[Pages H5323-H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAIRNESS FOR HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS ACT OF 2019

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1044) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based
immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for
family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1044

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for High-Skilled
Immigrants Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE FOREIGN STATE.

(a) In General.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``and employment-
based'';
(2) by striking ``(3), (4), and (5),'' and inserting ``(3)
and (4),'';
(3) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b) of section 203''
and inserting ``section 203(a)'';
(4) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``15''; and
(5) by striking ``such subsections'' and inserting ``such
section''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 202 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--

[[Page H5324]]

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``both subsections
(a) and (b) of section 203'' and inserting ``section
203(a)'';
(2) by striking subsection (a)(5); and
(3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling.--If it is
determined that the total number of immigrant visas made
available under section 203(a) to natives of any single
foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical
limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year,
in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to
natives under section 203(a), visa numbers with respect to
natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the
extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section
and section 203) in a manner so that, except as provided in
subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made
available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section
203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas
made available under the respective paragraph to the total
number of visas made available under section 203(a).''.
(c) Country-Specific Offset.--Section 2 of the Chinese
Student Protection Act of 1992 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (e))'' and
inserting ``subsection (d))''; and
(2) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection
(e) as subsection (d).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2019, and
shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2020.
(e) Transition Rules for Employment-Based Immigrants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding paragraphs of
this subsection and notwithstanding title II of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the
following rules shall apply:
(A) For fiscal year 2020, 15 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of
section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that is not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of
approved petitions for immigrant status under such
paragraphs.
(B) For fiscal year 2021, 10 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of such paragraphs shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that is not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of
approved petitions for immigrant status under such
paragraphs.
(C) For fiscal year 2022, 10 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of such paragraphs shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that is not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of
approved petitions for immigrant status under such
paragraphs.
(2) Per-country levels.--
(A) Reserved visas.--With respect to the visas reserved
under each of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1),
the number of such visas made available to natives of any
single foreign state or dependent area in the appropriate
fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent (in the case of a
single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a
dependent area) of the total number of such visas.
(B) Unreserved visas.--With respect to the immigrant visas
made available under each of paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of
section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) and not
reserved under paragraph (1), for each of fiscal years 2020,
2021, and 2022, not more than 85 percent shall be allotted to
immigrants who are natives of any single foreign state.
(3) Special rule to prevent unused visas.--If, with respect
to fiscal year 2020, 2021, or 2022, the operation of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection would prevent the
total number of immigrant visas made available under
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)) from being issued, such visas may be issued during
the remainder of such fiscal year without regard to
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
(4) Transition rule for currently approved beneficiaries.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 202 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act,
immigrant visas under section 203(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be allocated such
that no alien described in subparagraph (B) receives a visa
later than the alien otherwise would have received said visa
had this Act not been enacted.
(B) Alien described.--An alien is described in this
subparagraph if the alien is the beneficiary of a petition
for an immigrant visa under section 203(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) that was approved
prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(5) Rules for chargeability.--Section 202(b) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1152(b)) shall apply in determining the foreign state
to which an alien is chargeable for purposes of this
subsection.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1044, the Fairness for
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, a bipartisan bill that would make a
modest, but important change to our immigration laws to alleviate
hardships associated with lengthy visa backlogs.
Let me begin by explaining what this bill does do and does not do.
H.R. 1044 does not increase the overall number of immigrant visas that
are available each year. Although raising the ceiling on visas is the
only viable way to eliminate backlogs, there is, in my view,
unfortunately, no consensus on that issue at this time.
But there is broad consensus that we should do what we can to make
the system more equitable. This is the focus of H.R. 1044. By
eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based visas, all
immigrant visa applicants will eventually be restored to a level
playing field, where one's country of nationality has no bearing on
their place in line.
Under our immigration laws, employment-based visas are granted to
individuals under a five-tiered ``preference system.'' The first three
preference categories are reserved for priority workers, individuals
with advanced degrees, and other professionals and skilled workers.
To be eligible for a visa under one of these categories, the
applicant must generally have an offer of employment from a U.S.
employer, and must submit extensive documentation of their
qualifications for the job and the relevant preference category. The
applicant's country of birth is simply not a factor, and rightfully so.
What does a person's nationality have to do with their merit as an
employee?
However, country of birth does become relevant after the applicant
has qualified for a visa and is waiting in line for a visa number. The
so-called ``per-country'' limit prohibits any one country from
receiving more than 7 percent of the immigrant visas that are available
each year.
Because of this, the visa backlogs have a particularly harsh impact
on nationals of countries with high populations, and thus, high demand
for visas, such as India. As a result, it can now take a decade or more
for an Indian physician working in a medically-underserved area, or a
particle physicist with a Ph.D. from MIT to receive a green card. How
is this good for our country?
Our immigration system is in desperate need of reform. We all know
too well the plight of Dreamers and the undocumented population. We
know now more than ever that our agriculture sector, which relies
heavily on immigrant workers, is struggling to satisfy its labor needs
and provide a safe domestic food supply.
We are reminded daily of the concern we have of the situation
unfolding at the border.
On top of these very real and very serious issues, we also remain
inextricably bound by the imperfections of an immigration framework
that was formulated nearly 30 years ago and is out of touch with the
needs of the 21st century.
Major reforms are required to truly fix our outdated legal system.
But as we all know, such reforms have been hard to come by for a long
time.
If we want to get anything done, if we want to do what is right for
our country, we have to find common

