Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the underlying bill, H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. It is important to talk about, in consideration of this rule and this bill, what it is and what it isn't.

Here we are with a looming fiscal cliff, and yet Congress has allowed no issue to fester longer than immigration. Whether one is on the left or the right or in the middle, I'm sure my colleague from Florida would agree that whatever we're doing now in immigration is not working very well. We have over 10 million people here illegally. There is rampant violation of the law. There is lackluster enforcement. Families are torn apart.

What's before us, regardless of the merits, which we'll get into in a moment, clearly does not address the problems in our immigration system. Whether this bill becomes law or not, our immigration system will continue to have problems, and there will continue to be over 10 million people here in violation of the law, many working illegally, in some cases taking jobs away from American citizens.

So instead of a solution, we have a bill before us that asks us to weigh two goals of our immigration policy in many ways against one another. There might very well be room for a noncontroversial immigration bill that catches up and includes some of the less controversial provisions, including a STEM program, and there could very well be room for that short of comprehensive immigration reform.

I support and am a cosponsor of the IDEA Act, which does that. I tried to amend into this bill and allow for the consideration of this body yesterday in the Rules Committee a bill that I have for the permanent reauthorization of the EB-5 visa program, a program that is not very controversial and has strong support from both sides but suffers from temporary reauthorizations. This is a critical program for creating jobs for Americans because it allows companies to attract capital from investors, and those investors are able to be part of those companies and grow those companies, creating jobs for Americans.

This program could be much more successful if the Rules Committee yesterday had, on a party-line vote, not allowed that amendment to come to the floor. I'm confident that that amendment would have passed with near universal support, and certainly strong support from both sides.

Instead of trying to catch and move forward on some of the less controversial aspects of immigration which in no way, shape, or form, again, prevent the need for a comprehensive solution, but instead of even moving forward on the noncontroversial aspects, we have a bill before us that is controversial because it weighs two important goals of immigration against one another. So rather than create a STEM Visa program as the IDEA Act does, as the STAPLE Act, which I'm a cosponsor of with my colleague Congressman Flake from Arizona who has introduced it in past sessions, rather than do that, it asks the question of this body: Would we rather have a Diversity Visa concept or would we rather have a STEM Visa concept? In reality, I think many in this body would agree that both are desirable.

Diversity Visas essentially go to immigrants that are from countries other than the main countries that send us immigrants. What are the main countries that send us immigrants? Obviously, Mexico. In addition to that, there are China, Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, and several others. We have a lot of immigrants from Mexico and these other countries. What the Diversity Visa says is, shouldn't we also give opportunities to some residents of countries, like the Ukraine or Albania or Ethiopia, and have them also come so that they're not just crowded out by applicants from Mexico, India, and China?

If we don't have a Diversity Visa, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. Now, that's okay--it's certainly not the end of the world--but there is value in having immigrants from across the world. There is value in having Ukrainians come to this country. There is value in having Ethiopians. In addition, there is value in people having diverse social backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds coming to this country to facilitate assimilation into this country and integration into this country. So I think that it was well thought out in having a concept whereby people who don't happen to be from Mexico, India, China or the other main countries have a way of getting here. It's a good program.

So, too, having a STEM visa program is absolutely critical as it is important to our country to make sure that we can retain the talent that we attract to our universities. There is something that is so frustrating to me as an American and to many of our constituents, and I talk about it frequently back home with my representing both of our major State universities in Colorado as well as private universities in my district:

Here we are educating people from across the world, and if you look at our engineering grad schools, we see a high number of foreign nationals on student visas. We are educating computer programmers and aerospace engineers with the skills they need to compete in a 21st-century workforce. Upon giving them their master's degrees or Ph.D.s, we tell them, do you know what, you're not allowed to work here in this country. You have to move back to another country and compete against us. Guess what? The jobs follow them. In the digital age, employers care less where an employee is based. They care where the talent is. If the best computer programmer is only available for hire or if an aerospace engineer is only available for hire in India or in Mexico or in the U.K., the companies will--and increasingly are--setting up divisions in those countries to hire them rather than hiring here. So the lack of having a STEM job pathway is actively destroying American jobs every day.

Here we are as a body being asked to say under a closed rule, Is it more important to have immigrants from countries other than Mexico, India, and China? Is it more important to have some Ukrainians and Ethiopians and Albanians? I use those examples because those are some of the leading countries that have used the Diversity Visa, but there are a broad number of countries that do. Is that something that's important? How does its importance compare to making sure that those we train here are able to deploy their talents here and create jobs in America rather than overseas?

