<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:32147.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-759
U.S. VISA POLICY: COMPETITION FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS,
AND SKILLED WORKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 31, 2006
__________
RICHARDSON, TEXAS
__________
Serial No. J-109-105
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-147 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
Reed O'Connor, Majority Chief Counsel
Jim Flug, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1
WITNESSES
Cooper, Bo, former General Counsel, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, on behalf of Global Personnel Alliance,
Washington, D.C................................................ 5
Daniel, David, President, University of Texas at Dallas,
Richardson, Texas.............................................. 3
Kaplan, Lance, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen, Loewy, LLC,
on behalf of the American Council on International Personnel,
Iselin, New Jersey............................................. 18
Norman, Phyllis, Vice President, Patient Care Services, Harris
Methodist Fort Worth Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas............... 16
Ritter, Philip J., Senior Vice President and Manager of Public
Affairs, Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, Texas................ 14
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Black, Jan Hart, President, Greater Dallas Chamber, and Ken
Menges, Chair, International Business Advisory Council, Greater
Dallas Chamber, Partner-in-Charge of the Dallas Office, Dallas,
Texas, letter.................................................. 27
Cooper, Bo, former General Counsel, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, on behalf of Global Personnel Alliance,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 29
Daniel, David, President, University of Texas at Dallas,
Richardson, Texas, prepared statement.......................... 40
Kaplan, Lance, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen, Loewy, LLC,
on behalf of the American Council on International Personnel,
Iselin, New Jersey, prepared statement......................... 46
Norman, Phyllis, Vice President, Patient Care Services, Harris
Methodist Fort Worth Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas, prepared
statement...................................................... 59
Ritter, Philip J., Senior Vice President and Manager of Public
Affairs, Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, Texas, prepared
statement...................................................... 62
U.S. VISA POLICY: COMPETITION FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS,
AND SKILLED WORKERS
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2006
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., at
the TI Foundation Auditorium, Building ECSS, University of
Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, Hon. John Cornyn, Chairman
of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Cornyn. I woke everybody up, I trust.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Cornyn. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship shall come to
order. I want to just interject that it is clear we are going
to have to get some more Federal highway funds for Texas so we
can make transit to your campus, Dr. Daniel, a little easier.
We have been delayed a little bit because of traffic.
The current debate over immigration reform has focused
exclusively on unskilled illegal immigration. What has been
neglected is any discussion of high-skilled legal immigration
and its effect on our country's ability to compete in a global
marketplace. This issue is relevant because American
universities, companies, and government entities are waging a
global battle for talent, and by all accounts, our immigration
laws and policies place our country at a competitive
disadvantage.
The truth is that to retain our economic, technological,
and military superiority, the United States needs to compete
aggressively for the world's talent. For the past 60 years, the
United States has not faced much competition from other
countries. As a result, high-skilled immigrants have found
their way to the United States and made remarkable
contributions to our society. Whether you talk about foreign
students at Los Alamos 60 years ago or the founders of Intel,
Yahoo, or Google, immigrants have enriched our economy and made
the United States more competitive. In fact, almost 20 percent
of the distinguished scientists and engineers are members of a
National Academy of Scientists, and more than a third of U.S.
Nobel laureates are foreign born.
But the United States is starting to lose ground. A recent
report of the National Academy of Sciences entitled ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm'' should serve as a wake-up call.
According to that report, China graduates over 200,000 more
engineers, computer scientists, and programmers than the United
States. Today, India and China graduate three times and Asian
countries together eight times as many bachelor's degrees in
engineering than the United States.
In the long run, the United States must produce more
engineers, scientists, and skilled workers. One of every four
scientists and engineers is foreign born, and half of doctoral
computer science and math degrees and 60 percent of engineering
degrees awarded in the United States go to foreign nationals.
But while we all agree that the United States must
encourage more of its own high school and college students to
pursue careers in math and science, we can also all agree that
that will not happen overnight. And contrary to what some
critics say, increasing the pipeline of U.S. students in those
fields while simultaneously making the United States more
attractive to foreign students and skilled workers are not
mutually exclusive goals. The fact is our public policy should
do both. We must train and educate more U.S. students, but we
must also ensure that there are jobs here in the U.S. for them
to fill.
On May 2nd, I introduced what is called the ``SKIL bill,''
S. 2691. Since then, a companion bill has been introduced in
the House. The SKIL bill is designed to address this specific
problem. It also was accepted as an amendment to the
comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate.
Through changes to our immigration laws, the SKIL bill
would enable the United States to attract and retain the most
gifted students and workers from around the world. First, the
bill exempts any foreign student who has earned a master's or a
Ph.D. from a U.S. university from both the temporary visa cap
and the green card annual cap. Why after training and educating
a foreign student would we force him or her to leave the United
States, not because they can't find work, but because we have
imposed an artificial cap on the number of visas?
Second, the bill creates a floating cap on high-skilled
visas so that if our economy continues to grow at the pace it
has over the last few years, our visa policy will adapt with
it. And as the United States improves the pipeline of domestic
students and the need for foreign students and workers
diminishes, the visa limit would adjust as well. The SKIL bill
also allows foreign students who graduate from U.S.
universities to start the green card process while they are in
school. These days, the best students are already working for
companies during summer breaks and during the school year. If
they are in demand, we should allow employers to start the
paperwork as soon as possible.
Finally, the bill would allow workers who are in the United
States and who have complied with the law to renew their visa
here in the U.S. Unfortunately, our current immigration law
does too little to reward those who comply with the law.
I remain guardedly optimistic that Congress will pass
comprehensive immigration reform, and I believe that the
provisions in the SKIL bill should be included in any final
bill.
Let me now introduce our first panel. Today, we are
fortunate to have panels of distinguished witnesses. The first
is Dr. Daniel, President of the University of Texas at Dallas,
our host, and thank you, Dr. Daniel, for hosting this hearing.
Dr. Daniel previously served as Dean of the College of
Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
and received a Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University
of Texas at Austin in 1980 and served on the faculty there
until 1996. Dr. Daniel is a noted scholar and member of the
prestigious National Academy of Engineering. He has won the
American Society of Civil Engineers' highest award for papers
published in its journals, the Normal Medal, and on two
occasions has been awarded the second highest award for papers.
I would also like to congratulate Dr. Daniel on the recent
announcement by the University of Texas System Board of Regents
to allocate $27 million for construction of a new facility on
the University of Texas at Dallas campus that will focus on
research-based education and mathematics, science, and
engineering.
The second witness on our panel is Mr. Bo Cooper. Mr.
Cooper served as General Counsel of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service from 1999 to February 2003, when he
became responsible for the transition of immigration services
to the Department of Homeland Security. He was the principal
legal adviser to the INS during two administrations, at a time
when immigration ranked among the most sensitive issues on the
national public policy agenda. Mr. Cooper teaches immigration
law at the University of Michigan Law School and is testifying
today on behalf of the Global Personnel Alliance.
Gentlemen, if you would please stand and be sworn. Do both
of you swear that the testimony you will give today will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Mr. Daniel. I do.
Mr. Cooper. I do.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Before we begin, let me just
say that we would like to make sure we move along relatively
expeditiously, so I will ask you to limit your statements to 5
minutes. Your written statement will be made part of the
record, and then, of course, we will have time for Q&A to flesh
out any things that are missing. And I will be happy to give
you an opportunity if you think at the end there are things
that we have overlooked or that have not been said that really
need to be emphasized, I will give you an opportunity to do
that.
Dr. Daniel, we will be glad to hear your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID DANIEL, PRESIDENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS, RICHARDSON, TEXAS
Mr. Daniel. Senator Cornyn, thank you so much, and thank
you for being here at the University of Texas at Dallas. It is
a real honor for us to host this Senate hearing.
