```

[House Report 112-275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-275

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

 
                          SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT

                                _______
                                

 November 10, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 704]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 704) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate the diversity immigrant program, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Committee Votes..................................................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    11
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    11
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    11
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    17
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    17
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    17
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    17
Dissenting Views.................................................    23

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 704 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
eliminate the diversity immigrant program.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    As part of its consideration of legal immigration reform in 
1990, Congress acted to ``further enhance and promote 
diversity'' of immigrants. In the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT 90), one of the ways Congress did so was by making 
55,000 ``diversity'' immigrant visas available each year 
beginning in October 1994. This program was called the DV 
program.
    The DV program is designed to increase diversity in the 
U.S. immigrant population by providing nationals of countries 
that have traditionally had low numbers of immigrants to the 
United States the opportunity to apply for immigrant visas. 
IMMACT 90 set forth extremely complicated formulas for 
determining which aliens could qualify for the benefits of the 
program.
    Briefly stated, immigrant visas are apportioned among six 
geographic regions, according to a formula based on total 
immigrant admissions over the preceding 5-year period. Both 
high- and low-admission regions are identified, and a greater 
share of the available numbers is allocated to low-admission 
regions. Nationals of specified high-admission countries are 
excluded from the benefits of the program. No single country 
may receive more than 7 percent of the worldwide total of DV 
visa numbers.
    Between 1995 and 2010, 785,695 diversity visas have been 
issued.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Information provided by the U.S. Department of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the DV-2011 application period, natives of the 
following countries were ineligible to apply: Brazil, Canada, 
China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R. and Taiwan), 
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, 
Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) 
and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
    The DV program is also called the ``visa lottery'' because 
the winners are determined through a computer-generated random 
drawing.\2\ Approximately 12.1 million applications were 
submitted for the DV-2011 program (16.5 million when derivative 
immediate relatives are added). From the millions of qualifying 
applicants, the State Department randomly selected 100,600 
applications as ``selectees'' who may then apply for visas at 
the consular offices nearest them.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\As the State Department website explains:

      At the Kentucky Consular Center [KCC], all entries received 
      from each region will be individually numbered. After the 
      end of the registration period, a computer will randomly 
      select entries from among all the entries received for each 
      geographic region. Within each region, the first entry 
      randomly selected will be the first case registered, the 
      second entry selected the second registration, etc. All 
      entries received during the registration period will have 
      an equal chance of being selected within each region. When 
      an entry has been selected, the applicant will be sent a 
      notification letter by the [KCC], which will provide visa 
      application instructions. The [KCC] will continue to 
      process the case until those who are selected are 
      instructed to appear for visa interviews at a U.S. consular 
      office, or until those able to do so apply at a BCIS office 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      in the United States for change of status.

    \3\http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_5073.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At these offices, about 45 percent of the selectees fail to 
meet the minimum educational or work experience or training 
requirements, fail to supply the required medical information, 
or fail to complete the additional required paperwork either 
completely or on time. For the rest of the fiscal year after 
the lottery takes place, the qualifying winners are issued 
Diversity Visas on a first-come, first-served basis until the 
requisite 50,000 are issued.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1151(e), the actual number of 
Diversity Visas is 55,000. However 5,000 of the visas are allocated for 
use under the provisions of P.L. 105-100, the ``Nicaraguan Adjustment 
and Central American Relief Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most immigration to the United States is based upon family 
relationship to U.S. citizens and permanent residents or the 
requests of U.S. businesses. DV applicants, however, once 
selected, can qualify on the basis of minimal levels of 
education level and/or work experience. Like other immigrant 
applicants, they are subject to being denied entry based on any 
of the grounds of inadmissibility. If the applicant is 
otherwise eligible, he only needs to demonstrate that he has 
the equivalent of a U.S. high school education or possesses 2 
years of work experience in an occupation that requires 2 years 
of training or work experience within the 5 year period 
immediately prior to the application.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\8 U.S.C. Sec. 1153(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are five main criticisms of the DV program: 1) fraud, 
2) national security concerns, 3) fairness, 4) visa issuance 
deadlines and 5) program rationale.
    The DV program is susceptible to fraud and manipulation. 
That complaint was verified by a 2003 State Department Office 
of Inspector General (OIG) Report, a 2007 Government 
Accountability Office report and continuous reports from 
consular officers. In 2003 the GAO stated, ``The DV program is 
vulnerable to fraud committed by and against DV applications, 
but State has not compiled comprehensive data on detected and 
suspected fraudulent activity.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Fraud 
Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program, 
(2007) (GAO-07-1174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A DV applicant will be disqualified for the year of entry 
if more than one application is filed for the applicant. 
Nonetheless, it is commonplace for aliens to file multiple 
applications for the lottery using different aliases. As the 
OIG reported, a partial check done by the Kentucky Service 
Center on applications filed in the DV-2003 lottery identified 
364,000 duplicates. And for the DV-2012 program out of 19.7 
initial entries, 1.2 million were immediately disqualified as 
duplicates by exact match photo screening.\7\ And another 
nearly 10% of the selectees were disqualified after secondary 
photo screening technology found they had submitted multiple 
applications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Information provided by Department of State.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examples of this problem include an October 2001 incident 
in which a New Jersey mailman falsified hundreds of visa 
applications to bring his cousin from Bangladesh to the United 
States. The man, dressed in his postal uniform, aroused 
suspicions when he was seen dropping documents into several 
mailboxes, instead of taking them out. When he was detained, 
police found 185 applications for the visa lottery in his bag, 
and he had allegedly already tried to mail 147 applications, 
which were retrieved. He had purportedly tried to help his 
cousin by using false addresses on the multiple applications.
    Beyond violating our immigration laws and unfairly gaining 
an advantage over other similarly situated aliens who play by 
the rules, some of those who engage in such deception pose a 
criminal or terrorist threat to the United States. The case of 
Mekki Hamed Mekki, a Sudanese pilot who was under investigation 
for possible al-Qaeda links and who was arrested in North 
Carolina in September 2002, illustrates this point. In an 
affidavit filed in Federal court, the FBI alleged that Mekki 
had admitted submitting several forms with variations on his 
name, date of birth, and place of birth to improve his chances 
in the visa lottery. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison for 
immigration fraud and ordered deported in March 2003.
    If an immigrant who files under numerous aliases is 
selected under one of those aliases, the alien must then 
support his visa application with fraudulent documents. As OIG 
found in a September 2003 report on the DV program, however: 
``Identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are 
commonplace. Many countries exercise poor control over their 
vital records and identity documents, exacerbating the 
potential for program abuse. In some countries, this control is 
so poor that consular officers must assume that all travel, 
identity, and civil documents are unreliable.''\9\ A 2007 
General Accountability Office report found that ``Consular 
officers at 6 posts reported that widespread use of fake 
documents, such and birth certificates, marriage certificates, 
and passports, presented challenges when verifying identities 
of applicants and dependents.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\U.S. Department of State, office of the Inspector General, 
Memorandum Inspection Report: Diversity Visa Program, (Sept. 2003) 
(Report Number ISP-CA-03-52), Pg. 2.
