[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-724 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
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 ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
MARK AMODEI, Nevada JOE GARCIA, Florida
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
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
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 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 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 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
H-1B 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.
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 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 family-based 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 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 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.
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 early-stage 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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 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,
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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.
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 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 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 median 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.
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.
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.''
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
Hispanic-serving 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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, 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
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 country 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.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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.''
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.
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 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 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 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.