S. Rept. 113-40 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)
June 07, 2013, As Reported by the Judiciary Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




Senate Report 113-40 - BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT




[Senate Report 113-40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                        Calendar No. 80
113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     113-40

======================================================================



 
 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                                  ACT

                                _______
                                

                  June 7, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

            Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 744]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the 
bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic 
     Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act...................1
 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration.................22
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill..........................75
 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................161
  V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation...................................161
 VI. Conclusion.....................................................161
VII. Additional and Minority Views..................................163
VIII.Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........186


I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
                  and Immigration Modernization Act of


                         A. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    Few policy issues are as central to the history and 
character of America as immigration. The foundation of the 
Nation, and its future promise, was laid by men and women who 
came to America's shores from around the world. Immigration is 
the history of all Americans who are not indigenous to the 
territory of the United States. It is an issue of enormous 
importance to all Americans. Notwithstanding diverse viewpoints 
on the best path forward, there is broad recognition that 
America's current system of immigration is broken and in need 
of significant reform.
    There are many aspects of Federal immigration law that are 
in need of improvement. But there may be no issue more central 
to the legislative proposal upon which the Committee has acted 
than the estimated 11 million individuals living in the United 
States in undocumented status.\1\ The Senate Judiciary 
Committee has approved legislation that addresses this 
situation in a fair, tough, practical, and humane way. With the 
approval of this legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
has begun the process of effecting these reforms and creating 
an immigration system for the 21st Century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Dep't of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Stat., 
Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the 
United States: January 2011 (March 2012) available at http://
www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/
ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Creating an Earned Path to Citizenship

    One of the key components of the Border Security, Economic 
Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) is the 
path to earned citizenship for the estimated 11 million 
undocumented immigrants living and working in the shadows of 
American society. This legislation will give this population a 
tough but fair opportunity to come forward and earn their 
citizenship by meeting several requirements, including paying 
fees and fines, passing national security and criminal 
background checks, paying their taxes, and learning English.
    During the Committee's consideration of S. 744, and its 
extensive study and consideration of comprehensive immigration 
reform in previous Congresses, the Committee has heard from law 
enforcement officials, community leaders, faith groups, civil 
rights groups, and individual members of the public about the 
urgent need to address the millions of undocumented immigrants 
living in the United States. Undocumented immigrants have a 
tenuous place in our communities. They live in constant fear of 
deportation. If they are victims of crime, they often do not 
report those crimes to State and local law enforcement.\2\ They 
work for low wages, unable to defend themselves from employer 
harassment and exploitation.\3\ Many have been in the country 
for 10 years or more, have made valuable contributions to their 
communities, and have immediate relatives who are American 
citizens.\4\ The prospect of deporting these individuals would 
not only be prohibitively expensive,\5\ but would also have 
untold damaging effects on our economy, which relies on the 
work, taxes, and purchasing power of undocumented immigrants 
even as our legal system fails to fully recognize or protect 
them. It would separate families and run counter to our ideals 
as a Nation. Instead, S. 744 outlines a tough but fair path 
that will bring individuals out of the shadows and into the 
lawful immigration system, by allowing eligible applicants to 
adjust to the legal status of Registered Provisional Immigrant 
(RPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Southern Poverty Law Center, Under Siege: Life for Low-Income 
Latinos in the South 25 (2009) (noting the vulnerability for 
undocumented immigrants in the South and across the United States due 
to fears of deportation and low confidence in law enforcement) 
available at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/under-
siege-life-for-low-income-latinos-in-the-south#.UazxQ5yGcd0.
    \3\Rebecca Smigh & Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Nat'l Employment Law 
Project, Worker's Rights on Ice: How Immigration Reform Can Stop 
Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights (2013) available at http://
www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2013/Workers-Rights-on-ICE-Retaliation-
Report.pdf?nocdn=1.
    \4\According to the latest publicly available estimates, 
approximately 86 percent of undocumented immigrants arrived in the 
United States before 2005. See Dep't of Homeland Security, Office of 
Immigration Stat., Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population 
Residing in the United States: JANUARY 2011 (March 2012) available at 
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/
ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf.
    \5\Marshall Fitz et al., Center for Am. Progress, the Costs of Mass 
Deportation: Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective (2010), available 
at http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/03/
pdf/cost_of_deportation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most recent legislative attempt to create a path to 
citizenship was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
(IRCA), a law that legalized three million undocumented 
immigrants and created employer sanctions against hiring 
undocumented workers.\6\ The hope was that IRCA would offer a 
long-term solution to the problem of illegal immigration.\7\ 
Legalization was meant to decrease the undocumented population 
and prevent its expansion. Employer sanctions were expected to 
deter future illegal immigration by drying up the job magnet 
that drew unauthorized workers to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat.3359.
    \7\Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, H.R. Rep No. 99-
682(I), 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 46 (1986); See also McNary v. Haitian 
Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, n. 4 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under IRCA, undocumented individuals who had been 
continuously present in the United States since January 1, 1982 
(almost five years before the date of enactment) and who met 
certain other requirements could apply for temporary permanent 
resident status.\8\ Upon learning English, meeting other 
requirements, and applying within a prescribed time period, 
they could then become lawful permanent residents.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\8 U.S.C. Sec. 1255A(a) (2008).
    \9\Id. at Sec. 1255A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though three million undocumented immigrants obtained 
legalization under IRCA, gaps in the law kept large numbers of 
the undocumented population underground and in long-term limbo. 
The early cutoff date included in that legislation left almost 
five years' worth of arrivals without the ability to legalize. 
Vague statutory language, combined with restrictive 
interpretations by the former Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS), led to extensive litigation that prolonged the 
legalization program for more than 20 years.\10\ Moreover, the 
IRCA legalization program did not account for the spouses and 
children of legalized immigrants,\11\ which created a strong 
incentive for many to enter or remain in the country illegally 
to keep their families together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See Lucas Guttentag, a Brief Introduction to Judicial Review in 
Relation to IRCA Legislation (Yale Law School Workshop Series Readings, 
Fall 2009), available at http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Clinics/
Immigration_Reading5.pdf.
    \11\The former INS established a ``Family Fairness'' program and in 
1990 Congress added statutory relief for the spouses and children of 
legalized aliens, but that relief was extremely limited. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, Sec. 301, 104 
Stat. 4978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Establishing a tough but fair path to bring undocumented 
individuals out of the shadows and into the lawful immigration 
system will benefit American workers and our society as a 
whole. Studies of the 1986 immigration reform law found that 
legalizing previously undocumented workers increased wages by 
close to 10 percent or more, reflecting increases in worker 
productivity that benefit the broader economy.\12\ Bringing 
undocumented workers into the legal workforce will ensure that 
they are not forced to accept below-market or below-minimum-
wage compensation or other violations of U.S. labor laws, 
reducing harmful employment practices that undercut wages and 
worsen conditions for American workers. A 2010 study by the 
Center for American Progress found that ``wages of native-born 
workers also increase under . . . comprehensive immigration 
reform . . . because the ``wage floor'' rises for all workers--
particularly in industries where large numbers of easily 
exploited, low-wage unauthorized immigrants currently 
work.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See e.g., Sherrie A. Kossoudji & Deborah Cobb-Clark, Coming Out 
of the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the 
Legalized Population, 20 J. Labor Econ. 3 (2002); Shirley J. Smith, 
Roger G. Kramer, et al., Characteristics and Labor Market Behavior of 
the Legalized Population Five Years Following Legalization, 102 (U.S. 
Department of Labor, 1996).
    \13\Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, Center for Am. Progress, Raising the 
Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform 13 (2010) (``The real wages of newly legalized 
workers increase by roughly $4,400 per year among those in less-skilled 
jobs during the first three years of implementation, and $6,185 per 
year for those in higher-skilled jobs. The higher earning power of 
newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal 
income of $30 billion to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 
billion in additional net tax revenue nationally, enough to support 
750,000 to 900,000 new jobs.''); See also Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, The 
Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, 32 Cato J. 1, 
189 (Winter 2012); Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigration on 
Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States, 94 Rev. Econ. & Statistics 
348-358 (MIT Press, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A path to citizenship for the undocumented population will 
also balance out an aging population and protect the future of 
Social Security, by empowering a new class of lawful workers 
who can pay into the system. The independent Chief Actuary of 
the Social Security Administration recently estimated that S. 
744 will add more than $200 billion to the Social Security 
Trust Fund over the next decade.\14\ His analysis found that 
undocumented workers in particular will pay $170 billion more 
in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes if they are 
allowed to come out of the shadows and work legally. The Chief 
Actuary wrote, ``[o]verall, we anticipate that the net effect 
of this bill on the long-range OASDI [Social Security] 
actuarial balance will be positive.''\15\ That is, the Border 
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act will strengthen Social Security not just in the immediate 
future, but over the full 75-year projection period. Because 
most immigrants are young, additional immigration helps balance 
out the increase in retirees-per-worker that will occur as the 
Baby Boom generation retires.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Letter from Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary to 
Senator Marco Rubio (May 8, 2013), available at http://
www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/solvency/.
    \15\Id.
    \16\A recent study by the journal HealthAffairs supports the Chief 
Actuary's conclusions about the contributions of immigrants to public 
programs. It found that in 2009, immigrants made 14.7 percent of 
contributions to the Medicare Trust Fund, but accounted for only 7.9 
percent of its expenditures, contributing a net surplus of $13.8 
billion. The report noted, ``many immigrants in the United States are 
working-age taxpayers; few are elderly beneficiaries of Medicare. This 
demographic profile suggests that immigrants may be disproportionately 
subsidizing the Medicare Trust Fund, which supports payments to 
hospitals and institutions under Medicare Part A.'' Leah Zallman, 
Steffie Woohnalder et al., Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 
Billion More to the Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out in 2002-09, 
Health Affairs (May 2013), available at http://
content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2013/05/20/hlthaff.2012.1223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, a path to citizenship for our Nation's 
undocumented immigrants is crucial to modernizing our 
immigration system.

2. Ending the Lengthy Backlogs in the Immigrant Visa System

    Two central failures of our modern immigration system are 
its inability to meet the demands of U.S. businesses that wish 
to attract and retain highly qualified immigrants, and its 
failure to reunite many Americans with their loved ones living 
abroad.
    The current annual limits and per-country caps on 
employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas have 
generated protracted waiting periods for both family 
reunification and employment needs. The backlog of family visas 
for the spouses and children of U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents and siblings of U.S. citizens now stands at 
4.3 million, meaning that 4.3 million family members whose visa 
applications have been approved are nevertheless prevented from 
entering the country because of the annual visa caps.\17\ 
Moreover, strict per-country limitations, which prevent 
countries from receiving more than 7 percent of the visas 
awarded in a given year, have created excessive backlogs, 
especially in countries with high demand. The State Department 
is currently processing visas for Filipino siblings of U.S. 
citizens who submitted their visa applications 24 years ago, in 
1989.\18\ Siblings of U.S. citizens from China and India who 
are currently being processed have been waiting for their 
family-sponsored visas for 12 years.\19\ Even in the general 
pool of non-high demand countries, the wait times for unmarried 
sons and daughters of U.S. citizens (the ``F1'' family 
preference category) currently stand at seven years.\20\ 
Because they are ``intending immigrants,'' these applicants are 
typically unable to obtain even tourist visas to visit their 
U.S. citizen and permanent resident relatives in the United 
States.\21\ In addition to the personal hardship inherent in 
prolonged family separation, these long wait times and forced 
separations provide incentives for illegal immigration, as 
spouses seek to reunite and parents seek to join their 
children. Senate bill 744 addresses this problem by 
prioritizing the reunification of the nuclear family in ways 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\U.S. Department of State, Annual Report of Immigrant Visa 
Applicants in the Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preferences 
Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012, 
available at http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf; see 
also Ruth Ellen Wasem, Cong. Research Serv., R42866, Permanent Legal 
Immigration to the United States: Policy Overview (2012).
    \18\U.S. Dep't of State, Visa Bulletin Number 56 Vol. IX, May 2013, 
available at http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/visabulletin/
visabulletin_may2013.pdf.
    \19\Id.
    \20\Id.
    \21\See INA Sec. 214(b), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1184. For more information, 
see Ruth Ellen Wasem, Cong. Research Serv., RL31381, U.S. Immigration 
Policy on Temporary Admissions at 10 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although employment-based immigrant visas have historically 
not faced the same backlogs as family-sponsored visas, the EB-3 
visa category for professional and other skilled workers faces 
considerable delays. Since 2005, the wait time for EB-3 visas 
has ranged from just under four years to 7\1/2\ years.\22\ 
High-demand countries including China, India, Mexico, and the 
Philippines currently have EB-3 visa backlogs ranging from 5\1/
2\ to 10 years.\23\ For an employer seeking to fill a job 
vacancy, a delay of that magnitude simply is not practical. 
Businesses around the country have called for this problem to 
be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\See U.S. Dep't of State, Visa Bulletin Archive, http://
travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html.
    \23\U.S. Dep't of State, Visa Bulletin Number 56 Vol. IX, May 2013, 
available at http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/visabulletin/
visabulletin_may2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Border Security and Enforcement

    Over the last two decades, the Executive branch and 
Congress have sought to bolster Federal investments in 
personnel, technology, infrastructure, and other resources to 
strengthen immigration enforcement at our borders. These 
investments have included increases in annual appropriations 
and additional authorizations across multiples agencies. As 
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently 
stated, the historic levels of expenditure ``have contributed 
to a border that is far stronger today than at any point in our 
nation's history, and border communities that are safe and 
prosperous.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744: Hearing Before the S. Comm. of the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of Secretary of Homeland 
Security Janet Napolitano).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a recent Migration Policy Institute report, 
the Federal Government spends nearly $18 billion on immigration 
enforcement every year, approximately 24 percent more than its 
collective spending on all other principal Federal criminal law 
enforcement agencies combined.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Doris Meissner, et al., Migration Policy Inst., Immigration 
Enforcement in the United States 9 (Jan. 2013), available at http://
www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While border enforcement involves a variety of activities 
and agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the 
primary agency tasked with securing our borders and 
facilitating safe, lawful trade.\26\ Since 2004, the number of 
Border Patrol agents has doubled from approximately 10,000 to 
more than 21,000 agents.\27\ Approximately 18,500 of these 
agents are deployed along the Southwest border, and more than 
2,200 work along the Northern Border.\28\ In contrast, there 
were fewer than 2,500 Border Patrol agents in 1980.\29\ The 
number of CBP officers has also increased from 17,279 customs 
and immigration inspectors in 2003, to more than 21,000 
officers and 2,400 agriculture specialists today.\30\ 
Additionally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
has deployed fully one quarter of its operational personnel to 
the Southwest border.\31\ These personnel are working to 
analyze intelligence, identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal 
organizations, and facilitate cooperation between U.S. and 
Mexican law enforcement authorities on investigations and 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\See id.
    \27\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744: Hearing Before the S. Comm. of the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of Secretary of Homeland 
Security Janet Napolitano).
    \28\Id.
    \29\Marc R. Rosenblum, Cong. Research Serv., R42138, Border 
Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry (2013).
    \30\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744: Hearing Before the S. Comm. of the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of Secretary of Homeland 
Security Janet Napolitano).
    \31\Press Release, White House, White House Drug Policy Director, 
Secretary Napolitano Highlight Progress in Disrupting Drug Trafficking 
along Southwest Border (Apr. 5, 2013), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/news-releases-remarks/kerlikowske-napolitano-
southwest-border-trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond personnel, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
has deployed technology assets, including mobile surveillance 
units, thermal imaging systems, and large- and small-scale non-
intrusive inspection equipment. It currently has 124 aircraft 
and six Unmanned Aircraft Systems operating along the Southwest 
border.\32\ The Department also has completed 651 miles of 
fencing out of nearly 652 miles mandated by Congress, including 
299 miles of vehicle barriers and 352 miles of pedestrian 
fence.\33\ The precise location and type of fencing used was 
developed by examining unique characteristics of the terrain 
and gathering feedback and intelligence from Border Patrol 
chiefs with responsibility over the nine Southern border 
sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Dep't of Homeland Security, Information Page: Secure and Manage 
Our Borders, http://ipv6.dhs.gov/xabout/gc_1240606351110.shtm (last 
visited June 7, 2013).
    \33\U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Border Fence 
Construction Progress, available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/
border_security/ti/ti_news/sbi_fence/ (last visited June 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reports from law enforcement confirm that the number of 
border apprehensions has declined in recent years, while 
seizures of illegal currency, drugs and weapons have increased. 
According to the latest DHS statistics, nationwide Border 
Patrol apprehensions of illegal entrants decreased from nearly 
724,000 in fiscal year 2008 to approximately 357,000 in fiscal 
year 2012, a 50 percent reduction, indicating that fewer people 
are attempting to cross the border illegally.\34\ During Fiscal 
Years 2009-2012, DHS seized 71 percent more currency, 39 
percent more drugs, and 189 percent more weapons along the 
Southwest border as compared to the prior four years.\35\ In 
Fiscal Years 2009-2011, ICE made more than 30,936 criminal 
arrests along the Southwest border, including 19,563 arrests of 
drug smugglers and 4,151 arrests of human smugglers.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief: Fiscal Year 
2014 (2013) at 71.
    \35\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744: Hearing Before the S. Comm. of the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of Secretary of Homeland 
Security Janet Napolitano).
    \36\Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. of the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2012) (testimony of 
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mayors in border communities and law enforcement officials 
have reported that their communities are safer than in prior 
years. FBI crime reports show that violent crimes in Southwest 
border States have dropped by an average of 40 percent in the 
last two decades.\37\ For the past three years, El Paso, Texas, 
has been named the city with a population of over 500,000 with 
the lowest crime rate.\38\ In 2012, San Diego had the second-
lowest crime rate.\39\ Crime rates in border cities like 
Nogales, Tucson, and San Diego have also decreased since 
2008.\40\ In that same time period, crime has decreased in each 
of the four Southwest border States.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Border Security Threats to the Homeland: DHS's Response to 
Innovative Tactics and Techniques: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on 
Homeland Security, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection Office Asst. Commissioner Donna Buccella).
    \38\Congressional Quarterly, City Crime Rankings 2013: Rankings by 
Population Categories (2012).
    \39\Id.
    \40\See e.g., Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-175, 
Southwest Border Security (2013) at 14; Alan Gomez et al, U.S. border 
cities prove havens from Mexico's drug violence, USA TODAY, July 18, 
2011; Tim Padgett, The `Dangerous' Border: Actually One of America's 
Safest Places, TIME, July 30, 2010.
    \41\GAO-13-175, Southwest Border Security at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of Homeland Security also has put in place 
several security-related measures that have resulted in more 
effective screening of those seeking to enter the country and 
reduced the number of individuals who overstay their visas. 
Most notably, the U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator 
Technology (US-VISIT) program, established in 2003, collects 
biometric information (fingerprints and photographs) for 
noncitizens admitted to the country.\42\ Since 2009, the 
program has been in place in almost all land, sea, and air 
ports of entry. The collected biometric information is checked 
against Federal criminal databases before individuals are 
allowed into the United States. This information is also 
checked against visa records to determine whether individuals 
may have overstayed their visas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Lisa M. Seghetti & Stephen R. Vina, Cong. Research Serv., 
RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program 
(US-VISIT) (2004) at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to the technological, infrastructure, and cost 
challenges relating to a biometric exit system, DHS has instead 
established a biographic exit system, which it has worked to 
improve in various ways.\43\ For example, DHS has partnered 
with the government of Canada to complete a land entry/exit 
pilot program by using entry data from one country as exit data 
from the other.\44\ This system will become operational in June 
2013, with continued developments in 2014.\45\ Although visa 
overstays remain a challenge, a recent study found that in the 
decade following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
visa overstays dropped by 78 percent in the 15 States that had 
the most overstays in 2000.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\See U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-10-860, Homeland 
Security: US-VISIT Pilot Evaluations Offer Limited Understanding of Air 
Exit Options (2010).
    \44\See Press Release, Dep't of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, The U.S. and Canada Announce Pilot to Enhance Border 
Security at Land Ports of Entry (Sept. 28, 2012), available at http://
www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/national/09282012.xml.
    \45\Id.
    \46\Robert Warren & John Robert Warren, Unauthorized Immigration to 
the United States: Annual Estimates and Components of Change, by State, 
1990 to 2010, Int'l Migration Rev. 1-34 (spring 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Border Modernization, Economic Opportunity and 
Immigration Modernization Act builds on these successes in a 
number of ways, by providing additional personnel and resources 
to continue the deployment of proven, effective border security 
technology and other measures that are tailored to meet the 
distinct terrain in the highest trafficked areas of the 
Southwest border; enhancing biographic exit requirements; and 
creating mechanisms that reduce the incentives for illegal 
migration.

4. Employment Verification

    E-Verify is an Internet-based program that allows employers 
to electronically verify newly hired workers' employment 
eligibility by accessing databases maintained by DHS and Social 
Security Administration. Until 2007, E-Verify was known as the 
Basic Pilot Program. This program was authorized as a pilot in 
five States as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).\47\ The program 
began operating in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and 
Texas in November 1997, and was expanded to Nebraska in 
1999.\48\ The authorizing statute specifically limited the 
program to new hires and limited the use of information in the 
agency databases to employment verification.\49\ The program 
was established as a voluntary program. In September 2009, 
however, a final rule requiring certain Federal contractors and 
subcontractors to use E-Verify went into effect.\50\ A handful 
of States have also passed laws requiring employers to use the 
program for new hires, but these rules are not consistent 
across States.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1324a).
    \48\See Expansion of the Basic Pilot Program to the State of 
Nebraska, 64 Fed. Reg. 13606-02 (Mar. 19, 1999).
    \49\8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324a(d)(2)(C).
    \50\73 Fed. Reg. 67651 (Nov. 14, 2008) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. 
pt. 2, 22, 5).
    \51\See Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, Immigration Policy 
Project, State Actions Regarding E-Verify (2012) available at http://
www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/StateActions_Everify.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of Homeland Security has made a number of 
improvements since the E-Verify program was first implemented, 
including photo matching of certain immigration documents and 
passports, allowing individuals to check their employment 
eligibility and correct any errors, and establishing an 
employee hotline.\52\ As of May 18, 2013, 452,252 employers 
were registered for E-Verify, representing more than 1.3 
million hiring sites.\53\ Thus far in 2013, over 14.5 million 
queries have been run through the system.\54\ Senate bill 744 
mandates the nationwide use of this program by all employers, 
to significantly curtail the number of unauthorized workers 
working in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\73 Fed. Reg. 67651 (Nov. 14, 2008).
    \53\See Press Release, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
E-Verify Receives High Ratings in Customer Survey (Feb. 21, 2013), 
available at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/
menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/
?vgnextoid=1671ed7ebecfc310VgnVCM100000082 
ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2dd6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD.
    \54\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform

    Comprehensive immigration reform will help the economy and 
U.S. workers through a number of channels. Because immigrants 
are disproportionately likely to start small businesses and to 
patent new innovations, S. 744 will increase entrepreneurship, 
job creation, innovation, and investment. In 2011, immigrants 
started 28 percent of all new businesses in this country, 
despite making up just 13 percent of the population.\55\ 
Likewise, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by 
first or second generation immigrants.\56\ Immigrants are also 
disproportionately likely to start a business that employs at 
least 10 workers. According to a study by the Fiscal Policy 
Institute, small businesses owned by immigrants employed 4.7 
million people in 2007.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\P'ship for a New Am. Econ., Open for Business: How Immigrants 
are Driving Small Business Creation in the United States (August 2012), 
available at http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/
openforbusiness.pdf.
    \56\Id.
    \57\David Dyssegaard Kallick, Fiscal Policy Institute, Immigrant 
Small Business Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy 
(June 2012), available at http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/immigrant-small-
business-owners-FPI-20120614.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immigrants' contributions in the high-tech sector are 
especially striking, with one study finding that immigrants 
started 25 percent of all engineering and technology companies 
founded in the United States between 1995 and 2005.\58\ At 
higher skill levels, more than 40 percent of Ph.D.s in science 
and 55 percent of Ph.D.s in engineering in the United States 
are awarded to foreign-born students.\59\ Research shows that 
immigrants obtain patents at two to three times the rate of 
U.S.-born citizens, and that increases in high skilled 
immigration have spillover effects, increasing the number of 
patent applications filed by non-immigrant workers.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Vivek Wadhwa, et al., America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: 
Part I, Duke Science, Tech. & Innovation Paper No. 23 (2007), available 
at http://
people.ischool.berkeley.edu/Eanno/Papers/
Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf.
    \59\Lori Thurgood et al., National Science Foundation, U.S. 
Doctorates in the 20th Century (2006) at 18, available at http://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/pdf/nsf06319.pdf.
    \60\Marjolaine Gauthier-Louiselle & Jennifer Hunt, How Much Does 
Immigration Boost Innovation?, 2 Am. Econ. J.: Macroecon. 2 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senate bill 744 will allow immigrants to fill critical job 
needs and contribute to increased productivity that will 
benefit the U.S. workforce as a whole. Moreover, recent 
research finds that immigrants generally complement rather than 
substitute for U.S. workers.\61\ In particular, rather than 
reducing U.S. workers' wages, increases in the number of new 
immigrants lead U.S. workers to specialize in tasks requiring 
stronger English language and other skills, raising their 
productivity and earnings. One recent study found that over the 
period from 1990 to 2006, immigration increased average wages 
for native workers by 0.6 percent and had essentially no effect 
or a positive effect on the wages of even the least-educated 
U.S.-born workers.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Giovanni Peri & Chad Sparber, Task Specialization, Immigration, 
and Wages, 1 Am. Econ. J. Applied Econ. 3 (2009).
    \62\Gianmarko I.P. Ottaviano & Giovanni Peri, Rethinking the 
Effects of Immigration on Wages,1 J. of the Eur. Econ. Ass'n (2012); 
Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from 
U.S. States, 94 Rev. of Econ. & Stat. 1 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, S. 744 will further strengthen the U.S. economy by 
facilitating tourism and promoting more efficient trade with 
both Mexico and Canada. Canada and Mexico are our first and 
third trading partners in the world, respectively, together 
accounting for nearly one-third of U.S. exports in 2012 and 
more than $3 billion in two-way trade per day in 2012.\63\ 
Travel and tourism represent the largest service-export 
industry in the United States, setting a record $168.1 billion 
in exports in 2012 and supporting nearly eight million jobs in 
2012.\64\ The economic impact and importance of travel and 
tourism will continue to grow in the coming years as emerging 
economies around the world experience an increase in their 
vacationing middle classes. China, Brazil, and India alone 
represent approximately 40 percent of the world's 
population,\65\ and by 2017 the number of travelers from those 
countries is expected to increase by 259 percent, 83 percent, 
and 47 percent respectively.\66\ Provisions in S. 744 help 
improve and streamline the tourist visa process to boost this 
key sector of our economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\U.S. Census Bureau, Top Trading Partners--Total Trade, Exports, 
Imports: Year-to-Date December 2012, http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1212yr.html.
    \64\U.S. Dep't Commerce, Office of Travel & Tourism Industries, 
U.S. Travel and Tourism Exports, Imports, and the Balance of Trade 2012 
(May 23, 2013) at 4, available at http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/
outreachpages/download_data_table/
2012_International_Visitor_Spending.pdf.
    \65\Article, BRICS in Search of a Foundation, The Economist, Apr. 
16, 2011.
    \66\Press Release, U.S. Dep't Commerce, Office of Travel & Tourism 
Industries, U.S. Commerce Dep't Forecasts Continued Strong Growth for 
International Travel to the United States 2012-2017, Dec. 7, 2012, 
available at http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/tinews/archive/tinews2012/
20121206_USDOC_Forecasts_Strong_Growth_International_Travel_US.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            B. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

1. History of Immigration Reform

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was first 
codified in 1952, and initiated the modern era of immigration 
law.\67\ Previously, a number of different statutes governed 
immigration law and included racial exclusions,\68\ national 
origin quotas,\69\ and literacy requirements.\70\ The 1952 Act 
abolished racial restrictions that dated back to the 1790s, 
which limited naturalization to immigrants who were ``free 
white persons'' of ``good moral character.''\71\ Since 1952, 
Congress has amended the INA several times, including by the 
Immigration Amendments of 1965, the Refugee Act of 1980, the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the 
Immigration Act of 1990, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163.
    \68\Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Pub. L. No. 71, 22 Stat. 58 
(repealed).
    \69\67. Cong. Ch. 8, 42 Stat. 5 (1921); 68 Cong. Ch. 185, 43 Stat. 
153 (1924).
    \70\64 Cong. Ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (1917).
    \71\The Naturalization Act, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (1790).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
    Although IRCA is often associated with President Ronald 
Reagan's support for the legalization of an estimated three 
million undocumented individuals, it had two main pillars: 
legalization, and employer sanctions for hiring immigrants 
without work authorization.\72\ It was the first time U.S. law 
expressly prohibited the knowing employment of undocumented 
immigrants. The law mandated specific procedures for employers 
to verify work eligibility, including inspection of specified 
documents evidencing identity and work authorization, employer 
attestations, and retention of those attestations for 
prescribed periods of time.\73\ Violations were made punishable 
by civil fines, and criminal sentences for a pattern or 
practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 
99-603, 100 Stat. 3359.
    \73\See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(b).
    \74\Id. at Sec. Sec. 1324a(e)(f), 1324b(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed above, IRCA provided that individuals who had 
been continuously unlawfully present in the United States since 
January 1, 1982, and who met other requirements could apply for 
temporary permanent resident status.\75\ These immigrants could 
become lawful permanent residents if they learned English, or 
satisfactorily pursued a course of English study, applied 
within a prescribed time period, and met certain other 
requirements.\76\ The bill also established smaller 
legalization programs for certain agricultural workers\77\ and 
certain Haitian and Cuban nationals.\78\ In total, almost three 
million undocumented immigrants obtained legalization under 
IRCA.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Id. at Sec. 1255(a).
    \76\Id. at Sec. 1255(b).
    \77\Id. at Sec. 1160.
    \78\Id. at Sec. 1255(a).
    \79\U.S. Dep't of Justice, 1994 Statistical Yearbook of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service 32 (1994) available at http://
ia600306.us.archive.org/21/items/statisticalyearb1994unit/
statisticalyearb1994unit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, both pillars of IRCA had significant gaps. 
The January 1, 1982, cutoff date for legalization left almost 
five years' worth of arrivals ineligible for legalization. As a 
result of vague statutory language and restrictive 
interpretations by the former Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, extensive litigation arose that prolonged the 
legalization program for more than 20 years. These gaps 
inevitably kept large portions of the undocumented population 
underground. The IRCA legalization program also made no 
provision for the immediate families of legalized 
immigrants,\80\ creating a strong incentive for them to enter 
or remain in the country illegally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\As noted above, the former INS established a ``Family 
Fairness'' program to which Congress added statutory relief for spouses 
and children of legalized aliens under the Immigration Act of 1990, but 
that relief was extremely limited. See Pub. L. No. 101-649, Sec. 301, 
104 Stat. 4978 (1990) (codified under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1255a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the employer sanctions resulted in 
significant discrimination. Despite prohibitions on national 
origin employment discrimination, a congressionally-mandated 
study concluded that employer sanctions had caused ``a serious 
pattern of discrimination,'' finding that some 891,000 
employers--19 per cent of those surveyed nationwide--had 
engaged in one or more discriminatory practices, including not 
hiring individuals whose foreign appearance or accent led the 
employer to suspect might be an undocumented worker.\81\ 
Meaningful penalties for employer violators, adequate resources 
for enforcing the employer sanctions laws, and the political 
will to prioritize such enforcement were also lacking in 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-90-62, Immigration Reform: 
Employer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination 3-8 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1986 legislation also failed to ensure that immigration 
enforcement would not undermine applicable labor laws. The 
result was that employers of workers who complained about 
illegal working conditions often either retaliated or 
threatened to retaliate against their workers based on the 
workers' immigration status. This created a condition where 
unscrupulous employers could seek out undocumented workers for 
financial gain with very little risk. All of these factors 
contributed to the ineffectiveness of employer sanctions. 
Lastly, IRCA made no significant provision for modernizing the 
criteria for future legal immigration for either family 
reunification or labor needs, thereby failing to address two 
root causes of illegal immigration. Informed by these lessons 
from history, S. 744 seeks to address these and other core 
issues that undermined IRCA's effectiveness.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\As discussed below, S.744 addresses many of the deficiencies 
that undermined IRCA's effectiveness. The bill permits individuals to 
apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status if they were present 
in the country as of December 31, 2011, much closer to the expected 
date of enactment than was the case with IRCA. The bill makes express, 
if limited, provision for spouses and children of RPI applicants to 
apply for legal status. The bill significantly toughens the penalties 
for hiring unauthorized aliens, implements nation-wide E-Verify, and 
creates new penalties for employers who violate both immigration and 
labor laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The Immigration Act of 1990
    The Immigration Act of 1990\83\ was more limited in scope 
than IRCA. It made changes to the structure of legal 
immigration--for example, by slightly increasing the worldwide 
caps on family immigration\84\ and substantially increasing the 
caps for skilled and professional employment-based 
immigration\85\--but it did not address the increasing number 
of undocumented immigrants. The Act also created new 
immigration programs, including ``diversity visas'' for 
immigrants from countries and regions that have sent relatively 
few immigrants to the United States in recent years,\86\ and 
``temporary protected status'' for persons who cannot safely 
return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or 
certain other dangers.\87\ Importantly, the 1990 Act imposed 
the first-ever numerical limits on the admission of 
nonimmigrants: 65,000 per year (since increased to 85,000) for 
H-1B nonimmigrants, and 66,000 per year for H-2B nonimmigrants, 
exclusive of their spouses and children accompanying or 
following to join.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978.
    \84\Under the formula introduced in 1990, the worldwide cap on 
family preference immigration went from 216,000 to a minimum of 
226,000. Immediate relatives (the spouses and children of U.S. 
citizens, and the parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were 
exempt from numerical limits, but the number of such immediate 
relatives is subtracted from the following year's worldwide ceiling on 
family-sponsored immigrants.
    \85\8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1255(d), 1259.
    \86\Id. at Sec. 1259.
    \87\Id. at Sec. 1254(a)
    \88\Id. at 1101(a)(15)(H), 1184(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although these changes were important, they proved 
insufficient to address the many gaps in IRCA. The 1990 Act 
added very few visas to the family preference visa categories, 
with the result that many immigrant families continued to be 
separated from their loved ones for prolonged periods of time. 
Additionally, the flat numerical caps attached to temporary 
worker programs proved to have limitations. During the economic 
boom of the late 1990s, employer demand, particularly in the 
information technology sector, often could not be accommodated 
by the numeric caps established by the 1990 Act.\89\ Corrective 
legislation to alter the H-1B program limits was enacted in 
1998 and again in 2000,\90\ but subsequent fluctuations in the 
supply and demand of qualified U.S. workers made it difficult 
to strike a consistent balance between furnishing U.S. industry 
with a high-skilled labor force to meet identified labor 
shortages, and protecting the jobs and wages of American 
workers. Although the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program was 
designed to meet low-skilled seasonal needs for temporary 
labor,\91\ there have been ongoing difficulties ensuring that 
employers use the program instead of resorting to undocumented 
workers, and that this workforce--both H-2B nonimmigrant 
workers and U.S. co-workers--have adequate labor protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Susan Martin & B. Lindsay Lowell, Competing for Skills: U.S. 
Immigration Policy since 1990, 11 L. & Bus. Rev. Am. 387, 398-400 
(2005).
    \90\Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998); American 
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1184(g).
    \91\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
                    of 1996 (IIRIRA)
    In 1996, 10 years after IRCA was enacted, Congress enacted 
three major statutes that had a significant impact on 
immigration. The first, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),\92\ focused largely on counter-
terrorism efforts, but also added a wide range of immigration 
restrictions and enforcement measures. The second, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
(PRWORA),\93\ dramatically restricted access to welfare 
benefits for non-U.S. citizens, including lawful permanent 
residents. The third, and most sweeping, was the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(IIRIRA).\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
    \93\Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996).
    \94\Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IIRIRA legislation focused almost exclusively on border 
security and strengthening interior enforcement against 
undocumented immigrants. Resources were increased dramatically 
for personnel, physical barriers, and technology at the 
border.\95\ Additional funding was authorized for more Federal 
prosecutors, detention facilities, and the physical removal of 
undocumented immigrants ordered removed.\96\ As noted above, 
the law also established a pilot program for employer 
electronic verification of workers' identities and work 
authorizations, the precursor of E-Verify.\97\ There were 
substantially increased civil and criminal penalties for alien-
smuggling, document and other fraud, and other miscellaneous 
immigration-related offenses.\98\ The law created the 3-year 
and 10-year bars to reentry for immigrants who were previously 
unlawfully present in the United States. It expanded the crime-
related and terrorism-related removal grounds, restricted the 
availability of discretionary remedies, and narrowed the 
procedural rights previously applicable in removal 
proceedings.\99\ The Act broadened, and in some circumstances 
mandated, the use of preventive detention in connection with 
removal proceedings.\100\ With limited exceptions, IIRIRA also 
barred applications for asylum filed more than one year after 
arrival.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
[IIRIRA], Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) at 
Sec. Sec. 101-12.
    \96\Id. at Sec. Sec. 204, 131-34, 385, 386.
    \97\Id. at Sec. Sec. 401-05.
    \98\Id. at Sec. Sec. 202, 203, 211-20, 321-34.
    \99\Id. at Sec. Sec. 301-58.
    \100\Id. at Sec. 305.
    \101\Id. at Sec. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By focusing narrowly on enforcement and border security, 
IIRIRA continued to leave the significant gaps in IRCA 
unaddressed. It did not respond to the growing undocumented 
population, and failed to address future flows of either 
permanent or temporary legal immigration.
            Precursors to Comprehensive Immigration Reform
    In 1997, Congress began to take initial steps to address 
the limitations of IRCA and IIRIRA and the growing population 
of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Rather than 
drafting a broad-based response to cover nationals from all 
countries, however, the efforts were focused on a series of 
small bills that targeted specific countries.
    The first bill was the Nicaraguan and Central American 
Relief Act (NACARA),\102\ which provided adjustment to lawful 
permanent residence status for certain Nicaraguans and Cubans 
who arrived in the United States by December 1, 1995. The 
legislation also offered a more difficult route to permanent 
residence, through cancellation of removal, to certain persons 
from El Salvador, Guatemala, and the former Soviet bloc 
countries who arrived in the United States before 1991.\103\ A 
year later, following public outcry that Haitians had been 
omitted from NACARA, Congress enacted the Haitian Refugee 
Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA),\104\ which provided permanent 
residence status to certain Haitian nationals who had arrived 
in the United States before December 31, 1995. While meaningful 
for those they affected, these bills addressed only a tiny 
fraction of the millions of people living in the shadows in the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 
(NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-201 
(1997), amended by Pub. L. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997).
    \103\Id. at Sec. 202.
    \104\Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA), Pub L. 
No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In September 2001, efforts at a more comprehensive approach 
were underway as part of bilateral discussions between 
President George W. Bush and President Vicente Fox of 
Mexico.\105\ Those talks focused on a new temporary worker 
program, stronger border enforcement measures, and a solution 
for the undocumented population. On September 7, 2001, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing discussing the need 
for comprehensive immigration legislation.\106\ As the subtitle 
of the hearing--``a historic opportunity''--suggested, there 
was a chance to enact long-awaited reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Press Release, White House, Remarks by President George W. 
Bush and President Vicente Fox of Mexico in Joint Press Conference 
(Feb. 16, 2011), available at http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010216-3.html.
    \106\See U.S.-Mexico Migration Discussions: A Historic Opportunity, 
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (Sep. 7, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, put efforts at 
comprehensive immigration reform on hold. Instead, Congress 
again turned to further strengthening border security and 
interior enforcement.
            Post-9/11 Legislation
    The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001\107\ built on previous 
restrictions and introduced a series of new measures that 
broadened terrorism-related grounds for removal, narrowed the 
possibilities for discretionary relief, reinforced border 
security, expanded detention, and streamlined the procedures 
for removing alien terrorists. Five years later, the REAL ID 
Act of 2005\108\ again expanded grounds of inadmissibility, 
further restricted judicial review in immigration proceedings, 
prohibited the issuance of driver's licenses to undocumented 
individuals, and mandated various security procedures relating 
to applications for drivers' licenses. The Secure Fence Act of 
2006\109\ bolstered existing border security measures by 
mandating 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border. Other 
measures were adopted to provide additional resources for 
immigration enforcement.\110\ Overall, in the years following 
the attacks of September 11, 2001, Federal laws enacted in the 
immigration realm have focused almost entirely on interior 
enforcement and border security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
    \108\Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat 231 (2005).
    \109\Pub. L. No. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638 (2006).
    \110\See, e.g., Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
Secs. 5101-5204, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004) (containing 
several border security and immigration enforcement provisions, 
including authorization of an increase of 10,000 Border Patrol agents 
and 4,000 ICE agents); Security and Accountability For Every Port Act 
of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), P.L. 109-347 (2006); Jamie Zapata Border 
Enforcement Security Task Force Act, Pub. L No. 112-205, 126 Stat. 1487 
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Recent Efforts at Comprehensive Immigration Reform
    Recent efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform 
failed in 2006 and 2007. Following many years and repeated 
legislative work on border security and interior enforcement, 
the central issue in these efforts was the proposed 
legalization of the millions of undocumented immigrants 
currently living in the United States. In 2006, the Senate 
passed S. 2611, the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
Act, by a vote of 62-36. The House of Representatives failed to 
pass a reconcilable companion bill, and the measure did not 
become law. In 2007, the Senate considered S. 1348, the Secure 
Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act, 
without Committee consideration. Several weeks of floor debates 
ensued, with 30 amendments considered. Cloture, however, failed 
by a vote of 34-61. The amended bill was re-introduced as S. 
1639 and a compromise was reached to bring the bill back to the 
floor. Cloture on the motion to proceed was invoked for the 
legislation, after which the Senate debated the bill for three 
days. Following debate, the Senate did not invoke cloture on 
the bill by a vote of 46-53.
            Recent Border Security Legislation
    In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, 
Congress continued to take other substantial steps to bolster 
immigration enforcement and address national security concerns 
relating to immigration. In 2010, Congress passed an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill for border security.\111\ The 
legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senator Schumer as 
S. 3721, and in the House by Representative David Price as H.R. 
6080, and was signed into law on August 13, 2010. It allocated 
more than $600 million in supplemental appropriations for 
Southwest border security resources and operations, allowing 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire more than 1,000 new 
agents and otherwise supplement its enforcement efforts. The 
legislation also provided for a strike force to be deployed in 
areas of the Southwest border, as well as for unmanned aerial 
vehicles to provide technological support to patrol officers. 
The legislation provided resources for the construction of 
operating bases closer to the border and the improvement of 
interagency communications, and it increased the capacity of 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies to 
conduct investigations of drug runners, money launderers, and 
human traffickers along the border. These provisions have 
contributed to the strengthening of border enforcement efforts 
in recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\Pub. L. No. 111-230 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. State and Local Immigration Measures

    Over the last two decades, State and local governments have 
increasingly proposed and enacted legislation to address 
immigration-related issues, with varying degrees of acceptance 
by the courts that have evaluated such legislation in light of 
the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.\112\ The proliferation of 
legislation reflects dissatisfaction with the Federal 
Government's implementation of immigration policy. Moreover, it 
has created a patchwork of laws and protracted litigation that 
creates uncertainty for immigrants, employers, workers, and law 
enforcement alike. In 2007, 50 State legislatures enacted 167 
immigration bills into law; in 2011, the number of proposed 
State or local bills introduced on immigration matters reached 
1,607, with 197 enacted into law.\113\ The largest categories 
were laws punishing employers for hiring unauthorized 
immigrants and laws that enlisted State and local law 
enforcement agencies to help police illegal immigration.\114\ 
These State and local efforts in recent years to enact laws 
that affect immigration policy provide further evidence of the 
need for comprehensive reform at the Federal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\See Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, Immigration Policy 
Report, 2011 Immigration Laws and Resolutions in the States (2011) 
available at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/
2011ImmFinalReportDec.pdf.
    \113\Laureen Laglagaron et al., Migration Policy Institute, 
Regulating Immigration at the State Level (2008), available at http://
www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/2007methodology.pdf.
    \114\Id.; see also Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, 
Immigration Policy Project, State Actions Regarding e-verify (2012) 
available at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/immig/
StateActions_Everify.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1994, California voters, amidst claims that millions of 
undocumented immigrants were contributing to rising crime rates 
and public welfare costs, passed Proposition 187, a broad 
measure denying undocumented immigrants many State-funded 
services.\115\ The measure also required law enforcement, 
social services, health care workers, and public education 
personnel to verify the immigration status of those with whom 
they come in contact and report those with unlawful status to 
State and Federal officials.\116\ Despite its passage, several 
city officials and institutions vowed not to enforce the law, 
citing undesirable consequences such as denying shelter to 
abandoned children and healthcare to children in need.\117\ 
Civil rights groups immediately sued to enjoin the law's 
enforcement, and a Federal district judge held its provisions 
unconstitutional to the extent they infringed upon the Federal 
Government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F.Supp. 
755,763(C.D.Cal. 1995) (``LULAC I'').
    \116\Id.
    \117\See Op-Ed., Why Proposition 187 Won't Work, N.Y. Times, Nov. 
20, 1994.
    \118\See LULAC I, 908 F.Supp. at 769-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since then, several other jurisdictions have also attempted 
to discourage undocumented immigrants from living or working 
within their boundaries. In 2006, the city of Hazleton, 
Pennsylvania enacted ordinances that required employers to 
verify employee work eligibility and sanctioned landlords who 
rented accommodations to undocumented immigrants.\119\ Civil 
rights and Hispanic business organizations challenged the law, 
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that 
its provisions were preempted by Federal law.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\Tenant Registration Ordinance, Hazleton, PA., Ordinance 2006-
13 (Aug. 15, 2006); Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, Hazleton, 
PA., Ordinance 2006-18 (Sept. 21, 2006).
    \120\See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010), 
vacated for further consideration by Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 131 
S.Ct. 2958 (June 6, 2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The city of Farmers Branch, Texas, is another municipality 
whose restrictive immigration ordinances have sparked major 
litigation. Starting in 2006, the city passed a series of 
ordinances that required immigration status checks for renters, 
including a law that would have prohibited occupants--on pain 
of criminal penalties--from renting housing without a 
declaration of citizenship or other lawful status.\121\ A local 
landlord, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, 
challenged the rental ordinance, arguing that Federal policy 
preempts housing regulations that serve only to restrict 
immigration.\122\ The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 
finding that these regulations intruded on the Federal domain 
of immigration and foreign policy.\123\ The Fifth Circuit 
recently re-heard the case en banc.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 
Tex., 675 F.3d 802, 805 reh'g en banc granted, 688 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 
2012).
    \122\See Villas at Parkside Partners, 675 F.3d at 805.
    \123\Id.
    \124\Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, Tex., 
688 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although most of these State and local efforts to regulate 
immigration have been rejected by the courts, they reflect the 
frustration that many feel about our broken immigration system. 
More needs to be done to combat illegal immigration, but the 
responsibility for solving this national problem cannot rest 
with individual States and localities.
    That conclusion has been underscored by recent Supreme 
Court cases addressing this issue. Over the last several years 
Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (among other 
jurisdictions) have attempted to enact their own immigration 
laws. Arizona's S.B. 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and 
Safe Neighborhoods Act, included a comprehensive set of 
immigration provisions and criminal sanctions for immigration 
violations.\125\ It reflected the most expansive effort by a 
single State to discourage undocumented immigrants from moving 
to or living in that State. Among its key provisions were 
Section 3, making failure to meet Federal immigrant-
registration requirements a State misdemeanor; Section 5, 
making it a misdemeanor for undocumented immigrants to work in 
Arizona; Section 6, allowing State and local law enforcement to 
arrest persons suspected of being in the United States 
unlawfully; and Section 2(B), requiring an immigration status 
check after all arrests.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\Randal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on 
Immigration, N.Y. Times (April 23, 2010) at A1.
    \126\See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2501-08 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama's H.B. 56 largely mirrored Arizona's S.B. 1070, but 
added provisions to prevent undocumented immigrants from 
obtaining housing and to identify those enrolled in its public 
school system. After the bill's passage, education officials in 
Alabama reported that immigrant families kept children at home 
or withdrew them from school altogether,\127\ and foreign 
travelers reported being detained while on business in the 
State.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\See Associated Press, Alabama: May Immigrants Pull Children 
From Schools, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30,2011.
    \128\Gustavo Valdes & Catherine E. Shoichet, Auto Exec's Arrest a 
New Flashpoint in Alabama's Immigration Debate, CNN, Nov. 22, 2011 
(reporting that local police detained a German Mercedes Benz executive 
because he was driving a rental car and did not have his driver's 
license in hand); Arian Campo-Flores & Miriam Jordan, Alabama 
Immigration Law Ensnares Auto Workers, Wall St. J., Dec. 1, 2011 
(reporting that local police issued a citation to a Japanese Honda 
employee even though he had a valid passport and international driver's 
license).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States Department of Justice and civil rights 
groups challenged Arizona's law and other similar measures, 
arguing that Federal immigration policy preempted State efforts 
to regulate immigration.\129\ Many immigrant, Latino, and civil 
liberties advocates also opposed the laws, arguing that the 
provisions allowing arrest on suspicion of immigration 
violations would lead to racial profiling.\130\ In 2012, the 
Supreme Court ruled that Sections 3, 5, and 6 of S.B. 1070 were 
preempted by Federal immigration policy, while noting that it 
was premature to enjoin the Section 2(B) provisions requiring 
immigration status checks for all arrests.\131\ The Court held 
that under the Supremacy Clause, Congress had occupied the 
field of immigration regulation, and State statutes conflicting 
with the Federal framework for immigration enforcement were 
preempted.\132\ In April 2013, the Supreme Court declined to 
hear an appeal from a Federal circuit court decision striking 
down similar provisions in Alabama's H.B. 56.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\Randal C. Archibold & Mark Landler, Justice Dept. Will Fight 
Arizona on Immigration, N.Y. Times, June 18, 2010, at A8.
    \130\Randal C. Archibold & Ana Facio Contreras, First Legal 
Challenges to New Arizona Law, N.Y. Times, Apr. 29, 2010, at A15.
    \131\Arizona 132 S. Ct. at 2493 (2012).
    \132\Id. at 2498.
    \133\United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012), 
cert. denied April 29, 2013 (No. 12-884).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In analyzing S.B. 1070, the Supreme Court discussed the 
dangers inherent in a State-by-State approach to immigration 
enforcement, noting that immigration policy can affect trade, 
investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire 
country.\134\ The perceived mistreatment of immigrants in the 
United States, even as a result of the actions of a single 
State or locality, can lead to reciprocal harmful treatment of 
American citizens abroad.\135\ A critical tenet of our foreign 
policy is that countries concerned about the status, safety, 
and security of their citizens must be able to confer and 
communicate with the United States, not 50 separate States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2498.
    \135\Id. at 2498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Broad Public Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

    There is widespread agreement that our current immigration 
system is in disrepair and that a comprehensive solution is 
needed to address the full scope of the problem. At the outset 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 744, 
Republican and Democratic Senators alike acknowledged the need 
for congressional action. Senator Lee stated, ``We all agree 
that our immigration system is broken and it needs to be 
fixed.'' Senator Coons noted, ``As many have already 
recognized, where we are today is totally unacceptable.'' 
Senator Cruz stated, ``I appreciate that we are now having this 
process to address a broken immigration system. Virtually 
everyone agrees the immigration system we now have it broken.'' 
Senator Blumenthal observed, ``The world is watching, because 
we are the greatest nation in the history of the world . . . 
Our system of immigration is broken and unworthy of the 
greatest nation in the history of the world.''
    Public sentiment in recent years has echoed the call for 
action on comprehensive immigration reform. In an April 2013 
poll conducted by Gallup, 69 percent of Americans indicated 
that they would support a law ``that would allow illegal 
immigrants living in the United States the chance to become 
permanent legal residents if they meet certain 
requirements.''\136\ Similarly, 65 percent of Americans 
indicated that they would support a law ``that would allow 
illegal immigrants living in the United States the chance to 
become U.S. citizens if they meet certain conditions.''\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\Elizabeth Mendes, Americans Favor Giving Illegal Immigrants a 
Chance to Stay, Gallup: Politics, Apr. 12, 2013.
    \137\Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Findings of support for immigration reform generally, and 
specifically for the comprehensive immigration bill currently 
under consideration, have been widely reported. According to a 
national survey conducted by the Winston Group in April 2013, 
74 percent of voters surveyed believe the current immigration 
system is working ``poorly,'' with 41 percent saying it works 
``very poorly.''\138\ Some 68 percent of those surveyed stated 
that our immigration system needs ``a lot of changes'' or ``a 
complete overhaul.'' Moreover, 75 percent of those surveyed 
stated that they ``strongly support'' or ``somewhat support'' 
the requirement that ``illegal immigrants in the [United 
States] register for legal status, pay fines, learn English, 
pay taxes, and wait in the back of the line to apply for 
citizenship, until everyone who is currently in line to legally 
enter the U.S. gets in.'' Similar recent surveys have shown 
broad majorities supporting a path to citizenship when coupled 
with paying back taxes and passing background checks.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\The Winston Group, Attitudes on Immigration Reform: an 
analysis of survey research (Apr. 25, 2013).
    \139\See, e.g., Post-ABC Poll: Immigration Reform and Gun Control, 
Wash. Post, May 23, 2013; N.Y. Times-CBS Poll, N.Y. Times, Apr. 29, 
2013; Fox News Poll: Majority Says Legal Immigration Should Be Reduced, 
Fox News, Apr. 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These findings are consistent with what this Nation's 
leaders have been urging. Businesses, community and faith 
leaders, and individuals from across the political spectrum 
have called for Congress to fix the broken immigration system. 
The Chamber of Commerce and companies from a variety of sectors 
have described the flaws in the existing immigration system 
that prevent American businesses from recruiting world-class 
talent, and urged those issues to be addressed through 
comprehensive immigration reform.\140\ The call for reform has 
been joined by think tanks such as Americans for Tax 
Reform,\141\ the CATO Institute,\142\ the Brookings 
Institution,\143\ the American Immigration Council,\144\ and a 
group of 111 prominent conservative economists.\145\ Support 
for immigration reform has been voiced by leaders from both 
political parties, including President Bill Clinton, President 
George W. Bush, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and 
former Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and 
Hillary Clinton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\Press Release, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber 
Expresses Support for Introduction of Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
(Apr. 17, 2013), available at http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/
2013/april/us-chamber-expresses-support-introduction-comprehensive-
immigration-reform.
    \141\Press Release, Americans For Tax Reform, Americans for Tax 
Reform Supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Apr. 6, 2013, 
available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-for-
tax-reform-supports-comprehensive-immigration-reform-55996837.html.
    \142\See Stuart Anderson, Cato Instit., Trade Briefing Paper No. 
32, Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform 1-10 
(2011), available at http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-briefing-
paper/answering-critics-comprehensive-immigration-reform.
    \143\See Darrell M. West, The Path to a New Immigration Reform, 
Brookings Instit., July 21, 2009, available at http://
www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/07/21-immigration-reform-west.
    \144\Press Release, Am. Immigration Council, Senate Judiciary 
Committee Votes to Pass Immigration Bill on to Full Senate, May 21, 
2013, available at http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news-
media/press-releases.
    \145\Lisa Mascaro, Conservative economists endorse immigration 
reform bill, L.A. Times, May 23, 2013, available at http://
articles.latimes.com/2013/may/23/nation/la-na-pn-immigration-letter-
20130522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The call for comprehensive immigration reform has also been 
echoed by law enforcement. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 
Napolitano testified before the Judiciary Committee: ``Our 
immigration system is out of date and badly in need of reform. 
Our law enforcement, our economy, our workforce, and our 
communities are suffering and frustrated by the current 
patchwork of laws and requirements that make up this 
system.''\146\ The former president of the National District 
Attorneys Association, Robert Johnson, described how the fear 
of ``being funneled into a harsh and unreasonable immigration 
system deters [undocumented workers] from engaging with law 
enforcement because of the constant threat of deportation.'' He 
concludes: ``This reality makes the criminal justice system 
less effective and hinders our ability to solve crimes and hold 
perpetrators accountable.''\147\ Former Utah Attorney General 
Mark Shurtleff has said that comprehensive immigration reform 
``will discourage illegal immigration [and] will encourage 
those people to come out of the darkness,'' concluding that 
reform ``would be a boon to public safety.''\148\ Additional 
support for comprehensive immigration reform has been expressed 
in letters from 36 current and 76 former State Attorneys 
General, who believe that reform will bolster border security 
while also addressing the 11 million undocumented individuals 
present in the country.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S.744: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony from Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano).
    \147\Robert Johnson, Commentary, Justice System Should Determine 
Which Immigrants Are Public Safety Risk, CQ News (May 16, 2013).
    \148\The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S.744: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, 113th Cong. (April 22, 2013) (testimony from former Utah 
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff).
    \149\Letter from 76 Former State Attorney Generals to Members of 
the Judiciary Committee (Apr. 21, 2013) (copy on file with the Senate 
Judiciary Committee); Letter from 36 Current State Attorney Generals to 
Senate and House Leadership (Apr. 15, 2013) (copy on file with the 
Senate Judiciary Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Education leaders have joined in the call for comprehensive 
reform. An open letter by Cornell University President David J. 
Skorton, Arizona State University President Michael M. Crow, 
and Miami Dade College President Eduardo J. Pardron noted that 
comprehensive immigration reform ``impact[s] our ability to 
attract, retain, and educate the world's leading minds.''\150\ 
They wrote: ``Too often . . . our ability to educate and our 
ability to innovate are frustrated by U.S. immigration laws. 
Particularly in the innovation-rich fields of Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), we train many of the 
brightest minds of the world, only to have those students sent 
abroad to compete against us because our immigration laws do 
not provide a viable path for them to stay.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\Ronald Roach, Higher Education Leaders Join Immigration Reform 
Coalition, Diverse: Issues in Higher Educ., Mar. 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leaders in religious communities have also called for 
immigration reform as a core priority. Evangelical leaders have 
said that immigration is a ``Christian issue . . . not a 
political issue.''\151\ The PICO National Network, a broad 
coalition of diverse faiths, has held prayer vigils across the 
country to demonstrate support for immigration reform.\152\ For 
many of these leaders, immigration reform became a priority 
after they witnessed the experience of immigrants in their 
congregations whose families have been separated or who spend 
their lives in fear of deportation because of our current 
immigration system.\153\ Civil rights groups and community 
advocates have also joined in the call for comprehensive 
immigration reform. The National Council of La Raza, the 
National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties 
Union, Human Rights Campaign, United We Dream, and other groups 
across the Nation have submitted letters and statements to the 
Committee calling for Congress to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\Adelle M. Banks, Immigration Reform gets personal for 
Evangelicals, Religion News Service, Apr. 11, 2013.
    \152\Julia Preston, Showing Grass-Roots Support for Immigration 
Overhaul, N.Y. Times, May 1, 2013.
    \153\Banks, Immigration Reform gets Personal for Evangelicals, 
Religion News Service, Apr. 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the Committee has heard from business leaders, 
faith groups, family groups, community advocates, civil rights 
organizations, law enforcement, and individual members of the 
public about the urgent need to fix our immigration system and 
to address the plight of the millions of undocumented 
immigrants who are living their lives in the shadows of our 
country. These voices across the Nation and the political 
spectrum agree that the time has come for common-sense, 
comprehensive immigration reform.