    \10\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Fraud 
Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program, 
(2007) (GAO-07-1174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OIG found that fraud is an ``on-going major program 
issue.'' Specifically, OIG found that anti-fraud activities are 
generally dominated by nonimmigrant visa fraud cases, and that 
many embassies and consulates with significant DV issues, 
therefore, do not routinely refer problem cases to their anti-
fraud units. Further, OIG found, some posts, such as U.S. 
Embassy Accra (which is a major DV issuer) have no anti-fraud 
officer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\U.S. Department of State, office of the Inspector General, 
Memorandum Inspection Report: Diversity Visa Program, (Sept. 2003) 
(Report Number ISP-CA-03-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not to say, however, that the State Department has 
made no efforts to address fraud in the DV program. In 2004, 
the State Department implemented an electronic registration 
system (E-DV), which was designed to enhance the security of 
the program. The primary reason for moving the program from a 
paper-based to an electronic registration system was ``to 
eliminate vulnerabilities related to the identity of the visa 
applicant.'' The E-DV allows the State Department to look at 
every entry, run facial recognition on them, and share data 
with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Further, the 
State Department contends that ``posts fairly routinely 
conducted investigations on bona fides of DV applicants,'' 
including verifying school certificates, employment, and 
claimed relationships.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Information provided by Department of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While OIG did not reference these efforts in its September 
2003 report, it noted that the Consular Affairs Bureau (CA) at 
the State Department did not know how significant the DV fraud 
problem was, and could not document the widespread belief that 
certain countries' records are under such poor control that 
their passports, identity documents, and vital records are so 
unreliable as to be useless for visa purposes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\U.S. Department of State, office of the Inspector General, 
Memorandum Inspection Report: Diversity Visa Program, (Sept. 2003) 
(Report Number ISP-CA-03-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately the OIG's report seemed to effect little 
change in the DV program and the same problem exists years 
later. The 2007 GAO report noted, ``Despite taking steps to 
strengthen the DV program, State does not have a strategy to 
address the pervasive fraud reported by some [consular] 
posts.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Fraud 
Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program, 
(2007) (GAO-07-1174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to entry fraud, the visa lottery program has 
spawned a cottage industry in the United States for sponsors 
who falsely promise success in exchange for large sums of 
money. This problem is so pervasive that the State Department's 
media notice announcing electronic filing carried the following 
``Important Notice'':

        NO fee is charged to enter the annual DV program. The 
        U.S. Government employs no outside consultants or 
        private services to operate the DV program. Any 
        intermediaries or others who offer assistance to 
        prepare DV casework for applicants do so without the 
        authority or consent of the U.S. Government. Use of any 
        outside intermediary or assistance to prepare a DV 
        entry is entirely at the applicant's discretion.

        A qualified entry submitted electronically directly by 
        an applicant has an equal chance of being selected by 
        the computer at the Kentucky Consular Center as does an 
        entry submitted electronically through a paid 
        intermediary who completes the entry for the applicant. 
        Every entry received during the lottery registration 
        period will have an equal random chance of being 
        selected within its region. However, receipt of more 
        than one entry per person will disqualify the person 
        from registration, regardless of the source of the 
        entry.

    Illustrating this problem is the case of a company named 
``USA Immigration Services'' (USAIS). On October 1, 2003, the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the 
company and its operators, alleging that they misled consumers 
into believing they were affiliated with the United States 
government, and that for a fee, they could help consumers 
register through the DV lottery for a chance to apply for a 
green card.\15\ According to the FTC, the defendants, who had 
no connection to the Federal Government, misled aliens in a 
variety of ways about the services they claimed to provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\According to the FTC, using both keyword ``metatags'' and 
express language on the websites, USAIS claimed to be either an 
official agency of, or affiliated with, the U.S. Government. The 
metatags typically led unwitting consumers to USAIS's sites on the 
Internet through the use of search engines. The website featured an 
official-looking eagle and billowing flag banner across the top of the 
site, American iconic images (such as the Statue of Liberty, the flag, 
and the Capitol), and the official seals and logos of--and links to--
USA Freedom Corps, the White House, and FirstGov on the home page. 
Further, the defendants allegedly claimed to use actual government 
telephone numbers that actually belong to the State Department. They 
also listed a Washington, D.C. address that, in fact, was a commercial 
mail store. Finally, they used terms such as ``Official U.S. 
Immigration Forms'' to describe subjects they addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And the 2007 GAO report noted, ``At 5 of the 11 posts we 
reviewed, consular officers reported that the majority of DV 
applicants, lacking access to a computer or Internet savvy, use 
`visa agents' to enter the lottery. Some agents take advantage 
of DV applicants. . . .''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Fraud 
Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program, 
(2007) (GAO-07-1174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps the best confirmation of rampant fraud in the DV 
program is the U.S. Government itself. The current homepages of 
many State Department U.S. Embassy websites, for instance 
London, Dublin and Cairo, include diversity visa ``Fraud 
Alerts.'' And on June 20, 2011, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency responsible for 
adjudicating DV petitions, sent out an email entitled, ``Email 
Scam: Avoid Green Card Lottery Fraud!,'' that contained a link 
to a USCIS blog entry. The blog stated in part, ``Have you or 
someone you know recently received an e-mail claiming you've 
won the Green Card lottery and asking you to send or wire 
money? Don't fall for it--the sender is trying to steal your 
money!''
    At an April 5, 2011, hearing on the SAFE for America Act, 
the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa 
Services, Tony Edson, testified about the many types of fraud 
he and his colleagues saw in the program.
    He stated that visa lottery fraud, ``includes . . . 
multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education and work 
experience, pop-up spouses or family members, relatives added 
after the application is submitted, and false claims for 
employment or financial support in the United States.''\17\ And 
he noted that unscrupulous third-party agents often enroll 
individuals in the visa lottery without the individual's 
knowledge. If the person is selected for the lottery, the agent 
then sells the ``winning'' visa lottery slot to the highest 
bidder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\H.R. 704, the ``SAFE for America Act,'' Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the House Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 31 (2011) (statement of Stephen A. Edson, 
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DV program poses a potential threat to the national 
security, for a number of reasons. In fact, the 2007 GAO report 
noted that, ``Difficulty in verifying identities has security-
based implications because State's security checks rely heavily 
on name-based databases.''\18\ One of the main national 
security weaknesses that experts have identified in the DV 
program is the lack of restrictions on admissions. This plays 
out in two ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, there are few restrictions on the countries from 
which applicants may come, and no security restrictions. By way 
of contrast, aliens from countries designated as state sponsors 
of terrorism cannot be issued nonimmigrant visas except in 
limited circumstances.\19\ OIG determined that between two and 
4 percent of all DV issuances are to nationals of countries 
designated as state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan 
and Syria). For the DV-2011 lottery, 2,819 Iranians, 132 
Syrians, 1,156 Sudanese and 406 Cubans were deemed eligible for 
the visa lottery. In addition, thousands of individuals from 
countries such as Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and Nigeria were 
also deemed eligible. The number of diversity visas actually 
issued to individuals from countries designated as state 
sponsors of terrorism were as follows:\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002 prohibits nonimmigrant visa issuance to aliens from 
countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism unless it 
is determined that such aliens do not pose a threat to the safety and 
national security of the United States. The countries currently 
designated as state sponsors of international terrorism are Cuba, 
Sudan, Syria, and Iran.
    \20\Information provided by the State Department.

