element of American society on 
immigration and not with those that want to bring about comprehensive 
immigration reform and reform in our immigration system.
  And what is NumbersUSA? In short, NumbersUSA, a short, descriptive 
modifier should call it an immigration reduction organization.
  So who did you negotiate with? The immigration reduction 
organization. And that's why you have to put up the visas, these visas 
that have allowed tens of thousands of people to come to this country 
and to work hard and to sweat and to toil and to make this a greater 
Nation for all of us.
  Now, how does it reduce the numbers? It's simple. You know it and we 
know it. Every graduate, master's, and Ph.D. on an annual basis in the 
United States, what is the number? What is the number? That's the 
number we should be cognizant of here today. It's 29,000. Now it's 
55,000 visas.
  So why is it that we're offering 55,000 visas for 29,000 possible 
graduates? And wait a minute. That's if every graduate doesn't go back 
to their country. And we know many of them return to their countries to 
build those nations, and we want that to continue. We want them to come 
to the United States of America and go back to their country and foster 
democracy and goodwill. So many of them do that. But not all the 29,000 
stay here. So what happens? You eliminate 50,000 visas. You say we're 
going to give you 55,000. You know you only can use 29,000. It's a net 
loss.
  The people on the other side of the aisle keep telling us, Why don't 
they come through the legal way? Why don't they come through the legal 
way? Why do they always have to go under and around? They should come 
here legally because we're for legal immigration.
  Today you're not for legal immigration because, in the end, you 
reduce the ability of people to come legally to the United States of 
America, and that is the Diversity program.
  And lastly, let me just be very, very clear. When we look at this and 
we talk about the continent of Africa, we think it's important that 
every continent of the world be able to come here and contribute to the 
great Nation that is because that is the diversity and the greatest 
tradition of America: Ellis Island, bring me everyone from everywhere 
to sweat and to toil and to make America a greater Nation. But think 
about it a moment. Just do the math. If half of the 55,000 Diversity 
visas come from the continent of Africa, and there are only 29,000 
total STEM, come on, just do the numbers and you can see why it is that 
on our side of the aisle.
  Let's sit down. Let's have a hearing. Let's bring in the experts. 
Let's have a discussion and a debate. Let's work together. Let's sit 
back. But if we're going to move America forward, then we have to stop 
negotiating with those that want to keep us in the past, and that's 
NumbersUSA. It's NumbersUSA who said to you self-deportation should be 
the rule of law in America; S.B. 1070 is great and should be 
institutionalized in every State of the Union.
  We rejected that this last election. In this last election, there was 
a referendum and there were those of us on one side that said to the 
American people, We want an immigration system that is fairer and sets 
aside the political bickering to the one side and allows us to fix our 
immigration system, and another that said, We want to stand in the 
past.
  Let's work together to build a better future for all of us. I 
honestly and earnestly want that to happen, but I cannot in good 
conscience vote for a bill that offends my sense of fairness, that 
offends my sense of the great American tradition that is our 
immigration tradition.
  Thank you so much.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. 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.

                              {time}  1050

  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

[[Page H6554]]

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. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, an 
unnecessarily partisan bill to increase the number of visas for foreign 
students graduating with advanced degrees in science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While I strongly believe we should 
increase the number of visas for these students, I oppose this bill 
because it eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. There is broad 
bipartisan support to increase the number of STEM visas. It is 
unfortunate that the Republican Leadership brought this bill to the 
floor. President Obama highlighted his support for increasing the 
number of STEM visas in his 2012 State of the Union Address, when he 
stated that it made no sense to train foreign students with advanced 
STEM degrees and then ``send them home to invent new products and 
create new jobs somewhere else.''
  This bill is virtually identical to the version the House considered 
last September. However, Republicans added a provision to reauthorize 
the temporary ``V visa'' program. I support the ``V visa'' program, 
because it unites families. Unfortunately, the Republicans restricted 
the ``V visas'' by eliminating the ability to obtain work authorization 
and by not allowing spouses and children already here to participate in 
the program.
  This bill is flawed and we can do better. I wish the Republican 
Leadership would have brought to the floor a bill introduced by Rep. 
Zoe Lofgren to increase the number of STEM visas without eliminating 
the Diversity Visas Program. I support that legislation.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will be 
voting on H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act. This bill would terminate the 
visa lottery program (diversity immigrant program) and allocate those 
visas to foreign graduates in the fields of STEM (science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics) degrees. I am highly supportive of ending 
the visa lottery program. However, at a time when so many Americans are 
unemployed in my district and all over the country and when American 
college graduates cannot find jobs, I cannot, in good conscience, vote 
to give American jobs to foreigners. That is why I plan to vote against 
the STEM Jobs Act. As always, I will continue to support legislation 
that enforces our laws and secures our borders.
  Mr. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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.

