HR-8335-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Mike Kennedy (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to tighten rules for the H-1B skilled worker visa program in three ways. First, it would raise the minimum wage employers must pay H-1B workers to the greater of $100,000 (inflation-adjusted) or the wage paid to comparable U.S. workers in the same role. Second, it would limit H-1B visas to one-year validity when work is performed at a third-party worksite, and would prohibit such placements unless the work assignment is clearly defined and non-speculative. Third, it would require USCIS to prioritize H-1B petitions offering higher wages over lower-wage petitions during annual cap adjudication. The bill also would exempt health care workers from H-1B filing fees, provided the employer first demonstrates a good-faith effort to recruit U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents for the position.
Who benefits
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents competing for high-skill jobs, who would benefit from the wage floor and recruitment requirements. H-1B workers already in the U.S. who may see upward wage pressure. Hospitals, clinics, and health care systems that would pay lower filing fees when hiring foreign-born physicians, nurses, and other clinical staff. Rural and underserved communities that rely on foreign-trained health care workers to fill persistent shortages. Higher-wage H-1B petitioners (e.g., large tech firms offering top salaries) who would be prioritized in cap adjudication. Domestic workers in sectors where H-1B labor has historically suppressed wages.
Who is hurt
IT staffing and consulting firms that place H-1B workers at third-party client sites — a common business model that would face significant new restrictions and shorter visa validity periods. Lower-wage H-1B petitioners, including some nonprofits, universities, and smaller employers, who may be deprioritized or priced out of the cap. Foreign-born workers currently earning below the new $100,000 floor who could lose their positions or have petitions denied. Employers in lower-cost regions where $100,000 exceeds prevailing local wages for comparable roles. H-1B-dependent industries such as IT services, engineering, and research that rely on the current lottery system rather than a wage-ranked system. Prospective H-1B applicants from countries with high demand (India, China) who already face long backlogs and would face additional hurdles.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current H-1B lottery system allows employers to hire foreign workers at wages below what comparable U.S. workers earn, undermining domestic labor market competition. They contend that the $100,000 wage floor — combined with wage-ranked prioritization — would redirect visas toward genuinely high-skill, high-demand positions rather than lower-cost labor substitution, citing GAO and EPI studies showing H-1B wages have lagged behind comparable U.S. worker wages in certain occupations. They further argue that the health care exemption addresses a documented national shortage of physicians and nurses, particularly in rural and underserved areas, without undermining the bill's core worker-protection goals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a rigid $100,000 national wage floor ignores significant regional cost-of-living variation, effectively pricing out legitimate employers in lower-wage markets — such as universities, research institutions, and rural hospitals — who cannot compete with Silicon Valley salaries. They contend that restricting third-party placements would disrupt established and legal staffing models that many mid-size businesses depend on to access specialized talent, and that wage-ranked prioritization would entrench large corporations' advantages over smaller employers and startups. Critics also argue that the recruitment attestation requirement for health care workers adds administrative burden without clear evidence it would meaningfully increase domestic hiring in fields with structural, long-term shortages.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad authority over immigration and naturalization under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This bill modifies an existing statutory program rather than creating new executive authority, so it does not raise significant separation-of-powers concerns. However, the bill delegates rulemaking to the Secretary of Homeland Security to define documentation standards; post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether any resulting agency rules stay within the statutory boundaries Congress sets here.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by tightening statutory wage and placement conditions; USCIS and DHS implement the rules through rulemaking and adjudication, subject to independent judicial review under the APA following the end of Chevron deference in Loper Bright (2024).
Historical precedent
The H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 and subsequent DHS rulemakings have previously raised wage requirements and tightened third-party placement rules, and a 2020 DHS/DOL rule that attempted similar wage-floor increases was struck down in federal court as procedurally defective under the APA.