U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–724 PDF 2013

ENHANCING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS 

THROUGH SKILLED IMMIGRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Serial No. 113–15 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

Bruce A. Morrison, Chairman, Morrison Public Affairs Group, on behalf of 

IEEE—USA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

Dean C. Garfield, President & CEO, Information Technology Industry Council 

(ITI) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Deepak Kamra, General Partner, Canaan Partners 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director, American Immigration Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 78 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 84 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 85 

(1) 

ENHANCING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS 

THROUGH SKILLED IMMIGRATION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Smith, Jordan, 

Amodei, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, and 

Garcia. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Allison 

Halataei, Parlimentarian & General Counsel; Graham Owens, 

Clerk; and (Minority) David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good morning and welcome to the hearing on Enhancing American Competitiveness Through Skilled Immigration. 

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

On behalf of all of us, we welcome our witnesses, and I will introduce them in short order. 

The American dream is in large part inextricably intertwined 

with our economic competitiveness. It is the Subcommittee’s hope 

that we ensure our immigration system helps hone, rather than 

blunt, that competitive advantage. A single visionary newcomer 

can start a business, generating thousands of jobs. It is vital that 

we keep those jobs here so our fellow citizens can experience the 

most basic of all family values, which is a job. 

Nearly half of America’s top up and coming venture capital 

backed companies were started by immigrants. To pick just one, 

Glaukos Corporation has developed a promising new treatment to 

glaucoma. It was founded by three men, including a Norwegian and 

an Iranian immigrant. Today’s hearing will investigate how we can 

build a better immigration system and, therefore, experience more 

entrepreneurial success, fueled in no small part by the ideas and 

innovation of immigrants. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects employment in computer 

and information technology occupations will grow by 22 percent 
2 

through 2020. It also projects the fastest employment growth will 

be in occupations requiring doctorate, professional, or masters degrees. Immigrants play a role in filling these jobs. Foreign students 

comprise about 37 percent of the graduates of science, technology, 

and engineering and mathematics, commonly known as STEM, 

master’s and doctoral programs at U.S. universities. We must take 

care that our immigration system ensures the best and brightest 

of these foreign students decide to make their careers and their 

homes in America. The typical path has immigrant scientists and 

engineers first studying in the U.S. on student visas, then working 

for American companies through optional practical training, or H1B temporary visas, and then being sponsored by their employers 

for green cards. 

Today’s hearing will investigate whether U.S. immigration policy 

needlessly blocks this path. At the same time, we must encourage 

our children and grandchildren to study in STEM fields. U.S. students need fair access to our institutions of higher education. Some 

universities today, in today’s tough fiscal climate, are actually considering giving preference to foreign full tuition paying students 

over our own students. Needless to say, that is unacceptable. 

Secondly, U.S. students need to know that viable life-style-friendly long-term careers will follow from the hard work of studying 

technical fields in college. Stories still abound about American 

workers being laid off and replaced with H-1B workers, even being 

forced to train their replacements. American computer scientists 

face an often brutal job market after they turn 35. Some argue the 

H-1B visa program facilitates this preference for younger workers. 

The GAO found that while 38 percent of American systems analysts, programmers, and other computer-related workers are under 

the age of 35, 83 percent of the H-1B workers in these occupations 

are under 35. 

While the H-1B program has safeguards to protect the interests 

of American workers, are these safeguards working as they should? 

The GAO found H-1B employers categorize over half of their H1B workers as entry level, which is defined as performing routine 

tasks that require limited if any exercise of judgment. And only 6 

percent is fully competent. The dollar differences are not trivial. In 

Greenville, South Carolina, the H-1B program’s prevailing wage for 

an electrical engineer is $55,890 for an entry-level worker, and 

$88,920 for a fully competent worker. Are experienced Americans 

losing out? 

Today’s hearing and subsequent ones will answer these questions 

factually. It is encouraging to note the median salary of H-1B 

workers approved for initial employment in computer-related jobs 

increased from $50,000 in 2005 to 64,000 in 2011. 

In summary, our skilled immigration policies should meet three 

goals. It should help ensure our economic growth, it should ensure 

that we attract to keep the best and brightest from all around the 

world, and it should nurture the careers of American students and 

workers who choose to study and work in these essential fields. 

I look forward to today’s hearing. Again, I welcome our witnesses. And with that, I would recognize the Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 
3 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All of us agree that 

America is the greatest country on Earth. We attribute this success 

to our unparalleled freedoms, our abundant natural resources. But 

there is one critical factor that can’t be forgotten: Immigration. 

That the U.S. is the strongest economic and military power on 

Earth is no accident. It was earned by opening our arms to the 

world’s political and intellectual refugees by giving them the freedom to take risks and own their own accomplishments and by fostering a national identity that welcomes strangers to become as 

American as the rest of us. 

For years, we have been on the winning side of the global brain 

drain, but today, we find ourselves on the other side of the drain. 

We used to invite the brightest minds in the world to come make 

this their home and become Americans with us, now we turn them 

away. We turn away advanced degree graduates in STEM from our 

best universities. We turn away entrepreneurs who want to start 

businesses and create jobs for our constituents. We turn away medical professionals willing to fill gaps in healthcare shortage areas. 

Rather than harness their potential as our country has done for 

over 2 centuries, we now tell these people they are not welcome. 

Worse yet, in this increasingly global economy, we tell them to go 

home and compete against us from overseas. The result has been 

a reverse brain drain, and it is not good for our country. 

Immigrant students and entrepreneurs have had a profound impact on the U.S. economy and job creation in America. Immigrants 

were responsible for one-quarter of all engineering and technology 

startups created in the United States between 1995 and 2005. The 

vast majority of these immigrants had advanced STEM degrees, 

mainly from U.S. universities. More than half of the startups in 

Silicon Valley, my district, had immigrant founders. Immigrants 

were named as inventors or co-inventors in one-quarter of international patent applications filed in the United States in 2006. Due 

partly to immigration, our country, which is 5 percent of the 

world’s population, employs one-third of the world’s scientific and 

engineering researchers, accounts for 40 percent of all R&D spending, and publishes 35 percent of all science and engineering articles. This leadership in science and technology, according to the 

National Academies, has translated into rising standards of living 

for all Americans, with technology improvements accounting for up 

to half of GDP growth and at least two-thirds of productivity 

growth since 1946. This is because, according to the Academies, 

while only 4 percent of the Nation’s workforce is composed of scientists and engineers, this group disproportionately creates jobs for 

the other 96 percent. 

A recent report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of businesses founded by New York City 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and News Corporation’s CEO Rupert 

Murdoch found that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. These companies currently generate a staggering $4.2 trillion in revenue each 

year. All of these statistics make it clear that we must find a way 

to keep more of these minds in America. In 2005, at the request 

of Congress, the National Academies issued a very sobering report 

on the country’s eroding leadership, economic leadership in science 
4 

and technology. The Academies reviewed trends across the globe 

and found that due in part to restrictive immigration policies, the 

scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic 

leadership are eroding at a time when many other Nations are 

gathering strength. According to the report, although many people 

assume the United States will always be a world leader in science 

and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as 

great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. They said, 

quote, we fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and 

technology can be lost and the difficulty of recovering a lead once 

lost if indeed it can be regained at all, unquote. 

America’s greatest advantage in the global economy is our 

unique ability to innovate and incubate new ideas and technologies. 

This history of innovation was built both by harnessing native-born 

homegrown talent and fostering and welcoming the best and 

brightest immigrants from around the world. While we focus on the 

need to welcome those earning graduate degrees in STEM fields 

from America’s greatest universities, it is also important to remember that many of our tech innovators did not receive their immigration status based on their degrees but because they were familybased immigrants or refugees—think Google, think Yahoo. So we 

need to reform our broken immigration system. I believe that we 

can do the whole thing when we work in good faith together in a 

bipartisan manner. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair would now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

The contributions of highly skilled and educated immigrants to 

the United States are well documented. Seventy-six percent of the 

patents awarded to our top patent-producing universities had at 

least one foreign-born inventor. According to a recent report, these 

foreign-born inventors played especially large roles in cutting-edge 

fields like semiconductor device manufacturing, information technology, pulse or digital communications, pharmaceutical drugs or 

drug compounds, and optics. A study by the American Enterprise 

Institute and the Partnership for a New American Economy found 

that an additional 100 immigrants with advanced STEM degrees 

from U.S. universities is associated with an additional 262 jobs for 

native Americans. The study also found that immigrants with advanced degrees pay over $22,000 a year in taxes yet their families 

receive less than $2,300 in government benefits. 

The United States has the most generous legal immigration system in the world, providing permanent residence to over a million 

immigrants a year. Yet how many of these immigrants do we select 

on the basis of the education and skills they can bring to America? 

Only 12 percent; barely more than one out of 10, and that is including the immigrants’ family members. Given the outstanding track 

record of immigrants in founding some of our most successful companies, how many immigrants do we select on the basis of their entrepreneurial talents? Less than 1 percent. And that is only if they 

already have the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to par-
5 

ticipate in the investor visa program. Does any of this make sense, 

given the intense international economic competition that America 

faces? Does any of this make sense given that many talented foreign graduates of our best universities are giving up hope of getting a green card and are packing up and moving home to work 

for our competitors? Does any of this make sense given that Indian 

nationals with advanced degrees sought out by American industry 

have to wait over 8 years for a green card? Does any of this make 

sense, given that Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada each 

select over 60 percent of immigrants on the basis of skills and education? 

The answer is, clearly not. It is as if we purposely added weights 

to handicap our horse in order to give our competitors a better shot 

at the winner’s circle. This just doesn’t make sense as national economic policy. 

The House of Representatives acted last year to rechart our 

course. We voted by over a hundred vote margin to pass legislation 

by former Chairman Smith that redirected 50,000 or so green cards 

a year from winners of the diversity visa lottery toward foreign 

graduates graduating from our universities with advanced degrees 

in STEM fields. That bill would have made all Americans winners. 

Unfortunately, at the direction of the White House, the bill died in 

the Senate. In this new Congress, we can rechart our Nation’s 

course anew. We should look at all aspects of high-skilled immigration policy. We can look for ways to improve our temporary visa 

programs for skilled workers, such as H-1B and L visas. We can 

look for ways to improve our temporary visa program for entrepreneurs, the E-2 program. We can look for ways to offer green 

cards to aspiring entrepreneurs that don’t demand that they themselves be rich but that instead rely on the judgment of the venture 

capitalists who have funded them. We can look for ways to reduce 

the backlogs for second and third preference employment-based 

green cards. And we can seek to help the United States retain 

more of the foreign students who graduate from our universities. 

Of course, at the same time, we need to ensure that whatever we 

do brightens rather than darkens the career prospects of American 

students and American workers. Even newly minted Ph.D.s are not 

immune to sometimes bleak employment prospects. But attracting 

the world’s best and brightest is decidedly in the interest of all 

Americans. Just think of the incredible economic windfall that 

America experienced through the arrival of scientists fleeing Nazism in the 1930’s and 1940’s. This was one of the factors that enabled the postwar economic boom. Today, talented individuals have 

many options worldwide as to where to relocate. America needs to 

regain its place as the number one destination for the world’s best 

and brightest. That should be our goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. Now it is my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel. I will introduce you en banc, and then I will recognize you individually. The lights mean what they traditionally 

mean in life: green means go, yellow means hurry up, red means 

try to conclude that thought if you are able to. 
6 

First, Mr. Bruce Morrison is Chairman of the Morrison Public Affairs Group, which he founded in 2001. He is an expert on immigration policy and practice, and is an immigration consultant and 

lobbyist. Among other clients, he represents the IEEE-USA with 

respect to immigration policy advocacy; from 1983 to 1991, Mr. 

Morrison represented the 3rd District of Connecticut in the United 

States House of Representatives. He also served on the Judiciary 

Committee, where he specialized in immigration. As Chairman of 

the Immigration Subcommittee from 1989 to 1991, he was deeply 

involved in the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990. He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from MIT, a master’s degree in organic chemistry from the University of Illinois, and he is a graduate of Yale Law School. 

Mr. Dean Garfield is President and CEO of the Information 

Technology Industry Council, a role he has held since 2008. Mr. 

Garfield has worked to foster a policy environment and embrace 

cutting-edge research game-changing technologies and national economic champions as central to the foundation for sustained job creation and growth. He received a joint J.D.-master’s degree from 

New York University School of Law and the Woodrow Wilson 

School of Public Administration International Affairs at Princeton 

University. He is a Ford Rockefeller as well as a Root-Tilden-Snow 

scholar. He is a first-generation immigrant from Jamaica. 

Mr. Deepak Kamra—if I mispronounced your name, I apologize— 

has been a venture capitalist with Canaan Partners for 20 years. 

Canaan Partners is a global venture capital firm investing in earlystage technologies and healthcare companies. Mr. Kamra joined 

Canaan Partners in 1991, and has focused on investments in digital media and software. He led Canaan’s early investment in such 

successful startups as DoubleClick, Match.com, Zoosk, and 

SuccessFactors. He received a B.A. from Carlton University and an 

M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. He is a first-generation immigrant from India. 

Mr. Benjamin Johnson is the Executive Director of the American 

Immigration Council in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit educational 

organization, which increases public understanding of immigration 

law and policy and the role of immigration in American society. He 

earned a J.D. From the University of San Diego School of Law, and 

studied international comparative law at King’s College in London. 

Welcome all of you. Mr. Morrison, I will recognize you first, then 

we will go from my left to right, your right to left. Mr. Morrison. 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE A. MORRISON, CHAIRMAN, MORRISON 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP, ON BEHALF OF IEEE—USA 

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the entire Subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important topic. I am 

here representing the IEEE-USA, which represents 206,000 technology workers in the United States as part of the worldwide 

IEEE, which represents over 400,000 technology workers around 

the world. IEEE was founded by Thomas Edison and Alexander 

Graham Bell, no better provenance than that for technology and innovation. And the IEEE-USA is the organization that really represents the people who invented the Internet. 
7 

The immigration policy of the United States needs to feed our 

competitiveness, as the opening statements of Members have said. 

This is very important. We at the IEEE understand what this is 

about because we represent the people who are the innovative 

workers in this sector. We represent people who are born in America and people who are foreign born and who have become Americans. So we are very much sensitive to the challenges that American workers face but also the opportunities that America has in 

terms of accepting skilled immigrants in order to join our workforce. 

Over 50 percent of the students in advanced degree programs in 

the United States in STEM are foreign born. So the reality is that 

when employers go to seek employees for the future they see a lot 

of foreign-born individuals who are highly skilled and are individuals they want to select as part of their workforce, along with their 

classmates who were born in America. We need to see to it that 

the immigration system is responsive to that reality. 

I don’t think I need to convince this Committee that these individuals are job creators, that these individuals as innovators are 

helpful to our economy and to everyone in the country. 

But there are right ways and wrong ways to address this process. 

And we at IEEE-USA very much believe that the emphasis needs 

to be on green cards. Green cards are the way that individuals 

come from all over the world into our country and become Americans. I was privileged to serve on the Jordan Commission during 

the 1990’s. And our Chairwoman, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, 

was a great American leader. And I couldn’t put it better than she 

did. She said, ‘‘I would be the last person to claim that our Nation 

is perfect, but as a Nation we have a kind of perfection in us because our founding principle is universal. We are all created equal. 

People come from all over the world to take us up on that promise. 

It was immigration that drove us down the track to a broader and 

more perfect vision of ourselves. They became us. And who we are 

as in ‘We the people’ changed and expanded to include new Americans.’’ 

We hear all the time that this is a Nation of immigrants. No one 

has ever said this is a Nation of guest workers. The fact is that immigrants are individuals who come and get green cards and have 

permanent rights in the United States. And that is the key challenge that this Subcommittee has in formulating a response to the 

demand for slots in our economy that are not being fully met by 

our current system. 

So you might ask, if that is the case, why all the clammer for 

more H-1B numbers rather than just being focused on green cards? 

First of all, our current green card system is hopelessly backlogged, as Chairman Goodlatte described. We need more green 

cards, both to address the backlog and to address the future demand. So using methods like recapture and other fashions of getting numbers immediately available and also increasing the numbers and relieving, for instance, STEM workers with advanced degrees from the burden of a cap on the number. We can’t have too 

many of these individuals who are selected by American employers 

when there is fair competition between American graduates and 

foreign-born graduates. 
8 

What green cards do is give those who are foreign born an equal 

right and autonomy in the economy to have the full freedom to 

have their market power to leave their job and not to be required 

to be in any way beholden to a particular employer. That works for 

both the employer and—that works for both the American worker 

and the foreign worker. That is the way to have a level playing 

field. 

I think that needs to be the focus of what the Subcommittee 

takes up. I have listed in my testimony a number of ways in which 

the delays that are currently in the system and that make the 

green card system not work for employers can be addressed. And 

the Idea Act that was introduced in 2011 has many of those same 

ideas. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. And your full statement will be part 

of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:] 
9 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE A. MORRISON 

CHAIRMAN 

MORRISON PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP 

ON BEHALF OF 

IEEE-USA 

FOR THE HEARING ON 

"ENHANCING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH SKILLED 

IMMIGRATION" 

PRESENTED TO THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

OFTHE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

MARCH 5, 2013 
10 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE A. MORRISON 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, ranking member Lofgren, and distinguished members of 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today You have a vital job to do in these 

difficult economic times. We all want to help identify the opportunity for consensus on 

actions that the Congress can take to create jobs for Americans. 

I am here today in my capacity as a representative of IEEE-USA, an organizational unit 

of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., which was founded by 

Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, two men who knew something about 

innovation. IEEE-USA was created in 1973 to support the career and public policy 

interests of IEEE's U.S. members. It represents over 206,000 engineering, computing and 

technology professionals and students. Its vision is to be the technical professional's best 

resource for achieving life-long career vitality and to provide an effective voice on 

policies that promote U.S. prosperity. 

"Immigration" Should Mean Green Cards 

The focus of this hearing is skilled immigration, so it may be helpful for me to provide a 

bit of historical perspective. T was the chairman of this subcommittee in 1990 when we 

defined the basic structure of skilled immigration based on employment in the 

Tmmigration Act of 1990. Our goal was to promote American economic competitiveness 

by using our greatest economic and civic advantage over the rest of the world - almost 

unique among the nations of the world, the United States does not merely admit 

foreigners as workers. We welcome high skilled individuals from around the world as 

new Americans. That is why the 1990 Act nearly tripled employment-based green cards 

from 54,000 to 140,000 a year - and why we set a permanent cap of 65,000 H-lB visas a 

year. We wanted to ensure that employers hiring foreigners for permanent jobs used 

legal permanent residency visas-"green cards". This status puts immigrants on a road to 

citizenship, and while on that road they have all workplace rights and economic 

autonomy of Americans. 

This is a value judgment. Congress could make our country more like Europe, which 

issues work permits and tolerates asylum-seekers and calls that "immigration." But that is 

not our history. It was the Ellis Island model that literally made us America. I was 

privileged to serve on the Congressionally-mandated, bipartisan US Commission on 

Immigration Reform that is known by the name of its chair, the late Congresswoman 

Barbara Jordan. Let me quote her: 

I would be the last person to claim that our nation is perfect. But as a nation we 

have a kind of perfection in us, because our founding principle is universal: we are 

all created equal. People come from allover the world to take us up on that 

promise. It was immigration that drove us down the track to a broader and more 

perfect vision of ourselves. "They" became "us", and who "we" are - as in "We, 

the People" changed and expanded to include new Americans. 

2 
11 

So we are not a nation of guest workers. Of course there are seasonal jobs and a certain 

number of temporary jobs, including international transfers by multinational enterprises, 

that involve temporary workers who should have temporary status. But for most of those 

with skills whom we want to come to help build America a unanimous finding of the 

Jordan Commission applies: 

[G]uestworker programs are predicated on limitations on the freedom of those who 

are invited to enter and work. Experience has shown that such limitations are 

incompatible with the values of democratic societies. For that very reason, 

"temporary" guestworkers tend to become permanent residents, deje/eta or even de 

jure. The inconsistency between the stated intent of guestworker programs and their 

actual consequences cannot be ignored by policymakers who seek credibility in a 

reformed system. 

The challenge for reform of skilled immigration is to avoid this trap. 

More Green Cards Are Needed 

Our legal immigration system clearly needs reform. We need more green cards for skilled 

workers. We need to provide employers with a more direct way to sponsor new hires for 

green cards as soon as they are hired. 

American technology firms need their skills for the research and product development 

that they are doing in the U.S. They need to draw from the full pool ofU.S.-educated 

graduates, not just the minority that are already Americans. If this talent pool is not 

available here, American firms will move jobs to where they can access the talent they 

need. When they do that, it is not just the foreign-born who leave. Along with them go 

multiples of jobs now held by Americans. It is an outsourcing phenomenon, not 

immigration that undercuts the U. S. job market for Americans in a range of professions. 

In addition, advanced degree STEM graduates are key contributors to innovation and 

increased productivity that will help grow whatever economy employs them. In America, 

they will enhance our productivity and prosperity, growing American jobs and the 

American standard ofliving. Or, they can take their skills-nurtured by our world 

leading universities-and put them to work building another country's prosperity. There 

are plenty of competitors in the world outside our borders ready to hire them. 