UT Dallas was created by the same individuals who founded
Texas Instruments, and it was created because of workforce
issues. Eugene McDermott, Cecil Green, and Erik Jonsson felt
that in order to create the workforce that Texas Instruments
would need in order to develop into the globally preeminent
company that it is, it would simply have to have homegrown
talent in order to be able to accomplish that. So they created
a graduate research institute that later became part of the UT
system. Their vision, as I have heard it stated, is that we
might 1 day become the MIT of the Southwest. Well, we have a
ways to go to get there, but I feel that our first steps are
very much along that pathway consistent with that spirit.
Eighty percent of our graduates from this institution major
in science, engineering, mathematics, or business. So we feel
that we are producing exactly the kind of talent that this
region, this State, and this Nation needs to remain vital,
healthy, and competitive.
The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, despite being one of the
largest and most economically productive metropolitan areas
anywhere, does not have a true world-class research university
outside of the medical field. We do have UT Southwestern
Medical Center, which is a preeminent graduate medical research
facility, but on the academic side, we have a ways to go to
grow UTD and the other area institutions to that top tier.
We are thrilled that the UT system announced recently an
unprecedented investment of $2.56 billion to boost
competitiveness in key scientific areas, which includes the new
building for UT Dallas, Senator, that you mentioned earlier.
We are an institution focused on the very best talent
within these areas of science, engineering, business, and
complementary fields, such as arts and technology. We are
working extremely hard to increase the pipeline of local
students, and in my written statements, some of those programs
are described. I will just highlight very briefly two of them.
One is our nano explorers program, which brings about 20
high school students per summer into our nanotechnology labs,
suits these kids up in spacesuit-like equipment, and pins them
as nano explorers. Actually, Professor Ray Bockman, who is just
an incredible scientist, did this because as a child his dad
took him into one of these science labs, and he later became
one of the Nation's preeminent scientists. So we are very proud
of that program.
We have an academic bridge program which reaches out to
folks principally in the Dallas Independent School District who
would not normally think that they are college track, and
certainly their SAT scores would not automatically sing out to
the world that ``I am going to be successful in college.'' But
we take about 30 of these kids under our wing every year, and
the most remarkable thing is that the graduation rate of these
students is about 80 percent. So we bring them into the
university and we graduate them. We have an outstanding science
and math education program and are just working diligently to
try to increase that pipeline.
We do want to continue to attract the very best talent from
around the world. Every major U.S. university depends on a few
of those smartest people from anywhere in the world to sustain
our position of strength as an internationally competitive
university.
So, with that as opening remarks, Senator, if you have any
questions, I would be delighted to answer them. Thank you for
the opportunity to address the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daniel appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Dr. Daniel.
We will now hear the opening statement of Mr. Cooper. Thank
you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF BO COOPER, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ON BEHALF OF GLOBAL PERSONNEL ALLIANCE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Cooper. It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify, and the Global Personnel Alliance
especially appreciates the leadership that you have shown in
connection with this issue, both in stewarding the SKIL bill
and in having us here and in making sure that focus stays on
this critical issue of the way that our immigration policy has
got to be shaped to serve our National competitiveness goals.
Our high-skilled immigration policy, despite this key
principle, has not been meaningfully updated in over a decade
and a half. It has fallen years out of alignment with our
country's economic and educational needs. There is not a
sufficient path into the university, from the university to the
workplace, and there is a severe shortage of professional visas
and of green card slots for the most highly skilled. And other
countries are watching this, and they are moving in exactly the
opposite direction. They are shaping their immigration policies
so that they attract into their schools and into their
workforces the very people, the best and brightest in key
fields from around the world, that we ought to be trying with
all of our might to attract into our workplace.
Let me try to highlight some of the key issues that arise
at each stage of the process, beginning briefly with the
student visa process. Getting the best students to come and
study in our schools is one of the most effective ways we can
find to attract the best scientists, doctors, researchers, and
other professionals into our workplaces. But because of delays,
because of outmoded requirements regarding long-term intentions
after graduation, and inadequate time for post-graduate
practical training, that goal is being interrupted, and other
countries are viewed as having immigration policies that are
more welcoming and more friendly. And faced with this choice, a
lot of the world's best students are choosing to go elsewhere.
These kinds of problems can become even more acute in the
recruitment of highly skilled professionals, both from outside
the U.S. and from inside of the country. The H-1B visa, of
course, the key and also the only visa available for high-
skilled professional assignments, is dispensed according to a
formula that is badly out of sync with our Nation's needs. It
was only 5 years ago set at 195,000, and every year since, it
has dropped, in 2004 to 65,000. That cap has been hit earlier
and earlier each year, and this year we set a new low by
running out of H-1B visas 4 months before the fiscal year even
began. That faces employments with a staggering 16-month period
without access to the most highly skilled professionals.
This mismatch between immigration policy and our
competitiveness goals is most often seen in the public debate
from the perspective of the tech sector, and this is certainly
a very important perspective because the high-tech sector has
exemplified the way that innovation can feed the economy and
create American jobs. And it also has exemplified the way that
mixing foreign and U.S. intellectual talent can lift or even
create industry in this country. But the problems that are
faced because of our immigration policies are not at all
confined to the tech sector, and they reach to hospitals, to
schools, to businesses of all sizes and across the range of
industries.
I would like to quickly offer one example from the
manufacturing sector. This example involves a manufacturer of
business jets. A major U.S. employer, they have thousands of
U.S. employees. Of these thousands, only a handful--a few of
them, about 2 percent--are foreign national workers here on
visas, and this company is desperately in need of aerospace
engineers, and they cannot find enough of them in this country.
This spring, fresh off of a very significant hire of the
engineers they could find in this country, they still had not
met their needs. But they identified a complement of about 30
highly skilled engineers--by the way, from a competitor company
outside the U.S. But it was May, and they knew they were racing
the clock. The Friday before Memorial Day, the Government had
announced that there were only 12,000 H-1B visas left. So over
Memorial Day weekend, there was a team of people preparing H-1B
visa petitions for this group of aerospace engineers, getting
ready to file them the next week. And, lo and behold, the next
week arrives and the announcement is made by the Government
that the H-1B visa supply had actually run out the Friday
before and no more petitions could be accepted for H-1B until--
October of 2007 is the next time an H-1B can begin work.
In this case, there is no alternative hiring strategies
possible. They have already hired all the U.S. engineers they
could, and so the result is that they are simply left without
enough people to succeed and to compete as effectively as they
need to. And there could not be a more stark example of the H-
1B program actually failing its policy goal. When companies
cannot recruit the talent they need, the cap impedes
production, it diminishes competitiveness, and it stunts U.S.
job growth. The problem are just the same in connection with
the green card process, and those problems are very, very well
documented.
Wrapping up, Mr. Chairman, effective professional
immigration reform is in reach. You have already, with your
colleagues, devised a very effective solution. There appears to
be strong bipartisan support for high-skilled immigration
reform, and there appears to be essentially unanimity that
high-skilled immigration reform is a net benefit to the U.S.
economy. But the longer this reform is delayed, the more
seriously we risk sliding backward in our efforts to maintain
global competitiveness.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Cooper, let me start with what some of
the critics say, and I would like for you to sort of clarify or
maybe correct some of the misimpressions that have been
mentioned during the course of Senate hearings on the Judiciary
Committee about the impact of lifting the cap on H-1B visa
workers.