[[Page H6555]]

                     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.''


               NO SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF A SECURITY RISK

  No substantive evidence has been given that the Diversity Program 
poses a significant risk to our national security. There are 
organizations like Numbers USA who are not just advocating against 
illegal immigration but also wish to place caps on or decrease legal 
immigration as well.
  As former Congressman Bruce Morrison testified in 2005: ``[I]t is 
absurd to think that a lottery would be the vehicle of choice for 
terrorists.'' 12 to 20 million people enter the Diversity Visa lottery 
each year and no more than 50,000 visas are available.
  In 2007, GAO ``found no documented evidence that DV immigrants . . . 
posed a terrorist or other threat.''
  Diversity Visa recipients go through the same immigration, criminal, 
and national security background checks that all people applying for 
Lawful Permanent Residence undergo. They also are interviewed by State 
Department and Department of Homeland Security personnel.


                                 fraud

  Since the State Department OIG first raised concerns about fraud in 
1993, significant changes have been made. In 2004, State implemented an 
electronic registration system. This allows State to use facial and 
name recognition software to identify duplicate applications and to 
share date with intelligence and law enforcement agencies for necessary 
immigration and security checks.
  In 2012 there was an incident where 20,000 people were erroneously 
notified that they were finalists in the Diversity program. They would 
have the opportunity to enter the lottery. The OIG investigated and 
found this we due to a computer error. There was no evidence of 
intentional fraud, as a safety precaution and because of the principle 
of fairness the State Department did the lottery again.
  The Diversity Visa program has led the way in applying cutting edge 
technology to reduce fraud and increase security. The program was one 
of the first in the government to use facial recognition software to 
analyze digital photographs.
  I join the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues in supporting an 
expansion of the STEM program. H.R. 6429 attempt to increase the STEM 
Visa program is an admirable one; however, I firmly believe it should 
not come at the expense of the Diversity Immigration Visa Program and 
should include a broader range of institutions.
  We must address comprehensive immigration reform this bill does not 
address this issue in the right way. As I have repeatedly stated I 
strongly support the advancement of STEM careers. I believe that we can 
address the potential future shortage of qualified applicants in STEM 
fields by not only welcoming those from other countries who choose to 
study in the United States to remain in the United States to work but 
also to encourage Americans to pursue careers in STEM.
  Science, technology, engineering and math education play a crucial 
role in determining our Nation's level of innovation, which has been 
the backbone of the American economy since the Industrial Revolution. 
If we are to strengthen our economy, we must strengthen our STEM 
education system.
  The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the Nation's 
education report card--shows that fewer than forty percent of students, 
at every grade level tested, are proficient in math and science. 
Furthermore, recent statistics provided by the Engineering Workforce 
Commission indicate a large disparity in STEM education between men and 
women, and between minorities and Caucasians.
  In 2008, 77,671 women were enrolled in an undergraduate engineering 
program across the United States, while 365,281 men were enrolled in 
engineering programs in the same year. In the same year, 301,483 
Caucasian Americans were enrolled in engineering programs, while only 
24,771 African Americans were enrolled. Respectively, 41,919 Hispanics 
were enrolled in engineering programs across the Nation.
  In order to encourage women and minorities to pursue degrees in STEM, 
it is absolutely essential that we level the educational field and 
provide equal, high quality education for everyone across the United 
States.
  Internationally, the Programme for International Student Achievement 
(PISA), an international education benchmark last conducted in 2009 by 
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 
finds the United States is barely average in reading and science and 