In May and June, another class of advanced degree STEM graduates will join the 

worldorce. Whose welcome mat will be most attractive? America has usually won this 

competition in the past, but our competitors are increasingly aggressive in pursuit of this 

talent pool. And globalization has made it easier tor multinational companies to go where 

the talent goes, rather than insist that the talent stay in America. With our unemployment 

so high, we desperately need to hold onto these jobs-those tilled by Americans and 

those that can be filled by foreign-born graduates on their way to becoming Americansas well as the jobs that their work will create. Innovation will occur where the innovators 

are. It would be a mistake to assume that will always be the United States. 

3 
12 

"So, isn't that what the H-lB is designed to do?" No, not really. The H-lB is a temporary 

status not providing the security or autonomy of a green card. Tt is a detour and possibly a 

dead end on the path to citizenship. As a temporary, nonimmigrant category that ties 

employees to particular employers, it is not America's most effective welcome mat. What 

makes America unique in the world is the way we turn newcomers into Americans. These 

STEM graduates, like generations before them, do not want to be "temporary workers" 

valued only as long as they are of interest to a "temporary employer." Rather, they are 

skilled individuals, often with families, who seek a secure place in a competitive 

workplace and a welcoming community. They want to stay permanently in America and 

become Americans. Likewise, many employers want them to have this security so that 

they can be fully integrated into the workforce. This "Ellis Island" model of immigration 

is what should set us apart in the global competition for talent. But to retain this 

historically successful model, we must repair the green card process so that it provides a 

realistic route for high skilled workers to join our workforce and our society. 

The IEEE-USA represents electrical, electronics and computer engineers. While 80% are 

native born, 20% are immigrants. Student chapters abound, with their mixture of "grownup here" and "came from abroad" students. But there is a consensus among the 

membership. These members do not want to be part of a system that uses "temporary 

visas" to advantage or disadvantage some employees over others. They want a workplace 

where the competition is fair because the playing field is level With "green cards" you 

do not have to write endless rules regarding portability and prevailing wages. The job 

market sorts all this out. Employers keep their workers by providing an attractive 

employment opportunity. Employees keep their working conditions up by having options. 

That is the better way to attract and keep foreign-born talent without adversely affecting 

American workers or exploiting the foreign born. 

In short, there are no problems for which green cards are not a better solution than 

temporary visas. And there are no problems with the H-IB program itself that a system 

built on green cards cannot fix. 

Why the Focus 011 H-IB? 

Given the clear advantages for America of admitting skilled immigrants as lawful 

pennanent resident from the start, why the perpetual clamor for H-IB increases? It is not 

necessary to assign malign motives to understand the mistakes that have led to the H-lB 

as the preferred route for skilled foreign-born workers to stay in America. We 

understood this in 1990, and tried to redirect the process to green cards. But the attempt 

was incomplete and should be a part of new legislative changes. 

While we increased the green card quotas substantially and capped the H-l B supply, we 

were unsuccessful in replacing labor certiiication with fees and our attempt to substitute 

shortage detenninations for individual labor certification was thwarted by bureaucratic 

opposition at the Department of Labor. As a result, the green card system was beset with 

processing delays at both the Department of Labor and INS in the 1990s, such that when 

4 
13 

demand spiked in the tech boom, the argument for H-l Bs, with its ability to supply an 

employee in a relatively quick period, became the vehicle of choice. 

Unfortunately, that choice contained the seeds of even bigger problems within it. While 

green card numbers sat unused for the 1990s due to years-long processing delays, the 

next decade resulted in enormous backlogs of approved petitions as the expanded 

multitude ofH-lB workers sought the green card they had always wanted. From this the 

lesson is clear. Slow green card processing will drive the system to temporary visas, but 

increasing temporary visas will backlog green card quotas. When that happens, the direct 

to green card option vanishes because of the backlogs. It becomes a self-fultilling 

prophesy that only temporary visas can bring in foreign born workers rapidly. 

The response in 2013 should not make those two mistakes again. Instead, green cards 

should be processed quickly and quotas should be adequate to meet the demand. 

Having expanded the H-lB quotas to help American employers solve their rapid growth 

in demand for high skilled workers, others found a way to make use of this visa category 

to something quite difTerent. Indian firms pioneered an "outsourcing" model using the HlB status to complete with Americans with workers initially deployed here, but 

eventually returning to India to secure staffing contracts at Indian labor rates. 

India regards the use of our H-IB program by Indian-based outsourcing firms as trade in 

services. From their perspective, that makes sense: an Indian firm hires Indian workers in 

India then sponsors them for an American H-IB visa. The firm bids for contracting work 

in the US. Because their bids are cheaper, they get those contracts-and the Americans 

who had been doing the work lose their jobs. In many cases, like the Nielsen example in 

Florida, after a few years even those H-IB jobs leave the US. entirely. There is a reason 

why India's fonner Minister of Commerce Kamal Nath told the New York Times in 2007 

that "[the H-lB] has become the outsourcing visa." 

While I am sure the Indian government is delighted, it is increasingly bad from an 

American point of view as the use of H-IB visas by outsourcing companies has evidently 

accelerated in recent years. The USClS data is completely consistent with the Labor 

Condition Application data from the Department of Labor: of the LCA's approved for 

use in Virginia, 40% were for outsourcers; in Michigan, 53%, also 53% in Idaho, in 

South Carolina, 58%; in Wisconsin, 68%. 

Green Card Backlogs Must Be Eliminated 

But I'm not here on behalf of the IEEE-USA to argue for restrictions. I'm here to urge 

that Congress create more green cards for skilled workers, and enable employers to 

sponsor new hires for legal permanent residency the moment they are hired. By 

providing foreign workers with the same rights and ability to fully participate in the labor 

market, we can solve the endless cycle of problems created by the H-l B program. 

Let me say something about backlogs. A few weeks ago, in the first hearing of what 

5 
14 

Chairman Goodlatte has properly said will be a careful, deliberative process of examining 

immigration issues, the full Judiciary Committee heard from Vivek Wadwha, who said 

that if he were a young H-lB visa holder, he would not put up with the long delays and 

complex restrictions of the program. 

The answer is more green cards, delivered promptly. 

I've attached to my written testimony my analysis of the Senate's I-Squared bill (S. 169), 

which proposes to increase R-lBs from the 130,000 now issued each year (when all the 

exemptions are considered), to nearly 200,000 immediately and well over 300,000 in the 

future. These numbers are much larger than anything that existed even at the height of 

the tech boom. While the IEEE-USA applauds the green card increases that are included 

in that legislation, they are not enough to keep pace with the R-IB increases that are also 

in the bill 

I've also attached to my testimony a news cartoon that was done for the IEEE-USA 

during the last round ofR-IB increases more than ten years ago. It depicts the train 

wreck that we predicted would happen, as hundreds of thousands ofR-IB visa holders, 

most from India and China, ran into the wall created by the failed regulatory system 

called labor certification and the lack of sut1icient green cards. 

We are warning now what we warned then. Green cards are what the employees want, 

what many employers want, and what America needs. So temporary visa increases do 

not get us where we need to go. They create backlogs that make the direct to green card 

goal impossible to reach. And the testimony the Judiciary Committee has already 

received from Vivek Wadwha and Immigration Voice just confinns the accuracy of our 

earli er warning. 

There remains only one way to solve backlogs: more. Zero sum solutions to benefit 

skilled workers from India and China at the expense of South Korea, Mexico, Pakistan 

and Taiwan won't get it done. 

I Imow that you are all concerned about U.S. workers. So are we. The IEEE-USA is not 

just the oldest and largest professional society of technologists in the world, it also 

represents more tech workers in the U.S. than any other organization. 

We believe that the best way to create and keep jobs in America is to empower American 

employers to use green cards to hire the skilled foreign STEM graduates they need from 

our schools. The best way to do that is to deregulate the process by which an employer 

sponsors a new hire for penllanent residency, through a market-set fee. Put it this way: if 

an employer is willing to pay a substantial fee to sponsor a skilled foreign worker for a 

green card - which means he or she can quit if they are underpaid - that is solid evidence 

the employer actually needs the worker's skills. But if an employer is only willing to pay 

a fee for a worker who cannot quit without going back to the beginning of the green card 

process, that indicates the employer is more interested in the indentured character of the 

visa, than in the worker's skills. 

6 
15 

That is also a huge disincentive to hire Americans. Better to have a fee for green cards 

that is used to promote competitiveness in our high tech labor market, and to help educate 

and train Americans for 21 st century jobs. 

Congress should also recognize that, so long as companies can treat H-IB workers 

differently from immigrant (green card) workers and American citizens, there will be 

opportunities for abuse. In fact, because employers have more control over H-IB 

workers than American workers, there is a built-in incentive for companies to prefer an 

H-IB worker and some employers even voice this preference in "H-IB only" advertising. 

Making the Green Card Process Work for Employers and Immigrants Is Possible 

As always, immigration policy should be shaped by what is in our national interest and 

good for Americans, not by what potential immigrants might prefer. 

We have 8% unemployment. So our top priority has to be to create and keep jobs in 

America. We can debate "how." But that is a "what" we all share. 

There is a broad political consensus available to build on: that green cards for STEM 

graduates, starting this year, is one of the best available tools for growingjobs in 

America. 

And it's not just technology jobs-it's the whole economy, everything from our crippled 

housing market to the retail sector wins with a green-card based system. 

After all, no matter how good the jobs, most workers on temporary visas are renters. 

Legal permanent residents with good jobs can better qualify for mortgages and buy 

homes. 

So what does this mean specifically? Here are some suggestions to make direct access to 

green cards a convenient route for sponsoring employers and eliminate the need to rely 

on the H-IB status for a long period, if at all: 

• Create a category for advance degree STEM graduates from high quality American 

universities and move them out from the green card caps. Consider imposing fees on 

their immigrant petitions to fund STEM education for Americans. 

• Exempt the spouses and minor children of immigrants from the visa caps to increase 

availability of green cards based on the demand for the employee. 

• Recapture unused visas from the 1990s (when bureaucratic delays pushed demand 

away from green cards and into H-l B) so that the long queues of skilled employees 

can get their green cards now. Create an annual rollover of unused visas to eliminate 

unused visas in the future. 

• Eliminate the per-country limit on employment-based visas, recognizing that the 

7 
16 

biggest talent pools come from the biggest countries in the world-India and China 

and that we want talented innovators regardless of their home country. 

• Create incentives for employers to petition for green cards at the beginning of the 

employment of skilled foreign-born employees. rather than keeping them in 

"temporary" status for most of a decade. 

• Replace labor certification with a training and education fee or at least make that an 

available option. At least require that labor certification be processed within 30 days, 

including audit reviews. Charge fees to create the capacity to do this. 

• Provide for continuing renewal of Optional Practical Training (OPT) status on an 

annual basis (after initial period of 17 months to coincide with May to October 

transition) if sponsored by a current employer and there is a green card process 

ongoing (whether for that employer or another). 

• Provide for filing of adjustment of status applications based on approved (or 

concurrently tiled) employment-based petitions during periods when visas are not 

available for the beneficiary for the applicable category to allow the green card 

process immediately without reliance on H-IB. 

• Extend the current portability of adjustment applications to the approved petition 

stage. 

The American competitive advantage in immigration is the Ellis Island model. It's not 

about adding foreigners to our economy. It is adding skilled people who want to become 

Americans. Giving American employers enough green cards to hire new Americans 

means more jobs for Americans-not just those born abroad. but all of us. 

8 
17 

ANALYSIS OF EB BACKLOGS AND EFFECT OF S. 169 

The following analysis assumes the enactment of S. 169 provisions regarding green 

cards. It calculates backlogs and ongoing demand and supply using principals only. 

(For backlog data that includes dependents, the numbers are divided by 2.1, the 

prevailing average of 1.1 dependents per principal.) Per country quotas are 

assumed to be eliminated. The State Department publishes backlog data each 

month, but it is limited to cases at NVC (less than 10% ofthe EB demand) and 1-485s 

approved at USCIS (which excludes 1-140s that have never been current and for 

which no 1-485 could have been filed). The chart below includes 1-140 approvals 

since January 2007 from an inventory produced in July 2012 (and so does not 

include approvals since then but which is approximated by the January-July 2007 

approvals that are included). 

Current Backlog Estimate 

DoS Chart (2/8/2013) (/2.1) 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(India) 

1-140 Approvals Since 1/08(China) 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Mexico) 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Philippines) 

1-140 Approvals Since 8/07(Other 

Countries) 

Total Backlog (Principals Only) 

Supply and Demand in 2014 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-1 Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand (Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2014 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2014 Demand (Carryover to 

2015) 

9 

EB-2 EB-3 

(Thousands) (Thousands) 

24 27 

93 60 

12 9 

0 23 

0 35 

0 92 

129 246 

EB-2 EB-3 

(Thousands) (Thousands) 

139 81 

5 

5 

30 0 

52 52 

231 

-129 -246 

-39 -42 

63 63 

0 -92 
18 

Supply and Demand in 2015 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-1 Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand (Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2015 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2015 Demand (Carryover to 

2016) 

Supply and Demand in 2016 

Recapture (Principal Only Usage) 

Estimated EB-1 Fall Down 

Estimated EB-4 & 5 Fall Down 

Effect of STEM Exemption 

Annual Allocation (36.9% of 140,000) 

Supply for EB-2 

Backlog 

Annual Demand (Average from 1-140 

Approvals) 

Net 2015 Supply (Fall Down to EB-3) 

Net Unmet 2015 Demand (Carryover to 

2016) 

EB-2 EB-3 

(Thousands) (Thousands) 

0 0 

5 

5 

30 0 

52 52 

92 

0 -92 

-39 -42 

53 53 

0 -29 

EB-2 EB-3 

(Thousands) (Thousands) 

0 0 

5 

5 

30 0 

52 52 

92 

0 -29 

-39 -42 

53 53 

0 34 

These estimates show that EB-2 clears in the first year, but EB-3 not till the third. 

Meanwhile, both categories will likely be current because USCIS will not keep up 

with the processing. Concurrent filings will be the rule again. Some increase in 

demand will occur due to the improving economy. But H-1B increases would be the 

main source of additional 1-140s. Beginning in 2014, the H-1B usage would increase 

by a minimum of 50,000 Gust the baseline increase) probably 70,000 (due to 

elimination of the master's cap). This overwhelms the 34,000 extra numbers by 

2016 and the backlog grows as fast as the H-1B numbers do. 

10 
19 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Garfield. 

TESTIMONY OF DEAN C. GARFIELD, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL (ITI) 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Information 

Technology Council, the world’s most innovative dynamic companies, I would like to thank you for convening this hearing. Thank 

you as well for your bipartisan leadership on this issue. It is our 

view that we have a once in a generation opportunity to reform and 
20 

improve our immigration system in the best interest of our Nation, 

and we stand ready to work with you accomplish just that. 

We submitted testimony for the record. So rather than simply repeating it, I will reaffirm three points. One, improving and reforming our immigration system is in our national best interest. You 

mentioned the fact that I am a first-generation American citizen. 

I am. And as someone who spent 6 years separated from his parents as a result of our Byzantine immigration system, I understand 

the moral imperative for change. But I think there is an equally 

compelling economic argument to be made as well. Fortunately, the 

data supports that, and you went through some of them this morning, but some also bears repeating. The fact that 25 percent of our 

venture-backed companies in this country were started by immigrants. In fact, in a recent study that looked at new companies and 

new businesses in the United States generally in 2011, it was also 

25 percent of new businesses that were started by immigrants. Seventy-six percent of the patents filed by our top 10 research institutions included immigrants. The fact that 40 percent of the Fortune 

500 companies in this country were started by immigrants or their 

children. Moreover, those new businesses are creating the kinds of 

jobs that we want to have in this country. In a recent—and have 

the potential, in fact, to dramatically reduce our unemployment 

rate. In a recent study that was done by the Chamber of Commerce 

as well as ITI and the Partnership for a New American Economy, 

the unemployment rate for those who have an advanced degree in 

the science, technology, engineering, and math was a mere 2 percent. What would we give to have that number be the overall unemployment rate for our country. 

My second point is that in order to continue this virtuous cycle 

of immigrants coming to the United States, investing in our country, growing our economy, and creating new jobs, we have an imperative to improve our immigration system. I don’t want to embarrass anyone, so I don’t want anyone—I won’t ask you to raise your 

hand if you are walking around with a 1990 cellphone. But I suspect no one in this room is. If my dad were here, he would maybe 

proudly show off his satellite phone. But it would be quite unusual. 

In spite of that being the case, the U.S. is still showcasing a 

1990’s immigration system, with the same arbitrary numbers for 

high-skilled visas, both permanent and temporary, when our economy has grown by three times the size that it was in the 1990’s. 

That is simply unacceptable. 

To the point that Mr. Morrison made on temporary visas, I will 

simply make one point before we get to the questions, which is, not 

every job is going to be a permanent job. There are instances where 

design team leaders or engineers are hired in the United States 

with the understanding that as the product being developed or the 

service being developed moves through the global supply chain, 

that position will move with the product or service. 

The fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is whether 

we want the United States to be the platform for innovation for the 

rest of the world. And my strong view is that we, in fact, do. 

And there are solutions for helping to advance and improve our 

immigration system in a way that redounds to the benefit of our 

economy. Two is the Immigration Innovation Act, I—Squared, 
21 

which is moving through your body right now, as well as the startup visa 3.0. I think both of those stand a great chance if moved 

as a part of the broader immigration reform effort at dramatically 

improving the immigration system. 

The final point that I will make is that in addition to making 

sure that we are attracting the best and brightest, it is critical that 

we make sure that those who are born and bred here have an opportunity to take part in our 21st century economy. Our companies 

are actually spending billions, with a ‘‘b,’’ billions of dollars in making sure that is in fact the case, through mentorship programs, 

launching initiatives like Change the Equation, or otherwise working to make sure that the benefits of an innovation economy is 

broadly available to our entire population. And we look forward to 

working with you to advance that generally. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:] 
22 

o Information Technology Industry Council 

Written Testimony of 

Dean C. Garfield 

President & CEO, Information Technology Industry (ouncil (ITI) 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Committee 

on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representative 

Enhancing American Competitiveness through Skilled 

Immigration 

March 5,2013 
23 

Dean C. Garfield Testimony 

Enhancing American Competitiveness through SI<illed Immigration 

March 5,2013 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, members of the Subcommittee - thank you for your invitation to 

appear before you today on the timely and important topic of skilled immigration. I am Dean Garfield, 

President and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, known as ITI. ITI is a global trade 

association representing 47 of the world's most innovative, forward-thinking technology companies. 

Having a representative of the technology industry certainly makes sense given today's topic, and while 

what I say here certainly represents the views of my member companies, it also reflects, I believe, the 

perspective of a wide swath of the U.s. economy, from advanced manufacturing to medicine; from 

education to energy - sectors that collectively represent the knowledge economy of this country. 

We're here for one simple reason: Our skilled immigration system is broken and does not serve our 

national interest. On this we all fundamentally agree. Our government allocates the same number of 

employer-sponsored permanent resident visas, or "green cards" as it did in 1990 - when our economy was 

one-third the size that it is today, and much less dependent on highly skilled workers. And yet, there are an 

estimated 500,000 individuals who are stuck in a green card backlog. In June 2007, the last time Congress 

made a serious attempt at immigration reform, a highly skilled Indian national would have to wait up to 

four years for a green card. Today, an Indian national with a PhD from a U.s. university would have to wait 

for more than a decade to get a green card. Such delays stagnate professional development and force 

skilled talent to consider returning home or moving to places like Canada, Australia or Chile to start a 

business or create jobs. 

Other than a modest permanent change in 2004, the private sector has access to roughly the same annual 

number of H-1B visas as it did in 1990. However, we are likely to run out of the annual allotment of 65,000 

visas within weeks of April 1", the first day they are available for the ne)(t fiscal year (FYj, leaving no new 

hiring options for FY 2014 and forcing businesses to move jobs elsewhere even when they may not 

otherwise want to. 

In short, our economy depends on an immigration system that was assembled nearly a quarter of a century 

ago. Does anyone here drive a car, operate a computer, or talk on a cell phone manufactured in but not 

repaired or upgraded since 1990? The answer: of course not. 

It's time we upgraded our skilled immigration system to serve our national interest, and anticipate and 

meet the demands of the U.s. economy- now and in the future. We at ITI believe there are four basic 

components that Congress must embrace for a truly modern, highly skilled immigration system: 

First, reform must help fill the tens of thousands of sllilled job openings that exist today, while 

accelerating new jobs for and new knowledge-driven businesses. 
24 

Job creation is priority number one for Congress and rightly so. Our unempLoyment rate remains 

unacceptabLy high, and the proportion of Americans in our Labor force is at a record Low since the end of 

WorLd War II. Yet, whiLe the overall unempLoyment rate hovers near 8%, the unempLoyment rate for those 

with a BacheLor's degree and higher is just beLow 4% -- the marker most economists consider fuLL 

empLoyment.' 