          II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration


                      A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

    The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has debated the issue 
of immigration reform extensively since 2005, convening some 52 
hearings on immigration-related matters during that time 
period. In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the Committee held 
15 hearings on immigration matters and convened six Executive 
Business Meetings to consider, amend, and report legislation 
that was then introduced in the Senate as S. 2611, the 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The bipartisan 
bill was sponsored by Senators Specter, Brownback, Graham, 
Hagel, Kennedy, Martinez and McCain. After several weeks of 
debate, S. 2611 passed the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 62-36, 
but the House of Representatives did not pass a reconcilable 
companion bill and the legislation was not enacted into law. 
There have been several attempts to revive comprehensive 
immigration reform over the past few years, most notably in 
2007 and 2010, but those attempts also ended with no 
legislation enacted.
    On January 16, 2013, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman 
Patrick Leahy announced in a speech at Georgetown University 
that he would make immigration reform the Committee's top 
legislative priority for the year. He pledged to dedicate much 
of the Committee's time in the spring to comprehensive 
immigration reform, noting the promising work of a bipartisan 
group of eight Senators who had begun discussing potential 
legislation. Those eight Senators, Senators Schumer, McCain, 
Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, Bennet, and Flake, announced 
their principles of agreement in a press conference on January 
28, 2013. The President called for comprehensive immigration 
reform in a policy speech on January 29, 2013, and again in his 
State of the Union address on February 12, 2013.
    The framework discussed by the bipartisan group of eight 
Senators and developed over several months led to their 
development of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic 
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The bill was 
introduced on April 17, 2013, and was referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary.

                              B. HEARINGS

    The Judiciary Committee has held extensive hearings on the 
subject of immigration reform over the course of the past 
decade, including in connection with previous efforts to enact 
comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, 2007, and 2010. In 
the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the Committee held 15 hearings 
on immigration related matters, addressing both the need for 
reform and specific comprehensive immigration reform proposals. 
This close examination of immigration policy continued in the 
110th Congress (2007-2008) with eight hearings on immigration-
related matters. During those Congresses, hearing topics 
included challenges and strategies for border security, reform 
of the Visa Waiver Program, and privacy concerns surrounding 
the REAL ID Act.
    During the 111th and 112th Congresses, the Committee 
continued to analyze the need to update U.S. immigration laws 
and consider potential areas of reform. A total of 17 hearings 
were held on topics including enforcement of current law, the 
Uniting American Families Act, and legislation to update the 
EB-5 visa program for immigrant investors coming to the United 
States to invest in specific job-creating development projects. 
The Committee also maintained its oversight of the Department 
of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services.
    During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Refugees and Border Security, under the chairmanship of Senator 
Schumer, held four hearings on comprehensive immigration 
reform, including hearings on border security, employment 
verification, and faith-based attitudes toward immigration 
reform. Over the course of the 111th Congress, the subcommittee 
heard from a total of 25 witnesses on reform. In the 112th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border 
Security continued its examination of comprehensive immigration 
reform, with seven hearings examining diverse topics including 
the Northern border, the DREAM Act, the economics behind 
immigration reform, the Nation's agricultural labor crisis, the 
impact of reform on international travel, the constitutionality 
of State preemption of Federal immigration law, and oversight 
of the student visa program. During these hearings, a total of 
33 witnesses testified before the subcommittee.
    Early this Congress, the Committee renewed its focus on our 
Nation's immigration system in anticipation of comprehensive 
reform legislation being introduced. Between February and April 
2013, the Committee held a total of six hearings on immigration 
reform, with 42 witnesses testifying before the Committee. 
Three of the hearings focused specifically on S. 744, including 
an extensive, all-day hearing with multiple panels on April 22, 
2013.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security appeared twice before 
the Committee during the 2013 hearings. Other witnesses 
included a broad range of representatives from law enforcement 
and State and local government; business, labor, and 
agricultural interests; economists, faith leaders, and 
community advocates; immigration attorneys, law professors, and 
a former immigration judge. A detailed description of the 
Judiciary Committee's 2013 hearings follows.
    On February 13, 2013, the Committee held a hearing 
entitled, ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' The witnesses 
at the hearing were the Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Jose Antonio 
Vargas, Founder of Define American; Jessica Vaughan, Director 
of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies; Steve 
Case, Chairman and CEO of Revolution LLC; Chris Crane, 
President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Council 118 of the American Federation of Government Employees; 
and Janet Murguia, President and CEO of the National Council of 
La Raza. Their testimony is available on the Committee's 
website.
    On March 18, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs 
of Women and Families.'' The witnesses at the hearing were Ai-
jen Poo, Director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance; 
Dr. Karen Panetta, Professor of Electrical and Computer 
Engineering at Tufts University; Mee Moua, President and CEO at 
the Asian American Justice Center; Susan Martin, Donald G. 
Hertzberg Professor of International Migration at Georgetown 
University; and Jennifer Ng'andu, Director of the Health and 
Civil Rights Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza. 
Their testimony is available on the Committee's website.
    On March 20, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values.'' 
The witnesses at the hearing were Ahilan Arulanantham, Deputy 
Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California; Michael 
Cutler, Retired Senior Special Agent at the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Professor Paul Grussendorf, Retired 
Immigration Judge; Jan C. Ting, Professor of Law at Temple 
University Beasley School of Law; and Pamela Stampp, Esq., 
Attorney at Castro Law Firm. Their testimony is available on 
the Committee's website.
    On April 19, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation.'' 
The witnesses at the hearing were Peter Kirsanow, Partner at 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnoff and Commissioner on the 
United States Commission on Civil Rights; and Dr. Douglas 
Holtz-Eakin, President of the American Action Forum. Their 
testimony is available on the Committee's website.
    On April 22, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744.'' The witnesses at the hearing were 
Arturo Rodriguez, President of United Farm Workers; Charles 
Conner, President and CEO of the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives; Alyson Eastman, President of Book-Ends 
Associates; Megan Smith, Commissioner of the Vermont Department 
of Tourism & Marketing; the Honorable Jim Kolbe, Former United 
States Representative (R-AZ-5); Tamar Jacoby, President and CEO 
of Immigration Works USA; Rick Judson, Chairman of the Board of 
the National Association of Home Builders; Brad Smith, General 
Counsel and Executive Vice President of Microsoft, Legal and 
Corporate Affairs; Professor Ron Hira, Associate Professor of 
Public Policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology; Neeraj 
Gupta, CEO of Systems in Motion; Fred Benjamin, CPO of 
Medicalodges, Inc.; Gaby Pacheco, Immigrant Rights Leader and 
Director of the Bridge Project; Janet Murguia, President and 
CEO of the National Council of La Raza; Dr. David Fleming, 
Senior Pastor at Champion Forest Baptist Church; Mark 
Krikorian, Executive Director at the Center for Immigration 
Studies; Laura L. Lichter, Esq., President of the American 
Immigration Lawyers Association; the Honorable Kris Kobach, 
Kansas Secretary of State; Mark Shurtleff, Partner at Troutman 
Sanders LLP and Former Utah Attorney General; the Honorable 
Bill Vidal, Former Mayor of Denver and President and CEO of the 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver; Janice L. 
Kephart, Former Counsel on the September 11 Commission and 
Principal of 911 Security Solutions; Chris Crane, President of 
the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 of 
the American Federation of Government Employees; Dr. Steven 
Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration 
Studies; and Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax 
Reform. Their testimony is available on the Committee's 
website.
    On April 23, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744.'' The witness at the hearing was the 
Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States 
Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Napolitano's 
testimony is available on the Committee's website.
    Three other Senate Committees also held hearings related to 
comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. The Senate Committee 
on Commerce, Science & Transportation held a hearing on May 8, 
2013 entitled, ``The Role of Immigrants in America's Innovation 
Economy.'' The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs held three hearings related to border 
security. The first hearing, on March 14, 2013, was entitled, 
``Border Security: Measuring the Progress and Addressing the 
Challenges.'' The second hearing was held on April 10, 2013 and 
was entitled, ``Border Security: Frontline Perspectives on 
Progress and Remaining Challenges.'' The third hearing, on May 
7, 2013, was specific to S. 744 and was entitled, ``Border 
Security: Examining Provisions in the Border Security, Economic 
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act S. 744.'' The 
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a 
hearing on May 16, 2013, relating to the E-Verify provisions in 
S. 744, entitled, ``The Impact of Mandatory E-Verify on 
America's Small Businesses.''

                         C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act, S. 744, was introduced on April 17, 2013, by 
Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Graham, Menendez, Rubio, 
Bennet and Flake. Its introduction followed several months of 
discussions by the bill's sponsors, who first outlined their 
agreed principles for reform during a press conference on 
January 28, 2013. During the press conference, the group 
identified four basic legislative pillars for reform: creating 
a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized 
immigrants that is contingent upon achieving increased border 
security and tracking visa overstays; reforming the legal 
immigration system; creating an effective employment 
verification system; and establishing an improved process for 
admitting future workers.\154\ The Senators committed to draft 
legislation that would provide resources to secure the border 
and to modernize and streamline our current legal immigration 
system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program 
for individuals who are already present in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\Memoranda from Senator Charles Schumer et al. on the 
Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Jan. 28, 
2013), available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/23/us/
politics/28immigration-principles-document.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The group developed the text of S. 744 over several months 
of negotiations, during which the Senators met approximately 24 
times. The Agricultural Worker Program included in S. 744 as 
Title II, Subtitle B, was developed by Senators Feinstein, 
Hatch, Bennet, and Rubio, after several months of negotiations 
and discussions with the Agriculture Workforce Coalition, 
representing a broad cross-section of agricultural employers, 
and representatives of farmworkers, including the United Farm 
Workers of America. The bill was introduced on April 17, 2013.
    The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act was listed on the Judiciary Committee's 
Executive Business Meeting Calendar for April 25, 2013, and was 
held over in accordance with Committee rules. Amendments were 
first considered during the Committee's Executive Business 
Meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2013.
    In total, Committee members filed 301 first degree 
amendments to the bill, 106 by Democrats and 194 by 
Republicans. In addition, Senator Schumer introduced a 
sponsors' amendment on behalf of the eight sponsors of the 
bill, making technical changes to S. 744. The amendments filed 
included 17 amendments to the Pre-Title section of the bill 
(trigger), 26 amendments to Title I (Border Security), 99 
amendments to Title II (Immigrant Visas), 87 amendments to 
Title III (Interior Enforcement), and 72 amendments to Title IV 
(Non-immigrant Visas).
    During the course of its markup of S. 744, the Committee 
considered a total of 212 amendments, including first degree, 
second degree, and substitute amendments. Of the amendments 
considered, 100 were offered by Democrats (including the 
sponsors' amendment) and 112 by Republicans. The Committee 
adopted 136 amendments, all but three on a bipartisan basis. A 
detailed description of the amendments considered appears 
below.
    Following 37 hours of debate during five Executive Business 
Meetings conducted over the course of three weeks, the 
Committee voted to report S. 744 as amended on the evening of 
Tuesday, May 21, 2013, by a bipartisan vote of 13-5.

                     D. EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETINGS

    Upon introduction of S. 744 and its referral to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Leahy announced several 
measures to ensure that the Committee's markup would be as 
transparent and comprehensive as possible. As detailed above, 
the Committee held three public hearings specifically on the 
text of S. 744, during which the Committee received in-person 
testimony from 26 witnesses and written submissions from 
numerous additional groups and interested members of the 
public.
    Chairman Leahy initiated several new procedures to assist 
the thorough and transparent review of the bill by the public. 
The Chairman established, with the agreement and cooperation of 
the Committee's Ranking Member Senator Grassley, a 5 p.m. 
filing deadline for all amendments two days before the first 
Executive Business Meeting at which amendments would be 
considered. For the first time in the Committee's history, the 
Chairman directed that all of the amendments filed would be 
posted on the Committee's website to facilitate public review. 
Of the 301 amendments filed, 296 were filed by the 5 p.m. 
deadline on Tuesday, May 7, 2013. The final five amendments 
were filed at approximately 7:15 p.m. All amendments were 
posted on the Committee's website that evening.
    As amendments were considered during the Committee's 
Executive Business Meetings, the Committee's website was 
updated in real time to reflect the disposition of amendments 
and their modification by substitute or second-degree 
amendments. The text of modified amendments was scanned and 
posted to the Committee website as soon as possible after any 
modification was made, to further promote public review. This 
process was positively received by the public and the media, 
many of whom circulated links to the Committee's website and 
used the Committee's website as a basis to provide real-time 
feedback to Senators' offices during the debate. In accordance 
with longstanding Committee practice, the markup was open to 
the public and webcast live on the Committee's website, further 
promoting public engagement in the Committee's deliberations.
    In total, the Committee engaged in more than 37 hours of 
debate during five Executive Business Meetings that took place 
over three weeks. The first markup where amendments were 
considered took place on Thursday, May 9, 2013, beginning at 
9:30 a.m. and concluding at 5:05 p.m. The Committee considered 
amendments relating to the Pre-Title and Title I, adopting 24 
of the 35 amendments considered.
    The second markup took place on Tuesday, May 14, from 10:05 
a.m. to 5:15 p.m., covering Title I and Title IV. Of the 38 
amendments considered, 23 were adopted.
    The third markup took place on Thursday, May 16, from 9:40 
a.m. to 12:55 p.m., focusing on Title IV and Subtitle A of 
Title III. Of the 26 amendments considered, 16 were adopted.
    The fourth markup took place on Monday, May 20, from 10:10 
a.m. to 8:20 p.m., focusing on Title III and Title II of the 
bill. Of the 70 amendments considered, 49 were adopted.
    The fifth and final markup took place on Tuesday, May 21, 
from 10:45 a.m. until 7:55 p.m., focusing on Title II and a 
remaining amendment to Title IV from Senator Hatch that had 
been held over. Of the 40 amendments considered, 24 were 
adopted.
    For the second and third day of markup, the Committee met 
in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room G-50. For the other 
days, it met in the Senate Judiciary Committee's large hearing 
room, Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Hundreds of members 
of the public, including faith groups, community advocates, 
immigration experts, families, and other interested individuals 
attended the markup sessions each day for the duration of the 
Committee's consideration of the bill.

                        E. AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED

1. PRE-TITLE and TITLE I

            a. Overview of Amendments
    The material preceding Title I (the ``Pre-Title'') and 
Title I of the bill contain a variety of provisions that 
strengthen border security and establish staggered ``triggers'' 
that must be satisfied before any undocumented individuals can 
apply for the new ``Registered Provisional Immigrant'' (RPI) 
status created by the bill, or for lawful permanent residence. 
The bill allocates up to $6.5 billion for border security and 
interior enforcement measures; authorizes thousands of 
additional Customs and Border Protection officers; 
significantly expands border security infrastructure and the 
use of technology at the border; and provides additional 
resources for criminal prosecutions of those unlawfully 
crossing the border and to State, local and tribal governments 
for their costs related to illegal immigration. The bill sets 
forth specific border security metrics and establishes a 
bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission if those metrics 
are not attained within five years, with members appointed by 
the President, both Houses of Congress, and Governors of the 
Border States to further improve border security.
    The bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security 
(``DHS'') from processing any applications from undocumented 
individuals to adjust to RPI status until the Secretary has 
submitted to Congress a Comprehensive Southern Border Security 
Strategy and a Southern Border Fencing Strategy within six 
months of enactment. The Department of Homeland Security may 
not issue green cards to any RPIs for at least 10 years, and 
not until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the 
Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is 
substantially deployed and substantially operational, that the 
Southern Border Fencing Strategy is implemented and 
substantially completed, that DHS has implemented a mandatory 
employment verification system to be used by all employers, and 
that DHS is using an electronic exit system at air and seaports 
to track departures. These triggers do not apply to those 
seeking to adjust status under the DREAM Act portion of the 
bill or agricultural workers with blue card status.

Strengthening Border Security

    A number of the amendments adopted in the Pre-Title and 
Title I strengthen the border security provisions already in 
the bill. Senator Grassley offered an amendment, Grassley1, 
that expands the bill's border security goals and metrics to 
cover the entire Southern border, not just high-risk sectors. 
Amendments offered by Senator Feinstein provide U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection with equipment to engage in maritime 
border security activities (Feinstein8), and create the Safe 
and Secure Border Infrastructure Program to provide funding to 
State and local governments to improve facilities at land ports 
of entry (Feinstein10). As discussed below, the Committee also 
adopted an amendment filed by Senator Hatch, Hatch6, that 
creates biometric exit processing at certain airports and 
provides for further study and expansion of that program in 
future years. Taken together, these amendments strengthen the 
border security provisions in S. 744 and build upon the 
significant resources that the Government currently invests in 
border security measures.

Oversight and Efficient Use of Resources

    Other amendments adopted by the Committee will help ensure 
the efficient use of the significant border security and 
enforcement resources allocated by the bill and by existing 
law. Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn offered an amendment, 
Leahy4, that gives the Department of Homeland Security 
flexibility to spend the $1.5 billion fencing fund created by 
S. 744 on the most effective infrastructure and technology, 
including at ports of entry, while also specifying that $1 
billion of the fencing fund is available for deploying and 
repairing fencing along the Southern border. The amendment also 
requires consultation with relevant stake holders and respect 
for State and local laws in the implementation of fencing 
projects. Senator Feinstein offered a bipartisan amendment that 
was adopted, Feinstein2, that adds new Federal judgeships in 
Southern border districts so that the growing number of 
immigration cases can be resolved more quickly. The Judicial 
Conference of the United States wrote to the Judiciary 
Committee in support of Feinstein2, explaining that the new 
enforcement resources provided in the bill will significantly 
increase the Federal caseload in those districts.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\Letter from Judicial Conference of the United States to 
Chairman Leahy (May 9, 2013) (copy on file with the Senate Judiciary 
Committee). The additional judgeships are off-set by a $10 increase in 
civil filing fees, from $350 to $360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also adopted several amendments that will 
improve oversight mechanisms relating to enforcement and border 
security. Senator Grassley offered two amendments, Grassley24 
and Grassley5, that require audits both of the Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform Trust Fund established by S. 744 and of 
entities that receive grants under the bill. Senator Flake 
offered an amendment, Flake2, to require the Government 
Accountability Office to assess annually the status of the 
Department of Homeland Security's implementation of the 
Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy. Amendments 
offered by Senator Hirono (Hirono24), and Senator Sessions 
(Sessions36), expand the role of the DHS Ombudsman. Amendments 
adopted by the Committee also help protect children in 
immigration detention facilities (Feinstein6), and families and 
others affected by DHS border apprehension and repatriation 
programs (Hirono23 and Coons2). The bill as amended by the 
Committee also helps border communities by prohibiting border 
crossing fees (Leahy1); requiring that private landowners 
participate on the new DHS Border Oversight Task Force 
(Flake2); and ensuring that Border Patrol does not deploy 
unmanned aerial vehicles in California beyond three miles from 
the border, given the heavily populated areas in that region 
(Feinstein11).

Additional Trigger Amendments

    The Committee debated, but did not adopt, several other 
amendments that would have significantly delayed or altered the 
earned path to citizenship that the underlying bill provides 
for undocumented immigrants already living in this country. 
These amendments, including Grassley4, Cornyn1 and Sessions11, 
among others, would have imposed further ``triggers'' before 
the application process for RPI status or for the earned path 
to citizenship could commence. In rejecting these amendments, 
Senators voiced concern that they either were unattainable or 
would further postpone the challenging path to citizenship, 
which already will take a minimum of 13 years for most 
applicants under the provisions in the bill. Senators discussed 
the importance of the triggers already contained in the base 
bill, including, in particular, the requirement that a 
mandatory employment verification system be implemented before 
anyone in RPI status may obtain lawful permanent residence 
(i.e., a green card).
    During deliberations, the Committee also rejected an 
amendment offered by Senator Lee, Lee4, that would have 
required Congress to ratify the certifications that must be 
made by the Department of Homeland Security before any 
undocumented individuals could apply for RPI status or 
ultimately a green card. Senators noted that the amendment 
would make the legalization program inappropriately subject to 
partisan disputes, and would likely result in long delays. 
Senators also noted that the steps required by the amendment 
would be unnecessary, because the bill already provides that if 
certain border security metrics are not met within five years, 
a bipartisan Commission will be created, with members selected 
by the President, leaders of both parties in the Senate and 
House of Representatives, and representatives of the Southern 
border States, to make recommendations to further enhance 
border security, and $2 billion of additional funding will be 
made available for additional border security measures at that 
time.

Further Expenditures

    The Committee rejected other amendments that would have 
required significant increases in border security personnel or 
infrastructure, noting that the border security provisions of 
S. 744 already provide for billions of dollars in expenditures, 
in addition to the considerable expenditures authorized by 
existing law. Senator Sessions offered an amendment, Sessions9, 
that would have required the construction of hundreds of miles 
of additional ``double-layered'' border fencing before anyone 
in RPI status could apply for a green card. In opposing the 
amendment, Senators warned of its high cost and noted that 
fencing is not an effective or recommended border security 
measure in many parts of the Southern border. The Committee 
also debated and rejected Cruz1, an amendment offered by 
Senator Cruz that would have tripled the number of border 
patrol agents, quadrupled the equipment and other assets 
stationed along the border, and prevented any undocumented 
individual from applying for RPI status or for an agricultural 
blue card until those and other strict border security 
requirements were met. In rejecting the Cruz1 amendment, 
Senators again expressed concern about the high cost of the 
measure, and noted that the underlying bill already provides 
billions of dollars in border security resources. Senators also 
noted that the amendment would significantly delay the start of 
the application process for RPI status, a core purpose of the 
bill and an essential step in Congress's effort to bring out of 
the shadows, and into the lawful immigration system, the 
millions of undocumented persons currently living in the United 
States.

Biometric Exit System

    During deliberation, the Committee engaged in extensive 
debate over amendments offered by Senators Sessions, Cruz, and 
others to establish a comprehensive biometric exit system that 
would obtain the fingerprints of all non-citizens who depart 
the United States (Sessions4, Sessions6, Cruz1). Senators 
opposing these amendments noted that implementing such a 
biometric exit system at all ports of entry, including the 
hundreds of land ports of entry around the country, would be 
prohibitively expensive and create extensive technological and 
infrastructure challenges. The United States did not build its 
border, aviation, and immigration infrastructure with exit 
processing in mind. Unlike the entry system, U.S. airports do 
not have designated exit areas for outgoing passengers to wait 
prior to departure, nor do they have specific checkpoints 
through which an outgoing passenger's departure is recorded by 
an immigration officer.\156\ At the land border, the 
infrastructure problems are even more acute, with far fewer 
lanes serving departure from the United States than for 
admission. In discussing the biometric exit amendments, 
Senators further noted that S. 744 already contains significant 
improvements to the current biographic exit system, by 
requiring the collection of exit data from machine-readable 
visas, passports, and other travel documents for those exiting 
from air and seaports, and by requiring that Federal 
immigration databases be interoperable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\In 2009, DHS created a pilot program in 15 airports using 
biometric technology to study ways to collect biometric information 
from departing passengers. See Dep't of Homeland Security, Notice to 
Aliens Included in the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program; Collection of Alien Biometric 
Data upon Exit From the United States at Air Ports of Departure,74 Fed. 
Reg. 105 (June 3, 2009), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2009-06-03/pdf/E9_12939.pdf; see also David Heyman, DHS: We can 
identify those who overstay on visas, USA Today, Feb. 25, 2013 
(describing costs of program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these concerns, following several debates over 
multiple Executive Business Sessions, the Committee accepted a 
more limited biometric exit amendment that was filed by Senator 
Hatch and offered by Senator Flake, Hatch6. The adopted 
amendment requires a biometric exit system to be in place at 
the 10 largest international airports in the United States 
within two years, and provides for the program to be expanded 
to 20 additional airports within six years. The amendment also 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to 
Congress on the effectiveness and cost of expanding biometric 
exit to major sea and land ports. The vote tally for the 
amendment is reflected below in the discussion of Title III, 
because the amendment was ultimately adopted in that Title.
            b. List of Amendments Adopted, Not Adopted, and Withdrawn 
                    Relating to Pre-Title and Title I
    In all, 42 amendments relating to the Pre-Title and Title I 
were considered during the Committee markup, 25 offered by 
Democratic Senators and 17 offered by Republican Senators. Of 
the 42 amendments considered, 29 were adopted, all but one with 
bipartisan support.

Amendments Adopted

    The Committee began consideration of amendments to S. 744 
on May 9, 2013. Senator Schumer offered a Sponsors' amendment 
(Sponsors1-MDM13313), a complete substitute amendment to make a 
number of technical fixes to the bill. The amendment was 
adopted by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 14 Yeas, 4 Nays
    Yeas (14): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT), Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (4): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Lee (R-UT), 
Cruz (R-TX).
    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy1-EAS13369) that 
forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from establishing a 
border crossing fee at land ports of entry along the Southern 
and Northern borders. The amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy4-EAS13416) that 
provides the Department of Homeland Security with additional 
flexibility in how it may use the $1.5 billion that the bill 
makes available for fencing along the Southern border. It also 
requires DHS to consult with relevant stakeholders along the 
Southern border as it implements the Southern Border Fencing 
Strategy, and ensures that if DHS invokes the provision in the 
bill that allows it to waive legal requirements in order to 
construct improvements at the border, DHS must specify which 
laws it is waiving, and any such waivers will expire once the 
relevant triggers have been satisfied. The amendment also 
includes a rule of construction to ensure that the bill is not 
construed to authorize fencing along the Northern border. 
Chairman Leahy offered a substitute amendment (Leahy4-EAS13457) 
to reduce funding available only for fencing by $500 million 
and leave the remaining $1 billion of fence funding available 
to be spent on deploying or repairing fencing. The substitute 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein1-
EAS13279) that reauthorizes the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program (SCAAP) through 2015 so that State and local 
governments may obtain reimbursement from the Attorney General 
for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants charged with 
or convicted of an offense. Reimbursement is authorized even 
when the immigration status of the detained individual is 
unknown. The amendment was adopted by a roll call vote as 
follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 10 Yeas, 8 Nays
    Yeas (10): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Hirono (D-HI), 
Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, 
Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (8): Leahy (D-VT), Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-
CT), Grassley (R-IA).
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein2-
HEN13550) that creates additional permanent district court 
judgeships in the Southwest Border States of Arizona, 
California and Texas. The amendment was modified by a second 
degree amendment (HEN13558) offered by Ranking Member Grassley 
and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein6-
MDM13537) that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
establish standards to ensure humane conditions for children in 
the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The 
amendment was adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein7-
MDM13459) that requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
to allocate Operation Stonegarden grants and reimbursement 
through a competitive process. The amendment was adopted en 
bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein8-
MDM13520) that provides U.S. Customs and Border Protection with 
funding to acquire and deploy watercraft to support border-
related, maritime anti-crime activities. The amendment was 
adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein9-
MDM13538) that ensures the U.S. Department of Justice provides 
reimbursement for all State and county immigration-related 
prosecutions under the Southwest Border Region Prosecution 
Initiative, including prosecution, pre-trial services and 
detention, clerical support, and public defender services. The 
amendment was adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein10-
MDM13491) authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the Secretary of Transportation to create the Safe and Secure 
Border Infrastructure Program to offer grants to State and 
local government to improve land port facilities. The program 
will be administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation 
and the General Services Administration, and its funding will 
come from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein11-
ARM13559) that would have redefined the Southwest Border region 
from within 100 miles of the Southern Border to within 25 miles 
of the Southern Border. Senator Feinstein then offered a 
substitute amendment (MDM13596) that replaced the original text 
of her amendment with a new limitation that prohibits U.S. 
Border Patrol from operating unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles 
in California except within three miles of the Southern Border. 
Senator Feinstein then offered a further substitute amendment 
(MDM13599) that specifies that this limitation on the use of 
unmanned aerial vehicles in California shall not restrict 
maritime operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The 
amendment as modified was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Schumer offered an amendment (Schumer2-EAS13444) 
that provides additional up-front funding for implementation of 
the bill, refines how the Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
Trust Fund account is funded, and requires an expenditure plan. 
The amendment was adopted by a roll call vote as follows (votes 
by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 14 Yeas, 4 Nays
    Yeas (14): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT)*, Graham (R-SC)*, Cruz (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (4): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX), 
Lee (R-UT).
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons2-ARM13605) that 
would have prohibited the deportation of a migrant at a 
specific point along the Southern border if it would threaten 
the person's safety or if the deportation was to a different 
sector than where the migrant was originally detained. Senator 
Coons offered a substitute amendment (Coons2-MDM13590) that 
prohibits nighttime deportations, allowing exceptions for 
compelling governmental interest, with agreement of the 
migrant, or in accordance with a local agreement with the 
appropriate Mexican consulate. The substitute amendment was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal10-
DAV13376) that would have prohibited the Federal reimbursement 
of State and local governments for the prosecution or pre-trial 
detention of an individual if the Attorney General concludes 
that the individual's apprehension arose from unlawful conduct 
by a law enforcement official. Senator Blumenthal offered a 
substitute amendment (Blumenthal10-EAS13525) that gives the 
Attorney General discretion to limit Federal reimbursement when 
the jurisdiction seeking reimbursement has engaged in unlawful 
conduct in connection with immigration-related apprehensions. 
The substitute amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono23-EAS13376) 
that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to consider 
humanitarian concerns, safety risks, or family unit disruption 
in certain cases when determining whether to repatriate or 
prosecute an individual. After it was amended to strike a 
requirement that the Department of Homeland Security ascertain 
such humanitarian concerns within two hours of an individual's 
apprehension, the amendment was adopted by a roll call vote as 
follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 10 Yeas, 8 Nays
    Yeas (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Nays (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX), Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono24-ARM13613) 
that expands the role of the Immigration Ombudsman, created in 
Section 1114 of S. 744, to ensure an independent and impartial 
perspective on agency policy. The amendment was adopted en bloc 
by voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley1-
HEY13237) that expands the Comprehensive Southern Border 
Security Strategy to include all border sectors, not just high-
risk sectors. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley2-
HEY13238) that requires several Congressional reports mandated 
by the bill to be provided to the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees, in addition to the committees already listed in the 
bill. The amendment was adopted en bloc by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley5-
ARM13617) that requires the Department of Homeland Security 
Inspector General and Chief Financial Officer to conduct annual 
audits of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund 
created in the bill. The amendment was adopted en bloc by a 
voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley24-
DAV13369) that requires audits of grant recipients under the 
bill, and places restrictions on the eligibility of nonprofit 
organizations for grant funding. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions36-MDM13430) 
that expands the role of the Immigration Ombudsman to include 
providing assistance for individuals and families who have been 
victims of crimes committed by aliens, or violence near the 
border. The amendment was adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn6-ALB13436) that 
adds prevention of human trafficking under the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to the purposes of the 
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. This 
ensures that States receive funding to prevent human 
trafficking and report human trafficking statistics to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the Uniform 
Crime Reporting Program. The amendment was adopted en bloc by 
voice vote.
    Senator Flake offered an amendment (Flake1-MDM13451) that 
adds three private land owner representatives from the Northern 
and Southern Border Regions to join the Department of Homeland 
Security Border Oversight Task Force created in the bill. The 
amendment was adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Flake offered an amendment (Flake2-MDM13456) that 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide 
semiannual reports to Congress on the status of DHS's 
implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security 
Strategy, and requires the Comptroller General to conduct an 
annual review of the Secretary's semiannual reports. The 
amendment was adopted en bloc by a voice vote.

Amendments Not Adopted

    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley4-
EAS13439) that would have prohibited granting Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status until the Secretary of Homeland 
Security certifies to Congress that the Department of Homeland 
Security has maintained ``effective control'' over the entire 
Southern border for six months. The amendment was not agreed to 
by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with 
*):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions4-MDM13410) 
that would have required the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish a biometric entry and exit system, instead of a 
biographic system, at all land and sea ports before any 
registered provisional immigrants can adjust to lawful 
permanent residence. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham (R-
SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions9-MDM13544) 
that would have required the completion of 700 miles of 
reinforced double-layered fencing on the Southern border as a 
trigger before those in RPI status could apply for lawful 
permanent residence. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions11-MDM13441) 
that would have altered the stated objectives of several border 
security provisions in the bill, including the objectives of 
the Comprehensive Border Security Strategy (substantial 
deployment of which is a trigger that must be met before RPIs 
can apply for lawful permanent residence), to require achieving 
and maintaining ``operational control,'' or the prevention of 
all unlawful entries across the entire border. The amendment 
was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by 
proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions37-MDM13365) 
that would have struck the section of the bill that requires 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue policies, in 
consultation with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice, regarding the use of force by Department 
of Homeland Security personnel. The amendment was not agreed to 
by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with 
*):
    Tally: 7 Yeas, 11 Nays
    Yeas (7): Whitehouse (D-RI), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-
UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (11): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-DE), 
Blumenthal (D-CT)*, Hirono (D-HI), Graham (R-SC)*, Flake (R-
AZ).
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn1-ARM13593) that 
would have replaced the entirety of Title I and required the 
Department of Homeland Security to achieve ``full situational 
awareness'' and ``operational control'' of the Southern border 
for one year before processing applications for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status or agricultural blue card status. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT)*, Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee4-MDM13493) that would 
have required Congressional ratification of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security's certification that the triggers had been 
satisfied, before those in Registered Provisional Immigrant 
status could apply for green cards. The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), 
Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Cruz offered an amendment (Cruz1-MDM13528) that 
would have replaced Title I with specific border security 
requirements that would be required before the Secretary of 
Homeland Security could process any applications for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status or agricultural blue cards, 
failing which the Department of Homeland Security would face 
budget reductions. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 5 Yeas, 13 Nays
    Yeas (5): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX), 
Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (13): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT)*, Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).

Amendments Withdrawn

    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions38-MDM13366) 
that would have struck provisions of the bill that specify the 
training requirements to be issued by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice, for border patrol agents, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and other U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security personnel. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn2-MDM13521) that 
would have required the Comprehensive Southern Border Security 
Strategy to include a plan for reducing wait times at land 
ports of entry, increased land port of entry personnel by 5,000 
officers, and taken other steps to expand the infrastructure at 
land ports of entry. It would have paid for these expansions 
with a general rescission of unobligated funds. The amendment 
was withdrawn.

2. TITLE II

            a. Overview of Amendments
    Title II of S. 744 establishes the legalization framework 
for eligible undocumented persons to apply for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status and, ultimately, seek a path 
to legal permanent residence and earned citizenship if they 
meet the criteria set forth in the bill. The Title permits an 
accelerated track for ``DREAM'' applicants (persons brought to 
the United States under the age of 16 who meet certain higher 
education or military service criteria), and creates an earned 
pathway to legal status and citizenship for experienced 
agricultural workers who have previously worked for a minimum 
number of years in the United States and who fulfill 
prospective employment requirements.
    The legalization framework created in S. 744 is tough, 
rigorous, and informed by the lessons learned from the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Applicants must 
pass criminal background and national security checks, satisfy 
employment requirements, pay fines, fees, and back taxes, learn 
civics and English, and wait for the backlogs for family-
sponsored and employment-based visa applicants to be cleared 
before their applications for lawful permanent residence may be 
processed. If an applicant obtains RPI status, he or she must 
petition to renew that status after six years (including 
passing renewed background checks). RPIs may only apply for 
lawful permanent residence after 10 years have passed and the 
triggers in the bill have been met. The work requirements in 
the bill require all adult applicants to demonstrate that they 
have been consistently employed throughout their time in RPI 
status with breaks no longer than 60 days (subject to certain 
limited exceptions) and that the applicant is not likely to 
become a ``public charge,'' or that their income or resources 
are equal to the Federal poverty level (at the RPI renewal 
stage) or 125 percent of the Federal poverty level (at the LPR 
stage). As discussed below, criminal ineligibility grounds 
apply and build upon the tough criminal provisions for 
immigrants already in existing law. Persons in RPI status may 
not qualify for means-tested Federal benefits or subsidies 
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

National Security Concerns and Fraud Detection in the Legalization 
        Program

    In addition to the rigorous screening processes already set 
forth in S. 744, several amendments adopted by the Committee 
added further national security screening and fraud detection 
efforts in the application process for previously undocumented 
persons. An amendment offered by Ranking Member Grassley, 
Grassley19, requires new benefit fraud assessment and 
compliance review programs within the Department of Homeland 
Security that will conduct audits, publish annual reports, and 
develop counter-measures for fraud detection in connection with 
certain immigration programs. Senator Flake added an amendment, 
Flake4, that requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to conduct regular audits to ensure that individuals 
in Registered Provisional Immigration status do not 
fraudulently receive Federal means-tested benefits, which they 
are ineligible for under the base bill.
    The Committee adopted two amendments to strengthen the 
already stringent background check requirements in the bill. An 
amendment by Senator Flake, Flake3, requires those in 
Registered Provisional Immigrant status to undergo additional 
law enforcement and national security screenings when they 
apply to renew their RPI status after six years. An amendment 
offered by Senator Graham, Graham3, requires additional 
national security screening for applicants who are from 
countries or regions that pose a national security threat to 
the United States, or that harbor groups that pose a national 
security threat.
    A further amendment by Senator Cornyn, Cornyn4, requires 
the Department of Homeland Security to identify certain 
applicants for RPI status who are seeking a waiver for a 
criminal offense, to work with relevant prosecutors to make 
reasonable efforts to notify any victims of that offense that 
the individual has applied for RPI status, and to offer the 
victim an opportunity to request consultation regarding the 
individual's waiver application.
    The Committee did not adopt an amendment by Senator Lee, 
Lee12, that would have prohibited the use of sworn affidavits 
by Registered Provisional Immigrants to verify their employment 
and educational history when applying for adjustment of status. 
The amendment was opposed by immigration experts and advocacy 
groups, who noted that many undocumented workers do not possess 
formal employment records, and requiring paper documentation 
would make the application process impossible for potentially 
hundreds of thousands of individuals, undermining a central 
purpose of the bill. Senators noted that the bill already 
requires the submission of additional documentation such as 
bank records, business records, and available employment 
records to supplement a sworn affidavit, which will help reduce 
fraud concerns. The Committee similarly rejected an amendment 
by Senator Lee, Lee10, that would have changed S. 744's current 
requirement that RPIs pay all back-taxes assessed by the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and instead placed the burden 
on RPI applicants to demonstrate that they have paid all 
applicable taxes owed to the Federal government. In opposing 
this amendment, Senators noted that the tax payment requirement 
in S. 744 establishes a clearer threshold for review and a more 
workable system, because it relies on the IRS to make an 
assessment of tax payments owed. Notably, the 2006 Senate-
passed immigration bill did not require immigrants to satisfy 
any tax requirement until they sought lawful permanent 
residence status.

Ensuring Participation in the Path

    Several other amendments adopted by the Committee in Title 
II improve upon the legalization framework in the bill, to 
ensure that the process, while tough, is accessible enough that 
unauthorized workers will come forward to apply for RPI status 
instead of remaining in the shadows. Senator Hirono offered an 
amendment, Hirono12, that will ease the financial strain for 
RPI applicants by allowing them to pay the first of several 
penalties owed in installments, instead of two $500 payments. 
An amendment offered by Senator Blumenthal, Blumenthal12, will 
allow DREAMers serving in the United States military to apply 
for citizenship on the same terms as those who apply under 
current law. Without this amendment, S. 744 would have 
prevented DREAMers from naturalizing while in provisional 
status, even if they were serving in the military.

Future Immigration

    In addition to its legalization provisions, Title II also 
creates a future immigration framework that is premised on a 
merit-based points system, which will be available to all 
immigrants who have had legal presence in the United States as 
well as intending immigrants from abroad. Title II also 
contains a variety of other modifications to the immigration 
system, establishes a new non-immigrant agricultural worker 
visa, and sets forth provisions relating to the integration of 
new immigrants. The agricultural provisions were developed by 
Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Bennet, and Rubio to address the 
present and future workforce needs of the American agriculture 
industry, including dairy, to create a streamlined process that 
will help employers secure a sufficient legal workforce while 
protecting U.S.-based workers from being displaced or otherwise 
adversely affected by foreign workers.
    Two amendments adopted by the Committee in Title II 
encourage further immigration of high-skilled individuals. 
Senator Whitehouse offered Whitehouse4, which creates a special 
immigrant visa with expedited naturalization for immigrants who 
come to the United States to work in Federal laboratories 
dedicated to Federal national security, science and technology 
research. An amendment offered by Senator Klobuchar, 
Klobuchar5, improves the Conrad 30 Physician program, by 
allowing physician applicants who are denied a J-1 waiver 
because the State in which they applied has reached its annual 
cap of 30 waivers to extend their legal status for six months 
so they may apply to work in a medically underserved area in 
another State.
    An amendment adopted by the Committee that was proposed by 
Senator Coons, Coons3, provides special immigrant status for 
the surviving spouses and children of employees of the U.S. 
government overseas who are killed in the line of duty.

Ineligibility Provisions

    The Committee considered, but did not adopt, a number of 
amendments that would have created additional bars to the 
legalization programs for certain individuals. An amendment by 
Ranking Member Grassley, Grassley11, would have removed the 
provision of the bill that allows undocumented persons facing 
removal to stay removal proceedings and apply for RPI status if 
they appear prima facie eligible for such status. The amendment 
would have also eliminated the limited RPI eligibility waiver 
that will allow some undocumented persons who departed the 
country prior to December 31, 3011, to apply for RPI status and 
reunite with their families in the United States. During 
Committee debate, the view prevailed that fairness requires 
that someone who appears eligible for RPI status and who is in 
removal proceedings should have an opportunity to apply for 
status if they are eligible.
    During deliberation, the Committee rejected an amendment 
offered by Senator Cornyn, Cornyn3, that would have changed the 
criminal bars for RPI and lawful permanent residence status to 
preclude anyone who: 1) had one conviction, at any time, for a 
misdemeanor involving domestic violence, violation of a 
protection order, child abuse, assault, or drunk driving, 
unless the applicant could demonstrate by clear and convincing 
evidence that he or she was innocent of the offense or that no 
offense occurred; 2) had convictions for three misdemeanors of 
any kind, at any time (other than minor traffic offenses and 
offenses relating to immigration status) even if the 
misdemeanors had arisen out of a single incident; or 3) had 
committed any offense under foreign law that would render them 
inadmissible for entry to the United States. Although intended 
to protect victims, the amendment was opposed by a large 
coalition of groups that serve victims of domestic violence, 
sexual abuse, child and elder abuse, dating violence, and 
stalking.\157\ They expressed concern that the amendment could 
have the unintended consequence of sweeping in someone who is 
herself a victim of domestic violence, because it is not 
uncommon for an alien who is a victim of domestic violence to 
be arrested due to language and cultural barriers that prevent 
her from explaining that she acted in self-defense or that an 
abuser's allegations are false. Senators on the Committee made 
clear that while domestic violence and child abuse are serious 
crimes, the concerns voiced were persuasive. They noted that 
there are already significant criminal penalties and 
immigration consequences for abuse in existing law, and that S. 
744 already contains stringent criminal bars to legalization. 
Many of the offenses listed in Cornyn3 are already non-waivable 
bars to admissibility and eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\Letter from 156 Advocacy Groups to Members of the U.S. Senate 
Judiciary Committee (May 15, 2013) (copy on file with Senate Judiciary 
Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure of Social Security Numbers

    The Committee also considered and rejected an amendment 
offered by Ranking Member Grassley, Grassley18, that would have 
rendered all applicants ineligible for legalization unless they 
disclosed any Social Security Number or name they previously 
used to gain employment in the United States during the time 
they were undocumented. Numerous advocacy groups and 
immigration attorneys warned that such a provision would 
discourage undocumented immigrants from coming out of the 
shadows to seek RPI status, undermining a core purpose of the 
bill. Others expressed concern that the amendment could be used 
to attack employers who may have previously employed illegal 
workers, and that gathering such information raises privacy and 
security concerns.

Judicial Review

    The Committee did not adopt an amendment offered by Ranking 
Member Grassley, Grassley17, that would have significantly 
limited provisions in the bill establishing judicial review and 
eliminated any Federal court review of the adjudication of 
legalization applications. This amendment was strongly opposed 
by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 
other groups, who warned that the amendment would eliminate the 
important backstop of the Federal court system to determine 
whether the executive branch properly implemented the 
bill.\158\ The amendment was also opposed in a letter to the 
Committee by the group Justice at Stake, which, like the 
Leadership Conference, underscored the danger of narrowing the 
scope of judicial review.\159\ During debate, Senators voiced 
concern that the amendment would undermine the Constitutional 
system of checks and balances by eliminating independent 
oversight of a significant administrative program that will 
affect millions of people. They also emphasized the risk of 
error in the program, and the resulting need for judicial 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\Letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights to Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Charles Grassley, 
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (May 9, 2013) (copy on file with the 
Senate Judiciary Committee).
    \159\Letter from Justice At Stake to Chairman Leahy and Ranking 
Member Charles Grassley, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (May 9, 2013) 
(copy on file with the Senate Judiciary Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Amendments Relating to Public Benefits

    During deliberations of Title II and Title III, the 
Committee discussed extensively the provisions of S. 744 that 
require applicants for RPI status and lawful permanent 
residence to demonstrate their financial security, as well as 
provisions in the bill that prohibit those in RPI status from 
receiving any Federal means-tested benefits. Under current law, 
lawful permanent residents who entered the country after 1996 
typically only become eligible for Federal means-tested public 
benefit programs (such as Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families) five years after they obtain a ``qualified'' 
immigrant status, such as lawful permanent residence.\160\ S. 
744 expressly provides that RPIs are not eligible for Federal 
means-tested benefits while they are in RPI status (a minimum 
10-year period), and once they earn LPR status it further 
requires them to wait an additional five years, or until they 
obtain citizenship, before they may become eligible for those 
programs. As a result, RPIs effectively face a minimum 13-year 
bar before they could potentially qualify for means-tested 
Federal benefits. Even then, such benefits would only be 
available to individuals who had met the strict eligibility 
criteria of the legalization program and had successfully 
earned lawful permanent residence or citizenship over the prior 
thirteen or more years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\The Department of Health and Human Services has limited waiver 
authority for certain programs, such as for TANF benefits with regard 
to pregnant women and children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other provisions in the bill further limit access to 
benefits programs. As discussed above, the bill requires those 
in RPI status to apply to renew their RPI status after six 
years, at which juncture applicants must (among other criteria) 
show that they are not ``likely to become a public charge'' and 
demonstrate their financial security by showing that they have 
not been unemployed for any period longer than 60 days in the 
past six years, or that they have maintained an income or 
resources that are at or above the Federal poverty level. 
Applicants seeking Lawful Permanent Resident status after 10 
years must again meet the ``public charge'' test, and 
demonstrate financial security by showing that they have not 
been unemployed for any period longer than 60 days, or that 
they have maintained an income or resources that equal to at 
least 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. Applicants must 
also pay all assessed Federal tax liability, and as much as 
$2,000 in fines. During Committee deliberations, the Committee 
rejected an amendment by Senator Sessions, Sessions10, that 
would have made these strict criteria even harder for workers 
by expanding the criteria for ``public charge,'' such that 
applicants would have to show they were not likely to qualify 
even for non-cash employment supports such as Medicaid, the 
SNAP program, or the Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP). Senators opposing the amendment cited the strict 
benefit restrictions and requirements already included in both 
S. 744 and existing law, and the amendment was rejected by 
voice vote.