below average in math. The United States ranked 25th out of 34 nations 
in math.
  More than 3 million job openings in STEM related fields will be 
created by 2018 that will require a bachelor's degree or higher 
(Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce). At our current 
rate, the United States falls short of those needs by more than a 
million workers (National Science Foundation).
  The United States must mobilize for excellence in mathematics and 
science education so that ALL students--not just a select few, or those 
fortunate enough to attend certain schools--achieve much higher levels 
of math and science learning.
  Significant improvement in math and science education will be much 
more likely if the American people, especially young people, understand 
what's possible and demand it. We must consider the Nation's teaching 
force to be our primary asset, and as such, we must reinvent our 
strategies for recruiting, inducting, assessing, compensating, and 
retaining the best and brightest talent for our classrooms.
  A new focus on elevating and reinvigorating the profession of 
teaching must be matched with a new culture of schooling and teaching, 
that encourages effective teachers to remain in the classroom, rewards 
them for performance, and creates a career ladder that is a greater 
incentive for attracting them to the profession.
  Upgrade human capital management throughout U.S. schools and school 
systems toward ensuring that every student has access to effective 
teachers, regardless of their socio-economic background.
  Teachers and students need access to math and science instructional 
materials that are challenging, content-rich, motivating, engaging, and 
connected to the world in which we live today.
  We must explore a range of new delivery options grounded in the 
latest technologies and cognitive sciences that tap into the vast 
resources we have in our institutions of higher learning, museums, and 
other science-rich community institutions.
  We must create understanding among students about the relationship of 
effective math and science education to their future success, 
regardless of their chosen field of study.
  It is important to encourage African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, 
and women to enter into STEM fields. We can do more to fund programs at 
Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 
Community Colleges to reach all segments of society to train homegrown 
STEM professionals. As we already predict that the jobs of the future 
will include millions of new jobs in STEM fields it makes sense that we 
would train American citizens to fill these jobs.
  I believe this can be done in a balanced way. We can improve access 
to STEM for African American, Hispanics, and poor Americans.
  America's ability to extend its arms and welcome immigrants is more 
than a cultural tradition; it is a fundamental promise of our 
democracy. The Diversity Immigration Visa Program is designed to give a 
very small diverse percentage of immigrants the opportunity to attain a 
green card and live the American dream. It's a popular program, it's a 
successful program and it reflects core American values of inclusion 
and opportunity.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan 
legislation. Rather than simply creating a program that offers visas 
for students graduating in fields we need, this legislation picks 
``winners and losers'' among our Nation's immigrants. Rather than 
tackling the tough issues surrounding immigration reform by building 
consensus, once again our Republican colleagues are pushing divisive 
legislation that punishes certain immigrant groups and rewards others.
  We have another option. My Democratic colleagues have put forth a 
straightforward STEM proposal that would offer visas to graduates 
fields like science, mathematics and engineering. Instead, we are 
debating a measure that would reduce overall immigration levels and 
create a series of false choices.
  All of us recognize the value of bringing more immigrants with 
certain skills and educational backgrounds. Where we seem to disagree 
is this--those of us on our side of the aisle also recognize that we 
should not be penalizing other hardworking immigrants from more humble 
backgrounds.
  I say to my colleagues--reject this bill. Let us instead focus on 
real immigration reform that is based on consensus and focuses on 
making our system fairer and better.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the STEM 
Jobs Act (H.R.

[[Page H6556]]