In November 2012, we joined with the US Chamber of Commerce and the Partnership for a New American 

Economy and discovered that unempLoyment rates in occupations that require so-called STEM advanced 

degrees - science, technoLogy, engineering and math - are beLow 2%, and in some occupations the 

unempLoyment rate is none)(istent.' That may seem Like good news, but in fact it's not. UnempLoyment 

rates that Low mean that the demand for skilled taLent in the U.s. is in e)(cess of the current suppLy. In far 

too many sectors of the knowLedge economy, we have a worker shortage, or underempLoyment. 

This is not surprising. We are creating technoLogy jobs faster than we can filL them. For e)(ampLe, Microsoft 

reports that it has roughLy 6,000 job openings in the United States and more than haLf are highLy skiLLed 

positions.3 The website dice.com, which is an onLine aggregator of high tech job openings, currentLy Lists 

more than 83,000 tech job openings in the U.s' 

These job openings represent Lost economic growth, Lost tax revenue, and Lost opportunities to create new 

businesses and new jobs for Americans. 

Longer term, I am even more concerned about how our immigration system is harming our nation's 

ecosystem for entrepreneuriaL innovation. As has been reported many times, from 1995 through 2005, 

immigrants fou nded 25 percent of the venture-backed start-ups in the U.s., and more than 50 percent in 

SiLicon VaLLeyS In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs were responsibLe for more than one in four new U.s. 

businesses, and immigrant businesses em pLoy one in every ten peopLe who work in the private sector.' 

That same year, 76% of patents awarded to the top ten patent-producing U.s. universities had at Least one 

foreign-born inventor.7 

The e><traordinary contribution of foreign-born entrepreneurs to our economic vitality is unquestioned. 

Yet, due to our outdated 1990 immigration system, hundreds of thousands of foreign-born taLent are stuck 

in a green card backLog that inhibits their professionaL deveLopment and contribution to our economic 

growth. Some have given up and are Leaving the U.s. to pursue their dreams eLsewhere. This 

I Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.releasejempsitt04.htm) 

2 "Help Wanted: The Role ufForeign Workers in the Innovation Economy," November 2012 

(http://www.renewoureconomy.orgj sites / all/themes / pnae / stem -re port. pdf) 

3 "Microsoft Says 6,000 Jobs Open, Wants More Visas," by Paul McDougall, In/ormation Week, September 28,2012 

(http://www.inforrnationweek.com/windows/rnicrosoft-news/rnicrosoft-says-6000-)obs-open-wants-rnore/240008011) 

483,768 jobs posted on dice.com as of 11:00 p.m., March 3, 2013 

5 "America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Then and Now," October 2012 

(http://www.kauffrnan.org/uploadedFiles/Then_amLnow_arnericas_llewjmmigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf) 

() "Open for Business: How Immigrants are Driving Business Creation in the United States," August 2012 

(http://www.renewoureconomy.org/open-for-business) 

7 "Patent Pending: How Immigrants are Reinventing the American Economy," June 2012 

(http://www.renewoureconomy.org/patent-pending) 
25 

entrepreneurial lockout effect has become so perverse that a number of venture capitalists are attempting 

to finance a floating barge to house foreign-born entrepreneurs on international waters off the coast of San 

Francisco.B 

Mr. Chairman. our skilled immigration system has fallen down the rabbit hole and is taking our economic 

fu tu re with it. 

The central reason why we at ITI strongly believe Congress should pass the Immigration Innovation Act, 

known as "I-Squared," and Startup Act 3.0 is that both bills will accelerate job creation. One of the 

provisions of I-Squared would remove the green card cap for those with graduate degrees in STEM fields. It 

effectively would staple a green card to a job offer letter. A study by the American Enterprise Institute has 

found that an additional 100 foreign-born advanced-degree STEM graduates from U.s. universities is 

associated with 262 jobs among U.s. natives.' Multiply that by 50,000 or 100,000 foreign graduate 

students, and it's not hard to see just how forcefully immigration reform can propel our economy. 

A recent Kauffman Foundation study concluded that an entrepreneurial visa program like that proposed in 

Startup Act 3.0 has the potential to add between 500,000 and 1.6 million new jobs over the next decade." 

With I-Squared and Startup Act 3.0, we can help solve the overall unemployment problem in our country by 

solving the underemployment, skilled worker shortage that e)(ists in the knowledge economy. Together,lSquared and Startup Act 3.0 would provide stimulus to the U.s. economy and revenue to the federal 

government - all at no cost to the ta)(payer. 

Second, sldlled immigration reform must supplement our extraordinarily talented U.S. worllforce now 

and in the future. 

At a time when we face skilled worker shortages throughout the knowledge economy, skilled immigration 

reform will certainly work not just to complement our talented U.s. workforce, but also to create new 

opportunities forthem through new businesses and new jobs. When we bring smart people from around 

the world together, history demonstrates that we amplify smart outcomes for America and our economy. 

Now, we have heard, and I expect we will hear more about the need to protect American workers, and we at 

ITI could not agree more. We believe the first and best way to look out for American workers is to revitalize 

economic growth and opportunity in this country. I-Squared and Startup 3.0 both would do that. 

With respect to the H-1B visa, we can protect American workers by ensuring effective enforcement of 

longstanding H-1B policies and laws to prevent the displacement of U.s. workers and protect their wages. 

Yes, we have heard some anecdotes and reports of fraud and abuse. In September 2008, the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) released a study of H-1B fraud and found that incidents of 

8 See blueseed.co 

9 "Immigration and American Jobs," December 2011 (http://lNWw,aei.orgjarticle/society-andcultureJimmigrationJimmigration-and-american-jobsJ) 

10 "Give Me Your Entrepreneurs, Your Innovators: Estimating the Employment Impact of a Startup Visa," February 2013 

(http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/DownLoadah le Resources jStartup _Vi saJ mpactJinal. pd f) 
26 

fraud were more prevaLent among companies with 2S or fewer empLoyees. In addition, the study found 

that H-1B fraud was more LikeLy to occur in non-tech fieLds, including accounting, saLes and advertising." 

Since the reLease of its 2008 report, USCIS has taken a number of steps to reduce the incidence offraud 

and technicaL vioLations, and has made some progress." 

With respect to wages, in a 2011 report the U.S. Government AccountabiLity Office (GAO) found that after 

adjusting for age, H-1B professionaLs in most occupations earn the same or more than simiLarLy quaLified 

U.s. natives. The report aLso noted that empLoyers pay significant fees and incur other costs to sponsor an 

H-1B worker, which suggests that hoLding wages and quaLifications equaL, a U.s. empLoyer is better off 

hiring a U.s. nationaL.13 

ALL that said, instances of fraud and abuse can and do occur. If additionaL enforcement measures are 

needed to ensure American workers are protected, we shouLd work together to devise soLutions that do not 

force work and jobs offshore. 

We aLso beLieve that the H-1B shouLd not inhibit professionaL deveLopment, particuLarLy for those waiting 

for green cards. Today, many H-1B visa hoLders stuck in the green-card backLog are hesitant to take better 

jobs with a new empLoyer, because it couLd force them to wait even Longer for a green card. That is why we 

strongLy support the "portabiLity" reforms in I-Squared, which wiLL make it easier for H-1B professionaLs to 

change jobs and not have their professionaL deveLopment hampered. 

We aLso can protect both the American worker and the American economy by having H-1B visa avaiLabiLity 

rise and faLL with market demand, as proposed in I-Squared. Since the information technoLogy boom in the 

1990S, the demand for H-1B visas has risen and faLLen with the overaLL rise and faLL of the economy. That 

suggests the H-1B visa suppLements, not suppLants, the overaLL U.s. workforce. This is not surprising since 

H-1B professionaLs represent such a modest part of the U.s. workforce. 

Third, skiLLed immigration reform must maximize work in the U.S. that couLd be performed eLsewhere. 

The reaLities of our gLobaL economy require that we have a system that provides sufficient green cards and 

H-1B visas to fiLL and create jobs, and to ma)(imize work performed in the United States. 

Yes, if the green card reforms in I-Squared and Startup 3.0 soLve the backLog challenges and enabLe foreignborn advanced degree graduates from U.s. universities to stay in the U.s., we wiLL LikeLy see a decline in H1B demand. However, the H-1B visa wiLL continue to be an important part of a taLent pipeLine. Some 

empLoyers may not be as quick to sponsor foreign professionaLs for green cards, which wouLd make the H1B visa necessary in such cases. 

11 "H-iB Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, September 2008 

(http://www.ia horim m igration.com jwp-contentjuploads /2 008/10 !uscis-h 1 b-audit-report.pd f) 

12 Testimony of Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, March 31, 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011j03/31jtestimony-donald-neufeld-h-l h-visas-designingprogram-meet -needs- us-econo my-and- us) 

1] "H-iB Visa Program: Reforms Are Needed to Minimize the Risks and Costs of Current ProgramJ " January 2011 

(http)lwww.gao.gov/assets/ 320/314S01.pdf) 
27 

The H-1B and other nonimmigrant professional visas are necessary to maximize work in the U.S., 

particularly work that advances the U.s. as a hub for innovation. The global economy necessitates the need 

for companies to have talent deployed throughout the world to develop, produce, maintain and sell goods 

and services. Skilled immigration reform should be geared to ensure that the U.s. is a central hub in the 

many global supply chains that exist for numerous sectors. The H-1B visa, as a temporary visa, enables 

companies to deploy skilled professionals to the U.s. on temporary projects that work to advance U.s. 

competitiveness, such as building advanced manufacturing facilities or a shared services center that 

manages information systems from a central location. Just like baseball players and fashion models, not 

every skilled professional who works and contributes to the U.s. economy needs to stay here permanently. 

Arbitrary and excessive restrictions on the availability and use of the H-1B visa can disrupt global supply 

chains and work against the U.s. economy. In 2007, when the annual allotment of H-1B visas was 

exhausted in a matter of hours, Microsoft was forced to e)(pand its product development capabilities and 

create jobs in Vancouver, Canada.i4 In 2009, when a U.s. information technology services firm faced 

arbitrary H-1B restrictions, it moved hu ndreds of U.s. jobs to Toronto, Canada. Last year, due to limited 

availability of H-1B visas, Facebook had to e)(pand in Dublin, Ireland, in order to house the engineers they 

planned to have work in the U.s.iS 

Skilled immigration reform is not just about filling and creating jobs - it is a central part of an important 

and fundamental question: What is the future role of the U.s. economy in an increasi ngly competitive and 

innovative global economy? Rather than legislate in response to anecdotes and perceptions of business 

models, Congress needs to carefully consider how green cards and the H-1B visa together ma)(imize the 

amount of work and jobs created in the U.s., and how restrictions on both can have the effect of moving 

work and jobs to other countries. 

Last but not least, sllilled immigration reform must invest in effective education and training programs 

for future U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs. 

As noted previously, our skilled immigration system is designed to not only supplement our U.s. workforce, 

but to meet the e)(pected demand in skilled talent in the not too distant future, and as such, we have to 

invest in our domestic STEM pipeline as well. For e)(ample, by 2020, our economy is e)(pected to be 

generating 120,000 computing jobs each year. However, our higher education system today only awards 

40,000 Bachelor's degrees in relevant fields each year." 

Current and future demand for STEM talent will not be coming just from high tech. In 2011, the Center on 

Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University found that math and science jobs are increasingly 

needed in advanced manufacturing, mining, utilities and transportation." 

14 "Visa Woes? Microsoft has Vancouver, B.C.," Puget Sound Business journal, April 6, 2008 

(http:j jwww.bizjournals.comjseattlejstoriesj200Aj04j07 jstory5.html"?page=all) 

15 "Silicon Valley and Immigrant Croups Find Common Cause," by Julia Preston, New York Times, February 12, 2013 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2 0 13 j 02 j 13 jbusi ness jtecb-companies-and -im migrant-advocates-joinforces.html?pagewanted=all&J=O) 

16 See inspirestemusa.org 

17 STEM, Center on Education and the Workforce, October 2011 (http://cew.georgetown.edu/stem/) 
28 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Kamra. 

TESTIMONY OF DEEPAK KAMRA, GENERAL PARTNER, 

CANAAN PARTNERS 

Mr. KAMRA. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, and the Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to discuss the important role that immigrant entrepreneurs play in U.S. job creation and to express support for a new 

startup visa category, which welcomes the best and brightest to our 

shores. 
29 

Today’s topic is very personal for me. I was an immigrant and 

I was an entrepreneur who helped start Aspect Communications. 

Aspect is a company headquartered in Massachusetts that 

launched a successful IPO and that today employs over 2,000 people. And I am now a venture capitalist with Canaan Partners in 

California, helping other entrepreneurs start new companies. I was 

born in India to parents who wanted a better life for our family. 

We were unable to come to the U.S., so they chose Canada, where 

I moved when I was 10 years old. After getting my undergraduate 

degree, I came to the U.S. to finish my studies. Upon graduating, 

I had a job opportunity at a California-based telecom company. But 

they were unable to secure a visa for me. Thus, I reluctantly returned to Canada for 3 years and eventually received an H-1 visa 

in 1983 and came back. While at this company, I had ideas for 

startup companies, but like immigrants with entrepreneurial aspirations, I was unable to leave my employer without putting my 

visa status at risk. It was only after I received my green card that 

I was able to leave my employer and help to launch my startup. 

At my venture capital firm, one in four companies we have invested in has an immigrant as part of the founding team. These 

founders hail from places like Russia, France, Iran, India, Germany, just to name a few. Collectively, they have contributed to literally thousands of jobs created by our firm’s portfolio. 

I would like to thank the Chairman, Congresswoman Lofgren, 

and the Committee for recognizing that a startup visa category is 

vital to our country’s future as it addresses two elements that have 

been critical in driving U.S. job creation, venture-backed startup 

companies and immigrant entrepreneurs. 

We have heard a lot of statistics here today on the benefit that 

immigrant entrepreneurs have contributed. I will just add one 

more. Companies that were founded with venture capital accounted 

for 12 million jobs and over 3 trillion in revenues in the U.S. in 

2010. That equals 11 percent of private U.S. employment and 21 

percent of our country’s GDP. 

Unfortunately, America is at higher risk for losing immigrant entrepreneurs to foreign countries. Our legal immigration policies 

have essentially sent a message to these talented people that we 

do not want them here. While the opportunity for starting a company in the U.S. remains far superior to any other country, options 

overseas are improving as governments realize the power of 

startups in their economies. Whereas 10 years ago America was the 

only choice, it has now become one of many choices, even though 

it is one of the first choices. And for a growing group of immigrants, America is not a choice at all. For me and other immigrant 

entrepreneurs, the H-1B visa is not a viable path for starting a 

company here. Entrepreneurs who are truly serious about building 

a new company must engage in that endeavor full time. Creating 

a startup visa category for foreign-born company founders would 

not only welcome the best and the brightest to our shores, but it 

would do so in a way that could be well managed and monitored 

if we consider a few parameters. 

Several proposals on this topic include threshold investment level 

as one parameter the entrepreneur must meet. In setting any 

threshold, it is important to understand that the cost of getting off 
30 

the ground for technology companies has fallen considerably in recent years. Before pursuing venture capital investment, entrepreneurs today often seek much lower levels of funding support 

from angel investors. Yet these lower levels of seed funding do not 

in any way impact the promise of exponential growth for their companies. 

The required first round of funding for any startup visa should 

be set at a level to include the founders of these type of seed stage 

companies. Additionally, the ongoing monitoring of the entrepreneur’s progress required for permanent residency must account 

for the high-risk nature of these companies. In the venture capital 

world, setbacks are a way of life on the path to ultimate success. 

So while we fully support the establishment of a monitoring process, it should allow for reasonable flexibility so company founders 

can learn lessons, regroup, and refocus when conditions change or 

new opportunities arise. 

I speak on behalf of myself and other immigrant entrepreneurs 

when I express how lucky we were to be given the opportunity to 

found and fund companies here in the U.S. But luck shouldn’t have 

anything to do with it. America should not just be allowing these 

individuals to come to our country; we should be welcoming all of 

them. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this dialogue, and I 

look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kamra follows:] 
31 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

Final 

March S, 2013 

"Hearing on Enhancing American Competitiveness through Skilled Immigration" 

Introduction 

Testimony of: 

Deepak Kamra 

Canaan Partners 

Menlo Park, California 

Chainnan Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren and members ofthe subcommittee, my 

name is Deepak Kanua and I am a general partner of Canaan Partners, a venture capital 

tlrm founded in 1987, based in Menlo Park, California and investing in startup companies 

in the tcchnology and healthcare sectors both here in the United States and globally. In 

addition to my responsibilities as a venturc investor, I also served on the Board of 

Directors ofthe National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) based in Arlington, 

Virginia. The NVCA represents the interests of more than 400 U.S. venture capital finns, 

which compri.se more than 90 percent of the venture industry's capital under 

management. 

Prior to my career as a venture capitalist, I was an entrepreneur and part of a team that 

founded Aspect Communications, a call center software company that went public in 

J 990 and today is headquartered in Massachusetts, employing approximately 2,000 

people. Of particular interest to this hearing and subcommittee, I am also an immigrant, 

born in India, raised in Canada, educated at Harvard, and now a U.S. citizen. 

I am extremely proud of the work that r do each day, investing time and energy into 

people who turn visionary ideas into amazing companies that employ thousands of 
32 

Americans. As an immigrant, I am here by choice after successfully securing a green 

card in 1985. But the road was not easy and, due to current U.S. immigration policy, it 

has become increasingly difficult for today's foreign born entrepreneurs to make the 

same choice that I did -- to build a ground-breaking startup company in the United States. 

It is my privilege to share with you, on behalf of this vital community of immigrants, my 

story and perspective on the important role that foreign-born entrepreneurs play in U.S. 

job creation and economic growth, and why the risk we face oflosing these individuals 

and their companies to other countries has never been greater. J also appreciate the 

opportunity to express support for a new StartUp Visa category which would be an 

extremely positive step in welcoming the best and brightest entrepreneurs to our shores in 

a manner that we can manage and monitor well. 

I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for holding this hearing in 

recognition that this issue is a critical one to our country's future. There have been many 

proposals put on the table, and I am certain that these efforts, including the creation of a 

Startup Visa category, will send a signal to the world that our country is not only "open 

for business" but also very eager to welcome highly skilled and highly motivated 

immigrants who share the dream of succeeding in America. This is a message that 

unfortunately is not being conveyed today. 

My Story 

Every immigration story is unique, but the challenges associated with foreign-born 

entrepreneurs all seem to rhyme in one way or another. Mine is just one example. 

I was born in India in 1956 to parents who wanted a better life for our family. Their 

destination of choice was the United States, but U.S. immigration restrictions ruled out 

America. So, my parents chose Canada, where we moved when I was 10 years old. I 

was raised in the province of Ontario and graduated from Carleton University with a 

Bachelor of Commerce and a concentration in computer sciences. After getting my 

undergraduate degree, I was accepted at Harvard Business School and moved to Boston 

at the age of21 on an Fl visa. Upon graduation from Harvard, I had ajob opportunity at 

2 
33 

ROLM, a California-based teJecom company whcre I had interned over the summer. 

Unfortunately, they were not able to secure an H-1B visa for me. So, I had to return to 

Canada, where I reluctantly took ajob with a Canadian company for three years. All the 

while, I very much wanted to go back to the United States. Fortunately, I made a lasting 

impression on ROLM which finally did secure the H-IB visa for my return in 1983. 

While working for ROLM, I had ideas tor startup companies that would develop 

innovative products for the telecommunications industry. Unfortunately, like many 

immigrants with entrepreneurial aspirations, I was unable to leave my employcr without 

putting my H-IB visa status at risk. Ultimately, I hired my own lawyer to support my 

efiorts to convert my H-IB to a green card which would allow me to stay in the U.S. 

permanently. Only after securing my green card was I able to work with a team of cofounders to launch Aspect Communications, a call center software company that went 

public in 1990 and today has more than $400 million in revenues. I joined Canaan 

Partners, a technology venture capital firm in 1991 to help entrepreneurs like myself start 

new companies. And, I proudly became an American citizen in 1994. 

The challenges I faced are similar to those fao·ed by many immigrant entrepreneurs today, 

While the United States was my family'S first choice and eventually my own as well, 

entering the country and remaining here as a company founder was quite trying, despite 

my motivation to innovate and create significant value for our economy and society. 

This same story continues to play out time and time again for today's immigrants with 

entrepreneurial dreams. Unfortunately, the ending is not always a good one for the 

entrepreneur or for our country. Every time we tum another entrepreneur away, we arc 

forsaking the innovation, jobs and value that their newly-formed companies create 

elsewhere. 

The Sbll't-Up Ecollomy lIud Immigrant Ellfl'I'I)l'cncun: A Powerful COJ:llbulllti.on 

When considering legal immigration reform, it is important to recognize the two elements 

that have been critical to driving U.S. economic growth and job creation - venturebacked startup companies and immigration. Separately, these elements have helped to 

3 
34 

differentiate our country from all others. When harnessed together, they are instrumental 

in maintaining our global economic leadership. 