Again, it's a very frustrating proposition in the way the Republicans have chosen to bring this to the floor: a, it obviously doesn't address the underlying issues of our immigration crisis in this country. It doesn't change the fact that there are 10 million people here illegally, and it doesn't prevent people from coming here illegally; b, it asks us to choose between two valuable programs. Rather than simply passing the Staples Act, rather than passing the IDEA Act, it says that we're going to have to choose as a country to benefit either from STEM graduates or from people from other countries other than Mexico, India, and China. It's a false dilemma.

There were amendments that were offered by Zoe Lofgren that would have addressed that which were turned down by the Rules Committee. Again, there were strong bipartisan concepts like EB-5 permanent authorization that I offered, put forward, that were also shut down in committee. In addition, at a time of budget deficits and the looming fiscal crisis, this bill would increase the budget deficit by over $1 billion over the next 5 years; and that is unpaid for as well.

There are many ways that immigration can be looked at to reduce our budget deficit, and there are many concepts of comprehensive immigration reform either through fees paid by those who violate the law, penalties paid. Increased taxes going forward for those who would have to pay taxes under immigration reform would actually reduce our deficit; but here we are with a solitary idea around immigration that forces all Members of this body to weigh two valuable programs against one another, and at the same time it costs taxpayers over $1 billion over the next 5 years. It's a choice that Congress shouldn't face.

There are also very legitimate concerns that, not only does this bill weigh two valuable programs and asks us to choose, but, in effect, it's a backdoor way to reduce the number of legal immigrants. There should be no hesitation in saying that, by reducing the number of legal immigrants, we will increase the number of illegal immigrants. This bill will likely increase the number of illegal immigrants to this country because the math doesn't work.

Now, why doesn't the math work? The bill purports to offset 55,000 STEM green cards by eliminating 55,000 green cards in the Diversity program. Now, if that were a one-on-one trade, that would be the same net number of immigrants. The issue is, as to our institutions of higher education that give master's degrees and Ph.D.s in the eligible areas to students on foreign visas, there are not 55,000 foreign students who receive them every year. There were, in fact, 29,904 last year, so about 30,000. There is a backlog so that, after several years, the 55,000 would no longer be able to be met; but then after 3 or 4 years and after the backlog was met, this

would likely lead to a reduction in legal immigration and to an increase in illegal immigration because only 29,000 foreign nationals are matriculating with master's and Ph.D.s in the included areas; yet 55,000 visas would be removed from the program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and people from countries that are not Mexico, India, China, and the other 12 from coming to this country legally.

So I have very sincere concerns that, rather than addressing the issue of illegal immigration, this bill because of the math and because of the numbers that have been brought to my attention could actually increase illegal immigration by reducing legal immigration, which is the last thing that we need to do with regard to solving in a bipartisan way our immigration crisis.

As a former Internet entrepreneur myself and in representing our universities, I know firsthand about the critical need to pass a STEM visa program. Not only would it create more high-paying, high-tech jobs for Americans, but it would produce tax revenues. It would make our country stronger and our economy stronger. Yet rather than take up the IDEA Act or the Staples Act, we're here with a backdoor attempt by the Republicans to increase the number of illegal immigrants in our country, which I would argue is not the right direction for immigration reform. Immigration reform should be predicated around solving the crisis of illegal immigration. Rather than increasing the number of illegal immigrants from 10 million to 12 million to 14 million, we need to find a way to reduce that number to as close to zero as is feasible, and that should be the goal of immigration reform.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, seeing as I am the last speaker from my side, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As articulated by the gentleman from Oregon, this bill presents a difficult decision for Members of this body, and I certainly have great respect for people on both sides of the issue.

I want to go over, again, some of the pros and cons. The program that allows Ukrainians, Ethiopians, and Albanians to come in to make sure that a disproportionate number of our immigrants are not just from a small number of countries is important. Absent that, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from Mexico, India, and China. So again, if this bill passes, a higher percentage of our immigrants will be from the major countries that send people here.

Now, it's not the end of the world, but there's added value in having people from all corners of the world come here to become part of our great country and, in many cases, this is the only way that people from Nepal or Albania or Ethiopia have a shot at coming to this country and succeeding.

We also need people in this country across all different skill levels in our labor market. And whether that labor includes toiling in the field or toiling in downtown buildings at night or programming computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of our economy--yes, in STEM, but not just in STEM.

So we are asked to choose, asked to choose between people with graduate degrees whom we want to keep here in science, technology, engineering, and math. In many cases, if they're not allowed to stay, they will have to return to other countries, and the jobs will follow them, costing our country jobs.