First of all, can you tell us whether an H-1B visa worker
can be paid less than an American worker? In other words, can
companies go out and low-ball the pay of a foreign worker and
get him in the country to displace an American worker with
impunity?
Mr. Cooper. No, that is not at all possible, Mr. Chairman.
The program is set up with some pretty strict requirements to
ensure that the U.S. workforce is protected. Chief among those
is the obligation of the employer to pay either the prevailing
wage for the kind of job in the area that is being offered or
the actual wage that that employer pays to its similarly
situated employees, whichever of those two things is higher.
And often in practice that actual wage is, especially in these
key fields where recruiting is so difficult, significantly
higher than the prevailing wage because that is what market
forces call for. And when that is the case, it is that actual
wage that has got to be paid to the H-1B. And an employer fails
to do so at significant peril. The Department of Labor has
important enforcement authority and may exercise those
enforcement authorities, and employers can face back-pay
obligations, penalties, debarment from using the immigration
system--obviously a key penalty--as well as just the public
relations difficulties that can face someone who does not abide
by program requirements.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, based on your answer--and you answer
accurately describes my understanding of the law--there seem to
be a number of urban myths related to this whole issue.
Dr. Daniel, I think you told me earlier that you believe
that market forces have the best impact over and above the law
in terms of making sure that American workers are not displaced
in favor of foreign workers under an expanded H-1B visa policy.
Could you expand on that, please?
Mr. Daniel. Yes, Senator Cornyn. I have been an engineering
professor for 26 years and have had dozens and dozens of
graduate students, many domestic and some foreign. Often
professors wind up working closely with these students and
matching up students with companies, and it has universally
been my experience that I see no difference in the salary
packages offered to the students, whether they are domestic or
international. And the students usually come to me and sort of
check in and make sure the salary offer is a fair and a
reasonable one. And I have just never in any instance
whatsoever seen that be a factor.
The companies need the best talent, and they are going to
pay prevailing wages. They have to. That has been my
experience.
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Cooper, let me ask you another
question about the impact of the H-1B visa on American
companies and American competitiveness and the ability of the
United States to train native-born citizens and other
naturalized citizens in these critical areas.
My understanding is that U.S. companies have paid more than
$1 billion in fees that have funded more than 40,000
scholarships for U.S. students in math and science. These fees
obtained from employers as part of the H-1B process have funded
hands-on science programs for 75,000 middle school and high
school students and 3,000 teachers. And, finally, more than
55,000 U.S. workers and professionals have received training
through the H-1B fees paid by companies.
Is that information consistent with your understanding of
the fees paid by companies as part of the privilege of having
H-1B visas?
Mr. Cooper. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. That was
an effective reform to the H-1B program not so long ago based
on the notion that users of the system that works to import
talent from abroad ought also to contribute to the boosting of
talent within this country. And so it is entirely appropriate
that employers pay a reasonable fee in this connection. It is
actually fairly substantial right now, $1,500 per petition in
most instances. And that generates huge sums, as you were
describing, somewhere in the neighborhood of $125,000 per year
at current levels. Of course, if the H-1B program were
recalibrated to meet needs and, therefore, the supply
increased, that number would only increase accordingly. So that
is a very important way in which the program is structured to
also serve a different but related goal, that is, boosting the
education and abilities of U.S. workers.
On top of that formal structural system for calling on the
participation of H-1B users, I think it is important also just
to go back to the market forces that Dr. Daniel was talking
about. Companies realize that it is just as important for them
to be able to have a key pool, a very strong pool of U.S.
talent in key fields, and so, very independent of these
structural requirements of the H-1B program, tend to invest
enormous resources in outreach to universities and outreach to
students trying to encourage people to go into sciences,
engineering, mathematics, putting in place programs to provide
technological abilities at higher level to students at K-12 and
universities. And so that takes place very, very frequently
just in the private environment when companies themselves,
independent of the H-1B program requirements, are trying to
serve this very goal of raising the knowledge and the
educational levels of U.S. students.
Chairman Cornyn. Dr. Daniel, as Mr. Cooper said, there is a
lot going on, other than what the Federal Government is doing
to encourage what we call homegrown experts in math and
science, engineering and technology. Have you seen the fees
from H-1B visas to be an effective supplement to help pay for
or defray some of the costs for training of American citizens
or naturalized citizens who are studying in these key areas?
And maybe you could expand a little bit on how you see these
working in a complementary fashion if, in fact, you believe
they are?
Mr. Daniel. Senator, I do not have any personal experience
with those fees, but what I do have experience with is just
simply confirming that U.S. companies and corporations are
pouring substantial dollars into assisting through scholarships
and fellowships, summer internship programs, growing our own,
if you will. They are highly motivated to have a diverse
workforce, as I am sure Mr. Ritter and others will be able to
testify today. And so it is simply the reality that massive
efforts are being made on their part to try to increase the
pipeline.
Chairman Cornyn. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences
issued a report that I alluded to in my opening remarks called
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' And as you both no
doubt know, this is focused largely on how we can improve math
and science education in America, encourage more students to
study in those areas, encourage more teachers and better
teachers to teach in those areas, to maintain America's
competitive edge. And this report--again, issued by the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine--is focused
primarily on how we can increase our domestic resources when it
comes to this necessary component of our competitive edge. But
it also speaks specifically to the issue of the H-1B visa, and
on page 7 of the report, where it is entitled ``Best and
Brightest in Science and Engineering Higher Education,'' one of
the actions encouraged by this report was to continue to
improve visa processing for international students and
scholars. And I want to come back to you in a moment, Dr.
Daniel, and ask you about your experience with the Federal
Government's processing of visas for international students and
scholars.
But it also proposes to provide a 1-year automatic visa
extension for international students who receive doctorates or
equivalent degrees in science, technology, engineering,
mathematics, or other fields of national need at qualified U.S.
institutions to remain in the United States to seek employment.
It includes also, in addition to other recommendations, a new
skills-based preferential immigration option.
Let me direct this to you, Dr. Daniel. I have been told
that post-9/11, because of some of the more restrictive visa
policies of the U.S. Government in the effort to protect our
national security and avoid the scourge of international
terrorism, it has actually created impediments to foreign
students in some cases coming to the United States and foreign
scholars coming to the United States for meetings and the like,
and that our competitors in a global economy, other nations
that would love to have these foreign students come there and
study in their universities, and then live and work there and
help stimulate and grow their economy, that this has actually
worked to the disadvantage of the United States in our
competitive global environment.
Could you share with the Committee your experiences in that
area?
Mr. Daniel. Yes, Senator Cornyn. There has been a very
noticeable change since 9/11. I am sure, as you are aware,
graduate student applications in the U.S. from international
students are down significantly, roughly one-third. Our
international student population here at UT Dallas is down a
bit.
But I think the most significant aspect is really just what
you described: the very brightest and smartest people that we
want to be thinking about coming to the United States find it
very difficult to navigate through the visa process, and as a
result, they are turned off, if you will, to the prospect of
coming to the U.S.
I remember I had a delegation a few months ago from a
Chinese university that came to talk with us about academic
collaboration, the exchange of students, and so forth. And only
about half of the delegation managed to get visas to come and
visit with us. And so I was immediately in the position of
apologizing to the delegation that they were only half of their
intended strength with no apparent rhyme or reason that I could
tell why those who did come were able to get visas and those
who did not come were not able to.