         LIran:
                    1,842

         LSudan:
                    553

         LSyria:
                    32

         LCuba:
                    140

    Second, under the program, successful applicants are chosen 
at random. Consequently, those who win the DV lottery do not 
necessarily have any ties to the United States, unlike other 
visa categories, which rely on family or business ties. Critics 
of the DV program have argued that family and business 
relationships help ensure that immigrants entering the United 
States have a stake in our country's success, and have the 
advanced skills to contribute to our economy. Because DV 
winners do not necessarily have such ties, critics have 
asserted, the program could offer an opportunity for 
individuals or groups who want to harm the United States, its 
institutions, and its people to place terrorists in the United 
States.
    In addition to the openness of the program, the 
susceptibility of the program to fraud exposes the United 
States to terrorism. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) 
has found that. ``The program is a national security 
vulnerability, and has been used by terrorists and organized 
criminals to not only enter the U.S., but bring others as 
well.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Janice Kephart, Sen. Hatch's Proposal to Do Away with the 
Diversity Visa Lottery, Center for Immigration Studies, Feb. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any potential terrorist who did win the DV lottery could 
live here freely, and come and go with little scrutiny. In 
fact, a number of immigrants who have been accused or convicted 
in connection with terrorism plots have entered in this manner. 
For instance, Hesham Hedayet, an Egyptian terrorist who killed 
two and wounded several others at Los Angeles International 
Airport on July 4, 2002, was a lawful permanent resident who 
received his green card through the DV program. He had 
originally entered as a visitor, and thereafter applied for 
asylum. In his asylum application, he claimed that he had been 
accused of being a terrorist by the Egyptian government. When 
he failed to respond to the notice of intent to deny that 
application, the former INS issued a charging document placing 
him in deportation proceedings, but could not serve him. In 
1996, Hedayet's wife was selected for the visa lottery, 
allowing Hedayet to adjust his status. He was a lawful 
permanent resident at the time of the 2002 attack.
    Similarly, in August 2002, Pakistani national Imran Mandhai 
pleaded guilty to conspiring to destroy buildings affecting 
interstate commerce by means of fire or explosives. He entered 
the United States with his parents, who had been selected for 
the visa lottery in 1998.
    The program is also unfair because it moves 50,000 new 
immigrants ahead of family and employer-sponsored immigrants 
who may have waited many years for the opportunity to immigrate 
to the U.S. This is significant considering, for example, that 
family fourth-preference visa applicants from the Philippines 
are currently oversubscribed to January 15, 1988, meaning that 
only those aliens in this class for whom visa petitions were 
filed before such date can come to the United States.
    Finally, it is not reasonable to continue a program in 
which applicants are randomly selected. Further, some have 
argued that the DV program no longer meets its stated purposes.
    The United States should select, out of the many millions 
of persons who would like to immigrate to the U.S., those who 
most contribute to the national interest. In addition to 
persons who want to unite with family members in the U.S., 
there are a large number of individuals with marketable skills 
who would immigrate to the United States if given the 
opportunity. Preference should be given to those aliens who 
would make a large and positive commitment to the U.S. economy. 
The program's requirements are so low that they do nothing to 
ensure that the applicants have the skills needed to compete in 
the U.S. economy, noting that the final selection is based on 
luck, not skill.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 
Enforcement held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 704, to eliminate 
the diversity immigration program, on April 5, 2011. Testimony 
was received from the Honorable Bob Goodlatte (R-VA); Mr. 
Stephan A. Edson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 
for Visa Services; Ms. Janice Kephart, Director of National 
Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies; and 
Ambassador Johnny Young of the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 20, 2011, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 704 favorably reported without amendment, 
by a rollcall vote of 19 to 11, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following recorded votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 704.
    1. An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to strike the 
provisions of H.R. 704 and replace them with a requirement that 
the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State report to 
Congress regarding how to eliminate the potential for fraud and 
other security risks in the diversity program. Defeated 12 to 
14.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Ms. Chu.........................................................
Mr. Deutch......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren to replace the 
provisions of H.R. 704 limiting the program only to individuals 
with approved family-based immigrant petitions, and requiring 
that the visas are issued by order of priority date. Defeated 
11 to 19.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................                              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Ms. Chu.........................................................
Mr. Deutch......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             11              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. A vote on final passage of H.R. 704. Reported favorably 
out of Committee 19 to 11.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................              X
Mr. Marino......................................................              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................              X
Mr. Ross........................................................              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................                              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................                              X
Ms. Chu.........................................................                              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             19              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 704, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 4, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 704, the 
``Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2011.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jonathan 
Morancy, who can be reached at 226-2820.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 704--Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2011.

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
                         July 21, 2011

                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 704 would eliminate the diversity visa program. 
Diversity visas go to people from countries that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has determined 
have had low ratios of immigrants admitted under other sections 
of immigration law. Currently, 55,000 diversity visas are 
available each year. Eliminating the diversity visa program 
would lower the number of immigrants entering the country who 
would become legal permanent residents (LPRs) by about 460,000 
during the 2012-2021 period, CBO estimates. That decline in the 
number of LPRs would decrease spending on needs-based and 
social-insurance programs and would reduce the fees collected 
from immigrants.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 704 would decrease direct 
spending by $1.3 billion and would decrease revenues by about 
$0.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period. In addition, CBO 
estimates implementing the bill would reduce discretionary 
spending by $30 million over the 2012-2021 period, assuming 
appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts.
    Because enacting the legislation would affect direct 
spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
    H.R. 704 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 704 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget functions 150 (international affairs), 500 (education, 
training, employment, and social services), 550 (health), 570 
(Medicare), 600 (income security), 650 (Social Security), and 
750 (administration of justice).

                                                         By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021  2012-2016  2012-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
On-Budget Changes
  Medicaid
  Estimated Budget
    Authority                                                     0     -5    -18    -36    -55    -77   -114   -170   -231   -301      -114     -1,007
  Estimated Outlays                                               0     -5    -18    -36    -55    -77   -114   -170   -231   -301      -114     -1,007

  SNAP
  Estimated Budget Authority                                      0     -1     -4     -6     -8    -11    -22    -34    -47    -60       -19       -193
  Estimated Outlays                                               0     -1     -4     -6     -8    -11    -22    -34    -47    -60       -19       -193

  Pell Grants
  Estimated Budget Authority                                      0      *     -1     -1     -2     -2     -3     -3     -4     -4        -4        -20
  Estimated Outlays                                               0      *      *     -1     -1     -2     -2     -3     -3     -4        -2        -16

  Supplemental Security
  Income
  Estimated Budget
    Authority                                                     0      *      *      *     -1     -1     -2     -3     -4     -5        -1        -16
  Estimated Outlays                                               0      *      *      *     -1     -1     -2     -3     -4     -5        -1        -16

  Medicare
  Estimated Budget
    Authority                                                     0      0      0      0      0      *     -1     -1     -3     -5         0        -10
  Estimated Outlays                                               0      0      0      0      0      *     -1     -1     -3     -5         0        -10
  Subtotal-On-Budget
    Effects
    Estimated Budget
    Authority                                                     0     -6    -23    -43    -66    -91   -142   -211   -289   -375      -138     -1,246
    Estimated Outlays                                             0     -6    -22    -43    -65    -91   -141   -211   -288   -375      -136     -1,242

Off-Budget Changes
  Social Security
  Estimated Budget
    Authority                                                     0      0      0      *     -1     -2     -5    -11    -25    -53        -1        -97
  Estimated Outlays                                               0      0      0      *     -1     -2     -5    -11    -24    -50        -1        -93

Total Changes in Direct
  Spending
  Estimated Budget
  Authority                                                       0     -6    -23    -43    -67    -93   -147   -222   -314   -428      -139     -1,343
  Estimated Outlays                                               0     -6    -22    -43    -66    -93   -146   -222   -312   -425      -137     -1,335

CHANGES IN REVENUES

Visa Fees                                                         0    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15       -60       -135

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES

Net Changes in Deficits                                           0      9     -7    -28    -51    -78   -131   -207   -297   -410       -77     -1,200
  On-Budget Effects                                               0      9     -7    -28    -50    -76   -126   -196   -273   -360       -76     -1,107
  Off-Budget Effects                                              0      0      0      *     -1     -2     -5    -11    -24    -50        -1        -93

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Pell Grants\1\
  Estimated Authorization
  Level                                                           0     -1     -3     -4     -6     -7     -9      0      0      0       -14        -30
  Estimated Outlays                                               0      *     -1     -3     -5     -6     -8     -7      *      0        -9        -30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Components may not sum to totals due to rounding; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; * = between -$500,000 and 0.
