September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6185 

I urge my colleagues to reject this baseless 

and nakedly political resolution. Let’s do the 

business of the American people in an honest, 

thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my 

Republican colleagues that you are entitled to 

your own opinion, but you are not entitled to 

your own facts. The facts are that the administration’s proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to 

get back to work. And here my Republican 

colleagues are irresponsibly attempting to 

block that action. Shame. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 788, 

the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution was ordered to 

be engrossed and read a third time, and 

was read the third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of House Joint Resolution 118 will be postponed. 

Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, 

further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 

of title 5, United States Code, of the 

rule submitted by the Office of Family 

Assistance of the Administration for 

Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families program, will now resume. 

The Clerk read the title of the joint 

resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the joint 

resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 

and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 

of rule XX, further proceedings on this 

question will be postponed. 

f 

b 1540 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 

will postpone further proceedings 

today on the motion to suspend the 

rules on which a recorded vote or the 

yeas and nays are ordered, or on which 

the vote incurs objection under clause 

6 of rule XX. 

Any record vote on the postponed 

question will be taken later. 

f 

STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote 

innovation, investment, and research 

in the United States, to eliminate the 

diversity immigrant program, and for 

other purposes. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6429 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘STEM Jobs 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED STEM GRADUATES. 

(a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION.— 

Section 201(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)(2)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D)(i) In addition to the increase provided 

under subparagraph (C), the number computed under this paragraph for fiscal year 

2013 and subsequent fiscal years shall be further increased by the number specified in 

clause (ii), to be used in accordance with 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b), except that— 

‘‘(I) immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph but not required for the classes specified in paragraphs 

(6) and (7) of section 203(b) shall not be 

counted for purposes of subsection (c)(3)(C); 

and 

‘‘(II) for purposes of paragraphs (1) through 

(5) of section 203(b), the increase under this 

subparagraph shall not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of the 

worldwide level under this subsection. 

‘‘(ii) The number specified in this clause is 

55,000, reduced for any fiscal year by the 

number by which the number of visas under 

section 201(e) would have been reduced in 

that year pursuant to section 203(d) of the 

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 note) if section 

201(e) had not been repealed by section 3 of 

the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. 

‘‘(iii) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph for fiscal year 

2013, but not used for the classes specified in 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) in 

such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if they were included in the 

number specified in clause (ii), but only to 

the extent to which the cumulative number 

of petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and 

applications for a labor certification under 

section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal year 2013 

with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 

paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less 

than the number specified in clause (ii) for 

such year. Such immigrant visa numbers 

may only be made available in fiscal years 

after fiscal year 2013 in connection with a petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification under section 

212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year 2013. 

‘‘(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph for fiscal year 

2014, but not used for the classes specified in 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) during 

such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if they were included in the 

number specified in clause (ii), but only to 

the extent to which the cumulative number 

of petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and 

applications for a labor certification under 

section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal year 2014 

with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 

paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less 

than the number specified in clause (ii) for 

such year. Such immigrant visa numbers 

may only be made available in fiscal years 

after fiscal year 2014 in connection with a petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification under section 

212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year 

2014.’’. 

(b) NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE

FOREIGN STATE.—Section 202(a)(5)(A) of such 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(5)(A)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘or (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5), (6), or 

(7)’’. 

(c) PREFERENCE ALLOCATION FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—Section 203(b) of 

such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

‘‘(6) ALIENS HOLDING DOCTORATE DEGREES

FROM U.S. DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER

EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, OR MATHEMATICS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Visas shall be made 

available, in a number not to exceed the 

number specified in section 201(d)(2)(D)(ii), to 

qualified immigrants who— 

‘‘(i) hold a doctorate degree in a field of 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States doctoral institution of higher education; 

‘‘(ii) agree to work for a total of not less 

than 5 years in the aggregate for the petitioning employer or in the United States in 

a field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics upon being lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence; and 

‘‘(iii) have taken all doctoral courses in a 

field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics, including all courses taken by 

correspondence (including courses offered by 

telecommunications) or by distance education, while physically present in the 

United States. 

‘‘(B) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this 

paragraph, paragraph (7), and sections 

101(a)(15)(F)(i)(I) and 212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(III): 

‘‘(i) The term ‘distance education’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 103 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1003). 

‘‘(ii) The term ‘field of science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics’ means a field 

included in the Department of Education’s 

Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy within the summary groups of computer and information sciences and support 

services, engineering, mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences. 

‘‘(iii) The term ‘United States doctoral institution of higher education’ means an institution that— 

‘‘(I) is described in section 101(a) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1001(a)) or is a proprietary institution of 

higher education (as defined in section 102(b) 

of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b))); 

‘‘(II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on 

January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-granting university with a very high or high level of research activity or classified by the National 

Science Foundation after the date of enactment of this paragraph, pursuant to an application by the institution, as having equivalent research activity to those institutions 

that had been classified by the Carnegie 

Foundation as being doctorate-granting universities with a very high or high level of research activity; 

‘‘(III) has been in existence for at least 10 

years; 

‘‘(IV) does not provide any commission, 

bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing 

enrollments or financial aid to any persons 

or entities engaged in any recruitment or admission activities for nonimmigrant students or in making decisions regarding the 

award of student financial assistance to nonimmigrant students; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

‘‘(V) is accredited by an accrediting body 

that is itself accredited either by the Department of Education or by the Council for 

Higher Education Accreditation. 

‘‘(C) LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the 

Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for classification of an 

alien under subparagraph (A) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of 

a determination made by the Secretary of 

Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 

212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security may, when the Secretary 

deems it to be in the national interest, waive 

this requirement. 

‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENT DEEMED SATISFIED.—The 

requirement of clause (i) shall be deemed 

satisfied with respect to an employer and an 

alien in a case in which a certification made 

under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been 

obtained with respect to the alien by that 

employer. 

‘‘(7) ALIENS HOLDING MASTER’S DEGREES

FROM U.S. DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER

EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, OR MATHEMATICS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any visas not required 

for the class specified in paragraph (6) shall 

be made available to the class of aliens 

who— 

‘‘(i) hold a master’s degree in a field of 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States doctoral institution of higher education that was either 

part of a master’s program that required at 

least 2 years of enrollment or part of a 5-year 

combined baccalaureate-master’s degree program in such field; 

‘‘(ii) agree to work for a total of not less 

than 5 years in the aggregate for the petitioning employer or in the United States in 

a field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics upon being lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence; 

‘‘(iii) have taken all master’s degree 

courses in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, including all 

courses taken by correspondence (including 

courses offered by telecommunications) or 

by distance education, while physically 

present in the United States; and 

‘‘(iv) hold a baccalaureate degree in a field 

of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics or in a field included in the Department of Education’s Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy within the 

summary group of biological and biomedical 

sciences. 

‘‘(B) LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), the 

Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition filed for classification of an 

alien under subparagraph (A) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security is in receipt of 

a determination made by the Secretary of 

Labor pursuant to the provisions of section 

212(a)(5)(A), except that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security may, when the Secretary 

deems it to be in the national interest, waive 

this requirement. 

‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENT DEEMED SATISFIED.—The 

requirement of clause (i) shall be deemed 

satisfied with respect to an employer and an 

alien in a case in which a certification made 

under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) has already been 

obtained with respect to the alien by that 

employer. 

‘‘(C) DEFINITIONS.—The definitions in paragraph (6)(B) shall apply for purposes of this 

paragraph.’’. 

