S-5097-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Tim Sheehy (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would impose a 3-year moratorium on issuing new H-1B visas and then permanently restructure the program with a series of new restrictions. Key changes would include: a $200,000 minimum annual wage floor for H-1B workers; a $100,000 per-petition employer fee; a reduction in the annual visa cap from 85,000 to 25,000; a cut in the maximum visa duration from 6 to 3 years; replacement of the current lottery system with wage-ranked selection; elimination of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for foreign students; a ban on federal agencies employing any nonimmigrant visa holders; prohibition on staffing agencies sponsoring H-1B workers; and elimination of the ability for most nonimmigrants and parolees to adjust to permanent resident status from within the United States.
Who benefits
U.S. workers in STEM, technology, engineering, and other fields where H-1B workers are concentrated, who may face less wage competition. Domestic college and university graduates competing for entry-level tech and professional jobs. Labor unions representing workers in affected industries. Employers who do not use H-1B workers and compete against those who do. Workers currently in the adjustment-of-status backlog who filed petitions before enactment and whose cases would be adjudicated within one year. Domestic staffing and IT consulting firms that do not rely on H-1B workers.
Who is hurt
Current H-1B visa holders whose status duration would be cut from 6 to 3 years and who could no longer adjust to permanent residence from within the U.S. Foreign nationals currently in the OPT program who would immediately lose work authorization. Spouses and minor children of H-1B workers who would lose derivative visa eligibility. Employers — particularly in technology, healthcare, and academia — who rely on H-1B workers to fill specialized roles. Startups and small tech firms that depend on international talent pipelines. Universities and research institutions that employ foreign-born researchers. Patients in regions where foreign-born physicians on H-1B visas provide medical care. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the green card backlog (primarily from India and China) who would lose the ability to adjust status from within the U.S. Third-party IT staffing firms and their domestic employees. Federal contractors who currently employ nonimmigrant visa holders.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the H-1B program has been systematically exploited by outsourcing firms to displace American workers at below-market wages, citing GAO and DOL reports showing that a majority of H-1B certifications are issued at the two lowest prevailing wage levels. They contend that the $200,000 wage floor and wage-ranked selection would ensure the program serves only genuinely scarce, high-skill roles rather than functioning as a low-cost labor subsidy. They further argue that the OPT program operates as an unlegislated shadow visa category that bypasses congressional caps, and that eliminating it restores democratic accountability over immigration levels.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 3-year moratorium and 65% reduction in annual visas would cause immediate, severe disruption to U.S. technology, healthcare, and research sectors, where foreign-born workers hold a disproportionate share of advanced-degree positions — citing National Science Foundation data showing nearly 45% of U.S. doctoral STEM workers are foreign-born. They contend that the $200,000 wage floor would effectively eliminate H-1B use in most industries and regions outside a narrow slice of high-cost tech hubs, and that eliminating adjustment of status for hundreds of thousands of workers already in the legal immigration backlog would constitute a retroactive change that raises serious due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad authority over immigration under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The bill's immediate rescission of employment authorizations for pending adjustment-of-status applicants could face Fifth Amendment Due Process challenges, as those individuals hold existing, government-issued authorizations — a concern echoed in DHS v. Regents (2020), where the Court found arbitrary rescission of DACA work authorizations problematic under the APA. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any implementing regulations by USCIS would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain significant direct control over the H-1B program by codifying specific numerical, wage, and eligibility rules into statute, reducing executive and agency discretion; USCIS and DHS would retain implementation authority but within tightly constrained statutory parameters, and courts would review any agency action under the heightened post-Loper Bright standard.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously modified H-1B program rules through the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (1998) and the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (2000), which raised caps and added worker protections, but no prior legislation has imposed a multi-year moratorium or wage floor of this magnitude.