1. The Pell Grant program is currently authorized through 2018.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    For this estimate, CBO assumes the bill will be enacted 
near the start of calendar year 2012 and that the restrictions 
on issuing new visas will affect anyone who had applied for the 
diversity lottery held in fiscal year 2012. Under current law, 
55,000 visas are available each year under the diversity visa 
program. Since 1999, up to 5,000 of those have been reserved 
each year for unsuccessful seekers of asylum from countries 
such as El Salvador and Guatemala. Thus, the Department of 
State processes about 50,000 immigrant visas for natives of 
foreign states that USCIS determines have had a low ratio of 
immigrants admitted under other sections of immigration law.
    The immigrants are selected randomly by the Secretary of 
State from among persons who have applied to a special lottery 
for the visas. Persons apply in one fiscal year for visas to be 
issued in the coming fiscal year. Applicants must meet minimum 
requirements for education or work experience and otherwise be 
eligible for immigrant visas as specified in the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. Those selected in the diversity lottery 
must obtain their visas by the end of the fiscal year covered 
by the lottery.
    By eliminating the diversity visa lottery, CBO estimates 
that H.R. 704 would decrease the number of immigrants who 
become legal permanent residents by about 51,000 each year (not 
all persons selected immigrate to the United States within the 
period in which the visas are valid). Fewer legal permanent 
residents would, over time, lower the number of persons 
eligible for Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP), and other needs-based and social-insurance 
programs. Because the first group affected by this bill would 
be those who would apply during fiscal year 2012 for arrival 
during fiscal year 2013, the effects would not begin until 
fiscal year 2013.
    CBO estimates that under the bill, the number of LPRs will 
decline by about 460,000 over the 10-year period. A decline in 
LPRs would result in savings for many programs as detailed 
below.
Direct Spending
    With the exception of Social Security, all of the budgetary 
effects are on-budget.
    Medicaid. By decreasing the number of LPRs, enacting H.R. 
704 would reduce the number of individuals who enroll in the 
Medicaid program. Under Medicaid law, immigrants entering the 
United States are not eligible to receive Medicaid coverage for 
five years after entering the country, except for emergency 
Medicaid. (Current law does allow those immigrants who are 
children or pregnant women that would otherwise qualify for 
Medicaid to obtain coverage at state option before they have 
been in the country for five years.) Some of those immigrants 
(mainly children, pregnant women, and some disabled people) 
qualify for Medicaid five years after they enter the United 
States. Under the bill, CBO estimates that by 2021 about 64,000 
fewer people would receive Medicaid and that Federal spending 
for Medicaid would decline by about $1 billion over the 2012-
2021 period.
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Legal permanent 
residents who are adults and who meet the necessary 
qualifications are eligible for SNAP benefits after a 5-year 
waiting period (those under the age of 18 who qualify are 
automatically eligible). Based on the estimated decline in LPRs 
and data from the Current Population Survey, CBO estimates that 
by 2021 about 40,000 fewer people would participate in SNAP. 
Accordingly, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would lower 
costs for SNAP by $193 million over the 2012-2021 period.
    Pell Grants. As discussed below under the heading 
``Spending Subject to Appropriation,'' CBO projects that H.R. 
704 would reduce the number of students eligible for Pell 
grants. Though most Pell grant funding is discretionary, CBO 
estimates enacting the bill would decrease direct spending by 
$16 million over the 2012-2021 period for the mandatory portion 
of the Pell Grant program. (The bill would have an 
insignificant effect on direct spending for student loans.)
    Supplemental Security Income. Based on information from the 
Current Population Survey, CBO projects that under current law 
fewer than 100 immigrants affected by H.R. 704 would have 
naturalized and received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
benefits based on old age or disability during the 2012-2021 
period. In addition, CBO expects that around 1 percent of the 
citizen-children who would have been born in the United States 
to those immigrants affected by H.R. 704 would have qualified 
for SSI as the result of birth defects or other severe 
disabilities. In total, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 704 
would reduce SSI outlays by $16 million over the 2012-2021 
period.
    Social Security and Medicare. Few of the individuals 
affected by H.R. 704 would have been able to work long enough 
to become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits or 
Medicare (based on age) within the 2012-2021 period under 
current law, but many could earn eligibility for Social 
Security Disability Insurance over that period. Based on 
information from the Current Population Survey, CBO projects 
that under the bill, about 1,200 fewer people would receive 
Social Security benefits (primarily for disability insurance) 
by 2021. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 704 would 
reduce Social Security outlays by $93 million (which are off-
budget) and Medicare outlays by $10 million (which are on-
budget) over the 2012-2021 period.
Revenues and Offsetting Receipts
    Applicants do not pay a fee for submitting an application 
to the Department of State for the diversity lottery. The visa-
lottery winners must pay a $305 immigrant visa application 
processing fee. That visa fee is a revenue and is not available 
to be spent. CBO estimates that eliminating the diversity visa 
program would decrease revenues by about $15 million a year, 
totaling $135 million over the 2012-2021 period.
    USCIS currently charges fees totaling about $1,000 to 
register each selected applicant as a permanent U.S. resident. 
CBO estimates that CIS collects and spends about $50 million 
annually in fees from diversity immigrants--a small fraction of 
more than $2 billion in fees the agency collects and spends 
each year to administer programs relating to the entry of 
aliens. CBO estimates that eliminating the diversity visa 
program would reduce fee collections by about $50 million 
annually, but that direct spending also would decline by an 
equivalent amount; thus, enacting the bill would have no 
significant effect on net direct spending for USCIS.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
    Pell Grants. Using data from the Congressional Research 
Service and the Department of Education, CBO projects that H.R. 
704 would reduce the number of students eligible for Pell 
grants and student loans by a total that grows from several 
hundred students in fiscal year 2013 to several thousand 
students in fiscal year 2021. The bulk of funding for Pell 
grants is discretionary. Assuming appropriations are reduced by 
the estimated amounts and a maximum discretionary award level 
of $4,860 as in the most recently enacted appropriations act, 
CBO estimates the bill would reduce discretionary costs by $9 
million over the 2012-2016 period, and $30 million over the 
2012-2021 period.