According to a 2011 IHS Global Insight report, comp,mies that were founded as small 

start-ups with venture capital accounted for 12 million jobs and $3.1 trillion in revenues 

in the United States. TIlese figures equate to 11 percent of private U.S. employment and 

21 percent of our country's GOP. Venture-backed companies are responsible for the 

creation of entire industry sectors here in America including s!.'TIliconductors, 

biotechnology, Internet content and software. Today, we are creating the companies that 

will serve as the cornerstones for cloud-based computing, Internet security, health care, 

social media and new energy. Companies founded with venture capital that are 

household names today include Apple, Genentech, Starbucks, Facebook, Home Depot 

and FedEx. With more than 18,000 companies having received venture funding in the 

last five years, the next gencration of successful companies innovating in high 

technology, life sciences and new energy are poised to follow in their footsteps. 

While America's start-up economy would not be what it is today without venture capital, 

the same can be said for immigrant entrepreneurs. According to American Made, a study 

conducted in 2006 by the National Foundation for American Policy and commissioned by 

the NVCA, approximately 25 percent of U.S, public companies that were venture 

financed since 1990 were founded or co-founded by immigrant entrepreneurs. These 

companies include Intel, Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Juniper Networks, WebEx 

and Watson Pharmaceuticals. Further, a 2006 survey of start-ups backed with venture 

capital revealed nearly half (47 percent) had immigrant founders. These companies are 

hiring U.S. workers, paying taxes and creating value for American shareholders every 

day. The NVCA is in the process of updating this study, and we are highly confident that 

the interest of immigrants in forming companies in the U.S. remains strong. 

As a venture capitalist investing in the most innovative people and ideas globally, I see 

the power of these entrepreneurs every day. In Canaan Partners' portfolio of more than 

65 U.S. startup companies, approximately one in four have at least one foreign born 

national as a member ofthe founding team. These companies include: 

4 
35 

.. Virsto Software, whose co-iounders included Russian immigrants and serial 

entrepreneurs Alex Miroshnichenko and Serge Pashenkov. Virsto had 50 

employees before being acquired by VMWare this year; 

.. Lending Club, co-founded by Renaud LePlanehe of France and Soulaiman Htite 

of Canada who have created 200 jobs and intend to create another 200 over the 

next two years; 

.. BiPar Sciences, a company formed by co-founders including the late Ernest Kun, 

MD DSc from Hungary and Allan Basbaum, PhD from Canada to develop a new 

class of tumor-selective drugs designed to meet the unmet needs of cancer 

patients; 

.. Zoosk, founded by Iranians Alex Mehr and Shayan Zadeh, which now employs 

130 people, is translated in 25 languages, with members in more than 70 countries 

and is growing; 

.. lnstacart founded by an Indian entrepreneur (via Canada like myself) Apoorva 

Mehta; and 

.. ALDEA Pharmaceuticals, a healthcare company whose co-founders include 

Wenjin Yang of Taiwan and Daria Mochly-Rosen Ph.D. ofIsrael. 

Other founders in Canaan's portfolio hail from China, Sri Lanka, Germany, Bulgaria, 

Turkey, South Africa, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Denmark. 

I cannot imagine these entrepreneurs and these companies operating anywhere but in the 

United States. We also know that the next wave of immigrant company founders are 

highly motivated and ready to do what these entrepreneurs have donc. That is what 1 find 

so remarkable about immigrant entrepreneurs: They afe invariably some of the most 

enterprising citizens their home countries have to offer. For that reason alone, they are 

very well positioned to succeed here. 

The Zoosk story is particularly telling in terms ofthe immigration challenges faced by the 

founders and the mettle they demonstrated in overcoming those challenges to succeed. 

After meeting as students in Iran and sharing a dream to start a successful company in 

America, Alex and Shayan had to hike to Turkey on foot to get student visas for the U.S. 

5 
36 

Once here, at the University of Maryland, they developed breakthrough technology for a 

startup company. However, as entrepreneurs, they could not obtain the H-IB visas 

required to stay in the United States. Instead, they could only get H-lBs as employees of 

a corporation willing to sponsor them. They had no choice but to dissolve their nascent 

company and go their separate ways. Shayan joined Microsoft while Alex stayed in 

school, trying to obtain an 0- J visa. In a stroke of serendipity, Alex won a Diversity 

green card lottery, which gave him pennanent residence. He eventually reconnected with 

Shayan and they developed Zoosk, whicb has become the world's largest online social 

dating network. Almost half of Zoosk's revenue comes from outside tbe U.S., so had 

Alex not been lucky enough to win that lottery, he may very well have started Zoosk 

elsewhere. Today, that is more of an option than ever before. 

We Are At Risk for Losing the Game 

America is at high risk for losing this coveted group of entrepreneurs to foreign countries 

for two reasons. First, our legal immigration policies have essentially sent a message to 

these talented people that we do not want them here in the United States. As I discussed, 

the current path to a green card is fraught with complex requirements, limitations and 

delays. And it is incredibly difficult for an entrepreneur to obtain an H-l B visa as a 

founder of his or her own company. Consequently, these immigrants must remain 

employees of their sponsor corporations - as economic hostages, in a sense - where they 

do not have time or license to advance their innovations or build their startups around 

them. 

Compounding the fact that the United States is seeminglyunwelcoming of these 

entrepreneurs is the reality that we are no longer the only destination for high tech, high 

growth start-up companies. In addition to investing in the United States, Canaan Partners 

also has ofilces in Israel and India. The latter is where I initiated our global investment 

strategy in order to fund those entrepreneurs who are unable to come to the U.S. Even 

though the opportunity, infrastructure and market potential for starting a company in the 

United States remains far superior to that of any other foreign country, options for 

entrepreneurs in many other countries arc improving as governments realize the power of 

6 
37 

the startup company on their local economies. Whereas 10 years ago, America was the 

only choice, today it is merely the preferred choice among many. Worse, for a growing 

group of immigrants who can't obtain visas, America isn't a choice at all. 

Support for a Startu'e Visa Category 

For me and many other immigrant entrepreneurs, the H-IB visa is not a workable 

solution for starting a company here. Entrepreneurs who are truly serious about building 

a new company must engage in that endeavor full time. It's not something you can do 

while keeping "your day job" at a high performing corporation. 

Creating a category of visa specifically for foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to start 

and build a company in the U.S. would not only welcome the best and brightest 

innovators to our shores, but it would do so in a way that could be well managed and 

monitored so that the intention and spirit of the visa is not compromised. Including 

criteria that the entrepreneur visa candidates receive legitimate funding will ensure proper 

vetting takes place, and a snbsequent requirement for proof of job creation or additional 

company growth will allow the government to monitor results. As Congress considers 

the parameters around which the criteria would be based, there are several items to 

consider: 

First, the dollar threshold of investment must take into account that the funding market 

continues to evolve. Before pursuing venture capital investment, entrepreneurs today 

often seek funding support from angel investors, and friends and family. And, with the 

enactment of the JOBS Aet by Congress in 2012, we may see crowd funding platfonns 

emerge as viable sources for entrepreneurs as well. In recent years the cost of "getting 

off the ground" for technology companies has fallen considerably. Many entrepreneurs 

even "bootstrap" their way to their first ventnrc capital investment. Yet, these lower 

levels of seed funding do not in any way impact the exponential promise of growth for 

the company. For example, Kabam, a gaming software company in our portfolio, 

reccived an initial round of $500,000 and today has an annual revenue run rate of more 

than $200 million. And there are many companies that start with even smaller seed 

7 
38 

rounds - perhaps from an angel investor - before we have the opportunity to invest. For 

these reasons, it is important that the required first round of funding for any StartUp Visa 

be at an acceptable level and not too high to qualifY the founders of these types of seed 

stage companies. 

Secondly, it is important that the ongoing monitoring of the entreprenenr's progress and 

milestones required for permanent residency account for the high risk nature ofthese 

companies. Ironically, one of the principles that has made America so successful in 

innovation and entrepreneurship is our acceptance offailnre. In the vcnturc capital 

world, we are very accustomed to an idea or company changing course midstream, 

pivoting to another technology or market, or indeed failing altogether. Overcoming 

setbacks are a way oflife on the path to ultimate success. For example, Renaud 

LaPlanche, the immigrant founder of Lending Club, first founded a software company 

called TripleHop Technologies which had offices in the North Tower of the World Trade 

Center. All of TripJeHop's computers and software code were destroyed in the 

September 11 th attacks. But Renaud and his team regrouped and rebuilt, selling his very 

successful company to Oracle in June 2005. He then went on to start Lending Club. 

Not all company setbacks are as catastrophic as TripJeHop's but they all require recovery 

time. And more often than not, like Renaud, the company founder, goes on to ultimately 

succeed time and time again. So while we fully support the establishment of a 

monitoring process, it should allow for reasonable flexibility, so company founders can 

learn their lessons, regroup when necessary, and refocus when conditions change or new 

opporruni ti es arise. 

The concept of a StartUp Visa category is an exciting one - but only if it can be accessed 

in the manner in which it was intended and leave little room for abuse. This is a fine line 

to walk, but it can be done. That is why I stand with my venture capital colleagues to 

offer guidance when setting thresholds, parameters and benchmarking as to what is most 

practical. We weI come the opportunity to contribute to the proposal process in this 

manner. 

8 
39 

Conclusio!! 

I speak on behalf of myself and innovative company founders like Alex Mchr and Shayan 

Zadeh when I express how lucky we were to have successfully mn the U.S. immigration 

gauntlet - and secure the opportunity to found and fund companies here in the United 

States. But luck shouldn't have anything to do with it. Our country must approach 

immigrant entrepreneurs with a renewed sense of vigor, purpose and enthusiasm. We 

desperately need to cbange our policies on legal immigration so that any highly skilled 

individual in engineering, science, technology, or entrepreneurship can come herc and 

thrive. We should not just "allow" these individuals to come to OUf country; we should 

encourage and welcome them - and reinforce the notion that the U.S. is indeed the best 

place to live work and innovate. Only then will we ensure that we renlain a global 

economic leader. 

A StartUp Visa category - along with practical thresholds and monitoring - should be 

considered as part of any immigration refoml policy. Doing so would unequivocally 

support entrepreneurship and innovation here in the United States - which would in tum 

drive job creation and economic growth. As we look to our future, we must remcmber 

our past and fostcr that which has made this country great. Thank you for recognizing 

that refonning our highly skilled, legal immigration policy should be a Congressional 

priority. We appreciate the bipartisan support that this committee has given to this 

discussion and we are enthusiastic about its potential. The venture capital industry stands 

ready to work with you to once again attract highly motivated, highly skilled talent to our 

shores. In our collective opinion, there is no other option. 

Thank you once again for this opportunity and I am happy to answer questions. 

9 
40 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lofgren, Members 

of Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today and provide testimony on behalf of the American Immigration Council. We welcome this hearing as an opportunity to engage 

in a thoughtful conversation about the role that immigration can 

and should play in building a 21st century America, one that prospers and grows. Prosperity is a shared goal that unites us all, and 

it is an important lens through which to evaluate the vital role immigration plays in our economy today, as well as a need to fix our 

outdated immigration system. 

As we undertake reform to enhance prosperity through immigration, it is critical for us to recognize that skilled immigration encompasses a wide range of individuals with very different educational and occupational backgrounds. And it is important to realize that very often the best and brightest from around the world 

come to our shores not only through employment-based channels of 

immigration, but through family reunification, the admission of refugees, and asylees and can even be found within the current population of unauthorized workers. In other words, the quest for talent 

and the role of immigrants as job creators, entrepreneurs, and 

innovators is not an isolated enterprise, it is and should be an integral component of a broad-based, comprehensive immigration reform. 

So what are some additional facts to consider that we perhaps 

haven’t heard? First and foremost, the overwhelming evidence 

finds that immigrants complement rather than compete with native-born workers, and their presence in our workforce has a positive impact on the wages of all workers. Much of this is due to the 

fact that we face skill gaps in many areas of our labor force. This 

can be seen in the fact that many STEM occupations have an unemployment rate that is more than half that of the national average. In some STEM occupations, the unemployment rate is at 1 or 

2 percent. An analysis of job openings shows that in STEM fields 

there are often more vacancies than qualified applicants. In 2010, 

at the national level there were seven job openings in computer occupations for every graduate from a relevant computer major. In 

high-tech metro areas the demand was even greater, 25 to 1 in San 

Francisco, 19 to 1 in San Jose and nearly as high in places like 

Austin, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Des Moines, Charleston, and 

Charlotte. This widespread demand reflects the new reality that 

high-skilled immigration is not just important to the traditional 

high-tech areas like Silicon Valley, it is a critical issue in cities like 

San Antonio; Austin; and Houston, Texas; Greenville and 

Spartanburg, South Carolina; Boise, Idaho. All of these places and 

many more are building knowledge-based economies that need 

high-skilled workers. These communities understand the power of 

attracting and retaining skilled workers and industries and they 

know that immigrants are an important part of this equation. In 

Michigan, for example, only 6 percent of the State’s population is 
41 

foreign born, but those immigrants founded more than 30 percent 

of high-tech companies in the State over the past decade. 

This widespread recognition of the important role of immigrants 

in creating jobs and building communities has led to a surge in 

welcoming and recruitment campaigns in States like Michigan and 

cities like Dayton, Detroit, and St. Louis, where they are actively 

seeking to bring more immigrants into their communities. Unfortunately, these efforts are being frustrated by our immigration system. As it stands today, our current immigration system simply 

does not provide the right kinds or the right numbers of visas needed to respond to legitimate demands of our dynamic economy. 

High-skilled immigrants face years of waiting for an available visa 

and an endless array of bureaucratic delays. Immigrant entrepreneurs are almost completely left out of our current system. And 

immigrants who are enrolled in or graduates from U.S. universities 

are increasingly being recruited to other countries where immigration processes are far more welcoming. Reforms to our immigration 

system must reflect the needs of both workers and employers and 

should address both permanent and temporary channels of immigration. The goal must be to create a nimble and efficient system 

that responds in real time to the needs of the market by giving employers the ability to fill positions quickly with workers who are 

protected from exploitation. Reforms should also provide ample opportunities for immigrant entrepreneurs to spur innovation, job 

creation and economic growth for local communities and for the 

Nation as a whole. 

Moreover, these reforms should not be made at the expense of 

other priorities or other values. For instance, efforts to expand employment-based immigration by reducing existing family-based immigration are shortsighted and self-defeating. The fact is that family-based immigrants contribute to the economy, support working 

family members, and are important contributors to the phenomenon of immigrant entrepreneurship. 

For me the bottom line is this: The United States has created the 

most dynamic, the most flexible, most creative workforce the world 

has ever seen, and immigrants have always been a part of that 

equation. The importance of reforming our system, all aspects of it, 

are critical to our future prosperity. We owe it to our future to create a system that is good to business, good for workers, and good 

for families. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 
42 

Introduction 

Written Testimony of 

Benjamin Johnson 

Executive Director 

American Immigration Council 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

March 5, 2013 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today and provide testimony on behalf of the American Immigration CounciL The 

American Immigration Council is a non-profit educational foundation which for 25 years has 

been dedicated to increasing public understanding of immigration law and policy and the role of 

immigration in American society. 

Today's hearing on "Enhancing American Competitiveness through Skilled Immigration" 

provides an opportunity to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the role that immigration 

can and should play in building a 21" century America that prospers and grows. Prosperity is a 

shared goal that unites us all, and offers an important lens through which to evaluate the vital 

role immigration plays in our economy today, as well as the necessity of retooling our outdated 

and hopelessly broken immigration system. As we do so, however, it is critical for us to 

recognize that skilled immigration encompasses a wide range of individuals with very ditferent 

educational and occupational backgrounds. Moreover, the talent we seek very often comes to 

these shores not only through employment-based channels of immigration, but through family 

reunification, the admission of refugees and asylees, and can even be found within the current 

population of unauthorized workers. 

In other words, the quest for talent, and the role of immigrants as job creators, 

entrepreneurs, and innovators, is not an isolated enterprise. It is an integral component of 

systematic immigration reform. Unfortunately, in the highly politicized immigration debate of 

the last 10 years, the nuanced and complex role immigration plays in American economic 

growth, business development, and global competitiveness has too often been reduced to a few 

buzz words and myths designed to minimize the importance of immigration reform in this area, 

or to pit native-born workers against their foreign-born colleagues. In my testimony today, I will 

review the abundant research that supports the creation of a revamped and revitalized 

immigration system, address some of the common misconceptions about the impact of 

immigration on native-born workers, and highlight some of the critical policy choices that must 

be made if we are to truly fultill the promise of an immigration system that serves a 21 " century 

economy. 
43 

The Economic Contributions of High-Skilled Immigrants and Immigrant Entrepreneurs 

The research on the positive impact that high-skilled immigration has on our economy is 

overwhelming, and the risk America faces if it does not continue to support the immigration of 

highly skilled workers is enonnous. Economists, social scientists, business leaders, and a broad 

range of other experts agree that innovation is the key to growing the economy and creating jobs. 

And the key to innovation is building, growing, attracting, and retaining a skilled workforce.' We 

will not keep pace with international competition without a robust innovation and entrepreneurial 

sector 2 The ability to attract and retain foreign-born workers has been and will continue to be a 

critical part of this equation. 

High-skilled immigration is important for America's twenty-first century economy for 

several reasons. Immigration and job growth go hand in hand. Immigrant workers provide a 

needed and valuable complement to the native-born labor force. High-skilled immigration 

provides a boost to critical sectors of the economy that reach far beyond the high-tech industry. 

Finally, immigrants play critical roles in the economies of metropolitan areas across the country, 

including the nation's heartland. 

High-Skilled immigration and Job Creation Go Hand ill Hand 

Time and again, researchers across numerous disciplines have found that high-skilled 

immigration creates new jobs for Americans3 For example, a 2012 report found that each 

foreign-born graduate from a u.s. university with an advanced degree who stays in the U.S. to 

work in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) occupation creates an 

average of 2.62 jobs for American workers 4 Innovation on the job also translates into strong 

entrepreneurial tendencies, which also creates jobs. According to a 2011 report from the 

Partnership for a New American Economy, immigrants were founders of 18 percent of all 

Fortune 500 companies, including many high-tech giants. The newer the company, the more 

likely it was to have an immigrant founder 5 A 2012 report concluded that from 2006 to 2012 

immigrant-founded engineering and technology companies in the U.S. employed around 560,000 

people and produced over $63 billion in sales'" The report's authors note that immigrants will 

undoubte~,ll "remain a critical asset for maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the global 

economy. 

Immigrants bring job-creating innovation and ideas not only to the businesses they create, 

but to the businesses within which they work. A September 2010 report from the Brookings 

1 The Chicago Council, US' Economic Compe1iiiveness aL Risk: /11~fi(l»:es' Call to 'Ie/ion on Immixra1ion Re/orm 

(Chicago: The Chicago Coulled 011 Glohal /\[Tair~, Fehruary 2(13) 

'Ibid 

1 Neeraj Kaushal and Michael [ix, Thl! Contributiolls a/High-Skilled Immigrants ('/olashington, DC: MigratlOl1 

Policy Institute. 2006) 

1 In['(;mlatiol1 Technology Industry COLLllcil, the Parlnership ror a New American I-:COTIOTIlY, and the lJ.S. Chamher 

of Commerce, Help H "aI/ted: 1'he Role of Foreign Workers ;1/ fhe Innovation c'conomy (Washington, DC: December 

2012),1'.2 

~ Partnership for a Ne,Y American Economy, The "Nnt' Americall '" Fortunl! 500 (New York, NY: June 2011), pp 

11. 17.21 

(, Vivek 'i}.,ladlnva, AnnaLee Saxenian, and rrancis Daniel Siciliano TT, Then and Vow: America '8 l\Few Tmmigral1i 

r"'ntrepreneurs: Part VlI (Kansa~ Cily, MO Hwing Marion KaLLlT1.l1an FOLLlldalioll, 2(12) 

- Ibid 
44 

Institution notes that "among people with advanced degrees, immigrants are three times more 

likely to file patents than U.S.-born citizens.,,8 The benefits of these patents extend to native-born 

researchers and scientists. There is evidence that foreign-born and American-born scientists are 

benefiting from and building off of each other's work. The increased number of patents received 

by immigrants coincides with an increase in the number of patents awarded to native-born 

Americans, thus increasing the overall innovative capacity of the U.S'" 

High-Skilled Immigrant Workers Complemel1l the Native-Rom Workforce 

Highly skilled immigrants complement their native-born peers; they do not substitute for 

them. This is true throughout all high-skilled occupations, but is particularly true in STEM tlelds. 