[[Page H5325]]

ground, and we have to compromise. On an issue as contentious as
immigration, our failure to work together in a fully bipartisan fashion
can only result in legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate.
H.R. 1044 is one of those rare proposals where we can agree. H.R.
1044 has strong bipartisan support, with more than 200 Democratic and
more than 100 Republican cosponsors. In 2011, the House passed a
version of this bill by a margin of 389-15. I urge all of my colleagues
to once again vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak about this important
legislation that I am proud to sponsor, the Fairness for High-Skilled
Immigrants Act.
I also want to thank my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Citizenship. I have appreciated working with the gentlewoman to
make a meaningful change that will make our employment-based
immigration into an equitable system, one that is based on merit, not
on where you were born.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why this bill has a special place in
my heart. Two years ago, as I was traveling through my district, I met
with a group of individuals who were here legally but felt that they
were being put at a disadvantage by our government's immigration
policies. They were resolute that I, and Congress, more broadly, could
change their futures for the better.
As we sat together, my new friends shared their stories of coming to
the United States with a great sense of hope. They came here for any
number of reasons, but every single person arrived seeking a new
opportunity to succeed and realize their own American Dream.
During our conversation, we talked about a bill, but what we really
were discussing was these individuals' hopes and dreams for a future
that will be brighter because of this legislation.
You see, Mr. Speaker, our immigration policies are leaving these
hardworking people stuck between a rock and a hard place. They had made
the difficult decision to pack up their lives and come to the United
States, seeking the opportunity to live and work in the greatest
country in the world. But now these same people found themselves caught
in a decades-long backlog to receive a green card, waiting to open
their own businesses, create American jobs.
At this moment, there are approximately 1.5 million high-skilled
immigrants living in the United States on an employment-based visa.
They are working hard and paying their taxes, yet face decades-long
waits, sometimes up to 70 years to receive a green card.
Worst of all, Congress created this state of limbo by instituting an
arbitrary annual cap on the number of individuals who may receive a
green card from any single country.
This system doesn't make sense. Our employment-based immigration
system has a single purpose, bringing in the best and brightest. We
shouldn't hamstring our economy by placing artificial caps on who can
get a green card quicker based solely on where you are born.
As the Cato Institute and National Review deftly pointed out, we
aren't considering that countries have different population sizes.
India has a population 2\1/2\ times greater than the European Union,
but has an employment-based green card cap that is 4 percent of the
European Union's cap. This policy is not helping to develop our high-
skilled economy.
Additionally, studies based on the Department of Labor's own
statistics show that the per-country caps are depressing the average
wage for employer-sponsored immigrants by $11,592. These arbitrary caps
are depressing wages, hurting American workers, and hindering further
economic growth.
We shouldn't be punishing highly-skilled individuals who come to this
country legally. People who do everything the right way, and are only
seeking an opportunity to work hard, contribute to the U.S. economy and
support their families.