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. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, every year, competitive students from 
all over the world come to America to attend some our top schools, 
including the University of Texas--Austin, for advanced degrees in the 
STEM fields.
  While these students are in school, many of these students fall in 
love with America, and our way of life.
  I don't blame them . . . who wouldn't fall in love with Austin, Texas 
and want to stay?
  And the thing is, there are employers right there in Austin and all 
over the country that want to hire these folks because there are not 
enough Americans graduating with these types of degrees every year. 
Sounds like a marriage made in heaven right?
  The problem is . . . the students often face a difficult time getting 
VISA's to stay when they graduate, even though there are employers who 
want to hire them.
  To rectify this, the STEM Jobs Act will cancel the diversity visa 
program and redistribute up to 55,000 VISA's to the best qualified 
graduates of American universities with STEM degrees.
  This legislation makes sense not only for the students, but it makes 
sense for America.
  Studies have shown that STEM graduates, on average over the course of 
their careers, create 2.6 American jobs.
  In fact, between 1995 and 2005, foreign-born STEM workers founded 
half of the firms in Silicon Valley. Think of how many jobs, and how 
much wealth, these firms created here in America.
  Wouldn't we rather have these jobs created here in the United States 
then in China or India?
  Do we really want the next Google to be created abroad?
  America has given birth to so many innovations over the past 150 
years. The assembly line, electricity, the automobile, the airplane, 
the telephone, the personal computer, the Iphone, the list goes on and 
on. These innovations have changed our world for the better.
  America has always been the birthplace of innovation, let's keep it 
that way.
  Let's allow the world's best and brightest to come to the land of 
opportunity.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6249, the STEM 
Jobs Act of 2012. While proponents of this legislation claim that they 
are making a serious effort at immigration reform, nothing could be 
farther from the truth. True to their pattern throughout the 112th 
Congress, the Republican Majority has once again chosen to bring a 
divisive, partisan bill to the floor rather than seeking compromise and 
middle ground.
  I have long called for comprehensive immigration reform, and am 
pleased to hear this sentiment echoed by others recently. Reducing the 
backlog for immigrant graduates from American universities who are 
studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is a worthy 
and laudable goal. Sadly, H.R. 6429 is not the right way to achieve it. 
Instead of increasing the number of STEM visas that are available, this 
legislation would completely eliminate the Diversity Visa program, 
which provides visas to countries with low immigration rates to the 
United States. We do not need to rob Peter to pay Paul to help improve 
our immigration system. We just need some common sense.
  Our immigration system has been broken for long enough. Let's 
dedicate ourselves to finding a workable compromise to this serious 
problem instead of making a half-hearted attempt at reform. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 6429.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, regretfully, I have to oppose H.R. 6429 
although this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There 
is a need for legislation that attracts and allows highly-skilled 
immigrants and students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees to live 
and work in the United States. The STEM Jobs Act of 2012, however, 
fails to address fundamental issues while creating additional 
inequities in immigration.
  It is increasingly necessary to American industries to keep these 
highly qualified individuals, whom we have educated, to help develop 
and grow our businesses instead of forcing them to take their talents 
elsewhere. The number of full-time graduate students in STEM fields who 
were foreign students (largely on F-1 nonimmigrant visas) grew from 
91,150 in 1990 to 148,923 in 2009, with most of the increase occurring 
after 1999. Despite this rise in foreign student enrollment, the 
percentage of STEM graduate students with temporary visas in 2009 (32.7 
percent) was comparable to 1990 (31.1 percent). The visas are not 
increasing to keep up with the talent; and according to the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, ``growth in STEM jobs was three times as fast 
as growth in non-STEM jobs'' over the past 10 years.
  Clearly we must create a way to incorporate this untapped potential 
into our own economy instead of creating a ``brain-drain'' and sending 
these highly-skilled immigrants overseas. Our economy needs the growth 
that comes with filling these jobs.
  If enacted, this bill would allocate immigrant visas to a select 
group of individuals and would eliminate the long-standing Diversity 
Visa program that allows individuals from countries with low rates of 
immigration access to visas. It places a band-aid on an issue that 
needs a real long-term solution, and does not allow for equal and fair 
access to visas. H.R. 6429, as constructed, is a poison pill that 
obscures the true need for comprehensive immigration reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 821, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. LOFGREN of California. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 6429 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``STEM Jobs Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED STEM GRADUATES.

       (a) Worldwide Level of Immigration.--Section 201(d)(2) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D)(i) In addition to the increase provided under 
     subparagraph (C), the number computed under this paragraph 
     for fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal years shall be 
     further increased by the number specified in clause (ii), to 
     be used in accordance with paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 
     203(b), except that--
       ``(I) immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph but not required for the classes specified in 
     paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) shall not be counted 
     for purposes of subsection (c)(3)(C); and
       ``(II) for purposes of paragraphs (1) through (5) of 
     section 203(b), the increase under this subparagraph shall 
     not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of 
     the worldwide level under this subsection.
       ``(ii) The number specified in this clause is 55,000.
       ``(iii) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2014, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii) 
     only to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2014 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year. 
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2014 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2014.