(d) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT

STATUS.—Section 204(a)(1)(F) of such Act (8 

U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(F)’’ and inserting ‘‘(F)(i)’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘or 203(b)(3)’’ and inserting 

‘‘203(b)(3), 203(b)(6), or 203(b)(7)’’; 

(3) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’; 

and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(ii) The following processing standards 

shall apply with respect to petitions under 

clause (i) relating to alien beneficiaries 

qualifying under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b): 

‘‘(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security 

shall adjudicate such petitions not later 

than 60 days after the date on which the petition is filed. In the event that additional information or documentation is requested by 

the Secretary during such 60-day period, the 

Secretary shall adjudicate the petition not 

later than 30 days after the date on which 

such information or documentation is received. 

‘‘(II) The petitioner shall be notified in 

writing within 30 days of the date of filing if 

the petition does not meet the standards for 

approval. If the petition does not meet such 

standards, the notice shall include the reasons therefore and the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for the prompt resubmission of a modified petition.’’. 

(e) LABOR CERTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION FOR CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS.—Section 

212(a)(5) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)) is 

amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A)— 

(A) in clause (ii)— 

(i) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘, or’’ at 

the end and inserting a semicolon; 

(ii) in subclause (II), by striking the period 

at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(III) holds a doctorate degree in a field of 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States doctoral institution of higher education (as defined in section 203(b)(6)(B)(iii)).’’; 

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii) through 

(iv) as clauses (iii) through (v), respectively; 

(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

‘‘(ii) JOB ORDER.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—An employer who files an 

application under clause (i) shall submit a 

job order for the labor the alien seeks to perform to the State workforce agency in the 

State in which the alien seeks to perform the 

labor. The State workforce agency shall post 

the job order on its official agency website 

for a minimum of 30 days and not later than 

3 days after receipt using the employment 

statistics system authorized under section 15 

of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et 

seq.). 

‘‘(II) LINKS.—The Secretary of Labor shall 

include links to the official websites of all 

State workforce agencies on a single 

webpage of the official website of the Department of Labor.’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(vi) PROCESSING STANDARDS FOR ALIEN

BENEFICIARIES QUALIFYING UNDER PARAGRAPHS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 203(b).—The following processing standards shall apply with 

respect to applications under clause (i) relating to alien beneficiaries qualifying under 

paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b): 

‘‘(I) The Secretary of Labor shall adjudicate such applications not later than 180 

days after the date on which the application 

is filed. In the event that additional information or documentation is requested by the 

Secretary during such 180-day period, the 

Secretary shall adjudicate the application 

not later than 60 days after the date on 

which such information or documentation is 

received. 

‘‘(II) The applicant shall be notified in 

writing within 60 days of the date of filing if 

the application does not meet the standards 

for approval. If the application does not meet 

such standards, the notice shall include the 

reasons therefore and the Secretary shall 

provide an opportunity for the prompt resubmission of a modified application.’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘(2) or 

(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(2), (3), (6), or (7)’’. 

(f) GAO STUDY.—Not later than June 30, 

2017, the Comptroller General of the United 

States shall provide to the Congress the results of a study on the use by the National 

Science Foundation of the classification authority provided under section 

203(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1153(b)(6)(B)(iii)(II)), as added by this section. 

(g) PUBLIC INFORMATION.—The Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall make available to 

the public on the official website of the Department of Homeland Security, and shall 

update not less than monthly, the following 

information (which shall be organized according to month and fiscal year) with respect to aliens granted status under paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1153(b)), as added by this section: 

(1) The name, city, and State of each employer who petitioned pursuant to either of 

such paragraphs on behalf of one or more 

aliens who were granted status in the month 

and fiscal year to date. 

(2) The number of aliens granted status 

under either of such paragraphs in the 

month and fiscal year to date based upon a 

petition filed by such employer. 

(3) The occupations for which such alien or 

aliens were sought by such employer and the 

job titles listed by such employer on the petition. 

(h) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with respect to 

fiscal years beginning on or after such date. 

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT 

PROGRAM. 

(a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.—Section 201 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (1); 

(B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and 

(C) by striking paragraph (3); and 

(2) by striking subsection (e). 

(b) ALLOCATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT

VISAS.—Section 203 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 

1153) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (c); 

(2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), 

or (c),’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b),’’; 

(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph 

(2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 

(4) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’; and 

(5) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), 

and (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) and (b)’’. 

(c) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT

STATUS.—Section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 

1154) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and 

(2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), 

or (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with respect to 

fiscal years beginning on or after such date. 

SEC. 4. PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) PERMANENT PRIORITY DATES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection 

(h)(3) and paragraph (2), the priority date for 

any employment-based petition shall be the 

date of filing of the petition with the Secretary of Homeland Security (or the Secretary of State, if applicable), unless the filing of the petition was preceded by the filing 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6187 

of a labor certification with the Secretary of 

Labor, in which case that date shall constitute the priority date. 

‘‘(2) SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT-BASED PETITIONS.—Subject to subsection (h)(3), an alien 

who is the beneficiary of any employmentbased petition that was approvable when 

filed (including self-petitioners) shall retain 

the priority date assigned with respect to 

that petition in the consideration of any subsequently filed employment-based petition 

(including self-petitions).’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall take effect on 

the date of the enactment of this Act and 

shall apply to aliens who are a beneficiary of 

a classification petition pending on or after 

such date. 

SEC. 5. STUDENT VISA REFORM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(F) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘(F) an alien— 

‘‘(i) who— 

‘‘(I) is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study in a field of 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (as defined in section 203(b)(6)(B)(ii)) 

leading to a bachelors or graduate degree 

and who seeks to enter the United States for 

the purpose of pursuing such a course of 

study consistent with section 214(m) at an 

institution of higher education (as described 

in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) or a proprietary institution of higher education (as defined in 

section 102(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b))) 

in the United States, particularly designated 

by the alien and approved by the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, after consultation 

with the Secretary of Education, which institution shall have agreed to report to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant 

student, and if any such institution fails to 

make reports promptly the approval shall be 

withdrawn; or 

‘‘(II) is engaged in temporary employment 

for optional practical training related to 

such alien’s area of study following completion of the course of study described in subclause (I); 

‘‘(ii) who has a residence in a foreign country which the alien has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified 

to pursue a full course of study, and who 

seeks to enter the United States temporarily 

and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a 

course of study consistent with section 

214(m) at an established college, university, 

seminary, conservatory, academic high 

school, elementary school, or other academic 

institution or in a language training program in the United States, particularly designated by the alien and approved by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, 

which institution of learning or place of 

study shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Homeland Security the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant 

student, and if any such institution of learning or place of study fails to make reports 

promptly the approval shall be withdrawn; 

‘‘(iii) who is the spouse or minor child of 

an alien described in clause (i) or (ii) if accompanying or following to join such an 

alien; or 

‘‘(iv) who is a national of Canada or Mexico, who maintains actual residence and 

place of abode in the country of nationality, 

who is described in clause (i) or (ii) except 

that the alien’s qualifications for and actual 

course of study may be full or part-time, and 

who commutes to the United States institution or place of study from Canada or Mexico.’’. 

(b) ADMISSION.—Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) 

is amended by inserting ‘‘(F)(i),’’ before ‘‘(L) 

or (V)’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

214(m)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(m)(1)) is amended, in the 

matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(i) or (iii)’’ and inserting ‘‘(i), (ii), or 

(iv)’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall take effect on the 

date of the enactment of this Act and shall 

apply to nonimmigrants who possess or are 

granted status under section 101(a)(15)(F) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) on or after such date. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ZOE LOFGREN) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within 

which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 6429 currently under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

When it comes to STEM fields— 

science, technology, engineering, and 

math—American universities set the 

standard. Our STEM graduates create 

the innovations and new businesses 

that fuel our economic growth and create jobs. 

