Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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--

(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.

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Jayapal).

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source