Arguments that immigrants are depressing wages or freezing out native-born workers belie the 

available evidence. For example, a 2012 report finds that many STEM occupations have very 

low unemployment compared to the overall national unemployment rate (which stood at 7.9 

percent as of January 2013).") For U.S.-citizen STEM workers with PhDs (Table I), the 

unemployment rate is only 3.15 percent, and forthose with master's degrees it is 3.4 percentll In 

some STEM occupations, the unemployment rate is even lower (Table 2). Unemployment among 

Petroleum Engineers is 0.1 percent, for Computer Network Architects it is 0.4 percent, and for 

Nuclear Engineers it is 0.5 percent.!2 Further, those STEM tlelds in which large shares of 

workers are foreign-born have low unemployment rates among native-born workers. For 

instance, although nearly 25 percent of Medical Scientists are foreign-born, native-born Medical 

Scientists have an unemployment rate of just 3.4 percent.!3 

Table 1. Percentage of Foreign Workers in STEM and Non-STEM Occupations in 2011 

Non-STEM Occupations STEM Occupations 

US Citizens Non-Citizens US Citizens Non-Citizens 

Master's Degree 94.8% 5.2% 82.3% 17.7% 

Doctoral Degree 93.6% 6.4% 73.9% 26.1% 

Total All Education 

Status 91.2% 8.8% 90.8% 9.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 

Pooled January 2011 - December 2011 Data. Information Technology Industry Council. the 

Partnership for a New American Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Help Wanted: 

The Role of Foreign Workers in the Innovation Economy (Washington, DC: December 2012). 

Note: "All education" category includes high-school only and bachelor's only in addition to the 

other categories. STEM occupations include technician jobs. 

8 Michael Grccn:-.tonc and Adam Looney, Ten Pconol11ic "{Jus .'Ihout Immigration (Vlashington, DC: The Hamilton 

Proj!:d orThc Hroo1.ings Institulion, Sqllcmhcr 2(10), p. 11 

9 v.,lilliam R. KelT and v.,lilliam F. Lincoln, The Supply Side oJlnnovaiion: H-IB rrisa Reforms and D~S' Ethnic 

inv('lItiofi. Working Paper No. 09-005 (Boston, MA: llarvard Business School, Decemher 2008) 

10 Information Technology Industry Council, the Pminership for a Ne\\- American Economy, and the U.S. Chmnber 

of Commerce, Help Wall ted: The Rofe of Foreign Workers;1I the Innovation Economy (Washington, DC December 

2012), p. J 11 Tbid 

12 Ihid 

"Ibid 
45 

Table 2. Unemployment Rate for U.S.-Citizen Workers in 11 STEM Fields with the Highest 

Dependence on Foreign-Born STEM Workers in 2011 

Percent of Workers Who Unemployment Rate 

Are Non-Citizens for U.S. Citizens 

Total STEM Occupations 8.82% 4.30% 

All Non-STEM Occupations 8.57% 8.40% 

Medical Scientists 24.89% 3.40% 

Computer and Information Research 

Scientists 23.19% 5.40% 

Physical Scientists, all other 20.52% 4.00% 

Software Developers, applications 

and systems software 20.13% 4.00% 

Statisticians 13.32% 1.60% 

Biological Scientists 10.00% 2.90% 

Actuaries 9.94% 0.00% 

Petroleum Engineers 9.83% 0.10% 

Computer Hardware Engineers 9.39% 2.30% 

Computer Programmers 9.28% 3.70% 

Computer Systems Analysts 9.18% 2.50% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 

Pooled January 2011-December 2011 Data, Information Technology Industry Council, the 

Partnership for a New American Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Help Wanted: 

The Role of Foreign Workers in the Innovation Economy (Washington, DC: December 2012). 

An analysis of job openings data reveals that STEM jobs take longer to fill than nonSTEM jobs and that there are more vacancies in STEM t1elds than there are STEM degree 

holders in the average metropolitan area. In 2010 there were seven job openings in computer 

occupations for every graduate from a relevant computer major at the national level.'4 Yet in 

high-tech metro areas the demand was even greater: 25 to I in San Francisco, 19 to I in San 

Jose, and even greater in Austin; Seattle; Washinb>ton, D.C., Des Moines; Charleston; and 

Charlotte15 As a further example, nationally there were six health care practitioner job openings 

for every graduate of a related field, and four job openings for each engineer. 

Immigrants are also refilling the talent pool across the country as members of the 

enormous baby boom generation retire. The National Academy of Sciences concludes that 

immigration will become increasingly important in maintaining the U.S. science and engineering 

labor force as more and more native-born workers retire. According to a 2010 report by the 

National Science Board, "absent changes in degree production, retirement patterns, or 

immigration, the number of S&E-trained workers in the labor force will continue to grow for 

some time, but the growth rate may slow considerably as an increasing proportion of the S&E 

labor force reaches traditional retirement age,',16 

H Jonathan Rothwell, "The Need ror More STI-:M V'I"or1.crs-- (Wa,hll11glo11,])C: Hroo1.ings Instilulioll, 2(12). 

National Science Hoard, Science and k'nginecl'illg Indicators 20] 0, NSH 10-01 (ArlingtoTI. V /\: National Science 

FOlllldation, 2010), chapter 3, p. 29 

4 
46 

High-Skilled Immigration is Critical Beyond the High-Tech Industry 

Although the high-tech industry garners the most attention on the subject of high-skilled 

immigration, the contributions of foreign-born workers reach far beyond the high-tech sector. 

High-skilled immigrants playa host of other crucial roles in the U.S. economy and society. One 

example is in our healthcare industry. As the country's population grows older and grows in size, 

immigrant physicians, nurses, and other health care workers play increasingly important roles. 

Recent research flnds that the United States is experiencing an expanding shortage of primarycare physicians and this shortage is expected to worsen in the coming decades.!7 A 2012 study in 

the Annals 'if Family Medicine suggests that by 2025 the United States will require nearly 52,000 

more primary-care physicians18 The opportunity for immigrants to flll gaps in underserved areas 

is signiflcant19 In addition to primary and preventive care, immigrants also playa major role in 

specialized areas of medicine. For example, a 2013 report found that over 40 percent of cancer 

researchers in the U.S. are immigrants.'o 

High-Skilled Immigration is Critical to Metropolitan Regional Economies 

In addition to boosting the national economy and strengthening America's global 

competiti veness, high-skilled immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs are im portant for 

metropolitan regional economies. This is true not only in San Jose and Silicon Valley, but in 

many regions across the country. Tn Texas, San Antonio and Austin have built knowledge 

economies around the universities and research industries located there. Houston attracts highskilled workers for the area's oil industry. In South Carolina, Greenville and Spartanburg have 

attracted industries that need high-skilled workers. In Boise, knowledge-based employment has 

spurred the local economy and population growth. The universities and research organizations of 

the North Carolina piedmont, in Raleigh, Greensboro, and the Research Triangle area, create a 

high demand for high-skilled workers 

Long-term research shows that in addition to bringing more jobs and higher salaries to 

communities where they cluster, the impact of innovative industries in localities has a profound 

multiplier effect2 ! Jobs in the innovation economy generate a disproportionate number of local 

jobs in other industries. An analysis of 11 million American workers in 320 metropolitan areas 

shows that each new high-tech job in a metropolitan area creates five additional long-term local 

jobs outside of the high-tech sector. 22 Furthermore, the flve new jobs created for each new hightech job benetits a diverse group of workers: two new jobs for professional workers such as 

attorneys and doctors, and three new positions in nonprofessional occupations such as service 

l' Stephen Petterson, et [11., "Projecting US Primary Care Physician World"oree Needs: 2010-2025,' Annals of 

Family Medicine 11, no. 1 (2013) 

18 Ibid 

l':l /\lh~on SqLLlfcs and Hiram I-kllran-Sanchc/, .')'trengthening Ilea/til S:vstcms ill ,Vo1'th and Central.'lmerica: /ii, "hat 

Role for ~\ligratioll? (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, Febmary 2013) 

~n Stumi Anderson, The Colltriburiol18 olImmigrants fa Cancer Research in America (Arlington, VA: National 

Foundation for American Policy, 2013) 

21 Mark Muro, "Mulhpher Effect, Connectlllg [nnovatroll and Agendas" The 

nrookings Tnstitution, August 2J, 2(12), htl,jl~'h,,'~1)' b<",)1:jlll,~"du!'hl['g.<,J·!lle"rl":~1l11e}j)Q"L'1[;'ill2jQSal:[I111ltj12i1"r, 

crfl:ct:HltUnl 

"-E;';'ic:~-M~retti, The Nell' Geograpl", oj Jobs (New York. NY: IIoughton Miftlin, 2012) 
47 

industry jobs21 ill many U.S. metropolitan areas, the innovation economy, and the high-skilled 

jobs related to it, drive prosperity for a broader base of workers living in the region.'4 

High-Skilled Immigranls Conlrihule 10 America's Heartland 

Beyond the Silicon Valleys and Research Triangles of the U.S., high-skilled immigrants 

and immigrant entrepreneurs are making significant contributions to local economies and 

communities in America's heartland. In many places, the need for foreign talent is critical. For 

decades, large numbers of U.S. workers have been migrating from "Rustbelt" cities to the 

"Sunbelt." The cities and towns experiencing native-born population declines must find ways to 

maintain a viable workforce. As a result, an increasing number of local communities are 

recognizing the need to be receptive to immigrants. A growing list of cities and towns across the 

heartland are officially becoming places of welcome and openness to immigration. 

In Michigan, for example, while only six percent of the state's population is foreign-born, 

immigrants founded around one-third of high-tech companies in the state over the past decade. 25 

The state, through its "Welcoming Michigan" campaign of building immigrant-friendly 

communities, clearly sees the need to attract immigrants to the area26 Detroit also recognizes this 

need. ill 2010, the city released the "Global Detroit" report, which documents a start-up rate for 

immigrant-founded high-tech firms in Michigan that is six times the rate of the native-born 

population27 

Additionally, cities such as Dayton28 have passed "welcoming resolutions"; fonnal 

proclamations by local elected leaders expressing their recognition of the importance of 

immigration to their local economy, and their openness to the continued contributions of 

immigrants29 ill Minnesota, local leaders also acknowledge the positive contributions of 

immigrants. As a member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce states: "Immigrants aren't 

just an asset because they numerically increase the workforce. They are also playing a key role 

as entrepreneurs in Minnesota and have transformed neighborhoods in both Minneapolis and St. 

Paul while helping revitalize downtowns in several regional centers around our state ,,10 

The Problems with the Current Immigration System 

Most observers agree that our current immigration system is outdated and dysfunctional, 

making it more difficult for the U.S. to compete in the global marketplace and attract the power 

and potential of high-skilled immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs. Yet our immigration laws 

2-'Ibid 

2-1 Jonathan Rothv.rell, 

In~litLLlion, August 7, 

roth\yell 

of Jobs'" The nrookings 

::.:; The Chicago Council, US Economic Competitiveness at Risk: A .Alidwest Call to Action 011 Immigration Reform 

(Chicago: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. february 2013) 

:6 Vo,r cl com ing M lchigan, UliJLL[~VLlY ~Ll\~~19)rxlill ... !..ml~lLi g_;!JU~IgIQ~TIJ_\,Jl tih~3JJ}_":lIlnr~ 

:- Global Detroit, (i-Ioba/Detroit: Filial Report (Detroit, Ml: 2(10) 

~"; Welcome Dayton, httD:l/\vww.\Yelcomcduytoll.orQ"/ 

_9 Welcoming America: Building a Nation of Neighbors, httn:!I\Y\Y\Y.'iyelcomtncwlllcrica.orz;'nhoutl1s/accomplIshments! 

30 niH nlazar, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs and nusiness Development, Minnesota Chamber of 

Commerce, quolcJ in Thc Chicago eOLmcil, US' r"'cmlOmic Competitiveness at Hisk: . '/ .Hid-west Call to. '/ction 011 

Immigration Reform (Chicago The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Febnwry 2013) 

6 
48 

and polices remain mired in the past and are often an impediment to achieving economic growth, 

job creation, and global competitiveness. As it stands, the current immigration system simply 

does not provide the right kinds or numbers of visas needed to respond to the legitimate demands 

of our dynamic economy. High-skilled immigrants face years of waiting for an available visa and 

an endless array of bureaucratic delays. Immigrant entrepreneurs are completely left out of our 

current system. And immigrants who are enrolled in or graduates from US. universities are 

increasingly being recruited to other countries where immigration processes are far more 

welcoming. 

Current Visa Caps and Per-Country Quotas are Out-Dated 

Our current laws are out of touch with the economic realities of our current economy. 

The last major revision of our immigration system occurred with the Immigration Act of 1990, 

which raised the annual ceiling on employment-based immigration from 56,000 to 140,000 and 

created the five employment-based immigration preferences in place today. Despite dramatic 

changes to our economy since then (including the entire technology boom), our immigration 

laws have not been updated to confonn to evolving economic realities. For instance, the H-IB 

visa for highly skilled immigrants is currently capped at 65,000 visas per year, with 20,000 

additional visas for foreign professionals who graduate with a Master's or Doctorate from a US. 

university. Since 2003, when the quotas were reduced from 195,000 back down to the 65,000 

limit set in 1990, the demand for these visas has outstripped supply every year. In some years, 

the limit has been reached on the tirst day the visas are made available. The H-IB and other 

temporary nonimmigrant visa programs play an important role in US. economic growth, 

innovation, and competitiveness. Companies, including those that make world-class products and 

deliver services to clients across the economy, rely on these visa programs to fill labor-market 

gaps and perform critical business functions. A 2012 Brookings Institution report recommends 

that H-JB visa caps be adjusted each year based not simply on national economic indicators, but 

on the skill needs oflocal employers as well as regional economic conditions" 

One lesson learned from the immigration reforms of 1986 and 1990 is that it is 

impossible to predict the business conditions or the demands of the US. labor market years in 

advance. We should not box ourselves in with arbitrary visa caps and per-country quotas32 

Instances of abuse must be taken seriously, and our permanent and temporary immigration 

categories can and should be strengthened to guard against fraud and to protect workers. But to 

deny the important role that these immigration policies play in a global economy is a dangerous 

mistake. Other countries are spending billions of dollars trying to recruit high-skilled workers, 

and global competition is only becoming more fierce. For now, the United States continues to be 

in a position of strength in the global battle for talent. But if we squander this opportunity to 

reform our immigration system we are jeopardizing a competitive advantage that has been 

critical to establishing ourselves as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. 

31 Nell O. RUlZ, .TIll H. \\ltlson, and Shy amah Choudhury, The .')'earch jar Skills: Demwui Jor H-1B Immigrant 

in U.S'. ,1Jelropo/iJanAreas (V'la~hlngton, DC: nroobngs Tnstitution, 20[2) 

i1l11l1ib'Talion Policy Center, The l/'S'. r"'conaTn), S'till .'Veeds I !iKh~v Sial/cd f/oreign Workers (Vi ashington, DC 

American Immigration Council. 2011) 
49 

Talent of Immigrant Stlldems and Graduates in the U.S. is Underutilized 

The US. immigration system should provide clear and emcient pathways to both 

permanent residence and temporary work visas for immigrants already studying in US. 

universities, as well as those high-skilled immigrants who came to the US. through family-based 

immigration channels or as refugees and asylees. But, at the same time, the US. must also 

commit to strengthening and encouraging STEM education at the secondary and post-secondary 

levels. Immigration and education reforms together will help solve the problem of future flow in 

the STEM fields. Reforming the avenues for high-skilled immigration would be a fast way to 

solve half the equation, while refonning STEM education in the US. is a long-term goal for 

solving the full equation. 

Policy Recommendations and Conclusion 

More flexibility is needed in the U.S. immigration system. The permanent-temporary visa 

dichotomy often fails to work in the best interests of employers or workers. In some cases, 

employers may only be able to obtain visas for temporary workers when they actually need 

pennanent workers. Workers who arrive on temporary visas may find penn anent jobs, but are 

unable to adjust to a permanent visa under the current system. Our immigration system does not 

have the flexibility needed to respond to the country's evolving economic needs. 

Reforms to high-skilled immigration and immigrant entrepreneur policies should address 

the needs of both workers and employers. Specitlcally, refonns should provide job portability, 

labor protections, and economic opportunities for workers and their families. Reforms should 

create a nimble and emcient system that responds in real-time to the needs of the market by 

giving employers the ability to fill positions quickly with workers who are protected from 

exploitation. Reforms should also provide ample opportunities for immigrant entrepreneurs to 

spur innovation, job creation, and economic growth for local communities and for the nation as a 

whole. 

We must also be mindful that family-based immigration need not be reduced to improve 

employment-based immigration. Family-based immigrants contribute to the economy as well 

On the one hand, employment-based immigrants in the U.S. are more productive if their families 

are with them. On the other hand, immigrants who arrive through family reunification are 

workers and innovators themselves. There is significant research showing that close family 

relationships facilitate entrepreneurship because families can provide important resources that 

foster entrepreneurship, such as support in caring for children and working in family-owned 

businesses. According to data from the Small Business Administration, immigrant women in 

particular are one of the fastest-growing segments of small business owners in the United 

States 33 

As the Independent Task Force on US. Immigration Policy noted several years ago: 

"Immigration has helped make the US. economy, despite its recent diftlculties, into the world's 

strongest and most dynamic; maintaining that economic advantage is the foundation of 

America's influence and power in the world. If the United States loses its economic edge, its 

power will diminish. Getting immigration policy right is therefore critical to US. economic and 

"Elizabeth Kelleher. "Immigrants Fuel Small Business Growth in the United States," America.go\', Mnrch 7,2008 

8 
50 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank all of the witnesses, and especially for adhering to the time limit. I wish I could give you an award for that, 

but it would probably break some law. 

So with that, I would recognize the Chairman of full Committee, 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 
51 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Morrison, welcome back to this Committee. I know you have 

served here before my time, and I have been here a while. And 

worked in immigration law, as have I and Congresswoman Lofgren. 

So we appreciate your contribution. 

My first question is the other primary, as I said in my opening 

remarks, the other primary immigrant-receiving countries, U.K., 

Canada, and Australia, select over 60 percent of their immigrants 

based on education and skills; the United States only 12 percent. 

And when you take out family members, only really 6 percent of 

our immigrant visas go to people with job skills needed in the U.S. 

Which type of immigration system do you believe makes the most 

sense? 

Mr. MORRISON. I think the first priority is for us to have an adequate number of green cards for the employment-based system. 

And there are ways to do that, various ways to do that. And that 

is the priority. Now, the Congress will choose and this Committee 

will choose the extent to which the overall number of immigrants 

can be increased and what priorities ought to be set. Certainly, the 

IEEE-USA does not believe it is its job to say which other priorities 

ought to be lower. But we do believe and we have been willing to 

say that ultimately the country has to choose and that it ought not 

to shortchange its need for innovators and entrepreneurs in favor 

of doing something that might be less important to the country as 

a whole. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. My next question is, isn’t it the case 

that most employers will want to give new workers a tryout period 

before committing to the significant resources necessary to sponsor 

them for a green card? And isn’t it better for the national economy 

that we grant permanent residence to aliens who have already 

proven themselves on the job, and thus, doesn’t the H-1B program 

work hand in hand with our green card programs in selecting the 

best recipients? 

Mr. MORRISON. I think that there is a problem with that analysis. First, Mr. Garfield was very clear that there are temporary 

jobs in the H-1B program and it very much ought to be directed 

at temporary jobs. But when we are filling permanent jobs, the 

idea is that we are bringing people from abroad and we are asking 

them to come and choose America as the place where they are 

going to make their commitment and their investment. 

When we do that, the notion of a tryout, you know, come from 

Korea and spend 3 years or 5 years or 10 years trying out—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt because I have a limited 

amount of time. I don’t disagree with that analysis. But when I 

practiced immigration law, the reality was that if you were in an 

American university and—or even in a foreign university, and a 

company wanted to hire you, the waiting list was so long for the 

permanent card that they wanted to get you on the H-1B so that 

they could then begin the process of applying for labor certification 

and then filing petition for an immigrant visa. And so the two really need to work hand in hand. There definitely are people who 

should come directly here for green cards, because they have the 

skills and qualify, and our current law allows that, and there are 

definitely people who come on an H-1B and do not intend to stay 
52 

here permanently. But we also need to have these two programs 

mesh better than they do now in terms of those people who are 

going to come here temporarily, and if they do prove their worth, 

do get the opportunity from employers to move on to a green card. 

Mr. MORRISON. The only thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is 

that it is not necessary to have that delay in the green card system. And in 1990, we intended to change that. But, unfortunately, 

what happened in the 1990’s, after I was gone, we didn’t succeed 

in keeping that promise. And so we used the H-1B, we stuffed the 

green card system with huge numbers that created huge backlogs 

and we also did not deal with the delays inherent in the selection 

system and the processing system. 

That ought to change. The use of optional practical training for 

those people who are here, the use of other mechanisms to speed 

admission, including possibly fees, can be a way in which we don’t 

play this tryout game. Because I think the tryout game is wrong. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt you because we can have further discussion about that. I want to get one more question in for 

Mr. Garfield. And that is, you mentioned in your testimony that 

Microsoft was forced to locate a product development facility in 

Vancouver because of the limitations of our immigration laws. Do 

you believe that other companies will make similar decisions unless 

our immigration laws are modernized? That is called a softball. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, it is. The simple answer is yes, not only 

would they, but they are. In fact, I was in California just last week 

and met with a group of investors, and I am sure you guys have 

heard this story as well, who are literally looking at locating a 

cruise ship 12 miles off the coast of San Francisco so they can 

avoid this problem, because they would be in international waters. 