Many of the world’s top students 

come to the U.S. to obtain advanced 

STEM degrees. But what happens to 

these foreign students after they graduate? Under the current system, we 

educate scientists and engineers only 

to send them back home where they 

often work for our competitors. 

We could boost economic growth and 

spur job creation by enabling American 

employers to hire some of the best and 

brightest graduates of U.S. universities. These students become entrepreneurs, patent holders, and job creators. 

The STEM Jobs Act makes available 

55,000 immigrant visas a year for foreign graduates of American universities with advanced degrees in STEM 

fields. 

Three-quarters of likely voters 

strongly support such legislation, and 

a wide range of trade associations have 

endorsed this legislation as well. These 

include the Institute for Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Compete America, 

the Information Technology Industry 

Council, and the Society for Human 

Resource Management. 

To protect American workers, employers who hire STEM graduates must 

advertise the position; and if a qualified American worker is available, the 

STEM graduate will not be hired. 

This bill makes our immigration system smarter by admitting those who 

have the education and skills America 

needs. STEM visas are substituted for 

Diversity Visas which invite fraud and 

pose a security risk. 

The STEM Jobs Act generates jobs, 

increases economic growth, and benefits American businesses. What more 

do we want? 

Let’s put the interest of our country 

first and support this legislation. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

For more than a decade, I’ve been 

working to increase high-skilled visas 

for foreign students with advanced 

STEM degrees from America’s greatest 

research universities. I’m fortunate 

enough to see firsthand the new technologies, the new companies, the new 

jobs they create every day in my district in the Silicon Valley. For that 

reason, it pains me greatly that I cannot support this bill. 

First, although this bill ostensibly 

seeks to increase STEM visas, it appears to have another, in my opinion, 

more sinister purpose—to actually reduce legal immigration levels. The bill 

does it in two ways. 

On its face, the bill eliminates as 

many visas as it creates by killing the 

Diversity Visa Program which benefits 

immigrants from countries that have 

low rates of immigration to the United 

States. But the bill also discreetly ensures that many of the new visas will 

go unused by preventing unused visas 

after 2014 from flowing to other immigrants stuck in decades-long backlogs. 

This is not the way our immigration 

system works. 

I believe the only reason the bill is 

written in this fashion is to satisfy 

anti-immigrant organizations that 

have long lobbied for reduced levels of 

immigration. 

My colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle are fond of saying that while 

they are opposed to illegal immigration, they are very much in favor of 

legal immigration. But this bill shows 

the opposite. 

Supporters of legal immigration 

would not have killed one immigration 

program to benefit another, nor would 

they agree to a Grover Norquist-style 

no-new-immigration pledge that will 

continue to strangle our immigration 

system for years to come. 

Agreeing to zero-sum rules now 

means never helping the almost 5 million legal immigrants currently stuck 

in backlogs. 

The Republican bill also expressly allows for-profit and online schools to 

participate. While the bill contains 

language limiting immediate participation, it unquestionably opens the door 

to future participation. 

I cannot support a bill that will allow 

such schools to essentially sell visas to 

rich, young foreigners. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

The vast majority of Democrats in 

this Chamber strongly support STEM 

visas. I’ve introduced a bill that creates STEM visas without eliminating 

other visas or including for-profit colleges. It has the support of the Black, 

Hispanic, and Asian Caucus chairs. 

Bring that to the floor, and you’ll see 

strong support from Democrats. It 

should also get strong Republican support. 

Republicans in the past, including 

very conservative Members, have supported STEM legislation that does not 

eliminate other types of visas. In the 

110th Congress, I introduced a bill that 

did just that with very conservative 

Republicans such as Texas Members 

JOHN CARTER and PETE SESSIONS as cosponsors. If they can support new 

STEM visas without offsets, so can Republicans today. 

There is a unique opportunity here to 

craft a balanced, bipartisan bill that 

can pass the Senate; but our majority 

has instead chosen to jam through a 

partisan bill that has no chance of becoming law, solely, I think, to score 

political points. 

It seems the only reason they have 

chosen to pursue this strategy right before an election is an attempt to appear more immigrant friendly than 

their record proves them to be and perhaps to curry favor with high-tech 

groups. 

But this is an anti-immigration bill, 

and it only sets back the high-skilled 

visa cause. 

I believe if we take a step back and 

work in good faith on a bipartisan 

basis, we can pass a STEM bill with 

overwhelming support. I am eager to 

work with my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle to do just that. It’s the 

right thing to do for the district I represent, and for our country. But this 

flawed bill is one I cannot support. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

before yielding to the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. HALL), I’m going to yield 

myself 1 minute. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from 

California said at least two things that 

are completely inaccurate. Let me correct those statements. 

First, she said this bill is going to reduce immigration and that that was 

somehow the intent behind the bill. 

The gentlewoman from California practiced immigration law, and she knows 

better than to say this. Under this bill, 

and she knows this to be the case, individuals in other employment categories who are waiting for other types 

of employment visas can switch over 

and apply for these STEM visas if they 

are master’s or Ph.D. holders in the 

STEM fields. There’s no limit on those. 

I expect every year that the number of 

visas that are not used directly will be 

used by these individuals in other employment-based categories. 

I want to make the point, too, that 

America is the most generous country 

in the world. We admit almost 1 million people legally every year. That’s 

far more than any other nation, and it 

may well be as many as every other 

country combined. 

The purpose of this bill is not to increase or decrease immigration, and I 

want to make that point, and also the 

fact that most Americans agree with 

this. Gallop recently reported that four 

out of five Americans do not want to 

increase the levels of immigration. 

Only 4 percent believe that the number 

of immigrants now entering the U.S. is 

too low. This bill reflects what the 

American people want. 

Lastly, in regard to for-profit 

schools, the gentlewoman made light of 

that and seemed to think that this bill 

was going to be abused by those types 

of institutions. 

First of all, any institution, even if 

they are profit-making—and why do so 

many Democrats oppose profits and 

free enterprise? I don’t know—but any 

profit-making institution, if they otherwise qualify, which is to say if they 

grant doctorates or master’s in STEM 

fields and if they are a research university as deemed by the Carnegie Institute of Higher Education, yes, they’ll 

qualify. But I want to say to the gentlewoman from California, today, none 

of those for-profit institutions would 

qualify. 

b 1550 

If they somehow meet the qualifications in the future, why wouldn’t we 

want them to be eligible to have their 

graduates—master’s and Ph.D. only— 

apply for these STEM visas? 

I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to 

the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

HALL). 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I commend 

my good friend from Texas, Chairman 

SMITH, for his leadership on the bill 

today. 

As a member of the Science Committee since first elected in 1980, I’ve 

heard repeatedly of talented foreign 

students who receive advanced degrees 

from American universities who would 

like to stay in the United States and 

put those degrees to work and are simply not permitted to do so. So they return home to their home country and 

ended up competing with us. 

Likewise, I hear from industry, particularly the technology industry, that 

they have ample jobs to fill, but there 

are not enough qualified Americans to 

fill those jobs. If this is true, we want 

those jobs filled by Americans and are 

working to improve STEM education in 

the country. But absent that talent 

now, and with many of these companies already seeking employees overseas, then it seems to me we should 

take advantage of the opportunity in 

front of us and help those foreign students who have received their education in the U.S. remain in the U.S. 

I have expressed to the chairman 

that I remain hopeful that qualified 

Americans should always fill available 

jobs first, and I understand provisions 

are in place to ensure this. I further appreciate his willingness to reach a consensus on broadening institution eligibility. We must remember that a large 

number of well-respected institutions 

across the country only grant degrees 

as high as a masters, and qualified 

graduates from those universities 

should also be eligible. 