{time} 1500

We should be celebrating this and helping to create an equitable
system that benefits both U.S. companies and employment-based visa
holders. I am happy to say that is exactly what this bill does.
The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act creates an equitable
system that eliminates the arbitrary per-country caps on employment-
based green cards and replaces it with a first-come-first-served
system.
This important change will free U.S. companies to focus on what they
do best: hiring smart people to create products, services, and jobs in
our districts, while ensuring all employment-based visa applicants are
evaluated on their merit, not where they come from.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress fixes this policy once and for
all. Seventy-year backlogs are only going to dissuade talented
individuals from coming to the United States and further hamper our
economy. We need to create an equitable system that helps our
businesses and is fair to the individuals who came here looking to
achieve their own dream to live and work in the greatest country in the
world.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, end the backlogs,
and make our employment-based green card system first come, first
served, not based on where you are born.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Khanna), my colleague.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and esteemed
chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for
moving this bill to the floor. Representative Lofgren has worked
tirelessly for years to get us to this point.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Put simply, this
bill is good for American workers, and it is good for the American
economy.
For too long, people in this country have been unable to get a green
card simply based on where they were born. As a result, people have
been stuck on H-1B visas, and we all know that foreign outsourcing
firms have abused these H-1B visas. They are underpaying people stuck
on these visas, and that is depressing American wages, and it is
hurting American workers.
The solution is to stop corporations from abusing the H-1B visa
system and to move people on to green cards. Once we do that, American
wages will go up. These companies will no longer be able to hold people
in indentured servitude and force American workers to have cuts in
their wages.
So anyone who is for American workers, who believes that the H-1B
visa program is being abused, and who wants to stand up for a path for
American workers to get the wages they deserve should be for this bill.
If you oppose this bill, you are actually supporting the abuse of the
H-1B visa process.
I want to thank, again, Representative Lofgren for her leadership.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Curtis), my friend.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of the
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.
In recent years, Utah has witnessed incredible growth in our tech and
innovation sector, bringing thousands of jobs and strengthening our
economy. However, everywhere I go, I hear from business leaders that
they do not have enough high-skilled workers.
Even as we work to strengthen STEM education and bolster the number
of homegrown engineers and programers, the demand continues to outstrip
the supply. Current limitations in our immigration system are forcing
talented engineers who have trained in our universities to remain on
temporary visas or leave entirely for competing countries, while
important jobs go unfilled and economic opportunities are lost.
This legislation will create a first-come-first-served system,
providing certainty to workers and families and enabling U.S. companies
to flourish and compete in a global economy as they hire the brightest
people to create products, services, and jobs, regardless of where they
were born. As these companies expand operations with greater input from
high-skilled workers, they create countless more American jobs.

[[Page H5326]]

Mr. Speaker, with the debate around our broken immigration system
growing increasingly challenging in recent years, I have been thrilled
to see this bipartisan groundswell of support around this effort. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 1044, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I am proud to
be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation with over 300
cosponsors.
I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her excellent leadership on
this legislation which will end discrimination based on national origin
in our employment-based immigration system and strengthen our economy.
Our current system limits the number of employment-based green cards
to 7 percent per country, regardless of population. As a result, high-
skilled workers from certain countries face backlogs of upwards of 70
years, while applicants from other countries go to the front of the
line. That is not fair. This legislation ensures that all high-skilled
visa applicants have an equal opportunity to contribute to American
economic development, regardless of their country of birth.
Many highly educated and high-skilled workers who come to this
country on temporary visas in the tech industry and other sectors raise
their children here, are a part of our communities, pay their taxes,
and want the opportunity to become lawful, permanent residents. This
legislation helps keep families together, and it helps American
businesses retain top talent, growing and making them more prosperous.
Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we end the discriminatory per-
country cap on employment-based visas. I urge my colleagues to support
this bipartisan legislation. I salute the bipartisan cooperation
between Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Buck.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), my friend and the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Colorado and also the gentlewoman from California, but, Mr. Speaker, I
rise today, and I am in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1044. This is not
something I would like to be, but this bill could be better. In fact,
it is not going to do what it said it will do, and that is a problem.
Current law states that nationals of one country can receive no more
than 7 percent of employment-based green cards allotted each year. H.R.
1044 removes the 7 percent cap, effectively moving the employment-based
green card categories to a first-come-first-served basis. Okay. That is
fine. The bill also raises the current annual per-country cap on
family-based green cards to 15 percent. Okay.
But to be clear, I agree with the concept of eliminating the per-
country caps on employment-based green cards. In fact, I think that
there probably should not have been a cap from the onset of this, but
Congress did not place a statutory per-country limit on green card
issuance, and a result has been an extremely large backlog of nationals
from certain countries who have approved green card petitions but whose
green card is not available and will not be for several years.
So I understand the desire of many, including the distinguished lady
from California, whom I have great respect for in this field, and also
my ranking member and many others who have signed on to this bill, but
I believe many people who signed on to this bill signed on to a bill
that would actually be put together and actually be able to work. They
did not sign on to a statement bill that will not be able to work, in
which the agencies have already said they can't.
Before anybody says that there are 300-plus cosponsors, remember,
this Congress also took up a bill which had almost 400 cosponsors but
still went through the process of actually being changed and marked up,
which is a distinct difference in this bill.
So just because you have a lot of cosponsors doesn't mean, always,
that it is right and can't still be perfected. In fact, it is wrong to
tell communities that this bill will help them when, in actuality, it
won't.
This is the problem I have. The bill was introduced in February. It
was placed on a Consensus Calendar last month and now on a suspension
calendar today. Neither the subcommittee nor full committee had a
hearing to look at this issue in this Congress or any potential
ramifications of the legislation, and the committee did not mark up
this bill. So those of us who support the intent but have concerns
about the factual text have no opportunity to formally hear from
agencies affected by this legislation or even outside groups and
individuals affected.
When my colleagues took over, they promised regular order. This isn't
regular order, especially with a bill of this importance. Lack of
process is a big concern of mine, but even more troubling are the
standard provisions of the bill and how they are not ambiguous at times
but unworkable. I will give some examples.
Section 2(e)(1) of the bill states that, during an implementation
transition period, visas ``shall be allotted to immigrants who are
natives of a foreign state or dependent area that is not one of the two
states with the largest aggregate numbers of natives who are
beneficiaries of approved petitions for immigrant status under such
paragraphs.''
What does that mean, and how is the USCIS supposed to interpret it?
Does it mean the largest aggregate number from the time the green cards
were first issued or does it mean something else?
I know that previous versions of this bill have tied such transition
to a specific fiscal year. But the language here is ambiguous and is
based on interpretation by the agencies. That could have very different
ramifications. In fact, the agencies have said they don't know how to
interpret this. The agency that will be in charge of this said, We
can't do this. That should ring true with every Member in this body.
More concerning, however, is section 2(e)(4), which portends to
ensure that aliens with currently approved green card petitions are not
adversely affected by lifting of the caps. The bill states that the
visas ``shall be allocated such that no alien described in subparagraph
(B) receives a visa later than the alien otherwise would have received
said visa had this act not been enacted.''
But the premise of the bill and the idea that approved aliens cannot
be adversely affected is not true. Either the visas are first come,
first served or they are not. And the agencies that would have to carry
out this legislation would not be able to move people up in line to
comply with first come, first served while, at the same time, ensuring
visas for already approved beneficiaries are taken care of.
There are a finite number of visas available every year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. So I will be reluctantly standing here
against a bill that I inherently agree with. In fact, the speakers who
have spoken already, I agree with, and the speakers who are going to
come forward, I agree with them, except for one thing: Don't promise
something to groups of people that you can't deliver on. We can't
deliver with this bill.
We have an opportunity to say no right now, fix this, and come back
and have a unanimous vote. But don't send a bill just because it makes
us feel good and was promised to somebody. This is not my issue with
this bill.
My issue with this bill is that it is not right. It is not ready for
prime time, and it is definitely not ready for the suspension calendar.
We need to make it right when we come to this floor.

I think the chairwoman has done a great job in trying to get it
there. I believe my ranking member wants to work on that, and I am
willing to, as I expressed to the chairwoman, as well, to make this
right. This is not the time, even though we have a lot of cosponsors.
If the cosponsors would simply read the bill and understand the
problems with the agencies and then go back to the communities
advocating for this, they cannot look them in the eye and say, ``This
is your fix.'' As I have said

[[Page H5327]]

many times from this floor before in the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker,
what makes you feel good, doesn't often heal you.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank our wonderful
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee chair for her tremendous work
over the years on all issues related to immigration and for her
leadership on this particular issue.
I am very proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 1044, the Fairness
for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to provide relief to thousands of
families that have been waiting for decades in employment visa
backlogs. Among Indian nationals, the wait is upwards of 70 years.
I also want to thank the ranking member of the Immigration and
Citizenship Subcommittee for his support, as well.
This is a truly bipartisan bill because these long backlogs are a
result of our broken, outdated immigration system, and they are
affecting States across the country. Despite the high demand for
employment-based green cards, the system hasn't been updated in nearly
30 years.
This bill solves one piece, by making sure that our colleagues and
our neighbors who have been working in our tech sector and our
hospitals, innovating in our communities can stay with a roadmap to
citizenship.
But, Mr. Speaker, our work is not done. We cannot tolerate the fact
that we have no orderly functioning process for people to come to
America, whether it be for family unity, to bring their talents to our
economy, to serve the needs of our economy, or to seek safety.
This bill, and the fact that we have 300 cosponsors on it, reminds me
of another time when there were 68 bipartisan votes in the United
States Senate in 2013 for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and
I deeply hope that, as we pass this bill off the floor with bipartisan
support, that we can get back to the place where we can once again
agree on a bipartisan basis that comprehensive immigration reform
benefits our country, benefits our future, and is absolutely necessary.
So I thank so much, again, Chairwoman Lofgren for her fierce
determination and her years of service, and I look forward to passing
this bill off the floor of the House.

{time} 1515

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the Record that one of the
reasons that I am so proud to sponsor this bill is it is not an amnesty
bill. This is a bill that is based on merit, and it even further
enhances the merit aspects of this program. I am proud to sponsor this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), my good friend.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Colorado for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, fixing our broken immigration system has been a top
priority of mine while I have been in Congress. Today, we in the House
have an opportunity to address one small piece of our broken system,
but a very important one.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act. This bipartisan legislation takes an important
step toward ensuring the United States can continue to recruit and
maintain the highest caliber of educated professionals in the world.
Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, under current law, the quota of
employment-based immigrants for a country like Iceland with a
population of 338,000 people is the same as the quota for India, which
has a population of more than 1.3 billion people.
Eliminating arbitrary per-country caps and addressing the employment-
based green card backlog from highly populated countries will allow
high-skilled professionals, many of whom are already living and working
in the United States on a temporary visa, to continue contributing more
fully to our local communities and economies.
It will also provide certainty to the employers and communities that
rely upon these highly skilled workers.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, many of these high-skilled professionals
are world-class medical scientists, including oncologists and
cardiologists. I have heard from and met with many of these
professionals, just like Mr. Buck from Colorado has, throughout my
State in central Washington.
Dr. Obulareddy and her husband, Dr. Chithiri, came to the United
States in 2006 to study medicine. Dr. Obulareddy is now a specialist in
oncology serving my constituents in Yakima and surrounding communities.
She states, ``We always wanted to give something back to this great
country, and hence, we decided to move to rural America, which is
experiencing an acute shortage of physicians for a long time now. This
shortage is more severe for specialist physicians like me.''
She and her husband, and many like them, also dream of opening
businesses to create more American jobs, but their temporary status
does not allow them to do so.
Dr. Obulareddy and Dr. Chithiri are from India and have been told the
backlogged wait time for them to obtain their green cards is--now, get
this, Mr. Speaker--between 70 and 150 years. This demonstrates just how
seriously flawed the current program is and why we need this
legislative fix.
We should continue to recruit and retain these highly educated,
highly trained individuals in order to meet the demands of our local
communities and economies.
The need for rural healthcare specialists is a problem across my
district and across rural America, which is why I am grateful for these
professionals who are helping address these problems facing our local
communities.
Mr. Speaker, as I continue to work toward addressing other components
of our broken immigration system, I am proud that this bill takes a
step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the points made by the ranking
member of the full committee.
This bill has been around a while. It was introduced in 2011. At that
point, we did have a hearing and even a markup. We have had it on the
floor before. We have, at this moment, 312 Members on the bill,
bipartisan.
Addressing the issue that he was reading, and I don't think it is at
all confusing, the Department of State is actually the agency that
allocates the priority dates. They keep track of the visas. We have
communicated with them frequently over the years.
We provided in this bill a transition period because as time has gone
on, the delays have gotten even worse for large countries, so we wanted
to put a transition period in the bill. That is what the section that
he read about would do.
We do think that this has become an emergency in some sectors.
I recently met with a physician and his wife, who is also a
physician, who are here on H-1B visas, and they have been for a number
of years. They are serving a medically underserved community. Their
children, who are here legally as dependents, are about to ``age out.''
They haven't been back to the country of their birth in who knows how
long; they don't speak the language; they don't have anybody in the
country of their birth; and they are about to be out of status even
though they have played by all the rules.
Those two physicians told their patients that they were going to
close their practice and move to Canada because they just couldn't go
on like this.
That is not a situation we can countenance. That is happening all
over the country. We need to fix it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does fix it, and I hope that we can support
it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, Congress can create a truly fair and equitable
employment-based immigration system. The Fairness for High-Skilled
Immigrants Act will fundamentally change our employment-based
immigration system for the better by ensuring our employers can hire
people based on qualifications and ability to do the job, not the
country of origin.

We must continue working to build the U.S.-based high-skilled
workforce, but in the meantime, we simply do not have enough U.S.
workers to fill our employment needs. Congress must address the system
to ensure that we are

[[Page H5328]]

not welcoming high-skilled workers here and then promptly leaving them
in a limbo that may last a lifetime.
It is time that we fix the system to create a merit-based, first-
come-first-served system that is fair for all employment-based
immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the excellent work he has
done on this bill; the collaboration that we have had on bringing it
forward so it could be considered today; and the tremendous
bipartisanship that has been exhibited throughout dealing with this
question, going back for nearly 10 years of work on this.
I would note that the vast majority, way over 90 percent, of
employment-based immigrants who have been sponsored for green cards are
already working in the United States on some form of temporary visa.
This doesn't bring in additional people. These are people who are
already here.
The question is, are they going to be able to get the stability that
legal permanent residence provides? If they do, it will be good for our
country in several ways.
One, they are contributing to our economy, whether they are
physicians serving in medically underserved areas, whether they are
scientists breaking new ground, or whether they are H-1B nurses who are
serving in underserved areas.
Further, we know from studies that people who are legal permanent
residents are not vulnerable to those who might be abusive employers
trying to suppress their wages. So, this is good for American workers
as well as those who would gain bargaining power by gaining legal
permanent residence.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can have a great vote of support for this
bill today. I thank all the cosponsors and those who worked so hard to
get us here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1044,
the ``Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019.''
H.R. 1044 will help alleviate the massive immigrant visa backlog by
eliminating the 7 percent ``per-country'' limit on employment-based
visas and increasing the family-based per-country limit from 7 percent
to 15 percent.
The bill will also ease backlogs for certain family-sponsored
immigrants by modifying the per-country limits in the family-sponsored
green card system.
Specifically, H.R. 1044 provides for the phased elimination over
three years of the ``per country'' cap for employment-based immigrant
visas so that all workers are treated fairly.
The legislation raises the ``per country'' cap from 7 percent to 15
percent for family-sponsored immigrant visas and restores 1,000
employment-based visas per fiscal year to the People's Republic of
China, that have historically been set aside for green card applicants
under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.
Mr. Speaker, the United States makes 140,000 green cards available
every year to employment-based immigrants, including many who first
come here on temporary H-1B or L visas.
Current law, however, provides that no more than 79 percent of these
green cards can go to nationals of any one country--even though some
countries are more populous than others.
This bipartisan bill alters the per-country limits for employment-
based immigrants so that all are treated equally regardless of their
country of birth.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the H-1B program.
Without it, American employers would not be able to hire enough
highly educated professionals for the ``specialty occupations.''
A ``specialty occupation'' is employment requiring the theoretical
and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.
This includes doctors, engineers, professors and researchers in a
wide variety of fields, accountants, medical personnel, and computer
scientists.
An American employer who wants to bring an H-1B employee to the
United States must, among other requirements, attest that it will pay
the H-1B employee the greater of the actual compensation paid to other
employees in the same job, or the prevailing compensation for that
occupation.
Additionally, the employer must attest that it will provide working
conditions for the H-1B visa holder that will not cause the working
conditions of the other employees to adversely be affected; and that
there is no applicable strike or lockout.
The employer also must provide a copy of the attestation to the
representative of the employee bargaining unit or, if there is no
bargaining representative, must post the attestation in conspicuous
locations at the work site.
Mr. Speaker, as important as it is that the H-1B program enables our
country to benefit from the services of foreign professionals who have
skills and knowledge that are in short supply in this country, is the
fact that American businesses use the program to alleviate temporary
shortages of U.S. professionals in specific occupations and to acquire
special expertise in overseas economic trends and issues.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1044
to help alleviate the immigrant visa backlogs and enhance the nation's
economic competitiveness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1044, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________