The unfortunate reality, further, is that although 20 years
ago the best and brightest international students principally
had the U.S. to look to, to go to the best universities in the
world, Australia is working adamantly to upgrade their
universities. Singapore truly wants to outflank us in
attracting the best and brightest in the world to their
universities. And those institutions, just as Mr. Cooper said,
and those countries are setting up practices, I think, to take
advantage of our current weakness in this area. And I think the
real public policy question is: Is it in the best interest of
the U.S. to turn the best and brightest throughout the world
away from the U.S. and hand them over to other countries? And
my feeling as a university president is it is just a horrible
public policy decision. We want those people here to elevate
our university, to elevate the intellectual climate, to sustain
our position of international preeminence, and to feed into our
society the talent that we need. And it has just, since 9/11,
in that regard been going backwards.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, thank you, Dr. Daniel. I know in the
audience today we have some of my caseworker staff who work
hard to help navigate the bureaucracy when there are speed
bumps and other impediments to issuing the visas to people who
should be--who are not a national security threat and who
should be receiving those student or travel visas in the case
of international scholars. And we are glad to help, but we want
to also note where the impediments are that perhaps are written
into the law or otherwise need to be dealt with.
Let me ask to follow up one more question to you, Dr
Daniel, before I turn to another question for Mr. Cooper. The
President's American Competitiveness Initiative proposes new
Federal support to improve the quality of math, science, and
technology education in our K-12 schools. What obstacles stand
in our way of really improving the quality of our children's
education in math and science in your view?
Mr. Daniel. Senator Cornyn, that is an excellent question.
It is a very deep issue. I think the two that come to mind
first are the training and qualifications of schoolteachers in
the U.S. in mathematics and science. Statistics show that a
surprisingly large fraction of our math and science teachers
are not actually trained in mathematics and science. And what
we genuinely need to do is inspire kids who have the talent and
ability in math and science to pursue that field, not to turn
them off.
So the training of teachers I think is the foundation
block, but I think just the message that we as a society and
Government send to our young people about the importance of
math and science becomes crucial as well. Government programs
that help and partner with industry and with educational
institutions to provide support and structure to send the
message that these are great fields to go into and structures
it in a way to engage and interest students I think are exactly
the rights kinds of programs to try to get not only at the
substance of what takes place in the classroom but the spirit
and inspiration that causes students to want to pursue those
fields.
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Cooper, one thing that does not make
sense to me is the foreign student who graduates from a U.S.
university and then takes a job with a U.S. company is required
to switch to a temporary visa, and only then after the student
has switched to a temporary visa can the employer start the
green card process. Why, if we know the student will stay in
the U.S. and that the student has a job from an employer, would
we require the student to go on a temporary visa? Does that
make any sense to you? And if not, what policy would you
recommend that we change?
Mr. Cooper. I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I think that if the temporary visas were--I mean, if the
temporary visas were more adequately available, then you would
not have as severe a problem as we see now. But I agree with
you entirely that it makes much more sense to have a direct and
streamlined route right from the universities and into the
workplace for the long term if that is what the employer knows
best serves that employer's interest and if the student has the
skills that are required for qualification for whatever the
long-term visa classification is.
And I think that the recipe that is in the SKIL bill for
that is a very effective one, is a very simple one. That
expands the time after graduation that the student can stay
here for practical training and look for a job, and it on the
other side makes it easier to link into and apply right up
front for permanent residence, once the employer- employee
relationship that is going to bring that student into the U.S.
workforce has been identified. It is a very simple solution,
and I think it is one that you should continue to push for.
Chairman Cornyn. I think one of the things that frustrates
the American people and certainly my constituents here in Texas
when I talk to them--or listen to them, maybe is more the
appropriate way to frame it--about immigration is that they
seem to be focused almost exclusively on illegal immigration
and low-skilled, relatively low- education immigrants coming
across our Southern border at the rate of maybe 500,000 or so a
year. Currently, estimates are that we have as many as 12
million undocumented immigrants here in the United States. And
it strikes me as ironic that we have, by virtue of the failure
of the Federal Government to deal effectively with border
security and our immigration system, we have virtually
uncontrolled or, let's say, at least massive illegal
immigration by low-skilled workers, and we put a cap of 65,000
a year on high-skilled workers who are never likely to be a
drain on our economy, never access our service system, but
instead are likely to create wealth and opportunity and jobs
for the American people.
How did we get in that condition, Mr. Cooper? You have been
involved in the immigration system and debate, and certainly on
behalf of two separate administrations. How did we get into
this mess?
Mr. Cooper. I think a key part of it is losing sight of the
basic principle that your immigration policies ought to serve
what you identify as your various national goals. And I think
that the failure to keep an eye on that is what has led, in
large part, to the inability in today's debate to distinguish
what kinds of issues are important and what kinds of solutions
are appropriate to the question of controlling migration and
what to do with the people who have already become a part of
the U.S. workforce, et cetera. And then the very different
question of how is it that high- skilled immigration policies
will serve our economic needs and serve our competitive needs.
And I think examples of the mismatch abound every single day.
Just yesterday, in connection with our education goals, I
happened, totally unconnected with preparation for this
hearing, to be in touch with a teacher who is Chinese. She has
just graduated with a specialty in bilingual special education
from George Washington University, and I was put immediately in
mind of the national goals that have been identified in
connection with bilingual education.
This year the President announced a $114 million initiative
called the National Security Language Initiative. The principle
is that we as a population in the U.S. ought to have better
skills in key languages--Arabic, Chinese--both from the
national security standpoint and from the competitiveness
standpoint.
And so here is a person who falls exactly into the needs
that would meet those goals, yet our immigration policies are
not set to meet those needs. You cannot find the teachers in
this country to be able to teach those languages to our
students. And here is the very person who falls right into that
category of needs, yet because of the kinds of policies that
you described that restrict practical training post-graduation
and that do not offer enough--that require someone to have a
temporary professional visa and then do not offer enough of
those, it is just a block on our ability to incorporate into
our workforce someone who we need specifically to meet a
clearly identified national goal. And I think that that failure
to match immigration policy with other national goals is what
contributes to the mismatch you were describing.
Chairman Cornyn. Dr. Daniel, from your perspective, what I
would translate what Mr. Cooper said or reduce it to in just
sort of a word or two is that we ought to have an immigration
policy that reflects our National interests. Do you have any
quarrel with that formulation or that approach?
Mr. Daniel. No, sir. I think you have put it perfectly.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, I think it is important, and one of
the purposes of this hearing is to make sure that the people in
this State, certainly people in North Texas who might be paying
attention to the immigration debate, are informed that it is
more than just low-skilled workers who are coming across the
border. Obviously, we have to deal with that issue in a way
that reflects our National values, and also the fact that there
are many jobs, I am told, that American companies, employers
cannot find a sufficient workforce for, both at the high end
and relatively low end of the education and skill range.
But we will continue to persevere in the U.S. Congress. My
hope is we will be able to work out the differences between the
Senate bill and the House bill. But the testimony that both of
you have provided has been enormously helpful and enlightening
with regard to dealing with the H-1B visa issue. It should be
an issue where people of good will and common sense could come
together and find a solution, even in the absence of a
comprehensive immigration reform bill. But my hope is that it
is part of that comprehensive reform that will deal with our
National security interests, will deal with the interests of
our economy, and will deal with the issue of global
competitiveness.
I mentioned yesterday, as Dr. Daniel knows, at the American
Electronics Association Forum on International Competitiveness
that the Federal Government is taking some bold steps, the
Congress is, on this issue in terms of global competitiveness
to deal with both the domestic homegrown scientists and
mathematicians and engineers as well as the H-1B visa issue
through what is called the PACE legislation, Preserving
America's Competitiveness.
The good news is that it has bipartisan support in the U.S.
Congress, which is always essential to getting good policy
passed, and my hope is that very soon upon returning after our
August recess, or hopefully, if not then, in January, we can
move to provide many of those incentives that, Dr. Daniel, you
in particular said we need in terms of encouraging teachers and
certainly students to study in this area. And that will
complement the work we have been able to do on immigration
reform, particularly with H-1B visas.
With that, let me say to both of you, thank you for your
contribution, very valuable contribution. I appreciate that
very much.
We are going to take about a 5-minute recess while we set
up the table for the next panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cornyn. Before I introduce our next witnesses, I
want to offer into a record a letter from the president of the
Greater Dallas Chamber regarding this particular issue. It can
be easy when we talk about a national and international issue
to forget that it will be the local communities here in Texas
and elsewhere that will suffer from our failure to act. She
correctly notes that if the United States does not want the
best scientists and engineers the world has to offer, plenty of
other nations do. And this letter will be made part of the
record, without objection.
Our next panel is a distinguished panel that I will now
introduce, starting with Mr. Philip Ritter from Texas
Instruments. Mr. Ritter is Senior Vice President and Manager of
Public Affairs for that company. He has global responsibility
for the firm's public affairs activities, including government
relations, philanthropy, and community affairs. Mr. Ritter
started with Texas Instruments in 1989 in the company's law
department as counsel to a variety of the company's businesses.
Our next witness is Phyllis Norman. Phyllis Norman is the
Vice President of Patient Care Services for Harris Methodist
Fort Worth Hospital. She is responsible for planning,
organizing, directing, and evaluating nursing care and other
clinical operation services in this 710-bed tertiary care
hospital. In addition to being a registered nurse and a
certified nursing administrator, she holds a master's of
business administration in health care administration.
Our next witness, our third witness, is Mr. Lance Kaplan.
Mr. Kaplan is a partner with the global immigration firm of
Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen, and Loewy. Previously, Mr. Kaplan
was a partner responsible for global immigration services for a
Big Four accounting firm. He has extensive experience with the
immigration laws and policies of other countries and could
perhaps give us a broader perspective on what other countries
are doing to better compete for the same pool of skilled
workers.
Before I turn to Mr. Ritter, let me just acknowledge the
presence of members of the immigration staff of Senator Kennedy
and other members of the Immigration Subcommittee. Senator
Kennedy is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, and I think
it is fair to say he has a lot of interest in the topic we are
talking about today and has been a forceful advocate for
comprehensive immigration reform in the United States Senate.
I also see a former member of my staff, Tiffany Thibodeau,
who is now with the Department of Homeland Security. So there
are a lot of folks paying attention to what is going on here
today, and we trust we will be edified by the testimony of the
second panel, as we have been by the first.
Mr. Ritter, let me turn to you for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP J. RITTER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
MANAGER OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., DALLAS,
TEXAS
Mr. Ritter. Well, thank you, Senator Cornyn. I appreciate
you inviting me to discuss an issue that is critical to the
competitiveness of U.S. business, and that is access to top
talent. Competitiveness is our top public policy priority at
Texas Instruments, and we support the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative, which calls for increased
investments in basic research, making the R&D tax credit
permanent, improving math and science education, and ensuring
better access to skilled professional, including highly
educated foreign nationals.
Your hearing today highlights this last item and the need
to update it and reform our deeply flawed immigration laws,
specifically those pertaining to highly educated foreign
professionals. Like you, we are advocates for change in this
area. And on that note, I want to thank you for your leadership
in bringing forward the SKIL bill, legislation which we believe
will go a long way toward addressing these deficiencies. The
United States benefits when foreign-born scientists, doctors,
teachers, engineers, and entrepreneurs live and work in this
country.
I would like to highlight three points this morning:
First, the United States' long-term competitiveness is tied
to the intellectual brain power of its people, and particularly
people in the science and engineering workforce, and,
unfortunately, the U.S. is not producing enough American-born
professionals to meet the demands in these fields.
Second, we always want to have access to the best talent in
the world, but building a domestic pipeline of scientists and
engineers must be a national imperative, and there are some
very interesting things going on in that area in this region,
as you know.
And, third, access to talent is not just about more H-1B
visas. It is also about green card reform that ensures that
foreign nationals can remain in the United States with their
families and build their careers here.
On the first topic, the United States' science and
engineering workforce, whether it is Tom Friedman, Norm
Ornstein, the National Academy of Sciences, or whatever, the
verdict is in. We face significant challenges in developing,
attracting, and retaining an adequate science and engineering
workforce. We know that more than half and in some disciplines
two-thirds of the advanced degrees awarded by U.S. universities
in science and engineering are earned by foreign nationals. Due
to a number of factors, we also know that fewer U.S. students
are choosing to study in these fields. And despite this grim
reality, U.S. businesses, companies like TI, must compete and
succeed in a highly competitive global market.
For example, TI is highly dependent on electrical engineers
and computer scientists. When we recruit at Texas schools, we
find upwards of 70 percent of the master's and Ph.D.'s in the
EE field are awarded to foreign nationals. We need access to
that talent. If we don't have access to that talent, we cannot
grow our job base and invest here in the U.S. And it is the
same situation for our competitors, and it is a constant
scramble.
Building the domestic pipeline. We always want to tap the
world's best and brightest, especially in this global economy.
But there is no doubt we must do more here in the U.S. to build
an indigenous pipeline of talent. In fact, our company's
primary philanthropic and volunteer efforts are in furthering
and enhancing the math/science education pipeline at all grades
and at all levels, and you have in the record an inventory of
several of TI's education initiatives.
What I would point out specifically is something that is
known around here at Project Emmitt, and about a mile and a
half down the road from here, we just finished construction on
a building that will eventually be a $3 billion advanced
semiconductor manufacturing plant, and we went through a site
selection process a couple years ago, trying to decide where we
were going to build that, and we basically had two issues:
Number one, would it be cost competitive to build here? And,
number two, would we have access to the talent and the climate
for innovation that we needed?
We pointed out a deficiency which Dr. Daniel noted earlier,
that this region lacks a top engineering school, and we asked
the State of Texas to do something about it if they expected to
attract that investment. Well, the State of Texas made a $300
million commitment to the J. Erik Jonsson Engineering School,
primarily in the graduate research area, to improve the number
of faculty and students that will be studying here in
engineering, especially electrical engineering. And that was a
key factor in our decision to make that $3 billion investment
here in the U.S. and in this community.
The Federal Government clearly has a role in making math
and science proficiency a national imperative and to ensure the
next generation of scientists and engineers. The President's
Math Now, Advanced Placement, and Adjunct Teachers programs,
which we strongly support, are important tools in reaching that
goal, and finding enough qualified math and science teachers in
high schools is one of the greatest challenges we face in
addressing this issue.
Finally, on green card reform, as you know, the Government
has already exhausted the H-1B visa quotas for the next fiscal
year as well as the additional 20,000 visas available for
students graduating with advanced degrees from U.S.
universities. There is no question that more visas are needed,
and we strongly support the provisions in the SKIL bill that
not only raise the H-1B cap but also exempt altogether
professionals who have earned a master's degree or higher. From
TI's point of view, why would we send these graduates home to
compete against us, compete against our company? It makes
absolutely no sense.
Equally important in the bill's provisions are those that
update the employment-based visa or the green card program.
They will provide additional visas and generally exempt
individuals with these degrees. A majority of scientists and
engineers earning advanced degrees from U.S. universities are
foreign born. Many of them wish to stay here with their
families and establish their careers. We have got about 12,000
employees and about an equal number of contractors who work at
TI's operations in North Texas. I have the privilege of serving
as the executive sponsors of the Indian Diversity Initiative at
TI. We have got about 600 TI'ers of Indian descent who work in
our operations, and I tell you, their contributions to our
business success is absolutely critical, and they are
delightful bunch of people to work with.
So, in short, the goals and objectives of the SKIL bill are
critically important, and, Senator Cornyn, I really want to
thank you for your leadership on this and urge you to strongly
secure some relief on this high-end visa issue this year.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Ritter.
Ms. Norman, we would be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS NORMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PATIENT CARE
SERVICES, HARRIS METHODIST FORT WORTH HOSPITAL, FORT WORTH,
TEXAS
Ms. Norman. Thank you, Senator. I do appreciate the
opportunity to talk with you today about my thoughts on the
SKIL bill, S. 2691, particularly as it relates to recruitment
of foreign nurse graduates.
As you mentioned, I am the chief nursing officer at a large
tertiary care facility, and one of my primary responsibilities
is to be sure that we have enough registered nurses to provide
the services that the hospital provides within its walls and
out in the community.
The health care industry is facing a number of challenges
as we are beginning to deal with an ever aging population, an
increase in obesity, and the development of chronic health
problems that require more and more services, and services
provided by registered nurses.
Currently, the United States cannot produce the number of
qualified registered nurses that it needs. Texas alone in the
year 2010 will need 40,000 more nurses than will be available.
It is predicted that by the year 2020 there will be a shortage
in this country of 1 million nurses. This is due to a variety
of factors. There are many other careers that are more
attractive than nursing these days, especially for women. There
is a shortage of faculty to train nursing students. And the RN
people is aging; the average age is 46 years old, and people
are opting out of the profession in large numbers at an earlier
age than most other occupations.
A lot is being done at the institutional level, the State
and local and Federal level, but funding is really inadequate,
and the lead time to make much improvement is too long to have
an immediate impact. We are really on a collision course with
the growing patient care needs that makes the availability of
qualified immigrant nurses so critical for us.
It is estimated that 15 percent of the new nurses licensed
in this country each year are foreign graduates--15 percent.
Any interruption of their availability will have an immediate
effect on the health care industry.
We did have such an interruption in 2005 when visa numbers
for skilled employment-based immigrants were oversubscribed and
a waiting list was established for those largest sending
countries--China, India, and the Philippines. The effect was a
3-year hold on admissions of these immigrants. While other
categories of skilled workers were affected other than nurses,
most of those employees were already in the United States and
could continue to work until their green card were issued.
Nurses do not have such a temporary work category, so they had
to wait abroad for this condition to be lifted. Luckily,
through the initiative of the American Hospital Association and
the leadership of your colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Congress was persuaded to ``recapture'' 50,000 visas that were
unused from prior years and apply them to nurses as well as
physical therapists. However, the pool is drying up and
expected to dry up by November possibly. More than half of
these have been used to accommodate the dependents of the
workers.
This time the waiting list will not be limited to those
three countries but will be expended to all countries. And
instead of a 3-year delay, this will stretch out to 5 years.
Imagine losing 15 percent of the new nurses in this country
each year for a 5-year period. We are talking about 75,000
nurses that will be affected. Hospitals and their patients
really cannot take this kind of hit.
Luckily, there is a ready solution, and your excellent SKIL
bill addresses the problem along with providing many
improvements to employment-based, legal immigration. It does so
by taking registered nurses and physical therapists out from
under the annual worldwide cap for skilled workers. It does so
based on the existing designation by the Secretary of Labor as
``shortage occupations'' for registered nurses and physical
therapists, thereby allowing them to receive blanket labor
certification. Should other measures improve the domestic
supply, these professions would go back under the caps.
Therefore, there is really no danger of flooding the market
with unneeded immigration.
We face a crisis within the next few months, and we urge
Congress to pass the SKIL bill, either as part of the
comprehensive immigration reform, as a separate bill, or as a
rider to a year-end spending measure. Whatever the procedure,
the remedy is needed now.
I want you to picture what happens when we do not have
enough registered nurses. We close hospitals beds. Sometimes
small communities close their hospital entirely. We have
overcrowded emergency rooms, delayed treatment, elimination or
reduction of needed services, and occasionally denied access to
patients who really need the care. We need your help, and we
appreciate the work that you are doing on this.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norman appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much for your opening
statement, Ms. Norman. We appreciate that.
Mr. Kaplan, we would be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF LANCE KAPLAN, PARTNER, FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN,
LOEWY, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL
PERSONNEL, ISELIN, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Kaplan. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am here on behalf of
the American Council on International Personnel, which is an
organization which represents nearly 200 in-house immigration
professionals at America's leading corporations, and I strongly
concur with both your opening comments and also the comments of
all of the other witnesses here today, wherein everybody has
clearly identified that the United States faces a talent
shortage and our current system clearly does not have the
ability to recruit and retain the brightest and the top talent
that we need in order to remain competitive in our environment.
The perspective that I bring today is to try and show
yourself as well as the Committee what other countries are
doing versus what we are doing, and the reality is that
historically the United States has really had a program which
has been followed by other countries. As technology has
advanced and as countries have advanced, they have recognized
the need to change immigration laws to facilitate the
introduction of talent into their economies, both at the
student level as well as temporary and permanent personnel
moving in to work within the corporations.
Unfortunately, here in the United States, I think that we
have not adjusted as quickly as we should have, and so what I
would look to do today is just focus on a number of countries.
As an example, my written testimony contains more detail, but I
will focus primarily today on Australia, the United Kingdom,
and Canada, but primarily Australia.
Australia has adopted a particular approach to immigration
which is slightly different from what we have done here. In the
first instance, what they have done is they have undertaken
formal studies which document the benefit of immigration, and
they have done that in order to stop the debate in the sense of
saying is immigration a benefit or is it not a benefit. They
have conducted formal studies through the universities which
have shown immigration definitely is an economic benefit to the
country.
Like the United States, Australia has structured its
immigration intake into both temporary and permanent, and in
doing so, it has based its immigration policy based upon the
need of the country, and it has specifically taken steps to
identify what the needs are and structured programs to
accommodate those needs.
What it has done is it is based on students and as Dr.
Daniel eloquently stated, 17 percent of the Australian student
population is made up of foreign students. So the student
community in Australia represents a significant revenue boost
for the Australian economy because there are foreign students
bringing revenue into the country. But over and above that,
there is obviously a significant talent pool from which the
country draw.
In doing so, what they have done is they have made it easy
for students to apply for a student visa, and, secondarily,
they have made it easy for students to actually go ahead and
move directly from student to independent residence. So, in
other words, there isn't this artificial barrier, unfortunately
like we have in the United States, where students are required
to demonstrate--we actually force them to acquire--that they
have demonstrated an intent to return, whereas in Australia it
is exactly the opposite. They really want them to come, and
they want them to stay, and they are going to give them
permanent residency to do so.
Similarly, in the temporary residence program, what they
have done is that they have created a precertification program
which is very similar to what the SKIL bill creates, which
basically allows for companies to put in place a mechanism
whereby they create precertification that the applications in
which all the bona fides of the company are documented at one
time. And what this does is it reduces the amount of time that
the adjudicators and that the companies have to go and
continually repeat the same information about the company, and
it allows for the streamlining and the expeditious processing
of people coming into the country.
Then what they have done is that they have linked the
temporary residence program with the permanent residence
program, which in turn allows companies who are compliant to
move people straight into permanent residence, which in turn
links the two and ultimately allows for consistency and
certainty and an ability of corporations to plan.
So there is a lot of forethought that has gone into the
structuring of their program, and they have continually tweaked
their program to accommodate the needs of business and have
been very blatant in the acknowledgment that a skilled
immigration is critical for the development of the country.
They have blatantly said and they have recognized it, to the
point where 70 percent of the permanent residence members are
dedicated to skilled immigration versus as in the United States
we have got only 16 percent of our permanent immigration to
skilled immigration.
Canada and the United States and the United Kingdom have
also created similar situations whereby they have focused on
skill to recruit top talent, and even a country like Costa Rica
has put in place a system whereby the precertification program
has reduced their processing time from 4 months to 15 days, all
because they have listened to the needs of business and they
have listened to the needs of the country to determine that
competition is out there and that they have to get their share
of talent.
The SKIL bill goes a long way to meeting these needs, and
while each of these countries' systems do not necessarily have
all of the right answers, certainly the message that we should
take from them is that the worst thing that we could do is
nothing. And the SKIL bill goes a good way to addressing our
top talent needs.
I will be happy to answer any questions, and once again, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan, and thanks to
each of you for your opening statements. I have a few questions
I would like to follow up to put a little meat on the bone and
maybe probe a little bit more on some of the things you have
already talked about.
Mr. Ritter, when a company like Texas Instruments cannot
find the people with the special skills that you need in order
to do your jobs there, what alternatives do you have in terms
of your operations, your manufacturing operations here in the
United States versus some other country around the world in
terms of outsourcing and the like?
Mr. Ritter. The answer may depend on which part of the
business, whether it is manufacturing, the inability to retain
somebody to do the manufacturing skills or software skills or
whatever. But, in general, if you cannot do a critical step of
the business process here either from a labor availability
point of view or because it costs too much, you are going to do
it somewhere else. And so, you know, there are some excellent
universities outside the United States. I was in India last
week and went to the India Institute of Technology in Madras,
and, you know, it is remarkable not only the volume--and you
cited some of the numbers, in terms of the number of engineers
coming out of places like India and China, but also
qualitatively how good these universities have become.
And so for any company that operates on a global scale--and
today over 75 to 80 percent of TI's revenue comes from outside
the U.S. You know, if we cannot--if we do not have the talent
here to do our advanced design and manufacturing work, it will
go to the places that do have that talent.
Chairman Cornyn. Let me ask you about a formulation that I
have discussed in the past, basically that we have three
choices when it comes to this issue. One is we can grow more
domestic talent, and certainly we have talked extensively about
TI's and other companies' efforts to do that in conjunction
with the universities like the University of Texas at Dallas.
Number two, if we cannot grow enough domestic talent, we have
got to have a more expensive H-1B visa program so we can import
that talent. But if we fail to do number one and number two, we
fail to have the sufficient skill and talent to perform these
jobs, do you agree with me that the only alternative is to
outsource that work to other countries and the associated
economic activity will no longer take place here in the United
States and the jobs that go with it but, rather, in those
countries where the jobs are outsourced?
Mr. Ritter. It is inevitable. I mean, smart people are a
proxy for economic wealth, you know, long term. I mean, you
think about--you look at the history of TI, for example. Jack
Kilby in this community invented the integrated circuit in
1958, and it was a great innovation, and it wound up becoming,
you know, a huge, multi-billion- dollar global industry. Well,
Jack was one very, very smart guy who made a critical
breakthrough invention.
Well, you know, if you have got a lot of smart people who
are working together in a community, at a university or at
company, or in kind of closer dynamic for both innovation and
economic growth, you are going to get jobs, you are going to
get investment like the facility that is going up down the
road. But if those people are not here, if they are not allowed
to stay, if they are going somewhere else, then we won't. We
won't get it here, and those jobs will be outsourced.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, some have suggested on the floor of
the United States Senate that we ought to somehow penalize
companies for outsourcing jobs to other countries. I think
several commentators on cable news and elsewhere regularly have
segments on the American companies outsourcing jobs and
criticizing them for doing so. Why can't Congress just pass a
law and say that American companies cannot outsource jobs to
other countries, even if they cannot find labor here in the
United States? What would be the impact?
Mr. Ritter. It makes absolutely no sense. You know, the
assumption that something as dynamic as certainly our industry
or the high-technology industry is always going to remain the
same and you are going to have the same number and kinds of
jobs in a community like North Texas today that you did 5 years
ago or that you will have 5 years from now makes absolutely no
sense. We need to be focused instead on: How do we constantly
climb the technology ladder? How do we innovate to get to the
next step? How do we create new industries and new jobs in the
community that do not exist today?
Some of the research that is going on in nano- electronics,
for example, here at UTD is going to result in economic
activity, entrepreneurial outfits, new job creation, you know,
5 and 10 years from now. We cannot even predict what it is
going to look like today. That is the dynamic we have got to
encourage rather than trying to lock in the status quo and
think that everything that we have got here today is going to
remain the same forever, because it will not.
Chairman Cornyn. Ms. Norman, when your hospital hires
nurses, could you expand on what you do to try to hire U.S.-
based nurses and only then turn to foreign nurses? And could
you tell us, is your search based on merit alone, or is it
based on other considerations?
Ms. Norman. Our preference is to recruit domestic nurses.
We would like to be able to grow all the nurses that we need in
our community, and so we have a number of initiatives
available, scholarships, work-related programs to support
nursing students. We lend faculty to universities. We do any
number of things to try and grow enough, if you will, to be
able to support our needs.
However, you know, the fact of the matter is there are more
attractive careers. People are looking elsewhere. Looking in
this room at the number of women that are here now, 4 years ago
that would not be the case, is my guess. When I went into
nursing, that was a different story, and that was about 40
years ago.
So we do make every attempt, and much is going on in the
country, to try to educate the number of nurses that we need
here. However, that is just not enough, and so we need that
external talent right now. It would be great in the future if
we could overcome these difficulties, and with all the efforts,
possibly we will get there. But it will be a long time, and so
we cannot afford to have the interruption.
So in looking at a nurse, what we look for are the
qualifications: that they have graduated from an accredited
program, that they are licensed in the State, and we then have
competency-based evaluations as they come into the workforce to
determine do they really have the critical thinking abilities
that they need for us to even work with the individual. And
then we design special programs for them to get them up to
speed.
Chairman Cornyn. As we have discussed, there is obviously a
huge shortage of qualified nurses in America, and the
Department of Labor has designated the profession as a shortage
occupation. In other words, the Federal Government has
acknowledged exactly what you have testified to here today. But
then those same nurses that the Federal Government says we need
are subject to an annual green card limit that has been talked
about, which, of course, seems entirely inconsistent.
Do you have any opinion as to how we got ourselves into
this mess? In other words, how is it that we have been unable
to attract more students into nursing schools? And how is it
that we have created policies that seem so inconsistent in
terms of what the needs of the community are and access to good
nurses?
Ms. Norman. Well, I have already mentioned that other
careers are more attractive, but the number one factor related
to not being able to produce enough nurses is the shortage of
faculty, qualified faculty at the doctorate level. And the fact
of the matter is salaries are so low for faculty members that
academic institutions cannot compete with hospitals and the
rest of the health care industry in paying the kinds of
salaries that practicing nurses get. So that is the number one
factor. Much is being done at all levels, really, to address
this as much as possible.
Chairman Cornyn. If there are not enough nurses, why don't
market forces increase, force the increase in pay that would
attract more people into the field?
Ms. Norman. Well, it is moving up. Nursing salaries are
moving up. But it is the academic institutions that have
certain policies that prevent nursing faculty from making more
than other faculty members.
Chairman Cornyn. And as you say, the other piece of the
puzzle is not having enough teachers, people teaching people
how to become nurses here, too, for the reasons you--
Ms. Norman. But there are special programs in Texas,
special grants that are made available for individuals who want
to get a master's or a doctorate degree in nursing, if they
will stay in teaching then in an academic setting for a certain
period of time.
Chairman Cornyn. And there are a lot of things, as you say,
that are being done at the local level by hospitals
volunteering some of their nursing staff to serve as teachers
and provide for that shortage?
Ms. Norman. Correct.
Chairman Cornyn. I mean, there is a lot going on at the
local and State level, even while the Federal Government
continues to be part of the problem because of the caps on the
green cards and the like.
Mr. Kaplan, I was very much interested in what you had to
say about how other countries prioritize their visas for the
people who have the kinds of skills that they know they need in
order to compete in a global economy. And as you have said,
only 16 percent of American visas go to skilled immigrants, and
about half go for family members. I guess you should say we
have kind of a family-oriented immigration policy rather than a
skill-oriented immigration policy. Is there some way we can
focus more on skills yet still be family friendly, in other
words, allow families to be unified and not separated? Because
I hear that complaint quite a bit, that even for people who do
get green cards, sometimes it may take, because of caps,
country-related caps, 8, 10 years for a close family member to
also come to the United States.
Mr. Kaplan. It is a very interesting point because, you
know, the U.S. really does put an emphasis on family
reunification, and it is an integral part of our immigration
policy. And it is very valuable and it is very important, and
it should not be, you know, not considered relevant.
However, if you look overseas, I think that what some other
countries have done is that they have actually recognized that
issue as well, and what they have done is they have recognized
that the family component is very important. In some countries,
they have actually gone even a little bit further than we have
gone, to the point where--I will give you an interesting
example. In the Australian immigration debate, there was always
this argument about the cost of family immigration, because the
Australian--it is quite interesting. The Australian economy is
very much more socialist, of course, than we are. Yet at the
same we are worried about the cost of immigration. And they did
an analysis of the cost of parent-related immigration, which
was really interesting, and they did an analysis as to how to
taper that versus skilled immigration. And they have come up
with an economic-based program which allowed parents who are
not going to be a drain on the economy to come in.
Having said that, they did--you know, for us it is possible
to balance by allowing--the SKIL bill goes a long way to
accommodate issues like that because what it does is it allows
for the numbers to increase, which in turn does not detract yet
from the family-based system, which is what other countries
have done, with a lot of increase in the skill-based, and there
is a lot of focus on skill-based and based on what the needs of
a country have been.
For example, in some countries you will find that you get--
in a points-based system, you are going to be given points for
skill, age, language, as well as in some cases family members
that are already based in the country. So once again, while we
cannot achieve the final result, you know, right away, what the
SKIL bill does is it does give us the ability to at least
increase our skill base, but at the same time not damage what
really is somewhat of--
Chairman Cornyn. By accepting certain high-skilled students
from the--
Mr. Kaplan. That is correct.
Chairman Cornyn. Graduates from the cap.
Mr. Kaplan. That is correct.
Chairman Cornyn. It allows us to accomplish both of those
goals.
Mr. Kaplan. Absolutely. Any increase in the permanent
number.
Chairman Cornyn. In your practice, have you seen instances
where foreign nationals who are studying or working in the
United States on temporary visas actually move back to another
country or to their home because of frustration within
immigration backlogs?
Mr. Kaplan. Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt that that
has occurred, and particularly what--
Chairman Cornyn. Let me just ask, interject: Is that
because of a shortage of people working on the process? Or is
it because of legal or other impediments that prevent that from
moving more quickly?
Mr. Kaplan. I would suggest that it is a combination of
both. I would say that, you know, the current system sometimes
makes it just too difficult to have certainty about their long-
term future. And there have been a number of factors that have
come into play.
If you take, for example, China and India as two countries
which have historically delivered foreign students to the U.S.
who are really critical, as has been stated here before, what
you will find is that in the current global economy there is a
concept of the returnee, and that is that people who have
studied here are being really sought after to come back to
their home countries because the economies of those countries
are doing well, there is a significant shortage of management
and skill in those countries, and I think it is very difficult
for somebody who has no certainty, because the system cannot
give them certainty, to look to plain their future in a country
where, in essence, if their home country is doing well and
there are opportunities for them, it is a big pull to come
home. And if things are going to be difficult here because
there is just simply no category for them to go into and they
really have to fight to stay and fight to remain, I think that
it is just much easier to go home, take advantage of the
opportunities that home represents and the opportunities and
the increase in those countries' economies, and unfortunately,
we just simply lose out--all the time, effort, and energy that
we have put into training them, giving them an education, and
then suddenly they are lost.
Chairman Cornyn. Dr. Daniel talked a little bit about the
fact that because of impediments to foreign students coming to
study here, other countries have offered attractive packages or
made offers to those. Can you tell us, in the global
competition for the best and the brightest, if the United
States does not step up and deal with issue, as we have
discussed here this morning, what countries are in the game and
competing with us for those best and brightest students today?
Mr. Kaplan. Unfortunately, most countries today. So, for
example, we have mentioned Australia, significantly. The U.K.
is focusing very heavily on the recruitment of foreign
students. In Europe, the European Union is really putting an
emphasis on the gathering of some kind of a central university
top system which is going to make it much easier for students
to go and work in Europe. Singapore has been mentioned, which
is a very big part of the glut of the talent pool. And you will
find that just those countries alone, just using those as
examples, we are really going to be struggling to compete
because it is much easier, and they really are encouraged to go
to those countries, whereas here it is made very difficult.
Chairman Cornyn. So it sounds to me from your testimony and
that of others that while America has been the beneficiary of
the migration of the best and brightest of this country over
the course of our 200-year-plus history, we stand in danger of
moving backwards because other countries are now beginning to
compete with us at our own game. Would that be a fair way of
saying it?
Mr. Kaplan. Yes. In fact, it has been stated in the
Australian debate that the thing that they worry about most is
that the United States will recognize, you know, what the
current situation is and fix it. That is part of the debate.
That sort of sums it up, I would think.
Chairman Cornyn. So they will prosper if we remain asleep
at the switch, is another way of--
Mr. Kaplan. But the worst thing we could do is nothing.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very
much for your testimony and for the help you have given us in
understanding these important issues. Also, again, to our first
panel, thanks for your contribution, Mr. Cooper and Dr. Daniel.
Dr. Daniel, thanks for making the facilities here at
University of Texas at Dallas available to us. I hope the
testimony we have heard today will add to the debate and will
help people understand that the immigration challenge t this
Nation faces is not just about border security, it is not just
about low-skilled immigration. It is about how can America
compete in a global economy and what kind of immigration policy
is in our National interest. And the fact that, as this panel
has reiterated time and time again, if we do nothing America
will lose in that global competition. And the aspirations that
I know every generate has for succeeding generations, that
somehow their life will be better, their opportunities greater
than even those that we enjoy now, that we will not be able to
keep that commitment to future generations unless we wake up
and correct the mistakes of our current policy--or, as some
might say, our current non-policy--when it comes to this area.
On behalf of the Subcommittee, I want to thank everyone for
their time and testimony. I particularly want to extend my
appreciation to my staff, who have worked hard to make this
possible. We have got my chief counsel, Rita O'Connor; Linden
Melmed, who is counsel on the Subcommittee, who is my
immigration specialist. We have also got a number of folks here
from my Dallas staff here who have made this possible here
today. So I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to each
of them.
We will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 7th, for members of the Committee to submit
additional documents into the record or to ask additional
questions in writing. So I will just alert you that those may
be coming, and if you will please turn to those as quickly as
you can so we can get that information into the record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2147.038
<all>