    Offsetting Collections. The visa-lottery winners (discussed 
above) also must pay a $440 processing fee to the Department of 
State. That processing fee generates about $24 million a year 
in offsetting collections, which are a credit against 
discretionary spending. Implementing the bill would lower 
collections by the Department of State, but spending also would 
decline by the amount of forgone collections; thus, there would 
be no significant effect on discretionary spending for the 
Department of State.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays and 
revenues that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are 
shown in the following table. Only on-budget changes to outlays 
or revenues are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

CBO Estimate of Pay-As-You-Go Effects for H.R. 704, the ``Security and 
Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2011,'' as ordered reported by 
the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 21, 2011
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                         By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021  2012-2016  2012-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE ON-BUDGET DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact                                    0      9     -7    -28    -50    -76   -126   -196   -273   -360       -76     -1,107
Memorandum:
Change in Outlays                                                 0     -6    -22    -43    -65    -91   -141   -211   -288   -375      -136     -1,242
Change in Revenues                                                0    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15    -15       -60       -135
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

    H.R. 704 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA. The bill would reduce the number 
of legal permanent residents eligible for Medicaid assistance. 
Since a portion of Medicaid is paid for by state governments, 
CBO estimates that state spending on the program would decline 
by about $750 million over the 2012-2021 period. The bill 
contains no private-sector mandates.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Jonathan Morancy, Kirstin Nelson, Kathleen 
    FitzGerald, David Rafferty,
Mark Grabowicz, Sunita D'Monte, and Justin Humphrey
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
    Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper-Bach

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

    Peter H. Fontaine
    Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
704, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate 
the diversity immigrant program.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 704 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title 
of the bill as the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for 
America Act of 2011,'' or the ``SAFE for America Act.''
    Sec. 2. Elimination of Diversity Immigrant Program. Section 
2 amends sections 201, 203 and 204 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to strike references to the diversity immigrant 
program.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

Chapter 1--Selection System

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 201. (a) In General.--Exclusive of aliens described in 
subsection (b), aliens born in a foreign state or dependent 
area who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise 
acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United 
States for permanent residence are limited to--
          (1) family-sponsored immigrants described in section 
        203(a) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the 
        basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their 
        accompanying parent under section 203(a)) in a number 
        not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified 
        in subsection (c) for that year, and not to exceed in 
        any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 
        percent of the worldwide level under such subsection 
        for all of such fiscal year; and
          (2) employment-based immigrants described in section 
        203(b) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the 
        basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their 
        accompanying parent under section 203(b)), in a number 
        not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified 
        in subsection (d) for that year, and not to exceed in 
        any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 
        percent of the worldwide level under such subsection 
        for all of such fiscal year[; and].
          [(3) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 
        1995, diversity immigrants described in section 203(c) 
        (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis 
        of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying 
        parent under section 203(c)) in a number not to exceed 
        in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection 
        (e) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the 
        first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the 
        worldwide level under such subsection for all of such 
        fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--The worldwide 
level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for each 
fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS

  Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Diversity Immigrants.--
          [(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
        section 201(e) for diversity immigrants shall be 
        allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:
                  [(A) Determination of preference 
                immigration.--The Attorney General shall 
                determine for the most recent previous 5-
                fiscal-year period for which data are 
                available, the total number of aliens who are 
                natives of each foreign state and who (i) were 
                admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent 
                resident status (other than under this 
                subsection) and (ii) were subject to the 
                numerical limitations of section 201(a) (other 
                than paragraph (3) thereof) or who were 
                admitted or otherwise provided lawful permanent 
                resident status as an immediate relative or 
                other alien described in section 201(b)(2).
                  [(B) Identification of high-admission and 
                low-admission regions and high-admission and 
                low-admission states.--The Attorney General--
                          [(i) shall identify--
                                  [(I) each region (each in 
                                this paragraph referred to as a 
                                ``high-admission region'') for 
                                which the total of the numbers 
                                determined under subparagraph 
                                (A) for states in the region is 
                                greater than \1/6\ of the total 
                                of all such numbers, and
                                  [(II) each other region (each 
                                in this paragraph referred to 
                                as a ``low-admission region''); 
                                and
                          [(ii) shall identify--
                                  [(I) each foreign state for 
                                which the number determined 
                                under subparagraph (A) is 
                                greater than 50,000 (each such 
                                state in this paragraph 
                                referred to as a ``high-
                                admission state''), and
                                  [(II) each other foreign 
                                state (each such state in this 
                                paragraph referred to as a 
                                ``low-admission state'').
                  [(C) Determination of percentage of worldwide 
                immigration attributable to high-admission 
                regions.--The Attorney General shall determine 
                the percentage of the total of the numbers 
                determined under subparagraph (A) that are 
                numbers for foreign states in high-admission 
                regions.
                  [(D) Determination of regional populations 
                excluding high-admission states and ratios of 
                populations of regions within low-admission 
                regions and high-admission regions.--The 
                Attorney General shall determine--
                          [(i) based on available estimates for 
                        each region, the total population of 
                        each region not including the 
                        population of any high-admission state;
                          [(ii) for each low-admission region, 
                        the ratio of the population of the 
                        region determined under clause (i) to 
                        the total of the populations determined 
                        under such clause for all the low-
                        admission regions; and
                          [(iii) for each high-admission 
                        region, the ratio of the population of 
                        the region determined under clause (i) 
                        to the total of the populations 
                        determined under such clause for all 
                        the high-admission regions.
                  [(E) Distribution of visas.--
                          [(i) No visas for natives of high-
                        admission states.--The percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives of a high-
                        admission state is 0.
                          [(ii) For low-admission states in 
                        low-admission regions.--Subject to 
                        clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) in a 
                        low-admission region is the product 
                        of--
                                  [(I) the percentage 
                                determined under subparagraph 
                                (C), and
                                  [(II) the population ratio 
                                for that region determined 
                                under subparagraph (D)(ii).
                          [(iii) For low-admission states in 
                        high-admission regions.--Subject to 
                        clauses (iv) and (v), the percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) in a 
                        high-admission region is the product 
                        of--
                                  [(I) 100 percent minus the 
                                percentage determined under 
                                subparagraph (C), and
                                  [(II) the population ratio 
                                for that region determined 
                                under subparagraph (D)(iii).
                          [(iv) Redistribution of unused visa 
                        numbers.--If the Secretary of State 
                        estimates that the number of immigrant 
                        visas to be issued to natives in any 
                        region for a fiscal year under this 
                        paragraph is less than the number of 
                        immigrant visas made available to such 
                        natives under this paragraph for the 
                        fiscal year, subject to clause (v), the 
                        excess visa numbers shall be made 
                        available to natives (other than 
                        natives of a high-admission state) of 
                        the other regions in proportion to the 
                        percentages otherwise specified in 
                        clauses (ii) and (iii).
                          [(v) Limitation on visas for natives 
                        of a single foreign state.--The 
                        percentage of visas made available 
                        under this paragraph to natives of any 
                        single foreign state for any fiscal 
                        year shall not exceed 7 percent.