In closing, I support the bill before us 

today, with the assurance that the 

chairman will continue to work with 

the Science Committee and with me as 

we move forward. 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 

allow the ranking member of the full 

committee to control the remainder of 

the time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the gentleman from Michigan will control the time. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is 

with great pleasure that I thank the 

gentlelady from California (Ms. LOFGREN) and yield her such time as she 

may consume. 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I 

will be brief. I do feel the need to address the issue that the chairman has 

raised; I think he misunderstands the 

issue. 

We have, in U.S. universities, graduating in STEM fields 10,000 Ph.D. and 

30,000 masters degrees a year. Assuming that all 40,000 want to stay in the 

United States—and that is not a valid 

assumption—we will not use up all of 

the 50,000 visas. It is true that the EB2s 

might apply, but many of them did not 

go to American universities. So the 

easiest way to make sure these visas 

are not eliminated is to do what happens in all the rest of the immigration 

EB categories, which is to allow those 

visas to flow. 

Finally, I just have to say I have 

never once been asked by a high-tech 

company to have some online university be the awarder of the Ph.D. It’s 

not a demand, it’s not an interest that 

anybody in the technology field has 

ever expressed to me. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would 

now proudly yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from 

Maryland (Mr. HOYER). 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, in order to compete in 

today’s global economy, we need to attract the best and brightest math and 

science students from around the 

world. I think we all agree on that. 

American technology and Internet 

companies—which are far and away the 

best in the world—are in dire need of 

more highly educated engineers and 

scientists. We’re just not producing 

enough here. In the long term, we need 

to educate more Americans in STEM 

fields, but we also must increase the 

number of STEM visas so that our 

businesses can hire the top international graduates of American universities. 

This could be a broadly bipartisan 

bill. It could pass easily. But once 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6189 

again, unfortunately, we have chosen a 

good bill and inserted a partisan poison 

pill, making it impossible to pass the 

Senate or attract broad bipartisan support. How sad it is that that’s been the 

history of this Congress. That poison 

bill is, of course, the elimination of the 

Diversity Visa Program, which ensures 

that individuals from a broad array of 

countries have the opportunity to seek 

a better life here in America. The Statue of Liberty, with her torch raised, is 

being brought down just a little bit. 

We don’t know where our next great 

innovators will come from, and we 

ought to not close the doors on those 

who have been waiting patiently to 

have their number called in some far 

off corner of the world. That lottery is 

not only their salvation, but also our 

benefit. It’s part of what makes America great. 

I call on the Republican leadership to 

withdraw this bill and instead take up 

the bill introduced by my friend, the 

gentlewoman from California, Representative LOFGREN, which accomplishes the objective I think we all 

want to accomplish. That version 

would create opportunities through a 

new STEM visa program without taking current opportunities away. I commend Ms. LOFGREN for her work on this 

issue and for helping to sustain that 

yearning for America that still moves 

the hearts of millions around the 

world. 

In light of what I have just said, Mr. 

Speaker, I would ask the gentleman 

from Texas if he will yield for the purpose of allowing me to make a unanimous consent to amend his bill by 

striking all after the enacting clause 

and replacing the text with that of the 

gentlewoman from California’s alternative, H.R. 6412, the Attracting the 

Best and Brightest Act of 2012. I tell 

my friend that will accomplish the objectives that you’ve talked about and 

I’ve talked about in getting high-tech 

people, the availability, for our companies here in America. They need them, 

we want them, we ought to get them; 

and we ought to do it in a bipartisan 

way. 

This is an opportunity for bipartisanship that unfortunately has not come 

as often as we would like. I would ask 

my friend to allow me to make that 

unanimous consent, that we agree to 

that. And I guarantee the gentleman 

we will get very substantial numbers of 

votes on this side of the aisle for that 

proposition, and I hope on your side as 

well. 

Would the gentleman yield for that 

unanimous consent? The gentleman 

has been instructed not to yield to me 

for that unanimous consent, I understand? I regret that your side of the 

aisle wouldn’t give me that opportunity for America—for America and 

our high-tech businesses. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on 

the way to yielding to the majority 

leader of the House, I’d like to respond 

very quickly to what the gentleman 

from Maryland just said. 

I want to make, again, the points 

that the Diversity Visa invites fraud, 

and absolutely means that we would 

have a security risk if we were to continue it. 

I want to quote the assistant Secretary of State. The assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services has 

testified that Diversity Visa fraud includes: 

Multiple entries, fraudulent claims to education or work experience, pop-up spouses or 

family members, relatives added after the 

application is submitted, and false claims for 

employment or financial support in the 

United States. 

The State Department’s Inspector 

General has testified that the Diversity 

Visa program: 

Contains significant risk to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to use the 

program for entry into the United States as 

permanent residents. 

We’ve already had one individual who 

was admitted on a Diversity Visa try 

to blow up the World Trade Center in 

1993. He killed six people and injured 

hundreds of people. That’s why this 

program is not good for this country. 

I’m more than happy to yield 1 

minute to the gentleman from Virginia 

(Mr. CANTOR), the majority leader for 

the House of Representatives. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

from Texas for his leadership on this 

bill. 

Mr. Speaker, since we were elected to 

the majority, the House Republicans 

have put forward solutions to spur job 

creation and economic growth by, 

frankly, focusing on and helping small 

businesses get off the ground to grow 

and hire. We’ve worked hard to drive 

small business job creation and innovation by enacting patent reform, the 

JOBS Act, and the removal of regulatory and tax burdens that are impeding small businesses’ growth. 

The STEM Jobs Act we are voting on 

today is part of our commitment to 

help small businesses, to help them 

create jobs by ensuring that top foreign students in American universities 

have the opportunity to launch or 

work for American businesses. 

The bipartisan STEM Jobs Act takes 

55,000 visas currently awarded based on 

a lottery and instead awards them to 

foreign graduates of U.S. universities 

with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

This legislation provides students with 

the opportunity to stay here in America where they can contribute to the 

American economy rather than leaving 

for other countries, taking their venture capital with them to compete 

against America and her businesses. 

b 1600 

I want to thank the gentleman from 

Texas, Chairman SMITH, as well as Congressman HENRY CUELLAR for introducing this legislation. I’d also like to 

note that Congressman BOB GOODLATTE

of Virginia and Congressman RAU ́ L

LABRADOR from Idaho have also been 

instrumental in getting us here. 

But there’s a reason why we in America are the world’s leading innovators 

and have within our borders the world’s 

leading innovators and why they 

choose to launch their companies here. 

Our Nation offers immense opportunities to those who come to our shores. 

My grandparents, just like so many 

others who immigrated to America, 

knew what foreign students know 

today: that America has always been a 

place which puts a premium on ensuring that, no matter who you are or 

where you’re from, everyone here 

should have the opportunity to go and 

achieve and earn success. 

According to the Partnership for a 

New American Economy, 40 percent of 

Fortune 500 companies were founded by 

immigrants or their children. So we 

must start to take advantage of our 

status as a destination for the world’s 

best and brightest. We must continue 

to do that. We want job creation and 

innovators to stay here and help us 

compete. 

Over the past two decades, the number of international graduate students 

enrolled in our Nation’s top-notch universities has grown. But, as the Congressional Research Service shows, the 

percentage of these students who gain 

visas has largely remained the same 

since 1990. The STEM Jobs Act says to 

our foreign graduates, You choose 

America and America chooses you. 

More talent in our workforce will 

mean more innovation, more start-ups, 

more entrepreneurship, more jobs and 

a better economy. It’s time our visa 

system adopted this commonsense advancement. It’s time for us to pass this 

bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope there is a 

broad bipartisan base of support when 

the vote occurs. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to JUDY CHU, 

an active member of the Judiciary 

Committee who, additionally, heads 

the Asian Pacific Caucus. 