Choose between them and allowing people here from countries other than Mexico, India, and China, some of whom are high-skilled, some of whom are low-skilled, a diverse group across the board. Looking back at many of our own forebears, certainly mine, my family came to this country in the late 19th century, and early 20th century, 1890s, 1905. They didn't have master's degrees. They didn't have Ph.D.s. They didn't have college degrees. And that's the case for many of our forebears.

Here today their great-grandson sits as a Member of Congress, and had a program not existed whereby they could arrive at Ellis Island and be here, I wouldn't be here today.

Now, my father has a Ph.D., but that's the legacy of his hard-working immigrant grandparents that came to this country without a college degree and, in many cases, without something that's the equivalent of even a high school degree today. To work hard, to live the American Dream, and for their descendents, to be able to serve in this august body.

So it's a cause for reflection. Both are important. And again, the closed process of the bill doesn't allow for a discussion of the IDEA Act or the STAPLE Act, which would simply create a new STEM immigrant visa program.

My other concern with this bill, as I mentioned, is that it would increase the number of illegal immigrants here in this country. Simply by the way that the math works, the number of STEM graduates is lower than the number of STEM visas that are available each year.

Now, it would be one thing if that was allowed to trickle down to other categories, or, for instance, the overflow was allowed to be used for diversity visas. There might be room for compromise. But instead, those excess visas disappear. So after the backlog of three or 4 years is dealt with, these 55,000 visas that are being taken away from Albania and the Ukraine and Ethiopia and Africa and Asia, the back of those 55,000 visas will only result in 20,000 or so net immigrants.

Now 29,000 graduates graduating from institutions of higher education. Now, keep in mind, not everybody wants to stay here. As attractive as our country is, some people do want to learn here and go back to their other countries, and that's certainly fine as well. But many will want to stay here.

But in losing some of those visas, again, we are only increasing the immigration problem, the illegal immigration problem, and moving in the opposite direction of addressing immigration in this country. There is little to be proud of with regard to the current state of affairs in immigration.

It's very different than when my great-grandparents came here and got off at Ellis Island and registered and, albeit with a misspelled name, were able to go to work the next day. It's becoming harder and harder.

The absence of a legal way of immigrating that is in touch with our labor market in this country, the lack of having an operative immigration system has led to over 10 million people being here illegally, working illegally, as my colleague from Oregon said, in many cases, integrated into our communities. Many of them have American children, are parents of American kids, and yet, without any way, currently, of getting right with the law.

What we need to do in immigration reform is require that people who are here illegally get right with the law, rather than prevent them from getting right with the law, which is what we do currently.

So, again, while STEM immigration is very important, my colleagues are being asked, in a closed process, to weigh that with the issue of immigrants from countries like the Ukraine and Albania. At the same time, again, this bill will increase the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Perhaps increasing the number of illegal immigrants will redouble the efforts of this Congress to address this issue.

But, given the enormous dimension of the problem already and the complete lack of consideration of any meaningful immigration bill by this Congress to solve a broken immigration system, I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The zero-sum bill on the floor asks us to weigh one class of immigrants at the expense of another, in effect, trying to play politics and avoid solving our immigration crisis.

I think it's time for a transparent and open debate. It's time for compromise. It's time to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, one that strengthens our economy, one that creates jobs for Americans, one that makes our Nation's immigration system more humane and makes it workable and enforceable.

This bill, for all its merits, for all its problems, I think, we, both proponents and opponents can agree it falls short on that account of fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works. It has no additional enforcement provisions, no border security provisions. It provides no requirement for people who are here illegally to get right with the law.

Rather, it does create an excellent program to keep high-tech graduates here. It destroys another valuable program to keep people from countries other than Mexico and India and China and the UK here. It likely will increase illegal immigration by 10 or 20,000 a year, and provides no solution.

So a difficult decision for all Members of this body. And I'd like to think that Members on both sides, hopefully, would agree that we can do better. We need to do better. We've been called upon by the voters of this country to do better.

And I encourage, whether it's in this Congress or the next Congress, to take up the difficult but critical issue of replacing our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, creates prosperity for America, helps reduce our budget deficit, is humane, is enforceable. No one said it would be easy, but that's what the people send us here to do.

And regardless of the outcome of this particular bill, we are simply taking another week in avoiding addressing the real issues of the immigration crisis in this country.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which was a closed process and doesn't allow for consideration of even noncontroversial amendments such as my EB-5 amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source