                  [(F) Region defined.--Only for purposes of 
                administering the diversity program under this 
                subsection, Northern Ireland shall be treated 
                as a separate foreign state, each colony or 
                other component or dependent area of a foreign 
                state overseas from the foreign state shall be 
                treated as part of the foreign state, and the 
                areas described in each of the following 
                clauses shall be considered to be a separate 
                region:
                          [(i) Africa.
                          [(ii) Asia.
                          [(iii) Europe.
                          [(iv) North America (other than 
                        Mexico).
                          [(v) Oceania.
                          [(vi) South America, Mexico, Central 
                        America, and the Caribbean.
          [(2) Requirement of education or work experience.--An 
        alien is not eligible for a visa under this subsection 
        unless the alien--
                  [(A) has at least a high school education or 
                its equivalent, or
                  [(B) has, within 5 years of the date of 
                application for a visa under this subsection, 
                at least 2 years of work experience in an 
                occupation which requires at least 2 years of 
                training or experience.
          [(3) Maintenance of information.--The Secretary of 
        State shall maintain information on the age, 
        occupation, education level, and other relevant 
        characteristics of immigrants issued visas under this 
        subsection.]

                      Treatment of Family Members

  (d) Treatment of Family Members.--A spouse or child as 
defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 
101(b)(1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant 
status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection 
[(a), (b), or (c),] (a) or (b), be entitled to the same status, 
and the same order of consideration provided in the respective 
subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or 
parent.

                         Order of Consideration

  (e) Order of Consideration.--(1) * * *
  [(2) Immigrant visa numbers made available under subsection 
(c) (relating to diversity immigrants) shall be issued to 
eligible qualified immigrants strictly in a random order 
established by the Secretary of State for the fiscal year 
involved.]
  [(3)] (2)   Waiting lists of applicants for visas under this 
section shall be maintained in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of State.

                       Authorization for Issuance

  (f) Authorization for Issuance.--In the case of any alien 
claiming in his application for an immigrant visa to be 
described in section 201(b)(2) or in subsection [(a), (b), or 
(c)] (a) or (b) of this section, the consular officer shall not 
grant such status until he has been authorized to do so as 
provided by section 204.

                                 Lists

  (g) Lists.--For purposes of carrying out the Secretary's 
responsibilities in the orderly administration of this section, 
the Secretary of State may make reasonable estimates of the 
anticipated numbers of visas to be issued during any quarter of 
any fiscal year within each of the categories under subsections 
[(a), (b), and (c)] (a) and (b) and to rely upon such estimates 
in authorizing the issuance of visas. The Secretary of State 
shall terminate the registration of any alien who fails to 
apply for an immigrant visa within one year following 
notification to the alien of the availability of such visa, but 
the Secretary shall reinstate the registration of any such 
alien who establishes within 2 years following the date of 
notification of the availability of such visa that such failure 
to apply was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STATUS

  Sec. 204. (a)(1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(I)(i)Any alien desiring to be provided an immigrant visa 
under section 203(c) may file a petition at the place and time 
determined by the Secretary of State by regulation. Only one 
such petition may be filed by an alien with respect to any 
petitioning period established. If more than one petition is 
submitted all such petitions submitted for such period by the 
alien shall be voided.
  [(ii)(I)The Secretary of State shall designate a period for 
the filing of petitions with respect to visas which may be 
issued under section 203(c) for the fiscal year beginning after 
the end of the period.
  [(II) Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a 
visa under section 203(c) shall remain eligible to receive such 
visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which 
they were selected.
  [(III) The Secretary of State shall prescribe such 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this clause.
  [(iii) A petition under this subparagraph shall be in such 
form as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe and 
shall contain such information and be supported by such 
documentary evidence as the Secretary of State may require.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle an 
immigrant, in behalf of whom a petition under this section is 
approved, to be admitted the United States as an immigrant 
under subsection [(a), (b), or (c)] (a) or (b) of section 203 
or as an immediate relative under section 201(b) if upon his 
arrival at a port of entry in the United States he is found not 
to be entitled to such classification.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            Dissenting Views

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    Our current immigration system revolves heavily around 
family- and employment-based immigration. For persons who lack 
such existing familial ties or special skills, the only 
opportunity to immigrate to the United States is the diversity 
visa program (DV program), which provides a small, but 
important opportunity for persons who come from countries that 
are otherwise poorly represented in our immigration system to 
obtain immigrant visas.
    When the DV program was created in 1990, it was championed 
by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Peter Rodino (D-NJ), who 
were concerned that our largely family-based immigration system 
would disadvantage immigrants of Irish and Italian descent.\1\ 
In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about two-
fifths of the DV program's beneficiaries, but account for only 
3% of family- and employment-based immigrants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 704, the Security and Fairness 
Enhancement for America Act, by the H. Comm. on Judiciary, 112th Cong. 
32-33 (2011) [hereinafter Markup Transcript], available at http://
judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/7%2020%2011%20HR%20704%20HR%
201550%20HR%202076%20HR%20963%20HR%201059%20HR%202552.pdf.
    \2\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Border Security: Fraud 
Risks Complicate State's Ability to Manage Diversity Visa Program, GAO-
07-1174 at 13 (2007) [hereinafter GAO Report].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Majority charges that the DV program ``is an 
open invitation for fraud and a jackpot for terrorists,''\3\ 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ``found no 
documented evidence that DV immigrants . . . posed a terrorist 
or other threat.''\4\ And, where security and other 
programmatic weaknesses have been identified, the State 
Department has made major improvements, such as converting to 
an electronic application process, requiring the submission of 
digital photographs for facial recognition analysis, ending the 
practice of notifying winners by mail, and increasing outreach 
and education to applicants.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Markup Transcript at 7.
    \4\See GAO Report at 26.
    \5\Safe for America Act: Hearing on H.R. 704 Before the H. Subcomm. 
on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
112th Cong. 22, 126-27 (2011) [hereinafter H.R. 704 Hearing].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The short title of H.R. 704--the ``Security and Fairness 
Enhancement for America Act'' or the ``SAFE for America Act''--
is classic Orwellian ``newspeak'' for a bill that enhances 
neither security nor fairness in our immigration system. 
Rather, the bill eliminates the DV program and, as a result, 
dramatically and adversely changes the face of immigration to 
the United States. Eliminating the program would effectively 
end legal immigration from large swathes of the globe and 
undercut a significant foreign policy goal, namely, sustaining 
the American dream in parts of the world where winning the DV 
lottery represents the only realistic opportunity for 
immigrating to the United States. For a program proven to 
provide significant benefits to the Nation, the response to 
lingering concerns over fraud and national security risks 
should be to make further improvements to fix the program, not 
to eliminate it.