Ms. CHU. I rise today in opposition 

to this bill which will further damage 

our already broken immigration system. I strongly support increasing 

visas for STEM foreign students so 

they can stay, work, and innovate 

here. But while this bill claims to do 

that, it actually reduces the number of 

overall visas available and lets unused 

STEM visas disappear by 2014. 

The bill also gets rid of 50,000 legal 

immigrant visas each year under the 

Diversity Visa Program, which gives 

every immigrant, no matter their 

background, a chance of immigrating 

to the United States and is so important to immigrants who don’t fall into 

other categories. 

Supporters of legal immigration 

should not have to kill other immigration programs to help our economy 

maintain its competitive edge. This is 

not a zero-sum game. 

Anyone in support of fair legal immigration should oppose this bill. And I 

urge both sides to come together to 

work on a bipartisan STEM visa bill 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

that will help keep our economy competitive without making our backlogged immigration system worse. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. ISSA), who is the chairman of the Government Oversight 

Committee. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, for 12 years, 

my greatest ambition here in Congress 

has been my membership in Judiciary 

and my activities of trying to bring 

real immigration reform that’s a plus 

to our country. 

My district has two notable areas: 

one, the agricultural areas that so desperately need a guest worker program; 

the other, throughout San Diego and 

Orange County, the high-tech areas 

that in many ways rival the best in the 

world, that, in fact, run out of H–1Bs 

on the day that they’re offered. So I 

support the STEM skills reform because it’s necessary. 

But let me just go through two or 

three things quickly that are so obvious here in this debate. 

One is: People who are detractors 

from this say, We’d love to have it; we 

simply want an expansion in the total 

number of immigrants. Let’s understand, America allows more people to 

immigrate to our shores than the entire rest of the world, combined, does 

to theirs. We’re already the most generous, and there has to be a number 

and that number has been set. 

Secondly, it doesn’t take away from 

anyone who has a valid need or reason 

to come here. It’s not going to limit reunification. It’s not going to limit 

those who have been tortured or in 

some other way affected in their foreign country. 

But I think the most telling one is 

the CBO, our independent, nonpartisan 

organization that, in fact, has said that 

making this change will save over $1 

billion in costs from the dependency 

that many diversity candidates prove 

to have, in spite of the regulations saying they shouldn’t. 

And lastly, and the most important 

one, as an employer of a high-tech 

company, a founder and employer for 

many years, America has to be like 

every high-tech company. You are always open to hire somebody who will 

make your company grow. America 

will grow in four jobs or more for each 

person who applies and receives one of 

these visas. That is about getting the 

economy going again and jobs happening again. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself as much time as I may consume. 

I thank you, because there’s only one 

problem separating the two views that 

have been presented by both sides of 

the aisle here this afternoon. But the 

proposal of those on the other side, of 

steamrolling through today, simply 

does not provide for new visas for 

STEM graduates. Instead, it completely eliminates diversity visas, a 

longstanding legal immigration program. And, as surely everyone understands on both sides of the aisle, we 

strongly oppose a zero-sum game that 

trades one legal immigration program 

for another. I heard someone suggest 

that. 

The elimination of the Diversity Visa 

Program will drastically decrease immigration from African countries. It’s 

as simple as that. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised approximately 40 to 50 percent of the Diversity Visa Program’s annual beneficiaries. And so we just say simply: 

That is not fair. There’s no point in us 

having to swallow this poison pill. And 

I can assure you that there’s no intention that that be done. 

Second, the Diversity Visa Program 

plays an important foreign policy role 

for the United States. As a former Ambassador testified the year before last 

at a Judiciary Committee hearing: 

The program engenders hope abroad for 

those that are all too often without it—hope 

for a better life, hope for reunification with 

family in the United States, and hope for a 

chance to use their God-given skills and talent. 

And so I ask my colleague to please 

consider how we can move the STEM 

issue forward without eliminating the 

Diversity Visa Program. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE), a senior 

member of the Judiciary Committee 

and an original cosponsor of this legislation. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I 

thank the gentleman from Texas, the 

chairman of the committee, for his fine 

work on this legislation, and I rise in 

support of it. 

You know, this House has twice 

passed through the entire House legislation eliminating the visa lottery program—55,000 visas, not given based 

upon family reunification needs, not 

given based upon job shortages in the 

United States, but based upon pure 

luck. And it’s unfair to people from 

more than a dozen countries around 

the world that stand in long lines, on 

waiting lists, and then watch somebody 

have their name drawn out of a computer at random, with no particular job 

skills, no ties in this country, and they 

get to go right past them into a green 

card in the United States. 

b 1610 

So, if you’re from Mexico, you’re not 

eligible for the visa lottery program. If 

you’re from Canada, you’re not eligible 

for the visa lottery program. If you’re 

from China or India or the Philippines 

or from more than a dozen countries, 

you are not eligible for this program at 

all. 

Let me just say that far more people 

with far greater contributions to make 

to our economy, to our system, will 

benefit from using those visas for 

STEM—for science, for technology, for 

engineering, and math. In fact, most 

African immigrants to the U.S. do not 

come through the diversity program, 

and many will benefit from a STEM 

visa program. There are more than 

3,000 students from Nigeria alone who 

are studying in STEM fields in the 

United States. They will be able to 

stay in the U.S. because of the STEM 

Jobs Act. 

This is a good proposal that is fair to 

people who want to come to this country to better their lives for themselves 

but to also help the United States in 

these difficult economic times find people who are needed here or who have legitimate family reunification needs, 

not simply based on pure luck. Our immigration system is in need of more reform than this, but this is great reform, and I urge my colleagues to pass 

this legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 

former chairman of the Education and 

Labor Committee, the distinguished 

gentleman from California, GEORGE

MILLER. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 

this partisan bill. It’s unfortunate. 

Maintaining this country’s advantage 

in science and technology is an important issue, and it should not be a partisan issue. Democrats have long supported efforts to increase STEM careers in this country and to address the 

question of STEM visas. 

We all recognize how important these 

careers are to the future economic 

strength of this country. We could be 

working together in a bipartisan way 

to address these issues in a fair and 

thoughtful manner, but this bill does 

not do that. Instead of working together, the majority has chosen a partisan route. 

This route puts American workers’ 

wages at risk at a time when they can 

ill afford it. It allows a dangerous race 

to the bottom that will drive wages 

down for American workers. It allows 

employers to pay visa holders less than 

the actual wages paid to similarly situated workers at those employers. A 

U.S. worker and a visa holder could be 

working right next to one another, 

doing the same work, and the foreign 

worker is cheaper. We know what this 

will mean for U.S. workers’ pay and job 

opportunities. Depressing families’ 

wages is not what our country needs. 

That’s why I joined with Congresswoman LOFGREN on legislation that 

would require a visa holder to be paid 

at least the actual wage being paid to 

a U.S. worker with similar experience. 

I also have deep concerns that this 

partisan bill is also a payoff for predatory for-profit education institutions. 

The Republican bill includes language 

that specifically allows for-profit institutions to participate in this program. 

Why is that? Tech and other highskilled employers have not been pushing to get more foreign graduates from 

for-profit schools. This provision would 

allow these institutions to find new, 

potentially lucrative revenue streams 

for their shareholders without regard 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6191 

to the actual needs of the American 

labor market. 