[[Page H6557]]

       ``(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2015, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     during such year, may be made available in subsequent years 
     as if they were included in the number specified in clause 
     (ii) only to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2015 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year. 
     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2015 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2015.
       ``(v) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2016, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii), 
     but only--
       ``(I) to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2016 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
       ``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2015 with respect to aliens 
     seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) 
     were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such 
     year; and
       ``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections 
     204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal 
     year 2016.

     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2016 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2016.
       ``(vi) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2017, but not used for the 
     classes specified in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) 
     in such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if 
     they were included in the number specified in clause (ii), 
     but only--
       ``(I) to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions 
     under section 204(a)(1)(F), and applications for a labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal 
     year 2017 with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 
     paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) up to, but not 
     exceeding, the number specified in clause (ii) for such year;
       ``(II) if the immigrant visa numbers used under this 
     subparagraph for fiscal year 2016 with respect to aliens 
     seeking a visa under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) 
     were less than the number specified in clause (ii) for such 
     year; and
       ``(III) if the processing standards set forth in sections 
     204(a)(1)(F)(ii) and 212(a)(5)(A)(vi) were not met in fiscal 
     year 2017.

     Such immigrant visa numbers may only be made available in 
     fiscal years after fiscal year 2017 in connection with a 
     petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a 
     labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A), that was 
     filed in fiscal year 2017.''.
       (b) Numerical Limitation to Any Single Foreign State.--
     Section 202(a)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(5)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``or (5)'' and inserting ``(5), (6), or 
     (7)''.
       (c) Preference Allocation for Employment-based 
     Immigrants.--Section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Aliens holding doctorate degrees from u.s. doctoral 
     institutions of higher education in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics.--
       ``(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a 
     number not to exceed the number specified in section 
     201(d)(2)(D)(ii), to qualified immigrants who--
       ``(i) hold a doctorate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education;
       ``(ii) have taken all doctoral courses in a field of 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including 
     all courses taken by correspondence (including courses 
     offered by telecommunications) or by distance education, 
     while physically present in the United States; and
       ``(iii) have an offer of employment from an employer and 
     will receive a wage level from the employer that is at least 
     the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other 
     individuals with similar experience and qualifications for 
     the specific employment in question.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     paragraph (7), and sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i)(I) and 
     212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(III):
       ``(i) The term `distance education' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1003).
       ``(ii) The term `field of science, technology, engineering, 
     or mathematics' means a field included in the Department of 
     Education's Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy 
     within the summary groups of computer and information 
     sciences and support services, engineering, mathematics and 
     statistics, and physical sciences.
       ``(iii) The term `United States doctoral institution of 
     higher education' means an institution that--

       ``(I) is described in section 101(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a));
       ``(II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the 
     Advancement of Teaching on January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-
     granting university with a very high or high level of 
     research activity or classified by the National Science 
     Foundation after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 
     pursuant to an application by the institution, as having 
     equivalent research activity to those institutions that had 
     been classified by the Carnegie Foundation as being 
     doctorate-granting universities with a very high or high 
     level of research activity;
       ``(III) has been in existence for at least 10 years; and
       ``(IV) is accredited by an accrediting body that is itself 
     accredited either by the Department of Education or by the 
     Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

