Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 many times from this floor before in the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, what makes you feel good, doesn't often heal you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source