Mr. Speaker, the American people 

have made it clear that they are fed up 

with the powerful special interests 

gaming the system to increase their 

bottom line. They are fed up with partisan exercises meant to gain political 

advantage during an election cycle. It 

is no surprise that for 2 years this Congress had an opportunity to have a full 

and open debate on this very important 

issue but that the Republicans have 

chosen partisanship, obstruction, and 

polarization over moving this country 

forward. That’s why we see this bill at 

the last minute, and that’s why we see 

this bill requiring a two-thirds vote. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Under this bill, 

the employers have to pay the prevailing wage. I don’t know from where 

the gentleman got his information. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 

gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. GRIFFIN), a distinguished and active member of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise 

today in support of the STEM Jobs 

Act, and I thank Chairman SMITH for 

his leadership. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about 

some job creators in my district who 

would benefit from this bill. Welspun 

Tubular, which made the pipes for the 

Keystone pipeline, needs advanced 

STEM graduates to train workers. 

Power Technology needs highly skilled 

workers to design, develop, and manufacture laser products. These companies have struggled to find the specific 

talent they need, and this bill would 

help them create jobs. 

We are currently educating highly 

skilled Ph.D.’s and masters and are 

sending them back home to compete 

against us after they graduate. That’s 

like Arkansas recruiting the best college football players from Texas, training them on our offense and sending 

them back to Texas to compete against 

us. That doesn’t make any sense. Let’s 

fix it. Let’s pass this bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 

minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 

(Mr. GUTIERREZ) as few have worked 

harder on this with ZOE LOFGREN. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so 

much. 

It might appear like we are having a 

debate about whether we should send 

STEM graduates—those with advanced 

degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math—to faraway lands to 

work for companies to compete against 

us, but this debate is not about that because, on the need for STEM visas, 

there is no debate. The real debate we 

are having today, in creating STEM 

visas, is whether to shut the door to 

opportunity to others who contribute 

to the United States of America. 

I haven’t seen one letter from 

Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Intel or the 

high-tech industry that says to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 visas to those from 

Africa and give them to the high-tech 

industry. I haven’t seen one letter that 

says that, and they know that. It’s just 

something they want to do, and they 

want to poison this well with what I 

think is bad policy. Based on the immigrant stories we heard from almost 

every speaker at the Republican and 

Democratic conventions, I would guess 

all of us here would welcome to the 

U.S. any decent, hardworking person 

with enough heart and guts to pursue 

his biggest dreams, but that’s not what 

this bill does. I wish it did. 

Imagine if those millions who passed 

through Ellis Island had been given a 

test when they arrived. If they were 

gifted in science and math, they were 

in. If they were simply hardworking 

men or women in search of better lives, 

prepared to sweat and toil in the fields 

or in our factories, they wouldn’t have 

been good enough under this bill. 

Think about it. Where would we all be 

if we had to pass that test—the Pelosis 

and the Palazzos, the Boehners and the 

Blumenauers, the Schakowskys and 

the Lipinksis, the Kennedys and the 

Kuciniches, the Romneys and—yes— 

the Rubios? 

When my parents came from Puerto 

Rico, they didn’t need a visa. They just 

had a sixth-grade education and a 

ninth-grade education. Under this bill, 

they would say, Not here and not in 

this America. You’re not welcome. My 

mom worked in a factory, and my dad 

drove a cab, and they worked hard 

every day. They worked hard every day 

to make this. They sent their children 

to college, and one of them today 

serves in the Congress of the United 

States. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

LATOURETTE). The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 

30 more seconds. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They lived the 

story of America. They came with 

nothing but hopes, and they played by 

the rules and achieved great things, 

not necessarily for themselves but for 

their children and now their grandchildren. 

Has America benefited? Could we attract the smartest and the brightest? 

Yes. But America is also a better Nation because we attract those with the 

most heart and soul to make something of themselves. Let’s defeat that 

bill so we can continue that great 

American tradition. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself 30 

seconds. 

Mr. Speaker, no one is hurt more by 

the diversity visa program than unemployed Hispanics and black Americans. 

The unemployment rate for Hispanics 

with only a high school education is almost 14 percent. The unemployment 

rate for African Americans with only a 

high school education is almost 19 percent. The diversity visa program forces 

these unemployed Americans to compete for very scarce American jobs 

with those other individuals who don’t 

have more than a high school education. Why do we want to do this to 

our own people? 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Idaho (Mr. LABRADOR), an original 

cosponsor of this legislation who is 

very active on this subject. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. This 

bill addresses one of the bipartisan 

issues we ought to be able to solve here 

in the House of Representatives. 

Both President Obama and Governor 

Romney have spoken about the need to 

reform our immigration system in 

order to keep more of the best and the 

brightest minds in America. I am very 

pleased to have worked with Chairman 

SMITH on this bill, and I want to thank 

him for his leadership. I also want to 

thank Mr. GOODLATTE and the majority 

leader for their commitment to bringing this jobs bill to the floor. 

The future of our economy is in the 

STEM fields. New printers from Hewlett-Packard, new semiconductors from 

Micron, and new phones from Apple all 

rely on retaining the world’s best and 

brightest students and on harnessing 

their ingenuity to create jobs here in 

America. Even in an economic downturn, there aren’t enough U.S.-born 

graduates to meet the needs of hightech employers. Right now, foreignborn students are benefiting from our 

education system and are then going 

home to compete with us. 

b 1620 

This legislation allows us to retain 

their skills and innovation. We know 

that every American with an advanced 

STEM degree creates two to three new 

American jobs. We are replacing a broken, inefficient visa program with one 

that works, rewards innovation, and 

makes jobs for our economy. 

Mr. Speaker, I heard the other side 

talk about this bill all day today. This 

other side controlled the House, the 

Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years 

and did nothing to improve the immigration system. They didn’t pass immigration bills, yet the President campaigns on the issue of immigration reform. Once again, faced with actually 

passing a bill that improves the immigration system, they’re making a stand 

against immigration reform and 

against economic growth. 

Let me clarify one thing. I have a 

great deal of respect for Congresswoman LOFGREN. She and I have talked 

about this issue for the entire 11⁄2 to 2 

years that I’ve been here in Congress, 

and I recognize that she’s been a leader 

on this issue over the years. I’m also 

an immigration attorney. I’ve been an 

immigration attorney for 15 years. I 

must clarify that unused diversity 

visas have never rolled over, and to oppose this bill on those grounds is just 

proof that this is more about politics 

than policy. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would 

like to gain the previous speaker’s attention. The House, of which you are a 

Member, passed the DREAM Act 216– 

208, and we enjoyed the support of 

eight Republican Members. 

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 11⁄2 minutes 

to a senior member of the Judiciary 

Committee, SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I’m most grateful. Thank you 

very much. 

To the Speaker and to my colleague 

from Texas, this is the perfect infrastructure for collaboration and bipartisanship. We have worked together on 

this issue, and we have confronted the 

issue that I mentioned to Congresswoman LOFGREN on which we will continue to work, which is to ensure the 

outreach to Historically Black Colleges 

and Hispanic-serving colleges for the 

engineers and scientists who are prepared to work in America’s technology 

industry, and I expect that that will 

happen. I am supportive of STEM visas 

to provide for the infrastructure of 

workers for the dynamic technology, 

Silicon Valley software, Austin, Texas, 

and beyond to be able to be vibrant and 

thriving. 

But as I just left the President of Malawi, a woman who has inspired 

Malawians to look to the future, and as 

they look to the future, we have said 

that we want to ensure that America 

has a future with the continent. To remove the diversity visas that create diversity, to take away opportunities 

from a continent that, by and large, 

has been an ally and friend to the 

United States, whose African citizens 

have come to be reunited with families, 

who have generated outstanding businesses, from South Africans, to 

Kenyans, to Guineans, to those from 

Cote d’Ivoire and those from Nigeria— 

in my town, Nigerians have created the 

most successful brand of small businesses from being seamstresses to doctors and lawyers and others. 