The interesting thing, which goes to the point about the complementary nature of the innovation ecosystem and the H-1B’s and 

permanents, is that there are a significant number of U.S. citizens 

who are applying to be on that cruise ship because they know the 

benefit of partnering and working with immigrants and how it advances innovation generally. So I agree with you completely that 

it is a complementary system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair would now 

recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks 

to these excellent witnesses. I see here officials from the IEEE. It 

is good to see you here and thank you very much for your support 

of the Idea Act and the work that you did with me to hone and 

clarify the issues there. 

I think this is an important hearing. And I was mentioning to 

the Chairman, we can’t tell from your testimony who is the majority witness and who is the minority witness, which is a good thing. 

I think we are all on the same page in wanting to make progress 

here. And the question is what are the details that need to be attended to. 

You know, I think back on my experience in this field. And I always remember a young fellow who had spent 4 years as an undergraduate at Harvard and then it took him 7 years, actually, to get 
53 

his Ph.D. at Stanford. And he did a couple years of practical training. And then he had—was on an H-1B, and he got an extension. 

And he came to me and he said, you know, I have been here 20 

years and I am still in limbo. And the question is, do I buy a 

house? Or do I go someplace else? 

And I said, well, just hold on. You know, we are going to fix this 

system. 

What we have now is not competitive. I mean, smart people like 

that fellow can go anywhere in the world. And he was getting offers from all over the world. So we need to think about how to be 

competitive for the brightest people in the world, how to allow 

them to become Americans with us. 

I think that the answer is green cards. That doesn’t mean that 

there isn’t a place for a reformed H-1B program. But I was noticing 

in the Chairman’s opening statement his comment about Level 1 

salaries versus the median in his area. Here is the information 

from Silicon Valley: Computer and information scientists, researchers, the Level 1 salary is $86,736. The median is $133,577. For electrical engineers, the Level 1 salary is $71,884, the me- dian is a $105,102. 

So I think there is an issue with the Level 1 salaries that we addressed in the Idea Act. We need to make sure that when we are 

getting the best and brightest we are not actually undercutting 

American engineers and computer scientists and the like. And that 

goes both for the green card program as well as for the H-1B program. 

I do think—I guess I have a question for Mr. Garfield, I guess 

it is best directed to you, or Mr. Kamra. Microsoft came out with 

a white paper a number of months ago recommending increased 

fees that would be allocated toward education of American students 

in STEM fields. Do you think that that is something that should 

be part of what we look at in this package as we are providing 

greater green cards for the best and brightest? We want also to 

make science and technology education more accessible to American students. And not as an instead of providing the green cards 

but in addition to providing immigration reform. What do you 

think of that, Mr. Garfield? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I will answer a direct question with a direct response, which is yes. As a part of improving the entire system. So 

improved or increased fees by itself is not something that you will 

have a lot of support for. But as a part of not only attracting the 

best and the brightest but making sure that those who are born 

and bred here have access to the same opportunities through 

science, engineering, and math that others do, then yes. So the one 

thing that I would add is that there are a number of small businesses who have raised some concern about—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. GARFIELD [continuing]. That fee. And I think those issues 

can be addressed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It should be tiered so we are not adversely impacting startups and small businesses. But for a company like Microsoft, they were the ones that suggested the fee. That would be 

something that they could support. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Correct. 
54 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask—I am running out of time. But it 

seems to me all the times—I have so many technology companies 

in my district—that part of being competitive is also having a family immigration system that works. I mean, the number of times 

a company is called because their hotshot engineer is about to bail 

out because he has separated from his wife and kids for half a decade is also a problem. Do you see that as part of the solution here, 

Mr. Garfield and Mr. Kamra? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, absolutely. I think Chairman Gowdy made 

the point that a lot of the iconic brands that were founded by immigrants, and certainly Mr. Johnson made the point as well, didn’t 

come through the high-skilled program. So, yes. 

Mr. KAMRA. Absolutely. I think a number of countries out there 

are competing with us for these kind of immigrants. And spouse, 

family visas are included as part of the program. And I think we 

need to be cognizant of that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 

has expired. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. 

Amodei. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was going to ask if anybody thought things ought to stay the 

same. But I will take the lead from the Ranking Member, clearly 

nobody thinks the status quo is good. What I would just be interested in is, since you have all testified over a protracted period of 

time in your remarks, what do you attribute the fact that we are 

here again today talking about this issue? Why haven’t we been 

able to get traction to make some level of changes? And I want to 

start in reverse order with you, Mr. Johnson. What do you attribute the fact that you are here urging change again in the face 

of pretty much inactivity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think the political rhetoric around this 

issue, in general, is divisive and often destructive. And I think that 

makes, you know, charting a political course difficult. I think 

myths and misinformation abound in this area. And I think as a 

result of that oftentime we are driven more by bumper-sticker slogans rather than real solutions to a complex system. 

So I think the best thing that we can do is start focusing on the 

facts as we know them and challenge ourselves to be honest in this 

debate about the importance of immigration in building a stronger 

economy and a stronger society. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thanks. 

Mr. Kamra. 

Mr. KAMRA. Well, I have not been here before myself. 

Mr. AMODEI. Welcome to the club. 

Mr. KAMRA. Thank you. I will just note, since I am talking mostly about startup visas, it is getting more urgent every day. I came 

from Canada, even though I was born in India. Just last week, 

Canada announced a startup visa program. I would like to think 

that is not just because I am testifying; they’re not trying to get 

me back. But it is—every country or every—many countries that 

we compete with for these entrepreneurs are moving ahead of us. 

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Garfield. 
55 

Mr. GARFIELD. I think—— 

Mr. AMODEI. Why are we here talking about this still? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I think it is in part what Mr. Johnson said. But 

I think it is also in part because there is—the previous attempts 

have focused on moving this issue where there is a broader recognition that this issue is one of the ones on which there is bipartisan 

agreement. And if we are going to deal with the broader immigration challenge, there is a desire to keep this issue as a part of resolving the broader puzzle. And so I think that has been part of 

the limitation in the approaches that have been taken. 

Mr. AMODEI. So you haven’t chosen to use the word ‘‘hostage’’? 

Mr. GARFIELD. I would not use that word. I would use probably 

as an allure. It is one of those issues that will help build bipartisan 

support for broader immigration reform. So it is viewed as being 

an integral part of that broader effort. 

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Morrison, I know things were clicking right 

along until you left. So what do you attribute the inactivity after 

you left to? 

Mr. MORRISON. Well, obviously, we had great success in 1990 in 

a bipartisan effort that passed an important bill that was very relevant at that time. But times change and times pass. 

Unfortunately, many times our discussions about immigration 

don’t focus on what the problem is in a particular sector of the 

economy and a particular part of immigration. So there are matters 

of the structure of our legal immigration system and there are matters of the fact that we have many unauthorized workers here. And 

those both need to be addressed. But they aren’t the same problem. 

And they shouldn’t be talked about as if they are. And sometimes 

in the politics of this issue, that is the way it has been discussed. 

And some people have found benefit in doing that in terms of stopping progress. But I think now the Congress seems to be very intent on progress, and that is very encouraging. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Nevada. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from the State of 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. And I want to thank 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member again for these rapid series of hearings which I think are extremely important in creating 

a record. 

Just last week, we were in the Supreme Court on the issue of 

the Voting Rights Act. And one of the stellar moments was when 

the Court or the lawyers could not ignore the 15,000 pages of testimony that Congress had established of the relevance of the Section 

5. And I am hoping that we create 15,000 pages of advocacy for immigration reform. And it looks like we are on the way to doing so. 

So I thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

And I want to ask a question of all four of you. Taking a quote 

from Dr. Robert—well, it does not say Dr. Robert—D. Atkinson, 

President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, just a quick quote that he has just indicated. ‘‘The odds of 

high skilled passing without comprehensive, and that is immigration reform, is close to zero, and the odds of comprehensive immigration reform passing without high skilled is close to zero.’’ 
56 

Mr. Morrison, do you agree to that? 

Mr. MORRISON. I think the best thing that the Congress could do 

right now is to pass comprehensive reform that includes addressing 

both of the questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Just as a political assessment, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Kamra? 

Mr. KAMRA. Yes, I do agree. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Garfield, a lot of us are excited, there is some legislation 

going on regarding what we call a startup company visa. I am just 

going to lead into that. There are a lot of creative things that one 

can do around this need for high tech. 

And I want to raise two questions with you on this issue of the 

high skilled. I tend to not like to use ‘‘low skilled,’’ I like to use different skills for those who don’t fall into that category. But I want 

to see where we are to answer the concerns of a lot of Americans 

on two issues. One, that under the pretense of a high-skilled visa, 

it would really be technicians who would come to the United 

States. Those technicians would lower the wages of our trained scientists and high-skilled engineers. Therefore, substituting them for 

high-skilled engineers, American engineers and scientists. And the 

other side of the coin is where is our focus on ensuring that the 

doors of opportunity are open to the—what we hope will be the 

emerging STEM-qualified Americans, particularly out of Hispanicserving institutions and historically Black colleges. 

So there are two questions. One, would the H-1B visa lead to individuals being techs and getting lower salaries, undermining our 

scientists and mathematicians? And then where is the Information 

Technology Industry Council in working with historically Black colleges, Hispanic-serving colleges and building a base of opportunity 

for those young people? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes. To question number one, there is a fair 

amount of discussion earlier on the GAO study from 2011. And one 

of the conclusions from the GAO study is that there isn’t any systematic evidence that controlling for experience and age of an undermining of the prevailing wage in any of the categories. 

The other data point from the study—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You said it does not? I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. GARFIELD. It does not. Does not. 

Is, which I think the Chairman pointed to, was the trend line 

over the last few years of increasing salaries even at that lower 

level. That is not to suggest that the H-1B program is perfect and 

cannot be improved. It is to suggest that it is not worthy of being 

thrown out. So we can improve it. 

As to the second question, it is a great question around accessibility. And one of the points I made earlier is that our companies 

are actually spending billions of dollars, whether through 

mentorship programs or improving teacher skills in STEM, to 

make sure that the 21st century workforce reflects the diversity of 
57 

our entire country. And we intend to make it a continued point of 

focus. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Let me get another question in. 

Thank the Chairman. One of the issues of the earlier process that 

we used was again tying visas to s specific employer, therefore 

stymying the growth of our domestic STEM field. So what type of 

STEM visa program or system do you recommend that will not tie 

employees to a specific employer? Maybe I can get Mr. Johnson and 

Mr. Morrison. 

And I would just conclude by, if I could, Mr. Chairman, allow 

them to answer, just conclude and hope that my colleagues will join 

me in making sure that the language in any legislation that we 

support has the emphasis on diversifying this industry with access. 

Mr. Morrison on the question of the STEM visa. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Morrison and Mr. Johnson, I am going to ask 

you to answer as efficiently as you can without doing a disservice 

to the issue. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MORRISON. A STEM green card does not tie the employee to 

the employer. And by using that approach, you get all the autonomy and security for the employee. And the employer keeps the 

worker the same way the employer keeps an American worker: by 

paying well and giving good and challenging working conditions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I disagree. I think, in fact, portability issues with 

the H-1B visa, the H-1B visa is completely portable. The day that 

you get the H-1B, you can transfer employers. Not suggesting that 

we shouldn’t try to strengthen that, particularly if the employee 

just needs to quit. I mean, grace periods after termination, I think, 

are really important. 

The portability and build being tied to an employer comes in 

when the employer files a green card petition. That is when you 

can’t change jobs within that company, you can’t change employers 

without having to get to the back of the line. So it seems to me that 

the real focus of reform and sort of tying employees to employers 

needs to come in that green card application process, as well as 

strengthening it in the H-1B context, but really the problem exists 

in the green card petition. 

Mr. GARFIELD. And I-Squared does attempt to resolve that issue 

and address that challenge. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina—— 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY [continuing]. Former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you very much. Mr. Garfield, I continue to 

be fascinated with the concept of the fund for STEM education, 

which you touched on briefly and is in your submitted testimony, 

and would just ask you to elaborate that, on it a bit more and exactly how it would work and particular benefits that you think that 

it would draw. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you. How it would work is subject to further discussion with the Members of this Committee. It is simply 
58 

a recognition of the fact that we have been talking about, which is 

there is a significant skills gap in this country. 

The fastest growing areas of employment in this Nation are in 

the areas related to science, technology, engineering and math, and 

yet we all know that high school students graduating today, less 

than 30 percent of them are proficient in the sciences, less than 50 

percent are proficient in math. 

And so a fund like the one we are talking about would give us 

an opportunity to begin addressing that so that we are dealing 

with our short-term skills issue through H-1B’s or the visa program, but also taking steps to make sure that we are dealing with 

the longer term, more systematic skills challenges that exist in the 

country. 

Fundamentally, I think the bottom line is there is a lot of flexibility in how you could devise that program, and we are willing to 

work with the Members of this Committee to make sure it works 

effectively. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. The issue we are talking about is near 

and dear to my heart because my wife is an immigrant and she 

came here because her father is a very highly skilled worker. He 

headed engineering and construction worldwide for a pharmaceutical firm in the United States and then headed one in Switzerland. And he has constantly remarked around the dining room 

table that the United States is one of the most difficult countries 

to get his teams into to build these facilities. He may want an engineer, you know, one from Switzerland, one from Italy, two from 

England and one from Germany. And he has built facilities literally 

in just about every country that has one of these facilities, he has 

been there. 

What are some of the systems in other countries that would be 

worthy of emulation or further study to see how they are doing it 

in a way that is productive for their country? And I throw that out 

to you and then a follow-up to anyone else. So Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. What you describe is exactly what we hear from 

our companies all the time. There is a website that is popular in 

our community that has over 80—almost 85,000 open jobs right 

now, and so it speaks to the issue. 

Most of our international competitors are not only adopting programs like I-Squared, which is before you now, or the startup visa 

program like Canada recently did, but they are actually taking 

steps to go out and recruit talent like many of our sports teams do. 

So then rather than leaving it simply to serendipity, they are going 

to other markets and looking for talent and working to bring them 

to their country. 

And so for us, I think a great starting point is moving I-Squared 

and the startup visa 3.0, but also looking at ways that we can use 

our other agencies to go out and attract talent. 

Mr. HOLDING. If any other panelist would like to follow up on 

that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think there has been a lot of talk about 

other countries that are, you know, actively engaged in global competition for talent, that is certainly true, but other countries also 

recognize that it is the entire immigration system that needs to 

work. 
59 

I mean, I think we have got some serious problems when it 

comes to family members of certain visa holders that aren’t allowed 

to be employed in the United States. That is a real challenge in 

terms of attracting talent to our shores. Other countries don’t tolerate a situation where once somebody is here in the United States, 

they have to wait 5 to 7 years to be able to petition for another 

family member. 

So I think as a whole, we need to do what other countries are 

doing, using our immigration system as a tool for recruitment, 

thinking about it as a kind of resource management rather than 

only thinking about it from an enforcement perspective, you know, 

how do we keep people out, instead of how do we attract people 

through an effective system. 

Mr. HOLDING. Only in exclusionary terms. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like 

to thank you, Chairman Gowdy, because once again I think this 

panel is indicative of your leadership and your desire and the desire of this Committee to resolve this issue. I say that because in 

each and every instance, each and every panelist is contributing in 

a meaningful way, and not that you are all identical, but you are 

all meaningfully contributing to resolving the problem. And we can 

take from each and every one of you information and ideas that we 

can include in resolving the issue. 

I have to say that unfortunately that has not always been the 

case, and just so that we are clear, when we were in charge, it 

wasn’t always the case. That is to say, our side most of the time, 

and I think it is worth repeating, if the majority put up three witnesses, I would have absolutely nothing in common with them and 

I would probably avoid and not listen, and maybe sometimes to my 

detriment and to the detriment of the Nation. 

I would say, however, that I know that people want to keep having conversations about the past and the inability to get to a solution in the past, but I would say that there was an election and 

that if there was a big winner in this election, it was the STEM 

industry, and yet it wasn’t people in the STEM industry that 

caused that victory for you. It was a victory that came from millions upon millions of people in States like Colorado and New Mexico and Florida and Arizona and, yes, Nevada, who came out and 

said, we want to fix this issue once and for all, and said, we want 

comprehensive immigration reform, and that includes the STEM 

industry. 

And I just want to say that some of the ideas I hope that we will 

take a look at are ideas that were fostered by the Ranking Member 

of this Committee, Zoe Lofgren. I and others proposed legislation 

that would give up to 50,000 STEM visas. And in our program, 

there was complete portability; moreover, you got to bring your 

wife and your children with you right away. Those are the kinds 

of green cards. 
60 

Now, I want to make sure that everybody understands that as 

we move forward, it is really not about keeping one person hostage 

to the other. It is really about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that you are part of an immigrant family. It was almost as you want to say, oh, well, save your thumb 

and to hell with the rest of your hand. No. I say save the hand. 

And that hand is important in the functioning, not only of my body, 

right, but in the functioning of the economy of the United States 

of America. 

And we spend, I think, too much time stressing what my mom 

and dad didn’t have when they came to the United States of America. And they came as migrants to this country, they never graduated from high school. I don’t think they did very poorly. I think 

they did very well. They worked hard, they saved their money, they 

sent their kids to college and they contributed to the United States 

of America. 

And I would like to thank Chairman Gowdy, because he has really given us, you have really given us a sense and a flavor for the 

agricultural community that you put such an excellent panel together. And it was interesting. I mean, the millions and millions 

of people that wake up each and every day to go and work our 

fields, there is honor and there is dignity, and we should respect 

that honor and the dignity that their work provides us, because 

they provide an invaluable service. 

And I am just going to say, I don’t want my children working 

those fields. And I don’t think any of us send our kids thinking of 

one day picking peaches or lettuce or tomatoes or grapes or any of 

the fields in this country. That is hard, back breaking work, but 

somebody has got to do it, and they should also be afforded the opportunity. 

So I would like to thank especially Mr. Johnson, because I read 

you and I, right, we are pretty much in sync, so thank you so 

much. 

I don’t want to take any more time. I just want to say lastly, we 

are in it together. And understand, I am somebody who is going to 

practice the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your 

industry is in. Please, could you help us so that other sectors of our 

society can also be in, too use the incredible, how would I say, importance that you have, and credibility that you have on this issue 

to help others along the way. Hmm? 

You know, love God above everything else, but love your neighbor as you love yourself. And I will tell you something, those other 

immigrants that work the fields, that wash cars and dishes and 

floors and do so much of the work in this country, they are your 

neighbors, too, and then we can all be successful together. 

Thank you so much for the wonderful testimony you have all provided. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

putting this panel together. Thank you for the work you are doing 

and thank you to all the Members for their thoughtful questions. 
61 

Mr. Morrison, sometimes I think we make the mistake of assuming that our audience understands what we are talking about when 

we are talking about immigration and they understand the process. 

I have a really simple question. Can you just walk us through why 

people are not directly getting their green cards right now? I don’t 

think—if anybody is watching this today, they don’t understand 

why if you have an advanced degree and you have a job that is 

available to you, why you are not getting your green card right 

away. Can you explain that for us? 

Mr. MORRISON. Yeah. There really are two sources of delay in the 

system. One is that the number of visas is not sufficient, so we create a waiting list and a backlog. And at the moment that backlog 

stretches up to 10 years for some people in employment-based categories. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So I just want to be clear. I am a person with 

an advanced degree from a country like China or India, I have a 

job that is available to me, and in order for me to get a green card 

right now, I have to wait up to 10 or more years? Is that right? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to add in that for India, Bachelor 

of Science graduates, the recent study shows it is a 70-year wait, 

seven zero. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Mr. MORRISON. So that is one source of delay, but the other 

source of delay—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Before you get to the other source, can you explain how a country like Canada deals with that? 

Mr. MORRISON. Well, it depends on whether it is an advanced degree category or not. Canada right now has immediate availability 

for master’s and above, but for bachelor’s degrees, it also waits for 

about 6 to 7 years. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So for a master’s degree or above, in Canada they 

get immediate availability. 

Mr. MORRISON. You mean—you mean in the United States? 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. In Canada it is—— 

Mr. MORRISON. Oh, I am sorry. That is—— 

Mr. LABRADOR [continuing]. Immediate availability. In the 

United States, it is at—it is about 10 years, 6 to 10 years. 

Mr. MORRISON. I answered the wrong question. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Mr. MORRISON. I thought you were saying from Canada as contrasted from—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. I apologize. 

Mr. MORRISON [continuing]. Other countries. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So in Canada, so if I were an immigrant trying 

to go to Canada, how would that—— 

Mr. MORRISON. Canada doesn’t keep waiting lists. They have a 

system by which you apply, you get landed immigrant status or 

you don’t, and if you are turned down, you can apply again, but you 

don’t get on a waiting list. So they don’t keep waiting lists. And 

that source of delay doesn’t exist explicitly, but not everybody gets 

in that first application, so there can be delays in time, but it is 

usually not as long as ours. But Canada has a system much more 
62 

like ours in terms of giving landed immigrant status rather than 

a temporary program. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Sorry. And you were saying there was a 

second—— 

Mr. MORRISON. The other source of delay is processing, and processing has two parts: one is labor certification, demonstrating that 

the person is needed and an American isn’t available, and the other 

is processing just to do the paperwork. And those two things together can sometimes take months, but oftentimes have taken 

years. And unless you fix that, employers can’t get the person they 

need in a timely fashion. So you can’t focus on one or the other, 

but it is the long delays that tie people up. 

