Talking Points

Why H.R. 4227 is Worse than Current Law!

H.R. 4227, the Smith-Jackson-Lee bill, is worse than current law.  It would make the H-1B program unworkable.  It poses too many restrictions on the program and does not meet the needs of U.S. employers for access to highly educated foreign professionals.  Employers support H.R. 3983, the Dreier/Lofgren bill, which imposes no unreasonable burdens on employers and meets their immediate needs.

H.R. 4227 poses too many restrictions on the H-1B category and would make any additional visas unusable.

• While the bill would remove the cap on H-1B visas for the next three years, additional visas over the current caps in those years would be unavailable to any employer who, for even the most legitimate reasons, could not show that their median salary for U.S. workers has risen in the last fiscal year.  An employer may be unable to meet this requirement for many reasons, such as inability to find new hires to replace retiring employees, or moving resources from an unproductive business to a newly developing one.  Further, the provision would require massive paperwork efforts by employers to document median wage, and employers would need to provide the Department of Labor (DOL) with access to ALL of its payroll records to prove it meets the requirement.
  
  
• The bill’s “minimum wage” provisions would require employers to artificially inflate the salaries of H-1B professionals above the market in many areas of the country and industries, and above their U.S. counterparts.  This would foster rancor and discrimination, since the salaries of H-1B employees are posted for employees to see. Furthermore, many of the supporters of this minimum wage for H-1Bs previously voted against any minimum wage increase for U.S. workers
  
  
• The 35-hours-per-week provision would prevent employers from offering H-1B employees the same flexible schedules they offer to U.S. workers.  The 1998 H-1B law specifically mandated that employers offer the same employment options to H-1B professionals as they do to U.S. workers.
  
  

The bill would eliminate an employer’s flexibility in hiring and choice of visa, and limits the ability of small business to use the progra m.

• The bill would eliminate the ability of an employer to hire an H-1B professional whose qualifications include extensive work experience equivalent to a university degree. These equivalencies are based on regulatory standards and allow individuals who can greatly benefit our country because of their specific experience to enter.  Employers substitute experience for education daily in their hiring decisions for U.S. workers, the same should be permitted for foreign hires.  Elimination of this equivalency could violate our commitment under GATS.
  
  
• The bill would require an employer to use only the H-1B company to hire a foreign national in a specialty occupation.  This provision would eliminate the employer’s and the foreign national’s flexibility in choosing the most appropriate visa category based on the entire circumstances of the hire.  For example, individuals who may otherwise choose an intracompany transferee, treaty-trader or treaty-investor visa, international exchange visitor or other visa would be required to use the H-1B category, artificially inflating the numbers.  Furthermore, the provision would forbid business visitors who are professionals from using the business visitor visa.
  
  
• The bill requires H-1B employers to have at least $250,000 in assets, or to submit additional paperwork and come under additional scrutiny in order to hire an H-1B professional.  Small businesses, start-up companies, nonprofits and other employers unable to meet the $250,000 requirement would face severe paperwork burdens, and their cases may be unreasonably delayed in processing.

The bill’s Internet Posting requirement is a violation of privacy.

• The bill would require details of an H-1B’s personal data to be posted to the Internet. Although the bill no longer requires the individual’s name to be included in the posting, enough other information is required to make it very simple for anyone to find the individual.  Employers already must furnish this data to government agencies.  This provision is an invasion of privacy and would make these individuals the target for extremists. Furthermore, posting on the Internet is an open invitation for an employer’s competitors to steal away key personnel.

The bill does not address urgent issues in the employment-based green card program.

• Employers and foreign nationals are being harmed by the unreasonable per-country limits in permanent immigration for employees, and the unconscionable delays in processing at the INS.  H.R. 3983, on the other hand, contains provisions that would allow unused visas to be used by countries with higher demand, would allow individuals facing the expiration of their status due to INS green card delays to remain in the country, and would allow employers to use green card that were “lost” in past years because of INS delays in processing.

Oppose H.R. 4227.  It is worse than current law.  No bill is better than this bill!

Support H.R. 3983.  It is the only bill that meets the needs of U.S. employers.

39H10023  May 26, 2000