I cannot vote for a bill that will 

allow us to remove the component for 

diversity visas as an exchange or substitute for this kind of approach. We 

must have balanced and comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

let’s put our own unemployed Hispanics and black Americans first. They 

should come first. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the 

gentleman from California (Mr. 

BILBRAY), who is the chairman of the 

Immigration Reform Caucus. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in strong support of this piece of 

legislation. 

All over America, Americans are having to make priority decisions in their 

families. The fact is this Congress 

needs to make some priority decisions. 

It is not only the right, but the responsibility, of this Congress and this Nation to make sure that our immigration policy is good for America first 

and foremost. 

This bill will replace a failed system 

that actually gambled with America’s 

future by having a lottery. It replaces 

it with bringing good scientists in. Let 

me just give you the numbers from just 

recently. 

This is going to create 55,000 jobs. Do 

we want to have 6,000 Iranians coming 

here or do you want 6,000 scientists and 

researchers coming in? Do we want to 

set aside an area where we have over 

2,000 Moroccans being given a set-aside 

for their country rather than treating 

individuals that have proven that they 

have an asset that we need in this 

country? 

The real issue here is, Mr. Speaker, 

whether we are willing to correct a 

mistake of the past to move forward 

with a fair system that judges individuals based on their merit, not based on 

the country that they’re coming from. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

the gentlelady, Ms. SHEILA JACKSON

LEE, 25 seconds. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If we 

pass the American Jobs Act, we will 

help Hispanic youngsters, Anglo 

youngsters, African American youngsters, and all Americans. 

However, what an insult to America’s 

values to suggest that those who come 

to this country to give by way of a 

legal process, diversity visas, are not 

contributing. I do not want to insult 

anyone who comes with the idea of 

helping America. That means wherever 

they’ve come from: Africa, Iran, elsewhere. 

If they come for a good reason 

through the diversity visa to reunite 

with their family, that is the American 

way. Immigration by law, that is the 

American way. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I’m 

pleased to yield 11⁄2 minutes to the very 

patient Member from Texas (Mr. HINOJOSA). 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

to strongly oppose H.R. 6429, the Republican STEM proposal before the 

House today under suspension of the 

rules. 

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and 

Workforce and vice chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I urge my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

join me and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Asian 

American Caucus in strongly opposing 

this Republican STEM proposal, misguided legislation that would curtail 

legal immigration to the United 

States. 

As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I 

support this legislation because it 

would allow advanced STEM graduates 

to remain in the United States and 

contribute to our Nation’s scientific 

discovery and technological innovation, increasing our Nation’s global 

competitiveness. This bill reduces 

backlogs for STEM-degree recipients 

by attracting and retaining critical 

talent and creating a new EB–6 green 

card category for persons with advanced degrees in STEM from research 

universities in the United States. 

I must underscore that this bill does 

not eliminate or weaken our immigration programs to increase STEM visas. 

This bill targets only the best and the 

brightest foreign students. Unlike the 

Republican proposal, this legislation, 

H.R. 6412, does not allow foreign graduates of for-profit colleges to receive 

STEM visas, including degrees earned 

by mail or over the Internet. 

In closing, I urge my colleagues to 

strengthen our Nation’s global competitiveness. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 

6429, the Republican STEM proposal, before 

the House today under suspension of the 

rules. 

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

and Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus (CHC), I urge my colleagues, on both 

sides of the aisle, to join me and members of 

the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in 

strongly opposing the Republican STEM proposal, misguided legislation that would curtail 

legal immigration to the United States. 

Instead, I encourage my colleagues in this 

chamber to support H.R. 6412, ‘‘The Attracting 

the Best and the Brightest Act of 2012’’ sponsored by Representative ZOE LOFGREN. 

As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I support 

this legislation because it would allow advanced STEM graduates to remain in the 

United States and contribute to our Nation’s 

scientific discovery and technological innovation, increasing our Nation’s global competitiveness. 

This bill reduces backlogs for STEM ‘‘degree recipients by attracting and retaining critical talent and creating a new ‘‘EB–6 green 

card category for persons with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) from research universities in the United States. 

I must underscore that this bill does not 

eliminate or weaken other immigration programs to increase STEM visas. While H.R. 

6412 provides the same number of STEM 

visas (50,000) as the Republican proposal, it 

does so without eliminating the long-standing 

Diversity Visa program, which ensures diversity among new immigrants and provides one 

of the few legal pathways to enter the United 

States. 

This bill targets only the best and the brightest foreign students, and requires that these 

individuals have an advanced degree from an 

accredited public or nonprofit university classified by the National Science Foundation as a 

research institution or as otherwise excelling in 

STEM instruction. 

Unlike the Republican proposal, this legislation H.R. 6412 does not allow foreign graduates of ‘‘for-profit colleges’’ to receive STEM 

visas, including degrees earned by mail or 

over the internet. 

H.R. 6412 includes a provision which provides wage protections for U.S. workers and 

requires that the offered wage to the STEM 

graduate meets or exceeds the actual wage 

paid to U.S. workers with similar levels of experience. 

The Republican proposal does not include 

this provision and does not adequately ensure 

that American workers are protected. 

In closing, I urge my colleagues to strengthen our Nation’s global competitiveness by opposing the misguided Republican STEM proposal and cosponsoring H.R. 6412, ‘‘The Attracting the Best and Brightest Act of 2012.’’ 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 

Arizona (Mr. FLAKE), who has long 

been active on the subject of immigration. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6193 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding, Mr. Speaker. 

I rise in strong support of the STEM 

Jobs Act. 

For the past three Congresses, I’ve 

worked on this issue with the introduction of the STAPLE Act, which would 

do much the same as this bill does, as 

well as support for other pieces of legislation that do what this piece of legislation does, which is allow those who 

are trained in our universities here to 

contribute to the U.S. economy. 

We all know that it’s not government 

that creates jobs, that the job of government is to enable the private sector 

to create jobs. I can think of no better 

way than to allow the private sector 

access to the brainpower and knowledge of those who have been trained in 

our universities to stay here and help 

create jobs. 

This is a good piece of legislation. 

It’s one of the few pieces of immigration legislation that has bipartisan 

support. I urge its adoption. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. ROYCE), who is also 

chairman of the Foreign Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee. 

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 

colleagues to support the STEM Jobs 

Act. It is time to alter the current immigration system. It is time to substantially increase the proportion of 

new entrants with high levels of education and skills. 

Today, we are educating many of the 

best and brightest from around the 

world, and then, ironically, we’re sending them back to work for our competitors. This makes no sense. 

b 1630 

Skilled immigrants can contribute to 

a rising U.S. standard of living. They 

bring capital, they bring ideas, and 

they produce new companies. With this 

bill, we can help grow innovation, and 

we can create jobs in the U.S. We’ve 

got plenty of examples of IT firms in 

California that are founded by immigrants from China and India that were 

educated in our institutions. 

Let’s pass this bill and help our economy grow. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania (Mr. ALTMIRE), who is a 

member of the Education and the 

Workforce Committee. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, while I 

would have preferred the Lofgren approach, I rise in support of the STEM 

Jobs Act because it’s critical to keeping America competitive in the global 

economy. The United States has the 

best institutions of higher education in 

the world, particularly when it comes 

to the STEM fields. 

Yet U.S. businesses frequently express concerns over the availability of 

qualified workers to perform jobs that 

are available and need to be filled once 

we educate and train these students for 

jobs. We send them back to their home 

countries to compete against us. This 

simply makes no sense. 