Mr. Johnson is correct when he says that H1B’s are fully portable, but most people on H1B’s want green cards, and so it is not 

fully portable, because whoever it is that is going to file for the 

green card, you are stuck with that employer until you get the 

green card, and that can go on for as much as a decade. 

So you need to get rid of the backlogs by having enough visas, 

and you need to get the processing expeditious. And you can wed 

together the idea of fees to support the education of Americans and 

creating a market mechanism instead of labor certification. In 

other words, if you charge—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Okay. Mr. Garfield, do you think that this 

delay, this process that we have is hurting us, our competitiveness 

in the United States? And number two, do you think it is preventing the emergence of the next Google or the next Facebook or 

the next big company? 

Mr. GARFIELD. It certain—I think yes on both counts. It certainly 

could. I couldn’t resist noting that the use of the very technologies 

that this country is creating can help us across all of those fronts 

to the extent that we integrate that into the work that we are 

doing. 

But the thing that has happened over the last 20 years since we 

last comprehensively dealt with our immigration system or dealt 

with it in any real meaningful way is that people have become and 

human capital has become as portable as capital generally, and so 

people are moving all around the world. 

I was recently in China and talking to educators there, and they 

made the point that the United States is still very attractive for 

its university system, but increasingly folks who are going to school 

in the United States are coming back, because it is just easier to 

come back and build their business here as opposed to staying in 

the United States, which is not what we want. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And by ‘‘here,’’ you mean China, right? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Correct. Correct. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Immigration reform has been talked about all my life; I am sure 

all of your lives, too. We are dealing with a system that is not broken. It is a disaster. All across the board, there are problems in our 
63 

immigration model. We have the responsibility to start fixin’ them. 

That is a word, fixin’. And we probably need to start someplace. 

I personally think we ought to zero in on workers, verifiable 

worker program in the U.S. And expand it to other areas. That is 

my personal belief. So I appreciate what you have talked about. 

One concern I have, though, is something that we can control. In 

the United States in our education system, it seems to me the system doesn’t promote the education of Americans in these areas of 

high-skilled labor, so companies look somewhere else. We have to 

fix that problem as well. The jobs are there. Companies can’t hire 

Americans, because they are not qualified, and they are not qualified because the education system doesn’t educate them to take 

those jobs. 

First question: What does the industry do to move us in a direction to have high school students, college students move into these 

high-skilled labor jobs rather than go do something else? 

Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you for the question. So there are a couple 

of different layers to it: one is to—and a lot of resources are being 

spent on studying how do you get students better prepared coming 

out of high school and college. And part of it is access, you know, 

knowing about the opportunities that exist. Part of it is preparing 

teachers, so to make sure that teachers are proficient in these 

areas as well. And—— 

Mr. POE. What is the industry doing? 

Mr. GARFIELD. What we are doing is actually addressing it across 

all fronts. So 4 years ago, we helped to, in partnership with this 

Administration, create an organization called Change the Equation, 

which is focused on addressing it at K through 12. 

There are companies like Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Cognizant, I 

can name a long list, that have programs directed at addressing it 

across the country. And so we are doing a lot. There is certainly 

more that we can do. 

The point that Congresswoman Jackson Lee made about making 

sure that we have more diversity in these programs is a good one 

that we take to heart. And so we are spending billions of dollars 

trying to deal with it in a systematic and strategic way, but initiatives like I-2 give us an opportunity to deal with it across the country as well. 

Mr. POE. The comment that was made by several of you that we 

bring foreign students over here, they are educated in our schools, 

they are hired by your industries, then they go home and they compete against us, that kind of irritates me. You know, we educate 

them, they work for you, they can’t stay, they go home, then they 

compete in China against American companies. That is an issue 

that I think needs to be addressed as well. 

Mr. Kamra, you have been quiet. I want to deal in specifics. Let 

us get down to the nuts and bolts. Give me three suggestions, ideas 

that you see we can do, Congress can do, to make the system work 

better; specific ideas, not rhetoric. 

Mr. KAMRA. I think I tried to be pretty specific with my comments on the startup visa. That is one thing, and it is not specifically STEM, it could be any kind of startup. If an entrepreneur, an 

immigrant entrepreneur can come over without any sort of visa, it 
64 

doesn’t have to be in country, it doesn’t have to be an H-1B, has 

an idea that he can get funded by an American investor to a certain amount of money, whatever that money is I am not really here 

to say, and can hire a certain number of employees for a certain 

number of times, he should be allowed do that. And to the extent 

he can create employment, that is great. 

And there are tests to measure that on an ongoing basis to make 

sure those employees are real and that the company is progressing. 

Certainly we have heard about, as is often said, stapling a green 

card to the diplomas of STEM graduates from overseas. You mentioned that. That is a very specific thing. 

Again, the details, I am not qualified to talk about, but those are 

a couple of things that the venture capital community would be 

very interested in seeing happen. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. I yield back the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

I will now recognize myself. They say the last shall be first, so 

I decided to test that theory and go last. 

I do want to thank all of my colleagues. The attendance on the 

Subcommittee has been phenomenal. I know Judge Poe and Mr. 

Gutierrez and Ms. Jackson Lee and Ms. Lofgren and others have 

other commitments, so thanks to everyone for coming. 

And my colleagues are what I consider to be highly skilled in this 

area, whereas I was kind of a small town prosecutor, but I want 

to ask my questions from that perspective, from folks who are 

watching perhaps the immigration discussion for the first time. 

And I want to ask a couple of questions, and I want to recognize 

each of you, but if you could give me kind of quick responses, that 

would be great. 

Last week we had a hearing that focused on agriculture, and one 

of the things we wanted to address was the argument that agricultural workers are displacing American workers, and the farmers 

sought to do that anecdotally and otherwise. That same argument 

is made in this realm, that immigrants will displace American 

workers. Give me your single best piece of evidence to either impeach or advance that notion. 

We will start with you, Mr. Morrison. 

Mr. MORRISON. There is no reason there should be displacement, 

but there can be displacement in the current system. The existence 

of a visa which is temporary and which is tied to a specific employer creates an incentive to select a foreign born individual over 

an American. We need to remove that incentive. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I think the best data against it is that the entire 

H-1B program is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our non-foreign 

field employment in this country, which would suggest it is pretty 

small. 

I certainly think, as I said earlier, that there are things that we 

can do to improve the H-1B program to ensure there is no displacement, and we are happy to talk and work with this entire Committee to find those solutions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Kamra. 
65 

Mr. KAMRA. As it relates to startups, entrepreneurs create more 

jobs than just themselves. The numbers are very clear. Every startup creates jobs. They are not displacing U.S. workers, they are hiring them. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean, I think the evidence is—you know, I look 

at the demographic trends and realities. We just have a lot more 

Americans, native born folks in the labor force in the middle of our 

skill sections, not at the top and the bottom, and that is where we 

see a high number of immigrants, at the low end of the education 

spectrum and the high end of the education spectrum. 

To me that is an indication that the system is generally working 

in terms of attracting immigrants to fill gaps in our labor market. 

Lots more details to that, but, you know, at the 60,000-foot level, 

the fact that these worker profiles match each other is one of the 

strongest evidence, I think, of complementary nature. 

Mr. GOWDY. Those that are just beginning to follow this discussion for the first time will hear something referred to as the point 

system that other countries may have. Give me a relative merit or 

demerit of point systems as quickly as you can, and I will get all 

four. We will start with you, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So I think the point system is challenged by two 

realities. Number one, I think that our ability to identify and assign value to workers based on future needs hasn’t proven to be 

very effective. And number two, I think in general the idea of, you 

know, identifying and welcoming talent into the labor force is a 

good thing, but we have to be more sure, have to have some assurance that those folks are landing in the labor market at the right 

place. 

Canada has a real problem with the fact that they have got a lot 

of really talented people, but they are not in the occupations where 

their talent exists. 

So being able to match people in your labor market is as important as being able to identifying them. And making sure that we 

respect families in the point system is, I think, incredibly important. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Kamra. 

Mr. KAMRA. I don’t really have a comment on the point system. 

Sorry. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. One of the challenges we have identified throughout this hearing is bureaucracy, and I think a point system will 

bring bureaucracy to an already complicated and broken process, 

and so we would certainly not support that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Morrison, I will get you to go quickly, because 

I am going to ask one more question before the red light comes on. 

Mr. MORRISON. Yes. Our immigration system is a uniquely American way of doing it. Americans choose the next Americans, whether it is employers choosing the people who are most appropriate to 

work for them or families who choose their members, and that is 

superior to any government agency trying to score who those people are or who is best. 

Mr. GOWDY. Alright. In conclusion, I have a friend back home 

who is a reporter, he probably would not want me to say he is a 
66 

friend, but he had to camp out for several days so his child could 

go to a public school that focuses on math and science and engineering, literally camped out in a car for 3 days so he could get in 

line for his child. 

What would you say to parents or others who are watching, what 

can we do to incentivize our young people? I have two children. My 

son’s a philosophy major. I think he wants to work in the fast food 

industry. That is all I can think of that he can do with that, but, 

you know, he also did okay in physics in high school, so why did 

he pick, you know, Wichenstein over physics, I don’t know. 

What can we do for our own students? And just give me a couple 

things, and then I will recognize some of my colleagues as we close. 

You start, Mr. Morrison. 

Mr. MORRISON. First, I think more investment in our education 

system to enrich the training that those people get, but secondly, 

to make sure that we don’t have a system of employment that discourages people with the amount of time it is going to take for 

them, the Americans, to get the kind of opportunities they need 

that they would be competing along the way with people who don’t 

have the same opportunities as they do. 

So the fair competition at the job stage transfers back to what 

people—Americans are very smart about where it is going to lead, 

and if they get negative signals there, they will read those and 

they will not go into those fields. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Garfield. 

Mr. GARFIELD. One thing I would add is the tangible connection 

between STEM and success. And so the story is often told that in 

many other countries, the challenge we have is that in America, 

Brittney Spears is Brittney Spears, but in other markets, Steve 

Jobs is Brittney Spears. And to the extent that we can elevate industries, jobs that require those sorts of proficiencies as a cultural 

matter, I think we help ourselves. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Kamra. 

Mr. KAMRA. Since I am from the technology industry, my answer 

has to do with technology. There is an easy way to learn online 

now. There are a number of companies, Corte Sierra, Kahn Academy, at all levels taught by professors, qualified teachers, teaching 

literally hundreds if not thousands of courses that are accessible to 

everybody, and mostly at no charge. And some of these also provide 

certificates and degrees. That is a great way, I think, for people to 

learn without standing in line. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So I think we can encourage and continue to 

incentivize businesss that are spending billions of dollars and finding creative ways to do this to continue to do that. And then I 

would agree with Mr. Garfield. We need to celebrate the Mr. 

Kamras of the world and lift them up as examples for our kids. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. I apologize for going over. I will now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, who wanted to make a brief conclusory—or concluding remark. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Just a 

clarification to make sure everyone understood that I am complimentary of both the Chairman and the Ranking Member for creating the basis of thousands of pages of positive testimony as we, 
67 

hopefully, move forward to comprehensive immigration reform, 

which part of this is included. 

I just want to extend my hand to my fellow colleagues and to all 

of you that some of the questions that you asked, Mr. Chairman, 

on how do we reach our young people, how do we build a base of 

American workers to complement those who receive the H-1B 

visas, ultimately green cards. And that will be the question that I 

will ask the gentlemen if they can expand in writing about real 

partnerships in educating American young people. And my focus 

was historically Black colleges and Hispanic serving colleagues, the 

Prairie View A&M’s, the Florida A&M’s, the Texas Southern University. 

Lastly, I conclude on this question that if you would answer in 

writing as well, because we are here trying to bring people together, and the question is, as we move forward to have comprehensive immigration reform, bringing in high skilled workers 

and others in that component, is it necessary that we should reduce the number of family visas and diversity visas as a substitute 

or to in essence substitute H-1B visas? Do we deny those individuals access, families, those who come under the diversity visa process, is that a necessity in order to get to H-1B? I know that many 

of you will say Congress sets the numbers, but diversity visas has 

a particular focus. And I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, if I 

could get those answers in writing. 

And I thank the Chairman for yielding on what I think has been 

a very important hearing. And I thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Look forward to working with you. I yield back. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
68 

May]9,2013 

MORRISON PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP 

6004 Onondaga Road 

Bethesda, MD 20816 

Bob Goodlatte, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2138 Rayburn Ilouse Office 13uilding 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This letter is submitted to respond to two questions asked by Congresswoman Sheila lacksonLee during the Committee's March 5, 2013 hearing on "Enhancing American Competitiveness 

through Skilled Immigration." My responses arc as follows: 

I. The Congress should substitute a mandatory or optional fee of a substantial amount (c.g., 

15 to 25% of the prevailing wage) as demonstration that an immigrant worker is needed, 

in place of the bureaucratic and ineffective labor celtiiication system. Funds collected 

from this fee should be invested in STEM education for Americans. Significant focus 

should be placed on investing these funds in institutions that serve large numbers of 

African-American and Latino students. 

2, Adequate numbers of green cards can be provided for skilled immigrants without 

reducing family or diversity visa categories. However, if political disagreements mean 

that insufficient visas are available to meet the demand for visas from all categories, 

priority should be given to nuclear families of citizens and immigrants and on skilled 

workers needed for job-creating employment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these questions. 

Respectfully submitted, 
69 

Apr, 8, 2013 

Tho HoroomDle Sheila JadI..", L .... 

US, Hous. of RepresentaU.e. 

2160 Ra»l)um House Off>ce Bu~diog 

Wa~"lQlon. D,C, 20515 

II WIIS good 10 see you at 1 •• 1 month's House Immigratioo Sutx:ornmiQee Ilellrlrog on hOgl>-skilllld 

immigrabOn reloml, ana I appI'eOiIle I"lUf comment& Mol quesUons about 1M 1mportaOCe 01 invuting in 

our nal'OIl's I/dI.K:ation syslem, parti!;ulilO1y ll'I'og~$l}I!arad IClWaIol imprOY<ng stu<lenl partiOpallor1 and 

PI'rlatmaflCl! ,n scltmce, tec:llnology, engineering IItld mBlhemali<:s (STEMI. Thi.l. a Oluc:allssua lor the 

US led1nOIog)' lrldUSlry, 85 we!! as ,mny OIh8(lOduslrias tnaI 0&Pefld increasingly 00 a high·5~I~a 

STEM worl<ioree, 

As we <llseussea. me In/omlation TecMDlogy Industry Cou~ (ITI) represents IMy-eight oItM >\OI'IQ'S 

leading information and communication' le<:hrtology companies. illCluding computer hirOH8(ft and 

sofrware, Imernet ServiC8$, and wi,eh". 900 Wlr ........ ne1WOrt<ong comp,anill'S ITI15 thrIV<lk:8 alloo high 

lech community, advocatinG 100' ~,1t\aI aavance U,S, leadetsr.1p in tecto>DIogy ana WInovatiOn. open 

ICGe'S 10 new and emerQlng marlo;ets. suppon &-commefCB exp!lnlion, and enhance OIX domesllC STEM 

talent pool 

AI \he hearvIg. rou asked 100' mOlellllclfma!loo aDOUI whal ourmembef companies are oo;ng 10 help 

ensum mat STEM QpporI...ut"", "'" a"",lable lor all )'OlO'lg peopIli In our """"Iry, particularly IhQS8 

attending historically ac~ COlleges atI<l universities (HBCUs) and Llllin Ameriean ""1\e9II' ana 

u" .. et. ities. I 8p!lfa ciate thor Cl\ance In Share soma kay aKll!11pies aI OIX m8mtMlf company engagament ._"" 

Our ""bOO 118. ,eached a sem.,.1 mom...,t whe re mOle muSI btl oone to _u'" thai today'. SlUdenb are 

8dequately prapar&d /Of tomorrow's c1!allangu, As the nation COfl\Ioues to evolve (nto a ~e· 

b~sed lIC<lf\Omy. il ll imparatNe thai w.~ take Goery Slep necm;sary 10 ens .... e thai 80 St\l<lants from all 

bacl<gfOU'lCls ere ."...., woll1\he necm,sary sk,lIs 10 succeed In \he n,gh-lec:h soclor elomo, open tolls 

O<Jtn ..... berqoalml!<l a~(c:ao\5 ~ nt.Illfly 21Q 1. Ttlis skills Ol'P Ihfeatons 10 get even wIcIef In l1)li Mufti. 

There '5 no beller WIIV to jump start OUr eI':<lOCImy and spUr eoonomie grCIWIh lhan I<l ...... ure the "alkln ,s 

produClllg bllllht and """'ValiVB siudents. Below,..o rOOf ~"Y ar""5ln I'<tI"", 00' memM,. ... actM!!y 

worIOOG to impr0v6 STEM oppOf"Iuniiia:, among undemipo'esentad groups, 
70 

In the Class. oom 

The h.gn.I&cIl sector has a strong htslCory '" supponing J)8tI\-bnlaKtng re!l&a'CIt concluded by Hceu 

'ns!iMions ana students rn's memberS ate key Qrrlters In ensurl'1O thal IIIIIIlIOOn'5 lII'e gIVen the cnal1C8 

to Il!Q>IonIltIeir STEM C\Jrio Ues ;" lIIJ'slMl D/ ;o;:ademk; Sll<'WU. 

OUr fI'IIIIIlllel'S nave forged key Pllftnet1!I'oipS to malle ce<1an Ihal inmallV9s al8 supported. financial or 

otherwise. 0.... such paMBlthip 1$ The Semicot1duc1or Researd'l ~ (SRC). a or lll "" lhat 

COU"Its Imel, IBM, Texas InslnI""""", AppI'...:l Maler.als, Micron. and AMD emong rts mernDers The 

SRC's EducallOn A1Wnce supports minOfifias ana women in STEM al the university level. comectlng 

th~ with ir>-tIemand resell/CIt opponuniliM Tho raoearell carried CllJI Dy the sll.Idents 's i'land$·on and 

induslfy-relell8r'1\ 

Through their PB/Inefships WI1h coIlegE~ and <lfIivers~I!tI . some 01 Y>1'IIch 8ra HBCUs, oompa/llGS are. 

""11"11"'11 ,n a win-win..,.".,aria Fi",~ Itlltcause 0/ iodu.1fy SI.4lp<lf\ .'wants life al:M to eOlJH!fien<:e 

nteoed~ 1If0Wlh tIlroUgh lIleir researdl. Secordy, me program is I>eIpwlg 10 g'OOI tne domestic pipel.ne 

01 STEM graduales. In 2012. more than 350 stl.ldents we,a enrolled ;n the program, _ 8DOu160 

porcen\ 0/ \hose WIIf" fmm UIlOOITOprO....,ted group • . 

Oracle's leT Visloo 2020 is anolher BKarop19 01 an Industry-led Irltia\lV9 10 level the STEM ptay,ng fiejd 

Or ........ has pannared ""th bus'n"" ....... """.profil organizations, 1IO"",nment agilOCltl., and nins HBClJs to 

increase 11\8 number ana eompet!tNen<!SS of HBCU STEM graduate • . The pilot program launC/led last 

year, and wiR condude io 2015. 