    Moreover, when our family- and employment-based immigration 
programs are suffering from substantial, sometimes decades-
long, backlogs due to insufficient numbers of visas, it makes 
no sense to simply eliminate the DV program's immigrant visas 
without re-allocating the visas to ameliorate existing backlogs 
or otherwise strengthen our economy.\6\ During consideration of 
the bill, the Committee debated an amendment offered jointly by 
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) that 
would have used these visas to continue to promote diversity 
while also helping to reduce our backlogs in the family-based 
immigration system, but the Majority voted the amendment 
down.\7\ Another amendment offered by Reps. Lofgren and Berman 
that would have re-allocated the 55,000 immigrant visas 
associated with the DV program to the existing family- and 
employment-based immigration systems, in an effort to reduce 
the extraordinary backlogs that the bill's sponsor himself has 
complained of, was ruled non-germane by the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.\8\ As reported by the Committee, H.R. 704 
is an attack on legal immigration, on diversity in the United 
States, and on families. It is opposed by the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Immigration Forum, 
and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who submitted a letter in 
opposition to the bill at the Subcommittee's legislative 
hearing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\The merit of such a re-allocation has support from at least one 
Member of the Committee's Majority. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced 
H.R. 43 to eliminate the DV program and re-allocate its visas to 
certain employment-based immigrants with advanced degrees obtained in 
the United States. See H.R. 43, 112th Cong. (2011).
    \7\See Markup Transcript at 48-61.
    \8\Id. at 61-64.
    \9\Letter from Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, Senate Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, to Rep. 
Elton Gallegly & Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Apr. 5, 2011) (on file with the H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, Democratic Staff) [hereinafter Sen. Schumer 
Letter]; H.R. 704 Hearing (statement of Ambassador Johnny Young, 
Executive Director, Migration and Refugee Services, United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops); Id. (statement of the National 
Immigration Forum) (Apr. 5, 2011) (on file with the H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, Democratic Staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these reasons and those discussed below, we 
respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to reject this 
anti-immigrant measure. These dissenting views provide 
background on the DV program and the bill and respond to the 
flawed criticisms of the DV program that have motivated this 
proposed legislation.

                       II. BACKGROUND ON H.R. 704

    H.R. 704 eliminates the DV program, which was first created 
by Congress in 1990 to stimulate ``new seed'' immigration. Our 
current immigration system, created in 1965, was preceded by 
national origin quotas that heavily favored immigrants from 
countries whose citizens had previously emigrated to the United 
States, largely from Western Europe. Prior to the creation of 
the DV program, the system's emphasis on the existence of close 
familial ties as a basis for receiving immigrant visas led to a 
concentration of immigration from a handful of source 
countries, despite the fact that the prior national origin 
quota system had been abolished. Because this approach alone 
would necessarily limit our ability to grow and sustain a 
diverse nation, the DV program created an important and 
necessary balance to this concentration.
    Under the DV program, 50,000 immigrant visas\10\ are made 
available annually to immigrants from otherwise under-
represented countries, as determined by a statutorily mandated 
formula.\11\ Since 1995, approximately 785,000 diversity visas 
have been issued. In order to be eligible for an immigrant visa 
under the DV program, a person must have a high school 
education (or the equivalent) or, within 5 years of applying, 
at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation requiring 
at least 2 years of training or experience. The program is also 
known as the ``diversity visa lottery'' because recipients of 
immigrant visas under the program are randomly selected and 
such immigrant visas are distributed on a ``first-come, first-
served'' basis by the State Department.\12\ Winning the lottery 
does not guarantee a visa, as the State Department solicits 
more ``winning'' applications than the number of visas 
available and requires winners to act quickly to file the 
necessary documentation demonstrating that they are admissible 
to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Although the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets the 
worldwide level of immigrant visas available under the DV program at 
55,000 annually, 5,000 of these visas are unavailable as a set-aside 
for immigrants eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 
Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA). See INA Sec. 201(e), 8 
U.S.C. Sec. 1151(e) (setting DV levels at 55,000); see also, section 
203(d) of P.L. 105-100 (allocating 5,000 visas from the DV program for 
recipients of relief under NACARA).
    \11\See INA Sec. 203(c), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1153(c) (outlining how 
countries are determined to be high- or low-admission countries for 
purposes of DV program eligibility).
    \12\See INA Sec. 203(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1153(e)(2) (stating that 
immigrant visas ``shall be issued to eligible qualified immigrants 
strictly in a random order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Diversity visa winners are subject to the same immigration, 
criminal and national security background checks applicable to 
all individuals applying to become lawful permanent residents, 
as well as interviews performed by officials from the State 
Department and the Department of Homeland Security. As 
discussed further below, following reports by both the GAO and 
the State Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), 
numerous improvements have already been made to address 
concerns over fraud and security.

          III. FLAWED CRITIQUES OF THE DIVERSITY VISA PROGRAM

    As the title of H.R. 704 suggests, opposition to the DV 
program has traditionally been justified on two bases: first, 
that the program poses fraud and national security risks, and, 
second, that allocating visas through a random, lottery-style 
system is fundamentally unfair to those who have been waiting 
for years in family- and employment-based immigration 
categories. These critiques and their flaws will be addressed 
in reverse order below.
A. Fairness and the Diversity Visa Program
    The implicit, underlying rationale behind the fairness 
critique is that it is unjust to allow DV recipients to receive 
their immigrant visas before other prospective legal immigrants 
waiting in backlogged family- and employment-based categories, 
because DV immigrants are somehow either less qualified than 
employment-based immigrants (who generally are subject to more 
stringent educational requirements and already have jobs 
awaiting them in the United States) or less likely to be 
successful than family-based immigrants (who have existing 
family support networks in the United States due to the 
necessary close familial ties required of sponsoring 
relatives). While the baseline eligibility requirements are, by 
design, less stringent in the DV program than in other 
immigrant visa categories, DV immigrants have been generally 
more--not less--successful than the overall lawful permanent 
resident population.
    According to an analysis issued by the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) in April 2011:

        Although the diversity immigrants are required to have 
        only a high school education (or the equivalent) or 2 
        years experience in an occupation which requires at 
        least 2 years of training or experience, they were more 
        likely to report managerial and professional 
        occupations than LPRs generally. Specifically, almost 
        [a] quarter (24%) of diversity immigrants reported 
        managerial and professional occupations in contrast to 
        10% of the 1.1 million LPRs in FY2009.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Ruth Wasem, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, 
Congressional Research Service, R41747 at 6 (Apr. 1, 2011) [hereinafter 
CRS Report].

    The CRS report also notes that diversity visa recipients 
are generally younger and more likely to become lawful 
permanent residents as they begin their working years than 
other persons who become lawful permanent residents, which 
means that DV immigrants contribute to our Nation's economy for 
longer periods than lawful permanent residents generally.\14\ 
Moreover, according to the most recent DHS yearbook of 
immigration statistics, DV holders have only a 3 percent rate 
of unemployment, significantly lower than the general 
unemployment rate of approximately 9 percent and the 
unemployment rate for all immigrants of about 8 percent.\15\ 
The argument that DV recipients provide less economic benefits 
to the country than other lawful permanent residents is simply 
unsustainable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id. at 7.
    \15\Id.; see also Sen. Schumer Letter, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During a legislative hearing on the bill, the Executive 
Director for Migration and Refugee Services for the United 
States Conference of Catholic Bishops testified about a DV 
winner he met when he was serving as the United States 
Ambassador to Togo. Ambassador Young stated:

        I can cite the case of a woman that I knew in Togo. She 
        was educated. She had a sister in the United States who 
        was a U.S. citizen. The sister had petitioned for her. 
        She believed that the wait would have been about 25 
        years, and while waiting, she applied for the lottery. 