       ``(C) Labor certification required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for 
     classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a 
     determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be 
     in the national interest, waive this requirement.
       ``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of 
     clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an 
     employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made 
     under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with 
     respect to the alien by that employer.
       ``(7) Aliens holding master's degrees from u.s. doctoral 
     institutions of higher education in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any visas not required for the class 
     specified in paragraph (6) shall be made available to the 
     class of aliens who--
       ``(i) hold a master's degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education that was either part 
     of a master's program that required at least 2 years of 
     enrollment or part of a 5-year combined baccalaureate-
     master's degree program in such field;
       ``(ii) have taken all master's degree courses in a field of 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including 
     all courses taken by correspondence (including courses 
     offered by telecommunications) or by distance education, 
     while physically present in the United States;
       ``(iii) hold a baccalaureate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics or in a field 
     included in the Department of Education's Classification of 
     Instructional Programs taxonomy within the summary group of 
     biological and biomedical sciences; and
       ``(iv) have an offer of employment from an employer and 
     will receive a wage level from the employer that is at least 
     the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other 
     individuals with similar experience and qualifications for 
     the specific employment in question.
       ``(B) Labor certification required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for 
     classification of an alien under subparagraph (A) unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of a 
     determination made by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security may, when the Secretary deems it to be 
     in the national interest, waive this requirement.
       ``(ii) Requirement deemed satisfied.--The requirement of 
     clause (i) shall be deemed satisfied with respect to an 
     employer and an alien in a case in which a certification made 
     under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been obtained with 
     respect to the alien by that employer.
       ``(C) Definitions.--The definitions in paragraph (6)(B) 
     shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (d) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section 
     204(a)(1)(F) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(F)'' and inserting ``(F)(i)'';
       (2) by striking ``or 203(b)(3)'' and inserting ``203(b)(3), 
     203(b)(6), or 203(b)(7)'';
       (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The following processing standards shall apply with 
     respect to petitions under clause (i) relating to alien 
     beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of 
     section 203(b):
       ``(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjudicate 
     such petitions not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the petition is filed. In the event that additional 
     information or documentation is requested by the Secretary 
     during such 60-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate the 
     petition not later than 30 days after the date on which such 
     information or documentation is received.
       ``(II) The petitioner shall be notified in writing within 
     30 days of the date of filing if

[[Page H6558]]

     the petition does not meet the standards for approval. If the 
     petition does not meet such standards, the notice shall 
     include the reasons therefore and the Secretary shall provide 
     an opportunity for the prompt resubmission of a modified 
     petition.''.
       (e) Labor Certification and Qualification for Certain 
     Immigrants.--Section 212(a)(5) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``, or'' at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (ii) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) holds a doctorate degree in a field of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States 
     doctoral institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)).'';

       (B) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses 
     (iii) through (v), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) Job order.--

       ``(I) In general.--An employer who files an application 
     under clause (i) shall submit a job order for the labor the 
     alien seeks to perform to the State workforce agency in the 
     State in which the alien seeks to perform the labor. The 
     State workforce agency shall post the job order on its 
     official agency website for a minimum of 30 days and not 
     later than 3 days after receipt using the employment 
     statistics system authorized under section 15 of the Wagner-
     Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.).
       ``(II) Links.--The Secretary of Labor shall include links 
     to the official websites of all State workforce agencies on a 
     single webpage of the official website of the Department of 
     Labor.''; and

       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) Processing standards for alien beneficiaries 
     qualifying under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b).--
     The following processing standards shall apply with respect 
     to applications under clause (i) relating to alien 
     beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of 
     section 203(b):

       ``(I) The Secretary of Labor shall adjudicate such 
     applications not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the application is filed. In the event that additional 
     information or documentation is requested by the Secretary 
     during such 180-day period, the Secretary shall adjudicate 
     the application not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which such information or documentation is received.
       ``(II) The applicant shall be notified in writing within 60 
     days of the date of filing if the application does not meet 
     the standards for approval. If the application does not meet 
     such standards, the notice shall include the reasons 
     therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for 
     the prompt resubmission of a modified application.''; and

       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(2) or (3)'' and 
     inserting ``(2), (3), (6), or (7)''.
       (f) Further Protecting American Workers.--Section 212(p) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(p)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) To satisfy the requirement under paragraph 
     (6)(A)(iii) or (7)(A)(iv) of section 203(b), an employer must 
     demonstrate that the total amount of compensation to be paid 
     to the alien (including health insurance, stock options, and 
     other benefits provided by the employer) must meet or exceed 
     the total amount of compensation paid by the employer to all 
     other employees with similar experience and qualifications 
     working in the same occupational classification.''.
       (g) GAO Study.--Not later than June 30, 2018, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall provide to the 
     Congress the results of a study on the use by the National 
     Science Foundation of the classification authority provided 
     under section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II)), as added 
     by this section.
       (h) Public Information.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall make available to the public on the official website of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, and shall update not 
     less than monthly, the following information (which shall be 
     organized according to month and fiscal year) with respect to 
     aliens granted status under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 
     203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(b)), as added by this section:
       (1) The name, city, and State of each employer who 
     petitioned pursuant to either of such paragraphs on behalf of 
     one or more aliens who were granted status in the month and 
     fiscal year to date.
       (2) The number of aliens granted status under either of 
     such paragraphs in the month and fiscal year to date based 
     upon a petition filed by such employer.
       (3) The occupations for which such alien or aliens were 
     sought by such employer and the job titles listed by such 
     employer on the petition.
       (i) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after such date. 
     Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to 
     prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from accepting 
     before such date petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) 
     relating to alien beneficiaries qualifying under paragraph 
     (6) or (7) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) 
     (as added by this section).

     SEC. 3. PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Permanent Priority Dates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (h)(3) and 
     paragraph (2), the priority date for any employment-based 
     petition shall be the date of filing of the petition with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (or the Secretary of State, if 
     applicable), unless the filing of the petition was preceded 
     by the filing of a labor certification with the Secretary of 
     Labor, in which case that date shall constitute the priority 
     date.
       ``(2) Subsequent employment-based petitions.--Subject to 
     subsection (h)(3), an alien who is the beneficiary of any 
     employment-based petition that was approvable when filed 
     (including self-petitioners) shall retain the priority date 
     assigned with respect to that petition in the consideration 
     of any subsequently filed employment-based petition 
     (including self-petitions).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to 
     aliens who are a beneficiary of a classification petition 
     pending on or after such date.

     SEC. 4. STUDENT VISA REFORM.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(F) an alien--
       ``(i) who--
       ``(I) is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full 
     course of study in a field of science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics (as defined in section 
     203(b)(6)(B)(ii)) leading to a bachelors or graduate degree 
     and who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of 
     pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 
     214(m) at an institution of higher education (as described in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a))) or a proprietary institution of higher education 
     (as defined in section 102(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1002(b))) in the United States, particularly designated by 
     the alien and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of Education, which 
     institution shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security the termination of attendance of each 
     nonimmigrant student, and if any such institution fails to 
     make reports promptly the approval shall be withdrawn; or
       ``(II) is engaged in temporary employment for optional 
     practical training related to such alien's area of study 
     following completion of the course of study described in 
     subclause (I);
       ``(ii) who has a residence in a foreign country which the 
     alien has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide 
     student qualified to pursue a full course of study, and who 
     seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for 
     the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent 
     with section 214(m) at an established college, university, 
     seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary 
     school, or other academic institution or in a language 
     training program in the United States, particularly 
     designated by the alien and approved by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, which institution of learning or place of study 
     shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant 
     student, and if any such institution of learning or place of 
     study fails to make reports promptly the approval shall be 
     withdrawn;
       ``(iii) who is the spouse or minor child of an alien 
     described in clause (i) or (ii) if accompanying or following 
     to join such an alien; or
       ``(iv) who is a national of Canada or Mexico, who maintains 
     actual residence and place of abode in the country of 
     nationality, who is described in clause (i) or (ii) except 
     that the alien's qualifications for and actual course of 
     study may be full or part-time, and who commutes to the 
     United States institution or place of study from Canada or 
     Mexico.''.
       (b) Admission.--Section 214(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(F)(i),'' before ``(L) or (V)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 214(m)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)) is 
     amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``(i) or (iii)'' and inserting ``(i), (ii), or 
     (iv)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply to 
     nonimmigrants who possess or are granted status under section 
     101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) on or after such date.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF GUARANTEE FEES FOR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED 
                   HOUSING ENTERPRISES AND FHA.

       (a) GSEs.--Subsection (f) of section 1327 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4547) is 
     amended by striking ``October 1, 2021'' and inserting 
     ``October 1, 2022''.
       (b) FHA.--Subsection (b) of section 402 of the Temporary 
     Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-78; 
     125 Stat. 1289) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2021'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 2022''.