FInally. In 2001. Delliaunched an in lia~'1 e with the HOWM:! Unl""",,il)' ScnooI 01 BuSII'I8U, aikM'lng 

student s to galn ... &1 WOIICI eXIIIInI!f'K:<I in supply Clt3ln managemenl. More than a deC3!!8I11II1f, II1II 

partne<ship IS still wong, and c.cn\Inues 10 produce gra<*.l8tBS wj\h me skills needed to tleveklp aocI 

fl!spood 10 the latest IOdI.lW)' trend5 end irv>(walions 

Schol.rshlps 

ITI i5 proud oIlhtIlelid8fshlP ....... mMlIll!<5 haW! clamoo.trated in hlllp'ng 10 oeIn>y the coSIO 01 higher 

edueiI\K)f1 OJr memt.ers gl"le generously, haipi"ll to fund s.cI!olarsttips ItIat taillei a,.."mIlef of 

Ilnderrepresenl<!d gfOOPS. Members I>lI'\Ie comrilMed Ie Ihe United Negro SCIIoIal'Ship Fund, 

Cong""SIOOIII HISpanIC Caucus In5bW18 Sctmlal$iup, American Ind<an Sci"""" afld eng""",,,,,,, Soaety 

Scnotanl'o'p. National Society 01 BtacI( Ef'lQioeers ScMIars~,p, Natooal CoaIitiOrl of 100 Bladl Women 
71 

ScIloIatsl'i\l, Society 01 Women E~E.en, Hispanic ~arsh,p Fu.r.:I, end 81ad< Data Processing 

ASSOCIa!!"' Scr.o13rsh'p Sch~arship$ such as these are oIIen ~8ilable to deserv.ng stlJdents WI'IO are 

pursUll1!l a STEM dagree a1 lin accredited coII"lI" Of o.»"1iwusity 

HP, EMC, 18M, Intet, Moto~a, 8I<IckBerry, ana Symaotec 8150 penner"';!h tIlIt National Action Council 

for M1l1Ofities ... Engmo.>rlrog (NACME). NACME .. ef\'''~ a key rol" in Inge~siog Iha number of~ 

STEM gradual"! tI'lnlugh sdloIarshlps a"" lellowshij:os_ In 2007, those un,~ersi ies lllat partnefed with 

NACME proaucea more than or.e-mora or al l mlllOfily 8"9lnMrtrrg g'aduaI". Among 11105" schools mat 

NACME P8MItIS ""rn. are Morgan Slate Uro'vertity, F!oMa.A&M Unr~ ... ~ily. North Carolina A&T Stal8 

Univt!rsily, Tuskeg< Univefllity, and Prall1'/! View A&M u rivt!f!lity 

u~her Tnol nlng 

II W8 are 10 r.tr wcces51u1 in I/'re near alld Io<1g lerm in inau5irog tll8 numDerol STEM gradual", W8 

haYe to en.\x8 STEM taact>ert 8f8 arn1ed with the most up-IO-OiIIe skihet,. A kay compernent in STEM 

llducation i. """""ng those who leach ttle mal""" a ,,, dmng 50 effec:twe!y aOO making ~ induslryrelevant, Our memD&r5 ollar a numtl8f of teacner tnI,nirog programs ~r8 Iodustry el<P8'U can Shao"e 

cutlJflIl edge 18Chrlo4ogies ";It\ educate.,. OUr members also host .umm1ts where participating 8dUC8IOfS 

can ~ sod share best praClioe ideas With one anothaf Even more, 1Il50lIle cases our members ate 

act ..... lly helping to craft the <UT1cu1wn lhal wiD IMI needed to prepare studltrtls lor tOdeys global 

mao:k8lpiaClt OUICle provides 811 .... cellent eKampfe. 

Oracle Academy, a ptOgrnm designed to ensure thai todIIy's students".... afforded a lop-night, if>.demand 

COO1PlJ\er scieroce educatKln, touches lile lives 01 abou1lwD mtl~oo slUdenlS each yeill" in seoondIIry 

schools. collages, and un"""51t1I1S, The Academy actually helps CI'iIft wrricullJlll ttl;ot \lM1 ,""""".sJuI~ Qlm 

SWdllnlS Wil!1 trlClSflskllls neeaea in IOday's mBl1<etplace Educators are granted access to hundredS 01 

Oracle produas for leac:tllng UIB, and In many ,nstances. eaue..tOf. are goYI!fI e.l ...... lve ua.mng at no cost 

to ensure trrey are able to efTect~y teach tile Oracle Academy cuniculum, Fifteen HSCUs ate Oracle 

Academy mem~$. 

Any ei'fon togrow l!111 STEM pipeline has to ISlCIlJde f8tl!f1tlon. Only aboul40 percent or .ruoent5 "'"" 

declare a STEM major upon anteriI1g U194r filst year or hrgh&redUC8\iOn end Ujl graduabng rOO( years later 

~th a STEM dllgree. No fiXed set of ~ems can solve an ofOlll" ret!ll'ltKln problems, 1M II numbOlr or tNngs 

do help, lIlaI1y of..mK:h wefll already lroentroned in 1Ili. lett .... Thongs loke m8l<ing STEM hands-oo ... a 

Dlflll\r1g ld1o!arship opporturoities for Stl.lOenl5 to continue troe;, academic endea...ors are DDtn areas mat 

, 
72 

induslfy IIOd edUcalors ha~e idenlified as Ilelpong la ,era" "!.den'l . IBM lias 1ai<8r'I ~ II Slep fIIfther, 

launching a prClgl'am 10 Identif)' lhose SlU<l9l1lS most a\ Ii~ 01 oropping CII.II dI.orIrQ Il1eir fnl year af tI>gheIoducalioo 

IBM, ...... tn!he help 01 a..eeosboro CClmmun!ly CCI4lega, c:te8180 tne La~no STEM Support Ne1WOr1\ (lSSN) 

Earty Iller! Sy5tem, The lSSN IcIan~fl ... .... ea. thai ara Iike1~ 1CI contribute ICI a stuaeol's dt!cIsion ICI k<aV9 

school belora gra<lUating --things lII<a ,.Mnedlal placernllfll acao:sem.c sianding, atl9l1darDl, ane classroom 

pe<100llllllC& ~o serve as an al8ffi't 10 ,;cnool acmlnlWalors snook! a st!.denl oagln \CI SliP, TM program 

was liIundIed during 1l'1li 5po"ing r:l201 1. and tM 01111, "'H.lm' 11/'8 po$iliYa. IBM pl;on5!C1 bro;'i.don LSSN 

use to oneIuda additonal h/ghereducallan p,,"ners. 

ThII8)(.l1mpll!$ I ha~e CI<IUIoOO Ilbo~811!l' representative of a broilll range of programs ~ne inI~allYes thai 

ara un<l8rway acrOSs the country to build the nBXl g_'3Iloo 0/ STEM innllVal.,.... BOO lalOders. Trlesa 

ellMs have provided numerous appatlunnlllS lor academIC Gl)(laIXlraiioo _ greater ItU<lIll'll par!iClpatiC!l'l 

IInC lIdlieYernent iI01C1ng HBCUsllnC l.atin Amerocan callag.es and I.IfIlwIrSIIieS. I hope)lOU fOIM1d this 

,nformaoon rle~fuI . ShouId)lOU or)lOU' staff have addllional q ..... 1IOM or would like additional details an 

!Mese or CIII>8r programs DI!ong unaenakan by our memllet' companies, 00 not l1esitate 10 contact me. 

Than!< yeo lor)'CU' .trong inI~''''1 aoo leadorship 00 th,. exueml!ly important matle, for".... nallan's 

competitiveness anc eGOnO,lHe ecuri~{. 

Dean C. Garlield 

Pre.ident line! CEO 

, 
73 

May 20,2013 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2138 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

CALlI-ORNIA CONNlCTICL:T INDIA ISRAEl 

Attn: Graham Owens, B-353 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dear Chainman Goodlatte: 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at the Committee's recent hearing on "Enhancing 

American Competitiveness Through Skilled Immigration." I appreciate the opportunity to 

review the transcript of my statement; at this time, I do not have any edits to submit. 

In regards to Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee's question (p. 74, " .. .is it necessary that we 

should reduce the number of family visas and diversity visas as a SUbstitute or to in essence 

substitute H-1B visas?') my response for the record is as follows: 

I understand from questions raised by several Members of the Committee during the hearing 

that significant policy concerns remain regarding the multitude of components of any potential 

immigration reform effort. However, my personal experience and expertise as a former 

immigrant entrepreneur does not qualify me as an expert in family and diversity immigration 

policy which would be necessary to fonmulare a response to Rep. Jackson-Lee's question. 

Again, thank you for the time and commitment of your Committee in addressing this topiC. 

Sincerely, 

27G5 ::'ftnd Hill Road Mtnio Park, California 94025 USA I 650 !l541J092 f 65085413127 
® 

, 

f I' 

i 5. 

J 

8 :!. 

, 

, , L 

. - . 

z :' f H 

" 

, 

i 

'1' g. '" W .L; § 

§:-"" n_ 

,"'5 

. Ilg:Slg 2." ;:;!g"fJ>=' :l 5· ... g. 3 ;;f g- ...." .• "! 1:" - it £" O--;t="' C -

;F;!-

... .. 

=:l 2;l c •. ",,'0"·'''- .' 

, < - ' . -.' ""1' " i'!" a-Ii 

.. "3e: 

", f-,! iI'!'; i-,"" 1>]" =. c. " '" .. 01" '" '" 1; . 

: 

"'''30 "."';::. _'" '< !.!'j!_. !L,,3"' ''1l ,,_. il; 8" go!" 11 ij s- f &: a ii.or f 5 §' .. .!i - • 'C. _,,,,.,°il -_. -.,W""""" "it -

i; 

'" 

E. :.=]. ;:";; ;j". .,. s 

!5 2 R 

g" '" H..,' 0 1! pi 'in!!!! " 

J! If"" a, 

II l;;"2 

;;: . . =i[s,&.'F'!l<l"2 

0"6" 

c: .. ;1. s· ):.-"i: 

<'l g,[:oll 

'i 9 E: ; [ill _ !i.;il; l R E. i" ;;:" 1i' :I :,.s! ;-

"'!3 Pi 

.. • -" - '" - ... !T 

.. Ii ",;1"1;;"- - ;;" _n 

3 ::, if!!." air,;.,: n 

-_" 'O_'jl ;;" "."" 0-," II 

•• ," ,-' 0" S Iii n _ . .., ,,_ 

- '" => . " <"Ii-" !' ,.1 e"i!" '2.E::l. g' 2,!T 1 !.S!i"'=" ".!!(--

"',,<"'a 83 f! !!Is; - ",Ip""-i 

ii, l! 

a 

"j'l<'" ! if!; 

• 

a ';l g , <>.&': __ . 0 

... g. " , .. l': 

. g <> 9" H t 

!! 

h 

'Ii 

!!.,,' 

" 1Ui H •• il 

H o· 

g 

l 

" " 

:E'?>f'l 

_. ... :i 

.: "';: "'-a "t' 0' . (1;:: if 

.... Oil ::1. 

.5 

, 

• f. 

n-

03:

2-:

-;= 

t"'"'> 

-

-

o 

::z 
75 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California for 

any concluding remarks that she would like to make. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I think 

this panel has been terrific, and I want to thank each one of you 

for what you have added, enriching our understanding of not the 

challenge, but the opportunity that we have here to make our coun-
76 

try even greater by making immigrants more welcome than they 

have been. 

As I was listening to Ms. Jackson Lee, I was thinking about the 

startup world. And sometimes it is people with Ph.D.’s, but sometimes it isn’t. And I was thinking about Steve Wozniak and Steve 

Jobs, both—they were not college graduates when they started. As 

a matter of fact, Steve Wozniak went under a pseudonym to University of California Berkeley because his mother, Margaret 

Wozniak, who was a wonderful woman, he wanted to please his 

mother and get his bachelor’s degree. This was after Apple was a 

huge success. 

So we need to have the opportunity for entrepreneurs to start 

businesses, we need to capture the smart people who are geniuses, 

we need to pump up our economy. And it is not in opposition to 

making it more viable for Americans to also be achieving in the 

sciences and technology. These are not either/or. We need to do 

both. 

And I think that given the testimony today and the comments 

from my colleagues, I have an increased sense of optimism that the 

Congress is going to come together and come up with sensible approaches that solve the whole challenge that we face in a way that 

works for America. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in holding this hearing, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, gentlelady from California. 

On behalf of all of us, we want to thank our panel. Your expertise and acumen is manifest, but I especially am grateful to you for 

your collegiality toward one another and with this Subcommittee. 

With that, we are adjourned. And thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(77) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
78 

Statement of Chairman Trey Gowdy 

Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Hearing 

"Enhancing American Competitiveness through Skilled Immigration" 

March 5, 2013 

The American Dream is in large part inextricably 

intertwined with our economic competitiveness. It is the 

subcommittee's hope what we ensure our immigration 

system helps hone -- rather than blunt -- that competitive 

advantage. 

A single visionary newcomer can start a business, 

generating thousands of jobs. It's vital we keep those jobs 

here, so that our fellow citizens can experience the most 

basic of all family values, which is a job. Nearly half of 

America's top up-and-coming venture-capital backed 

companies were started by immigrants. To pick just one, 

Glaukos Corp. has developed a promising new treatment for 

glaucoma. It was founded by three men including a 

Norwegian and an Iranian immigrant. 
79 

Today's hearing will investigate how we can build a 

better immigration system and therefore experience more 

entrepreneurial success, fuelled in no small part by the ideas 

and innovation of immigrants. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects employment in 

computer and information technology occupations will grow 

by 22% through 2020. It also projects the fastest 

employment growth will be in occupations requiring 

doctorate, professional or master's degrees. 

Immigrants playa role in filling these jobs. Foreign 

students comprise about 37% of the graduates of science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics - commonly 

known as STEM -- masters and doctoral programs at U.S. 

universities. We must take care our immigration system 

ensures the best and brightest of these foreign students 

decide to make their careers and their homes in America. 

2 
80 

The typical path has immigrant scientists and engineers 

first studying in the U.S. on student visas, then working for 

American companies through Optional Practical Training or 

on H-1B temporary visas, and then being sponsored by their 

employers for green cards. Today's hearing will investigate 

whether U.S. immigration policy needlessly blocks this path. 

At the same time, we must encourage our children and 

grandchildren to study in STEM fields. U.S. students need 

fair access to our institutions of higher education. Some 

universities in today's tough fiscal climate are actually 

considering giving preference to foreign full-tuition paying 

students over our own students. Needless to say, that is 

unacceptable. 
81 

Secondly, U.S. students need to know that viable, 

lifestyle-friendly, long-term careers will follow from the hard 

work of studying technical fields in college. Stories still 

abound about American workers being laid-off and replaced 

by H-1 B workers, even being forced to train their 

replacements. 

American computer scientists face an often-brutal job 

market after they turn 35. Some argue that the H-1 B visa 

program facilitates this preference for younger workers. The 

GAO found that while only 38% of American systems 

analysts, programmers and other computer-related workers 

are under the age of 35, 83% of the H-1 B workers in these 

occupations are under 35. 

4 
82 

While the H-1 B program has safeguards to protect the 

interests of American workers, are these safeguards working 

as they should? The GAO found H-1 B employers categorize 

over half of their H-1 B workers as entry level - which is 

defined as "perform[ing] routine tasks that require limited, if 

any exercise of judgment" - and only 6% as fully competent. 

The dollar differences are not trivial. In Greenville, 

South Carolina, the H-1 B program's prevailing wage for an 

electrical engineer is $55,890 for an entry-level worker and 

$88,920 for a fully competent worker. Are experienced 

Americans losing out? Today's hearing and subsequent 

ones will answer these questions factually. 

It is encouraging to note that the median salary of H-1 B 

workers approved for initial employment in computer related 

occupations has increased from $50,000 in 2005 to $64,000 in 

2011. 

In summary, our skilled immigration policy should meet 

three goals. It should help ensure our economic growth. It 
83 

f 

should ensure that we attract and keep the best and brightest 

from all around the world. And it should nurture the careers 

of American students and workers who chose to study and 

work in these essential fields. 

I look forward to today's hearing, and again I welcome 

our witnesses. With that, I now recognize Zoe Lofgren, the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. 

6 
84 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Every Member of this Committee agrees that America is the greatest country on 

Earth. We must attribute this success to our unparalleled freedoms and abundant 

natural resources. But there is one other critical factor that cannot be forgotten— 

immigration. 

That the U.S. is the strongest economic and military power on Earth is no accident. It was earned by opening our arms to the world’s political and intellectual refugees; by giving them the freedom to take risks and own their own accomplishments, and by fostering a national identity that welcomes strangers to become as 

American as the rest of us. 

For years, we have been on the winning side of the global ‘‘brain drain.’’ 

But today, we find ourselves on the other side of the drain. 

We used to invite the brightest minds in the world to come, make this their home, 

and become Americans with us. Now we turn them away. 

We turn away advanced degree graduates in STEM from our best universities. We 

turn away entrepreneurs who want to start businesses and create jobs for our constituents. We turn away medical professionals willing to fill gaps in health care 

shortage areas. 

Rather than harness their potential as our country has done for over two centuries, we now tell these people they are not welcome. Worse yet, in this increasingly global economy, we tell them to go home and compete against us from overseas. 

The result has been a reverse brain drain. And it is not good for our country. 

Immigrant students and entrepreneurs have had a profound impact on the U.S. 

economy and job creation in America. 

• Immigrants were responsible for one quarter of all engineering and technology 

startups created in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005. The vast majority of these 

immigrants had advanced STEM degrees, mainly from U.S. universities. 

• More than half of startups in Silicon Valley had immigrant founders. 

• Immigrants were named as inventors or co-inventors in one quarter of international patent applications filed from the U.S. in 2006. 

• Due partly to immigration, our country—with just 5% of the world’s population—employs nearly 1⁄3 of the world’s scientific and engineering researchers, 

accounts for 40% of all R&D spending, and publishes 35% of all science and engineering articles. 

• This leadership in science and technology, according to the National Academies, 

has translated into rising standards of living for all Americans, with technology 

improvements accounting for up to half of GDP growth and at least 2⁄3 of productivity growth since 1946. 

• This is because, according to the Academies, ‘‘while only four percent of the nation’s work force is composed of scientists and engineers, this group disproportionately creates jobs for the other 96 percent.’’ 

A recent report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan 

group of businesses founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and News 

Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, found that more than 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. These companies currently 

generate a staggering $4.2 trillion in revenues each year. 

All of these statistics make it clear we must find a way to keep more of these 

minds in America. In 2005, at the request of Congress, the National Academies 

issued a very sobering report on the country’s eroding economic leadership in 

science and technology. The Academies reviewed trends across the globe and found 

that, due in part to restrictive immigration policies, ‘‘the scientific and technological 

building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many 

other nations are gathering strength.’’ 
85 

According to the report: ‘‘Although many people assume that the United States 

will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to 

be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear 

the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost—and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all.’’ 

America’s greatest advantage in the global economy is our unique ability to innovate and incubate new ideas and technologies. This history of innovation was built 

both by harnessing native-born, homegrown talent and fostering and welcoming the 

best and brightest immigrants from around the world. 

While we focus on the need to welcome those earning graduate degrees in STEM 

fields from America’s greatest universities, it’s important to remember that many 

or our tech innovators did not receive their immigration status based on their degrees but because they were family based immigrants or refugees. Think Google, 

Yahoo, Intel. 

We need to reform our broken immigration system. We can do it all. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

The contributions of highly-skilled and educated immigrants to the United States 

are well-documented. Seventy-six percent of the patents awarded to our top patentproducing universities had at least one foreign-born inventor. According to a recent 

report, these foreign-born inventors ‘‘played especially large roles in cutting edge 

fields like semiconductor device manufacturing, information technology, pulse or 

digital communications, pharmaceutical drugs or drug compounds and optics.’’ 

A study by the American Enterprise Institute and the Partnership for a New 

American Economy found that an additional 100 immigrants with advanced STEM 

degrees from U.S. universities is associated with an additional 262 jobs for natives. 

The study also found that immigrants with advanced degrees pay over $22,000 a 

year in taxes yet their families receive less than $2,300 in government benefits. 

The United States has the most generous legal immigration system in the world— 

providing permanent residence to over a million immigrants a year. Yet, how many 

of those immigrants do we select on the basis of the education and skills they can 

bring to America? Only 12%—barely more than one out of 10—and that is including 

the immigrants’ family members. 

Given the outstanding track record of immigrants in founding some of our most 

successful companies, how many immigrants do we select on the basis of their entrepreneurial talents? Less than 1%—and that is only if they already have the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to participate in the investor visa program. 

Does any of this make sense, given the intense international economic competition 

that America faces? Does any of this make sense, given that many talented foreign 

graduates of our best universities are giving up hope of getting a green card and 

are packing up and moving home to work for our competitors? Does any of this 

make sense, given that Indian nationals with advanced degrees sought out by American industry have to wait over eight years for a green card? Does any of this make 

sense, given that Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada each select over 60% 

of immigrants on the basis of skills and education? The answer is clearly not. 

It is as if we purposely add weights to handicap our horse in order to give our 

competitors a better shot at the winner’s circle. This just doesn’t make sense as national economic policy. 

The House of Representatives acted last year to rechart our course. We voted by 

over a hundred vote margin to pass legislation by former Chairman Smith that redirected 50,000 or so green cards a year from winners of the diversity visa lottery toward foreign students graduating from our universities with advanced degrees in 

STEM fields. That bill would have made all Americans winners. Unfortunately, at 

the direction of the White House, the bill died in the Senate. 

In this new Congress, we can rechart our nation’s course anew. We should look 

at all aspects of high-skilled immigration policy. We can look for ways to improve 
86 

our temporary visa programs for skilled workers—such as H–1B and L visas. We 

can look for ways to improve our temporary visa program for entrepreneurs—the 

E–2 program. We can look for ways to offer green cards to aspiring entrepreneurs 

that don’t demand that they themselves be rich but that instead rely on the judgment of the venture capitalists who have funded them. We can look for ways to reduce the backlogs for second and third preference employment-based green cards. 

And we can seek to help the United States retain more of the foreign students who 

graduate from our universities. 

Of course, at the same time, we need to ensure that whatever we do brightens 

rather than darkens the career prospects of American students and American workers. Even newly-minted PhDs are not immune to sometimes bleak employment prospects. 

But attracting the world’s best and brightest is decidedly in the interests of all 

Americans. Just think of the incredible economic windfall that America experienced 

through the arrival of scientists fleeing Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s. This was 

one of the factors that enabled the post-war economic boom. Today, talented individuals have many options worldwide as to where to relocate. America needs to regain 

its place as the number one destination for the world’s best and brightest. That 

should be our goal. 

Æ