Affordable Care Act

    Under current law, immigrants who are lawfully present in 
the United States are eligible for premium assistance tax 
credits and cost-sharing reductions under the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No 111-148). The 
subsidies available to purchase private health insurance are 
not Federal public benefits and are available without a five-
year waiting period.\161\ In contrast, Section 2101 of S. 744 
plainly states that RPIs may not receive premium assistance tax 
credits or cost-sharing reductions under the Affordable Care 
Act until they successfully obtain lawful permanent resident 
status, a process that will take a minimum of 10 years. Section 
2211 imposes similar restrictions on agricultural workers with 
blue card status. These subsidies are denied even though RPIs 
and blue card holders are considered ``lawfully present'' in 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\When Congress considered the Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No 
(Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119) and the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010), 
it specifically chose to grant lawfully present immigrants access to 
premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies available under the Act, 
and chose not to impose a five-year bar to qualify for such benefits on 
public health policy grounds. An amendment to impose a five-year bar 
was defeated by a vote of 10-13 in the Senate Committee on Finance 
(Oct. 1, 2009). See Continuation of the Open Executive Session to 
consider an Original Bill Providing for Health Care Reform, Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. on Finance, 110th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During deliberations, some Republican Senators called for 
S. 744's tight restrictions on affordable healthcare for 
immigrants to be restricted even further, including by 
preventing immigrants from benefiting from the Affordable Care 
Act not only during the 10 or more years in which they are in 
RPIs status, but also for a further five years after they have 
achieved lawful permanent residence. Under this approach, 
immigrants on the path to citizenship would have been blocked 
from accessing the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act for 
a minimum of 15 years after they first begin the path. Advocacy 
groups have strongly opposed these reforms, noting that such 
restrictions would deny access to affordable health insurance 
for large categories of individuals and undermine the important 
cost-saving and public health objectives of the ACA.

Social Security Credits; Child Tax Credit; Earned Income Tax Credit

    During Committee deliberations, the Committee also 
discussed provisions in the bill concerning tax payments by 
undocumented workers under current law, and future payments by 
those who will qualify for RPI status. Senator Hatch filed but 
did not offer an amendment, Hatch24, that would have prevented 
previously undocumented workers from claiming credit for 
contributions they paid into the Social Security system through 
payroll taxes during the years they were in undocumented 
status. Advocates and others strongly opposed this amendment, 
noting that many workers have paid into Social Security for 
years, and denying them the benefit of those payments in the 
future will severely harm families and retirees when immigrants 
who earn citizenship reach retirement age. The Social Security 
Administration estimates than in 2010 undocumented workers paid 
$13 billion in payroll taxes. Advocates also warned that an 
amendment such as Hatch24 could not be fairly or accurately 
administered, because many workers (such as visa overstays) 
have gone in and out of work authorized status over the years, 
and the Social Security Administration and DHS do not have 
accurate records to fairly credit their lawful work. As a 
result, the amendment would cause many lawful workers to lose 
the benefit of taxes they have paid. Moreover, Hatch24 would 
have risked the quarters of many legal immigrants who were 
never in undocumented status, because it required the Social 
Security Administration to affirmatively determine that each 
quarter they worked was a quarter in which they had legal 
status--information that DHS may not be able to verify 
affirmatively even for those who never were in an undocumented 
status.
    During markup, Senator Sessions offered an amendment, 
Sessions30, that would deny the Child Tax Credit to families 
who paid taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification 
Number (ITIN) instead of a Social Security Number (SSN). 
Opponents of the amendment noted that while many undocumented 
workers use ITINs to file their tax returns, not all ITIN 
filers are undocumented. Moreover, the Child Tax Credit is not 
a welfare payment; it is a refundable credit for low-income 
working families who pay taxes. Approximately 20 million 
working families with children benefit from the refundable 
credit each year. Without access to the Child Tax Credit, low- 
and moderate-income immigrant taxpayers without Social Security 
Numbers would face Federal tax bills that are significantly 
higher than what other families in similar circumstances pay. 
The amendment was defeated on an 8-10 vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment, Sessions31, to deny 
the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers in RPI status and some 
other categories of legal immigrants who are lawfully working 
in this country. Under current law, undocumented immigrants are 
not eligible to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, but 
immigrants who are working here legally may do so. Advocates 
and others strongly opposed this amendment because it would 
create an unprecedented two-tier tax system for workers that 
would result in one group of legal workers owing significantly 
higher Federal taxes than other legal workers with the same 
earnings. Like the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax 
Credit is not a welfare benefit; it is a credit only available 
to working families and is an integral part of the tax code. 
The Earned Income Tax Credit benefits about six million people 
with low incomes each year, almost all of whom (97 percent in 
2010) are part of families with children. The amendment was 
defeated on an 8-10 vote.

Withdrawn Amendments

    A number of amendments that would have significantly 
improved Title II were withdrawn out of concern that they would 
have upset the bill's bipartisan support. Senator Leahy offered 
and withdrew Leahy7, an amendment that would have amended the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to recognize for immigration 
purposes any marriage entered into in full compliance with the 
laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage 
was performed, including same-sex marriages. After significant 
debate, the Republican cosponsors of the bill made clear that 
they would abandon their support of the comprehensive 
immigration bill if the amendment were adopted. The Chairman 
withdrew the amendment from consideration.
    Additionally, Senator Blumenthal filed but did not offer 
Blumenthal1, which would have allowed children under the age of 
18 to qualify for the DREAM Act's expedited path to citizenship 
if they meet all the eligibility criteria except the higher 
education and military service requirements, which they are too 
young to meet. Senator Hirono also filed but did not offer two 
amendments, Hirono6 and Hirono7, that would have restored the 
family immigration categories eliminated by the bill for the 
siblings and unmarried children over age 31 of citizens and 
legal permanent residents. These amendments were personally 
important to the members who offered them, but were objected to 
by Republican members and were subsequently withdrawn in an 
effort to promote strong bipartisan support for S. 744.
            b. List of Amendments Adopted, Not Adopted, and Withdrawn 
                    Relating to Title II
    In all, 49 amendments relating to Title II were considered 
during the Committee markup, 21 offered by Democratic Senators 
and 28 offered by Republican Senators. Of those 49 amendments, 
28 were adopted, all with bipartisan support.

Amendments Adopted

    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein13-
MDM13498) that ensures that grant programs authorized under 
Section 2106 include agricultural workers seeking blue card 
status. A second degree amendment (MDM13689) offered by Senator 
Feinstein also precludes the denial or revocation of certain 
non-immigrant visas solely because the applicant has expressed 
a ``dual intent'' to be the beneficiary of an immigrant 
application, or has filed such an application. The amendment as 
modified was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Whitehouse offered an amendment (Whitehouse4-
ARM13611) that provides a new conditional immigrant visa and 
expedited naturalization for certain high-skilled and 
specialized immigrants who come to the United States to work in 
Federal laboratories dedicated to Federal national security, 
science and technology research. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment (Klobuchar5-
MDM13503) that allows physicians whose J-1 waiver is denied 
because their State's allotted number of waivers has been 
filled to remain in legal status for 6 months so they may apply 
for the Conrad 30 Program in a medically underserved area of 
another State. It also authorizes their employment with the new 
employer who has applied for the waiver until their new waiver 
is approved. The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment (MDM13702) offered by Senator Klobuchar, which allows 
dual intent for J-1 visa holders entering the country for 
graduate medical education or training. The amendment as 
modified was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Franken offered an amendment (Franken9-GRA13162) 
that confirms that immigrant victims of domestic violence who 
have received U visas are eligible for public or assisted 
housing. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons3-EAS13380) that 
confers special immigrant status on the surviving spouse or 
child of a U.S. government employee overseas who is killed in 
the line of duty. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal12-
MDM13543) that permits DREAM Act eligible individuals serving 
in the Armed Forces to naturalize on the same terms as those 
who apply under current law. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono1-EAS13437) that 
exempts from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas the 
sons and daughters of Filipino veterans of World War II who 
were naturalized under the Immigration Act of 1990 or other 
specified Federal law. The amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono11-MDM13540) 
that requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study of the 
impact on families and workers of the new merit-based 
immigration system created by Title II. The amendment was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono12-ARM13554) 
that permits individuals applying for Registered Provisional 
Immigrant status to pay the first $1000 penalty in installment 
payments. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono20-MDM13523) 
that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to collect 
certain information, which shall be kept confidential, from 
applicants for Registered Provisional Immigrant status for the 
purpose of understanding immigration trends. The amendment was 
modified by a second degree amendment (MDM13671) offered by 
Senator Hirono and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono21-BOM13213) 
that ensures that youth who are brought to the United States 
before the age 16 would not be prohibited from accessing 
financial aid for higher education. The amendment was modified 
by a second degree amendment (MDM13659) offered by Senator 
Hirono and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley19-
ARM13529) that requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish a fraud assessment program through the Fraud 
Detection and National Security Directorate with respect to 
Registered Provisional Immigrants, DREAM applicants, blue card 
applicants, U visas, and Iraq/Afghanistan visas. The program 
will include audits to identify and analyze types of fraud, and 
submission of annual reports on fraud trends. Any instances of 
fraud discovered through the program can be used to deny or 
revoke immigration benefits. The program will be paid for 
through the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund. The 
amendment was modified and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Graham offered an amendment (Graham3-DAV13381), 
modified by a second degree amendment also offered by Senator 
Graham (MDM13668), that requires additional national security 
screening of applicants for Regional Provisional Immigrant 
status and their derivatives who are citizens or long-time 
residents of a country or region that poses a threat to 
national security or harbors organizations that pose a threat 
to national security. The amendment as modified by the second 
degree amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn4-ALB13424) that 
changes the legalization waiver for individuals who departed 
the United States prior to December 31, 2011. As amended by a 
second degree amendment (ALB13471), it requires the Department 
of Homeland Security in certain cases in which an RPI applicant 
has been convicted of a crime, to work with willing state and 
local prosecutors to identify and locate the victim, provide 
written notice of the RPI application, and allow the victim 60 
days to consult DHS regarding the application. The second 
degree amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn8-MDM13316) 
relating to the EB-5 visa program for investors, that permits 
areas to be designated as Targeted Employment Areas for 
purposes of that program if they are negatively affected by the 
Base Realignment and Closure Program. The amendment was 
modified by a second degree amendment (EAS13622) offered by 
Senator Cornyn and the amendment as modified was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Flake offered an amendment (Flake3-MDM13454) that 
requires Registered Provisional Immigrants to undergo national 
security and law enforcement background checks before their 
status can be renewed at the six-year renewal period. The 
amendment, as modified by a second degree by Senator Schumer 
(EAS13631), also makes several clarifications regarding 
eligibility of dependent spouses and children for the 
legalization programs. The amendment was modified by second 
degree amendments offered by Senator Schumer (EAS13631) and 
Senator Flake (MDM13649) and agreed to by a voice vote.
    Senator Flake offered an amendment (Flake4-MDM13529) that 
adds a requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services conduct regular audits to ensure that individuals in 
Registered Provisional Immigrant status are not fraudulently 
receiving Federal means-tested public benefits. The amendment 
also adds a conviction for fraudulently claiming or receiving 
Federal means-tested public benefits after receiving Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status to the list of reasons that 
Department of Homeland Security can revoke Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.

Amendments Not Adopted

    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono10-ARM13626) 
that would have allocated six percent of worldwide visas for 
family-sponsored immigrants to address separations that result 
in extreme hardship. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 7 Yeas, 11 Nays
    Yeas (7): Leahy (D-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-
MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono 
(D-HI).
    Nays (11): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley11-
ARM13536) that would have struck provisions allowing 
apprehended individuals a reasonable opportunity to apply for 
Registered Provisional Immigrant status if they are prima facie 
eligible. The amendment would have also eliminated the limited 
RPI eligibility waiver that will allow some undocumented 
persons who departed the country prior to December 31, 2011 to 
apply for RPI status and reunite with their families. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-
NY)*, Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, 
Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), 
Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley16-
ARM13504) that would have required all fees and penalties for 
immigrant visas to be adjusted at least yearly for inflation. 
This amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley17-
EAS13399) that would have restricted judicial review of any 
Department of Homeland Security decision on an immigrant's 
adjustment of status or legalization. The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley18-
ARM13537) that would have prohibited the Secretary of Homeland 
Security from granting Registered Provisional Immigrant status 
to any person unless such person fully discloses all the names 
and Social Security Number ever used to obtain employment. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions15-EAS13333) 
that would have granted the Department of Homeland Security 
sole authority to revoke or deny visas for security purposes, 
without judicial review. The amendment was not agreed to by 
voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions16-MRW13311) 
that would have required a fully electronic filing system for 
legalization petitions and mandated specific law enforcement 
procedures for the Department of Homeland Security. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions30-MDM13331) 
that would have required taxpayers and their qualifying 
children to have a valid tax identification number to be 
eligible for the Child Tax Credit under section 24 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The amendment was not agreed to 
by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with 
*):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX), Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn3-MDM13315) that 
would have changed the criminal bars for RPI and lawful 
permanent residence status to preclude anyone who: (1) had one 
conviction, at any time, for a misdemeanor involving domestic 
violence, violation of a protection order, child abuse, 
assault, or drunk driving, unless the applicant could 
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was 
innocent of the offense or that no offense occurred; (2) had 
convictions for three misdemeanors of any kind, at any time 
(other than minor traffic offenses and offenses relating to 
immigration status), including if the misdemeanors arose out of 
a single incident; or (3) committed an offense under foreign 
law that would render the person inadmissible for entry to the 
United States. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn5-MDM13500) that 
would have required the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
disclose immigrant application information to law enforcement 
and would have authorized the Secretary of State to share 
limited information with a foreign government. The amendment 
was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by 
proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 9 Yeas, 9 Nays
    Yeas (9): Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, 
Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz 
(R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (9): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee8-MDM13342) that would 
have prohibited any individual who absconded or attempted to 
reenter the United States after receiving a deportation order 
from qualifying for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. 
The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee10-ARM13485) that 
would have required a Registered Provisional Immigrant 
applicant to demonstrate that he or she had paid all Federal 
taxes owed, rather than those assessed by the Internal Revenue 
Service, as required in the base bill. The amendment was not 
agreed to by voice vote.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee12-MDM13378) that 
would have prohibited the use of sworn affidavits to verify the 
employment or education of Registered Provisional Immigrants 
applying for permanent residence. The amendment was not agreed 
to by voice vote.
    Senator Cruz offered an amendment (Cruz2-DAV13378) that 
would have denied eligibility for Federal, State, and local 
government means-tested benefits to any individual who 
previously entered or remained in the United States unlawfully, 
regardless of the person's immigration status at the time of 
applying for the benefits. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham (R-
SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Cruz offered an amendment (Cruz3-DAV13373) that 
would have made any person ineligible for citizenship if they 
had ever been willfully present in the United States while not 
of lawful status. The amendment was modified by a second-degree 
amendment offered by Senator Cruz (MDM13677) that would have 
created a limited exception to the amendment for certain 
asylees. The amendment as modified was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 5 Yeas, 13 Nays
    Yeas (5): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX)*, 
Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (13): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA)*, Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT)*, Graham (R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Cruz offered an amendment (Cruz4-MDM13526) that 
would have established an annual cap of 1,012,500 for 
employment-based immigrant visas and an annual cap of 337,500 
for family-sponsored immigrant visas, and made other changes to 
the family visa category. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham 
(R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).

Amendments Withdrawn

    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy7-MDM13374) to 
recognize, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
any marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of 
the State or foreign country within which such marriage was 
performed. After an extensive debate and hearing that 
Republican supporters would abandon their support for the 
legislation, Chairman Leahy withdrew this amendment.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal15-
MDM13448) to change the date at which undocumented immigrants 
had to have entered the United States to qualify for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status from December 31, 2011, to April 
17, 2013. Senator Blumenthal withdrew the amendment.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono16-ERN13170) to 
eliminate the five-year bar for lawful permanent residents to 
obtain benefits, and provide full-scope Medicaid to lawfully 
present immigrant adults who are otherwise eligible and to 
children and pregnant women regardless of status. Senator 
Hirono withdrew this amendment.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono17-ERN13174) to 
provide that an applicant's time in Registered Provisional 
Immigrant status or blue card status would apply toward the 
five-year waiting period for Federal means-tested public 
benefit programs. The amendment included a ``do no harm'' 
provision that would have ensured that individuals who have an 
immigration status that makes them eligible for affordable 
health insurance prior to obtaining Registered Provisional 
Immigrant or blue card status should not lose access to 
affordable health coverage if they enter Registered Provisional 
Immigrant status. The amendment would also have given States 
the option to eliminate the five-year bar for public benefits 
and to provide full-scope Medicaid to lawfully present 
individuals, DREAMers, or blue card holders who are otherwise 
eligible. Senator Hirono withdrew this amendment.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions2-MRW13343) 
to reduce the number of immigrants granted permanent resident 
status and limited admission of nonimmigrant workers under S. 
744 to 30 million during the 10 years after enactment. The 
amendment was withdrawn.

3. TITLE III

            a. Overview of Amendments
    Title III of S. 744 focuses on interior enforcement of 
immigration policy. Specifically, it establishes a mandatory E-
Verify system and mandatory entry-exit system to help law 
enforcement identify visa overstays. It also modifies existing 
law relating to asylum-seekers and refugees, strengthens 
efforts to reduce human trafficking, and improves the 
functioning and efficiency of our Nation's immigration courts. 
It includes new measures to strengthen the penalties imposed on 
immigrants who commit crimes, by expanding the already 
significant grounds for deportation and inadmissibility in the 
immigration code, increasing civil and criminal penalties for 
illegal entry and re-entry, and creating new prohibitions 
against manufacturing fraudulent immigration documents.
    Contrary to views expressed by some opponents of the bill, 
S. 744 contains strong measures to promote interior 
enforcement. The E-Verify system created by the bill will apply 
to all businesses across the Nation within five years of 
implementing regulations, making it significantly harder for 
unauthorized persons to obtain work without detection. 
Provisions imposing a mandatory entry/exit system will crack 
down on visa overstays, and changes to the student visa system 
made in Title IV will address potential abuses in that program.
    As discussed below, the bill also contains many provisions 
to ensure that undocumented immigrants with significant 
criminal histories are barred from staying in the United 
States. The bill precludes from RPI status anyone with a single 
felony conviction that is not based on immigration status. 
There is no exception and there is no time limit. As a result, 
the bar applies even to non-violent felony offenses (such as 
receiving stolen property) that occurred years before.
    The bill also bars anyone who has been convicted of an 
``aggravated felony'' as defined in the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act, which encompasses more than 40 offenses 
including misdemeanors, crimes of violence, and theft crimes. 
For example, one single decades-old shoplifting offense could 
bar someone from RPI status. The bill also prohibits anyone 
with more than two misdemeanor convictions from RPI status. 
This prohibition can include misdemeanors as minor as 
trespassing, littering, speeding, or loitering. The bill 
further toughens the already significant grounds for 
deportation and inadmissibility, to include involvement in 
criminal street gangs, habitual drunk driving, immigration 
document fraud, child abuse and domestic violence.
    At the same time, the bill restores reasonable powers to 
immigration judges to allow them to take into account the 
individual circumstances in a case. In aggregate, the 
provisions of Title III as amended by the Committee promote a 
tough but fair interior enforcement system that will improve 
our immigration system and make the Nation more secure.

National Security and Fraud Detection Efforts

    A number of the amendments adopted in Title III strengthen 
the existing national security and fraud enforcement provisions 
included in S. 744. Senator Graham offered two amendments, 
Graham1 and Graham2, in response to the bombing that took place 
during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. Graham1 requires 
the Department of Homeland Security to terminate status of any 
refugee or asylee who travels back to his or her home country 
without good cause.\162\ Graham2 requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to share with Federal law enforcement, 
intelligence, and national security agencies information 
concerning individuals who have overstayed their visas, and 
requires DHS to employ reasonably available enforcement 
resources to locate visa overstays and commence removal 
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\Refugee Council USA wrote a letter to the Committee opposing 
this amendment, which was also opposed by other advocacy groups. They 
noted that ``any provision requiring automatic termination of refugee 
or asylee status for any return to the country of nationality or last 
habitual residence is contrary to the international obligations of the 
[United States] and is unnecessary under existing U.S. law. Refugees 
and asylees have many legitimate reasons for returning to their 
countries of origin, particularly years later once they have attained 
permanent resident status in the United States and the conditions that 
caused them to flee have changed.'' See Letter from Refugee Council USA 
to Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 9, 2013) (copy on 
file with the Senate Judiciary Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment that was adopted, 
Feinstein4, which requires full biographic and biometric 
security screening for all applicants for refugee and asylum 
status by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department 
of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
Department of Defense. Senator Lee offered two amendments that 
were adopted, Lee16 and Lee17, which strengthen enforcement 
efforts to stop the use of fraudulent identification documents.

Drunk Driving Convictions

    Senator Grassley offered an amendment, Grassley44, to make 
a third drunk driving conviction an ``aggravated felony'' under 
immigration law. An aggravated felony is an offense for which a 
non-citizen, regardless of immigration status, may be 
immediately deported and permanently barred from being 
readmitted to the United States with no opportunity for 
judicial review to take into consideration the specific 
circumstances of an individual case. It is the harshest 
immigration consequence available. The amendment was adopted 
and significantly expanded the strong deportation and 
inadmissibility penalties for repeat drunk drivers already in 
the bill.

E-Verify

    The Committee adopted several amendments to improve the 
accuracy and transparency of the E-Verify System, which is 
intended to ensure that only those authorized to work in the 
United States are able to obtain employment. Senator Franken 
offered an amendment, Franken2, that requires annual accuracy 
audits of the E-Verify system by the DHS Inspector General, and 
reduces the maximum penalty for first-time non-compliance with 
E-Verify requirements if the error rate exceeds a certain rate. 
He also offered an amendment, Franken4, that creates an Office 
of the Small Business and Employee Advocate within U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services to serve as a resource for 
small businesses and individuals using the E-Verify system.
    The Committee adopted an amendment by Senator Coons, 
Coons1, that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
create a system to notify individuals when their name receives 
a non-confirmation determination or ``further action notice'' 
in the E-Verify system. The Committee also adopted two 
amendments offered by Senator Grassley. The first, Grassley31, 
requires a parent or guardian, rather than an adult, to attest 
to the identity of a potential worker under the age of 18 who 
does not possess other forms of identification. The second, 
Grassley 36, requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
to provide a weekly report to U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement providing the names of persons who received a final 
non-confirmation in the E-Verify system.

Victim Protections

    Other amendments adopted in Title III improve protections 
for immigrant victims of domestic violence, elder abuse, and 
other vulnerable populations, including unaccompanied children 
arriving at the border. Senator Leahy offered an amendment, 
Leahy3, to ensure that immigrant victims of domestic violence, 
human trafficking, and other crimes do not wait longer than 180 
days to receive work authorization while their immigration 
applications are being adjudicated. An amendment offered by 
Senator Klobuchar, Klobuchar2, adds ``elder abuse'' as one of 
the crimes for which a U visa is available. Senators Feinstein, 
Franken, and Hirono each offered amendments that were adopted 
to improve the screening and other procedures available for 
unaccompanied immigrant children to ensure that they are 
appropriately cared for. Senator Blumenthal offered several 
amendments that were adopted to strengthen the anti-human 
trafficking provisions in the underlying bill.

Asylees and Refugees

    The Committee extensively debated, but ultimately rejected, 
other amendments that would have removed important improvements 
to the asylum process made by the underlying bill. Senator 
Grassley introduced two amendments, Grassley27A and B, that 
would have struck key provisions of the bill text. Grassley 27A 
would have eliminated Section 3401, which ends the current one-
year filing deadline on asylum claims, and replaced it with a 
two and a half year filing deadline, and Section 3404, which 
enhances efficiency in the asylum determination process by 
giving expert asylum officers initial jurisdiction over certain 
asylum cases.\163\ Both provisions eliminate unnecessary and 
costly barriers to protection that have proven to have no 
bearing on immigration fraud, but have resulted in the denial 
of legitimate claims and costly and time-consuming litigation. 
In discussing these amendments, Senators noted that the 
Department of Homeland Security has significant mechanisms in 
place for determining whether claims have merit and for 
identifying fraud. There are also strict requirements related 
to establishing credibility, complying with reasonable requests 
for corroborating evidence, and undergoing background and 
security checks. These mechanisms and requirements function 
well, regardless of when they are applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\The Committee received a letter from the Leadership Conference 
strongly opposing this amendment, which noted that the amendment 
``would reinstate the one year filing deadline for asylum applications, 
which has prevented thousands of bona fide refugees from receiving 
asylum based on this arbitrary and technical requirement. The deadline 
is inefficient and wastes government resources by overburdening the 
immigration courts to determine arrival times of asylum applications 
rather than their actual merits.'' See Letter from Judicial Conference 
of the United States to Chairman Leahy (May 9, 2013) (copy on file with 
the Senate Judiciary Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grassley27B would have eliminated a provision in the 
underlying bill that would allow RPI applicants the ability to 
legalize despite having filed an asylum claim that has been 
deemed ``frivolous,'' or failing to voluntarily depart the 
United States. During debate, Senators noted that it is not 
uncommon for asylum applicants, who often speak little English 
and have limited resources, to receive poor legal 
representation or no legal representation, which can result in 
poorly drafted filings and findings of ``frivolous'' claims. 
The flexibility in the underlying bill was designed to ensure 
that an otherwise eligible immigrant is not barred from seeking 
RPI status for the mistakes of his or her lawyer. The amendment 
was not agreed to on a roll call vote.

Criminal Street Gangs

    Senator Grassley also introduced an amendment, Grassley43, 
that would have significantly broadened the definition of a 
criminal ``street gang'' and imposed immigration consequences 
for gang membership beyond the significant penalties in 
existing law, which are already strengthened by S. 744. The 
bill makes individuals inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible 
for RPI status for grounds related to gang activity. The bill 
makes inadmissible and deportable those who have been convicted 
of an offense for which an element was active participation in 
a criminal street gang (as defined in Title 18). The bill also 
permits the Department of Homeland Security to determine by 
clear and convincing evidence that certain immigrants have 
knowingly and willfully participated in a criminal street gang 
since the age of 18 (even without any criminal 
conviction).\164\ The amendment to further modify these 
provisions was defeated on a roll call vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\In their Minority Views, Senators Grassley, Sessions, Lee, and 
Cruz misstate the bill's provisions related to street gangs. They claim 
that S.744 is weak on foreign national criminal street gang members. In 
fact, the bill prevents street gang members from obtaining RPI status, 
and amends current immigration law to make them inadmissible and 
deportable for the first time. There is no requirement that individuals 
have felony convictions for drug trafficking or violent crimes, for 
example, to be considered members of criminal street gangs, as the 
minority asserts. Indeed, certain individuals can be considered street 
gang members under Section 3701 without any conviction at all. Section 
3701(a)(J)(i)(II) gives the Secretary the authority to designate 
certain individuals as street gang members even if they have no 
criminal convictions at all, based on information from law enforcement 
sources that the Secretary deems credible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access to Counsel and Legal Information

    Some opponents of the legislation have criticized 
provisions in the bill that provide access to counsel and legal 
orientation programs for immigrants. These provisions, however, 
will increase court efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. They 
have been strongly supported by the National Association of 
Immigration Judges, who wrote to the Committee stating: ``It is 
our experience that when noncitizens are represented by 
attorneys, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings 
more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly.''\165\ They 
note that represented individuals are less likely to pursue 
claims that do not have a legal basis, and that programs to 
promote appointed counsel will help reduce exploitation of 
immigrants by notarios and promote better functioning in the 
courts. Similarly, the Department of Justice's Legal 
Orientation Program (LOP) demonstrates the efficiency and cost 
benefits of providing legal assistance. The program, which 
currently provides basic legal information in a limited number 
of immigration detention facilities, results in legal 
proceedings that are 13 days shorter on average. Given the 
average detention bed cost of $97 a day, this reduction in 
detention time has led to considerable cost-savings.\166\ These 
provisions are designed to save tax payer money and promote a 
fair and efficient immigration court system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\Letter from Dana Leigh Marks, President, National Association 
of Immigration Judges, to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (March 
22, 2103) (copy on file with the Senate Judiciary Committee).
    \166\Vera Institute of Justice, Legal Orientation Program 
Evaluation and Performance and Outcome Report, Phase II (May 2008) 
available at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/reports/LOPEvaluation-
final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. List of Amendments Adopted, Not Adopted, and Withdrawn 
                    Relating to Title III
    In all, 73 amendments relating to Title III were considered 
by the Committee, 38 offered by Democratic Senators and 35 
offered by Republican Senators. Of those 73 amendments, 53 were 
adopted, all with bipartisan support.

Amendments Adopted

    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy3-MRW13332) that 
ensures that immigrant victims of domestic violence, human 
trafficking, and other crimes do not wait longer than 180 days 
to receive work authorization while their immigration 
applications are being adjudicated. The amendment was adopted 
by a voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein3-
MDM13397) that provides for a total of 5,000 immigrant visas 
for displaced Tibetans and their children and spouses. The 
visas will be issued over a three-year period beginning October 
2013. To be eligible for the visas, Tibetans must be living in 
India or Nepal. Priority will be given to those Tibetans who 
are not resettled in India or Nepal, and who will be most 
likely to successfully resettle in the United States. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein4-
MDM13398) that codifies national security and fraud screening 
practices that are currently used by the Department of Homeland 
Security in refugee and asylum cases. This screening requires 
biographic and biometric screening on a number of databases 
maintained by several Federal agencies including the Department 
of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
Department of State, and the Department of Defense. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment (Feinstein5-
MDM13339) that creates a pilot program using the services of 
child welfare professionals to aid U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection in screening unaccompanied children attempting to 
enter the United States illegally for signs of human 
trafficking or other abuse. The program will operate at six or 
more points of entry with high numbers of unaccompanied 
children, with a report to the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees due not later than 15 months after implementation 
regarding the effectiveness of the program and recommendations 
for expansion. The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment offered by Senator Feinstein (MDM13664) that requires 
the live training of all U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
personnel who are likely to come into contact with 
unaccompanied immigrant children. The amendment as modified was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment (Klobuchar2-
JEN13517) that adds ``elder abuse'' as one of the crimes for 
which a U visa is available. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Franken offered an amendment (Franken2-ARM13598) 
that requires annual accuracy audits of the E-Verify System by 
the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, and 
reduces the maximum penalty for first-time non-compliance with 
E-Verify requirements if the error rate exceeds a certain rate. 
The amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered 
by Senator Franken (EAS13579) increasing the ``error rate'' 
that will trigger reduced fines from 0.26 percent to 0.3 
percent, and was subsequently adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Franken offered an amendment (Franken4-ARM13606) to 
create an Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate 
within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that would be 
a resource for small businesses and individuals using the E-
Verify system. The Office would also have authority to issue an 
``Assistance Order'' on behalf of small businesses and 
employees that face ``significant hardship'' as a result of an 
E-Verify or employment verification-related action by the 
Department of Homeland Security. The amendment was modified by 
a second degree amendment offered by Senator Franken (MDM13609) 
and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Franken offered an amendment (Franken7-ARM13584) 
that requires the Department of Homeland Security, following an 
enforcement action, to inquire whether individuals apprehended 
are the parent or primary care giver of a child in the United 
States, and to allow the detained person to make calls to 
arrange for child care or notify the appropriate child welfare 
agency that the parent or primary care giver cannot make care 
arrangements. It precludes the Department of Homeland Security 
from transferring parents away from the point of detention 
until care arrangements are made and requires that detained 
parents will be given access to their children, as well as 
access to State courts, welfare agencies, and consulates to 
ensure the care of the children. The amendment was agreed to by 
a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 18 Yeas, 0 Nays
    Yeas (18): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), 
Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).*
    Nays (0):
    Senator Franken offered an amendment (Franken8-ARM13600) 
that transfers the administration of the unaccompanied alien 
children legal services program from the Department of Health 
and Human Services Refugee Resettlement Program to the 
Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review. 
The amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered 
by Senator Franken (MDM13607) and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons1-EAS13421) that 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a system 
for individuals to receive notification whenever the individual 
is looked up in E-Verify. The amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote and further modified by Coons9 (EAS13423), to require 
notification when an individual's name receives a non-
confirmation determination in E-Verify or a ``further action 
notice.''
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons5-DAV13374) to 
require the Department of Homeland Security to provide an 
individual in a removal proceeding with a complete copy of his 
or her Department of Homeland Security file, typically referred 
to as the ``A-File.'' The Department of Homeland Security is 
not required to produce privileged documents, law enforcement 
sensitive documents, or national security sensitive documents. 
The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons6-MRW13307) that 
requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and 
Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services to keep detailed records and submit reports to 
Congress about the number of persons apprehended, detained, and 
supervised. It further requires these agencies to have 
interoperable databases to consolidate the information. The 
amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered by 
Coons (MDM13663) and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons8-DAV13356) that 
clarifies that applicants for asylum shall be granted a work 
authorization180 days after their application is filed, if 
their application is still pending. Currently, issuance of a 
work authorization is discretionary, and immigration judges can 
toll the 180 day clock based on docketing delays. The amendment 
was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons10-DAV13371) that 
provides that individuals authorized to work in the United 
States will not be denied professional, commercial, or business 
licenses because of their immigration status. The amendment was 
modified slightly by a second degree amendment (EAS13594) 
offered by Senator Coons and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Coons offered an amendment (Coons12-ARM13532) to 
deter foreign human rights violators from seeking safe haven in 
the United States. Specifically, it amends the Torture Victims 
Protection Act of 1991, P.L. 102-256, S. Rep. No. 102-249 
(1991), to include claims for war crimes, genocide, or 
widespread or systemic attacks on civilians. The amendment was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal2-
MDM13517) that states that solitary confinement for immigration 
detainees should be imposed only in limited circumstances, such 
as for a detainee who presents a serious security risk or has 
committed a serious infraction. It limits such confinement to 
the briefest period practicable, and would not permit solitary 
confinement for individuals under 18 years of age. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal3-
ARM13595) that strengthens the anti-human trafficking 
provisions in the underlying bill by allowing workers who have 
been the victims of foreign labor recruiter violations to seek 
redress from their employer, if the employer has chosen to 
contract with an unregistered, unregulated foreign labor 
recruiter. The amendment was modified by a substitute amendment 
offered by Blumenthal (EAS13618) and was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal4-
ARM13597) that requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
consult with the Department of Labor when developing 
regulations to implement the anti-human trafficking and foreign 
labor recruiter provisions of the underlying bill. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal5-
ARM13608) that strengthens the disclosure and transparency 
requirements of the anti-human trafficking and foreign labor 
recruiter provisions of the underlying bill. The amendment was 
slightly modified by a second degree amendment offered by 
Blumenthal (EAS13613) and was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal8-
ARM13753) that codifies existing limitations on Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's enforcement actions in sensitive 
locations (i.e. schools, hospitals, and places of worship), 
while leaving exceptions for exigent circumstances and approved 
operations. The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment offered by Blumenthal (MDM13655) and was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal18-
EAS13448) that prohibits employers from withholding employment 
records by treating the failure to do so as an unfair 
immigration-related employment practice. The amendment was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono22-MDM13422) 
that establishes a program to develop best practices for safe 
repatriation of unaccompanied immigrant children to their 
country of residence. This program will be established by the 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator 
in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of 
Justice. The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment offered by Senator Hirono (MDM13667), which made some 
technical changes. The amendment as modified was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley31-
MDM13354) that requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services to provide a weekly report to Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement providing the names of all individuals who received 
a final non-confirmation in the mandatory E-Verify System, and 
the names of individuals who received a tentative non-
confirmation in the System and were unable to or did not 
contest the error. The amendment was modified in markup, 
striking lines 9-13, relating to the use of this information. 
The amendment, as modified, was adopted by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley36-
MDM13358) that changes a provision in S. 744 that governs what 
identification a person under 18 years of age may provide for 
work authorization purposes if the individual does not have a 
passport, green card, driver's license, or voter registration 
card. S. 744 states that the Secretary of Homeland Security may 
allow ``other reliable means of identification, which may 
include an attestation by a person 21 years of age or older.'' 
The amendment replaces ``person over 21'' with ``a parent or 
guardian.'' The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley38-
MDM13360) that establishes a pilot program for parents to lock 
Social Security Numbers of their minor children in order to 
prevent identity theft. The amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley44-
MDM13530) to make it an ``aggravated felony'' under immigration 
law to have been convicted of a third offense of driving under 
the influence, if the offense was committed after the date of 
enactment. The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment offered by Senator Schumer (MDM13657), which struck 
language stating ``regardless of the States in which the 
convictions occurred or whether the offenses are classified as 
misdemeanors or felonies under Federal or State law,'' and the 
amendment was agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes 
by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 17 Yeas, 1 Nays
    Yeas (17): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch 
(R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-
UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (1): Leahy (D-VT).
    Senator Hatch offered an amendment (Hatch2-MDM13383) that 
increases penalties for drug offenses occurring on Federal 
land. The amendment creates a new stand-alone Federal crime for 
cultivating or manufacturing drugs on Federal property. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Hatch offered an amendment (Hatch6-MDM13437) that 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish a 
mandatory biometric exit system for non-citizens at the ten 
U.S. airports with the highest volume of international travel 
within two years, followed by a Government Accountability 
Office report within five years. The amendment was modified by 
a second degree amendment (MDM13648) offered by Senator 
Schumer, to require a Government Accountability Office report 
three years after enactment, to require a cost analysis, and to 
clarify that funding to collect biometrics would come from the 
bill's Trust Fund. The amendment, as modified by the second 
degree amendment, was agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 13 Yeas, 5 Nays
    Yeas (13): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-
IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), 
Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT)*, 
Graham (R-SC)*, Lee (R-UT), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (5): Leahy (D-VT), Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Cruz (R-TX).*
    Senator Hatch filed an amendment (Hatch7-MDM13393), which 
was offered by Senator Schumer on his behalf. The amendment 
terminates the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1988 upon passage of 
S. 744. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    Senator Graham offered an amendment (Graham1-DAV13389) that 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to terminate 
status for a refugee or asylee who travels to his or her home 
country without good cause, before the refugee or asylee has 
become a Lawful Permanent Resident. The amendment allows the 
Department of Homeland Security to waive the requirement for 
good cause. The amendment, as modified by a second degree 
amendment (MDM13651) offered by Senator Graham, was adopted by 
a voice vote.
    Senator Graham offered an amendment (Graham2-DAV13390) that 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to share with 
Federal law enforcement, intelligence, and national security 
agencies information on individuals who have overstayed their 
visas. It also requires that ``all reasonable efforts are made 
to locate the alien and to commence removal proceedings against 
the alien.'' The amendment was modified by a second degree 
amendment (MDM13652) offered by Senator Graham that changed 
this language to say that ``reasonably available enforcement 
resources are employed'' to locate visa overstays and commence 
removal proceedings. The amendment was agreed to by a voice 
vote.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee16-ARM13486) that 
reinstates the criminal offense of knowingly using fraudulent 
identification to prove employment eligibility--a provision in 
existing law that had been removed in the bill as drafted. The 
amendment was modified slightly by a second degree amendment 
(MDM13634) offered by Senator Lee, and the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee17-EAS13515) that 
makes attempting to use, possess, receive, buy, sell, or 
distribute a passport in violation of the laws a crime subject 
to the same penalties as those for using, possessing, 
receiving, buying, selling or distributing a passport in 
violation of the laws. The amendment was agreed to by voice 
vote.

Amendments Not Adopted

    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley27A-
ARM 13551) that would have struck Section 3401 of the bill, 
which eliminates the one-year filing deadline for asylum 
applicants, and replaced it with a two and a half year filing 
deadline. It also would have struck section 3404 of the bill, 
which improves the efficiency of the asylum process by giving 
the asylum office initial jurisdiction over certain cases where 
the applicant has been found to have a credible fear of 
persecution. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Feinstein (D-CA)*, Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-
UT)*, Sessions (R-AL)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Graham (R-SC), Lee (R-
UT), Flake (R-AZ).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley27B-
ARM13551) that would have removed a provision of S. 744 that 
allows Registered Provisional Immigrant applicants the ability 
to legalize despite having previously filed claims that were 
deemed frivolous or having failed to voluntarily depart the 
United States. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 9 Yeas, 9 Nays
    Yeas (9): Feinstein (D-CA)*, Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-
UT)*, Sessions (R-AL)*, Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-
UT), Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (9): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley29-
MDM13352) that would have required all employers to use the 
Employment Verification System not later than 18 months after 
date of enactment. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 5 Yeas, 13 Nays
    Yeas (5): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX)*, 
Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (13): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI)*, Hatch 
(R-UT)*, Graham (R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).*
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley34-
ARM13474) that, as modified by his second degree amendment 
(MDM13622), would have made using another person's Social 
Security Number subject to a sentence enhancement for 
aggravated identity theft. The amendment also would have 
criminalized identity fraud committed to ``facilitate or assist 
in harboring or hiring undocumented workers'' with a sentence 
of up to 20 years. The amendment, as modified, was not agreed 
to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated 
with *):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY)*, 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).*
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley35-
MDM13357) that would have delayed the preemption of State and 
local laws relating to employment verification until all 
employers are required to use the E-Verify System. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 5 Yeas, 13 Nays
    Yeas (5): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (13): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY)*, 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI)*, Graham 
(R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).*
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley43-
ARM13616) that would have broadened the definition of a 
criminal street gang and allowed the Department of Homeland 
Security to determine criminal gang membership (as defined in 
the amendment) as grounds for inadmissibility or deportation. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley45-
MRW13334) to make it easier for prosecutors to seek the maximum 
penalties for illegal entry and reentry crimes by removing 
certain predicates. The amendment also narrowed the exception 
to criminal penalties for those providing emergency 
humanitarian assistance so that it applied only to the 
provision of food, medical care and related transportation. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX), Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN)*, Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley47-
EAS13355) that would have struck Section 3717 of the bill, 
which requires timely custody hearings for all detained 
immigrants, timely charging documents, and regular and timely 
review of custody determinations. The amendment was not agreed 
to by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley49-
MDM13414) that would have allowed Federal law enforcement 
officers to consider an individual's country of origin in 
connection with an investigation ``as permitted by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States.'' The amendment was 
not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley52-
EAS13415) that would have required the Director of National 
Intelligence to submit to Congress an Intelligence Community 
Inspector General's report on the Federal government's handling 
of the Boston marathon bombing of April 15, 2013 that includes 
new areas for review. The amendment would have delayed the 
implementation of refugee, asylee, and student visa provisions 
until one year after the submission of this report and certain 
sub-reports. The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions10-
MRW13340), as modified by a second degree amendment (MDM13653), 
that would have expanded the definition of ``public charge'' 
such that people who received non-cash health benefits could 
not become legal permanent residents. This amendment would also 
have denied entry to individuals whom the Department of 
Homeland Security determines are likely to receive these types 
of benefits in the future. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions12-EAS13337) 
that would have mandated a minimum bond of $5,000 for nationals 
of non-contiguous countries who unlawfully entered and are 
apprehended within 100 miles of the border or present a flight 
risk. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as 
follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 9 Yeas, 9 Nays
    Yeas (9): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ), Feinstein (D-CA).
    Nays (9): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions31-OTT13233) 
that would have denied the earned income tax credit (EITC) that 
is available under current law to anyone who is not a U.S. 
citizen or a Legal Permanent Resident. The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 8 Yeas, 10 Nays
    Yeas (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ).
    Nays (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions32-MDM13332) 
that stated that it would have affirmed the authority of States 
or localities to enforce Federal immigration law. The amendment 
would have denied State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
(SCAAP) funding to States that do not assist in Federal 
immigration law enforcement. It also would have required the 
Attorney General to approve more State and local requests to 
enter into 287(g) agreements that allow State and local 
agencies to assist with immigration enforcement, among other 
things. The amendment was modified slightly by a second degree 
amendment (MDM13638) offered by Senator Sessions. The amendment 
was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee15-ARM13492) that 
would have required discrimination to be intentional in order 
for workers to be covered by anti-discrimination provisions. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Sessions (R-AL), 
Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT), Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY)*, 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI)*, Graham 
(R-SC)*, Flake (R-AZ).*

Amendments Withdrawn

    Senator Whitehouse offered an amendment (Whitehouse3-
BAG13308) to extend S. 744's provision that prevents employers 
from using the E-Verify system to re-verify the employment 
authorization of a current employee. The amendment provided 
that re-verification is also prohibited by an employer who 
takes over the company if there is substantial continuity in 
business operations. The amendment was withdrawn and did not 
receive a vote.
    Senator Whitehouse offered the ``Denying Firearms and 
Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2013'' as an 
amendment (Whitehouse5-ALB13431). This legislation was 
introduced as S. 34 in the 113th Congress by Senator 
Lautenberg, with Senators Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein, 
Whitehouse, and Blumenthal as cosponsors. The amendment was 
withdrawn and did not receive a vote.
    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal6-
ALB13433) to change the law to prohibit the sale of firearms or 
ammunition to an immigrant who is not ``lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence.'' The amendment would make a similar 
change in the current law regarding possession of firearms and 
ammunition. The effect of this amendment would have been that 
only U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, or those 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, could purchase or 
possess firearms and ammunition. The amendment was withdrawn 
and did not receive a vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions7-EAS133357) 
to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to 
Congress a quarterly report identifying the countries that have 
refused to accept repatriation of ten percent or more of their 
citizens who have been given final orders of removal from the 
United States or are directed to return to their home countries 
upon arrival in the United States. The amendment was modified 
by a second degree amendment offered by Senator Sessions 
(EAS13558), before being withdrawn.

4. TITLE IV

            a. Overview of Amendments
    Title IV makes a series of changes to non-immigrant, 
employment-based visas, as well as visas for tourists and 
students. It also establishes a new W non-immigrant visa 
program for temporary, low-skilled, non-agricultural workers. 
The provisions in Title IV are intended to make it easier for 
American businesses to hire foreign workers when needed, 
attract high-skilled talent to the country, promote foreign 
investment and job creation in American communities, and spur 
growth in domestic innovation.
    Throughout the drafting and amendment process of Title IV, 
Senators placed an emphasis on giving priority to American 
workers seeking jobs, while also meeting the needs of 
businesses to ensure the continued success of our economy. The 
drafters of the bill and members of the Committee recognized 
that immigrants have the potential to help stimulate our 
economy by supplementing our workforce and helping American 
businesses to succeed. However, there was bipartisan consensus 
that employers should not engage in hiring practices that 
permit systematic displacement of qualified Americans by 
foreign workers. Several amendments offered by both Democratic 
and Republican Senators and adopted by the Committee sought to 
give American workers priority over foreign workers, and to 
increase transparency in the hiring of foreign workers. 
Amendments offered by Senators Schumer and Grassley were 
adopted that require employers to post vacancies online for 
U.S. workers before hiring a foreign worker (Schumer5), 
prioritize the hiring of American workers in the majority of 
cases (Schumer5), and disclose when they hire foreign workers 
for high-skilled work (Grassley58). An amendment offered by 
Senator Whitehouse (Whitehouse6) establishes a toll-free 
hotline for employees to report violations relating to H-1B 
visas, and requires a report by the Inspector General on the 
Department of Labor's enforcement of H-1B provisions, including 
the requirement for employers to pay H-1B visa holders the 
prevailing wage.

H-1B and L Nonimmigrant Visas

    Ranking Member Grassley's amendment Grassley58, requiring 
transparent hiring of H-1B workers, was part of a larger 
discussion among the Committee members about how best to meet 
the needs of American businesses. Senators Schumer and Hatch 
negotiated a number of changes that were ultimately adopted by 
the Committee in a second degree amendment to Hatch10. Among 
other changes, the Hatch/Schumer second degree amendment to 
Hatch10 provided that (1) all H-1B employers must take good 
faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the occupational 
classification for which an H-1B worker is sought, using 
procedures that meet industry-wide standards and offering 
compensation that is at least as great as that required to be 
offered to H-1B nonimmigrants; (2) all employers must advertise 
the job on an Internet website maintained by the Secretary of 
Labor for such purpose; and, (3) if the employer is an ``H-1B 
skilled worker dependent employer,'' the employer must offer 
the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better 
qualified for the job for which the nonimmigrant is sought. 
These obligations are to be enforced by the Labor Department. 
An amendment offered by Senator Klobuchar was incorporated into 
this agreement, to require the job listings posted by employers 
on the Department of Labor website to also be posted on State-
based labor websites.
    The Hatch/Schumer second degree amendment to Hatch10 also 
changed the formula set forth in S. 744 for calculating the 
annual number of H-1B visas made available, allowing the 
numeric cap to increase by certain increments if the cap is 
reached within a certain time period, provided that the 
unemployment level in the professional sector remains below 4.5 
percent. During the Committee's deliberations, Senators noted 
that the underlying bill effectively doubles and potentially 
triples the number of H-1B visas to meet the needs of high tech 
industries, who have frequently voiced frustration that the 
existing cap for H-1B visas is reached within the first few 
days of visas becoming available each year. The Hatch/Schumer 
second degree amendment to Hatch10 made further changes 
requested by U.S. companies, such as creating a presumption 
that spouses of H-1B visa-holders may work, unless overridden 
by the Department of State because the visa-holder's home 
country does not provide reciprocity.
    Other provisions of the underlying bill seek to address 
concerns about the H-1B visa program, including concerns that 
the program has been abused by a small number of companies that 
use a disproportionate number of the H-1B visas that are 
available each year. Specifically, the bill increases oversight 
of the H-1B visa program by establishing a clear complaints 
process; allowing the Secretary of Labor to review labor 
condition applications for fraud and misrepresentation; 
removing the requirement that the Secretary and the Secretary 
of Labor must show ``reasonable cause'' before commencing an 
investigation; and providing for random audits of H-1B 
employers and annual audits of ``H-1B dependent'' employers 
with over 100 employees. As noted, the bill strengthens 
recruiting obligations by requiring all companies to list job 
postings online and take good faith steps to recruit American 
workers for the occupational classification for which foreign 
workers are sought, obligations to be enforced by the 
Department of Labor. The bill creates additional obligations 
for companies that are ``H-1B dependent'', including heightened 
wage requirements, requirements that the company not displace a 
U.S. worker within a specified period of time, and limitations 
on outsourcing. H-1B dependent companies must also pay 
additional fees. Finally, the bill restricts further H-1B or L 
visas for companies that have a very large percentage of H-1B 
employees. Companies with 50 or more employees in the United 
States will not able to petition for any new or additional H-1B 
or L workers if their workforce comprises more than 75 percent 
H-1B or L workers in Fiscal Year 2015, 65 percent in Fiscal 
Year 2016, or if their companies are more than 50 percent H-1B 
or L workers in Fiscal Years 2017 and thereafter.
    Some Senators sought to increase the number of visas 
available for high-skilled workers beyond what was provided in 
the underlying bill. For example, Senator Cruz offered an 
amendment (Cruz5) that would have immediately made available 
325,000 H-1B visas irrespective of market conditions or 
unemployment rates. Senators opposing this amendment cited its 
potential to flood the job market with foreign workers, 
disadvantaging American job seekers. Such efforts were opposed 
by labor organizations, including the American Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and 
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The amendment 
was not agreed to.

STEM Funding

    The Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment proposed by 
Senators Hatch, Klobuchar, and Coons and modified by Senator 
Schumer (Hatch9) that reformulates certain fees to promote 
funding for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 
training for American students, including education at the K-12 
level, grants to minority groups, and individual loan repayment 
for higher education. A significant portion of the funds are 
directed to the States for their direct expenditures on STEM-
related programs. The STEM provisions are funded by 
reallocating certain fees associated with H-1B visas and the 
labor certification applications filed by employers seeking an 
employment-based green card for an employee.

EB-5 Program

    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy2) to improve and 
enhance the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which facilitates 
foreign investment and job creation in American communities. 
Chairman Leahy's amendment, which was accepted unanimously by 
voice vote, makes the EB-5 Regional Center Program permanent 
and makes several other changes to ensure the longevity and 
integrity of the program. Certain aspects of the Regional 
Center program promote foreign capital investment in businesses 
that create jobs in communities within the United States that 
are either rural or experiencing a high rate of unemployment. 
Provisions were included in Chairman Leahy's amendment to 
ensure that investments made in Targeted Employment Areas, 
designated areas in which a reduced investment amount on the 
part of a foreign investor is permitted, will be concentrated 
in rural and truly high unemployment areas as Congress 
intended.

Qualified Entrepreneurs

    Senate bill 744 creates a new three-year visa for qualified 
entrepreneurs who have received investment of at least $100,000 
from a qualified investor and generated at least $250,000 in 
revenue and three jobs. The Committee adopted an amendment to 
these provisions offered by Senator Whitehouse (Whitehouse1) 
that allows investments by certain startup accelerators, 
including government-funded entities, to be used to reach this 
threshold.

Foreign Student Visas

    Senate bill 744 contains several provisions to make it 
easier for foreign students to remain in the United States 
after they complete their studies, which were preserved during 
the Committee's review. It was widely acknowledged during the 
Committee's consideration of the legislation that immigration 
policy should encourage well-educated students to remain in the 
United States, so they can contribute their newly acquired 
skills to the U.S. economy.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered amendments, which were 
adopted, to prevent fraud in the student visa program through 
SEVIS (the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) by 
certain educational institutions that claim to sponsor 
students. Senator Grassley's amendments include providing real 
time information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
about the status of student visas (Grassley77), and increasing 
criminal penalties on those who violate the terms of a student 
visa (Grassley69).
            b. List of Amendments Adopted, Not Adopted and Withdrawn 
                    Relating to Title IV
    In all, 48 amendments relating to Title IV were considered 
by the Committee, 17 offered by Democratic Senators and 31 
offered by Republican Senators. Of the 48 amendments offered, 
26 were adopted, all but one with bipartisan support.

Amendments Adopted

    Chairman Leahy offered an amendment (Leahy2-MRW13335) that 
makes the EB-5 Regional Center Program permanent, requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to establish a binding 
preapproval system for business plans, and removes the indirect 
job counting requirement at the removal of conditions phase. 
The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Schumer offered an amendment (Schumer3-EAS13447) 
that creates an E-6 Visa program to allow participation by 
citizens from certain sub-Saharan African and Caribbean nations 
who possess at least a high school degree or two years of work 
experience in their field. The annual cap on the E-6 visa 
program for citizens from all of these countries is 10,500 
total. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Schumer offered an amendment (Schumer4-EAS13419) 
that expands the J-Visa program to allow individuals who are 
proficient in languages spoken as native languages in countries 
that received less than 5,000 immigrant visas the previous year 
to qualify as J-visa nonimmigrants if coming to perform any 
type of work requiring specialized knowledge of that language. 
The amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered 
by Senator Schumer (EAS13536) and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Schumer offered an amendment (Schumer5-EAS12443) 
that requires the Department of Labor to maintain a publicly 
available electronic registry of positions and vacancies. The 
amendment would also establish priority for U.S. workers over W 
visa temporary workers in filling those vacancies. Finally, it 
would provide more portability for W visa workers by creating a 
secondary registry of employers that can hire W visa workers 
already in the country if they cannot find American workers. 
The amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered 
by Senator Schumer (EAS13560) and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Whitehouse offered an amendment (Whitehouse1-
AYO13346) that includes investments from qualified startup 
accelerators in determining whether the INVEST visa investment 
thresholds are satisfied. The amendment was modified by a 
second degree amendment offered by Senator Whitehouse 
(AYO13360) and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Whitehouse offered an amendment (Whitehouse6-
DAV13388) that requires the Department of Labor to create a 
toll-free hotline for employees to report violations relating 
to H-1B visas, and requires a report by the Inspector General 
on the Department of Labor's enforcement. The amendment was 
modified by a second degree amendment offered by Senator 
Whitehouse (DAV13418) that added a requirement that the 
Department of Labor offer an Internet website for reporting 
violations. The amendment, as modified, was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment (Klobuchar1-
EAS13431) that allows abused spouses and children of non-
immigrant, temporary visa holders to apply for independent 
immigration status using the existing Violence Against Women 
Act self-petition process. That process is currently only 
available to the abused spouses and children of U.S. citizens 
and lawful permanent residents. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment (Klobuchar3-
EAS13420) that creates a pilot program for processing short-
term tourist visa applications by using videoconferences to 
conduct interviews. The Department of State would report to 
Congress on the pilot and recommend whether to broaden it or 
discontinue it if it posed an undue security risk. The 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono2-EAS13233) that 
allows crewmen on fishing vessels to change-out in Hawaii. 
Currently this practice is allowed in Guam, but not in Hawaii. 
The amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered 
by Senator Hirono (EAS13539) and adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono4-ARM13402) that 
gives the Department of State authority to designate Hong Kong 
a visa waiver country if it meets the necessary requirements 
for that program. The amendment was adopted by a roll call vote 
as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 14 Yeas, 4 Nays
    Yeas (14): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT)*, Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT), Graham (R-SC)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (4): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Cornyn (R-TX), 
Cruz (R-TX).*
    Senator Hirono offered an amendment (Hirono15-ERN13168) 
that makes citizens of the Compact of Free Association States 
(COFA) eligible for Medicaid, as was the case before a 
legislative change in 1996. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley58-
ARM13459) that requires employers seeking H-1B visas to 
publicly post the name and location of the place H-1B visa 
applicants will be working. The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley69-
ARM13558) that increases criminal penalties for individuals who 
misuse the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, requires 
certification for institutions enrolling foreign students, 
strengthen penalties for visa fraud, and prohibits certain 
schools from accessing the Student and Exchange Visitor 
Information System. The amendment was modified by a second 
degree amendment offered by Senator Schumer (MDM13605) that 
ensured the Department of Homeland Security has authority and 
discretion to decide whether to bar a school from using the 
student visa program. The amendment, as modified, was adopted 
by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley77-
HEY13248) that would require the Department of Homeland 
Security to implement real-time transmission of data from the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to the 
databases used by border officials within Customs and Border 
Protection (the TECS system). The amendment was adopted by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Hatch offered an amendment (Hatch9-MDM13519), 
cosponsored by Senators Coons and Klobuchar, that increases the 
fee provided in the bill for the filing of a labor 
certification application, and would provide 70 percent of the 
funds collected to the States to improve science, technology, 
engineering and math (STEM) education. The amendment was 
modified by a second degree amendment offered by Senator 
Schumer (EAS13559) that made some of this funding, as well as 
the funding provided the already existing STEM fund under 
current law, more readily available to minority groups. The 
amendment, as modified, was adopted by a voice vote.
    Senator Hatch offered an amendment (Hatch10-MDM13513), 
modified by a second degree amendment offered by Senator 
Schumer with Senator Hatch's support (MDM13698), that changes 
the formula for calculating annual levels of H-1B visas; 
removes a provision in S. 744 preventing non L-visa-dependent 
companies from allowing L-visa workers to work at other 
companies/client sites; creates a presumption that spouses of 
H-1B workers can work, unless overridden by the Department of 
State; and scales back the requirement in S. 744 that required 
all employers (not just H-1B skilled-worker dependent 
employers) to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers 
for a job. The amendment as modified incorporated several 
different amendments that had been filed by Senator Hatch. 
Senator Schumer's second degree amendment to Hatch10 was 
adopted by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 16 Yeas, 2 Nays
    Yeas (16): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT)*, Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-
TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
The amendment as modified by Senator Schumer's second degree 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered several second degree 
amendments to Hatch10 that were not agreed to by roll call 
votes as follows (voted by proxy indicated with *):
    Grassley 2nd Degree1-MDM13687:
    Tally: 2 Yeas, 15 Nays, 1 Pass
    Yeas (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (15): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-
IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), 
Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, 
Flake (R-AZ).
    Pass (1): Leahy (D-VT).
    Grassley 2nd Degree2:
    Tally: 3 Yeas, 15 Nays
    Yeas (3): Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-
AL).
    Nays (15): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL)*, 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Graham 
(R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-
AZ).
    Grassley 2nd Degree3-MDM13684:
    Tally: 2 Yeas, 16 Nays
    Yeas (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (16): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT), Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-
TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Grassley 2nd Degree4:
    Tally: 3 Yeas, 15 Nays
    Yeas (3): Franken (D-MN)*, Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-
AL).*
    Nays (15): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE)*, Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Graham 
(R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-
AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions13-EAS13330) 
that would have required in-person interviews for any non-
immigrant visa applicant who the Department of Homeland 
Security determines to be a threat to national security, is 
identified as a person of concern, or applies in certain visa 
categories. It also would have limited the Department of 
State's ability to waive the interview requirement. The 
amendment was modified by a second degree amendment offered by 
Senator Schumer (EAS13563) that struck the interview waiver 
limits, required that consular officers have access to all 
terrorism records and databases, denied admission to anyone 
whose information is listed in any terrorist watch list or 
database, and required any visa revocation be immediately 
provided to relevant consular, law enforcement, and terrorist 
screening databases and to all Department of Homeland Security 
port inspectors. The amendment, as modified by Senator 
Schumer's second degree amendment (EAS13563), was agreed to by 
a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 10 Yeas, 8 Nays
    Yeas (10): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL)*, Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Nays (8): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake 
(R-AZ).*

Amendments Not Adopted

    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley56-
ARM13458) that would have struck the Secretary of State's 
authority to waive in-person visa applicant interviews for 
certain low-risk applicants, in consultation with the Secretary 
of Homeland Security. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 9 Yeas, 9 Nays
    Yeas (9): Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, 
Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, 
Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (9): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken (D-MN)*, Coons 
(D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley60-
ARM13461) that would have required all H-1B employers to 
certify that they made a good faith effort to recruit American 
workers for the position filled by the H-1B employee, instead 
of just H-1B dependent companies. The amendment was not agreed 
to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated 
with *):
    Tally: 2 Yeas, 15 Nays, 1 Pass
    Yeas (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (15): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Graham (R-
SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Pass (1): Leahy (D-VT).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley62-
ARM13463) that would have struck an exception permitting 
companies to avoid classification as an H-1B dependent company 
by not counting H-1B employees towards the H-1B dependent 
threshold if they are ``intending immigrants'' who have applied 
for a green card. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 2 Yeas, 15 Nays, 1 Pass
    Yeas (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (15): Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN)*, Franken (D-MN), Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Graham (R-
SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Pass (1): Leahy (D-VT).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley67-
ARM13467) that would have required the Secretary of Labor to 
conduct annual audits of one percent or more of all H-1B 
employers. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
as follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 2 Yeas, 16 Nays
    Yeas (2): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (16): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI)*, Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken 
(D-MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch 
(R-UT)*, Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-
TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley68-
ARM13484) that would have delayed the effective date of the 
student visa provisions until one year after the second 
generation of the student visa tracking system (``SEVIS II'') 
has been fully completed and deployed. The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy 
indicated with *):
    Tally: 9 Yeas, 9 Nays
    Yeas (9): Feinstein (D-CA), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, 
Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, 
Cruz (R-TX)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (9): Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-MN)*, Coons (D-
DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI).
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley70-
MDM13420) that would have conditioned the enactment of the E-5 
special business visas for South Korea on Korea's lifting of 
``age-based'' restrictions on imports of U.S. beef to Korea. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions1-EAS13466) 
that would have limited family visas, focused the new merit-
based point system on education and employment, and imposed 
worldwide immigrant visa caps. It also would have required all 
non-immigrants to have an ``Employment Authorization Document'' 
to be eligible to work, and capped the issuance of those 
documents at one million annually. The amendment was not agreed 
to by a roll call vote as follows (votes by proxy indicated 
with *):
    Tally: 1 Yeas, 17 Nays
    Yeas (1): Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (17): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN)*, Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Grassley 
(R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-
UT), Cruz (R-TX), Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment (Sessions6-MRW13303) 
that would have eliminated a provision that allows the 
Department of Homeland Security, under certain criteria, to 
keep a country in the Visa Waiver Program even if the country's 
non-immigrant refusal rate is above three percent. It also 
would have conditioned the effectuation of changes to the Visa 
Waiver Program on full implementation of a biometric entry-exit 
system. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as 
follows (votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 6 Yeas, 12 Nays
    Yeas (6): Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT)*, Sessions (R-AL), 
Graham (R-SC)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Cruz (R-TX).*
    Nays (12): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Lee (R-
UT)*, Flake (R-AZ).
    Senator Cruz offered an amendment (Cruz5-MDM13527) that 
would have immediately made available 325,000 H-1B visas 
irrespective of market conditions or unemployment rates. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote as follows 
(votes by proxy indicated with *):
    Tally: 4 Yeas, 14 Nays
    Yeas (4): Hatch (R-UT)*, Cornyn (R-TX)*, Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz 
(R-TX).
    Nays (14): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Grassley 
(R-IA), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).

Amendments Withdrawn

    Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment (Blumenthal17-
MDM13545) to provide whistleblower protections for H-2B visa 
holders (non-agricultural temporary workers). The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley71-
ARM13476) to, among other things, makes E-Visa holders 
ineligible for any public benefit. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Ranking Member Grassley offered an amendment (Grassley76-
EAS13386) to prohibit the implementation of the W visa 
temporary-worker program, or the admission of a W visa 
temporary worker, until E-Verify is fully implemented. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    Senator Cornyn offered an amendment (Cornyn9-MDM13343) to 
eliminate W visa construction carve outs and exempt returning 
workers from annual visa caps. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee1-MDM13379) to strike 
the entire bill and replace it with a 12-page border security 
proposal. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee2-MDM13380) to strike 
the entire bill and replace it with S. 202, the Accountability 
Through Electronic Verification Act. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee3-MDM13381) to strike 
the entire bill and replace it with the I-Squared Act of 2013, 
governing H-1B visas and Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics funding. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee18-MDM13343) to 
increase the W visa caps from 20,000 to 200,000 for the first 
year following enactment, ultimately increasing to 400,000 
visas. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Senator Lee offered an amendment (Lee19-EAS13425) to limit 
the ability of individuals to submit complaints about an 
employer's compliance with W visa program requirements. The 
amendment was withdrawn.

                            F. FINAL PASSAGE

    On May 21, 2013, the Committee voted to report the Border 
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization 
Act, as amended, favorably to the Senate. The Committee 
proceeded by roll call vote as follows:
    Tally: 13 Yeas, 5 Nays
    Yeas (13): Leahy (D-VT), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D-
MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Hatch (R-
UT), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ).
    Nays (5): Grassley (R-IA), Sessions (R-AL)*, Cornyn (R-TX), 
Lee (R-UT)*, Cruz (R-TX).

              III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill


Section 1. Short title, table of contents

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as 
the ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act.''

Section 2. Findings

    This section states, inter alia, that the United States has 
a right to maintain its sovereignty by protecting its borders 
and controlling the flow of immigration, which is a source of 
security and strength for our country.

Section 3. Effective date triggers

    This section sets forth definitions for the purpose of this 
title. The term ``Commission'' means the Southern Border 
Security Commission established pursuant to Section 3. The term 
``Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy'' means the 
strategy established by the Secretary pursuant to Section 5(a) 
to achieve and maintain an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or 
higher in all border sectors. ``Effective control'' is defined 
as the ability to achieve and maintain persistent surveillance 
and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher in a Border 
Patrol sector. The section defines ``Effectiveness rate,'' in 
the case of a border sector, as the percentage calculated by 
dividing the number of apprehensions and ``turn backs'' in a 
given sector during a fiscal year by the total number of 
illegal entries in that sector during the fiscal year. The 
``Southern border'' is defined as the international border 
between the United States and Mexico. The ``Southern Border 
Fencing Strategy'' is the strategy established by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security (``the Secretary'') pursuant to Section 
5(b) that identifies where fencing, including double-layer 
fencing, as well as infrastructure and technology, should be 
deployed along the Southern border. The Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) ``Border Security Goal'' is defined as a goal 
to achieve and maintain effective control in all border sectors 
of the Southern border.
    This section also sets forth the ``triggers'' for the bill. 
It provides that no application for Registered Provisional 
Immigrant (RPI) status will be processed until the Secretary 
has submitted to Congress the Notice of Commencement for 
implementation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security 
Strategy and the Southern Border Fencing Strategy.
    Individuals who have been granted RPI status may not adjust 
their status to permanent resident (except for blue card 
recipients and DREAM Act beneficiaries) until the Comprehensive 
Southern Border Security Strategy is substantially deployed and 
substantially operational, the Southern Border Fencing Strategy 
has been implemented and substantially completed, a mandatory 
employment verification (E-Verify) system to be used by all 
employers has been implemented, and DHS is using an electronic 
exit system at air and sea ports of entry that operates by 
collecting machine-readable visa or passport information from 
air and vessel carriers.
    A limited exception is made to allow the Secretary to 
permit RPIs to apply for adjustment of status after 10 years if 
litigation or force majeure has prevented one or more of the 
conditions precedent to adjustment of status from being 
implemented, or if any of the conditions precedent to 
adjustment of status has been declared unconstitutional.
    The section provides authority for certain regulatory 
waivers to ensure expeditious construction of the physical 
border infrastructure, and provides for limited judicial 
review. The Secretary must provide notice and an explanation 
for the use of such waivers in the Federal Register, and any 
waiver that is used under this section expires when DHS 
certifies that the fencing strategy is substantially completed, 
or that the Southern Border Security Strategy is substantially 
deployed and operational--whichever is later.

Section 4. Southern Border Security Commission

    If, after five years, ``effective control'' of all Southern 
border sectors has not been achieved in at least one of the 
five years following the date of enactment, a Southern Border 
Security Commission will be established. The Commission will 
comprise experts in the field of border security and will be 
appointed by the President (two members), the President pro 
tempore of the Senate (two members, upon the recommendation of 
each party), the Speaker of the House of Representatives (two 
members, upon the recommendation of each party), and the 
Governors of each State along the Southern border, or their 
appointees (four members).
    The Commission shall review the state of border security in 
all Southern border sectors, and make recommendations on 
policies to achieve persistent surveillance of the Southern 
border and to achieve and maintain an effectiveness rate of 90 
percent or higher for all Southern border sectors. The 
Commission's report shall be submitted, no later than 180 days 
from the end of the five-year period described above, to the 
President, the Secretary, and Congress. The Comptroller General 
of the United States will also review the report and the 
feasibility of its recommendations.

Section 5. Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and Southern 
        Border Fencing Strategy

    Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
must submit a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy 
to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. 
The Strategy will outline priorities to be met for achieving 
effective control of the Southern border and identify resources 
and capabilities needed to meet those priorities, including 
surveillance and detection capabilities used by Department of 
Defense (DOD), staffing requirements for Border Patrol Agents 
and Customs Officers, and fixed, mobile, and agent-portable 
surveillance systems and manned and unmanned aircraft. The 
Strategy shall also outline interim goals and milestones for 
successful implementation.
    Also within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary must submit a Southern Border Fencing Strategy to 
Congress and the U.S. Comptroller General to identify areas of 
the Southern border where fencing--including double-layer 
fencing, infrastructure, and technology, including at ports of 
entry--should be put in place. The Secretary is required to 
consult with appropriate Federal agencies and State and local 
public and private stakeholders in determining the proper 
location for placement of fencing.
    The Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy shall 
be submitted specifically to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Appropriations, and 
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and to the 
Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on 
Appropriations, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
of Representatives. Semiannual reports must also be submitted 
to these Committees.
    For both of these strategies, the Secretary shall 
immediately begin to implement the strategy and provide notice 
of commencement of this implementation to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO). After such notice, 
processing of applications for RPI status may commence. The 
Secretary must also report to Congress semiannually on the 
status of the implementation of the Comprehensive Southern 
Border Security Strategy. Finally, GAO shall conduct an annual 
review of the reports submitted by the Secretary to assess the 
status and progress of the Southern Border Security Strategy

Section 6. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund

    To meet the trigger requirements, a Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform Trust Fund (``CIR Trust Fund'') is created. 
The fund consists of two sources: first, $8,300,000,000, which 
shall be transferred from the Treasury to the fund; and second, 
fees, fines, and penalties on users of the immigration system 
in the future.
    Of the $8,300,000,000 provided to the CIR Trust Fund to pay 
for the implementation of this law, $3,000,000,000 shall be 
made available to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive 
Southern Border Security Strategy; $2,000,000,000 shall be made 
available to the Secretary to carry out programs, projects, and 
activities recommended by the Southern Border Security 
Commission; $1,500,000,000 shall be made available to the 
Secretary to procure and deploy additional fencing, 
infrastructure, and technology in accordance with the Southern 
Border Fencing Strategy (provided that not less than 
$1,000,000,000 shall be used to deploy, repair, or replace 
fencing); $750,000,000 shall remain available for a six-year 
period to expand and implement the electronic employment 
verification system; $900,000,000 shall remain available for an 
eight-year period for the Secretary of State to implement this 
Act; and $150,000,000 shall be appropriated for startup costs 
for implementing this Act to be borne by the Secretary of 
Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Attorney General.
    This section also provides that the first $8,300,000,000 of 
fees, fines, and penalties collected under this section shall 
be collected, deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, 
and used for Federal budget deficit reduction. This repays the 
$8,300,000,000 initially borrowed from the Treasury for startup 
implementation costs. Collections in excess of $8,300,000,000 
shall be deposited into the CIR Trust Fund.
    This section appropriates a total of $100,000,000 from the 
CIR Trust Fund each year from Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal 
Year 2018 for increased border prosecutions and for Operation 
Stonegarden ($50,000,000 per year, per program). The section 
authorizes appropriations from the CIR Trust Fund to carry out 
the operations and maintenance of border security and 
immigration enforcement programs contained in the bill. It 
requires the Secretary to provide an expenditure plan to 
Congress indicating how all of the monies appropriated in the 
Act will be spent. The section also establishes a Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform Startup Account consisting of $3,000,000,000 
initially provided out of the Treasury, to fund the startup 
costs to be incurred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) in registering the unauthorized population. 
These funds will be repaid to the Treasury by the unauthorized 
population through the application fees they will pay for the 
processing of their applications. The CIR Trust Fund account 
shall be audited annually by the Chief Financial Officer of DHS 
and the Inspector General of DHS, and this audit shall be made 
publicly available on a DHS website. This section contains an 
emergency designation for the purposes of complying with 
Section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

Section 7. References to the Immigration and Nationality Act

    This section clarifies that, except as otherwise expressly 
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section 
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be 
made to a section or other provision of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA).

Section 8. Definitions

    This section specifies that in this Act, except as 
otherwise provided, the term ``Department'' means the 
Department of Homeland Security and the term ``Secretary'' 
means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Section 9. Grant accountability

    This section provides for waste, fraud, and abuse audits 
for grant programs that are administered by DHS and the 
National Science Foundation in this bill. A recipient of grant 
funds that is found to have an unresolved audit finding will be 
ineligible to receive grant funds for two years. Recipients may 
not keep funds in offshore accounts, nor use more than $25,000 
for conferences without the approval of the awarding entity.

                        TITLE I--BORDER SECURITY

Section 1101. Definitions

    This section establishes certain key definitions for Title 
I, including providing that the ``Northern border'' means the 
international border between the United States and Canada; the 
``Southern border'' means the international border between the 
United States and Mexico; and the ``Southwest border region'' 
means the area in the United States that is within 100 miles of 
the Southern border.

Section 1102. Additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers

    By September 30, 2017, DHS must hire an additional 3,500 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in order to reduce 
border-crossing and airport entry wait times and to enhance 
port security efforts. This section also raises the fee used by 
Visa Waiver Program travelers from $14 to $30 to pay for the 
increased number of CBP officers and permanently authorizes the 
Corporation for Travel Promotion created in the Travel 
Promotion Act of 2009.

Section 1103. National Guard Support to secure the southern border

    A State's Governor, with the approval and logistical 
support of the Secretary of Defense, may order the State's 
National Guard to perform operations on the Southwest border in 
order to assist CBP operations. The National Guard may perform 
operations that include constructing fencing, increasing 
ground-based mobile surveillance systems, deploying unmanned 
and manned aircraft surveillance, providing radio capability 
for communication between CBP and local officials, and 
constructing checkpoints.

Section 1104. Enhancement of existing border security operations

    Subsection (a)--Border Crossing Prosecutions. This section 
provides that $50,000,000 per year for five years will be 
appropriated to increase the number of border crossing 
prosecutions in the Tucson Sector to up to 210 per day, through 
increased funding for attorneys, administrative support staff, 
pre-trial services, public defenders, and additional personnel, 
and to reimburse State, local, and tribal law enforcement for 
detention costs related to border crossing prosecutions.
    Subsection (b)--Funding Operation Stonegarden. Additional 
funding shall also go to Operation Stonegarden for grants and 
reimbursement to law enforcement agencies in the Southwest 
border region States for costs related to illegal immigration 
and drug smuggling. This section also creates a competitive 
grant program to allocate funds to law enforcement agencies.
    Subsection (c)--Infrastructure Improvements. The Department 
of Homeland Security must construct additional Border Patrol 
stations and additional permanent forward operating bases as 
needed, to provide full operational support in rural, high-
trafficked areas. This section also provides for a new grant 
program to allow DHS and the Secretary of Transportation, in 
consultation with the Governors of Southern and Northern border 
States, to provide grants to construct transportation and 
supporting infrastructure improvements at existing and new 
international border crossing ports.
    Subsection (d)--New District Courts. This section provides 
for eight new Federal district court judgeships in the four 
Southwest border States, to be funded by a $10 increase in 
filing fees. In addition, this section provides for 
whistleblower protection for employees of the judicial branch.

Section 1105. Border Security on certain Federal land

    Customs and Border Protection personnel are authorized to 
access Federal lands in the Southwest border region in Arizona 
for security activities, including routine motorized patrols 
and the deployment of communication, surveillance, and 
detection equipment. The Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture must conduct a programmatic environmental impact 
statement to analyze the impact of the security activities, and 
advise the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Section 1106. Equipment and technology

    In the Southwest border region, CBP will be required to 
deploy additional mobile, video, and agent-portable 
surveillance systems and unmanned aerial vehicles, which must 
be operated along the Southern border in a manner to achieve 
constant surveillance; deploy additional fixed-wing aircraft 
and helicopters; acquire new rotorcraft and make upgrades to 
the existing helicopter fleet; acquire maritime equipment; and 
increase horse patrols. Unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles are 
allowed to operate only within three miles of the Southern 
border in the San Diego and El Centro Sectors, but this 
limitation does not apply to the maritime operations of Customs 
and Border Protection.

Section 1107. Access to emergency personnel

    With the consultation of border State Governors, DHS must 
establish a two-year grant program to improve emergency 
communication by providing satellite telephones for people 
living within the Southwest border region that are at greater 
risk of border violence due to lack of cellular service. 
Funding is available to DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), 
and the Department of the Interior for five years to purchase 
P25-compliant radios for Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agents working in the border regions supporting 
CBP, as well as to upgrade the communications network of the 
Department of Justice to ensure coverage and capacity in the 
border region.

Section 1108. Southwest Border Region Prosecution Initiative

    The Department of Justice must reimburse State, county, 
tribal, and municipal governments for costs associated with the 
prosecution and pre-trial detention of Federally-initiated 
criminal cases that local offices of the United States 
Attorneys declined to prosecute. These services shall include 
pre-trial services, clerical support, and public defenders' 
services. Reimbursement shall not be available if the Attorney 
General determines that there is reason to believe that the 
jurisdiction seeking reimbursement has engaged in unlawful 
conduct with respect to immigration-related apprehensions.

Section 1109. Interagency collaboration

    The Department of Defense and DHS must collaborate to 
identify equipment used by DOD that could be used by CBP to 
improve border security.

Section 1110. State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) 
        Reauthorization

    The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is reauthorized 
through 2015. Reimbursements are expanded to include 
reimbursement to States and localities for the cost of 
detaining individuals who were charged with committing 
deportable offenses prior to their conviction.

Section 1111. Use of force

    After consulting with the Department of Justice, DHS must 
issue policies regarding the use of force by its personnel, 
including a requirement that all uses of force be reported. The 
Department of Homeland Security must also create procedures for 
investigating complaints, reviewing all uses of force, and 
disciplining personnel who commit violations.

Section 1112. Training for Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 
        Officers

    The Department of Homeland Security must ensure that all 
CBP, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) agents, as well as agriculture specialists within 100 
miles of the border, receive appropriate training on individual 
rights, detecting fraudulent travel documents, the scope of 
enforcement authority, the use of force policies, immigration 
laws, social and cultural sensitivity toward border 
communities, the impact of border operations on communities, 
and environmental concerns to a particular area. Border 
community liaison officers must also receive training to better 
perform their duties. Not later than 90 days after enactment, 
DHS must establish standards to ensure the humane treatment of 
children in CBP custody, including adequate medical treatment 
and access to phone calls to family members.

Section 1113. Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task 
        Force

    An independent task force, consisting of 22 members 
appointed by the President, will be established to review and 
make recommendations regarding immigration and border 
enforcement policies, procedures, strategies, and programs, 
taking into consideration their impact on border communities. 
Members shall include law enforcement officials, members of the 
business community, local elected officials, private 
landowners, and representatives of faith and religious 
communities. The task force is empowered to take testimony, 
hold hearings, and request statistical information from Federal 
agencies. All recommendations made by the task force must 
receive a response from DHS within 180 days, describing how the 
Department will address the findings. Within two years of its 
first meeting, the task force must submit a final report to the 
President, Congress, and DHS regarding its findings.

Section 1114. Immigration Ombudsman

    An Ombudsman for Immigration Related Concerns will be 
appointed within DHS, and shall have the authority to receive 
complaints from individuals and employers, conduct inspections 
of facilities or contract facilities of the immigration 
components of the Department, assist individuals and families 
who have been the victims of crimes committed by aliens or 
violence near the border, to request the Inspector General of 
DHS to conduct inspections, investigations, and audits, and to 
make recommendations concerning CBP, ICE, and USCIS. The 
Ombudsman must have a background in immigration law as well as 
civil and human rights law.

Section 1115. Protection of family values in apprehension programs

    As soon as practicable after an individual is apprehended 
in a migration deterrence program, DHS and cooperating entities 
shall, for each such apprehended individual, inquire as to 
whether the person is a parent, legal guardian, or primary 
caregiver of a child or traveling with a spouse or child and 
ascertain whether repatriation of the individual presents any 
humanitarian concerns related to his or her physical safety. 
Due consideration must be given to the best interests of the 
child and to family unity. Rules must be promulgated within 120 
days of enactment and training on these issues is mandatory.

Section 1116. Reports

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare a report 
detailing the effectiveness rate for each Border Sector, the 
number of miles along the Southern border that are under 
persistent surveillance, the monthly wait times per passenger 
for crossing the Southern and Northern borders, and the 
allocations of personnel at each port of entry along the 
Southern and Northern borders. The report shall be submitted to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and 
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, as well as the 
Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the House of Representatives. A report shall also 
be submitted on interagency collaboration.

Section 1117. Severability and delegation

    If any provision of this Act or any amendment to the Act, 
or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is 
held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions 
shall not be affected. This section permits the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to delegate any authorities provided under 
this Act to other appropriate Federal agencies.

Section 1118. Prohibition on land border crossing fees

    This section prohibits the collection of any border 
crossing fees at land ports of entry along the Southern or 
Northern borders. It also prohibits any study relating to the 
imposition of a border crossing fee.

Section 1119: Human trafficking report

    This section adds human trafficking to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting program. State 
and local governments receiving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance grants will be required to include human trafficking 
in their reporting of Part 1 Violent Crimes.

Section 1120. Rule of construction

    Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the 
deployment, procurement, or construction of fencing along the 
Northern border.

Section 1121. Limitations on dangerous deportation practices

    Within one year of enactment of this Act and every 180 days 
thereafter, DHS must submit written certification to Congress 
that DHS has only deported or removed migrants through an entry 
or exit point on the Southern border during daylight hours, 
unless there is a compelling Government interest, an applicable 
local arrangement for repatriating Mexican nationals, or if the 
alien is not a minor and is deported through the same point of 
entry as the place where the migrant was apprehended, or agrees 
to such deportation.

                       TITLE II--IMMIGRANT VISAS

   SUBTITLE A--REGISTRATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF REGISTERED PROVISIONAL 
                               IMMIGRANTS

Section 2101. Registered Provisional Immigrant status

    This section establishes Registered Provisional Immigrant 
status. The Secretary, after conducting the requisite law 
enforcement and national security clearances, may grant RPI 
status to eligible aliens who apply within the application 
period and pay the fee, including any applicable penalties. To 
be eligible for RPI status, an alien must have been physically 
present in the United States on or before December 31, 2011, 
and have maintained a continuous presence since that date, 
except for certain limited absences. Other requirements, such 
as payment of taxes and national security and law enforcement 
clearances are described below.
    Grounds for Ineligibility. Grounds for ineligibility for 
RPI status include the following: (1) conviction for a felony 
(other than a State or local offense for which an essential 
element was the alien's immigration status, or a violation of 
this Act); (2) conviction for an aggravated felony; (3) 
conviction for three or more misdemeanor offenses if the alien 
was convicted on different dates for each of the offenses 
(other than minor traffic offenses or a State or local offense 
for which an essential element was the alien's immigration 
status or a violation of this Act); (4) any foreign law 
offense, except for a purely political offense, that would 
render the alien inadmissible if it had been committed in the 
United States; (5) conviction for unlawful voting; (6) certain 
other grounds of inadmissibility set forth in INA Section 
212(a); and (7) persons whom the Secretary knows or has 
reasonable grounds to believe are engaged in or likely to 
engage in terrorist activity.
    Individuals who at the date of introduction of the bill in 
the Senate are lawful permanent residents, refugees, or 
asylees, or are lawfully present in a nonimmigrant status, may 
not apply for RPI status.
    The Secretary has limited authority to waive some grounds 
of ineligibility to account for individual circumstances, such 
as the bar for individuals convicted of three or more 
misdemeanors, for humanitarian purposes, to ensure family 
unity, or if such a waiver is in the public interest. Waivers 
are not available to aliens who are convicted of a felony or an 
aggravated felony, persecutors, human traffickers, money 
launderers, those inadmissible on security grounds, 
polygamists, child abductors, unlawful voters, citizenship 
renouncers, or those who lie on their RPI applications.
    Dependent Spouses and Children. Spouses and unmarried 
children under 21 may be included on the application if the 
spouse or child was physically present in the United States on 
or before December 31, 2012, maintained continuous physical 
presence since that date except for certain limited absences, 
and he or she meets the eligibility requirements. Divorce, 
death, or separation because of domestic violence will not bar 
a spouse or unmarried child from re-applying for RPI status.
    Applicable Taxes and Fees. In order to apply, an alien must 
have paid taxes assessed in accordance with Section 6203 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and a $1,000 penalty fee, which 
may be paid in installments. The application form shall 
anonymously collect certain demographic data about each 
immigrant, which shall be compiled in a report to Congress on 
immigration trends.
    Application Period; Ability to Apply. The application 
period is for one year following publication of a final rule 
and can be extended for 18 months by the Secretary. Aliens who 
appear prima facie eligible and are apprehended during the 
application period should be given a reasonable opportunity to 
apply for RPI status and shall not be removed until a final 
determination has been made concerning their application. An 
alien who departed from the United States subject to an order 
of removal and is outside the United States or illegally 
reentered the country after December 31, 2011, is not eligible 
to apply for RPI status. The Secretary has discretion to waive 
this bar in certain cases if the alien is the spouse or child 
of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; a parent of a 
child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; meets 
certain requirements set forth in the DREAM Act provisions; or 
is 16-years-old or older and was younger than 16 when he or she 
entered the United States and has been physically present in 
the United States for an aggregate period of three years within 
the preceding six years of the date of enactment.
    If the Secretary is considering waiving the bar for RPI 
status in a circumstance described above and the applicant has 
been convicted of a crime, the Secretary shall consult with the 
convicting agency to identify any victims of that crime. If DHS 
identifies such a victim it shall make reasonable efforts to 
provide that victim with an opportunity to request consultation 
with DHS on the alien's application for a waiver, or provide 
notice regarding adjudication of the application. The Secretary 
may not make an adverse determination of inadmissibility or 
deportability based solely on information supplied during the 
identification of, notice to or consultation with a victim. The 
Secretary must submit an annual report to Congress detailing 
the identification and notice process described in this 
provision.
    Suspension of Removal During Application Period. Aliens 
with RPI status shall not be detained or removed, unless the 
alien is or has become ineligible for RPI status or his or her 
RPI status had been revoked. Aliens in removal proceedings who 
are prima facie eligible for RPI status should be given an 
opportunity to apply for RPI status under certain 
circumstances. If an alien subject to a removal order is 
granted RPI status, he or she must file a motion to reopen 
removal proceedings.
    Pending RPI Status. An alien who has a pending application 
for RPI status may receive advance parole if urgent 
humanitarian circumstances compel such travel. Such persons 
will not be considered unlawfully present or unauthorized to 
work under this Act. An employer who knows that an employee has 
applied or will apply for RPI status during the application 
period is not in violation of the law if he or she continues to 
employ that individual pending adjudication of the application.
    National Security and Law Enforcement Clearances. Before 
any alien may be granted RPI status, all national security and 
law enforcement clearances must be completed and an applicant 
must submit biometric and biographic data in accordance with 
DHS procedures. The Department of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State and other interagency 
partners, shall also conduct additional security screenings 
upon determining that an alien or an alien-dependent spouse or 
child is or was a citizen or long-term resident of a region or 
country known to pose a threat, or contain groups or 
organizations that pose a threat, to the national security of 
the United States.
    Renewal of RPI Status After Six Years. Registered Permanent 
Immigrant status shall be granted for an initial period of six 
years and may be extended if the alien remains eligible, meets 
certain employment requirements, successfully passes all 
background checks, and has not had his or her status revoked. 
To be eligible, an RPI applicant must demonstrate that he or 
she has met the employment requirement by being regularly 
employed throughout the period of admission as an RPI (allowing 
for brief periods of unemployment lasting not more than 60 
days), and is not likely to become a public charge; or an 
applicant must demonstrate an average income or resources that 
are not less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty level 
throughout the period of admission. Certain exemptions exist 
for applicants who are unable to work because of a disability, 
pursuit of education, or other limited personal circumstances. 
An extension of RPI status may only be granted if the applicant 
has satisfied applicable Federal tax liability and paid the 
penalty fee. An extension of RPI status can only be granted if 
an applicant submits to and passes another series of background 
checks that are also required at initial registration.
    Processing Fee for RPI First-Time Applicants and RPI 
Renewals. All individuals applying for RPI status, or an 
extension of that status, who are 16-years-old or older will be 
charged a processing fee as determined by the Secretary to 
cover the full costs of processing an application, including 
any costs incurred to adjudicate, process biometrics, perform 
national security and background checks, prevent and 
investigate fraud, and administer the collection of a fee. 
Aliens who are 21-years-old or older shall pay an additional 
$1,000 penalty, unless they are a DREAMer. The Secretary shall 
deny an application where the applicant fails to submit 
requested evidence, including biometrics.
    Evidence of RPI Status. The Secretary must issue 
documentary evidence of RPI status to each individual whose 
application is approved, which shall be machine-readable and 
meet other criteria, and can serve as a valid travel document 
and as evidence of employment authorization.
    DACA Recipients. The Secretary may grant RPI status to an 
individual granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
(DACA) pursuant to the Secretary's memorandum of June 15, 2012, 
if that individual has not engaged in any conduct since being 
granted DACA that would make him or her ineligible for RPI 
status, and renewed national security and law enforcement 
clearances have been completed.
    Terms and Conditions of RPI Status. An alien granted RPI 
status is authorized to work, may travel outside the United 
States subject to certain specified conditions, and shall be 
considered admitted to and lawfully present in the United 
States.
    Revocation of RPI Status. The Secretary may revoke RPI 
status if the alien is no longer eligible for such status, 
knowingly used RPI documentation for an unlawful or fraudulent 
purpose, or was absent from the United States for any single 
period longer than 180 days or for more than 180 days in the 
aggregate in any calendar year, unless the failure to return 
was due to extenuating circumstances. If RPI status is revoked, 
any documentation issued to the alien is automatically invalid.
    Eligibility for Federal Benefits. An alien who is granted 
RPI status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested 
benefit. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
shall conduct regular audits to ensure that RPIs are not 
fraudulently receiving any such benefits. A person in RPI 
status is not entitled to the premium assistance tax credit 
authorized under Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 for his or her healthcare coverage and shall be subject to 
the rules applicable to persons not lawfully present that are 
set forth in section 1402(e) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act and in section 5000A(d)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986. An alien granted RPI status may be issued 
a Social Security number.
    Dissemination of Information Concerning RPI Program. The 
Secretary shall broadly disseminate information on the RPI 
program in the languages most commonly spoken by aliens who 
would qualify for such status.
    Registration in the Armed Services. This section amends 
Federal law so that an alien who is granted RPI status may 
enlist in the Armed Services.

Section 2102. Adjustment of status of registered provisional immigrants

    This section gives the Secretary discretionary authority to 
adjust the status of a RPI to that of an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence if the RPI meets the 
eligibility requirements. Aliens must establish their continued 
eligibility for RPI status, and show that they have not been 
outside the United States for more than 180 days in any 
calendar year unless it was due to extenuating circumstances 
beyond the applicant's control. If the Secretary has notified 
an alien of a pending revocation hearing, no adjustment of that 
alien's status may be made until a final determination has been 
made regarding that pending revocation. If the Secretary has 
notified the alien that he or she intends to revoke such 
status, the alien may not adjust his or her status until the 
Secretary makes a final determination not to revoke such 
status.
    Adjustment Requirements. Registered Permanent Immigrants 
who apply for adjustment of status must demonstrate that they 
have satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability and pay a 
$1,000 penalty fee. They must also meet the employment 
requirement set forth in the bill, by showing that he or she 
was regularly employed throughout the period of admission 
(allowing for brief periods of unemployment lasting not more 
than 60 days), and is not likely to become a public charge; or 
by demonstrating an average income or resources that are not 
less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level throughout 
the period of admission. The alien may meet this requirement by 
submitting records maintained by the Social Security 
Administration, Internal Revenue Service, or any other Federal, 
State, or local government agency that establish compliance by 
a preponderance of the evidence. In the absence of such 
records, the alien may submit at least two forms of alternative 
reliable documentation such as bank records, employer records, 
sworn affidavits from a non-relative with direct knowledge of 
the applicant's work or education, and any additional 
documentation the Secretary may require. Full-time attendance 
at certain educational institutions may satisfy some or all of 
the employment requirement. Certain exceptions exist to the 
employment requirement based on age, disability, pregnancy, or 
dependency of an RPI. If extreme hardship is demonstrated by an 
alien or his or her spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. 
citizen, or lawful permanent resident, the Secretary may waive 
the employment requirement.
    An RPI may seek adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
residence only if he or she is over 16-years-old and meets the 
basic English proficiency requirement specified in this 
section. If an alien is subject to registration under the 
Military Selective Service Act on or after the date on which 
their application for RPI status is granted, proof of that 
registration is required.
    ``Back of the Line.'' The status of an RPI may not be 
adjusted until after the Secretary of State certifies that 
immigrant visas have become available for all approved 
employment and family based petitions filed before the date of 
enactment.
    Interview; Security and Law Enforcement Clearances. The 
Secretary may interview applicants for adjustment of status 
under this section. The Secretary may not adjust the status of 
an RPI until renewed national security and law enforcement 
clearances have been completed.
    Fees and Penalties. The Secretary shall charge applicants a 
processing fee, as determined by the Secretary to cover the 
full costs of processing an application to adjust status, 
including any costs incurred to adjudicate, process biometrics, 
perform national security and background checks, prevent and 
investigate fraud, and administer the collection of a fee. In 
addition to the processing fee established by the Secretary, 
individuals who were 21 years of age or older on the date of 
introduction of this Act shall pay a $1,000 penalty to adjust, 
unless that individual meets the requirements under the DREAM 
Act set forth in section 245D(b). This penalty may be paid in 
installments.
    Naturalization. A lawful permanent resident who was 
lawfully present in the United States and eligible for work 
authorization for not less than 10 years before becoming a 
lawful permanent resident may be naturalized in three years 
provided that he or she meets all requirements for 
naturalization, has resided continuously in the United States 
for at least three years after being lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence, and, during the three years immediately 
preceding the naturalization filing date, was physically 
present in the United States for fifty percent of the time.

Section 2103. The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for 
        Alien Minors Act of 2013)

    This section authorizes the Secretary to adjust the status 
of an RPI to that of a lawful permanent resident after five 
years (instead of the usual 10 years) if the RPI demonstrates 
that he or she was younger than 16 years of age on the date on 
which the alien initially entered the United States; has earned 
a high school diploma or certain equivalents (including a 
general education development certificate recognized under 
State law or a high school equivalency diploma); and has 
acquired a degree from an institution of higher education or 
has completed at least two years, in good standing, of a 
program for a bachelor's degree or higher education degree in 
the United States or has served in the Uniformed Services for 
at least four years and, if discharged, received an honorable 
discharge. The applicant must also provide a list of each 
secondary school he or she attended while in the United States.
    The Secretary has authority to waive the above requirements 
for aliens who can demonstrate compelling circumstances that 
have prevented them from satisfying the higher education or 
Uniformed Services requirement. In obtaining a status 
adjustment, an alien must demonstrate that he or she meets the 
requirements that apply at citizenship, unless a physical or 
developmental disability or mental impairment prevents that 
individual from meeting such requirements.
    Aliens seeking adjustment of status must submit biometric 
and biographic information and complete national security and 
law enforcement background checks. The Secretary must notify an 
alien of his or her determination as to whether the alien 
meets, or does not meet, the requirements set forth in Section 
1 (DREAM Act eligibility requirements).
    DACA Recipients. The Secretary may adopt streamlined 
procedures for individuals granted relief under the DACA 
program to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.
    Treatment for Purposes of Naturalization. An alien adjusted 
to lawful permanent resident status under this section shall be 
considered to have been lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence and to have been in the United States as a lawful 
permanent resident during the period of RPI status. An 
individual may not apply for naturalization while in RPI 
status, except for those applying for military naturalization 
under INA section 328 or 329.
    Higher Education. Under this section, States have the 
option to determine residence for the purposes of higher 
education, such that a State may choose to grant in-state 
tuition to out-of-status immigrants. RPIs who initially entered 
the United States before reaching 16 years of age, and those 
eligible for blue card status, shall be eligible for certain 
assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
including certain student loans and work-study programs.

Section 2104. Additional requirements

    This section specifies that, while the Secretary may 
consider the information provided by an alien seeking RPI 
status or extension or adjustment when considering any 
immigration application from the alien, the Secretary may not 
otherwise disclose the information subject to certain required 
disclosures. The Secretary is required to disclose the 
information to law enforcement, intelligence, and national 
security agencies, components within DHS, and to a court or 
grand jury in connection with a criminal investigation or 
prosecution of a felony (not related to the applicant's 
immigration status), or for a national security investigation 
or prosecution, or to an official coroner for purposes of 
identifying a deceased person. The Secretary may audit 
information about applications for RPI status, extension of RPI 
status or adjustment for purposes of identifying fraud or fraud 
schemes. The Secretary may use evidence from audits and 
evaluations for purposes of investigating, prosecuting, 
referring for prosecution or denying or terminating immigration 
benefits.
    This section protects employers in relation to the use of 
employment records submitted in connection with an application 
for RPI status or extension of RPI status.
    The Secretary may establish or designate an administrative 
appeal process within DHS and allows for a single appeal for 
each administrative decision related to an application for RPI 
status, extension of RPI status, or adjustment under the RPI 
provisions or the DREAM Act provisions, or for blue card status 
or adjustment for those in blue card status. An alien shall not 
be removed until a final decision is rendered establishing 
ineligibility for RPI status or extension or adjustment, and 
the alien shall not be considered unlawfully present during the 
appeals process.
    If an alien's application for RPI status or adjustment 
under general RPI provisions or the DREAM Act, or for blue card 
status or adjustment under the blue card status provisions, is 
denied or revoked after the exhaustion of administrative 
review, that person may seek review of the decision in 
accordance with Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the United States Code, 
before the U.S. District Court for the district in which the 
person resides. Alternatively, for decisions related to 
applications for RPI status, adjustment under the general RPI 
provisions or adjustment under the DREAM Act, an alien may seek 
review in a United States court of appeals in conjunction with 
the judicial review of an order of removal, deportation, or 
exclusion if the validity of the denial has not been upheld in 
a prior judicial proceeding.
    Judicial review of decisions related to applications for 
RPI status, adjustment under the general RPI provisions or 
adjustment under the DREAM Act shall be based upon the 
administrative record established at the time of the review. 
The reviewing court may remand a case for consideration of 
additional evidence if the court finds that the additional 
evidence is material and there were reasonable grounds for 
failure to adduce the additional evidence before the Secretary. 
The district courts shall have jurisdiction over any cause or 
claim arising from a pattern or practice of the Secretary in 
the operation or implementation of this Act that is arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise contrary to law. This section speaks to 
the scope of relief available in the districts courts and 
specifies how challenges to the validity of the system are to 
be handled by the courts.

Section 2015. Criminal penalties

    This section creates criminal penalties of not more than 
$10,000 for any person who knowingly uses, publishes, or 
permits the improper use of information on these applications.

Section 2106. Grant program to assist eligible applicants

    The Secretary may establish a program within U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services to award grants, on a 
competitive basis, to eligible public or private nonprofit 
organizations that assist eligible applicants for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant status and blue card status.
    The grant funds may be used for the design and 
implementation of programs that provide information to the 
public regarding the eligibility and benefits of RPI status; 
assistance to individuals submitting applications for 
Registered Provisional Immigrant status; assistance to 
individuals seeking to adjust their status to that of an alien 
admitted for permanent residence; and assistance to individuals 
on the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, civics 
and civics-based English as a second language, and in applying 
for U.S. citizenship.

Section 2107. Conforming amendments to the Social Security Act

    This section allows those granted RPI status, or adjustment 
of status including under the DREAM Act provisions, to correct 
their Social Security records.
    In addition, this section states that the removal of a 
parent from the United States or the involvement of a parent in 
an immigration proceeding shall constitute a compelling reason 
for a State not to file a petition to terminate parental 
rights, unless the parent is unfit or unwilling to be a parent. 
The provision ensures that the immigration status of a relative 
caregiver alone shall not disqualify the caregiver, and that 
adult relatives should receive preference if he or she meets 
all relevant State child protection standards.

Section 2108. Government contracting and acquisition of real property 
        interest

    This section provides that the competition requirement 
under Section 253(a) of Title 41 of the United States Code 
(USC) may be waived or modified by a Federal agency for any 
procurement conducted to implement this title or the amendments 
made by this title if the senior procurement executive for the 
agency conducting the procurement determines that the waiver or 
modification is necessary, and submits an explanation for such 
determination to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the House of Representatives.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to make 
term, temporary limited, and part-time appointments of 
employees who will implement this title and the amendments made 
by this title without regard to the number of such employees, 
their ratio to permanent full-time employees, and the duration 
of their employment.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security may acquire a leasehold 
interest in real property, and may provide in a lease entered 
into for the construction or modification of any facility on 
the leased property.

Section 2109. Long-Term legal residents of the Commonwealth of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands

    This section creates a mechanism to grant lawful permanent 
resident status to certain long-term legal residents of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) who, 
following the federalization of immigration law in the CNMI in 
2008, were left without a long-term permanent status. These 
individuals include those who are lawfully present in the CNMI 
under the immigration laws of the United States, are otherwise 
admissible to the United States under the INA, and meet certain 
criteria relating to their presence in the CNMI. The presence 
criteria are that the individual either resided continuously 
and lawfully in the CNMI from November 28, 2009, through the 
date of enactment; was born in the Northern Mariana Islands 
between January 1, 1974, and January 9, 1978; has been a 
continual permanent resident of the CNMI since May 8, 2008; is 
the spouse or child of such an alien; is an immediate relative 
of a U.S. citizen since May 8, 2008; resided in the Northern 
Mariana Islands as a guest worker under CNMI immigration law 
for at least five years before May 8, 2008; or is the spouse or 
child of the alien guest worker. Beginning five years after the 
date of enactment, the individuals described above may apply to 
receive an immigrant visa or adjust status to that of lawful 
permanent residence.

Section 2110. Rulemaking

    Not later than one year after the date of enactment, the 
Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State 
separately shall issue interim final regulations to implement 
this title and the amendments which shall take effect 
immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

Section 2111. Statutory construction

    Except as specifically provided, nothing in this title, or 
any amendment made by this title, may be construed to create 
any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally 
enforceable by any party against the United States or its 
agencies or officers or any other person.

          SUBTITLE B--AGRICULTURAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES BENEFITS

Section 2201. Short title

Section 2202. Definitions

    This section defines ``blue card status'' as the status of 
an alien who has been lawfully admitted into the United States 
for temporary residence under Section 2211. The term 
``agricultural employment'' is given the meaning that it 
carries in Section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
Worker Protection Act, without regard to whether the specific 
service or activity is temporary or seasonal.

Section 2211. Blue card status requirements

    This section provides that prospective blue card workers 
must be able to document working in U.S. agriculture for a 
minimum of 100 work days or 575 hours in the two years prior to 
December 31, 2012, in order to be eligible to adjust to blue 
card status. The spouse or child of such alien may be eligible 
if he or she was physically present in the United States on or 
before December 31, 2012, and has maintained continuous 
presence since then. Applicants must pass a security and a law 
enforcement background check in order to be eligible for the 
program, just like any other Registered Provisional Immigrant.
    The Department of Homeland Security will accept 
applications for blue card status from aliens in the United 
States during the one-year period beginning on date when DHS 
publishes the final rule. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
can extend the application period for 18 months.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall collect biometric 
and biographic information for blue card workers and their 
dependent spouses and children to conduct national security and 
law enforcement clearances.
    Blue card status expires eight years after the date on 
which final blue card regulations are published. The Department 
of Homeland Security shall set a processing fee that is 
sufficient to cover the program application and administrative 
costs. Blue card workers must pay a $100 fine to the Department 
of Homeland Security. Blue card documents will be machine-
readable and tamper-resistant and contain a digitized 
photograph. A worker granted blue card status is not eligible 
for public assistance or public benefits until five years after 
the date on which the alien adjusts to green card status, 
consistent with any other immigrant entering the United States.
    Blue card status may be revoked at any time if the person 
is no longer eligible for blue card status. Blue card holders 
may convert to RPI status if DHS determines that they cannot 
meet the work requirements applicable to blue card holders.

Section 2212. Adjustment to permanent resident status

    Blue card workers (and spouses and children who meet 
certain eligibility requirements) are eligible to apply for 
permanent resident status if they have fulfilled their work 
requirements in U.S. agriculture, show that they have paid all 
applicable taxes, comply with the same criminal eligibility 
requirements used for determining RPI status, and pay a $400 
fine. Fines are to be used to cover the costs of the program.
    In order to be eligible, a worker must show that he or she 
performed at least five years of agricultural employment for at 
least 100 work days per year during the eight-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment or that he or she performed 
at least three years of agricultural employment for at least 
150 work days per year during the five-year period beginning on 
the date of enactment. Certain credits may be given for 
extraordinary circumstances, though such credits cannot exceed 
12 months of work.
    If an employer or farm labor contractor has kept records of 
employment, the alien's burden of proof may be met by securing 
production of such records under regulations to be promulgated 
by the Secretary; otherwise, an applicant may meet the burden 
of proof by producing sufficient evidence to show the extent of 
his or her employment as a matter of just and reasonable 
inference. Penalties for making false statements in conjunction 
with blue card applications or adjustment to legal permanent 
resident status are punishable by up to five years in prison.
    Legal services through the Legal Services Corporation may 
be made available for direct assistance to those applying for 
blue card status or adjustment, and to individuals granted blue 
card status.
    Upon enactment, deportation of undocumented agricultural 
workers who are eligible for blue card status and sanctions 
against their employers shall be stayed until the blue card 
program is operational.
    Spouses and minor children of blue card workers residing in 
the United States are eligible for derivative blue card status. 
Workers who successfully complete blue card requirements are 
eligible for lawful permanent residence and their spouses and 
children are eligible for such status as derivatives.

Section 2213. Use of information

    Beginning on the first day of the blue card application 
period, DHS shall broadly disseminate information about the 
program.

Section 2214. Reports on blue cards

    Not later than September 30, 2013, and annually thereafter 
for the next eight years, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall submit a report to Congress concerning the blue card 
program, including the number of aliens who applied for and 
were granted blue card status, and the number of blue card 
holders who applied for and received adjustment of status to 
lawful permanent residence.

Section 2215. Authorization of appropriations

    Congress will make appropriations as necessary to implement 
the program for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.

Section 2221. Correction of social security records

    This section provides a safe harbor for blue card holders 
for past misstatements.

Section 2231. Nonimmigrant classification for nonimmigrant agricultural 
        workers

    This section establishes a new temporary worker program to 
ensure an adequate agricultural workforce. Two visa programs 
are established: first, a portable, at-will employment based 
visa (W-3 visa) and second, a contract-based visa (W-2 visa) to 
replace the H-2A program. Regulations implementing the new 
program shall be issued within 12 months of enactment.
    The H-2A program will sunset after the new visa programs 
are implemented and operational. The implementation of these 
programs is expected to be complete two years after the date of 
enactment.

Section 2232. Nonimmigrant agricultural worker program

    A new Section 218A is created within the INA, establishing 
a nonimmigrant agricultural worker program for employment by 
contract and employment at will. Both contract and at-will 
visas will be valid for agricultural employment with Designated 
Agricultural Employers (DEAs), who have registered with the 
Department of Agriculture to employ guest workers (described 
further below). Various terms are defined, including 
agricultural employment, at-will agricultural worker, blue 
card, and electronic job registry. Initial employee eligibility 
would be based on an offer of employment from a Designated 
Agricultural Employer.
    New Section 218A(c)--Numerical Limitation. For the first 
five years, the nonimmigrant visa program is capped at 112,333 
per year. Visas shall be evenly distributed four times per 
calendar year. After the first year, the Secretary of 
Agriculture may modify disbursement of visas based on prior 
usage patterns. Unused visas can be rolled over to the next 
quarter but not to the next year.
    During the first five years of the program, the Secretary 
of Agriculture has the authority to increase the cap to make 
additional visas available within a calendar year in response 
to a demonstrated labor shortage. The Secretary has the 
authority to reduce the cap within a fiscal year in response to 
the high unemployment rate of agricultural workers. The 
Secretary shall consider the evidence submitted by agricultural 
producers and farm worker organizations in making a 
determination to increase or decrease the cap.
    The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Labor, shall establish a new annual visa cap for 
each fiscal year after year six. To determine the cap for each 
fiscal year the Secretary shall consider appropriate factors, 
including but not limited to, demonstrated shortages of 
agricultural workers, the level of unemployment and 
underemployment of agricultural workers, the number of 
applications for the guest worker visa, the number of 
applications approved, the number of guest workers employers 
sought, and other factors. This cap is also subject to rules in 
case of emergency in case of labor shortages.
    New Section 218A(d)--Nonimmigrant Worker Requirements. An 
alien is not eligible for the program if the alien has violated 
a material term of a previous admission as a non-immigrant 
agricultural worker; has failed to pass security and criminal 
background checks; or departed the United States subject to an 
order of exclusion, deportation or removal and is outside the 
United States or reentered the United States illegally after 
December 31, 2012 (subject to certain exceptions). Temporary 
workers are not eligible for means-tested federal benefits or 
assistance.
    The visa term is for three years. The visa is portable for 
at-will workers, and for contract workers it ends upon 
fulfillment of contract term. A guest worker can renew his or 
her visa one time. After year six, guest worker must reside 
outside of the United States for three months before obtaining 
another visa. A spouse or child is not eligible for derivative 
status on a nonimmigrant visa.
    Contract agricultural workers may seek employment with 
other designated agricultural workers after the completion of 
the contract period. At-will agricultural workers may seek and 
accept employment with any other designated agricultural 
employer. At-will and contract agricultural workers are 
provided a 60 day grace period to find work in between 
employment or must depart the country. A visa issued under this 
section shall not specify the geographical area or limit the 
type of employment which a worker may seek.
    New Section 218A(e)--Employer Requirements. Each employer 
seeking to employ guest workers shall submit to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the Farm Service 
Agency or electronically to the USDA, an application for 
Designated Agricultural Employer status. Such application shall 
include the employer's Employer Identification Number, the 
estimated number of nonimmigrant agricultural workers the 
employer will need each year, the anticipated periods during 
which the employer will need such workers, and a registration 
fee. The USDA shall assign each employer that meets the 
criteria with a Designated Agricultural Employer registration 
number. Designated Agricultural Employer status is for three 
years. The Secretary may provide assistance to agricultural 
employers, including helping such entities to register to be a 
DAE, providing Internet access for the submission of 
applications, and providing resources about the program.
    A petition shall be submitted by a DAE to the Department of 
Homeland Security no later than 45 days before a worker is 
needed. Such petition shall include an attestation to all the 
requisite criteria to ensure their compliance with the system.
    Employers must provide housing or an allowance for at-will 
and contract workers. Employers may provide a ``reasonable 
housing allowance'' instead of arranging for housing, but the 
employer shall upon request assist the employee in locating 
suitable housing. Such allowance must not be used for housing 
that is owned or maintained by the employer. The amount of 
allowance would be based upon HUD fair market rental rates for 
a two-bedroom dwelling occupied by four individuals. Contract 
workers may only get a housing allowance instead of housing if 
the State certifies that there is adequate housing available in 
the area of intended employment. The housing provisions do not 
apply to workers who live within normal commuting distance 
where the job site is within 50 miles of the U.S. border.
    The contract visa program requires employers to provide 
daily worksite transportation or reimbursement for 
transportation. The at-will visa program does not require 
employers to provide transportation. The first employer pays 
for inbound travel to the United States for contract workers 
and at-will workers. Employers pay for outbound travel for 
contract workers who complete 27 months under their contracts 
with the same employer.
    Nonimmigrant agricultural workers lose their status and 
must depart the United States if they were unemployed for more 
than 60 consecutive days. This requirement could be waived as 
necessary for workers who are injured or unable to work for 
extended periods of time through no fault of their own due to 
natural disasters such as crop freezes or droughts. A contract 
worker who breaches with his or her contract with an employer 
must depart the United States before accepting another job with 
a U.S. employer.
    Employers must file job offers with their State workforce 
agencies no later than 60 days before such employer seeks to 
employ a nonimmigrant agricultural worker. These offers must be 
listed for 45 days. Employers shall keep records of all 
eligible, able, willing, and qualified U.S. workers who apply 
for agricultural employment with the employer. An employer may 
not seek a foreign worker unless the employer offers such 
employment to each eligible, able, willing, and qualified U.S. 
worker who applies for such employment.
    Guest workers shall be provided equal labor protections 
under the law as domestic agricultural workers. An employer 
cannot hire a nonimmigrant agricultural worker to replace an 
employee who is on strike or locked out. An employer may not 
displace U.S. workers to hire nonimmigrant agricultural 
workers. The three-quarters guarantee rule has required the 
employer under the H-2A program to guarantee the worker to 
receive 75 percent of the worker's wages under the contract 
period regardless of whether or not the work was completed (in 
other words, to guarantee 75 percent of the work, regardless of 
other circumstances). This rule is retained for employers who 
employ workers under the contract program, but this rule will 
not apply to an employer's workers who came to the United 
States in the at-will program.
    Employers must provide worker's compensation to 
nonimmigrant agricultural workers. Employers must provide U.S. 
agricultural workers the same wages, benefits, and working 
conditions to their employees. Employers shall make only 
deductions from workers' wages that are authorized by law or 
are reasonable and customary in the occupation and area of 
employment.
    New Section 218A(f)--Wages. If an employer pays on a piece-
rate basis and requires a minimum productivity standard, the 
standard must be specified in the job offer and cannot be more 
than what has been normally required by other employers at the 
time of the employer's first application, unless the Secretary 
of Agriculture approves a higher rate. The wage rate from 
Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal Year 2016 shall be the higher 
of the local minimum wage or specific rates listed in the bill 
for these occupations. The Secretary of Agriculture is to index 
an increase in the required wage rate based on the movement of 
the Consumer Price Index ranging between 1.5 and 2.5 percent 
per year.
    The Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the prevailing 
wage rate for the six categories of farm workers listed. The 
Adverse Effect Wage Rate (as in effect for the current H-2A 
program) will remain frozen while the new prevailing wage rate 
for the categories is being determined. A new prevailing wage 
shall be set by the Secretary of Agriculture by September 1, 
2015. If a new prevailing wage rate is not established by 
September 1, 2015, the frozen AEWR shall be the prevailing wage 
for these job categories and adjusted for inflation in 
accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
    New Section 218A(g)--Worker Protection. Nonimmigrant 
workers have the same rights and remedies under Federal, State, 
and local law as their U.S. counterparts. Workers are covered 
by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 
(MSPA) and can pursue their grievances with employers covered 
under this act. In the event of a lawsuit between an employer 
and an employee, any party can request mediation of the 
complaint and mediation must be exhausted before the lawsuit 
may proceed.
    The Secretary of Labor is given authority to establish a 
process to address worker grievances and complaints. The 
Secretary shall be able to impose administrative remedies and 
bar an employer from the program related to program violations 
and abuses. Employers are prohibited from discriminating 
against an employee who reports compliance violations or 
misconduct.
    New Section 218A(i)--Special Procedure for Certain 
Occupations. Under the new agricultural visa program, the 
Secretary is authorized to continue the special procedures 
relating to housing, pay and visa application requirements for 
sheepherders, goat herders, beekeepers and other industries 
subject to such procedures under the current H-2A regulations.
    New Section 218A(j)--Monitoring and Miscellaneous. Upon the 
full implementation of the mandatory Employment Verification 
system, this bill will ensure that everyone working in 
agriculture is legally authorized to be employed in the United 
States. In addition, DHS will implement a new electronic 
monitoring system to ensure that those who are legally 
authorized to work are actually working with the employer that 
petitioned them. This is intended to not only cut down on fraud 
and abuse of the system, but also to ensure compliance with 
program requirements and that nonimmigrant agricultural workers 
leave when legally required to do so.

Section 2234. Reports to Congress on nonimmigrant agricultural workers

    The Department of Agriculture has to submit an annual 
report that provides information on W agricultural worker 
admissions. The Department of Homeland Security must submit an 
annual report on W agricultural workers violating the program 
rules who have not departed from the United States.

Section 2241. Rulemaking

    The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 
of Labor and the Secretary of State shall regularly consult in 
promulgating regulations to implement this subtitle. 
Regulations shall be issued not later than six months from the 
date of enactment of this Act.

Section 2242. Reports to Congress

    Not later than 180 days after enactment, DHS and the 
Department of Agriculture shall jointly submit a report to 
Congress describing the implementation of this subtitle.

Section 2243. Benefits integrity programs

    This section requires the creation of a benefit fraud 
assessment program to monitor fraud in the RPI, blue card, 
DREAM, and U visa programs.

Section 2244. Effective date

    This subtitle shall take effect on that date on which 
regulations required by Section 2241 are issued (six months 
following enactment).

                     SUBTITLE C--FUTURE IMMIGRATION

Section 2301. Merit-Based Points Track One Immigrant Visas

    This section sets the worldwide level of merit-based 
immigrants equal to 120,000 for each fiscal year. The cap may 
increase annually by up to five percent per year if the 
following conditions are met, but the cap may not exceed 
250,000 in any year: first, if the worldwide level of visas 
available is less than 75 percent of the number of applicants, 
then the worldwide level will increase by five percent in the 
next fiscal year; second, if the worldwide level of visas is 
equal to or more than 75 percent of the number of applicants, 
then the worldwide level will stay the same, minus any amount 
added for the recapture of unused visas; third, if the average 
unemployment level for the prior fiscal year is more than 8.5 
percent, then worldwide level of merit-based visas may not 
increase; and the worldwide level will be increased by any 
unused numbers from the prior fiscal year.
    Tiers One and Two. For the first four years, the 120,000 
visas (subject to any increase) will be available to those with 
approved petitions in the 203(b)(3) category. Beginning in the 
fifth fiscal year after date of enactment, the Secretary will 
allocate 50 percent of the merit-based visas to Tier One and 50 
percent to Tier Two. In each of the two tiers, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security will give preference to aliens in each of two 
tiers based upon a point allocation system, until the worldwide 
level is met. The first tier allows points to be earned based 
on education, employment experience, employment related 
education, entrepreneurship, employment in a high-demand 
occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, 
family relationships, age, and country of origin. The second 
tier allows points to be earned based on employment experience, 
special employment criteria, caregiver obligations, exceptional 
employment record, civic involvement, English language 
proficiency, family relationships, age, and country of origin. 
No one granted RPI status or those with pending or approved 
employment or family petitions may be granted a merit-based 
immigrant visa.
    Unused numbers in Tier One will be recaptured in the 
following year, with two-thirds going to Tier One and one-third 
to either tier. Unused numbers in Tier Two will be recaptured 
in the following year with two-thirds going to Tier Two and 
one-third to either tier.
    Modification of Points Allocated. The Secretary has 
authority to submit a proposal to Congress recommending a 
modification to the points allocated in each tier, and the 
proposal shall be considered by Congress under expedited 
procedures.
    Study. The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the 
new merit-based immigration system during the first seven years 
of the system. This study shall include the demographics of the 
population that utilizes the system.

Section 2302. Merit-Based Track Two

    This section allows the Secretary of State to allocate 
merit-based immigrant visas beginning on October 1, 2014 for: 
employment-based visas that have been pending for five years; 
family-sponsored petitions that were filed prior to enactment 
and have been pending for at least five years; family-sponsored 
petitions filed after the date of enactment that have been 
pending for at least five years for adult married children and 
siblings; long-term alien workers who have been present for not 
less than 10 years, and are not admitted on a W visa under 
section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Act. Beginning in 2028, long-term 
aliens must be present for at least 20 years to adjust to 
permanent residence under this section.
    Between Fiscal Years 2015 and 2021, each year, the 
Secretary shall allocate a seventh of the total number of 
employment-based visas that have been pending as of the date of 
enactment. Between Fiscal Years 2015 and 2021, the Secretary 
shall allocate a seventh of the total number of family-based 
visas that are pending as of the date of enactment, excluding 
petitions that are converted to the immediate relative 
category. Petitions for spouses and children of permanent 
residents who are accorded status under the INA are 
automatically converted to petitions to accord status as 
immediate relatives.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, the Secretary of State shall allocate 
immigrant visas to 50 percent of the number of family based 
petitions approved after the date of enactment that were not 
issued as of October 2021. In Fiscal Year 2023, the Secretary 
shall allocate immigration visas to the remaining 50 percent of 
family based petitions filed after the date of enactment that 
were not issued by October 2021. Visas allocated for these 
family based petitions will be issued based on the order in 
which petitions were filed.
    Registered Provisional Immigrants may apply for merit-based 
green cards under Merit-Based Track Two ten years after 
enactment of the bill.
    The merit-based point system tracks will not be subject to 
per country limits.

Section 2303. Repeal of the Diversity Visa Program

    This section amends the INA to repeal the Diversity Visa 
Program. Immigrants who were or are selected for diversity 
immigrant visas for Fiscal Years 2013 or 2014 will be eligible 
to receive them. All unused green cards may be recaptured 
through the date of enactment.

Section 2304. Worldwide levels and recapture of unused immigrant visas

    In FY 2015, unused employment-based green cards from Fiscal 
Years 1992 to 2013 will be added to the FY 2015 green card 
allocation. After FY 2015, unused employment-based green card 
numbers will roll over to the following fiscal year.
    This section maintains the current worldwide level of 
family-sponsored immigrants for a fiscal year at 480,000 visas, 
minus the number of immigrant visas issued to immediate 
relatives, with a floor of 226,000. This allocation remains in 
place for 18 months after the date of enactment. This section 
allows unused visas from 1992 through 2011 to be included in 
the allocation of family-sponsored immigrant visas for Fiscal 
Year 2015.

Section 2305. Reclassification of spouses and minor children of lawful 
        permanent residents as immediate relatives

    This section amends the definition of ``immediate 
relative'' to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted 
for lawful permanent residence. This allows for the automatic 
conversion to immediate relative designation for pending 
petitions filed on behalf of a spouse or child of a lawful 
permanent resident.
    This section provides allocations for family-based 
immigrant visas for the period beginning on the date of 
enactment until 18 months after enactment. It caps unmarried 
sons or daughters of lawful permanent residents at 20 percent 
of the worldwide family-sponsored level; caps immigrant visas 
for married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and caps 
immigrant visas for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens at 40 
percent of the worldwide family-sponsored level.
    Within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Secretary of State shall adopt a plan to 
broadly disseminate information to the public regarding 
termination of the registration of aliens who evidenced an 
intention to become lawful permanent residents but who fail to 
adjust status within a year of notification that an immigrant 
visa is available. Termination can be overturned with two 
years, if the individual establishes good cause.
    The section provides for the retention of priority dates 
for family-based and employment-based petitions by establishing 
that the priority date for a petition is the earliest priority 
date based on any petition filed on an alien's behalf, 
regardless of the category of subsequent petitions. For 
children who turn 21 during the course of processing of the 
parent's visa such that the child is no longer eligible to 
adjust as a minor child, that child would have his or her 
petition automatically convert to a petition for an unmarried 
son or daughter of an LPR upon the parent's admission as a 
resident. The child would retain the priority date established 
by the original petition.
    This section also provides that VAWA self-petitioners may 
receive work authorization within 180 days of filing an 
application, or on the date such status is approved, whichever 
is earlier. There are other technical and conforming amendments 
included in this section.

Section 2306. Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

    This section eliminates the per-country limits for 
employment-based immigrants and increases the per-country limit 
for family-based immigrants from seven to 15 percent. It also 
applies special rules for countries at the ceiling to 
distribute visas in a proportional way across the family 
categories.

Section 2307. Allocation of Immigrant Visas

    Family-Sponsored Visas. Eighteen months from the date of 
enactment, the allocation of immigrant visas will be amended as 
follows: (1) the cap on immigrant visas to adult unmarried sons 
and daughters will be 35 percent of the worldwide family-
sponsored level; (2) caps on immigrant visas for married sons 
and daughters of U.S. citizens who are 31 years of age and 
under at the time of filing will be 25 percent of the worldwide 
family-sponsored level; (3) caps on immigrant visas for 
unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents will 
be 40 percent of the worldwide family-based level. This section 
strikes the availability of immigrant visas for siblings of 
U.S. citizens.
    Employment-Based Visas. This section exempts the following 
categories from the annual numerical limits on employment-based 
immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based 
immigrants; immigrants of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding 
professors and researchers; multinational executives and 
managers; doctoral degree holders in STEM fields; physicians 
who have completed the foreign residency requirements or have 
received a waiver; and immigrants who have earned a master's 
degree or higher in a field of STEM from an accredited U.S. 
institution of higher education and have an offer of employment 
in a related field, if the qualifying degree was earned in the 
five years immediately before the petition was filed.
    EB-2 Visas. This section allocates 40 percent of the 
worldwide level of employment-based visas to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent whose 
services are sought in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business by an employer in the United States (including certain 
aliens with foreign medical degrees). The Secretary may waive 
the job offer requirement if it is in the national interest, 
and shall waive the requirement for physicians serving patients 
who reside in a shortage area if the alien's work is in the 
public interest. These physicians must meet certain 
requirements before their status can be adjusted to lawful 
permanent residence. This section eliminates labor 
certification requirement for hiring advanced degree holders in 
STEM fields from a U.S. university who are applying under the 
EB-2 category.
    EB-3, EB-4, and EB-5 Visas. This section increases the 
percentage of employment visas for skilled workers, 
professionals, and other professionals to 40 percent (the EB-3 
category), increases the percentage of employment visas for 
certain special immigrants to 10 percent (the EB-4 category), 
and increases visas for those who foster employment creation to 
10 percent (raising the EB-5 cap from 10,000 to 14,000). The 
numbers may roll down among those categories.
    Naturalization of Employees of Certain National Security 
Facilities. Under this section, a person who is employed in a 
research capacity at a Federal national security, science and 
technology laboratory or agency for one year longer may be 
naturalized without regard to typical residency requirements, 
if other background investigation and other requirements are 
met.

Section 2308. Inclusion of communities adversely affected by a 
        recommendation of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
        Commission as targeted employment areas.

    This section provides that a Targeted Employment Area for 
the purpose of the EB-5 visa includes ``any community adversely 
affected by a recommendation of the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission.''

Section 2309. V Nonimmigrant Visa

    This section amends the V nonimmigrant visa status to be 
available to: those with approved petitions as the unmarried 
son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or of a lawful permanent 
resident, and to the married son or daughter of a U.S. citizen 
who is 31 years of age or under; or the sibling of a U.S. 
citizen or the married son or daughter of a U.S. citizen who is 
over 31 years of age. The Secretary may issue work 
authorization to those admitted under a V visa based on a 
pending family sponsored petition. A V visa terminates 30 days 
after the visa petition or adjustment of status is denied. 
Siblings and married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens over 
31 years of age may not be authorized to work after being 
admitted on a V visa and may only be admitted for up to 90 
days. This change is effective on the first day of the first 
fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment. V visas are 
subject to the public charge requirement. They do not have 
access to subsidies and they are not subject to the mandate 
under the Affordable Care Act.

Section 2310. Fiance child status protection

    This section amends K visa eligibility to include the 
fiances of lawful permanent residents. It also clarifies that 
children who are adjusting with their parents from a fiance 
visa to a family visa are included and provides certain age-out 
protections for the children of those being admitted as a 
fiance. It provides that for purposes of both the visa petition 
and the adjustment application, the age of the dependent child 
is determined at the time the petition is filed.

Section 2311. Equal treatment for all step children

    This section harmonizes the definition of stepchildren with 
other children under the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
including the definition of stepchildren as those who are 21 
years of age and younger.

Section 2312. International Adoption Harmonization

    This section amends the adoption age requirements to allow 
children under the age of 18 to be adopted. It also harmonizes 
adoptions between Hague Convention and Non-Hague Convention 
countries.

Section 2313. Relief for orphans, widows, and widowers

    This section allows aliens who were excluded, deported, 
removed, or departed voluntarily before enactment based solely 
upon their lack of classification as an immediate relative due 
to the death of such citizen or resident to be eligible to 
apply for parole into the United States pursuant to the 
Secretary's discretionary authority. This section allows 
spouses of deceased U.S. citizens to apply for naturalization 
after three years of lawful permanent resident status.
    This section allows for the adjudication of an immigrant 
visa application as if the death had not occurred for a widow 
or orphan of a qualifying relative who died before the 
completion of the immigrant visa processing. This section also 
preserves the eligibility of these individuals for any waivers 
based on their relationship to the qualifying relative as if 
the death had not occurred and recognizes that the death of the 
qualifying relative is the functional equivalent to hardship. 
It removes the physical presence requirement under 204(l).

Section 2314. Discretionary authority with respect to removal, 
        deportation or inadmissibility of citizen and resident 
        immediate family members

    This section grants immigration judges discretion to 
terminate removal proceedings or waive inadmissibility with 
respect to a request for admission in cases where the judge or 
officer determines that removal or a finding of inadmissibility 
is against the public interest, would result in hardship to the 
alien's U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent, spouse, or 
child, or the judge determines the alien is prima facie 
eligible for naturalization. This waiver is not available to 
individuals who are subject to removal or who are inadmissible 
based on certain criminal and national security grounds.

Section 2315. Waivers of inadmissibility

    This section makes inapplicable the unlawful presence 
inadmissibility grounds at 212 (a)(9)(B) to individuals who are 
the beneficiaries of an approved H nonimmigrant visa petition; 
initially entered the United States prior to age 16; and have 
earned a bachelor's degree or higher from a U.S. institution.
    This section allows those who are parents of U.S. citizens 
or lawful permanent residents to be eligible to apply for a 
waiver for unlawful presence and strikes ``extreme'' from the 
hardship standard.
    This section requires false claims to citizenship to be 
``knowing'' and exempts children and individuals who are 
incapable of making a ``knowing'' claim due to mental 
disabilities. This section creates a waiver for 
misrepresentations and false claims to citizenship based on 
extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's citizen or legal 
permanent resident parent, spouse, son, or daughter. It also 
creates a waiver for VAWA self-petitioners if waivers would 
result in significant hardship to the alien or a parent or 
child of the alien.

Section 2316. Continuous presence

    This section states that any period of continuous residence 
or continuous physical presence shall be deemed to end on the 
date that a notice to appear is filed with the Executive Office 
for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Section 2317. Global health care cooperation

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
allow lawful permanent residents who are physicians or health 
workers to reside in a candidate country as designated by the 
Secretary of State and be considered physically present and 
continuously resident in a State in the United States, for 
purposes of meeting the naturalization requirements.
    An individual who seeks to enter the United States for the 
purpose of performing labor as a physician or other health care 
worker is inadmissible unless the individual submits to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State an 
attestation that he or she is not seeking to enter the United 
States for such purpose during any period in which the 
individual has an outstanding obligation to the government of 
the individual's country of origin or residence. The Secretary 
of Homeland Security can waive a finding of inadmissibility 
subject to certain constraints.

Section 2318. Extension and improvement of the Iraqi Special Immigrant 
        Visa Program

    This section extends and improves the Iraqi Special 
Immigrant Visa program. It provides that any unused balance of 
principal SIVs available in Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 may 
be carried forward and provided through the end of Fiscal Year 
2018; and that employment ``by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government in Iraq'' includes employment by a media or 
nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States 
or an organization or entity closely associated with the U.S. 
mission in Iraq that has received U.S. Government funding 
through an official and documented contract, award, grant, or 
cooperative agreement. It further requires improvement in the 
processing of Iraqi SIV applications so that a determination is 
made within six months from the date of application; and it 
provides a review process for Iraqis whose visa applications 
are denied.

Section 2319. Extension and improvement of the Afghan Special Immigrant 
        Visa Program

    This section extends and improves the Afghan Special 
Immigration Visa program. It increases the number of principal 
Afghan SIVs from 1,500 to 5,000 for Fiscal Years 2014 through 
2018, giving the Afghan program parity with the Iraqi SIV 
program. It further provides that any unused balance of 
principal SIVs available in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 may 
be carried forward and provided through the end of Fiscal Year 
2019. The section provides SIVs for parents and siblings of 
principal applicants who are in danger, and requires 
improvement in the processing of Afghan SIV applications so 
that a determination is made within six months from the date of 
application. It also provides a review process for Afghans 
whose visa applications are denied.

Section 2320. Elimination of sunsets for certain visa programs

    This section eliminates sunsets for the Special Immigrant 
Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the EB-5 Regional 
Center Program.

Section 2321. Special immigrant status for certain surviving spouses 
        and children

    This section creates a new special immigrant provision for 
surviving spouses and children of an employee of the U.S. 
Government who is killed abroad in the line of duty if the 
employee had performed faithful service for a total of 15 years 
or more, and the principal officer of the Foreign Service 
establishment in his or her discretion recommends granting 
special immigrant status and the Secretary of State approves 
his recommendation. This section takes effect beginning on 
January 31, 2013, and is retroactive.

Section 2322. Reunification of certain families of Filipino Veterans of 
        World War II

    This section allows individuals who are the sons or 
daughters of a U.S. citizen and whose parents were naturalized 
under Section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 or Section 
1001 of the Second War Powers Act to receive green cards 
without regard to the numerical limits governing immigrant 
visas.

                  SUBTITLE D--CONRAD STATE 30 PROGRAM

Section 2401. Conrad State 30 Program

    This section eliminates the sunset clause for the Conrad 
State 30 Program.

Section 2402. Retaining physicians who have practiced in medically 
        underserved communities

    This section exempts alien physicians who have completed 
service requirements in underserved areas from the annual 
numeric limits on employment-based immigrant visas. It also 
exempts the physicians' spouses and children from these limits.

Section 2403. Employment protections for physicians

    This section creates certain employment protections for 
alien physicians working in underserved areas who agree to work 
under certain conditions after having completed graduate 
medical training in the United States on J-1 visas. Employment 
contracts for alien physicians must specify the maximum number 
of on-call hours per week; indicate whether the contracting 
facility or organization will pay for the alien's malpractice 
insurance premiums; describe all of the individual's work 
locations; and may not include a non-compete provision.
    This section also allows physicians who are denied a Conrad 
30 J-1 waiver because the program has been filled to get an 
extension of J-1 status for up to six months to pursue another 
waiver. Work authorization is available once the new J-1 waiver 
application is submitted. This provision also permits dual 
intent for J-1 doctors.

Section 2404. Allotment of Conrad 30 waivers

    This section allots an increase to 35 waivers for any state 
that uses 90 percent of the waivers available to it in a given 
fiscal year, as long as at least five waivers were used in the 
previous fiscal year. All states are allotted an additional 
five waivers for each subsequent fiscal year if the same 
conditions are met. Any increase in allotments shall be 
maintained indefinitely, subject to constraints.

Section 2405. Amendments to the procedures, definitions, and other 
        provisions related to physician immigration

    This section establishes dual intent is established for 
physicians seeking graduate medical training and allowable visa 
status is created for physicians fulfilling waiver requirements 
in medically underserved areas. This section clarifies national 
interest waivers with respect to practice, geographic area, and 
the five-year service requirement. Short-term work 
authorization is allowed for physicians completing their 
residencies.

                        SUBTITLE E--INTEGRATION

Section 2501. Definitions

    This section defines key terms used in this subtitle.

Section 2511. Office of Citizenship and New Americans

    This section renames the Office of Citizenship in USCIS to 
``Office of Citizenship and New Americans.'' The office shall 
be headed by the ``Chief of the Office of Citizenship and New 
Americans.'' The Office's new responsibilities include 
providing general leadership, consultation, and coordination of 
immigrant integration programs across the Federal Government 
and with State and local entities; setting goals and indicators 
and measuring progress; and engaging government and non-
governmental stakeholders. The functions of the new Office 
shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

Section 2521. Task Force on New Americans

    The Secretary shall establish a Task Force on New 
Americans, which shall be fully functional not later than 18 
months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Section 2522. Purpose

    This section stipulates that the Task Force will coordinate 
Federal program and policy response to integration issues and 
advise and assist the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
integration policy.

Section 2523. Membership

    The Task Force shall be comprised of 13 Federal agency 
officials or their designees and shall be chaired by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. Members include the Secretary 
of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the 
Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the 
National Economic Council.

Section 2524. Functions

    This section establishes that the Task Force shall meet at 
the call of the Chair, provide a coordinated Federal response 
to integration issues, liaise with their respective agencies, 
and provide recommendations no later than 18 months after Task 
Force is established.

Section 2531. Establishment of a United States Citizenship Foundation

    This section authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to establish a nonprofit corporation, called the ``United 
States Citizenship Foundation.''

Section 2532. Funding

    This section authorizes the United States Citizen 
Foundation (``Foundation'') to solicit, accept, and make gifts 
of money and other property.

Section 2533. Purposes

    The purpose of the Foundation is to expand citizenship 
preparation programs for permanent residents; to provide direct 
assistance for aliens seeking provisional immigrant status, 
legal permanent resident status, or naturalization as a U.S. 
citizen; and to coordinate immigrant integration with State and 
local entities.

Section 2534. Authorized activities

    This section defines the authorized activities of the 
Foundation to include making United States citizenship 
instructions and naturalization application services accessible 
to low-income and other underserved permanent resident 
populations.

Section 2535. Council of Directors

    This section establishes Council of Directors to be 
comprised of the Director of USCIS, the Chief of the Office of 
Citizenship and New Americans, and 10 Directors from national 
community-based organizations. Authorizes the Council to 
appoint an Executive Director to manage day-to-day operations.

Section 2536. Powers

    This section defines the authorized powers of the Executive 
Director.

Section 2537. Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance 
        Grant Program

    This section authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security 
through the Director of USCIS to award Initial Entry, 
Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance (IEACA) grants to 
eligible public or private, nonprofit organizations. It defines 
the use of funds to include the design and implementation of 
programs that provide direct assistance to aliens who are 
preparing an initial application for Registered Provisional 
Immigrant status or agricultural card status, aliens seeking to 
adjust their status to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR), and 
legal permanent residents seeking to naturalize. Grant programs 
should assist applicants in the application process, rights and 
responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, English as a second 
language, and civics.

Section 2538. Pilot Program to promote immigrant integration at State 
        and local levels

    This section provides that the Chief of the Office of 
Citizenship and New Americans may award grants on a competitive 
basis to States and local governments or other qualifying 
entities to carry out programs to integrate new immigrants. A 
State or local government or other qualifying entity must 
submit an application including a proposal to meet integration 
objectives set forth in this Subtitle, the number of new 
immigrants in the applicant's jurisdiction; and a description 
of the challenges in introducing and integrating new immigrants 
into the State or local community. Priority will be given to 
entities who use matching funds from non-Federal sources; 
demonstrate collaboration with public and private entities; and 
are one of the 10 States with the highest rate of foreign-born 
residents or that have experienced a large increase in the 
population of immigrants during the most recent 10-year period.
    The section defines activities as those used to introduce 
and integrate new immigrants into the State, including 
improving English language skills, improving access to 
workforce training program, teaching U.S. history and civics, 
teaching financial literacy, and engaging receiving 
communities. Each grant recipient shall submit an annual report 
to the Office of Citizenship and New Americans. The Chief shall 
also conduct an annual evaluation of each grant program.

Section 2539. Naturalization ceremonies

    This section mandates that the Chief implement a strategy 
to enhance the public awareness of naturalization ceremonies.

Section 2541. Authorization of appropriations

    This section authorizes the appropriation of $10,000,000 
for the five-year period ending on September 30, 2018, in 
addition to any amounts otherwise made available to the Office. 
It further authorizes the appropriation of $100,000,000 for the 
five-year period ending on September 30, 2018, for the two 
grant programs and to implement the naturalization ceremony 
strategy.

Section 2551. Waiver of english requirement for senior new americans

    This section adds a provision to waive the English language 
and civics and history requirements under INA Section 312(a) 
for any person older than 65 years of age who has been living 
in the United States for periods totaling at least five years 
after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence. It also 
waives the English language requirement for certain other 
persons aged 50 years and older who have been living in the 
United States for extensive periods of 15 to 20 years, and 
permits the Secretary, on a case-by-case basis, to waive the 
civics and history requirement for a person over 60 years of 
age who has been living in the United States for periods 
totaling at least 10 years after being lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence.

Section 2552. Filing of applications not requiring regular internet 
        access

    This section prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security 
from requiring an applicant or petitioner for permanent 
residence or citizenship to file any application 
electronically, or requiring access to a customer account. This 
provision ceases to be effective on October 1, 2020, after 
which DHS must notify the Committees on the Judiciary in the 
House and Senate of such intention.

Section 2553 Permissible use of assisted housing by battered immigrants

    This section makes public housing available to certain 
qualified battered immigrants.

                    TITLE III--INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT

Section 3101. Unlawful employment of aliens (setting up the mandatory 
        E-Verify system)

    New Sec.274A(a)--Making Employment of Unauthorized Aliens 
Unlawful. This title amends existing law that provides for the 
limited use of E-Verify, modernizing the system and eventually 
making its use mandatory for all U.S. employers. It provides 
that it is unlawful for an employer to hire, recruit, or refer 
for a fee an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to 
work in the United States, or to continue to employ such an 
alien. It will now also be unlawful for an employer to hire, 
recruit, or refer for a fee an alien without complying with the 
new E-Verify program, as set forth in (c) and (d) of this 
section. (Penalties--both civil and criminal--appear later in 
this Title.) This includes the employment of an alien who is 
hired through a contract, subcontract, or an exchange when the 
employer knew the alien to be unauthorized for work. An 
employer may rely on a State employment agency's referral of an 
employee when the agency has certified its compliance with E-
Verify.
    Good faith defense. A good faith defense is available when 
an employer, person, or entity can establish good faith 
compliance with the requirements set forth in subsection 
(c)(1)-(4) and those set forth in subsection (d) (see below). 
Generally, an employer is considered to have complied with a 
requirement under this subsection, notwithstanding a technical 
or procedural failure to meet such requirement, if there was a 
good faith attempt to comply with the requirement. After the 
date on which an employer is required to use E-Verify, the 
employer will be presumed to have acted with knowledge in 
hiring an alien who lacks work authorization if such employer 
failed to use E-Verify.
    Workforce and labor protections. All rights and remedies 
required under Federal, State, or local law relating to 
workplace rights, including back pay, are available to an alien 
despite the employee's unauthorized status or the employer or 
employee's failure to comply with E-Verify's requirements. 
Reinstatement is available to individuals who are authorized to 
work in the United States at the time relief is ordered or 
effectuated, or who lost employment-authorized status due to 
the unlawful acts of the employer.
    New Section 274A(b)--Definitions. Key terms are defined. An 
``employer'' includes any person or entity, including Federal, 
State and local governments, an agent or a System service 
provider acting on behalf of an employer, that hires, employs, 
recruits, or refers for a fee an individual for employment that 
is not casual, sporadic, irregular, or intermittent employment 
as defined by the Secretary.
    New Section 274A(c)--Document Verification Requirements. 
Employers must examine designated documents in order to 
ascertain the identity and employment authorization of new 
hires, and must attest (under oath) that they have in fact 
examined such documents. Forms for this attestation will be 
available by paper, by telephone, and electronically. The 
Secretary of DHS shall make public on the USCIS website the 
documents, and pictures of the documents, that must be used for 
employment verification. An employer is in compliance with 
these provisions if the employer has followed applicable 
regulations in good faith, and a reasonable person could 
conclude that the documentation presented is genuine and 
reflects the identity of the applicant.
    Acceptable documents. An employee must present one of the 
following to establish identity and employment-authorized 
status: a U.S. passport or passport card, a document that is 
issued to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
or a valid document showing work-authorized status with a 
photograph of the bearer and security features, an enhanced 
driver's license that meets the requirements of REAL ID and is 
certified for use by the Secretary, or a foreign passport 
accompanied by a form indicating work authorization status 
(this list is set forth in subparagraph 274A (c)(1)(C)).
    Alternatively, an employee may present one form of 
identification showing identity (a complying driver's license 
not described above, a voter registration card, a document that 
complies with the requirements of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or alternatives established 
by the Secretary for those under 18 years of age such as an 
attestation by a parent or guardian) (subparagraph (c)(1)(D)); 
and one form of identification showing employment authorization 
(a Social Security Account Number card, other than one that is 
not valid for work authorization, or any other document 
identified by the Secretary and published in the Federal 
Register that evidences employment authorized status, if such 
documentation contains security features) (subparagraph 
(c)(1)(E)).
    Identity authentication mechanism. In addition to verifying 
the documents described above, the employer must also use an 
identity authentication mechanism, after it becomes available, 
to verify the identity of each individual the employer seeks to 
hire. There are two such mechanisms: the photo tool, which will 
allow an employer to match the photo on certain Government-
issued documents with a photo maintained by USCIS in an 
electronic database (subclause (c)(1)(F)(iii)); or additional 
security measures to adequately verify the identity of an 
individual, which the Secretary shall develop to incorporate 
the most up-to-date technological advances (subclause 
(c)(1)(F)(iv)).
    Individual attestation. Upon commencing employment, an 
individual must attest under penalty of perjury that he or she 
is authorized to work in the United States, on a form 
prescribed by DHS, and must provide his or her Social Security 
Account Number.
    Retention of verification records. An employer must save 
authorization records for three years after hiring an 
individual or one year after termination, whichever is later. 
These forms may be retained electronically. The Secretary may 
promulgate regulations concerning the copying and retention of 
such documents.
    Penalties. An employer who fails to comply with 
requirements may be penalized as set forth in Subsection 
274A(e), below.
    Civil rights protections. Nothing in this section may be 
construed to diminish existing civil rights protected by 
Federal law. An employer shall use the E-Verify system without 
regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin or, 
unless specifically permitted in this section, to citizenship 
status.
    No national identification cards. Nothing in this section 
may be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the 
issuance, use, or establishment of a national identification 
card.
    New Section 274A(d)--Employment Verification System. This 
subsection provides for the creation of the Employment 
Verification System. The Department of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, must 
establish the System, and create processes to monitor the use 
and misuse of the system, including error rates, speed, and 
misuse of the system for discriminatory purposes.
    Notification and direct access for individuals. The 
Department of Homeland Security shall create a process so that 
individuals can have direct access to their own case histories 
in E-Verify, shall develop protocols to notify individuals when 
their names have been processed through E-Verify, and shall 
establish a process for individuals to notify the Secretary of 
potential fraud.
    Employer participation requirements. Different categories 
of employer must participate as follows:
    (A) Federal Government employers. Federal Government 
employers who are not already participating in the system shall 
participate in E-Verify beginning 90 days after the enactment 
of this law.
    (B) Federal contractors. Federal contractors shall 
participate as provided in the final rule that currently 
requires their participation, or any modification of it.
    (C) Critical infrastructure. Beginning one year after 
regulations are implemented, the Secretary may direct certain 
critical-infrastructure related employers to use E-Verify to 
the extent necessary to protect the infrastructure (pursuant to 
regulations). These employers will be provided with 90 days 
notice.
    (D) Employers with more than 5,000 employees. Not later 
than two years after regulations are published that implement 
E-Verify, employers with more than 5,000 employees shall use 
the System for new hires and those with expiring employment 
authorization documents.
    (E) Employers with more than 500 employees. Not later than 
three years after regulations are published to implement E-
Verify, employers with more than 500 employees shall use the 
System for new hires and those with expiring employment 
authorization documents.
    (F) Agricultural Employment. Not later than four years 
after regulations are published to implement E-Verify, 
employers of employees performing agricultural employment shall 
use the System for new hires and those with expiring 
authorization documents.
    (G) All employers. Not later than four years after 
regulations are published that implement E-Verify, all other 
employers must use the System for new hires and those with 
expiring employment authorization documents.
    (H) Tribal government employers. Rule-making on E-Verify 
should consider the effects of the program on federally 
recognized Indian tribes and tribal members and consult with 
Indian tribes. These employers shall be required to use the 
System to verify new hires and those with expiring employment 
authorization documents no later than five years after the 
general regulations are published to implement E-Verify.
    (I) Immigration law violators. An employer who has been 
found to have violated this law may be required to participate 
in the System if it is not otherwise required. An employer who 
is found to have committed pattern and practice violations may 
be required to use E-Verify for existing hires as well.
    Voluntary participation in E-Verify is permitted. Failure 
to participate in the system when participation is legally 
required shall constitute a civil violation.
    Procedures for participants in the System. Employers will 
be required to register with E-Verify before using it. The 
Secretary may require employers to undergo training, which 
shall be made available electronically on the USCIS website if 
practicable. The employer shall notify employees that it is 
using E-Verify and that information may be used for immigration 
enforcement purposes and may not be used to discriminate or 
take adverse action against the individual. The employer shall 
also obtain and record in a manner specified by DHS the 
employee's Social Security Number, proof of citizenship or 
noncitizen nationality, and other information that DHS might 
require.
    Seeking confirmation--timing and limitations. An employer 
shall use the system to confirm the identity and status of any 
individual beginning on the date that an offer is accepted, and 
no later than three business days after the date on which 
employment begins, or in a time established by the Department 
of Homeland Security. An employer may not make employment or 
training contingent on E-Verify confirmation. If an individual 
has a limited period of employment authorized status, 
reverification of the person's status must be completed no more 
than three business days after the last day of such period.
    Notification of confirmation, nonconfirmation, or a further 
action notice. The Department of Homeland Security shall 
provide employers with notice of confirmation, nonconfirmation, 
or a ``further action notice'' (notice that further action is 
required to verify the identity or work eligibility of an 
individual). DHS shall directly notify the individual and the 
employer of a nonconfirmation or further action notice by 
email, mail, text message, phone, or other direct 
communication. It shall also provide the applicant with 
information about filing an administrative appeal.
    Confirmation of an individual's identity and work 
authorization shall be provided at the time of the inquiry, or 
not later than three days after the inquiry. The confirmation 
shall be recorded in a manner specified by the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    In the event of a further action notice, the employer shall 
notify the employee of the notice and any procedures specified 
by DHS for addressing the notice not later than three business 
days after receipt of the notice, or during a reasonable time 
that DHS may establish. The individual shall affirmatively 
acknowledge in writing receipt of the notice. If the individual 
refuses to acknowledge the notice or acknowledges that he or 
she will not contest the further action notice, the employer 
shall notify the Department of Homeland Security.
    Contesting a further action notice. Not later than 10 
business days after receiving a further action notice, the 
individual shall contact the appropriate Federal agency and, if 
DHS requires, appear in person to verify his or her identity 
and employment eligibility using a secondary identification 
procedure. If a further action notice is not contested or not 
acknowledged within the time period specified by DHS, a 
nonconfirmation shall be issued, and the employer shall record 
the nonconfirmation and terminate the individual's employment. 
Unless an extension is granted by DHS, after considering the 
impact on the employer and the need of the individual to 
provide additional evidence, E-Verify shall provide a 
confirmation or nonconfirmation not later than 10 business days 
after the individual contests the further action notice. The 
Department of Homeland Security may establish procedures for 
reexamining confirmations or nonconfirmations in the event that 
subsequent information is received.
    An employer may not terminate or take adverse action 
against an individual solely because of a failure of an 
individual to have his or her identity and employment 
eligibility confirmed, until (1) a final nonconfirmation has 
been issued; (2) if a further action notice was contested, the 
period to appeal has expired; or (3) if an appeal before an 
administrative law judge has been filed, the nonconfirmation 
has been upheld or the appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed.
    Nonconfirmations and appeals. Not later than three business 
days after an employer receives a nonconfirmation notice, the 
employer must notify the applicant and provide information 
about appeals and a hearing and attest (through the E-Verify 
system) that notification has been made. The individual must 
acknowledge receipt of the notice in a manner prescribed by the 
Department of Homeland Security.
    Consequences of nonconfirmation. If an employer has 
received a nonconfirmation for an employee, employment shall be 
terminated when the time has expired for filing an 
administrative appeal and for requesting a hearing before an 
administrative law judge. If the employer does not terminate 
the employee, a rebuttable presumption is created that the 
employer hired an alien knowing that he or she was not 
authorized to work. This presumption does not apply to criminal 
prosecutions. If an individual does file an administrative 
appeal or seeks review by an administrative law judge, the 
employer shall not terminate the individual prior to resolution 
of the appeal unless DHS terminates the stay of the 
nonconfirmation. The Director of USCIS shall submit a weekly 
report to the Assistant Secretary of ICE that includes the name 
and information of employees who received a final 
nonconfirmation and the contact information of their current 
employer.
    Obligations to respond to queries and provide additional 
information. Employers are obligated to respond to inquiries by 
the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for 
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) within 
the time frame during which records are required to be 
maintained, if the inquiry relates to the functioning, 
accuracy, or possible misuse of the System. Failure to comply 
constitutes a violation of the employer's obligation to comply 
with the requirements governing the E-Verify system. 
Individuals may also be required to take further action to 
address questions identified by DHS regarding the documents 
relied on for verification. If the Secretary or Commissioner 
submits questions regarding an individual, the employer has 
three business days to notify the individual and must record 
the date and manner of the notification and receive 
acknowledgement of receipt from the individual.
    Rulemaking. DHS shall implement regulations to implement 
and clarify use of the system, and to prevent misuse, 
discrimination, fraud, identity theft, or threats to 
confidentiality.
    Designated agents. DHS shall certify, on an annual basis, 
third-party vendors to perform verification queries on behalf 
of employers under certain circumstances.
    Requirement to provide information. This section 
establishes a multi-agency campaign to provide and distribute 
information about E-Verify. It authorizes $40 million for each 
Fiscal Year 2014 through 2016 for this program.
    Authority to modify the information requirements of the E-
Verify system. DHS, in consultation with the Social Security 
Administration (SSA) Commissioner, may, through notice and 
comment rulemaking, modify the information requirements for 
both employee and employers, and procedures to be followed.
    Self-verification. DHS, in consultation with the 
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, shall 
establish procedures for self-verification in a secure manner, 
and for employees to update their information.
    Employer Protection from liability. An employer shall not 
be liable for any employment-related action taken with respect 
to a job applicant or employee on good-faith reliance on 
information provided by the System.
    Administrative appeals, stays, and review for error. An 
individual who is notified of a nonconfirmation has 10 business 
days to file an administrative appeal of such nonconfirmation 
with the SSA (if the appeal is based on records maintained by 
the Commissioner), or with the Department of Homeland Security. 
An individual who fails to timely contest a further action 
notice shall be denied review. An individual who files an 
administrative appeal shall receive a stay, unless the appeal 
is frivolous, filed for the purposes of delay, or time has run 
out. The Department of Homeland Security and the SSA 
Commissioner shall develop procedures for assessing evidence, 
which shall be filed within 10 business days of the date the 
appeal is filed. Appeals shall be resolved within 20 business 
days after the evidence and argument have been submitted. 
Filing deadlines may be extended for good cause in order to 
ensure accurate resolution of an appeal. Appeals shall be based 
on a preponderance of the evidence standard, and no damages, 
fees, or costs may be awarded in this process.
    Review by Administrative Law Judge and remedies. Not later 
than 30 days after an administrative review is rendered, an 
individual may file for a review of the decision with an 
administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Department of 
Justice. This shall result in an automatic stay of the 
nonconfirmation. The Department of Homeland Security shall 
promulgate regulations for appeals, and the ALJ shall have the 
power to terminate a stay of nonconfirmation if the appeal is 
frivolous or dilatory, take evidence, subpoena witnesses and 
evidence, and enter a decision. The respondent to a complaint 
filed under this paragraph is either the Secretary or the 
Commissioner of Social Security, but the complaint must also be 
served on the Attorney General.
    An order by an ALJ may be appealed, as detailed below. The 
order shall uphold or reverse the final determination and may 
order lost wages or other appropriate remedies. The employer 
may be ordered to pay the individual lost wages and reasonable 
costs and fees if the nonconfirmation was due to the employer's 
gross negligence or intentional misconduct. If the cause was 
government negligence, lost wages and costs and fees may be 
awarded.
    Lost wages shall be calculated based on wage rate and work 
schedule and determined by the amount of time since employment 
was terminated, minus mitigation stemming from other employment 
or reinstatement. No lost wages will be awarded for any time 
spent out of employment-authorized status. An ALJ determination 
may be appealed by an individual who is adversely affected by 
an order within 45 days of entry of the order to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly 
occurred.
    Management of the E-Verify system. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall establish, manage, and modify the 
System. The System shall be designed to maximize reliability, 
ease of use, accuracy, privacy and security. The E-Verify 
system shall also be subject to audits for misuse, fraud, 
anomalies, accuracy, and privacy. The Department of Homeland 
Security shall conduct interviews to audit the system. Accuracy 
audits shall be conducted each year and the error rate shall be 
reported. In any year the system has an error rate higher than 
0.3 percent, the civil penalty for certain first-time 
violations by an employer may not exceed $1,000.
    Any person, including a private third-party vendor, who 
retains document verification or system data as required by 
law, shall implement a security program to protect such data, 
which shall be accessible only to authorized personnel. Third-
party vendors who retain document verification must also 
provide for backup and recovery of records and provide for 
employee training. Authorized personnel must be registered with 
the E-Verify system.
    Available facilities. The Department of Homeland Security 
shall make appropriate arrangements for employers and 
employees, including remote hires, who are unable to access the 
System to use other electronic and telephonic formats and/or 
Federal Government facilities or public facilities to use E-
Verify.
    Responsibilities of the Secretary. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall maintain a reliable method for 
verifying identification, document validity, authorization 
status, and all information that is necessary to the system. 
The Department of Homeland Security shall establish and develop 
a photo tool system for authenticating digital photographs (as 
described above). Audits shall be authorized and used to 
administer and enforce the immigration laws.
    Identity fraud protection. To prevent identity fraud, DHS 
and the SSA shall establish a program to provide a reliable, 
secure method for an individual to suspend or limit the use of 
his or her Social Security Number or other identifying 
information by E-Verify. This shall include procedures for 
identifying and protecting against multiple or suspicious use. 
A monitoring and compliance unit will help to administer this 
program. The Department of Homeland Security and SSA shall 
establish a program by which parents can suspend or limit the 
use of a Social Security Number or other information of a minor 
under their care. The Department of Homeland Security and SSA 
shall also establish procedures for identifying Social Security 
Account Numbers that are subject to unusual multiple use or are 
otherwise suspected or determined to have been compromised by 
identity fraud.
    Civil rights and civil liberties assessment. The Department 
of Homeland Security shall conduct regular assessments of the 
System, and employers and other entities shall respond to such 
assessments. The Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 
of the Department of Justice shall review the result and 
recommend to the Secretary any changes necessary to improve the 
civil rights and civil liberties protections of the System.
    Grants to States. This section authorizes $250 million to 
help States to develop and share driver's license information 
in a manner that complies with the E-Verify photo tool.
    Passports. The Secretary of State shall provide DHS access 
to passport and visa information as needed to confirm an 
employee's identity through E-Verify. The Commissioner, the 
Secretary and the Secretary of State shall update their 
information in a manner that promotes maximum accuracy and 
shall provide for prompt correction of erroneous information.
    Limitation on use of the System. Records and data assembled 
for E-Verify may not be used for any purpose other than for 
employment verification or to ensure appropriate use of the 
System.
    Annual report by DHS. Not later than 18 months after the 
publication of regulations that implement E-Verify, DHS shall 
issue a report on accuracy of responses, challenges to small 
employers, the rate of employer noncompliance in various 
categories of use of E-Verify, and the use of the appeals 
process by employees. The assessment shall also include the 
rate of employee noncompliance and document fraud, and an 
assessment of the amount of time taken for various stages of 
the E-Verify process.
    Annual GAO study and report. Not later than 18 months after 
the publication of implementing regulations, the Comptroller 
General shall undertake a study to evaluate the security, 
accuracy, and privacy of E-Verify. This report shall take into 
account the impact of E-Verify on employees and employers.
    New 274A(e)--Compliance Provisions. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall establish procedures for the filing of 
complaints and conducting of investigations for potential 
violations of the prohibition against the knowing hire of 
aliens who are unauthorized to work, and against employers who 
illegally require employees to post employment bonds (see 
below). The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) shall be notified 
of such violations. Immigration officers may conduct 
investigations under this section, and compel evidence and 
witnesses by subpoena. The Department of Homeland Security, in 
cooperation with the Commissioner and the Attorney General, 
shall establish a Joint Employment Fraud Task Force.
    If there is reasonable cause to believe there has been a 
civil violation of this section, DHS shall issue a written 
notice of its intention to issue a claim for a monetary fine or 
other penalty. The notice shall describe the violation and the 
material facts supporting it, and give the employer a 
reasonable opportunity to respond. The employer's response is 
due within 60 days, and the employer may also request a hearing 
before an ALJ. If no hearing is requested, the order shall be 
final and not subject to appeal.
    Civil penalties. An employer who hires an alien whom he or 
she knows to be unauthorized, or fails to comply with the 
requirements of E-Verify, shall pay a civil penalty of between 
$3,500 and $7,500 for each violation. Second-time offenders 
shall pay between $5,000 and $15,000 for each violation; 
subsequent offenders shall pay between $10,000 and $25,000 for 
each violation. The Department of Homeland Security may 
establish enhanced penalties after the E-Verify system is fully 
established for failures to query E-Verify and for violations 
of wages, hours, and workplace health and safety. Violations 
that constitute failure to comply with the System, other than a 
minor or inadvertent failure, shall result in civil penalties 
of not less than $500 nor more than $2,000 for each violation; 
between $1,000 and $4,000 for second-time offenses; and $2,000 
to $8,000 for subsequent violators. The Department of Homeland 
Security may impose additional penalties, including cease and 
desist orders and compliance plans. Criminal penalties are set 
forth in new 274A(k) and (l), described below.
    The employer's compliance history, the existence of a 
compliance program, the size and sophistication of the 
employer, and the voluntary disclosure of violations may be 
considered by both DHS and administrative law judges, where 
applicable, to reduce penalties. Penalties may only be dropped 
below the statutory minimum where there has been no previous 
penalty. Penalties assessed under the antidiscrimination part 
of the INA that are for actions that are also a violation of E-
Verify shall mitigate penalties under this section.
    If DHS has reasonable cause to believe that an employer has 
failed to comply with this section, DHS may require that an 
employer certify compliance or institute a compliance program, 
through methods established by The Department of Homeland 
Security. This shall not apply until DHS has certified to 
Congress that E-Verify is established and made mandatory for 
all employers.
    Review of final determinations. A petition for review must 
be filed within 30 days with the judicial circuit for the 
employer's principal place of business at the time of the final 
penalty determination. The Department of Homeland Security and 
the Attorney General must be served in such a proceeding. The 
Court of Appeals shall conduct a de novo review of the 
administrative record on which the final determination was 
based. Any administrative remedies established by regulation 
must first be exhausted. The Attorney General, upon request by 
DHS, may bring a civil action to enforce penalties and 
compliance upon the employer once a final determination has 
been issued.
    If any employer liable for a fee or penalty fails to 
fulfill his obligation as to liability, a lien may be filed on 
all property.
    The Attorney General shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate 
administration proceedings under this subsection (e) in 
accordance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
    New 274A(f)--Penalties for requiring indemnity bond. This 
subsection prohibits an employer from requiring an individual 
to post an indemnity bond for any liability arising from this 
section relating to the hiring of an individual. Employers 
shall be subject to a $10,000 penalty for each such violation.
    New 274A(g)--Penalties for government contractors. An 
employer who is a Federal contractor shall be subject to 
debarment (of up to three years) if he or she is shown to have 
violated the criminal provisions of this section (through 
conviction) or has committed more than three civil violations. 
An administrative determination of liability shall not be 
reviewable in a debarment proceeding. Inadvertent violations of 
recordkeeping or verification requirements shall not be counted 
towards determining whether an employer is a repeat violator of 
this section. Contractors may also continue to be subject to 
contractual liability related to use of E-Verify.
    New 274A(h)--Preemption. This section preempts State or 
local laws and ordinances relating to the hiring, continued 
employment, or status verification of unauthorized aliens, 
creating a consistent framework for all employers. There is an 
exception for States and localities to exercise their authority 
over business licensing and similar laws to penalize businesses 
that fail to use the System.
    New 274A(i)--Deposit of amounts received. Civil penalties 
shall be deposited into the Comprehensive Immigration Reform 
Trust Fund.
    New 274A(j)--Challenges to the validity of the system. 
Challenges shall be brought in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia and shall be limited to this section's 
constitutionality, and the compliance of DHS with the 
Administrative Procedures Act with regard to regulations. All 
such challenges must be brought within 180 days of the 
effective date of the challenged section or regulation.
    New 274A(k)--Criminal penalties and injunctions for pattern 
and practice violations. An employer who engages in a pattern 
and practice of hiring a worker knowing that the worker is 
unauthorized to work, or who fails to comply with the System, 
shall be fined no more than $10,000 per unauthorized worker, 
imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. The maximum 
term for any offense that is a criminal violation of the U.S. 
Code shall be enhanced by five years if it is part of a pattern 
and practice of violation involving the aforesaid conduct. The 
Department of Homeland Security may bring an action requesting 
a temporary or permanent injunction of such activity.
    New 274A(l)--Criminal penalties for unlawful and abusive 
employment. Any employer who knowingly employs 10 or more 
aliens who are not authorized to work in a 12-month period, and 
violates certain labor and employment conditions, shall be 
fined and/or imprisoned not more than 10 years. Any person who 
attempts or conspires to commit these offenses will be punished 
in the same manner as a person who commits the offense.

Section 3101(b)--Report on the use of E-Verify in the agriculture 
        industry

    Not later than 18 months after date of enactment, DHS shall 
submit to Congress a report that fully assesses the 
functionality of E-Verify with respect to the agriculture 
industry.

Section 3101(c)--Report on the impact of the system on employers

    Not later than 18 months after date of enactment, DHS shall 
submit to Congress a report on the impact of E-Verify on small 
business and on business in general.

Section 3101(d)--GAO Study of impact on employees and employers

    The Government and Accountability Office (GAO) shall 
conduct a broad report on the effects of the E-Verify system 
and submit the report to Congress no later than four years 
after date of enactment.

Section 3101(e)--Repeal of pilot program

    The E-Verify pilot program is repealed.

Section 3102. Increasing security and integrity of social security 
        cards

    The SSA Commissioner shall begin work to issue fraud-
resistant, wear-resistance, and identify theft-resistant Social 
Security cards no later than 180 days after enactment, and 
complete this work no later than five years after enactment.
    Replacement cards shall be limited to three per year and 10 
for the life of the individual, subject to reasonable 
exceptions for compelling circumstances established by the 
Department of Homeland Security. Any person who knowingly 
possesses or uses a Social Security Account Number or card, 
knowing that the number on the card was fraudulently or falsely 
obtained from the SSA; knowingly and falsely represents someone 
else's Social Security Number to be his; knowingly buys or 
sells a Social Security Number or card; knowingly alters, 
counterfeits, or forges a card or number; or knowingly uses, 
distributes, or transfers a Social Security Number or card, 
knowing it to be forged or altered, shall be punished by up to 
five years in prison.
    Under proper circumstances, records from the Social 
Security Administration may be disclosed to Federal law 
enforcement agencies.

Section 3103. Increasing security and integrity of immigration 
        documents

    The Department of Homeland Security shall submit to 
Congress no later than one year after enactment a report on the 
feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of including 
biometric information, in addition to a photograph, on each 
employment authorization document it issues.

Section 3104. Responsibilities of the Social Security Administration

    The Social Security Administration shall have the 
responsibilities of establishing a reliable and secure way to 
identify users of E-Verify and of running a secure system. 
Social Security information shall not be relayed to employers.

Section 3105. Improved prohibition on discrimination based on national 
        origin or citizenship status

    This section amends the current anti-discrimination 
provisions in the INA that make it an unfair immigration-
related employment practice to discriminate based on national 
origin or citizenship status with respect to hiring, 
verification under E-Verify, and discharging. Certain 
exceptions are maintained for preference based on citizenship 
that is otherwise required by law. This section specifically 
defines an unfair immigration-related employment practice to 
include, in addition to discrimination based on nationality and 
citizenship status, the use of E-Verify to illegally discharge 
an employee, the use of E-Verify for an unauthorized purpose, 
the use of E-Verify to deny employment benefits, the 
requirement of self-verification as a condition of employment, 
the failure to provide notice under E-Verify as required by 
law, and the granting of access to the system by an 
unauthorized individual. It is also an unfair immigration-
related employment practice to threaten, coerce, or retaliate 
against an individual for exercising their rights under this 
section or because an individual plans to file a charge.
    An employer's request for additional documents other than 
those required by law, or refusal to honor documents, is also 
an unfair employment practice. It is also an unfair employment 
practice for an employer, if required to by law, to fail to 
provide employment documentation, including wages and hours, to 
an employee upon request. Additionally, an individual who is 
authorized to be employed in the United States may not be 
denied a professional, commercial, or business license on the 
basis of immigration status.
    The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may 
refer all matters alleging immigration-related unfair 
employment practices, including those added by this law, to the 
Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment 
Practices at the U.S. Department of Justice (``OSC'').
    An authorization of $40 million for each Fiscal Year 2014 
through 2016 is provided. This section also increases 
applicable fines. For discriminatory practices, fines range 
from $2,000 to $5,000 for each violation, $4,000 to $10,000 for 
second-time offenders, and $8,000 to $25,000 for multiple-time 
offenders. For unfair employment practices related to the 
misuse of E-Verify, the use and abuse of document verification, 
and retaliation and intimidation, the fines range from $500 to 
$2,000.

Section 3106. Rulemaking

    Not later than one year after the date of enactment, DHS 
and the Attorney General shall publish interim regulations 
pursuant to their obligations. Within a reasonable time after 
publication of the interim regulations, DHS and the Attorney 
General shall publish final regulations.

Section 3107. Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate

    The Department of Homeland Security shall establish within 
USCIS an Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate 
(OSBEA) to assist small businesses comply with I-9 and E-Verify 
requirements. The office will inform small businesses about the 
verification practices required by INA Section 274A, assist in 
dealing with nonconfirmation notices, advise on penalties for 
violations, and propose changes to the administrative process. 
The OSBEA shall also make recommendations to Congress. OSBEA 
may also issue assistance orders if a small business or 
individual is suffering significant hardship as a result of 
employment verification laws or meets other requirements set 
forth in regulations. Assistance orders may require the 
Secretary to determine if an employee is authorized to work or 
to abate any penalty that OSBEA determines is arbitrary, 
capricious, or disproportionate to the underlying defense.

              SUBTITLE B--PROTECTING UNITED STATES WORKERS

Section 3201. Protections for victims of serious violations of labor 
        and employment law or crime

    This section expands U visa eligibility for victims of 
serious labor violations. To qualify for a U visa, a worker 
must have suffered physical or mental abuse, or be a victim of 
criminal activity described below or of a covered violation. 
The alien must be helpful, or have been helpful, to a 
prosecutor or designated agency investigating certain criminal 
activity including stalking, child abuse of a minor, elder 
abuse, sexual exploitation, fraud in foreign labor contracting, 
or serious work place abuse, exploitation, or violation of 
whistleblower protections.
    An alien may work in the United States if he or she has 
filed an application for a U visa or is a material witness to a 
bona fide claim or proceeding resulting from a covered 
violation.
    Anyone who makes a false claim under this section is 
subject to a fine of up to $1,000.
    When a workplace claim, as defined in this subsection, 
results in an enforcement action, any aliens arrested or 
detained and who are necessary to an investigation shall not be 
removed until the agency has an opportunity to interview the 
aliens.

Section 3202. Employment Verification System Education Account

    Penalties under this title shall be deposited in the 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund and made available 
to DHS for employer and employee education.

Section 3203. Directive to the U.S. Sentencing Commission

    The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to amend 
existing penalties for crimes that involve this Title, and 
related crimes if they also involve violations of the INA, the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, or similar criminal conduct.

                      SUBTITLE C--OTHER PROVISIONS

Section 3301. Funding

    This section appropriates $1 billion to set up the new E-
Verify system. Such appropriations will be used in the first 
five years to increase the number of ICE agents to administer 
the system. The money shall also be used for all improvements 
to the system, including those used to guard against identity 
fraud, misuse of the system, and the security and privacy of 
the system. Money is also authorized to be used by the Social 
Security Administration.

Section 3302. Effective date

    Except as otherwise indicated, the effective date for the 
provisions of this section and amendments thereto is the date 
of enactment.

Section 3303. Mandatory exit system

    The Department of Homeland Security shall fully implement 
an interoperable database to provide for current and immediate 
access to information in law enforcement systems to determine 
whether to issue a visa. All databases that process information 
on aliens shall be integrated and provided to ICE, CBP, USCIS, 
DOJ, and the Department of State. Machine-readable passports, 
visas, and other travel documents shall be mandatory no later 
than December 31, 2015.
    Biometric exit data program. No later than two years after 
the date of enactment, DHS will establish a mandatory biometric 
exit data system at the 10 highest volume airports in the 
United States, and will issue a report in three years analyzing 
its effectiveness. Absent intervening Congressional action, in 
six years DHS shall establish a biometric exit system at all 
Core 30 international airports in the United States. In six 
years, DHS shall submit a plan to Congress for the expansion of 
the biometric exit system to major sea and land ports based on 
the performance of the program described above and projected 
costs.
    Integration and Interoperability. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall fully integrate all data on aliens, 
which are maintained by ICE, CBP, USCIS, DOJ Executive Office 
of Immigration Review, and DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs. The 
Department of Homeland Security shall implement an 
interoperable electronic data system to provide access to 
information that is relevant to whether to issue a visa or the 
admissibility or deportability of an alien to Federal law 
enforcement agencies and the intelligence community.
    Information Sharing. The Department of Homeland Security 
shall report to the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency, 
intelligence agency, national security agency, or component of 
DHS any alien who has not departed the country when he or she 
was legally required to do so.

Section 3304. Identity-theft resistant manifest on departing aircraft 
        and vessels

    This section provides that an appropriate official for each 
commercial aircraft or vessel departing from the United States 
for international travel shall ensure transmission to CBP of 
identity-theft resistant departure manifest information 
covering alien passengers. This information shall be 
transmitted to a data center. Exceptions are made for military 
personnel traveling as passengers aboard chartered aircraft. 
Carriers may not themselves use this system. There shall be 
appropriated $500,000,000 to reimburse carriers for their 
reasonable actual expenses in carrying out their duties under 
this section.

Section 3305. Profiling

    In making law enforcement decisions, covered DHS personnel 
may not consider race or ethnicity unless a specific suspect 
description exists. However, in conducting activities in 
connection with a specific investigation, Federal law 
enforcement officers may consider race and ethnicity only to 
the extent that there is trustworthy information, relevant to 
the locality or time frame, that links persons of a particular 
race or ethnicity to an identified criminal incident, scheme, 
or organization. In addition, DHS must conduct a study on law 
enforcement activity which will inform the promulgation of 
relevant regulations.

Section 3306. Enhanced penalties for certain drug offenses on Federal 
        lands

    This section enhances penalties for certain drug offenses 
that take place on Federal property, including the cultivation 
of controlled or hazardous substances, destruction of land 
resources, use of booby traps, and use of firearms. It also 
establishes the aggravated penalty of cultivating marijuana on 
Federal lands (not to exceed 10 years in prison) and mandates 
that these penalties be served consecutively with any term of 
imprisonment for the underlying offense of manufacturing and 
distributing a controlled substance.

               SUBTITLE D--ASYLUM AND REFUGEE PROTECTIONS

Section 3401. Time limits and efficient adjudication of genuine asylum 
        claims

    This section eliminates the one-year deadline for filing an 
asylum claim, helping to reduce needless litigation. All asylum 
seekers will still need to meet the criteria for proving a 
genuine and meritorious asylum claim.

Section 3402. Refugee family protections

    Under current law, spouses and children of refugees and 
asylees may accompany or join the principal applicant. This 
section provides similar protections for the children of 
children and accompanying spouses. This prevents refugees and 
asylees from having to choose between family members, and 
accounts for children who are the product of child rape in 
refugee camps.

Section 3403. Clarification on designation of certain refugees

    This section terminates the processing of Amerasian refugee 
claims after the passage of the bill. Additionally, in order to 
process groups of refugees in cases of humanitarian 
emergencies, this section clarifies that the President, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate certain 
high-need groups as refugees and adopt efficient processes for 
adjudicating their claims. Each individual applicant would 
still need to qualify and pass the necessary security checks 
and be subject to the annual limit on refugees. This section 
incorporates those who have been protected under the Lautenberg 
Amendment, inter alia, Jewish and evangelical Christian 
individuals from the former Soviet Union and religious 
minorities from Iran.

Section 3404. Asylum determination efficiency

    This section gives expert, trained asylum officers initial 
jurisdiction over an asylum claim after credible fear is shown 
rather than automatically referring asylum seekers to a judge 
for lengthy and costly court proceedings. After conducting the 
necessary review, the asylum officer could grant asylum or 
refer the case to an immigration judge for removal proceedings.

Section 3405. Stateless persons in the United States

    This section would allow the small number of individuals in 
the United States, who have no nationality through no fault of 
their own, to apply for lawful status if they are not 
inadmissible under criminal or security grounds.

Section 3406. U visa accessibility

    The current U visa cap is raised from 10,000 to 18,000, 
with no more than 3,000 to be made available for victims of a 
covered violation described in Section 3201, above.

Section 3407. Work authorization while applications for U and T visas 
        are pending

    This section grants U and T visa applicants the right to an 
employment authorization document (EAD) if no decision on their 
case is made within 180 days.

Section 3408. Representation at overseas refugee interviews

    This section permits refugee applicants overseas to be 
represented by attorneys or accredited representatives. It also 
gives additional rights to applicants to have their case 
reviewed and imposes additional requirements on reviewing 
officers to document the basis for a decision.

Section 3409. Law enforcement and national security checks

    This section requires a mandatory background check, 
including biographic and biometric data, for those seeking 
refugee or asylum status.

Section 3410. Tibetan refugee assistance

    This section, which creates the ``Tibetan Refugee Act of 
2013,'' grants 5,000 immigrant visas per year for three years 
beginning on October 1, 2013, to natives of Tibet (including 
their children and grandchildren) who have been continuously 
residing in India or Nepal since before the date of enactment. 
Preference is given to those not resettled in India or Nepal 
who are most likely to be resettled successfully in the United 
States.

Section 3411. Termination of asylum of refugee status

    Any alien who is granted asylum or refugee status under the 
INA, who, without good cause as determined by the Secretary, 
returns to the country of persecution or feared persecution, 
shall have his or her refugee or asylum status terminated. The 
Secretary also has authority to waive this basis for 
termination if the alien establishes good cause for the return. 
Cubans are exempted.

Section 3412. Asylum clock

    This section ensures that applicants for asylum are granted 
employment authorization 180 days after applying for asylum.

    SUBTITLE E--SHORTAGE OF IMMIGRATION COURT RESOURCES FOR REMOVAL 
                              PROCEEDINGS

Section 3501. Shortage of Immigration Court personnel for removal 
        proceedings

    This section increases the number of immigration court 
judges to address the significant backlog of cases before our 
immigration courts. The number of immigration court judges is 
increased by 75 per year for the next three fiscal years, and 
the number of Board of Immigration Appeals personnel is 
increased by 30 per year for next three fiscal years.

Section 3502. Improving Immigration Court efficiency and reducing costs 
        by increasing access to legal information

    This section clarifies that the Attorney General has 
authority to appoint counsel in certain removal proceedings to 
help ensure that these proceedings are more expeditious and 
cost-effective. This section helps ensure that incompetent and 
particularly vulnerable individuals--including unaccompanied 
alien children and those with serious mental disabilities--will 
have some legal assistance, thereby reducing frivolous appeals 
and claims.
    Aliens shall have the right to receive a complete copy of 
all relevant documents in possession of DHS (known as their 
``A-file.'').

Section 3503. Office of access to legal program

    This section codifies the existing Legal Orientation 
Program (LOP) for immigration detainees, which was established 
by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration 
Review in 2002. The LOP provides detainees with basic 
information about their rights and responsibilities, helping to 
make immigration proceedings more efficient and cost effective.

Section 3504. Codifying existing Board of Immigration Appeals and right 
        to appeal

    This section codifies the Board of Immigration Appeals 
(BIA), which is the reviewing body for immigration judge 
decisions but has never been codified under the law. The 
section emphasizes the importance of thorough reviews and 
written opinions that provide guidance to immigration judges 
and help reduce the number of further appeals.

Section 3505. Improved training for Immigration Judges and Board 
        Members

    This section ensures that immigration judges have 
appropriate training and continuing education programs. Funding 
for these programs shall be appropriated from the CIR Trust 
Fund.

Section 3506. Improved resources and technology for the Immigration 
        Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals

    This section helps ensure that immigration judges are 
provided with updated reference materials, practice manuals, 
sufficient recording systems, transcription services, and 
adequate interpreters. Funding shall be appropriated from the 
CIR Trust Fund.

Section 3507. Transfer of responsibility for trafficking protections

    This section requires leftover funds from HHS and its 
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the William 
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 
of 2008 to be transferred to the Department of Justice to carry 
out functions set forth in that bill.

 SUBTITLE F--PREVENTION OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ABUSES INVOLVING 
                        WORKERS RECRUITED ABROAD

Section 3601. Definitions

    This section defines foreign labor contractor and foreign 
labor contracting activity.

Section 3602. Disclosure

    Any person who engages in foreign labor contracting shall 
make certain disclosures to workers in English as well as the 
workers' languages, including but not limited to the identity 
and addresses of employers, assurances and terms of conditions, 
and the visas' length, type, cost, the terms and conditions 
under which the visas may be renewed, and a clear statement of 
any expenses associated with securing or renewing the visas. 
This section requires labor contractors to explain to a worker 
that no significant additional requirements or changes may be 
made to the original contract signed by the worker without at 
least 24 hours to consider such changes and the specific 
consent of the worker, obtained voluntarily and without threat 
of penalty, and any significant changes made to the original 
contract that do not comply with this section shall be a 
violation of the law.

Section 3603. Prohibition on discrimination

    This section establishes that an employer or a foreign 
labor contractor cannot discriminate based on a worker's race, 
color, creed, sex, national origin, religion, age, or 
disability. The standards of existing Federal law shall apply.

Section 3604. Recruitment fees

    This section prohibits any foreign contractor from charging 
fees (including visa fees, processing fees, transportation 
fees, legal expenses, placement fees, and other costs) to a 
worker for any foreign labor contracting activity.

Section 3605. Registration

    This section authorizes Department of Labor regulations to 
certify foreign labor contractors for creation of a national 
registry that is publicly available and current. Further, this 
section requires registration of all foreign labor contractors 
and their employees. All employers must notify DOL of the 
foreign labor contractors that they use, a description of the 
services used, whether the contractor will receive any 
compensation, and if so, who is paying for the services. It 
also exempts employers who directly hire their own foreign 
employees. The Department of Labor shall promulgate regulations 
to establish electronic processing for the investigation and 
approval of applications for a certificate of registration of 
foreign labor.

Section 3606. Bonding requirement

    Foreign labor contractors must post a bond in an amount 
sufficient to ensure the ability of the foreign labor 
contractor to discharge its responsibilities under the visa 
program and ensure protection of workers, including workers' 
wages.

Section 3607. Maintenance of lists

    The Secretary shall maintain lists of foreign labor 
contractors registered under this section, along with 
information about their location, recruitment, and visa usage.

Section 3608. Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act

    Certain types of visas cannot be issued until the consular 
officer has provided to the applicant a copy of the pamphlet 
required by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, in the applicant's 
language.

Section 3609. Responsibilities of the Secretary of State

    The Secretary of State shall make sure that each diplomatic 
mission has a person who is responsible for receiving 
information about violations and share that information with 
DOJ, DOL, or any other relevant federal agency. Certain non-
personally identifiable information about visa users shall be 
made public by the Secretary.

Section 3610. Enforcement provisions

    This section provides for a DOL complaint and enforcement 
process to be developed through regulations, a safe harbor for 
employers using DOL-registered foreign labor contractors, and 
civil actions by DOL to seek remedial action and/or damages for 
workers.
    It also expands liability for abuses against foreign 
workers beyond foreign labor contractors to cover their 
ultimate employers as well. This section also provides workers 
with a right of action against an employer. Complaints must be 
filed within three years after the date on which the violation 
occurred or the employee became aware of the violation.

Section 3611. Detecting and preventing child trafficking

    The Department of Homeland Security shall mandate the live 
training of all CBP personnel who are likely to come in to 
contact with unaccompanied alien children. Such training shall 
incorporate the services of independent child welfare 
professionals with expertise in culturally competent, trauma-
centered, and developmentally appropriate interviewing skills 
to assist CBP in screening children attempting to enter the 
United States.

Section 3612. Protecting child trafficking victims

    This section requires all unaccompanied alien children in 
immigration proceedings to be transported and placed in the 
physical custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 
generally within 72 hours after their apprehension (absent 
exceptional circumstances). Female officers must be 
continuously present during the transfer of female detainees.
    The Department of Homeland Security must hire child welfare 
professionals in at least seven of the CBP stations with the 
largest number of unaccompanied alien children. Those 
professionals shall develop guidelines for treatment of 
unaccompanied alien children in DHS custody, conduct screenings 
of those children, notify DHS and ORR of children meeting the 
notification and transfer requirements, interview adult 
relatives accompanying unaccompanied alien children and provide 
an initial family relationship and trafficking assessment and 
recommendations to Office of Refugee Resettlement. They must 
also ensure each child receives emergency medical care when 
necessary; is properly clothed; and is provided with hygiene 
products, linens, nutrition, a safe and sanitary living 
environment, access to recreational programs if held for longer 
than 24 hours, access to legal services, and access to phone 
calls to family members.
    The ORR shall submit final determinations on family 
relationships to DHS which shall consider such adult relatives 
for community-based support alternatives to detention. The 
Department of Homeland Security must submit an annual report on 
unaccompanied minors beginning 18 months after bill enactment.
    The Department of Homeland Security must notify ORR of an 
unaccompanied child within 48 hours after encountering the 
child and must ensure that such children are provided an 
interview with a child welfare professional, an orientation, 
and notice of their rights under immigration law, including the 
right to relief from removal, the right to counsel, and 
relevant complaint mechanisms to report abuse. The Department 
of Homeland Security shall ensure that the orientation and 
notice be provided in the five most common languages spoken by 
unaccompanied children.
    The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID), in conjunction with DHS, HHS, DOJ, 
international organizations and nongovernmental organizations 
in the United States, shall develop a multi-year program to 
develop and implement best practices and sustainable program in 
the United States and within the country of return to ensure 
the safe and sustainable repatriation and reintegration of 
unaccompanied alien children (UAC). Annual reports on this 
process must be provided to the Judiciary Committees. 
Appropriations as necessary will be made.

Section 3613. Rule of construction

    Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to preempt or 
alter any other rights or remedies, including causes of action, 
available under any other Federal or State law.

Section 3614. Regulations

    The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, 
shall prescribe regulations to implement this subtitle and to 
develop policies and procedures on protections against 
trafficking in the recruitment of workers abroad.

                    SUBTITLE G--INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT

Section 3701. Criminal street gangs

    This section renders inadmissible and deportable any alien 
convicted of an offense for which an element was active 
participation in a street gang (as defined in 18 USC 512(a)), 
including individuals applying for RPI status. The section also 
renders inadmissible any alien who is applying for RPI status, 
or any alien who is outside the United States, and is applying 
for an immigration benefit, whom DHS determines has since the 
age of 18 knowingly and willingly participated in a criminal 
street gang. The section further provides for a waiver in cases 
where the alien was not convicted of gang-related offenses, if 
DHS determines that the alien renounced any association with 
the gang, is otherwise admissible, and is not a threat to the 
security of the United States.

Section 3702. Banning habitual drunk drivers from the United States

    This section renders inadmissible and deportable any alien 
convicted of three offenses occurring on separate dates related 
to driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. 
For deportation, at least one of the convictions must occur 
post-enactment. Further, the section makes conviction for a 
third drunk driving offense an aggravated felony. The provision 
takes effect on the date of enactment of the bill. It applies 
only if one of the convictions takes place after enactment of 
the bill.

Section 3703. Sexual abuse of a minor

    This section expands the evidence that can be considered 
regarding the age of the victim in establishing ``sexual abuse 
of a minor'' to include ``credible evidence extrinsic to the 
record of conviction.'' The section contains a prospective 
effective date, applying only to convictions on or after the 
date of enactment.

Section 3704. Illegal entry

    This section modifies the INA's illegal entry provision by 
providing higher maximum penalties for aliens convicted of 
illegal entry who have a serious criminal record. It provides 
for increased civil penalties for aliens over the age of 18 who 
are apprehended illegally entering or attempting to enter the 
United States.

Section 3705. Reentry of removed alien

    This section provides higher maximum penalties for aliens 
convicted of illegal reentry who have a sufficiently serious 
criminal record. In addition, this section provides that an 
alien who illegally reenters must generally serve the remainder 
of any criminal sentence pending against him at the time of 
deportation, with no reduction for parole or supervised release 
unless the defendant affirmatively establishes that DHS has 
expressly consented to his reentry or that he is prima facie 
eligible for protection from removal. This section also 
contains an exception from aiding and abetting crimes for 
legitimate emergency humanitarian assistance.

Section 3706. Penalties related to removal

    This section increases monetary penalties for owners and 
operators of vessels and aircraft for failing to detain known 
alien stowaways or permitting such aliens to land in the United 
States except where authorized by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. However, it contains exceptions for instances where 
the owner or operator acts without compensation to provide 
humanitarian assistance to the stowaway.

Section 3707. Reform of passport, visa, and immigration fraud offenses

    This section amends the criminal code and expands penalties 
pertaining to passport, visa, and document-related fraud. 
Specifically, this section addresses the following categories: 
(1) trafficking in passports (i.e., knowingly forging, 
counterfeiting, altering, or falsely making three or more 
passports); (2) false statements in an application for a 
passport (i.e., knowingly making any false statement or 
misrepresentation in an application for a U.S. passport); (3) 
schemes to defraud aliens (i.e., knowingly executing a scheme, 
in connection with any matter that is authorized by federal 
immigration laws to defraud any person); (4) misuse or attempts 
to misuse a passport (i.e., knowingly using any passport issued 
or designed for the use of another); (5) immigration and visa 
fraud (i.e., knowingly and without lawful authority producing, 
issuing or transferring three or more immigration documents). 
The section adds enhanced penalties if the crime was committed 
to facilitate an act of terrorism or drug trafficking.

Section 3708. Combating schemes to defraud aliens

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Attorney General to promulgate rules to identify 
persons assisting aliens (other than immediate family) who 
submit written materials related to immigration benefits. It 
also requires any person who receives compensation in providing 
such assistance to sign a form as a preparer and provide 
identifying information.
    The section authorizes the Attorney General to commence a 
civil action to enjoin any fraudulent immigration service 
provider from continuing to provide services that substantially 
interfere with the proper administration of the immigration 
laws or from continuing to willfully misrepresent his legal 
authority to provide representation. An immigration service 
provider is a non-attorney who is compensated for assisting 
aliens under the immigration laws.

Section 3709. Inadmissibility and removal for passport and immigration 
        fraud offenses

    This section renders inadmissible and removable any alien 
convicted of a passport or visa violation under Chapter 75 of 
Title 18. Section 209(c) provides that these amendments apply 
to conduct occurring on or after the date of enactment. It also 
states that nothing contained within the chapter will be 
construed to prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, 
protective, or intelligence activity, or any activity under 
Title V of the Organized Crime Control Act.

Section 3710. Directives related to passport and document fraud

    This section directs the United States Sentencing 
Commission to promulgate or amend the sentencing guidelines 
related to passport fraud offenses where appropriate, including 
for newly created offenses under this Act, to reflect the 
serious nature of such offenses. It also directs the Attorney 
General to write prosecution guidelines for individuals 
eligible for certain forms of immigration relief.

Section 3711. Inadmissible aliens

    This section closes a loophole allowing aliens to avoid the 
bar on reentry by aliens ordered removed by unlawfully 
remaining in the United States. Specifically, Section 212(a) 
provides that the bar on admissibility applies to aliens who 
seek admission ``not later than'' five years (or 10, or 20, as 
the case may be) after the date of removal, in contrast to the 
current law's bar on admissibility for aliens who seek 
admission ``within'' five years (or 10, or 20, as the case may 
be) of the date of removal. Section 212(b) renders ineligible 
for future discretionary relief any alien who absconds after 
receiving a final order of removal. The bar applies until the 
alien leaves the United States and for 10 years after. However, 
Section 212(b) also clarifies that such an alien remains 
eligible for a motion to reopen to seek withholding of removal 
under certain circumstances.
    The section also renders inadmissible any alien convicted 
of a crime of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child 
neglect, or child abandonment who served at least one year 
imprisonment or any alien who was convicted of more than one 
such crime not arising out of a single scheme of criminal 
misconduct. It further renders inadmissible any alien whom a 
court determines engaged in criminal contempt of a protection 
order issued for the purposes of preventing domestic violence. 
It also contains an effective date on or after the date of 
enactment of the Act.

Section 3712. Organized and abusive human smuggling activities

    This section prohibits anyone acting for financial gain 
from directing or participating in an effort to bring five or 
more persons unlawfully into the United States. It provides for 
enhanced penalties in more extreme cases such as violations 
that result in serious bodily injury, death, bribery, 
corruption, or which involve 10 or more persons.
    The section also makes it a crime to transmit to another 
person the location, movement, or activities of law enforcement 
agents while intending to further a federal crime relating to 
U.S. immigration; to destroy, alter, or damage any physical or 
electronic device the Federal Government employs to control the 
border or any port of entry; or to construct any device 
intending to defeat, circumvent, or evade any such device. The 
section provides for an enhanced penalty if the person uses or 
carries a firearm in furtherance of the crime. It also 
prohibits the carrying or use of a firearm during and in 
relation to any alien smuggling crime.

Section 3713. Preventing criminals from renouncing citizenship during 
        wartime

    This section strikes language allowing for U.S. citizens to 
renounce their citizenship during times of war.

Section 3714. Diplomatic Security Service

    This section authorizes Special Agents of the State 
Department and the Foreign Service to investigate identity 
theft, document fraud, peonage, slavery, and Federal offenses 
committed within the special maritime and territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States, except where it relates to 
military bases.

Section 3715. Secure alternative programs

    This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
establish secure alternatives programs in each Field Office to 
ensure appearances at immigration proceedings and for the 
public safety. It also requires the Secretary to contract with 
nongovernmental community-based organizations to coordinate a 
continuum or supervision mechanisms and options to be applied 
on a case-by-case basis. With exceptions, the Secretary may use 
secure alternative programs to maintain custody over any alien 
detained under the INA, except for aliens detained under 
section 236A (aliens who pose a threat to national security).

Section 3716. Oversight of detention facilities

    This section requires the Secretary to conduct regular 
inspections of Federal, State, and local facilities used to 
hold individuals under the authority of ICE for compliance with 
applicable detention standards. It also provides for additional 
routine oversight and requires the Secretary to seek input from 
nongovernmental organizations on detention facilities.
    The section requires that compliance with DHS standards be 
deemed a material term in any new contract or agreement 
executed with detention facilities. It also requires the same 
for any contract or agreement that will not be renegotiated 
within 180 days of the effective date of the Act, and imposes 
meaningful financial penalties upon facilities that fail to 
comply with applicable detention standards issued by the 
Secretary.
    The Secretary shall report to Congress no later than June 
30 of each year on inspection and oversight of detention 
facilities.

Section 3717. Procedures for bond hearings and filing of notices to 
        appear

    This section modifies the procedures for custody hearings 
by requiring the Secretary to serve the relevant charging 
document upon the immigration court and the alien within 72 
hours and by requiring the Secretary to immediately decide 
whether the alien will be released or retained in custody and 
to serve the alien notice of the decision within 72 hours. For 
certain aliens, the immigration judge will review the custody 
determination de novo and order continued detention if 
reasonable alternatives will not assure the appearance of the 
alien at further proceedings and if the safety of any other 
person and the community may be at risk. The Attorney General 
must provide review every 90 days if the alien remains in 
custody.
    Solitary confinement shall be limited to situations in 
which such confinement is necessary to control a threat to 
detainees, staff, or the security of a facility; to discipline 
an alien for a serious disciplinary infraction; or for good 
order during the last 24 hours before an alien is released. 
Solitary confinement is limited to the briefest term and under 
the least restrictive conditions practicable and consistent 
with the rationale for placement and with the progress achieved 
by the alien. Children may not be held in solitary confinement. 
Individuals placed in solitary for reason of mental incapacity 
or for their own protection may not be detained involuntarily 
in solitary confinement for more than 15 days unless DHS 
determines that any less restrictive alternative is more likely 
than not to cause greater harm to the individual. The 
Department of Homeland Security may not rely solely on an 
individual's age, physical disability, sexual orientation, 
gender identity, race, or religion in determining whether to 
use solitary confinement. Persons in solitary confinement shall 
receive three or more doctors' visits per week. Those detained 
for long periods of time shall have their cases reviewed in a 
timely manner. Disciplinary segregation is limited.

Section 3718. Sanctions for countries that delay or prevent 
        repatriation of their nationals

    The Secretary of State, upon notification from the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, shall order consular officers 
in foreign countries to discontinue granting visas to foreign 
representatives under Section 101(a)(15)(G) of the INA when the 
Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the government 
of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting 
the return of their citizens, subjects, nationals, or 
residents.

Section 3719. Gross violations of human rights

    This section provides that any alien who planned, ordered, 
assisted, aided and abetted, committed, or otherwise 
participated, in the commission of torture, extrajudicial 
killing under color of law of any foreign nation, a war crime, 
or a widespread or systematic attack directed against a 
civilian population, as well as related activity, shall be 
inadmissible. Those who have committed a widespread or 
systematic attack on civilians or genocide are also denied 
admission.

Section 3720. Reporting and record keeping requirements relating to the 
        detention of aliens

    The Department of Homeland Security shall maintain 
information on detention mandated by this section and shall 
submit reports to Congress. The Department of Homeland 
Security, EOIR, the Director of ICE, and the Director of USCIS 
shall develop a shared database, or other system that allows 
for the databases of ICE, EOIR, and USCIS to develop a shared 
database relating to detained aliens. Until the database is 
operational, DHS shall track the case outcomes of each 
detainee.
    The database shall maintain the basis in law for the 
alien's detention, the place where the alien was apprehended, 
the location where ICE detains the alien until the alien is 
removed from custody, the gender and age of each detained alien 
in the custody of ICE, the number of days the alien is 
detained, the immigration charges being pursued, the status of 
the alien's removal proceedings, and each date on which the 
proceedings progress between stages and the events that have 
occurred after the alien received a final administrative or 
order of removal. It shall also include internal custody 
determinations of ICE, the risk assessment results, and the 
reason for the alien's release. The Department of Homeland 
Security shall provide similar information about detained 
individuals awaiting removal.

Section 3721. Powers of Immigration Officers and employees at sensitive 
        locations

    This section applies to enforcement actions by officers and 
agents of ICE and CBP at sensitive locations including 
hospitals and clinics; schools; organizations assisting victims 
of crime or abuse; organizations assisting children, pregnant 
women, victims of crime or abuse, or individuals with mental or 
physical disabilities; houses of worship; or other places DHS 
specifies. Enforcement actions may not take place at a 
``sensitive location'' except under exigent circumstances and 
if prior approval is obtained from a supervisor. Officers in 
such cases must act discretely and make every effort to limit 
the time at the location. This does not apply to apprehensions 
at or near a land or sea border where an individual is being 
transferred to a hospital or healthcare provider.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP must ensure 
that employees receive annual training on compliance with this 
section. Annual reports must be provided regarding enforcement 
actions at sensitive locations.

 SUBTITLE H--PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AFFECTED BY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

Section 3801 Short title

    This section establishes the ``Humane Enforcement and Legal 
Protections for Separated Children Act.''

Section 3802. Definitions

    This section defines key terms, including ``children'' as 
individuals under 18 years of age and ``parents'' as a 
biological or adoptive parent whose rights have not been 
relinquished or terminated. It defines a ``detention facility'' 
to include any Federal, State or local facility or privately 
owned detention facility, including facilities that hold 
individuals under a contract with Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement.

Section 3803. Apprehension procedures for immigration related 
        activities

    In any enforcement action, DHS shall as soon as possible, 
but generally not later than two hours after an enforcement 
action, inquire whether an individual is a parent or primary 
caregiver of a child in the United States and provide such 
individuals with the opportunity to make a minimum of two phone 
calls to arrange for the care of such child. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall also provide contract information for 
child welfare agencies and family courts in the child's area, 
as well as consulates, attorneys, and legal service providers 
who may provide help. The Department of Homeland Security shall 
notify child welfare agencies if the caregiver is unable to 
make care arrangements or the child is in imminent risk of 
serious harm. The Department of Homeland Security shall ensure 
that its personnel do not compel or request children to 
interpret or translate for interviews of their parents as part 
of an immigration enforcement action. The Department of 
Homeland Security shall ensure that any parent of a child in 
the United States is not transferred from his or her area of 
apprehension until the person has made arrangements for the 
care of the child or, if such arrangements can't be made, is 
informed of the care arrangements for the child. The parent 
should be placed in a detention facility proximate either to 
the location of apprehension or to the individual's habitual 
place of residence.

Section 3804. Access to children, state and local courts, child welfare 
        agencies and Consular Officials

    At all detention facilities, DHS shall prominently post 
information on the protections of this subtitle and information 
on potential eligibility for parole or release. The Department 
of Homeland Security shall ensure that individuals who are 
detained by DHS and are the parents of children in the United 
States are permitted regular phone calls and contact visits 
with their children. Such individuals shall also be provided 
with contact information for and granted telephone calls to 
child welfare agencies and family courts and shall also be 
permitted to participate fully in all family court proceedings 
impacting their right to custody of their children. The 
Department of Homeland Security shall ensure individuals are 
able to fully comply with all family court or child welfare 
agency orders impacting custody of their children. The 
Department of Homeland Security shall also provide access to 
U.S. passport applications for the purpose of obtaining travel 
documents for such individuals' children. Such individuals 
shall be afforded timely access to notary public services to 
help children apply for passports or for executing guardianship 
or other agreements to ensure the safety of their children and 
granted enough time before removal to obtain documents on 
behalf of their children if the children will accompany them on 
their return to their country of origin. Where it would not 
impact public safety or national security, DHS shall facilitate 
the ability of parents and caregivers to share information 
regarding travel arrangements with their consulate, children, 
welfare agencies, or other caregivers prior to the person's 
departure from the United States.

Section 3805. Mandatory training

    The Department of Homeland Security and other agencies 
shall develop training on the protections provided by the 
sections above to all DHS personnel, cooperating entities, 
detention facilities, and others who are likely to come into 
contact with individuals who are parents or primary caregivers 
of children in the United States.

Section 3806. Rulemaking

    Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to implement the two 
previous sections of this Act.

Section 3807. Severability

           TITLE IV--REFORMS TO NONIMMIGRANT WORKER PROGRAMS

            SUBTITLE A--EMPLOYMENT-BASED NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

Section 4101. Market-based H-1B Visa limits

    This section amends INA Section 214(g) by creating a new H-
1B cap of 115,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after the 
date of enactment. That base number may fluctuate between 
115,000 and 180,000 depending on market conditions.
    The cap may increase under the following circumstances: if 
the cap is hit before day 45, then 20,000 more slots will be 
made available beginning on day 46; if the cap is hit between 
day 46 and day 60, then 15,000 slots will be made available 
beginning on day 61; if the cap is hit between day 61 and day 
90, then 10,000 slots will be made available beginning on day 
91; if the cap is hit between day 91 and day 275, then 5,000 
slots will be made available beginning on day 276.
    The cap may decrease under the following circumstances: if 
the number of approved petitions is between 5,000 and 9,999 
fewer than the base allocation for that fiscal year, then the 
base will decrease for the next year by 5,000; if the number of 
approved petitions is between 10,000 and 14,999 fewer than the 
base allocation for that fiscal year, then the base will 
decrease for the next year by 10,000; if the number of approved 
petitions is between 15,000 and 19,999 fewer than the base 
allocation for that fiscal year, then the base will decrease 
for the next year by 15,000; if the number of approved 
petitions is more than 20,000 fewer than the base allocation 
for that fiscal year, then the base will decrease for the next 
year by 20,000.
    The cap cannot increase when the unemployment rate in the 
``Management, Professional, and Related Occupations'' sector, 
as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month, 
averages 4.5 percent or greater in the prior year.
    The current additional allocation of 20,000 visas for 
advanced degree recipients from U.S. universities is changed to 
apply solely to STEM advanced degree graduates from U.S. 
universities, and is increased from 20,000 to 25,000.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security must publish data on the 
Internet that summarizes petition adjudication information for 
each fiscal year and must publish the annual limit in the 
Federal Register no later than March 2 prior to the start of 
the fiscal year.

Section 4102. Employment authorization for dependents of employment-
        based nonimmigrants

    This section amends INA Section 214(c) to permit spouses of 
L-visa and H-1B holders to work. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security may deny work authorizations to spouses of H-1B 
holders if they are nationals of a foreign country that does 
not permit reciprocal employment of spouses of U.S. workers.

Section 4103. Eliminating impediments to worker mobility

    Section 4103(a) codifies policy that a prior approval for 
an H-1B or L-1 nonimmigrant petition involving the same 
employer and foreign national should be given deference in the 
context of an extension request, absent: (1) material error 
with regard to the previous petition approval; (2) a 
substantial change in circumstances; or (3) new information 
that adversely impacts the eligibility of the petitioner or the 
beneficiary. The Secretary of Homeland Security continues to 
have discretion to deny an extension.
    Section 4103(b) amends INA Section 214(n) by providing 
that, in the event of early termination of an employment 
relationship of an H-1B nonimmigrant, there is a 60 day grace 
period in which the individual is regarded as in lawful H-1B 
status in order to find new employment. If an unemployed H-1B 
nonimmigrant finds new employment during this 60-day period, he 
or she will remain in lawful status during such time as his or 
her petition is pending to extend, change, or adjust their 
status to reflect this new employment.
    Section 4103(c) amends INA Section 222(c) by explicitly 
allowing visa revalidation in the United States to be permitted 
for aliens admitted under INA Sections 101(a)(15)(A), (E), (G), 
(H), (I), (L), (N), (O), (P), (R), or (W) if the alien is 
otherwise eligible for such status and qualifies for an 
interview waiver pursuant to Section 222(h)(1) of the INA and 
Section 4103(d) of this bill. Section 4103(d) amends INA 
Section 222(h)(1) to provide for waiver of consular interviews 
for low-risk applicants.

Section 4104. STEM education and training

    Section 4104(a) amends INA Section 212(a)(5)(A) by 
establishing a new $1,000 fee to be submitted with permanent 
labor certification applications for employment-based green 
cards. Fees collected under this section will be deposited into 
a newly-created STEM Education and Training Account contained 
in INA Section 286(w). A set percentage of this money shall be 
available for low-income students enrolled in STEM programs of 
study, directed through programs that serve minorities, women, 
and other underrepresented populations in the STEM fields. 
Money shall also be made available for veterans workforce 
investment and the establishment of ``American Dream'' 
accounts.
    The section also amends the existing STEM education account 
in INA Section 286(s) to permit funds to be used for loan 
forgiveness and to fund STEM programs for low-income students, 
minority students, and women.

Section 4105. H-1B and L Visa fees

    This section requires the collection of an additional fee 
for an H-1B or L visa petition, of $1,250 for employers with 25 
or fewer employees, and $2,500 for employers with more than 25 
employees. Those fees are to be placed into the CIR Trust Fund 
to fund the cost of this Act.

            SUBTITLE B--H-1B VISA FRAUD AND ABUSE PROVISIONS

Section 4211. Modification of application requirements

    Wage requirements. Section 4211(a)(1) provides that ``H-1B 
dependent employers'' must pay each H-1B worker at least a 
Level 2 wage (an ``H-1B dependent employer'' is defined in 
subsection 4211(e) based on the percentage of H-1B 
nonimmigrants in their workforce). The Department of Labor is 
required to create a three-tiered wage system to be used in 
such determinations (Section 4211(a)(2)). The first level 
constitutes the mean wage of the lowest two-thirds of wages 
surveyed, but in no case less than 80 percent of the mean of 
the wages surveyed. The second level constitutes the mean of 
the wages surveyed. The third level constitutes the mean of the 
highest two-thirds of wages surveyed. The Department of Labor 
is required to provide a four-level wage survey for 
educational, nonprofit, research, and governmental entities. 
When a professional athlete is paid according to league rules 
or regulations, the wages paid are not considered as adversely 
affecting similarly-employed U.S. workers.
    H-2B nonimmigrants must be paid either the actual wage paid 
to similarly-employed U.S. workers or the prevailing wage for 
the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher. 
The prevailing wage is determined by the best information 
available which may include a collective bargaining agreement 
(CBA); if a CBA is not applicable, data from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS); or, if BLS data is unavailable, a 
private survey.
    Internet job posting requirement. Section 4211(b) provides 
that employers who intend to file an H-1B petition must first 
advertise the job opening on a new Department of Labor jobs 
website. The job description must include the wage ranges; 
terms of employment; minimum qualification requirements; how to 
apply; the title and description of the position, including the 
location where the work will be performed; and the name, city, 
and zip code of the employer. The advertisement must run for 30 
calendar days.
    Non-displacement. Section 4211(c) provides that an ``H-1B 
skilled worker dependent employer'' must demonstrate that they 
did not displace and would not displace a U.S. worker within 
the period of 90 days before or after the filing of a visa 
petition (an ``H-1B skilled worker dependent employer'' is 
defined as an employer for which H-1B nonimmigrants comprise 
more than 15 percent of their workforce in O*Net Job Zones 4 
and 5). An ``H-1B dependent employer'' must demonstrate that 
they did not displace and would not displace a U.S. worker 
within the period of 180 days before or 180 days after the 
filing of an H-1B visa petition. In addition, no public 
employer may displace a Federal, State, or local employee, or a 
public school K-12 teacher with an H-1B nonimmigrant. No 
employer of any type may displace an American worker with the 
intent to hire an H-1B worker to replace that American worker.
    Recruitment. Section 4211(c)(2) requires that all employers 
must take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the 
occupational classification for which the nonimmigrant is 
sought, using procedures that meet industry-wide standards and 
offering compensation that is at least as great as that offered 
to H-1B nonimmigrants. All employers must advertise on an 
Internet website maintained by the Department of Labor. An H-1B 
skilled worker dependent employer has further requirements, and 
must hire an equally or better qualified American who applies 
for the job.
    Outplacement. All employers that are not H-1B dependent 
must pay a $500 fee to place an H-1B nonimmigrant employee at 
the site of another employer. H-1B dependent employers are 
prohibited from placing an H-1B nonimmigrant at the site of a 
third-party and from outsourcing, leasing, or otherwise 
contracting for the services or placement of an H-1B 
nonimmigrant employee. An H-1B dependent employer is exempt 
from the prohibition on outplacement if the employer is a 
nonprofit institution of higher education, a nonprofit research 
organization, or primarily a health care business and is 
petitioning for a physician, nurse, or a physical therapist. 
Such employer must also pay the $500 fee. Those fees are to be 
placed into the CIR Trust Fund Account to fund the cost of this 
Act.
    Intending Immigrants Not Counted Towards H-1B or L-Visa 
Dependency. Intending immigrants are not counted as H-1B or L 
nonimmigrants for the purposes of determining whether an 
employer is an H-1B dependent company or a L visa dependent 
company. Intending immigrants are defined as persons for whom 
their employer has started the green card process, including 
those for whom an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-
140) or Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status (Form I-485) has been filed. However, employers may only 
take advantage of this counting rule if the employer has 
actually filed immigrant status petitions for not less than 90 
percent of current employees for whom the company filed labor 
certifications in the previous year.

Section 4212. Requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in 
        health professional shortage areas

    This section reinstates and permanently authorizes the H-1C 
nonimmigrant category for foreign nurses who will work in 
medically under-served areas, which had expired in 2009. H-1C 
nurses may be admitted for three years and may extend their 
status once for an additional three-year period. No more than 
300 H-1C nurses may be admitted per fiscal year.

Section 4213. New application requirements

    Employers may not hire an H-1B nonimmigrant if they 
advertise for the position in a way that appears to seek only 
H-1B nonimmigrant workers or those working pursuant to Optional 
Practical Training at the expense of U.S. workers.
    Under a new Section 212(n)(1)(I), employers with 50 or more 
employees in the United States are not able to petition for new 
or additional H-1B or L workers if their U.S. workforce was 
comprised of more than 75 percent H-1B or L workers in Fiscal 
Year 2015, 65 percent in Fiscal Year 2016, or 50 percent H-1B 
or L workers in Fiscal Years 2017 and thereafter. The workforce 
calculation does not include H-1B and L workers who are 
``intending immigrants,'' as described above. The provision 
does not include employers who are nonprofit institutions of 
higher education or nonprofit research organizations described 
in Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3).
    Employers are required to submit annual reports to the IRS 
that include Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements for each H-1B 
nonimmigrant employed for the previous year, under a new INA 
Section 212(n)(1)(J).

Section 4214. Application review requirements

    The Department of Labor has expanded authority to review 
labor condition applications (LCAs) for fraud, 
misrepresentation, or obvious inaccuracies rather than ``only 
for completeness,'' and has up to 14 days to certify an LCA, 
increased from the current seven-day period.

Section 4221. General modification of procedures for investigation and 
        disposition

    This section extends the statute of limitations for 
investigations of H-1B violations from 12 months to 24 months 
from the time an alleged incident takes place. It also removes 
the requirement that investigations may be initiated only if 
there is ``reasonable cause to believe'' that a violation 
exists. The section creates a dedicated toll-free number and 
Internet website for the submission of H-1B complaints.
    The Secretary of Labor is directed to conduct annual 
compliance audits of each employer with more than 100 employees 
in the United States if their workforces are composed of more 
than 15 percent H-1B non-immigrants, and may conduct voluntary 
surveys of employer compliance and audits of H-1B employers. 
Findings shall be made available to the public.

Section 4222. Investigation, working conditions, and penalties

    This section generally expands the circumstances in which 
fines may be issued for new provisions such as the rule barring 
participation in the H-1B or L visa program by certain 
employers based on the percentages of their H-1B workers, the 
prohibition of advertisements targeting H-1B/Optional Practical 
Training (OPT) workers, and the W-2 IRS filing requirements. 
Fines of up to $2,000 (increased from $1,000) may be imposed 
for substantial failures to meet conditions, and fines of up to 
$10,000 (increased from $5,000) may be imposed for willful 
failures to meet conditions or for a willful misrepresentation 
of facts. In all instances, employers are liable to employees 
harmed by the violation for back wages and benefits.

Section 4223. Initiation of investigations

    This section amends provisions authorizing the Secretary of 
Labor to investigate compliance with H-1B requirements, 
including by eliminating the need for there to be ``reasonable 
cause'' to suspect non-compliance before the Secretary 
commences the investigation. The section permits complaints 
from anonymous sources, and allows DOL employees themselves to 
file complaints. The provision provides that a complaint must 
be filed within 24 months of an alleged incident, up from the 
current 12 month timeframe.

Section 4224. Information sharing

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must provide any 
information disclosed in its adjudication process that reveals 
that an employer is not complying with H-1B visa program 
requirements. The Department of Labor may initiate and conduct 
an investigation based on this information.
    To notify American workers of potential job openings, this 
section requires DOL to facilitate the posting of job 
advertisements from H-1B employers on the Internet website of 
the State labor or workforce agency for the State in which the 
position will be primarily located.

Section 4225. Transparency of high-skilled immigration programs

    The new Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research 
shall submit an annual report to Congress providing data on H-
1B beneficiaries and employers. This includes data on which 
employers are dependent employers and the qualifications of 
immigrants hired on H-1B visas. A similar report on L-1s is to 
be prepared annually. An additional annual report is to be 
prepared describing the methods employers are using to meet the 
good faith recruiting requirements.

Section 4231. Posting available positions through the Department of 
        Labor

    Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of Labor must 
establish a searchable website for posting positions as 
required for H-1B advertisements, and provide notice when the 
site is operational. The advertising requirement does not take 
effect until 30 days after the date the website becomes 
operational.

Section 4232. Requirements for information for H-1B and L nonimmigrants

    Individuals receiving H-1B or L-1 visas or immigration 
benefits must be provided with a brochure outlining employer 
obligations and employee rights.

Section 4233. Filing fee for H-1B dependent employers

    This section provides that for each fiscal year beginning 
in Fiscal Year 2015, a fee of $5,000 is imposed for companies 
employing more than 50 workers in the United States if between 
30 and 50 percent of their workforces are H-1B or L-1 
nonimmigrants. From 2015 to 2017, the fee is $10,000 for 
similarly-sized companies where between 50 and 75 percent of 
their workforces are H-1B or L-1 nonimmigrants. The provision 
exempts ``intending immigrants'' from the calculation (i.e., 
does not include them in the numerator of the equation).

Section 4234. Providing premium processing of employment-based 
        petitions

    This section requires availability of premium processing 
for employment-based immigrant petitions and related 
administrative appeals.

Section 4235. Technical correction

    This section corrects a typographical error created by the 
``Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 
1998.''

Section 4236. Application

    This section clarifies that Subtitle B is applicable to 
applications filed on or after the date of enactment and shall 
not apply to existing employees of employers who file petitions 
for renewals or extension. It further provides that the non-
displacement and recruitment requirements set forth in Section 
4211(c) shall not apply to any application or petition filed by 
an employer on behalf of an existing employee.

Section 4237. Portability for beneficiaries of immigrant petitions

    This section changes the adjustment portability rules. 
Regardless of whether an employer withdraws a green card 
petition, the petition shall remain valid with respect to a new 
job if the beneficiary changes jobs or employers after the 
petition is approved and the new job is the same or a similar 
occupation for which the petition was approved. Current law 
requires the petition to be pending 180 days before portability 
kicks in. The employer's legal obligation with respect to the 
petition terminates at the time the beneficiary changes jobs or 
employers.
    In addition, aliens who have H-1B status, and their 
spouses, are eligible for an employment authorization document 
permitting work with any employer if an application for 
adjustment of status is pending on their behalf or if they have 
filed their own petition for adjustment of status.

             SUBTITLE C--L VISA FRAUD AND ABUSE PROTECTIONS

Section 4301. Prohibition on outplacement of L nonimmigrants

    This section prohibits outplacement of L-1 nonimmigrants to 
another employer unless the nonimmigrant is supervised and 
controlled by the petitioning employer, not placed in what is 
essentially an arrangement for hire, and pays a $500 fee. An L-
1 dependent employer (more than 15 percent of its employees on 
L-1 visas) may not outplace at all. The $500 fee shall go to 
the STEM Education and Training Account established under 
Section 286(w).

Section 4302. L Employer petition requirements for employment at new 
        offices

    This section limits the approval of a new office L-1 
petition to 12 months, and adds a new requirement that the 
petition can be approved only if the beneficiary of the 
application has not been the beneficiary of two or more new 
office L-1 petitions during the preceding two years. In 
addition, for approval of the petition, the petitioner must 
show an adequate business plan, sufficient physical premises to 
carry out the business, and sufficient financial ability to 
commence doing business immediately upon approval of the 
petition. This section also creates a detailed list of evidence 
that must be provided to obtain approval of an extension of a 
new office L-1 petition. Finally, this section provides the 
Secretary of Homeland Security with the discretionary authority 
to grant approval of a new office L-1 petition without all of 
the required evidence if justified by extraordinary 
circumstances.

Section 4303. Cooperation with the Secretary of State

    The Secretary of Homeland Security must work cooperatively 
with the Secretary of State to verify the continued existence 
of a company.

Section 4304. Limitation on employment of L nonimmigrants

    This section amends INA Section 214(c)(2), providing that 
employers with 50 or more employees in the United States are 
not able to petition for new or additional H-1B or L workers if 
their workforce is comprised of more than 75 percent H-1B or L 
workers in Fiscal Year 2015, 65 percent in Fiscal Year 2016, or 
50 percent H-1B or L workers in Fiscal Years 2017 and 
thereafter. The workforce calculation does not include H-1B and 
L visa holders who are intending immigrants. The provision does 
not include in the definition of employers nonprofit 
institutions of higher education or nonprofit research 
organizations described in IRC Section 501(c)(3).

Section 4305. Filing fee for L nonimmigrants

    This section provides that for each fiscal year beginning 
in 2014, a fee of $5,000 per petition shall be imposed on 
companies hiring L nonimmigrants if they employ more than 50 
workers in the United States and between 30 and 50 percent of 
their workforces are H-1B or L nonimmigrants. From 2015 to 
2017, the fee is $10,000 for similarly-sized companies for whom 
between 50 and 75 percent of their workforces are H-1B or L 
nonimmigrants. The provision exempts ``intending immigrants'' 
from the calculation (i.e., does not include them in the 
numerator of the equation). The provision does not include 
nonprofit institutions of higher education or nonprofit 
research organizations described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) in 
the definition of employers.

Section 4306. Investigation and disposition of complaints against L 
        nonimmigrant employers

    This section provides the Secretary of Homeland Security 
with the authority to conduct compliance investigations of L-1 
employers. The Secretary can withhold the identity of the party 
providing information regarding potential violations, and is 
required to create a system to receive complaints regarding 
noncompliance. This section sets a requirement that complaints 
must be received within 24 months of the alleged violation in 
order to conduct an investigation. Prior to commencing an 
investigation, the Secretary must inform the L-1 employer of 
the intent to conduct an investigation and permit the employer 
to respond to the allegations. If a violation is found, the 
employer is permitted to have a hearing on the finding of a 
violation within 120 days of the finding, and a decision on the 
violation must be made within 120 days of the hearing. 
Penalties can be assessed in accordance with Section 4307 if 
there is a finding of a violation, and there is no judicial 
review of the finding of a violation.
    This section also requires the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to conduct annual compliance audits of employers with 
more than 100 employees who employ more than 15 percent of 
their employees in L-1 status. The Secretary must also make 
available to the public a report describing the general 
findings of the audits under this section.

Section 4307. Penalties

    The Department of Homeland Security shall impose 
administrative remedies, including civil monetary penalties up 
to $2000 per violation and one-year program debarment, if a 
violation is found. If the violation constitutes a material 
misrepresentation or a willful failure to comply, the fine can 
be up to $10,000 and the period of program debarment is at 
least two years.

Section 4308. Prohibition on retaliation against L nonimmigrants

    This section prohibits any retaliatory action against a job 
applicant, current employee or former employee for reporting 
what is reasonably believed to be a violation of L-1 
provisions.

Section 4309. Reports on L nonimmigrants

    This section requires reports to the Judiciary Committees 
of the House and Senate with data on petitions filed, approved, 
denied, withdrawn and awaiting action.

Section 4310. Application

    All amendments made by this subtitle shall apply to 
applications filed on or after the date of enactment.

Section 4311. Report on L blanket petition process

    Not later than six months after the date of enactment, the 
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is 
required to submit a report to listed committees in Congress on 
the efficiency and reliability of the process for reviewing 
blanket petitions, including whether the process includes 
adequate safeguards against fraud and abuse.

                  SUBTITLE D--OTHER NONIMMIGRANT VISAS

Section 4401. Nonimmigrant visas for students

    This section amends INA Section 214(b) to allow for dual 
intent for F-1 students and dependents where the principal is 
engaged in a full course of study at an established academic 
institution approved by the Department of Homeland Security. F-
1 students living in Canada and Mexico commuting into the 
United States are also covered. This section also extends dual 
intent to the following nonimmigrant visa categories: E, F-1, 
F-2, H-1B, H-1C, L, O, P, V, and W. This section will not take 
effect until real-time transmission of data from the Student 
and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to databases 
used by CBP is effective. The Department of Homeland Security 
will have 120 days after enactment to achieve this. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security is also prohibited from issuing 
F and M visas until this certification of real-time 
transmission of data has been issued.

Section 4402. Classification for specialty occupation workers from free 
        trade countries

    This section includes bilateral investment treaties and 
free trade agreements along with treaties of commerce and 
navigation. It allows specialty occupation workers to enter the 
United States pursuant to a free trade agreement provided that 
Department of Labor wage and related attestations are met, with 
a limit of 5,000 per fiscal year for each country.
    In addition, a new E-6 nonimmigrant visa is created for 
people coming from sub-Saharan African countries under Section 
104 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act or countries 
designated under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. 
Individuals are eligible if they are coming to perform services 
as employees and have at least a high school education or its 
equivalent. There is an annual cap of 10,500 for all 
nationalities covered under the E-6 program.

Section 4403. E visa reform

    This section amends Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) to create 
10,500 annual visas for individuals who are nationals of the 
Republic of Ireland if they have at least a high school 
education or have, within five years, at least two years of 
work experience in an occupation requiring two years of 
training and experience. This section also provides 
nonimmigrant visa waiver grounds for Irish nationals seeking 
these E-3 visas.

Section 4404. Other changes to nonimmigrant visas

    This section expands employment portability under INA 
Section 214(n) to holders of O-1 visas (i.e., visas issued to 
temporary foreign workers of extraordinary ability). This 
section allows O-1 visa holders to accept new employment upon 
the filing of a new petition by the prospective employer. It 
also amends INA Section 214(c)(3) to waive the consultation 
requirement for O-1 visa holders seeking entry for motion 
picture or television production who seek readmission within 
three years after date of consultation issued in connection 
with previous admission, so long as previous consultations were 
favorable or raised no objection.

Section 4405. Treatment of nonimmigrants during adjudication of 
        application

    This section provides that nonimmigrants granted employment 
authorization pursuant to subsections A (foreign government 
officials), E (treaty traders and investors), G (foreign 
government officials at international organizations), H 
(temporary workers), I (foreign media representatives), J 
(exchange visitors), L (intracompany transferees), O (workers 
of extraordinary ability), P (athletes and entertainers), Q 
(international cultural exchange visitors) and R (religious 
workers) of INA Section 101(a)(15), or under INA Section 214(e) 
(Trade NAFTA (TN) workers from Canada and Mexico), and under 
any other sections the Secretary of Homeland Security may 
prescribe by regulation, are authorized to continue employment 
with the same employer while the employer's or authorizing 
agent's application or petition for an extension of stay 
remains pending.

Section 4406. Nonimmigrant elementary and secondary students

    This section deletes the requirement that elementary and 
secondary public school students on F-1 student visas may only 
attend a public secondary school for a period not exceeding 12 
months. Such students are required to reimburse the local 
educational agency under existing law.

Section 4407. J-1 Visa exchange visitor program fee

    A $500 fee must be paid by the employer to the State 
Department for each nonimmigrant admitted under the Summer Work 
Travel Program. This fee shall be deposited in the CIR Trust 
Fund established by the bill.

Section 4408. J Visa Eligibility for speakers of certain foreign 
        languages

    This section creates a new J-1 category for persons coming 
to the United States to perform any type of work involving 
specialized knowledge or skill, including teaching on a full-
time or part-time basis, that requires proficiency in a 
language spoken as a native language in countries of which 
fewer than 5,000 nationals were lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence in the United States in the previous year. The 
Department of State must publish a list of the eligible 
countries annually.

Section 4409. F-1 visa fee

    A $100 fee is imposed on each F-1 student admitted. This 
fee is deposited in the CIR Trust Fund established by the bill.

Section 4410. Pilot program for remote nonimmigrant visa interviews

    This section requires the Department of State to establish 
a pilot program for processing visitor visas using secure 
remote videoconferencing technology as a method for conducting 
any required in-person interview of applicants. Within 90 days 
of the termination of the pilot program, the State Department 
shall submit a written report to Congress that describes the 
results of the program and recommendations for whether the 
program should be continued, including based on security 
concerns.

Section 4411. Providing consular officers with access to all terrorist 
        databases and requiring heightened scrutiny of applications for 
        admission from persons listed on terrorist databases

    Under this section, consular offices have access to all 
terrorism records and databases maintained by any agency or 
department to determine whether an applicant for admission 
poses a security threat to the United States. The head of such 
an agency may withhold such records if necessary to prevent the 
unauthorized disclosure of information that clearly identifies 
or might permit the identification of intelligence or sensitive 
law enforcement sources, methods, or activities.
    The Department of State shall require every alien applying 
for admission to submit to biographic and biometric screening 
to determine whether the alien's name or biometric information 
is listed in any terror watch list or database maintained by 
any agency or department of the United States.
    No person shall be granted a visa if the alien's name is 
listed on any watch list unless screening of the application 
against screening systems reveals no potentially pertinent 
links to terrorism; the consular officer submits the 
application for further review to the Secretary of State; and 
the heads of other relevant agencies (including DHS), and the 
Secretary of State in consultation with DHS, certifies the 
alien is admissible to the United States.

Section 4412. Visa revocation information

    If the Department of State or DHS revokes a visa, the fact 
of the revocation must be immediately provided to relevant 
consular officers, law enforcement, and terrorist screening 
bases and a notice of the revocation shall be posted to all DHS 
port inspectors and to all consular officers.

Section 4413. Status for certain battered spouses and children

    This section creates a new INA Section 106 entitled 
``Relief for Abused Derivative Aliens.'' An ``abused derivative 
alien'' is a person who is the spouse or child admitted under a 
blue card status in this bill who has been subjected to battery 
or extreme cruelty by such principal alien. The Department of 
Homeland Security can grant or extend status for an abused 
derivative alien for the period for which the principal alien 
was initially admitted or a period of three years. The 
Department of Homeland Security may also grant extensions, 
employment authorization, and adjust to permanent residency if 
DHS determines the alien's continued presence in the United 
States is justified on humanitarian grounds, to ensure family 
unity, or is otherwise in the public interest and the status 
under which the principal alien was admitted would have 
potentially allowed for eventual adjustment of status.
    Termination of the relationship with the principal alien 
does not affect the status of an abused derivative alien.

Section 4414. Nonimmigrant crewmen landing temporarily in Hawaii

    This section allows a nonimmigrant crewman to land 
temporarily in Hawaii and return to Hawaii, Guam, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands after having 
departed such port, even if the ship has not stopped at a 
foreign port.

Section 4415. Treatment of Compact of Free Association Migrants

    This section makes citizens of the Compact of Free 
Association States (COFA), lawfully residing in the United 
States, eligible for Medicaid.

                          SUBTITLE E--JOLT ACT

Section 4501. Short title

    The subtitle may be cited as the ``Jobs Originated through 
Launching Travel Act of 2013'' or the ``JOLT Act of 2013.''

Section 4502. Premium processing

    This section provides that the Secretary of State shall 
establish a pilot premium processing program for visa interview 
appointments. Fees collected (which are in addition to normal 
application fees) are nonrefundable and shall be deposited as 
an offsetting collection to any Department of State 
appropriation, to recover the costs of providing consular 
services. The Secretary of State must submit a report to 
Congress about the pilot program no later than 18 months after 
enactment of the JOLT Act.

Section 4503. Encouraging Canadian tourism to the United States

    This section allows admission as a visitor under INA 
Section 101(a)(15)(B) for certain Canadian retirees and their 
spouses for a period not to exceed 240 days during any single 
365-day period. To be eligible, the applicant must be a 
Canadian citizen at least 55 years of age; maintain a residence 
in Canada; not be inadmissible under INA Section 212; not be 
described in any ground of deportability under INA Section 237; 
not be engaged in employment or labor for hire in the United 
States; and not seek any form of assistance or benefit 
described in section 403(a) of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(a)). 
Maintenance of a residence in the United States shall not be 
considered evidence of intent by the alien to abandon the 
alien's residence in Canada.

Section 4504. Retiree visa

    This section creates a new ``Z'' visa for retirees and 
their spouses and children, if the retiree uses at least 
$500,000 in cash to purchase one or more residences in the 
United States, which each sold for more than 100 percent of the 
most recent appraised value of such residence, as determined by 
the property assessor in the city or county in which the 
residence is located; maintains ownership of residential 
property in the United States worth at least $500,000 during 
the entire period the alien remains in the United States; and 
resides for more than 180 days per year in a residence in the 
United States that is worth at least $250,000.
    Applicant must be at least 55-years-old; possess health 
insurance coverage; not be inadmissible under INA Section 212; 
reside in a qualifying residence in the United States for more 
than 180 days per year; and not engage in employment in the 
United States (except for employment that is directly related 
to the management of the person's qualifying residential 
property in the United States). Applicants are not eligible for 
any form of assistance or benefit described in section 403(a) 
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(a)).

Section 4505. Incentives for foreign visitors visiting the United 
        States during low peak seasons

    This section requires the Secretary of State to make 
publically available data regarding the availability of visa 
appointments for each visa processing post so that applicants 
can identify periods of low demand, when wait times tend to be 
lower.

Section 4506. Visa waiver program enhanced security and reform

    This section allows the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, to designate any 
country as part of the Visa Waiver Program, so long as the 
country provides machine-readable passports and the visa 
refusal rate and overstay rate for nationals of that country 
were both under three percent in the previous fiscal year. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, also has the authority to waive the three 
percent threshold requirements if the country meets all of the 
other requirements, presents a low security risk, has a general 
downward trend in visa refusal rates, participates in 
counterterrorism efforts with the United States, and has a visa 
refusal rate of less than ten percent.
    This section also allows the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to designate a visa waiver country into a period of 
probationary status, after which time that country can be 
removed from the Visa Waiver Program.
    Hong Kong may participate in this program if it meets the 
requirements of the program.

Section 4507. Expediting entry for priority visitors

    This section allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
include in trusted traveler programs individuals employed by 
international organizations, selected by the Secretary, which 
maintain strong working relationships with the United States. 
Citizens of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism 
cannot participate in such trusted traveler programs.

Section 4508. Visa processing

    This section directs the Secretary of State to set a goal 
for U.S. Consulates worldwide of interviewing 80 percent of all 
nonimmigrant visa applicants within three weeks of receipt of 
application, and to expand resources in China and Brazil to 
keep visa appointment wait times under 15 days. This section 
also requires a semi-annual report to Congress of the progress 
toward reaching and maintaining these goals.

Section 4509. B-Visa fee

    This section adds a $5 fee for all B-1 and B-2 visas. This 
fee shall be deposited into the Immigration Trust Fund Account.

                SUBTITLE F--REFORMS TO THE H-2B PROGRAM

Section 4601. Extension of returning worker exemption to H-2B numerical 
        limitation

    This section expands the definition of ``returning worker'' 
who is not subject to the H-2B quota to include any worker who 
has been an H-2B nonimmigrant during Fiscal Year 2013. This 
provision shall expire after five years. The section also 
expands the definitions of aliens who can obtain a P visa to 
include ski instructors and snowboard instructors.

Section 4602. Other requirements for H-2B

    This section requires H-2B employers to attest that they 
will not displace a United States worker in the same 
metropolitan statistical area where the H-2B worker will be 
hired within the period beginning 90 days before the start date 
and ending on the end date of the H-2B employment. H-2B 
employers are also required to pay reasonable travel costs for 
the H-2B worker to travel from the place of recruitment to the 
place of employment and from the place of employment to the H-
2B worker's site of permanent residence or a subsequent 
worksite. In addition, this section imposes a $500 fee for H-2B 
temporary labor certifications, and requires that employers pay 
that fee without reimbursement or deduction from wages of the 
H-2B worker to pay the fee.

Section 4603. Executives and managers

    This section modifies the business visitor rules to allow 
admission of multinational executives and managers coming to 
the United States for 90 days or less to oversee operations of 
the U.S. company. In addition, employees of multinational 
companies can be admitted as visitors for up to 180 days to 
participate in leadership and development activities, even if 
those activities will include productive work. Such employees 
cannot receive remuneration from a U.S. source.

Section 4604. Honoraria

    This section permits distinguished business visitors and 
entertainment personnel to receive honoraria payments.

Section 4605. Nonimmigrants participating in relief operations

    An alien coming as a nonimmigrant to participate in 
critical infrastructure repairs or improvements may be admitted 
under the B visa program for no more than 90 days, if the 
nonimmigrant has been employed in a foreign country by one 
employer for not less than one year prior to the date of 
admission.

Section 4606. Nonimmigrants performing maintenance on common carriers

    This section permits nonimmigrants who have specialized 
knowledge and who come in the United States to perform 
maintenance on common carriers for not more than 90 days, to 
come on B visas if the nonimmigrant has been employed by one 
employer for not less than one year in a foreign country. A fee 
of $500 shall be charged.

               SUBTITLE G--MARKET RESEARCH AND STATISTICS

Section 4701. Bureau of immigration and labor market research

    This section establishes an independent statistical agency 
called the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research (the 
``Bureau'') headed by a Commissioner that will be placed within 
USCIS in the Department of Homeland Security. The Commissioner 
shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent 
of the Senate.
    The Bureau will devise a methodology to determine the 
annual change to the cap for W nonimmigrants; supplement the 
recruitment methods employers use to attract W nonimmigrants; 
devise and publish a methodology to designate shortage 
occupations by job zone (in O*Net Job Zones 1, 2, and 3); 
conduct a survey every three months of the unemployment rate of 
construction workers and the impact on such workers; study and 
report to Congress on employment-based and immigrant and 
nonimmigrant visa programs; make annual recommendations to 
improve such programs; and carry out any functions necessary to 
accomplish the abovementioned duties.
    The Commissioner shall establish a methodology to designate 
shortage occupations and the methodology will allow an employer 
to ask the Commissioner if a particular occupation in a 
particular area is a shortage occupation.
    The employees of the Bureau shall have the expertise to 
identify U.S. labor shortages in the United States and make 
recommendations to the Commissioner on the impact of immigrant 
and nonimmigrant aliens on U.S. labor markets.
    At the request of the Commissioner, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Director of the Bureau of the Census, the 
Secretary of Labor, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics shall provide data to the Commissioner, conduct 
appropriate surveys, and assist the Commissioner in preparing 
recommendations.
    The Director of USCIS shall submit a budget to Congress 
that the Bureau will need to carry out its duties and the U.S. 
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an audit of the 
budget.
    The Bureau is established by a $20 million appropriation 
from the Treasury. Fees collected from those employers 
participating in this program shall also be used to establish 
and fund the Bureau. The Secretary may also establish other 
fees related to the hiring of alien workers and use such fees 
to fund the Bureau.
    The new Bureau serves four main functions: (1) play a role 
in determining the numbers for the annual cap of the new worker 
visa; (2) declare shortage occupations; (3) expand the list of 
real-world recruitment methods registered employers may use in 
order to ensure the choices provided employers do not become 
outdated; and (4) report on every aspect of the employment 
immigration system and make yearly recommendations and reports 
to Congress on how to reform these programs to make them work 
best for the American economy.

Section 4702. Nonimmigrant classification for W nonimmigrants

    This section creates a new nonimmigrant classification 
under INA Section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(W)(i)). The W visa holder is an alien having a 
foreign residence who will come to the United States 
temporarily to perform services or labor for a registered 
employer in a registered position. The spouse and minor 
children of the W visa holder are allowed to accompany or to 
join and the spouse will be given work authorization for the 
same period of admission as the principal W nonimmigrant is 
allowed.

Section 4703. Admission of W nonimmigrant workers

    A certified alien is eligible to be admitted to the United 
States as a W nonimmigrant if hired by a registered employer 
for employment in a registered position in a location that is 
not in an excluded geographic location. The spouse and minor 
children of the W visa holder may be admitted to the United 
States for the same period of time and the spouse will be given 
work authorization. The W nonimmigrant will apply to the 
Secretary of State at a U.S. embassy or consulate in a foreign 
country to be a certified alien. To be eligible, he or she 
cannot be inadmissible; has to pass a criminal background 
check; must agree to accept employment in the United States 
only if it is in a registered position; and meet any other 
criteria as established by the Secretary. He or she shall 
report to his or her initial employment no later than 14 days 
after first admitted to the United States.
    A certified alien may be granted W nonimmigrant status for 
an initial period of three years and may renew his or her 
status for additional three year periods. He or she may not be 
unemployed for more than 60 consecutive days and must depart 
the United States if he or she is unable to obtain employment. 
W visa holders can travel outside the United States and be 
readmitted to the United States but cannot be readmitted for 
longer than the initial period of admission.
    An employer seeking to be a registered employer shall 
submit an application to the Secretary with appropriate 
documentation to demonstrate it is a bona fide employer with 
the estimated number of W nonimmigrants it will seek to employ 
each year, anticipated dates of employment, and a description 
of the type of work to be performed. The Secretary may refer an 
employer's application to the Secretary of Labor for potential 
investigation if there is evidence of fraud. The Secretary of 
Labor may audit any of these applications.
    No employer may be approved to be a registered employer if 
the Secretary determines after notice and an opportunity for a 
hearing, that the employer has knowingly misrepresented a 
material fact, knowingly made a fraudulent statement, or 
knowingly failed to comply with the terms of such attestations; 
or failed to cooperate in the audit process in accordance with 
the regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
    No employer may be approved to become a registered employer 
if within three years prior to the date of application, it has 
committed any hazardous occupation orders violations resulting 
in injury or death under the child labor provisions contained 
in Section 12; been assessed a civil money penalty for any 
repeated or willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of 
section six; or been assessed a civil money penalty for any 
repeated or willful violation of the overtime provisions of 
section seven (other than a repeated violation that is self-
reported) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and any 
applicable regulation.
    No employer may be approved to become a registered employer 
if within three years prior to the date of application, it 
received a citation for a willful violation or repeated serious 
violation involving injury or death of section five of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA).
    An employer described above will be ineligible to be a 
registered employer for a period determined by the Secretary 
but no more than three years. An employer that has been 
convicted of any offense involving human trafficking or a 
violation of Chapter 77 of Title 18 of the United States Code 
shall be permanently ineligible to become a registered 
employer.
    The Secretary shall approve applications to become 
registered employers for a term of three years. An employer may 
submit an application to renew its status as a registered 
employer for additional three year periods. At the time an 
employer's application is approved, such employer shall pay a 
fee in an amount determined by the Secretary to be sufficient 
to cover the costs of the registry of such employers. Each 
registered employer shall submit to the Secretary an annual 
report that demonstrates that the employer has provided the 
wages and working conditions that the registered employer 
agreed to provide its employees.
    Each registered employer shall submit to the Secretary an 
application to designate a position for which the employer is 
seeking a W nonimmigrant as a registered position. Each 
application will describe each such position and include an 
attestation of the following: the number of employees of the 
employer; the occupational category, as classified by the 
Secretary of Labor, for which the registered position is 
sought; and whether the occupation is a shortage occupation.
    A secondary registry is also created for employers who want 
to hire W visa holders who are already in the United States. 
This secondary registry still requires registration of the 
position as required above, but if they can prove they cannot 
hire an American worker, they may hire a W visa holder.
    Employers must attempt to hire W visa holders inside the 
United States before bringing in workers located in other 
countries.
    The wages to be paid will be either the actual wage paid by 
the employer to other employees with similar experience and 
qualification or the prevailing wage level for the occupational 
classification in the geographic area/metropolitan statistical 
area of the employment, whichever is higher. This must be 
included in the employer attestation.
    The attestation will also attest that the working 
conditions will not adversely affect the working conditions of 
other workers employed in similar positions and that the 
employer has carried out the required recruiting activities and 
there is no qualified U.S. worker who has applied for the 
position who is ready, willing, and able to fill such position 
pursuant to the requirements outlined here.
    The employer must also attest that there is not a strike, 
lockout, or work stoppage or labor dispute in the area where 
the W nonimmigrant will be employed. The employer also has to 
attest that he or she has not laid off and will not lay off a 
U.S. worker during the period beginning 90 days prior to and 
ending 90 days after the date the employer designates the 
registered position for which the W visa holder is sought 
unless the employer has notified such U.S. worker of the 
position and documented the legitimate reasons that such U.S. 
worker is not qualified or available for the position.
    The Secretary shall provide each registered employer whose 
application is approved with a permit that includes the number 
and description of such employer's approved registered 
positions. The approval of a registered position is for a term 
that begins on the date of such approval and ends the earlier 
of either the date the employer's status as a registered 
employer is terminated or three years after the date of such 
approval or upon proper termination of the registered position 
by the employer.
    Recruitment. Each registered position shall be for a 
position in an eligible occupation. A position may not be 
registered unless the registered employer advertises the 
position for 30 days, including the wage, range, location and 
proposed start date; on the Internet website maintained by the 
Secretary of Labor, and with the workforce agency of the State 
where the position will be located, and carries out not less 
than three of the additional recruiting activities described in 
this section or any other recruitment activities determined to 
be appropriate as added by the Commissioner.
    Eligible and Ineligible Occupations. An occupation is an 
eligible occupation if it is a Zone One, Two, or Three 
occupation as defined in this section. An occupation may be 
ineligible to be considered as a registered position if it 
requires a bachelor's degree or higher or is an occupation that 
requires the W nonimmigrant to perform work as a computer 
operator, programmer, or repairer. The Secretary of Labor shall 
publish the eligible occupations an on-going basis on a 
publically available website.
    If a W nonimmigrant terminates employment in a registered 
position or is terminated from such employment by the 
registered employer, such employer may fill the vacancy by 
hiring a certified alien, a W nonimmigrant, a U.S. worker or an 
alien who has filed a petition for a visa.
    Except as described below, a registered position shall be 
approved by the Secretary for three years. A registered 
position shall continue to be a registered position at the end 
of three years if the W nonimmigrant hired for such position 
has a pending petition for immigrant status filed by the 
registered employer or remains with the same employer. Such 
registered positions will terminate either on the date the 
petition is approved or denied or on the date of the W 
employee's termination of employment with the registered 
employer.
    Employer Fees. The employer will pay a registration fee to 
be determined by the Secretary when the employer's application 
for the registered position is approved. The fees collected 
will be used to carry out this program. A registered employer 
will pay an additional fee for each approved registered 
position measured by a specific formula that considers the size 
of the business and the proportion of non-U.S. workers in the 
registered employee positions. These fees will be used to fund 
the operations of the new Bureau of Immigration and Labor 
Market Research described above.
    Registered employers may not be required to pay an 
additional fee if they are a small business with 25 or fewer 
employees. No registered positions will be approved for 
employers who are not small businesses and where 30 percent or 
more of the employees are not U.S. workers.
    Unemployment Rate. No W nonimmigrants may be hired for an 
eligible occupation in a metropolitan statistical area that has 
an unemployment rate that is more than 8.5 percent unless the 
Commissioner identifies the occupation as a shortage occupation 
or the Secretary approves the position under the safety valve 
described below.
    Two Six-month Segments. Beginning April 1, 2015, unless the 
Secretary of Homeland Security extends the start date, the cap 
for W visas will be split into two six-month segments in a 
year. The annual cap on the maximum number of registered 
positions that may be approved each year are limited for the 
first four years: 20,000 for the first year; 35,000 the second 
year; 55,000 the third year and 75,000 the fourth year. For 
each year after the fourth year, the annual cap will be 
calculated according to a statistical formula that takes the 
following four factors into consideration: the rate of change 
in the number of new job openings in the economy; the inverse 
rate of change in the number of unemployed U.S. workers; the 
percentage change the Bureau recommends the annual cap should 
increase or decrease; and the percentage difference between the 
number of W visas requested in the prior fiscal year compared 
to the cap in the prior fiscal year.
    Shortage Occupations. In addition to the number of 
registered positions made available for a given year, the 
Commissioner may make available an additional number of 
registered positions for shortage occupations in a particular 
geographical area. The Bureau's recommendations for determining 
annual cap recommendations will be subject to notice and 
comment and formal rulemaking.
    Replacement Workers. In addition, certain positions that 
are re-filled after a W nonimmigrant leaves and which are 
filled by another W nonimmigrant will not count against the W 
cap. Such registered employers who seek to fill these positions 
must have tried to recruit available W nonimmigrants who are 
not initial W nonimmigrants. Three recruiting steps (as opposed 
to seven, see below) must be used to hire these workers. W 
nonimmigrants who are not ``initial'' W workers will be paid 
the wages applicable to the rest of the program.
    Additional Positions. The Secretary has the authority to 
make additional registered positions available for a specific 
registered employer if the annual cap for registered positions 
has been reached and none remain available for allocation. The 
Secretary may also make additional positions available if that 
registered employer is located in a metropolitan statistical 
area that has an unemployment rate greater than eight and a 
half percent (in other words, is banned from using the regular 
numbers) or if the registered employer has carried out no less 
than seven of the described recruiting activities and posts the 
position for no less than 30 days on the Secretary of Labor's 
Internet website and with the State workforce agency where the 
position will be located.
    A W nonimmigrant hired to perform an eligible occupation 
pursuant to a special allocation of registered positions may 
not be paid less than the greater amount of either the level 
four wage set in the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center 
Online Wage Library or the mean of the highest two-thirds of 
wages surveyed for such occupation in that metropolitan 
statistical area.
    A registered position made available for a year under this 
paragraph shall require the deduction of a visa number 
available under the regular W visa cap in the subsequent year 
or the earliest possible year for which a visa becomes 
available again under the cap.
    Half of the total number of registered positions will be 
made available during the first six months of the year. The 
rest will be used during the second six-month period.
    For the first month of each six-month period, a registered 
position may not be created in an occupation that is not a 
shortage occupation unless the Commissioner has not designated 
any shortage occupations that year. During the second, third, 
and fourth months of each six-month period, one-third of the 
number of registered positions allocated for such period shall 
be approved only for a registered employer that is a small 
business. Any remaining registered positions not allocated to 
small businesses will be made available for any registered 
employer during the last two months of each six-month period.
    No more than 33 percent of the registered positions 
available per year may be granted to perform work in a 
construction occupation. The number of registered positions 
granted to construction occupations may not exceed 15,000 per 
year or 7,500 for any six-month period under any circumstances. 
A registered employer may not hire a certified alien for a 
registered position to perform work in a construction 
occupation if the unemployment rate for construction 
occupations in the corresponding occupational job zone in the 
corresponding metropolitan statistical areas is more than eight 
and a half percent. The unemployment rate will be determined by 
using the most recent survey taken by the Bureau or if no 
survey is available, by a recent, legitimate privately-
conducted survey.
    Portability and Promotion. A W nonimmigrant who is admitted 
to the United States by a registered employer may terminate 
such employment for any reason and seek and accept employment 
with another registered employer in any other registered 
position within the terms and conditions of the W nonimmigrant 
visa. A registered employer who has applied for a registered 
position may promote the W nonimmigrant if such employee has 
been employed with that employer for no less than twelve 
months. Such a promotion will not increase the number of 
registered positions for that employer.
    Prohibitions on Outplacement. A registered employer may not 
place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for the services 
or placement of a W nonimmigrant employee with another employer 
if more than 15 percent of the employees of the registered 
employer are W nonimmigrants.
    Waiver of Rights Prohibited. A W nonimmigrant shall not be 
denied any right or any remedy under Federal, State, or local 
labor or employment law that would be applicable to a U.S. 
worker employed in a similar position with the employer because 
of the alien's status as a W nonimmigrant. A W nonimmigrant may 
not be required to waive any rights or protections under this 
Act.
    Prohibition on Treatment as Independent Contractors. A W 
nonimmigrant is prohibited from being treated as an independent 
contractor under any Federal or State law and no person 
including an employer or labor contractor and any affiliated 
persons may treat the W nonimmigrant as an independent 
contractor. However, registered employers who operate as 
independent contractors may hire W nonimmigrants.
    Use of Fees. A fee related to the hiring of a W 
nonimmigrant required to be paid by an employer under this Act 
shall be paid by the employer and may not be deducted from the 
wages or other compensation paid to a W nonimmigrant. The 
employer is not responsible for the W nonimmigrant's cost of 
round trip transportation from a certified alien's home to the 
location of the registered position and the cost of obtaining a 
foreign passport. An employer shall comply with all applicable 
Federal, State, and local tax laws with respect to each W 
nonimmigrant employed by the employer. Fees collected in this 
section shall be used to carry out the W nonimmigrant program 
and to fund the Bureau if any funds remain.
    Whistleblower Protections. It is unlawful for an employer 
of a W nonimmigrant to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, 
retaliate, discharge, or in any other manner discriminate 
against an employee or former employee because the employee or 
former employee discloses information to the employer or any 
other person that the employee or former employee reasonably 
believes demonstrates a violation of this section or cooperates 
or seeks to cooperate in an investigation or other proceeding 
concerning compliance with the requirements of this section.
    Process and Enforcement. The Secretary shall establish a 
process for the receipt, investigation, and disposition of 
complaints with respect to the failure of a registered employer 
to meet a condition of this section or the layoff or non-hiring 
of a U.S. worker. The Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
for the receipt, investigation, and disposition of complaints 
by an aggrieved W nonimmigrant respecting a violation of this 
section. No investigation or hearing shall be conducted on a 
complaint concerning a violation unless the complaint was filed 
within six months of the violation. The Secretary shall 
determine within 30 days of the filing of the complaint if 
there is reasonable cause to conduct an investigation and if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this 
section has occurred. If the Secretary decides there is a 
reasonable basis, she shall issue notice to the interested 
parties and offer an opportunity for a hearing on the complaint 
within 60 days. After the hearing, the Secretary has 60 days to 
make a finding on the matter awarding reasonable attorneys' 
fees and costs to the prevailing party.
    Civil Penalties. After notice and an opportunity for a 
hearing, if the Secretary of Labor finds a violation of this 
subsection, the Secretary may impose administrative remedies 
and penalties including back wages, benefits, and civil 
monetary penalties. The Secretary of Labor may also impose a 
civil penalty for a violation of this subsection including a 
fine up to $2,000 per affected worker for the first violation 
and up to $4,000 for each subsequent violation. If the 
violation is found to be willful, the fine can be up to $5,000 
per affected worker. If the violation is found to be willful 
and a U.S. worker was harmed, a fine up to $25,000 per 
violation per affected worker may be assessed. The Secretary of 
Labor may also impose a civil penalty for knowingly or 
recklessly failing to comply with the terms of representations 
made in petitions, applications, certifications, or 
attestations under this section, or with labor recruiters of up 
to $4,000 per affected worker. After the third offense of a 
failure to comply the fine can increase to $5,000.
    Criminal Penalties. Anyone who misrepresents the number of 
full time employees or the number of employees who are U.S. 
workers for the purpose of reducing a fee or avoiding the cap 
shall be fined up to in accordance with title 18 of the United 
States Code in an amount of $25,000 or imprisoned for not more 
than one year or both.
    Monitoring. United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services in the Department of Homeland Security will implement 
a new electronic monitoring system modeled on the Student and 
Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS, the tracking 
system used by ICE to monitor foreign students) to monitor the 
presence and employment of W nonimmigrants and their movement 
from job to job. This new system will be coordinated with the 
use of the employment verification system described in Section 
274A(d) for greater efficiency.

  SUBTITLE H--INVESTING IN NEW VENTURE, ENTREPRENEURIAL STARTUPS, AND 
                              TECHNOLOGIES

Section 4801. Nonimmigrant invest visas

    This section creates a new visa for immigrant entrepreneurs 
who seek to start new businesses and create jobs in the United 
States. Specifically, it creates a new, three-year nonimmigrant 
visa for individuals who are able to secure at least $100,000 
in investments from an accredited investor, venture capitalist, 
startup accelerator, or government entity or combination of 
entities. Alternatively, an individual can obtain a 
nonimmigrant visa if he or she has a U.S. business that has 
created at least three jobs and has generated at least $250,000 
in annual revenue for the previous two years. The section also 
creates a process for extending the nonimmigrant visa if the 
entrepreneur's business meets certain jobs, investment, or 
revenue thresholds.

Section 4802. Invest immigrant visa

    This section creates a new ``EB-6'' immigrant visa category 
for certain entrepreneurs. To qualify, the entrepreneur must 
have maintained a valid nonimmigrant status for at least two 
years and have created at least five jobs in the United States. 
The entrepreneur must also have either secured at least 
$500,000 investment or generated at least $750,000 in annual 
revenue during the last two years.
    For entrepreneurs with an advanced degree in STEM, the 
individual must have maintained a valid nonimmigrant status for 
at least two years, created at least four jobs in the United 
States, and secured $500,000 in investments. In the 
alternative, an entrepreneur with a STEM degree can obtain an 
immigrant visa if he or she has maintained a valid nonimmigrant 
status for at least two years, created at least three jobs, and 
generated at least $500,000 in annual revenue for two years. 
The immigrant visa is capped to 10,000 per year.

Section 4803. Administration and oversight

    Not later than 16 months after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration, and other relevant agencies shall promulgate 
regulations. The Secretary has certain authority to adjust 
certain dollar amounts in this section.

Section 4804. Permanent authorization of EB-5 Regional Center Program

    This section makes the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program 
permanent and makes several other reforms and improvements to 
the program. Section 4804(a) repeals the existing pilot program 
at Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note).
    Section 4804(b) places the EB-5 Regional Center Program in 
INA Section 203(b)(5). This section provides a description of 
the requirements for approval of a designated regional center. 
The section establishes a preapproval procedure pursuant to 
which a commercial enterprise associated with a regional center 
may file a petition to have a business plan, investment 
documents, and economic analysis preapproved by the Secretary. 
Preapproval given under this section shall be binding for 
purposes of the adjudication of immigrant investor petitions 
affiliated with such investment opportunities, absent evidence 
of fraud, misrepresentation, criminal misuse, or threat to 
national security. This section also establishes a premium 
processing option for immigrant investors seeking to invest in 
such preapproved investment opportunities. The section sets out 
annual financial reporting requirements for regional centers, 
along with a range of sanctions for regional centers and 
regional center operators that act in a manner inconsistent 
with a regional center designation, or which file incomplete or 
inaccurate financial statements. The section provides authority 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that 
individuals involved in a regional center do not have criminal 
or other disqualifying background information and provides the 
Secretary with authority to terminate previously approved 
regional centers. The section requires certification from 
regional center operators that applicable securities laws are 
being complied with. The section also permits consultation 
between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 
of Commerce in relation to the immigrant investor program.

Section 4805. Conditional permanent resident status for certain 
        employment-based immigrants, spouses, and children

    This section provides that spouses and children shall not 
be required to file separate I-829 petitions if the principal 
applicant includes family members in his or her I-829. If the 
dependent obtains permanent residence after the date when the 
principal files an I-829, the conditional basis of the 
dependent shall be removed upon approval of the principal's 
petition and the dependent's permanent residency will be 
unconditional when approved. For alien investors in regional 
centers, approved regional center financial statements shall 
serve to demonstrate fulfillment of the job creation 
requirements that all investors must meet under Section 
203(b)(5).

Section 4806. EB-5 visa reforms

    This section removes dependents from the EB-5 numerical 
cap. At least 5,000 EB-5 visas are reserved for investment in 
Targeted Employment Areas (TEA). Pursuant to this section, 
Targeted Employment Area designations shall be valid for five 
years and may be renewed for additional five-year periods if 
the area continues to meet the definition of a high 
unemployment or rural area. Individuals who invest in an 
approved Targeted Employment Area, which later loses that 
status, need not increase investment as a result.
    This section provides authority for the Secretary of 
Commerce to adjust the minimum required investment amount to 
which an immigrant investor is subject. The section provides, 
beginning in 2016 and in the absence of action by the Secretary 
of Commerce, that the investment amounts required for EB-5 
investors will adjust based on changes in the Consumer Price 
Index. A new adjustment will occur every five years thereafter.
    The section defines full-time employment and provides that 
full-time employment may be measured in full-time equivalents, 
including intermittent or seasonal employment opportunities and 
construction jobs. ``Capital'' is defined to include all real, 
personal or mixed assets, whether tangible or intangible, owned 
or controlled by the investor, or held in trust for the benefit 
of the investor, to which the investor has unrestricted access, 
which shall be valued at the fair market value in U.S. dollars 
at the time it is invested. ``High unemployment and poverty 
area'' means an area consisting of a census tract or contiguous 
census tracts that has an unemployment rate at least 150 
percent of the national rate and includes at least one tract 
with 20 percent of its residents living below the federal 
poverty level, or is in a federal or state enterprise zone.
    A ``rural area'' means any area outside a metropolitan 
statistical area or within the outer boundary of any town with 
more than 20,000 people or any town with fewer than 20,000 
people in a state with fewer than 1,500,000 people. The new 
definitions section applies to any applications filed on the 
date that is one year after the date of enactment.
    The section also provides that where a principal alien's 
conditional permanent resident status is terminated under 
Section 216A, the child of that alien will continue to be 
considered a child should the principal alien file a new 
petition under section 203(b)(5) within one year after such 
termination.
    This section provides authority to the Secretary to fix the 
compensation of, and appoint, individuals with the expertise 
necessary to administer the Regional Center Program. The 
section permits the Secretary to delegate certain authority to 
the Secretary of Commerce to evaluate commercial enterprise 
business plans and investment documents, including 
determinations concerning job creation. The section provides 
authority governing the use of fees and provides that necessary 
regulations may be adopted by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Secretary of Commerce.
    The section permits an immigrant investor to file 
concurrent petitions for classification under Section 203(b)(5) 
and for adjustment of status to a conditional lawful permanent 
resident.

Section 4807. Authorization of appropriations

    This section authorizes appropriations for various sections 
of the bill from the Trust Fund.

            SUBTITLE I--STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM

Section 4901. Short title

    The subtitle may be referred to as the ``Student Visa 
Integrity Act.''

Section 4902. SEVIS and SEVP defined

    The term SEVIS means the Student and Exchange Visitor 
Information Systems of the Department of Homeland Security. The 
term SEVP means the Student and Exchange Visitor Program of the 
Department of Homeland Security.

Section 4903. Increased criminal penalties

    This section establishes a maximum penalty of 15 years in 
prison if a violator of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) was an agent of an 
educational institutions with respect to participation in 
SEVIS.

Section 4904. Accreditation requirement

    This section defines accredited for F-1 sponsorship as 
being any program accredited by the Secretary of Education.

Section 4905. Other academic institutions

    The Department of Homeland Security shall require 
accreditation of academic institutions for F-1s if the 
institution is not already required to be accredited under the 
F-1 rules and an appropriate accrediting agency recognized by 
the Department of Education is able to provide such 
attestation. The Department of Homeland Security will have the 
ability to waive the requirement for institutions waiting more 
than a year for accreditation to be approved.

Section 4906. Penalties for failure to comply with SEVIS reporting 
        requirements

    Institutions that do not comply may be fined and barred 
from participation in the program.

Section 4907. Visa fraud

    If DHS has ``reasonable suspicion'' that an owner of, or a 
designated school official at, an approved institution of 
higher education, an approved educational institution, or a 
designated exchange visitor program has committed fraud or 
attempted to commit fraud relating to SEVIS or if such owner or 
designated school official is indicted for such fraud, DHS may 
immediately suspend such certification without prior 
notification and suspend such official's or such school's 
access to SEVIS. A conviction of fraud shall lead to a 
permanent disqualification from filing future petitions and 
from having an ownership interest or a management role in any 
U.S. educational institution that enrolls F or M students.

Section 4908. Background checks

    Individuals cannot be designated school officers (DSOs) or 
granted access to SEVIS unless the individual is a national of 
the United States or a permanent resident and during the most 
recent three-year period; the Department of Homeland Security 
has conducted a background check on the individual and 
determined the person has not been convicted of an immigration 
violations and is not a national security risk; and the 
individual has completed an online SEVIS training course.
    Individuals may serve as interim DSOs while the background 
check is going on. If the interim DSO does not successfully 
complete the background check, DHS shall review each Form I-20 
issued by the interim DSO. The Department of Homeland Security 
may collect a fee from an approved school for each background 
check conducted under this section. The section takes effect 
one year after enactment.

Section 4909. Revocation of authority to issue Form I-20 of Flight 
        Schools Not Certified by the Federal Aviation Administration

    The Department of Homeland Security shall prohibit any 
flight school in the United States from accessing SEVIS or 
issuing a Form I-20 to an alien seeking an F or M visa if the 
school has not been certified by DHS and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA).

Section 4910. Revocation of accreditation

    When an accrediting agency is required to notify the 
Secretary of Education and the state licensing authority of the 
final denial, withdrawal, suspension or termination of 
accreditation of an institution pursuant to Section 496 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, the agency shall notify DHS, and 
DHS shall immediately withdraw the school from SEVP and 
prohibit the school from accessing SEVIS.

Section 4911. Report on Risk assessment

    Not later than 180 days after date of enactment, DHS shall 
submit to Congress a report that contains a risk assessment 
strategy for the issuance of I-20s.

Section 4912. Implementation of GAO recommendations

    Within six months of enactment, DHS shall submit to the 
Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate a report 
describing the risks of Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP), and a process to allocate SEVP's resources based on 
risk, quality control, and monitoring.

Section 4913. Implementation of SEVIS II

    Within two years of enactment, DHS shall complete the 
deployment of both phases of the second generation of the SEVIS 
system.

             IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    The cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 was not available for inclusion in this report. The 
estimate will be printed in either a supplemental report or the 
Congressional Record when it is available.

                    V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with subsection (b) of paragraph 11 of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is hereby stated 
that the passage of S. 744 will require the promulgation of 
regulations by the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department 
of State, the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
Agriculture, and the United States Sentencing Commission, in 
consultation with the Department of Treasury, the Small 
Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, 
the Department of Defense, and other relevant Federal agencies 
and departments, to carry out the provisions of the bill.

                             VI. Conclusion

    Following 37 hours of debate over the course of three 
weeks, and the disposition of 212 amendments, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported S. 744, the Border Security, 
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as 
amended on a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. The Committee has 
approved legislation that will uphold the best values and 
traditions of a Nation that was built upon immigration. The 
bill will help reunite families, enrich our growing multi-
cultural society, contribute to our traditions of innovation 
and invention, and give those who yearn to become Americans the 
opportunity to become full and lawful participants in our 
society and eventually to live as citizens of the United States 
of America. The Senators who serve on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee have laid a foundation for real and meaningful 
progress for the country, and have delivered tremendous hope to 
the millions of people who will benefit from these reforms. The 
Committee commends this legislation to the Senate for its 
thorough consideration and approval.

                   VII. Additional and Minority Views

                              ----------                              


                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM SENATOR HATCH

    While I commend the committee for its productive work on 
this legislation, I still have a number of concerns that I 
believe need to be addressed in order to make this bill 
workable. Indeed, though I supported reporting this legislation 
out of the committee, there are some fundamental issues in this 
legislation that need to be fixed before it is, in my view, 
ready for final passage.
    The major concerns I have with this legislation fall under 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am 
the Ranking Member. I filed amendments to address these issues, 
and, while they were not addressed during the Judiciary 
Committee's consideration of the bill, I have the assurances of 
several authors of this legislation--including the Senator from 
New York--that they will work with me to fix these problems 
once the bill is on the floor.
    There are at least four specific Finance Committee issues 
that need to be addressed. First, the bill should stipulate 
that federal dollars cannot be used for purposes that were not 
contemplated under the 1996 federal welfare reform law. This 
would ensure that federal welfare benefits are not paid to 
individuals currently prohibited from receiving them.
    Second, the bill should require immigrant applicants to 
show that they have paid back taxes and continue to pay taxes 
as a condition of their change in status. This would ensure 
that immigrant applicants satisfy their lawful federal tax 
obligations resulting from any period of their U.S. residency.
    Third, the bill should apply a five-year waiting period for 
tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies under the Affordable 
Care Act for individuals going through the Blue Card or 
registered provisional immigrant pathways. A similar five-year 
waiting period already applies for legal immigrants to receive 
benefits under other federal means-tested health programs like 
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan.
    Fourth, the bill should prevent immigrant applicants from 
claiming unauthorized earnings to gain eligibility for Social 
Security coverage. This is essential to protecting the 
integrity of the Social Security system.
    Each of these issues represents an opportunity to improve 
the underlying bill. I look forward to working with the authors 
of the bill to address these concerns. Once again, while I 
supported reporting this legislation out of the Judiciary 
Committee, my continued support for the bill is contingent on 
whether these vital matters are addressed in a reasonable and 
productive way.

                                                    Orrin G. Hatch.

     MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY, SESSIONS, LEE AND CRUZ

    In 1986, the American people were promised that, in 
exchange for granting amnesty to millions of individuals 
illegally present in the United States, the border would be 
secured and the laws enforced. These promises were never kept. 
Unfortunately, S. 744 repeats these past mistakes and does very 
little to deliver more than the same empty promises.
    Our immigration system is broken. We are committed to 
passing legislation that will provide a long-term solution to 
enhance legal immigration while deterring illegal immigration. 
We believe the Congress should pass legislation to secure our 
borders, enhance national security, improve visa processes, 
hold employers accountable, foster economic opportunities and 
provide better legal immigration avenues for people who are 
willing to work in the United States.
    During the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's (Committee) 
consideration of S. 744, common-sense amendments offering real 
solutions were systematically rejected. Further, the bill's 
already serious flaws were exacerbated by the adoption of 
several amendments that significantly weaken current law, 
hamstring law enforcement, increase costs, and further 
complicate our legal immigration system. While some of the 
amendments made necessary improvements, the core provisions of 
the bill remain the same, leaving our borders unsecure and our 
immigration system deeply dysfunctional.
    Real reform is what Americans deserve, and what we have a 
responsibility to deliver. Therefore, we were left with no 
choice but to oppose the bill. Given the enormous scope of this 
legislation and the long list of problems with the bill, we 
state here the primary reasons we were compelled to oppose S. 
744.

                  Legalization Before Border Security

    The bill grants legal status for people here illegally as 
soon as the Secretary for Homeland Security (Secretary) submits 
a ``plan'' to secure the border--not when the border is 
actually secured. The bill requires the Secretary, within 6 
months of the bill being signed into law, to submit a 
``Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy'' as well as 
a ``Southern Border Fencing Strategy.'' After those so-called 
plans are submitted to Congress, the Secretary can start 
processing applications to legalize the estimated 11 million 
people that are in the United States. The result is that the 
undocumented population receives Registered Provisional 
Immigrant (RPI) status after a mere plan is submitted.
    RPI status is more than probation. RPI status is 
legalization.
    After the Secretary notifies Congress that she believes her 
plan has been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants 
(Registered Provision Immigrants or RPIs) are given a path to 
obtain green cards and a special path to citizenship.
    No one disputes that S. 744 provides legalization first and 
enforcement later. Without ensuring adequate border security 
and interior enforcement, the cycle is destined to repeat 
itself.
    The bill offers more of what the American people are used 
to from Washington: plans, commissions, studies, and gimmicks. 
The border security plans written by the Secretary need only be 
``substantially'' completed and implemented a decade down the 
road before green cards are distributed to millions of people. 
Despite attempts to improve the triggers, they remain 
inefficient and ineffective.
    During markup, the Democrat majority and the bill's 
sponsors voted down every attempt to mandate meaningful control 
of our borders--including provisions required by current law, 
and even those included in the failed 2007 immigration bill. An 
amendment to require the Secretary to certify to Congress that 
she has maintained effective control over the entire southern 
border for 6 months before legalization begins was rejected.\1\ 
An amendment to require objective metrics for determining 
border security was defeated.\2\ Amendments to significantly 
increase border security personnel, assets, and completion of 
border fencing were rejected.\3\ Finally, an amendment to 
retain current law and to maintain 100 percent operational 
control of the border as defined in the Secure Fence Act was 
also voted down.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Grassley4.
    \2\Cornyn1.
    \3\Cruz1 and Sessions9.
    \4\Sessions11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Congress required that 
the entire border should be 100% operationally controlled by 
the Department of Homeland Security. This was also the metric 
the Senate used as a trigger in the 2007 immigration bill. 
Under current law, operational control means the prevention of 
all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries 
by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
narcotics, and other contraband. S. 744 substantially weakens 
current law by only requiring the southern border to be ``90% 
effectively secured.''
    Furthermore, S. 744 weakens the ability of Congress to have 
a say in the border security plans put together by the 
Executive Branch. Who is going to ensure that the strategy the 
Secretary submits is sufficient, thoughtful, and feasible? What 
if the strategy she submits lacks sufficient detail, or does 
not address issues that agents in the field are concerned 
about? Congress has to hold the Secretary accountable. Congress 
should vote on the strategies. An amendment to require fast 
tracked Congressional approval of the Secretary's border 
security plan and her assessment of its completion was 
rejected.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Lee4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill also substantially weakens current law mandating a 
biometric entry/exit system at all ports of entry (air, land, 
and sea). In 1993, when the first World Trade Center bombing 
occurred, Congress required the Executive Branch to develop a 
system to track the entries and exits of all foreign nationals. 
Despite the fact that this biometric entry/exit system has been 
mandated in six different statutes dating back to 1996 and 
recommended by the 9/11 Commission, administration after 
administration has dismissed the need to implement an effective 
entry-exit system. An amendment to retain current law and 
control the flow of people coming and going was rejected on 
several occasions.\6\ Instead, the bill provides for a non-
biometric exit system, which is easily circumvented through 
fraud, and only provides the exit system at air and sea ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Sessions4 and Sessions6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bottom line is that this bill provides for 
legalization, but does not secure the border. The triggers in 
this bill are meaningless hurdles that allow for the immediate 
processing and granting of initial RPI status. The result is de 
facto amnesty because these individuals will be admitted 
lawfully into the United States. Once these immigrants are no 
longer ``undocumented,'' the urgency to meet existing 
enforcement deadlines will dissipate. Moreover, legalizing the 
current undocumented population before our borders are secure 
assures that this bill will only cause another buildup of 
undocumented individuals. The American people and those 
individuals who have rightfully waited their turn in line and 
gained citizenship deserve better than the approach set forth 
by this bill.

                  Legalization Pitfalls and Loopholes

    Time and time again, we have been told that S. 744 will 
allow people here illegally to register and ``earn'' legal 
status, then become contributing members of society. However, 
the bill fails to address just how to prevent a continued 
influx of individuals who will replace those currently ``living 
in the shadows.''
    Remarkably, the bill virtually suspends enforcement during 
the two and a half year legalization application period, and 
prohibits law enforcement from detaining or removing anyone 
claiming eligibility, without any requirement to prove that 
they are, in fact, eligible. Law enforcement is even required 
to inform those here illegally about legalization and give them 
the opportunity to apply. Under the bill, undocumented 
immigrants already here can apply for and receive RPI status 
even if they have committed document fraud, provided false 
statements to authorities, and absconded court-ordered removal 
proceedings.
    During this time, there is an ``enforcement holiday,'' 
limiting the ability of enforcement officers to detain or 
remove any individual who merely claims eligibility for RPI 
status, regardless of whether there is proof to back up that 
claim.
    Perhaps the ``enforcement holiday'' would only be mildly 
concerning if we were dealing with individuals who had only 
violated civil immigration laws. Unfortunately, the bill 
extends to those with criminal records. This includes 
individuals who have gang affiliations, felony arrests, and 
multiple misdemeanor criminal convictions. Moreover, the bill 
permits individuals who attain RPI status to continue criminal 
behavior, so long as their behavior and subsequent convictions 
remain below the eligibility threshold. In fact, S. 744 goes 
even further and provides the Secretary waiver authority in 
order to dismiss misdemeanor criminal convictions for purposes 
of determining eligibility for RPI status.
    Further, the bill does not limit those outside the country 
from applying for RPI status. The bill states that individuals 
who have previously been deported or otherwise removed from the 
country are ineligible for RPI status. However, one need only 
turn a few pages to discover the Secretary has sole and 
unreviewable discretion to waive this provision and permit 
large classes of individuals to apply for RPI status. Another 
waiver is provided that allows individual aliens who have been 
removed, or reentered illegally, to apply for status if they 
are fortunate enough to have a relative who does, in fact, 
qualify for RPI status. This weakens and undermines current 
law, where Congress has already declared that individuals who 
reenter illegally are not entitled to immigration benefits.
    Amendments to prohibit those ordered removed, those 
currently in removal proceedings, and those who have absconded 
and failed to show up for removal proceedings from applying or 
being granted legal status were voted down.\7\ An amendment to 
prohibit spousal abusers, child abusers, drunk drivers, and 
other serious criminals from obtaining legal status was also 
rejected.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Grassley11 and Lee8.
    \8\Cornyn3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The process for obtaining RPI status is ripe for abuse and 
potentially encourages crafty behavior for individuals to game 
the system. Under the bill, individuals applying for RPI status 
are permitted to file numerous amended applications in the 
event their initial application is denied for failure to 
complete properly or provide required documentation. In 
practice, one could continue to file numerous amended 
applications, knowing each application is incomplete, resulting 
in a perpetual limbo where an individual can remain here for an 
indeterminate time without any possibility of removal.
    Another area of potential abuse permits otherwise 
ineligible individuals to remain indefinitely in the United 
States. Sections 2104, 2105, and 2212 combine to provide for a 
stay of removal until a newly created administrative appellate 
review process of the application has been exhausted. One need 
only imagine the vast loophole created that will allow 
ineligible applicants to remain in the United States pending a 
typically extremely lengthy review process. Moreover, this, 
like the other provisions discussed above, provides an 
incentive for ineligible applicants to file for relief. When 
combined with a never ending application process and an 
expansive, time consuming appeals process, individuals can 
remain here for years without ever obtaining RPI status, and 
without any fear of removal.
    We tried to close loopholes and strengthen the legalization 
program through amendments. For example, an amendment to 
require a person here illegally who applies for legal status to 
disclose his or her previous identity theft and the social 
security numbers used, and allow for agencies to notify 
rightful assignees was rejected.\9\ An amendment to remove 
``sworn affidavits'' from the list of documents that RPIs may 
use to satisfy the employment requirement for obtaining a green 
card was also rejected.\10\ Amendments to require illegal 
immigrants to pay back taxes before receiving legal status, to 
clarify eligibility for the child tax credit, and to limit the 
earned income tax credit were voted down.\11\ An amendment to 
provide that individuals who have been unlawfully present in 
the United States are ineligible for federal, state, or local 
means-tested welfare benefits was also rejected.\12\ Finally, 
an amendment to ensure that all applications could be filed 
electronically, and that the Secretary develop a detection and 
deterrence plan against benefits fraud was voted down.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Grassley18.
    \10\Lee12.
    \11\Lee10, Sessions30 and Sessions31.
    \12\Cruz2.
    \13\Sessions16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 744 provides many avenues for people here illegally to 
receive taxpayer funded assistance in filing their applications 
for legalization. First, the bill creates a $50 million grant 
program for nonprofit organizations to: 1) inform the public 
regarding the legalization program; 2) screen individuals to 
ascertain their eligibility; 3) assist people here illegally in 
submitting applications for RPI status and waivers; and 4) 
assist individuals with regard to the rights and 
responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, including civics and 
English requirements, and how to apply for citizenship. Second, 
S. 744 allows the government to create a new public-private 
partnership called the United States Citizenship Foundation. 
The focus of this new Foundation is to expand citizenship 
preparation programs, and to coordinate immigrant integration 
with state and local entities. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services already perform many of the same functions, rendering 
it redundant. Combined, these grants and this new foundation 
expand the role of government and expend unnecessary funds from 
the already stretched resources of the American people.

                Congress Should Legislate, Not Delegate

    We are concerned that the bill provides unfettered and 
unchecked authority to the Executive Branch, and mainly to the 
Secretary. On almost every other page, there is language that 
allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions of law. The 
Secretary may define terms as she sees fit. In many cases, the 
discretion is unreviewable, both by the American people and by 
other branches of government.
    The Secretary has $8.3 billion immediately at her disposal 
with no accountability to Congress, no parameters on how 
taxpayer funding will be spent, and no assurance that the 
funding will be repaid to the Treasury as the authors intend.
    As drafted, S. 744 permits the Secretary to provide legal 
status to millions of people here illegally simply after the 
mere submission of a border security and fencing strategy. The 
bill gives almost sole discretion over the plans and 
implementation of these strategies without any input from 
Congress. Will a Secretary who believes that the border is 
stronger than ever before be willing to make it stronger? Will 
a Secretary who does not believe a biometric exit system is 
feasible ensure that a mandated system is put in place? Will a 
Secretary who does not believe anything should stand in the way 
of legalization ensure that the triggers are achieved?
    The application period for people to apply for RPI Status 
is estimated to take 12 months. However, the Secretary has the 
authority to extend that time period an additional 18 months. 
In addition to unilaterally determining how long the 
application period should last, the Secretary can waive fees 
and penalties for anybody and everybody that applies. 
Additionally, the Secretary can excuse certain behavior and 
determine what documentation or evidence is acceptable.
    If passed, S. 744 will give unlimited power to the 
Executive Branch to define the terms and conditions of 
enforcement actions against people here unlawfully. Certain 
companies can be exempt from the employment verification 
participation requirement. The Secretary of State has the 
authority to limit in-person interviews of visa applicants 
abroad, and the Secretary of Homeland Security is not required 
to interview anyone that applies for RPI Status. The proponents 
of the bill claim that more manpower will be provided for, but 
it allows the Executive Branch to determine if 3,500 new 
Customs and Border Protection Officers will be assigned to the 
border or customs responsibilities.
    The unfettered grant of waiver authority is further 
illustrated by a section that provides the Secretary and 
Immigration Judges to waive certain crimes that would otherwise 
make an individual ineligible for legal status. This broad 
grant of power undermines the immigration laws and creates 
serious problems. Immigration Judges and the Secretary are 
essentially granted prosecutorial discretion to allow an 
inadmissible individual, who may also be in removal 
proceedings, to remain in the country if failure to do so is 
``against the public interest or would result in hardship to 
the alien's'' family. It is hard to imagine any situation where 
some type of ``hardship'' would not be present. This provision 
leads us down a path with many unknown consequences that have 
not been examined.
    With regard to the future flow and legal guestworker 
program, the Executive Branch has the ability to change the 
number of ``W'' nonimmigrants allowed into the United States. 
Again, without input from Congress, the administration can 
determine how many workers, what types of workers, and how 
employers are monitored through the program.
    There are hundreds of examples of waivers, grants of 
discretion, and authorities for the Executive Branch to define 
our immigration laws. Simply stated, S. 744 provides too much 
discretion to the Executive Branch with little or no oversight 
and effectively passes responsibility from Congress to the 
Executive Branch to implement it by Administrative fiat.

           Weakening of Criminal Law and Enforcement Efforts

    One of the major reasons why immigration is a subject of 
significant public interest is the failure of the federal 
government to enforce existing law. Eleven million people have 
unlawfully entered the country or overstayed their visa because 
the federal government did not deter them or take action to 
remove them. S. 744 significantly weakens current criminal laws 
and will hinder the ability of law enforcement to protect 
Americans from criminal undocumented aliens.
    Enforcement of the immigration laws has been lax and 
increasingly selective in the last few years. As a result, 
States have been forced to deal with the criminal activity that 
surrounds the flow of people here illegally. They have stepped 
up efforts to control the effects of illegal immigration within 
their borders. The States should be able to protect their 
people and stem the lawlessness within their borders. Yet, time 
and again, this administration has denied them the opportunity 
and tried to stop them.
    Despite the name of title III, ``Interior Enforcement,'' 
the reality is that the bill does almost nothing to strengthen 
and enhance our interior enforcement efforts. It does nothing 
to encourage federal, state and local law enforcement efforts 
to apprehend and detain illegal aliens who pose a risk to our 
communities. It ignores sanctuary cities, and effectively sends 
a signal to states with enforcement-minded laws that they have 
no authority to control their own borders.
    Unfortunately, the bill fails states and local 
jurisdictions even more. Nothing in the bill would enable the 
States to control their own borders when the federal government 
does not. Nothing in the bill would enhance federal-state 
cooperation in enforcing immigration laws against people who 
are in the country illegally. The federal government will 
continue to look the other way as millions of new people enter 
the country illegally. Meanwhile, the bill gives the States no 
new authority to act when the federal government refuses to 
act. Unfortunately, an amendment to accommodate a state or 
local's request for federal assistance through the 287(g) 
program was rejected.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Sessions32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proponents of S. 744 claim that the bill includes the 
single largest increase in immigration enforcement in American 
history. They say that mandatory electronic employment 
verification is the solution to future illegal immigration. 
Yet, it's concerning that S. 744 delays for years the 
implementation of a mandatory electronic employment 
verification system, through which 99.7 percent of all work 
eligible employees are confirmed immediately today. As drafted, 
the bill gives some employers a free pass in participating, 
while some employers will not be required to use the system for 
at least six years after enactment. An amendment to require 
implementation of the new system within 18 months for all 
employers was rejected.\15\ Another amendment to delay the 
preemption of all state E-Verify laws until the new system is 
fully implemented was also rejected.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Grassley29.
    \16\Grassley35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another concern that fell on deaf ears during Committee 
consideration of S. 744 was the dangerous and unnecessary 
change to existing criminal law. While the bill does increase 
the punishment in several cases, it also increases the 
thresholds required for actions to constitute a crime.
    Under current law, it is a misdemeanor for a foreign 
national to unlawfully attempt to enter the United States. 
Section 3704 removes ``attempting to enter the United States'' 
as a crime. Therefore, under the bill, a person here illegally 
can attempt to cross the border as many times as he likes 
without any consequences, taxing already limited resources. 
Only when the illegal alien successfully enters the United 
States will he be charged with a crime. This does not deter 
illegal aliens from crossing the border nor does it punish an 
existing criminal act. Instead, it will likely encourage 
illegal immigration.
    Section 3704 weakens existing law by punishing persons only 
if they have already been convicted of 3 or more misdemeanors 
on different days. Therefore, under the bill, an illegal alien 
can commit many more than 3 misdemeanors, as long as he is 
convicted of them all on the same day. This will undoubtedly 
lead to additional crimes that go unpunished and undeterred by 
these dangerous changes to existing law.
    Additionally, Section 3705 of the bill only punishes 
illegal aliens who are removed from the country three or more 
times. Effectively, it gives a pass to all aliens who come into 
the country three times before they are caught and removed 
those three times. Consequently, the bill encourages an illegal 
immigrant to attempt, or even cross the border up to three 
times before any serious consequence will be administered. We 
are concerned that this encourages, rather than discourages 
illegal behavior.
    Section 3707 weakens the current law regarding passport 
fraud. Under the bill, only those who make and distribute 
illegal passports three or more times will be charged with a 
crime. As a result, the bill gives a pass to criminals, 
including possible terrorists, to make illegal passports 
multiple times before being punished under the law.
    S. 744 would also allow a person to knowingly purchase 
materials for making illegal passports, but only charge the 
person with a crime if ten or more passports are made. So, 
effectively this bill would weaken current law by allowing the 
knowing purchase of materials to make illegal passports. Why 
does the bill allow a person to knowingly break the law, but 
not punish them for it? Purchasing and collecting the materials 
to make a fraudulent passport is just as harmful a crime as 
actually making the illegal fake passports.
    This section of the bill also tries to remove criminal 
liability from users of illegal passports and immigration 
documents. This is unwise, dangerous, and does very little to 
stop illegal activity. If there is not a market for illegal 
documents, there would be no makers of illegal documents. We 
are concerned that this bill as written will encourage the 
making of fraudulent documents threatening our national 
security and weakening our security at the borders and points 
of entry.
    The purpose of the federal criminal code is to punish 
criminal activity and to deter illegal behavior. However, this 
bill fails to achieve both of those goals. An amendment would 
have reinstated current law for these provisions ensuring we do 
not create a situation where illegal entry and document fraud 
run rampant, but it was rejected.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Grassley43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are also concerned that the bill is weak on foreign 
national criminal street gang members. The bill creates a 
convoluted and useless process for determining when foreign 
national members of criminal street gangs are admissible. 
Section 3701 requires that the Department of Homeland Security 
must prove that a foreign national is a member of a criminal 
street gang, has a prior felony conviction for drug trafficking 
or violent crime, and that they have knowledge that the gang is 
continuing to commit crime and that the individual has acted to 
further gang activity. Even if this near impossible standard is 
met, the bill would allow the Secretary to waive the foreign 
national through the immigration process if the foreign 
national merely renounced his association with the criminal 
gang, even if the foreign national meets all the above 
criteria. Simply stated, this provision will undoubtedly allow 
more criminal street gang members admission into the country 
despite their continued or known association with dangerous 
criminal street gangs.
    Current law already states that foreign nationals who have 
federal felony drug trafficking or felony violent crime 
convictions are subject to deportation or are inadmissible to 
the United States. Section 3701 will not be used, then, because 
it is easier to prove that someone is a convicted drug 
trafficker, than to prove they are both a drug trafficker and 
gang member.
    This legislation is dangerous and represents a serious blow 
to national security. Criminal street gangs are plagues on 
communities, but are particularly dangerous to immigrant 
communities, often times praying on recent immigrants to 
further their criminal activities that include drug 
trafficking, prostitution, sex trafficking, and other violent 
crimes.
    An amendment was offered that would have protected the 
United States from dangerous foreign nationals by expanding the 
number of serious crimes that prevented admissibility or 
allowed deportation of foreign nationals.\18\ That amendment 
also shifted the burden of proof onto the foreign national to 
prove he is not a danger to the community and is not in a 
criminal gang--similar to a provision in existing law requiring 
the burden be placed on suspected terrorists to prove to the 
Secretary that they are, in fact, not terrorists. This 
amendment would also have corrected the unnecessary provision 
granting the Secretary the ability to issue a waiver; instead 
it gives discretion to immigration judges to determine if the 
foreign national is a danger to the community. This amendment 
was unfortunately rejected along a party-line vote of the 
Committee, notwithstanding the Committee members recognizing 
the importance of the issue and the dangers created by the new 
loopholes the bill has created for foreign national gang 
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Grassley45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With regard to domestic violence, we are pleased that the 
bill makes domestic violence an inadmissible offense. Current 
law already makes domestic violence an offense for which an 
alien can be removed, so this change is long overdue. However, 
the bill makes it harder for an immigrant to be inadmissible 
for the same crime for which he can be removed. Under the bill, 
an undocumented immigrant must have served at least one year in 
prison for domestic violence to be inadmissible. This one-year 
prison requirement is not the same standard for removing an 
abuser, thus potentially allowing such individuals to remain in 
the country.
    We are also deeply concerned that this bill makes it harder 
for the government to detain people here unlawfully, including 
even serious criminals. Section 3717 places new, onerous 
burdens on the government when it detains undocumented 
immigrants, including those who have committed serious crimes 
and are aggravated felons. The current Administration is 
already releasing criminal aliens without just cause. In 
February 2013, the Department released 622 illegal aliens who 
had been convicted of crimes, including 32 with multiple felony 
convictions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/ice-admits-hundreds-
illegal-immigrants-with-criminal-records-released/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 744 also fails to protect the safety of the American 
people by not addressing the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas 
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This holding has hindered 
detention operations of the federal government. In Zavydas, the 
Court held that immigrants admitted to the United States that 
are subsequently ordered removed could not be detained for more 
than 6 months if the government is unable show that there is a 
likelihood of removal in the reasonable future. Four years 
later, in Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), the Supreme 
Court extended the decision to people here illegally as well. 
As a result, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security 
have had no choice but to release thousands of dangerous, 
violent foreign nationals into our neighborhoods.
    These decisions have a serious impact on public safety. If 
the Department of Homeland Security cannot obtain travel 
documents or if the country of origin refuses to take back 
their nationals, then the U.S. Government has no recourse 
except to release the individual. As a result, dangerous 
persons are allowed to go free into the community and cause 
harm. For example, six years ago, a Vietnamese immigrant was 
ordered deported after serving time in prison for armed robbery 
and assault. He was never removed because these Supreme Court 
decisions handicapped federal authorities. Immigration 
officials could not deport him without the cooperation of the 
Vietnamese government which declined to cooperate. When 
released, the individual purportedly killed five people in a 
San Francisco home in March 2012.
    This is a real problem with serious consequences. There are 
many other criminal aliens that warrant deportation that were 
subsequently released because of these decisions. According to 
statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, 
there are many countries that are not cooperating or that take 
longer to repatriate their nationals. Countries like Iran, 
Pakistan, China, Somalia and Liberia are on their list. These 
decisions have placed a stranglehold on enforcement operations, 
yet S. 744 does nothing to address this issue.
    While S. 744 fails to acknowledge the need to enhance 
enforcement efforts, amendments that further undermine law 
enforcement were accepted by the committee. For example, one 
amendment would prohibit Border Patrol from returning illegal 
border crossers to Mexico during nighttime hours absent certain 
circumstances.\20\ Another amendment would limit enforcement 
actions at certain locations, including college campuses and 
hospitals, essentially turning public places into sanctuary 
shelters.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Coons2.
    \21\Blumenthal8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immigration enforcement officials told Congress and the 
committee that agents in the field were handicapped from 
enforcing the laws on the books. This bill does little to 
nothing to help; rather it further undermines their efforts and 
diminishes the responsibilities they swore to uphold.
    Finally, S. 744 facilitates fraud in our immigration 
system, undermines identity theft protections, and does very 
little to hold perpetrators accountable. The Committee failed 
to include an amendment that would criminalize the use of a 
social security number when the immigrant knows the number is 
not his own, but does not specifically know the number belongs 
to another individual.\22\ This amendment would have fixed the 
holding in the Supreme Court case Flores-Figueroa. In effect, 
the government must prove that the thief knew he or she is 
stealing a real person's identity, not just creating what he or 
she believes is a fake document. Identity theft is a horrible 
crime. It effectively robs an honest American of his or her 
good name and credit. It is even worse when the identity is 
that of a minor child who has their social security number 
stolen for years, only to learn about the identity theft when 
they apply for a job, college, or a loan. Unfortunately, the 
amendment to fix this problem was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Grassley34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       National Security Concerns

    While proponents of S. 744 contend that the bill will make 
America safer, we have concerns that the bill will put public 
safety and the homeland at risk. The bill contains extremely 
dangerous national security loopholes, including the inability 
of the U.S. government to share information with foreign 
governments about immigrants who have had their status revoked. 
An amendment to preserve the ability of law enforcement to 
access critical national security and public safety information 
and to authorize the Secretary of State to share limited 
information with a foreign government, while protecting 
legitimate privacy interests, was rejected.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Cornyn5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As previously noted, under S. 744, the Secretary of State 
has the authority to limit in-person interviews of visa 
applicants abroad, and the Secretary of Homeland Security is 
not required to interview anyone that applies for Registered 
Provisional Immigrant Status. We learned a valuable lesson 
after September 11, 2001, because the hijackers were not 
interviewed and applications were rubber-stamped. An amendment 
to require aliens who may be a threat to national security to 
submit to an in-person interview with a consular officer when 
applying for a visa was voted down.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Sessions13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also learned that there are gaping holes in the student 
visa process, yet the committee rejected attempts to delay the 
expansion of the student visa program until the tracking system 
in place was improved.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Grassley68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An amendment to clarify the authority of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to refuse or 
revoke visas when in the national interest, as was the case 
with the Christmas Day bomber, was also rejected.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Sessions15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 744 does not address the concerns brought to the surface 
by recent events like the Boston terrorist bombing. We are 
profoundly troubled with the lack of concern about lessons that 
can be learned from the failings of the immigration process, 
which may have contributed to recent events like the Boston 
terrorist bombing. We need to understand and address these 
failures before proceeding with some of the provisions in this 
bill, especially the asylum and student visa expansion 
measures. Putting revised procedures in place before gaining 
understanding of what does not work in our current system is 
not good stewardship of the trust the People have placed in us. 
Our nation's security is at risk and we cannot ignore it. We 
need to understand what is wrong with the system to prevent 
events like the Boston Bombing from happening again. However, 
an amendment to delay an expansion of asylum and student visa 
programs until there has been a coordinated review detailing 
the intelligence and immigration failures of the Boston 
Marathon terrorist attack was ultimately rejected.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Grassley52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our national security must be a paramount concern with any 
immigration reform. Eliminating weaknesses in our system, 
including along the border and in the interior, would make our 
nation safer. Regrettably, this bill falls short of this goal.

Unnecessary Expansion of Judicial Review, Burdensome Court Procedures, 
  Frivolous Litigation, and Increased Costs for the American Taxpayer

    This bill and its amendments raise important concerns over 
the expansion of judicial review and access to United States 
courts in immigration cases, the imposition of burdensome court 
procedures, and the encouragement of frivolous litigation, all 
which implicate the unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars.
    We are concerned that the bill gives unnecessarily broad 
judicial review of the denial of any application, which would 
necessarily create a litany of litigation and undermine the 
enforcement of our immigration laws. Any denial of RPI status 
can be reviewed in any district court and circuit court 
throughout the country. Applicants can challenge anything with 
respect to their application and can appeal their case through 
the various levels of review at the Department of Homeland 
Security and within the federal court system. This broad review 
is unnecessary because a review process already exists within 
DHS. Currently, an individual may appeal a denied application 
to the Department's Administrative Appeals Unit for a 
completely new review of the application. Unlimited access to 
the federal courts only allows for another unnecessary and 
costly bite at the apple.
    In addition, we are concerned that the bill treats these 
reviews as a right rather than a discretionary benefit. 
Consequently, the federal courts will be inundated with 
petitions for review if the Secretary denied even a small 
portion of the millions of applications that will be filed 
under RPI, the Agricultural Blue-Card program, and other visa 
programs. The Judicial Conference of the United States has 
expressed its serious concerns over the increased workload for 
the federal court system looming in this bill.
    S. 744 also encourages individuals with meritless 
applications to take advantage of the review system for one 
important benefit: an undocumented immigrant who applies for 
RPI status cannot be deported or detained so long as their 
application is pending with the Department, and in some 
circuits, the federal court system. The timeframe of the 
pending appeal could span a decade. The addition of class 
action lawsuits to the workload of the courts only amplifies 
the delays, and the potential for court interference if the 
Secretary dares to deny RPI status to an individual. One need 
not even exhaust administrative remedies in order to file a 
class action lawsuit under the bill. We are concerned that this 
will result in tying the system completely in knots and render 
the Department unable to reasonably administer the legalization 
program.
    Class actions are particularly troublesome under the bill, 
as Section 2104 specifically authorizes such litigation over 
any ``regulation, written policy, or written directive, issue 
or unwritten policy or practice initiated by or under the 
authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.'' We are 
concerned the harmful effect of this provision will be that 
lawyers will be able to use federal funding to file class 
action lawsuits against the government any time they believe a 
particular policy or action of the Department of Homeland 
Security was not lenient enough or did not give their clients 
everything they desired. An amendment to address concerns with 
the scope of federal court review and class actions was 
rejected.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Grassley 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, Section 3502 of the bill creates a right to 
counsel at taxpayer expense for people who are here illegally 
and in immigration proceedings, including a right to counsel 
for ``aliens considered particularly vulnerable when compared 
to other aliens in removal proceedings.'' Currently, there is 
no right to counsel for people who are here illegally. 
Immigrants have a right to obtain counsel, but not for counsel 
to be provided to them at taxpayer expense. Yet, the bill 
provides the Attorney General with the sole and unreviewable 
discretion to appoint counsel to any alien in removal 
proceedings. Such a broad standard gives the Attorney General 
almost unlimited power to appoint these aliens counsel at the 
taxpayers' expense.
    Moreover, Section 2212 allows for the Legal Services 
Corporation (``LSC'') to provide legal services to aliens for 
various issues, including their application for ``blue card'' 
status as agricultural workers under Section 2211, grievances 
against employers for the same agricultural workers under 
Section 2232, and any Title III, Subtitle F claims, which may 
entail a broad array of civil rights, employment, or class 
action claims. The LSC is a federally funded nonprofit that 
provides legal services for low-income Americans. Extending 
these federal dollars to provide for noncitizens immigration 
services is unprecedented and unwarranted given the 
increasingly high costs.
    Adding to these costs, Section 3503 directs the Attorney 
General to establish an Office of Legal Access Programs to 
educate aliens of their legal rights and available procedures 
under United States immigration law within five days of their 
arrival, as well as establish other programs to assist 
immigrants. We are concerned that these programs will just 
facilitate the filing of lawsuits.
    We strongly believe that the taxpayer should not have to 
pay for these legal counsel expenses. These costs have never 
been borne by the American taxpayer, and we are deeply 
concerned that these unprecedented provisions will increase 
delay and meritless litigation, not reduce it. Undocumented 
individuals already have a number of options in order to obtain 
legal help in their immigration proceedings. For example, there 
are a number of grant programs that provide legal assistance to 
illegal immigrants in immigration proceedings. Law firms have 
pro bono programs and law schools have legal clinics where 
attorneys and law students provide legal services to people who 
are here illegally.
    Even under the current system, more and more illegal 
immigrants are getting legal representation in immigration 
court. In 2012, 56 percent of aliens were represented in the 
immigration courts, which is an increase from 45 percent in 
2009.\29\ Also, 79 percent of aliens were represented on appeal 
in 2012 before the Board of Immigration Appeals.\30\ For those 
aliens who are not represented in immigration court, the 
immigration judges under current policies take extra care and 
spend additional time to make sure that the individual 
understands the proceedings and his or her rights and 
responsibilities under the law.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
FY 2012 Statistical Yearbook, at Figure 9.
    \30\Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
FY 2012 Statistical Yearbook, at Figure 30.
    \31\Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
FY 2012 Statistical Yearbook, at G1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, under Section 3501, the bill mandates that the 
Attorney General increase the total number of immigration 
judges, support staff, staff attorneys and other positions in 
the immigration courts. However, it is not clear how the bill 
sponsors came up with the numbers contained in the bill, or 
what the effect of the legislation will be on the workload of 
the immigration court system. In fact, it is possible that the 
effect of the legislation will be to reduce the workload of the 
immigration court system--at least initially--because RPI 
applicants cannot be removed.
    As stewards of the taxpayer dollar, we strongly believe 
that there should be an informed determination as to what the 
impact of this bill is on the immigration caseload and how many 
people are actually necessary to do the job. There should not 
be a mandate of specific numbers of hires in the bill before 
that information is available.
    We are concerned that the bill adopts a number of 
provisions that impose burdensome procedures on the immigration 
system. For example, Section 3717 of the bill provides that the 
Department of Homeland Security can only request a period of up 
to 72 hours before a bond hearing must occur. If this 
artificial timeframe is not met, an alien would have to be 
released, even if DHS is trying to obtain critical evidence. 
Current immigration court procedures already take into account 
that illegal immigrants should receive a bond hearing 
expeditiously.\32\ The failure to appear rate for aliens 
released on bond in immigration court has risen from 22 percent 
in 2009 to 29 percent in 2012. We are concerned that this 
provision will cause people in removal proceedings to be 
released on bond to not appear for their hearings, thus posing 
a serious public safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Department of Justice, Immigration Court Practice Manual, at 
125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, this provision requires that Immigration Judges 
hold bond hearings every 90 days for any alien in custody, even 
if there are no changes in circumstances and even if the alien 
is the reason for the delay in getting the case resolved. Under 
current law, a person receives a bond hearing if there is a 
change in circumstances. We are concerned that this requirement 
will clog the immigration courts with an unprecedented number 
of unnecessary bond hearings and result in a drain of 
resources. An amendment to address concerns with these 
unworkable bond hearing requirements was rejected.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Grassley47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another costly drain of resources results from the high 
number of aliens from noncontiguous countries (``Other Than 
Mexico'' or OTM) that illegally cross our southern border. The 
total cost for the U.S. to place these individuals in court 
proceedings and remove them to their respective countries is 
necessarily far greater than the removal of aliens in the 
Mexican population. We are concerned that the bond requirement 
for these individuals is too low and does not serve as a 
sufficient deterrent against entering this country via Mexico. 
As of April 2, 2013, the OTM numbers on the southwest border 
were up 67 percent from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year 
2013.\34\ We know that some of the OTMs include terrorists who 
enter the U.S. via the southern border. Secretary Napolitano 
has testified before Congress to that fact.\35\ We also know 
that a majority of OTMs fail to appear for their immigration 
proceedings and simply disappear into the United States. 
Increasing bonds for these nationals would deter absconders, 
assist CBP and ICE in covering detention and removal costs, or 
at minimum, provide a disincentive to cross. An amendment to 
increase the minimum bond of aliens who are OTMs from $1,500 to 
$5,000 was narrowly defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Border Patrol Daily Report from April 2, 2013.
    \35\House Committee on Homeland Security hearing ``Understanding 
the Homeland Threat Landscape,'' July 25, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, we are also concerned with Section 3504's 
requirement that the Board of Immigration Appeals produce 
written opinions addressing all issues raised--regardless of 
whether they are relevant or have any effect on the outcome of 
a case. These requirements will just make the decision-making 
process more time-consuming and burdensome, as well as increase 
backlog problems. We are concerned that these requirements will 
also encourage litigation and make it easier to file frivolous 
appeals in federal court.
    Overall, this bill is a handout for immigration lawyers, 
providing numerous avenues for individuals to bring lawsuits 
and opening up the already-burdened district courts to run of 
the mill immigration cases. This will inevitably flood and bog 
down the system. Moreover, the bill imposes burdensome and 
unnecessary procedures that will just frustrate enforcement of 
our immigration laws. Rather than bogging down the system with 
litigation and unworkable requirements, we should be enhancing 
the ability of our law enforcement community to administer the 
immigration laws.

                               Conclusion

    This bill has a long way to go to meet the demands of the 
American people. Serious considerations must be given to the 
bill's shortcomings, including but not limited to the cost, the 
lack of border security, the unlimited and unreviewable 
discretion to the Executive Branch, the ramifications to 
national security, the ability to hold perpetrators of fraud 
and abuse accountable, and the weakening of criminal law.
    More importantly, S. 744 does not fix our legal immigration 
system. Everyone acknowledges that our legal immigration system 
needs improving. This bill takes a step forward in creating a 
merit-based system, but backhandedly provides some favoritism 
to low skilled and family based connections. It complicates our 
legal immigration system by creating even more categories of 
visas and reducing transparency through a series of exemptions 
from visa caps.
    Further, S. 744 provides a special path to citizenship for 
people who intentionally broke our laws even before the borders 
are secured. The Committee rejected an amendment that would 
have allowed immigrants here illegally to obtain legal status--
to come out of the shadows and work legally--but not to be 
eligible for citizenship.\36\ The bill proponents said that 
citizenship is essential to reform; indeed, a senior Democrat 
confessed, ``If we don't have a path to citizenship, there is 
no reform.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Cruz3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rewarding those here illegally with citizenship is not 
reforming our immigration system. The special path to 
citizenship provided in this bill is unfair to millions of 
legal immigrants who follow the law. Furthermore, combined with 
weak border and interior enforcement measures in this bill, 
this special path to citizenship only encourages more illegal 
immigration.
    At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves if the bill 
will solve the problem once and for all. One way to measure 
that is by ensuring that we are tough on people who enter the 
country after the law is passed. Amendments to signal a zero-
tolerance policy for future lawbreakers were defeated, sending 
a clear message that enforcement measures will be lax in the 
years ahead. ``Reform'' is not a word to throw around loosely 
to sell this product to the American people; it must truly 
achieve reform so that future generations do not have to deal 
with the same problems as this Congress.
    S. 744 fails to deliver anything more than the same empty 
promises Washington has been making for 30 years. The last 
thing this country needs right now is another 1,000 plus page 
bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors 
with special interests.
    We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually 
fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to 
grow and fester. For these reasons, we could not support the 
bill in its current form.

                                   Charles E. Grassley.
                                   Jeff Sessions.
                                   Mike Lee.
                                   Ted Cruz.

           MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY AND SESSIONS

  S. 744 Fails To Adequately Protect American Workers and Neglects To 
    Hold Employers Who Use the H-1B and L Visa Programs Accountable

    In 2008, the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) highlighted the fraud in the H-1B visa program 
and found that some employers who use the program violate the 
law in various ways. The agency's Benefit Fraud and Compliance 
Assessment has highlighted the rampant fraud and abuse that is 
taking place in the program. The internal report by USCIS 
showed a 20% violation rate of a random sample of H-1B 
petitions. People weren't working where they were supposed to. 
Documents were forged. Foreign workers weren't being paid what 
they were promised. Job duties were significantly different 
from the position description listed in their application to 
the Department of Labor. Site visits established that the 
reported business locations were non-existent, there was no 
evidence of daily business activity, the business locations 
were unable to support the number of employees claimed, or 
there was no evidence that the employers ever intended for the 
beneficiaries to fill the actual jobs offered. According to the 
report, ``In one instance, the position described on the 
petition and [Labor Condition Application] was that of a 
business development analyst. However, when USCIS conducted its 
review, the petitioner stated the H-1B beneficiary would be 
working in a laundromat doing laundry and maintaining washing 
machines.''
    Too often, the fraud and abuse is disavowed by proponents 
of the program because they falsely see the demand for these 
visas increase year after year. Yet, they fail to ignore that 
some companies petition for thousands of foreign workers and 
that the top ten companies that use the program swallow up over 
50% of the supply of available visas. Consider the data from 
fiscal year 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Analysis by Ron Hira, Professor, Rochester Institute of 
Technology. Mr. Hira used I-129 data by employer, USCIS, fiscal 2012.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              FY 12 H-1B
                Rank                        Employer           Initial
                                                              Petitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Cognizant.............         9281
2..................................  Tata..................         7469
3..................................  Infosys...............         5600
4..................................  Wipro.................         4304
5..................................  Accenture.............         4037
6..................................  HCL America...........         2070
7..................................  Tech Mahindra SATYAM..         1963
8..................................  IBM & IBM India.......         1846
9..................................  Larsen & Toubro.......         1932
10.................................  Deloitte..............         1668
11.................................  Microsoft.............         1497
12.................................  Patni.................         1260
13.................................  Syntel................         1161
14.................................  Intel.................          812
15.................................  Amazon.Com............          773
16.................................  Qualcomm..............          729
17.................................  Google................          646
18.................................  PricewaterhouseCoopers          599
19.................................  Synechron.............          572
20.................................  Mphasis...............          569
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Too often, the easy answer has been to increase the annual 
caps on the H-1B visa program and allow more foreign workers to 
enter and work here. There's also been a push against 
protections for American workers who, we believe, are 
disadvantaged, displaced, and underpaid because of the program.
    Under current law, an employer wishing to bring in a 
foreign worker under the H-1B visa program must apply to the 
Department of Labor and state that: (1) the employer will offer 
the alien the prevailing wage (or actual wage if that is 
higher); (2) the employer will provide working conditions that 
will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly 
employed workers; and (3) there is no strike or lockout. The 
application must specify the number of workers sought, the 
occupational classification, wage rates and conditions under 
which the alien will be employed.
    Under current law, only some employers must attest that 
they cannot find qualified American workers before petitioning 
for a foreign worker. These are called H-1B dependent 
employers. H-1B dependent employers are defined under current 
law, and again in this bill as employers that have a certain 
number of H-1B visa holders. For example, a company is H-1B 
dependent if that employer has more than 51 total employees and 
of those, at least 15% are H-1B nonimmigrants. These employers 
have to take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers and offer 
the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified. 
These employers must also attest that they did not or will not 
displace a U.S. worker within 90 days of applying.
    Under current law, the Secretary of Labor reviews the labor 
condition applications ONLY for completeness and obvious 
inaccuracies. The Secretary is required to provide the 
certification, thus creating a rubber-stamping process. The 
Secretary, despite indicators of fraud or misrepresentation, is 
required to approve the labor condition application.
    S. 744 takes the right step forward by increasing worker 
protections for Americans and providing more authority to the 
Executive Branch to investigate fraud. Unfortunately, the bill 
is slanted to ensure that only H-1B dependent employers undergo 
more scrutiny. All employers who bring in H-1B visa holders 
should be held to the same standard. All employers, not just 
some, should be required to make a good faith effort to recruit 
U.S. workers. All employers, not just some, should be required 
to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better 
qualified. All employers, not just some, should be required to 
attest that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker 
within 180 days of applying for an H-1B worker.
    S. 744 includes a so-called ``market-based escalator'' that 
allows the numerical cap to fluctuate based on demand. It's a 
complicated cap that the agency won't be able to execute. The 
cap goes up if businesses apply for the annual allotment of 
visas in the first few weeks or months of a new fiscal year.
    S. 744 attempts to address the concern that employers are 
able to bring in foreign workers without looking at American 
workers first. It says that an employer must take good faith 
steps to recruit U.S. workers, and the employers have to 
advertise the job on a Department of Labor website. However, 
the bill states that only some employers must offer the job to 
any U.S. worker that is equally or better qualified, setting up 
a different standard for employers.
    However, the bill also includes a generous, unnecessary, 
and lucrative carve-out for H-1B dependent employers by 
allowing them to forego counting ``intending immigrants'' in 
their workforce numbers. Because the bill intends to have dual 
standards in place for employers, H-1B dependent employers who 
want to get around the worker protections, wage requirements, 
and displacement rules simply can apply for green cards for 
their foreign workers and not have to meet the standards in 
law. The committee rejected an amendment eliminating this 
carve-out, which would have ensured that all employers are 
playing on a level playing field.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Grassley62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill also includes a provision that allows employers to 
outplace L-1 visa holders with other employers at a minimal 
cost. The underlying bill requires that when an L-visa holder 
is outplaced at a client site, the client must attest that no 
employee has been displaced 90 days before or after they import 
the L visa holder. But, for a mere $500, under the bill as 
drafted, it's acceptable if companies don't attest to this.
    Groups that represent American workers have opposed S. 744. 
The International Federation of Professional and Technical 
Engineers, a branch of the AFL-CIO which represents 90,000 
engineers opposes the bill in its current form saying, 
``Hundreds of thousands of foreign STEM workers will enter the 
United States each year for the sole purpose of working in jobs 
that Americans would normally do.'' They say that ``the bill 
fails miserably in fixing the worker abuses inherent in the 
program.''
    The Communications Workers of America, which represents 
700,000 men and women in the telecommunications industry, said 
that S. 744 will ``create preferential treatment for foreign 
born workers.'' They further criticized efforts to dilute the 
requirement that employers offer the job to any United States 
worker who applies, and is equally or better qualified for the 
job for which the nonimmigrant is sought. The Communications 
Workers of American also said, ``We can spend millions to 
educate a STEM workforce but without employers willing to hire 
these U.S. STEM workers, our work is for naught.''
    We tried to prevent the dilution of worker protections and 
require employers to be on equal footing when it comes to 
hiring H-1B visa holders. The committee rejected an amendment 
on two occasions that would have ensured that employers make a 
good faith

effort to recruit U.S. workers and to hire U.S. workers that 
are equally or better qualified than a foreign worker.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Grassley60 and Grassley Second Degree Number 1 to Hatch10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 744 as drafted states that H-1B dependent employers 
would be required to offer level two wages to an H-1B 
nonimmigrant. The Secretary of Labor would survey employers to 
determine the prevailing wage for each occupational 
classification. The responses to those surveys would then allow 
the Secretary to determine three levels that are commensurate 
with experience, education and level of supervision. Level two 
wages are the ``mean'' of wages surveyed. An amendment that 
would require all employers, not just H-1B dependent employers, 
to pay the new level two wage to H-1B visa holders was 
rejected.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Grassley Second Degree Number 4 to Hatch 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee also rejected an amendment that would sunset, 
after five years, the provision that authorizes unlimited green 
cards for STEM advanced degree graduates if there are fewer 
American students graduating in STEM fields in United States 
higher educational institutions than were enrolled in such 
fields on the date of the enactment of this Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Grassley Second Degree Number 2 to Hatch10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earlier in the year, the Judiciary Committee heard 
testimony from Dr. Karen Panetta, Professor of Electrical and 
Computer Engineering and Director of the Simulation Research 
Laboratory at Tufts University. She discussed how offshoring 
companies dominate the H-1B program, and that their global 
hiring is 70% men. She said, ``In the United States, where 
outsourcing companies get more than half of the capped H-1B 
visas, the ratio is more like 85% men.'' She implied that very 
few women get H-1B visas, but also that women were being pushed 
out of STEM fields. The committee rejected an amendment that 
would have provided more protections for high-skilled female 
workers.\6\ The amendment would have prohibited all employers 
from displacing women 180 days before or after they apply for a 
foreign worker, the same 180-day standard that H-1B dependent 
employers would abide by under S. 744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Grassley Second Degree Number 3 to Hatch 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the committee voted down an attempt to hold all 
employers accountable by allowing the Secretary of Labor to 
conduct random audits on employers who use the H-1B visa 
program.\7\ Random audits will serve as a deterrent against 
companies that want to misuse the program. If an employer is 
hiring foreign nationals, they should be held accountable, and 
if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Grassley67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The H-1B program has served and could again serve a 
valuable purpose if used properly. However, it's being misused 
and abused. It's failing the American worker and is not 
fulfilling the original purpose that Congress intended when it 
created it. Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the 
program and to ensure that American workers and students are 
given every chance to fill high-skilled jobs in this country.

                                   Charles E. Grassley.
                                   Jeff Sessions.

        MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY, SESSIONS AND LEE

   S. 744 Creates Additional, Permanent Article III Judgeships in a 
Haphazard Fashion Rather Than Addressing the Unlimited Judicial Review 
                         Allowed Under the Bill

    Creation of Additional Article III Judgeships--Section 1104 
of the bill creates eight new Article III judgeships and 
converts two temporary judgeships to permanent. The eight new 
Article III judgeships are in the following districts: the 
Eastern District of California (3); Arizona (2); the Western 
District of Texas (2); and, the Southern District of Texas (1). 
The conversions of two temporary judgeships to permanent 
Article III judgeships are in the following districts: Arizona 
(1); and, the Central District of California (1). While we 
recognize that these districts have higher caseload statistics 
according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, we 
continue to believe that we should not be expanding judgeships 
in some districts when we have other districts where the 
caseloads are low and getting lower. A far more efficient 
allocation of government resources would be to offset any 
increase in judgeships in districts with higher caseloads, with 
a decrease in judgeships in those districts with exceptionally 
low caseloads. Moreover, part of the justification for the new 
judgeships offered by the amendment's authors, was that as a 
result of the underlying legislation, district courts in the 
border states will be inundated with petitions for review of 
the Secretary's decisions. If true, the answer should not be to 
expand the judiciary in a haphazard fashion, but instead to 
address the underlying issue, which is the unlimited judicial 
review the bill creates for the new legalization and other visa 
programs.

                                   Charles E. Grassley.
                                   Jeff Sessions.
                                   Mike Lee.

      VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that it is 
necessary to dispense with the requirement of paragraph 12 to 
expedite the business of the Senate.