By passing this bill, we will help ensure that the best and brightest in the 

world aren’t working for our competitors abroad, but that America keeps 

that talent here at home and they play 

on our team instead of competing 

against us. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. LUNGREN), who is chairman of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, let’s remember 

where we are. Up until 1965, we had a 

quota system that essentially gave advantages to certain countries to get 

their people in here versus others. 

We removed that in 1965. We went to 

a worldwide quota system based on the 

fact that everyone around the world 

would have an equal chance to get to 

the United States based on their talents and their reason for coming here. 

In about 1981, there was a cry that we 

weren’t getting enough Irish coming in 

here. Tip O’Neill—I recall, I was here 

on the floor at this time—Tip O’Neill 

and Teddy Kennedy worked together to 

create the Diversity program that allowed anybody to apply for it at 12:01 

a.m. one morning. 

What do you know, only the Irish 

knew about it. We got essentially Irish 

in. That worked for a while. Then we 

changed it so that they and others were 

no longer allowed, and we only allowed 

certain countries in. We’re going back 

to a quota system by country. It 

doesn’t make sense. It ought to be a 

worldwide quota system. 

In addition, I would just say that 

most African American immigrants in 

the U.S. do not come through the Diversity program. We have many who 

are engaged in the STEM program 

study here. Just 3,000 from Nigeria 

alone would be able to participate. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN. 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. 

Speaker, I think this is a disappointing 

day at a time when we look for leadership on the part of the majority to 

bring us together. Instead, we have a 

partisan bill before us. 

We have 54 cosponsors on the bill 

that we’ve introduced. The remarkable 

thing is that we have support across 

the entire breadth of the Democratic 

Caucus for STEM visas. The things 

that have been said about the Diversity 

Visa today are simply wrong. 

They remind me of the warnings we 

got a short while ago about the ‘‘terror 

babies’’ who would somehow emerge 

after 21 years. It’s absurd. 

We need to vote against this bill, but 

I think we can quickly reconvene and 

get to the bipartisan effort that this 

country deserves. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, the STEM Jobs Act 

spurs economic growth and spurs job 

creation by enabling American employers to hire some of the best and brightest foreign students who graduate from 

American universities. The American 

public, American employers, and the 

high-tech community all support this 

bipartisan piece of legislation. 

I urge my colleagues to vote for jobs, 

vote for innovation, and vote for economic growth. Let’s put the interests 

of America first. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, as a proud 

original co-sponsor of the STEM Jobs Act, I 

urge my colleagues to support this carefullycrafted legislation. The American economy 

faces many challenges today, from burdensome regulations to uncertainty over taxes. 

One of our biggest challenges, especially in 

the manufacturing sector, is the skills gap—a 

lack of highly trained workers with the expertise to perform certain manufacturing jobs, or 

a shortage of scientists and engineers to develop new technologies. Manufacturing in 

America relies on innovation and skill, but too 

many factories slow down, too many opportunities are missed, and too many jobs are lost 

because of this skills gap. And worse, America’s universities train and educate some of 

the most promising scientists and engineers 

from around the world, but our immigration 

laws force us to send them away to compete 

against American companies. 

It makes no sense to educate foreign students in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, only to send 

them overseas once they complete their studies. Rather than force these innovators and 

experts to join companies overseas to be in 

direct competition with American high-technology manufacturing firms, we should keep 

innovation and entrepreneurship here at 

home. The STEM Jobs Act will allow these 

bright minds who study at top American universities and are already in this country legally 

under a student visa, the option to stay and 

work for American companies, build our economy, and help create American jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not increase the 

total number of green cards offered to immigrants, and it will not allow foreign workers to 

take jobs that Americans are available to do. 

Instead, the STEM Jobs Act makes our immigration laws smarter and guarantees that 

these green cards are available only to fill jobs 

that Americans can’t fill. This bill will enhance 

America’s competitiveness in the global marketplace and will lead to the economic growth 

and job creation that American workers need. 

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 

voice my strong opposition to H.R. 6429, the 

misnamed STEM Jobs Act. 

Make no mistake about it, this bill is designed to reduce legal immigration to the 

United States. 

H.R. 6429 doesn’t just increase STEM 

visas, it also eliminates the Diversity Visa program—a legal immigration program that 

makes visas available to immigrants from 

countries that have low rates of immigration to 

the United States. 

It is wrong to force Congress to eliminate 

one immigration program, in an effort to support another. 

This misguided legislation also eliminates 

rollover provisions for unused visas. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

Unfortunately, H.R. 6429 lets unused visas 

go to waste, and forces legal immigrants to 

continue to suffer in long backlogs. 

In addition, I have serious concerns that this 

legislation automatically allows for-profit and 

on-line schools to participate in the new STEM 

green card program. 

It’s not too late for my Republican colleagues to change course, and sit down with 

Democrats to work on a bipartisan bill that 

strengthens the STEM visa program without 

limiting legal immigration. 

I urge my colleagues to stand in solidarity 

and vote ‘‘no’’ on this attempt to reduce legal 

immigration. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, the misnamed STEM Jobs 

Act of 2012. 

The ability our nation to attract the world’s 

best and brightest has contributed greatly to 

the creation of American jobs and the success 

of American businesses large and small. However, many foreign students who graduate 

from our best universities in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

fields become victims of a broken visa system. 

The absence of specific visas for graduates in 

these critical fields has resulted in long wait 

times and forces many to move back home, 

taking their valuable skills out of the American 

economy. Clearly, the time has come for 

change. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 6429 isn’t the change 

we need. It follows the pattern of the Republicans’ approach of giving with one hand while 

taking with the other. This bill would create 

STEM visas at the expense of eliminating the 

Diversity Visa Program. Diversity visas provide 

a legal path for people from countries with low 

rates of immigration to the United States. Half 

the recipients are from Africa and almost a 

third are from Asia. 

Democrats and Republicans agree that we 

should establish a STEM visa program, but 

unfortunately Republicans inserted a poison 

pill in this bill that guarantees it will not pass. 

It is also clear that the Senate will not take up 

the bill with this provision included. 

We in Hawaii know that diversity is a 

strength. Hawaii has been enriched by the diverse immigrants who call it home, hailing 

from places like the Philippines, Japan, 

Samoa, Portugal, and around the Pacific Rim. 

While I believe we should be looking for ways 

to encourage the best and brightest to come 

to our shores and create American jobs, we 

don’t need to do it at the expense of the Diversity Visa Program. 

As an immigrant, I know the promise America offers and the hopes of those who come 

to our shores seeking a better life. That’s why 

I support efforts to improve our immigration 

system and encourage those with needed 

skills to come and work for our businesses. 

Furthermore, a strong economic foundation 

depends on a world class American education 

system that prepares the young people of our 

country to compete in the STEM fields. I am 

convinced we can find a way to come together 

to create a fair STEM Visa Program and to 

strengthen our STEM education so more 

Americans can get these jobs. 

H.R. 6429 is a flawed bill, and I urge my 

colleagues to oppose it. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6429. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that 

I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 

will resume on questions previously 

postponed. 

Votes will be taken in the following 

order: passage of House Joint Resolution 118; the motion to suspend the 

rules and pass H.R. 6429; and the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 

5987. 

The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining 

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING 

TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE 

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE 

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on passage 

of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) 

providing for congressional disapproval 

under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of Family Assistance of the 

Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and 

Human Services relating to waiver and 

expenditure authority under section 

1115 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

program, on which the yeas and nays 

were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the joint 

resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the joint 

resolution. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 250, nays 

164, not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 589] 

YEAS—250 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barber 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Garamendi 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Hochul 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NAYS—164 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lofgren, Zoe 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE