Order Code RL30498
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant
Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers
Updated January 23, 2003
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant
Professional Specialty (H-1B) Workers
Summary
The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of
employment-based immigration. The nation enjoyed its longest economic expansion,
and the unemployment rate had remained low. Both the Congress and the Federal
Reserve Board then expressed concern that a scarcity of labor could curtail the pace
of economic growth. A primary legislative response was to increase the supply of
foreign temporary professional workers through FY2003. The 108th Congress now
weighs whether to extend the increases or let the levels revert to the statutory limit.
Both chambers of the106th Congress passed the “American Competitiveness in
the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000" (S. 2045) with bipartisan support, and then-
President Clinton signed the new law (P.L. 106-313) in October of 2000. That law
raised the number of H-1B visas by 297,500 over 3 years, FY2001-FY2003. It also
made changes in the use of the H-1B fees for education and training, notably
earmarking a portion of training funds for skills that are in information technology
shortage areas and adding a K-12 math, science and technology education grant
program. Separate legislation to increase the H-1B fee from $500 to $1,000 (P.L.
106-311, H.R. 5362) was signed by President Clinton on October 17, 2000.
Although the 107th Congress did not alter H-1B admission levels, it did include
provisions that allow H-1B visa holders to remain in that status beyond the statutory
time limits of their temporary visas if their employers had filed applications for them
to become legal permanent residents. Specifically, §11030A of the Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273, H.R. 2215) authorizes the Attorney
General to extend the stay in 1 year increments for H-1B nonimmigrants while the
applications are pending.
In FY2001, the majority (58%) of newly arriving H-1B workers had Bachelor’s
degrees, and an additional 30% had Master’s degrees. Over half (55%) reported
occupations in computer-related fields. The only country sending more than 10% of
the newly arriving H-1B workers was India with 45% of the total. The median
annual compensation for a newly arriving H-1B worker in FY2001 was $50,000.
Those opposing any further increases or easing of admissions requirements
assert that there is no compelling evidence of a labor shortage in these professional
areas that cannot be met by newly graduating students and retraining the existing U.S.
work force. They argue further that the education of U.S. students and training of
U.S. workers should be prioritized and that reliance on foreign workers would stymie
those objectives.
Proponents of current H-1B levels say that the education of students and
retraining of the current workforce is a long-term response, and they assert that H-1B
workers are essential if the United States is to remain globally competitive. Some
proponents argue that employers should be free to hire the best people for the jobs,
maintaining that market forces should regulate H-1B admissions, not an arbitrary
ceiling.

---

Contents
Immigration Policy for Professional Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Trends in H-1B Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Characteristics of Recent H-1B Nonimmigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislation in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Issues of Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Petitions Approved for Newly Arriving H-1B Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2. Leading Occupations of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Educational Attainment of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4. Country of Origin of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Immigration: Legislative Issues on
Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty
(H-1B) Workers
The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of
employment-based immigration. The nation enjoyed its longest economic expansion,
and the unemployment rate had remained low. Both the Congress and the Federal
Reserve Board then expressed concern that a scarcity of labor could curtail the pace
of economic growth. A primary legislative response was to increase the supply of
foreign temporary professional workers through FY2003.
Although Congress enacted legislation in 1998 to increase the number of visas
for temporary foreign workers who have professional specialties, commonly known
as H-1B visas, the new annual ceiling of 115,000 visas was reached months before
FY1999 and FY2000 ended. Many in the business community, notably in the
information technology area, once more urged that the ceiling be raised. Congress,
again striving to balance the needs of U.S. employers with employment opportunities
for U.S. residents, enacted legislation to raise the annual ceiling to 195,000 for 3
years and to expand education and training programs (P.L. 106-313, S. 2045 and P.L.
106-311, H.R. 5362).
The recent economic downturn in the information technology sector may have
diminished demand for H-1B workers in that sector and has raised questions about
the lay-offs of H-1Bs nonimmigrants. At issue now is whether the increased levels
of H-1B visas should be extended beyond the expiration in FY2003 or revert to the
statutory level of 65,000.
Immigration Policy for Professional Workers
Temporary Foreign Workers. A nonimmigrant is an alien legally in the
United States for a specific purpose and a temporary period of time. There are
70 nonimmigrant visa categories specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), and they are commonly referred to by the letter that denotes their section in
the statute.1 The major nonimmigrant category for temporary workers is the H visa.
The largest classification of H visas is the H-1B workers in specialty occupations.2
1 For a full discussion and analysis of nonimmigrant visas, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S.
Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
2 The regulations define “specialty occupation” as requiring theoretical and practical
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor
including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences,
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
In 1998, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (Title IV
of P.L. 105-277) increased the number of H-1B workers and addressed perceived
abuses of the H-1B visa.
Any employer wishing to bring in an H-1B nonimmigrant must attest in an
application to the Department of Labor (DOL) that: the employer will pay the
nonimmigrant the greater of the actual compensation paid other employees in the
same job or the prevailing compensation for that occupation; the employer will
provide working conditions for the nonimmigrant that do not cause the working
conditions of the other employees to be adversely affected; and, there is no strike or
lockout. The employer also must post at the workplace the application to hire
nonimmigrants. Firms categorized as H-1B dependent (generally if at least 15% of
the workforce are H-1B workers) must also attest that they have attempted to recruit
U.S. workers and that they have not laid off U.S. workers 90 days prior to or after
hiring any H-1B nonimmigrants.
DOL reviews the application for completeness and obvious inaccuracies. Only
if a complaint subsequently is raised challenging the employer’s application will
DOL investigate. If DOL finds the employer failed to comply, the employer may be
fined, may be denied the right to apply for additional H-1B workers, and may be
subject to other penalties.
The prospective H-1B nonimmigrants must demonstrate to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) that they have the requisite education and work
experience for the posted positions. INS then approves the petition for the H-1B
nonimmigrant (assuming other immigration requirements are satisfied) for periods
up to 3 years. An alien can stay a maximum of 6 years on an H-1B visa. The
employer must pay a $1,000 fee for every H-1B nonimmigrant initially admitted,
getting an extension, and changing employment or nonimmigrant status.3 This fee
then is allocated to DOL for job training and to the National Science Foundation for
scholarships and grants.4 There is also a $110 filing fee that goes to INS.
2 (...continued)
social sciences, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties,
theology and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent
as a minimum. Law and regulations also specify that fashion models deemed “prominent”
may enter on H-1B visas.
3 Some employers such as institutions of higher education and nonprofit or governmental
research organizations are exempt from the $1,000 fee. Federal Register, v. 65, no. 40,
February 29, 2000, p. 10678-10685.
4 For information on the programs funded by the fees, see the DOL website at
[http://www.doleta.gov] and the NSF website at [http://www.nsf.gov].

---

CRS-3
Permanent Employment-Based Immigration. Many people confuse H-
1B nonimmigrants with permanent immigration that is employment-based.5 If an
employer wishes to hire an alien to work on a permanent basis in the United States,
the alien may petition to immigrate to the United States through one of the
employment-based categories. The employer “sponsors” the prospective immigrant,
and if the petition is successful, the alien becomes a legal permanent resident.6 Many
H-1B nonimmigrants may have education, skills, and experience that are similar to
the requirements for three of the five preference categories for employment-based
immigration: priority workers — i.e., persons of extraordinary ability in the arts,
sciences, education, business, or athletics, outstanding professors and researchers;
and, certain multinational executives and managers (first preference); members of the
professions holding advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability (second
preference); and, skilled workers with at least 2 years training and professionals with
baccalaureate degrees (third preference).7
Employment-based immigrants applying through the second and third
preferences must have job offers for positions in which the employers have obtained
labor certification. The labor certification is intended to demonstrate that the
immigrant is not taking jobs away from qualified U.S. workers, and many consider
the labor certification process far more arduous than the attestation process used for
H-1B nonimmigrants.8 More specifically, the employer who seeks to hire a
prospective immigrant worker petitions INS and DOL on behalf of the alien. The
prospective immigrant must demonstrate that he or she meets the qualifications for
the particular job as well as the preference category. If DOL determines that a labor
shortage exists in the occupation for which the petition is filed, labor certification
will be issued. If there is not a labor shortage in the given occupation, the employer
must submit evidence of extensive recruitment efforts in order to obtain certification.
Trends in H-1B Admissions
INS data illustrate that the demand for H-1B visas continued to press against the
statutory ceiling, even after Congress increased it in 1998 and 2000. The 65,000
numerical limit on H-1B visas was reached for the first time prior to the end of
FY1997, with visa numbers running out by September 1997 (Figure 1). The 65,000
ceiling for FY1998 was reached in May of that year, and — despite the statutory
increase — the 115,000 ceiling for FY1999 was reached in June 2002. Pent-up
demand is also emerging as a factor, as about 5,000 cases approved in FY1997 after
the ceiling was hit were rolled over into FY1998. Over 19,000 cases approved in
FY1998 after the ceiling was hit were rolled over to FY1999.
5 The other potentially confusing category is the “O” nonimmigrant visa for persons who
have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics demonstrated
by sustained national or international acclaim.
6 There are also per-country numerical limits. For more information, see CRS Report 94-
146, Immigration: Numerical Limits on Permanent Admissions, FY1998-FY2000, by Joyce
C. Vialet.
7 Third preference also includes 10,000 “other workers,” i.e., unskilled workers with
occupations in which U.S. workers are in short supply.
8 Certain second preference immigrants who are deemed to be “in the national interest” are
exempt from labor certification.

---

CRS-4
INS admitted in autumn 1999 that thousands of H-1B visas beyond the 115,000
ceiling were approved in FY1999, allegedly as a result of problems with the
automated reporting system. INS hired KPMG Peat Marwick to audit and investigate
how the problems occurred and how pervasive they may be. KPMG Peat Marwick
determined that between 21,888 and 23,3385 H-1B visas (depicted in Figure 1) were
issued over the ceiling in FY1999. Meanwhile, in mid-March 2000, INS announced
the FY2000 ceiling of 115,000 would be reached by June. Ultimately, INS reported
that 136,787 petitions for newly arriving H-1B workers were approved in FY2000.
Figure 1. Petitions Approved for Newly Arriving H-1B Workers
Thousands
200
cap of
195,000
175
150
Roll-overs and
over-issues
125
cap of
100
115,000
75
cap of
50
65,000
25
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Fiscal Year
Source: CRS presentation of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service data.
As discussed below, the ceiling was raised to 195,000 for FY2001-FY2003, and
INS reported that 162,900 petitions for newly arriving H-1B workers were approved
in FY2001. That year INS also reported that 130,127 H-1B workers already in the
United States were approved for continuing employment, up from 120,853
continuing H-1B workers approved in FY2000. In FY2002, INS approved 197,537
H-1B petitions.

Characteristics of Recent H-1B Nonimmigrants
Until recently, the only data available on the occupations filled by H-1B
nonimmigrants were the labor attestation applications filed by prospective employers.
These data were imperfect because they included multiple openings and did not
reflect actual H-1B admissions. According to the DOL data on approved attestations,
therapists — mostly physical therapists, but also some occupational therapists,
speech therapists, and related occupations — comprised over half (53.5%) of those
approved in FY1995. The number of attestations approved for therapists fell to one-

---

CRS-5
quarter (25.9%) in FY1997. In FY1996 computer-related occupations became the
largest category and continue to lead in job openings approved by DOL for H-1Bs,
going from 25.6% in FY1995, to 41.5% in FY1996, to 44.4% of the openings
approved in FY1997. The most recent DOL data (from October 1998 through May
1999) have systems analysts, programmers, and other computer-related occupations
comprising 51% of all openings approved.9
According to INS data for FY2001, over half (55.3%) of H-1B new arrivals,
i.e., those who came in under the numerical cap, are employed in computer-related
Figure 2. Leading Occupations of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers
Others
12.9%
Medicine, health &
life sciences
5.4%
Education
5.9%
Administrative
Computer-related
specializations
55.3%
7.8%
Architecture, engineering
& surveying
12.7%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2001.
fields, as Figure 2 illustrates. Architects, engineers and surveyors follow with 12.7%
of the newly approved H-1B petitions. Administrative specializations (7.8%),
educators (5.9%), and those working in medicine, health, and life sciences (5.4%)
round out the occupations with notable numbers of H-1B nonimmigrants.10
To obtain H-1B visas, nonimmigrants must demonstrate they have highly
specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor requiring the attainment of a
bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum. As Figure 3 depicts, the most
9 For a fuller analysis of these DOL data and their limitations, see CRS Report 98-462,
Immigration and Information Technology Jobs: The Issue of Temporary Foreign Workers,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Linda Levine.
10 While there is a special visa (H-1C) for nurses, those registered nurses who have
baccalaureate degrees also may qualify for H-1B visas. CRS Report RS20164, Immigration:
Temporary Admission of Nurses for Health Shortage Areas (P.L. 106-95), by Joyce Vialet.

---

CRS-6
common degree attained by most H-1B new arrivals is a bachelor’s degree or its
equivalent (58.0%). Somewhat less than one-third (29.6%) have earned master’s
Figure 3. Educational Attainment of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers
Bachelor's
58.1%
< Bachelor's
1.9%
Doctorate
Master's
7.5%
Professional
29.6%
2.9%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2001.
degrees. Another 10.4% have either professional degrees or doctorates. Of those
with less than a bachelor’s degree, many are presumed to be the “prominent” fashion
models who also are admitted as H-1B nonimmigrants.
India is the leading country of origin for H-1B workers, comprising 45.2% of
all of the new arrivals (Figure 4). Data previously released by INS further estimate
that nearly 74% of all of the systems analysts and programmers are from India. In
terms of overall H-1B new arrivals, China follows at a distant second with 8.4%, and
Canada is third (4.6%). Other countries at or near 2-4% are the United Kingdom,
Philippines, Korea, and Pakistan.
The median annual compensation of the newly arriving H-1B nonimmigrants
is $50,000 in FY2001. Half of all H-1Bs who came in under the numerical cap in
FY2001 have median annual compensations ranging from $41,000 to $62,720.
Fashion models have the highest reported median compensation — $100,000
annually. Although few H-1B nonimmigrants are admitted in law and jurisprudence
occupations, they have the second highest median compensation of $90,000. Newly
arriving H-1B nonimmigrants in computer-related occupations have median annual
salaries of $51,600. The median compensation for those H-1B workers approved for
continuing employment is much higher — $65,000 annually, with half earning
between $50,000 to $80,000 annually. Likewise, the median compensation for those
H-1B workers approved for continuing employment in computer-related occupations
— $69,000 — is much higher than their newly arriving counterparts.

---

CRS-7
Figure 4. Country of Origin of Newly Arriving H-1B Workers
India 45.2%
China 8.4%
Canada 4.6%
Philippines 3.6%
United Kingdom 3.0%
Korea 2.2%
All other 31.1%
Pakistan 1.9%
Source: CRS presentation of data from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2001.
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act11
Enacted as the 105th Congress drew to a close, Title IV of the FY1999 Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) raised
the H-1B ceiling by 142,500 over 3 years and contained provisions aimed at
correcting some of the perceived abuses. Most importantly, the 1998 law added new
attestation requirements for recruitment and lay-off protections, but only requires
them of firms that are “H-1B dependent” (generally at least 15% of the workforce are
H-1Bs). All firms now have to offer H-1Bs benefits as well as wages comparable to
their U.S. workers. Education and training for U.S. workers was to be funded by a
$500 fee paid by the employer for each H-1B worker hired. The ceiling set by the
new law was 115,000 in both FY1999 and FY2000, 107,500 in FY2001, and would
revert back to 65,000 in FY2002.
The House (H.R. 3736) and the Senate (S. 1723) had offered proposals to raise
the H-1B ceiling for the next few years, though each bill approached the increase
differently. Each bill would have added whistle blower protections for individuals
who report violations of the H-1B program and would have increased the penalties
for willful violations of the H-1B program. Many considered the provisions aimed
at protecting U.S. workers as the most controversial in H.R. 3736 as it was reported
11 For a full account, see CRS Report 98-531, Immigration: Nonimmigrant H-1B Specialty
Worker Issues and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-8
by the House Judiciary Committee. While S. 1723 as passed by the Senate did add
provisions penalizing firms that lay off U.S. workers and replace them with H-1B
workers if the firms have violated other attestation requirements, amendments that
would have required prospective H-1B employers to attest that they were not laying
off U.S. workers and that they tried to recruit U.S. workers failed on the Senate floor.
H.R. 3736 as reported included lay-off protection and recruiting requirement
provisions similar to those that the Senate rejected. On the other hand, S. 1723
included language that would have expanded the education and training of U.S.
students and workers in the math, science, engineering and information technology
fields.
Pre-conference discussions between Senate and House Republicans late in July
1998 yielded a compromise on key points of difference, but it did not address all the
Clinton Administration’s concerns regarding the education and training of U.S.
workers and reform of the existing program. After a presidential veto threat of the
Republican compromise, Republicans began working out a compromise with the
White House, and this language passed as the substitute when H.R. 3736 came to the
House floor on September 24, 1998. The House-passed language was then folded
into P.L. 105-277.
Legislation in the 106th Congress
On October 3, 2000, both chambers of Congress passed the “American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000" (S. 2045) with bipartisan
support, and President Clinton signed the new law (P.L. 106-313) on October 17.
The Senate had debated the legislation for several days, though much of the debate
centered on procedural issues — specifically whether amendments that would
legalize certain aliens (mostly Central Americans and Liberians) would be
permitted.12 The House passed S. 2045 under a suspension of the rules shortly after
the Senate passed it.
The language that passed was a substitute version offered by Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch with bipartisan support. It includes many of the
same features as the version of the bill reported earlier by the Senate Judiciary
Committee.13 It raises the number of H-1B visas by 297,500 over 3 years, FY2000-
FY2002. Specifically, it adds 80,000 new H-1B visas for FY2000, 87,500 visas for
FY2001, and 130,000 visas for FY2002. It also authorizes additional H-1B visas for
FY1999 to compensate for the excess inadvertently approved that year. In addition,
P.L. 106-313 excludes from the new ceiling all H-1B nonimmigrants who work for
universities and nonprofit research facilities. A provision that would have exempted
H-1B nonimmigrants with at least a master’s degree from the numerical limits was
dropped from the final bill. The new law also makes a major change in the law
governing the permanent admission of immigrants by eliminating the per-country
ceilings for employment-based immigrants. It also has provisions that facilitate the
12 For a fuller discussion and legislative tracking of these immigration issues, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10044, Immigration Legislation in the 106th Congress, coordinated by Ruth Wasem.
13 The Judiciary Committee report (S.Rept. 106-260) was filed on April 11, 2000.

---

CRS-9
portability of H-1B status for those already here lawfully and requires a study of the
“digital divide” on access to information technology.
The new law makes changes in the use of the H-1B fees for education and
training, notably earmarking a portion of DOL training funds for skills that are in
information technology shortage areas and adding to the NSF portion a K-12 math,
science and technology education grant program. Because S. 2045 originated in the
Senate, it did not contain revenue provisions. Separate legislation to increase the H-
1B fee from $500 to $1,000 (P.L. 106-311, H.R. 5362) passed the House on October
6, the Senate on October 10, and was signed by President Clinton on October 17.
The conference agreement on the FY2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations
bill (H.R. 4942, H.Rept. 106-1005) includes a provision that would authorize another
H-1B fee that employers would pay for expedited servicing of the petitions.14
Prior to passage of S. 2045, the House Judiciary Committee had been taking a
somewhat different approach to the H-1B issue. After mark-up considerations for
several days, the House Judiciary Committee had ordered Chairman Lamar Smith’s
bill, the “Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act” (H.R. 4227), reported with
amendments on May 17, 2000. H.R. 4227 would have eliminated the numerical limit
on H-1B visas for FY2000 and would have allowed for temporary increases (i.e.,
enabling employers to hire H-1B workers outside of the numerical ceilings) in
FY2001 and FY2002 if certain conditions were met. These conditions included
demonstrating that there was a net increase from the previous year in the median
wages (including cash bonuses and similar compensation) paid to the U.S. workers
on the payroll. H.R. 4227 also would have revised the requirements employers of H-
1B workers must meet, notably adding a $40,000 minimum salary and new reporting
requirements. Like S. 2045, universities, elementary and secondary schools, and
nonprofit research facilities would have been exempt from most of these new
requirements. H.R. 4227 would have required all H-1B employers to file W-2 forms
and add anti-fraud provisions (including the requirement that the H-1B have full-time
employment) funded by a $100 fee. An additional $200 processing fee would also
have been collected and allocated to INS and DOL to expedite the processing of H-
1B petitions and attestations. Like S. 2045, H.R. 4227 included provisions that
would facilitate the portability of H-1B status for those already here lawfully. The
bill also would have instructed the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to study
the recruitment measures — particularly among under-represented groups — and
training efforts undertaken by employers. The House Judiciary Committee issued the
bill report (H.Rept. 106-692) on June 23.
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce considered the
education and training provisions of the H-1B statute and marked up legislation
introduced by their chairman William Goodling (H.R. 4402) on May 10, 2000. As
reported on May 25, 2000 (H.Rept. 106-642), H.R. 4402 would have directed the
Secretary of Labor to use 75% of the funding she receives from the H-1B education
and training fee account to provide training in the skilled shortage occupations
related to specialty occupations (as defined under INA’s H-1B provisions). The bill
14 For background and legislative tracking on INS appropriations, see CRS Report RS20618,
Immigration and Naturalization Service’s FY2001 Budget, by William Krouse.

---

CRS-10
would have transferred 25% of the funds from the fee account to the Department of
Education to augment a student loan forgiveness program for teachers of
mathematics, science, and reading.
Representatives David Dreier and Zoe Lofgren introduced H.R. 3983, which
would have added an additional 362,500 over FY2001-FY2003. Specifically, it
would have raised the ceiling by 200,000 for 3 years and would have set aside 60,000
visas annually through FY2003 for persons with master’s degrees. It would have
required employers to file W-2 forms with DOL for each H-1B worker employed.
Like P.L. 106-313, H.R. 3983 would have eliminated the per-country ceilings for
permanent employment-based admissions. It would have enabled employers to use
Internet recruiting to meet labor market recruitment requirements and would have
established an Internet web-based tracking system for immigration-related petitions.
Like P.L. 106-311, this bill would have increased the $500 fee for education and
training to $1,000, and it would have modified the scholarship and training program
requirements, including the addition of student loan forgiveness in special cases.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, the ranking member of the House
Judiciary Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 4200, which
would have set the ceiling at 225,000 annually for FY2001-FY2003, with the
condition that it would have fallen back to 115,000 if the U.S. unemployment rate
exceeds 5% and 65,000 if the unemployment rate exceeds 6%. H.R. 4200 would
have allocated 40% of the H-1B visas in FY2000 to nonimmigrants who have at least
attained master’s degrees and would have increased that allocation to 50% in FY2001
and 60% in FY2002 (with 10,000 set aside each year for persons with Ph.D. degrees).
The bill also provided additional visas retroactively for those inadvertently issued in
excess of the FY1999 ceiling. It would have added a sliding fee scale based upon the
size of the firm seeking H-1B workers and would have revised the uses of the fees
collected for education and training programs, including programs for children.
Among other provisions, it further would have modified the attestation requirements
of employers seeking to hire H-1B workers.
House Judiciary Immigration and Claims Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith
had previously introduced H.R. 3814, which would have added 45,000 H-1B visas
for FY2000 if the employer met certain conditions. It would also have raised the fee
to $1,000 for scholarships and training, with most of the revenue going to merit-
based scholarships for students. H.R. 3814 also included provisions for expedited
processing of H-1B petitions funded by a $250 fee and would have added anti-fraud
provisions (including the requirement that the H-1B have full-time employment)
funded by a $100 fee. It would have given the Secretary of State responsibility for
maintaining records on H-1B nonimmigrants.
Other bills pertaining to the H-1B issues were introduced. The “New Workers
for Economic Growth Act” (S. 1440/H.R. 2698) introduced by Senator Phil Gramm
and Congressman Dave Dreier would have raised the ceiling of H-1B admissions to
200,000 annually FY2000-FY2002. Those H-1B nonimmigrants who have at least
a master’s degree and earn at least $60,000 would not have counted toward the
ceiling. Those who have at least a bachelor’s degree and are employed by an
institution of higher education would have been exempted from the attestation
requirements as well as the ceiling. Senator John McCain introduced S. 1804, which,

---

CRS-11
among other initiatives, would have eliminated the H-1B ceiling through FY2006.
Congressman David Wu introduced H.R. 3508, which would have increased the
ceiling by 65,000 annually through 2002 for those with master’s or Ph.D. degrees,
provided the employers establish scholarship funds.
The “Bringing Resources from Academia to the Industry of Our Nation Act”
(H.R. 2687), introduced by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, would have created a new
nonimmigrant visa category, referred to as “T” visas, for foreign students who have
graduated from U.S. institutions with bachelor’s degrees in mathematics, science or
engineering and who are obtaining jobs earning at least $60,000. The “Helping
Improve Technology Education and Competitiveness Act” (S. 1645), introduced by
Senator Charles Robb, also would have created a “T” nonimmigrant visa category for
foreign students who have graduated from U.S. institutions with bachelor’s degrees
in mathematics, science, or engineering and who are obtaining jobs paying at least
$60,000. More stringent than H.R. 2687, S.1645 included provisions aimed at
protecting U.S. workers that are comparable to the provisions governing the H-1B
visa.
Legislation in the 107th Congress
Several bills addressing the H-1B numerical limits were introduced in the 107th
Congress. H.R. 2984 would have amended the INA to require the Attorney General
to ensure that only H-1B visa holders who actually commence employment are
counted toward the ceiling. Congressman Tom Tancredo offered H.R. 3222, which
would have set the upper limit of H-1B admissions at 65,000 and reduced it by
10,000 for each quarter percentage point by which the unemployment rate for the
United States exceeded 6%. Emerging concerns of a shortage of nurses and other
health care workers, however, prompted interest in the use of H-1Bs among health
care professionals. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration held hearings May 22, 2001, on “Immigration Policy: Rural and Urban
Health Care Needs.”15
Although the 107th Congress did not alter H-1B admission levels, it did include
provisions that allow H-1B visa holders to remain in that status beyond the statutory
time limits of their temporary visas if their employers had filed applications for them
to become legal permanent residents. Conferees on the Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2215, H.Rept. 107-685) included §11030A, which
authorizes the Attorney General to extend the stay in 1-year increments for H-1B
nonimmigrants while their applications are pending. On October 3, 2002, Senator
Orrin Hatch, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
introduced legislation (S. 3051) with the expressed purpose of extending H-1B status
for aliens with lengthy adjudications, using language comparable to §11030A. The
conference report on H.R. 2215 passed the House September 26, 2002, and the
Senate October 3, 2002. President Bush signed the Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act on November 2, 2002 as P.L. 107-272.
15 For background, see CRS Report RL30974, A Shortage of Registered Nurses: Is It On the
Horizon or Already Here?, by Linda Levine.

---

CRS-12
Issues of Debate
Congress continues to strive to balance the needs of U.S. employers with
employment opportunities for U.S. residents. Proponents argue that continuing
current levels in the admission of H-1B workers are essential if the United States is
to remain globally competitive and that employers should be free to hire the best
people for the jobs. They say that the education of students and retraining of the
current workforce is a long-term approach, and they cannot wait to fill today’s
openings. Some point out that many mathematics, computer science, and
engineering graduates of U.S. colleges and universities are foreign students and that
we should keep that talent here. Others assert that H-1B workers create jobs, either
by ultimately starting their own information technology firms or by providing a
workforce sufficient for firms to remain in the United States. Proponents of the
increase also cite media accounts of information technology workers from India who
prefer to work for companies in India and warn that the work will move abroad if
action to increase H-1B visas is not taken.16
Those opposing any further increases — temporary or permanent — assert that
there is no compelling evidence of a labor shortage in these professional areas that
cannot be met by newly graduating students and by retraining the existing U.S. work
force. They argue that the education of U.S. students and training of U.S. workers
should be prioritized. Opponents also maintain that salaries and compensation would
be rising if there is a labor shortage and if employers wanted to attract qualified U.S.
workers. Some allege that employers prefer H-1B workers because they are less
demanding in terms of wages and working conditions and that an industry’s
dependence on temporary foreign workers may inadvertently lead the brightest U.S.
students to seek positions in fields offering more stable and lucrative careers.17
Alternatively, some maintain that the H-1B ceiling is arbitrary and would not
be necessary if more stringent protections for U.S. workers were enacted. They argue
the question is not “how many” but “under what conditions.” Some would
strengthen the anti-fraud provisions and would broaden the recruitment requirements
and layoff protections enacted in 1998 for “H-1B dependent” employers to all
employers hiring H-1B workers.18 Others would reform the labor attestation and
certification process and would make the labor market tests for nonimmigrant
temporary workers comparable to those for immigrants applying for one of the
permanent employment-based admissions categories.
16 Pamela Constable, “India’s Brain Drain Eases Off,” Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2000.
17 CRS Report RL30140, An Information Technology Labor Shortage? Legislation in the
106th Congress, by Linda Levine; and CRS Report 98-462, Immigration and Information
Technology Jobs: The Issue of Temporary Foreign Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and
Linda Levine.
18 According to the testimony of Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of State, “(F)raud involving the H-1 visa program often involves large
scale and complex operations.” U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Oversight Hearing on Nonimmigrant Visa
Fraud, May 5, 1999.

---

CRS-13
GAO issued a report that recommended more controls to protect workers, to
prevent abuses, and to streamline services in the issuing of H-1B visas. GAO
concluded that the DOL has limited authority to question information on the labor
attestation form and to initiate enforcement activities. GAO also concluded that
INS’s handling of H-1B petitions had potential for abuses.19
19 U.S. General Accounting Office, H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Controls Needed to Help
Employers and Protect Workers, GAO/HEHS-00-157, Sept. 2000.

---