        She didn't win the first few times but she won--I think 
        it was about the fourth time around. She came to the 
        United States. She brought her teenage son. He finished 
        school here in the United States and last year got his 
        MBA at Harvard.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Markup Transcript at 126, supra note 1.

    Moreover, attacking the program as unfair to families who 
wait in long backlogs misses the point of the program. In 
testifying about the DV program in 2005, former Rep. Bruce 
Morrison (D-CT), Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee at 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the time the program was created, stated:

        The bulk of immigrant flows will always come from those 
        places of close proximity, long immigrant history or 
        large population. However, the principle that all 
        nationalities are welcome, subject to available numbers 
        reflecting overall legislated limits, is at the heart 
        of the definition of America. We are a nation defined 
        by allegiance to democracy, human rights and equal 
        opportunity. . . . It balances the limitations of a 
        structure based only on family ties and established 
        employment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Hearing on the Diversity Visa Program Before the H. Subcomm. on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the H. Comm. on Judiciary, 
109th Cong. 49 (2005) (statement of the Honorable Bruce A. Morrison, 
former Member of Congress).

The goal of the DV program is to foster ``new seed'' 
immigration in recognition of the principle that the United 
States remains the land of opportunity that is open to all 
people of the world, regardless of nationality. As Ambassador 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young testified,

        the diversity immigrant visa program generates goodwill 
        and hope among millions across the globe ravaged by 
        war, poverty, undemocratic regimes, and opacity in 
        government. Through the diversity immigrant visa 
        program, the United States makes a counterpoint to that 
        reality, a chance at becoming an integral member of an 
        open, democratic society that places a premium on hard 
        work and opportunity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Markup Transcript at 45, supra note 1.

    Finally, it is impossible to ignore the hypocrisy of the 
fairness attack by our Republican colleagues on the DV program, 
in light of the fact that H.R. 704 eliminates the program along 
with the 55,000 visas that it makes available each year. 
Eliminating those visas will do nothing to reduce the 
incredible delays that family members and highly skilled 
workers experience in our Nation's backlogged immigration 
system. In fact, the Majority voted down an amendment that 
would have reduced the family backlog while promoting the value 
of diversity and insisted upon a germaneness point of order on 
a second amendment that would have reallocated the 55,000 visas 
equally to the family- and employment-based immigrant visa 
backlogs.\19\ By rejecting those amendments and proceeding with 
this bill, as introduced, the Majority is destroying the only 
legal avenue by which persons without existing familial or 
employment ties to the United States can immigrate to this 
country while doing nothing to alleviate the unacceptable 
delays currently experienced by American families and 
businesses stuck in the family- and employment-based visa 
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Id. at 48-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fraud, Security Risks and the Diversity Visa Program
    The bill's supporters also argue that H.R. 704 will enhance 
the security of the United States by ending a program that can 
be used by terrorists and is rife with fraud. In 2003, the 
State Department's OIG issued a report discussing each of these 
concerns.\20\ In response, the State Department made 
significant, notable improvements to the program. The program 
now requires submission of fingerprints and digital photographs 
to identify duplicative and fraudulent applications through the 
use of facial recognition technology. It has also shifted to an 
electronic application process and away from notifying winners 
by mail, in an effort to reduce the opportunity for 
unscrupulous persons to extort money from lottery winners in 
exchange for their results. Finally, State Department consular 
posts now provide education to the community about the rules of 
the program in an effort to empower potential applicants to 
apply for the program without seeking assistance from 
others.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\See U.S. Department of State Office of the Inspector General, 
Memorandum Inspection Report Number ISP-CA-03-52, Diversity Visa 
Program (2003).
    \21\H.R. 704 Hearing at 26-27, supra note 5; see CRS Report at 10, 
supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a 2007 report, the GAO ``found no documented evidence 
that DV immigrants . . . posed a terrorist or other 
threat.''\22\ The GAO also concluded that the DV program is 
accomplishing Congress' goal of diversifying the pool of 
immigrants to the United States. For example, in fiscal year 
2006, 40 percent of diversity visa beneficiaries were from 
Africa and 34 percent were from Europe, while only 3 percent of 
family- and employment-based visas went to persons from Africa 
and only 8 percent went to persons from Europe.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\GAO Report, supra note 2, at 5.
    \23\Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GAO report did identify some continuing problems with 
fraud, including the widespread use of ``visa consultants'' and 
``visa agents,'' who charge exorbitant fees for processing 
otherwise free DV applications and provide false information. 
To address these issues, consular posts attempt to educate 
potential applicants about the process and the penalties for 
fraudulent or multiple entries in order to reduce the influence 
of visa consultants.\24\ The GAO further noted that heightened 
fingerprint and facial recognition checks help to identify a 
great deal of fraud and multiple entries.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Id. at 28-30.
    \25\Id. at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 704 purports to enhance security by eliminating the DV 
program. Yet, as the GAO found, there is no evidence that DV 
recipients pose a greater terrorist or national security threat 
than any other immigration category. And while fraud certainly 
exists in the program, important improvements already have been 
made and further steps can be taken. The Majority's suggestion 
that terrorists and hostile foreign intelligence officers 
utilize this program in particular to immigrate to our country 
is baseless. Given that tens of millions of applicants apply 
annually for 50,000 slots, it is simply implausible that those 
who would do us harm would rely on winning the lottery to gain 
entry to our country. Instead of working to improve a program 
that has great value to our country and its image around the 
world, H.R. 704 would end it to nominally reduce an overstated 
threat.
    Moreover, rather than making Americans safer and improving 
our current immigration system, eliminating the DV program is 
likely to create greater problems for our immigration system. 
As Sen. Schumer explains in his letter opposing the bill:

        The DV Program also plays a helpful role in enhancing 
        America's security. As our world becomes ever more 
        interconnected, our border patrol is facing increased 
        challenges from immigrants who seek to enter the United 
        States through our land borders even though they are 
        coming from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. The DV 
        Program reduces incentives for illegal immigration by 
        encouraging prospective immigrants to wait for years at 
        home until they win the lottery, as opposed to 
        attempting to enter illegally. It is far better to have 
        a manageable flow of 50,000 yearly immigrants who wait 
        and receive background checks, medical screenings, and 
        consular interviews before entering the United States 
        legally than to cancel this program and create a 
        situation of hopelessness and despair whereby hundreds 
        of thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa, Asia, 
        and Eastern Europe attempt to cross our borders each 
        year without our knowledge.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Sen. Schumer Letter, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. CONCLUSION

    The ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act'' 
would enhance neither security nor fairness for America. 
Instead, it ends an immigration program that serves as a 
powerful diplomatic tool that effectively accomplishes its goal 
of fostering immigration from underrepresented areas of the 
world. The DV program engenders goodwill towards the United 
States in a world suffering from war, poverty and tyranny by 
providing hope that anyone can become a part of our peaceful, 
open and free society. Ending, instead of improving, this 
program based on the flawed critiques described above is simply 
inappropriate. And ending the program without re-allocating 
these visas to ameliorate existing backlogs for other legal 
immigrants shows a lack of respect for those who have waited 
decades to legally immigrate to the United States. For these 
reasons, we respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to 
reject H.R. 704.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.
                                   Pedro R. Pierluisi.
                                   Judy Chu.
                                   Ted Deutch.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.

                                  

```