[[Page H6559]]


  Ms. LOFGREN of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading be waived.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. LABRADOR. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. LABRADOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the 
motion.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. 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. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is just one more 
illustration of Democrats being unserious on immigration reform. We 
don't even need to talk about the merits or whether the MTR is good 
policy or bad policy. For my friends on the other side, it has always 
been just good politics.
  Before I came to Congress, I was an immigration attorney for 15 
years. That was one of the finest 15 years of my life. I have seen how 
broken the system is, and I have seen how few people there are on the 
other side who actually want to fix the problems instead of just 
playing political football. And sadly, the captain of the political 
football team is sitting in the White House. Actually, today he is 
sitting somewhere else doing more politicking.
  Actions speak louder than words. I actually agree with the minority 
on this. The President of the United States made a promise to fix a 
broken immigration system during his first term, a promise which he 
could have kept, by the way, without making a single compromise. He had 
a majority of both Houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof majority for 
2 years, and he did absolutely nothing. The other side could have had 
100 percent of what they wanted when they controlled the House; the 
Senate was filibuster-proof, and they had the President.
  When they wanted health care legislation and they wanted good policy, 
they passed it without any help from the Republican Party. But somehow, 
they come here today, and they claim that they could not pass 
immigration legislation during those first 2 years and that they 
actually want to do something about immigration reform.
  Why didn't they solve it then? Because the political football would 
have gone away. The game would have been over, and they would not have 
been able to play this political football game every 2 years.
  I want reform. I want no more games.
  So now we sit here in a familiar position. Our side proposing 
solutions, their side asking for concessions. And each time we grant 
one concession, three more arise.
  This year, just this year in this Chamber, the President of the 
United States said he wanted a STEM bill. He said that it didn't have 
to be comprehensive. This was his exact quote:

       But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on 
     a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling 
     responsible young people who want to staff our

[[Page H6560]]

     labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a 
     law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I 
     will sign it right away.

  My friends, this is that bill. It is exactly what the President asked 
for. And what has he done now? He's pulled the football away again. He 
now says that, in fact, it does need to be comprehensive:

       The administration is deeply committed to building a 21st 
     century immigration system that meets the Nation's economic 
     and security needs, but it has to be comprehensive.

  So he went from saying that he didn't need a comprehensive bill to 
saying that he needs a comprehensive bill. He says now that he, in 
fact, needs comprehensive reform when he said a year ago that he 
didn't.
  How do I feel? I feel like Charlie Brown. My friends, this is a good 
bill. The President continues to move the ball. The Democrats continue 
to move the ball. Every time Republicans want to do something positive 
on immigration, on the economy, they keep moving the ball away from us. 
Let's stop being Charlie Brown.
  My friends, this is a good bill. It will strengthen our economy, it 
will create jobs, and it is exactly what the President asked for a year 
ago. Let's call his bluff and send him a bill to create jobs and 
opportunities here in America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the passage of H.R. 6429, if ordered, and the 
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 157, 
nays 231, not voting 44, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               YEAS--157

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curson (MI)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sires
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--231

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--44

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bonner
     Boren
     Burton (IN)
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Chandler
     Costa
     Costello
     Culberson
     DeGette
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Lewis (GA)
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     Murphy (CT)
     Owens
     Pence
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1131

  Messrs. NUNES, CRAVAACK, WALBERG, LUETKEMEYER, TURNER of New York, 
FINCHER, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, REICHERT, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 
California, CHABOT, McHENRY, GOHMERT and Ms. HAYWORTH changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mrs. MALONEY, Messrs. LEVIN, WELCH, and 
Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 612, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 139, not voting 48, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               YEAS--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack

[[Page H6561]]


     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     DeFazio
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--139

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barletta
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curson (MI)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--48

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Black
     Bonner
     Boren
     Burton (IN)
     Carnahan
     Chandler
     Costello
     Culberson
     DeGette
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Lewis (GA)
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     Murphy (CT)
     Owens
     Pence
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1139

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613, on 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, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while I was in the well 
trying to get the Speaker's attention, rollcall vote 613 was gaveled 
before I was able to vote. I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 613, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 612 and 613 I would have 
voted ``nay'' on the former, the motion to recommit, and ``yea'' on the 
latter, passage.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 30, 2012, I was unable 
to cast my vote on rollcall vote 612, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 
2012 and the Motion to Recommit 613, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012.
  Had I been present, I would like the Record to reflect that I would 
have voted in opposition of rollcall vote 612 and I would have voted in 
favor of the Motion to Recommit 613.
  I oppose H.R. 6429 because it eliminates the long-standing Diversity 
Visa program and prevents unused STEM green cards from being reused as 
another visa.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote Nos. 612 and 613. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 612 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 613.

                          ____________________




    

All articles in House section