Dodd/Johnson Bill to "Reform" H-1B/L-1
Dodd/Johnson Bill to "Reform" H-1B/L-1
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:53 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
www.ZaZona.com
Recently a spate of Congressional bills have been introduced with the
intent to reform the H-1B and L-1 visas. Sen. Dodd and Rep. Johnson
from Connecticut recently introduced duplicate bills in the Senate and
House to reform H-1B and L-1.
Here is a summary of the recent bills to reform the nonimmigrant visa
mess:
DeLauro HR 2702 - L-1 Nonimmigrant Reform Act" introduced to
House
Tancredo HR 2688 - Bill to Abolish H-1B
Mica HR 2154 - To amend the L-1 Bill
Dodd/Johnson HR 2849 - USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003
It might seem that Congress is finally going to do something about H-1B
and L-1 visas, but looks can be very deceiving. Sometimes bills are
introduced for public relations purposes or in the hopes that good
bills will be buried in an avalanche of bad bills.
Tancredo and DeLauro's bills are the only ones that will stop the abuse
of these visas. To understand why Mica and Dodd introduced bills that
are essentially useless, we only have to see what is going on in their
home states. In Florida there is a furor over L-1 visas that was
created when Mike Emmons went public, so Mica introduced his bill to
placate high-tech workers that are losing their jobs. Connecticut's
situation is slightly different because there is a massive controversy
brewing over insurance companies that outsource jobs and replace
workers with H-1B visas. Johnson, if you recall, ordered the insurance
companies to provide data on the number of H-1B visa holders they
employ but so far nothing much has happened after her surprising show
of activism.
Senator Christopher Dodd released a bulletin about his new bill (see
below). Before we look at what Dodd says, let's take a look at what he
has done in the past. As we all know, what politicians say, and what
they do can be very different. I used the database at
http://www.betterimmigration.com/ to get his voting record, and as you
can see, it smells! Dodd gets an F for his voting record on
nonimmigrant visas such as H-1B.
Here is a brief summary of Dodd's voting record:
* 1989-90: Voted to increase worker importation.
* 1998: Voted for S.1723, nearly doubling hi-tech visas.
* 1998: S.1723, Voted to forbid firing an American worker to hire an
foreign worker (Dodd did good here, but....)
* 1998: Voted to require offering jobs to Americans first (Dodd did
good here, but....)
* 2000: Voted for S.2045, a foreign worker bill with no worker
protections
Nancy Johnson's voting record is just as bad. Her 2003 vote is a clue
that she hasn't changed her attitude that nonimmigrants should continue
to come to the USA.
* 1996: Voted for the Chrysler-Berman Amendment - It was a vote in
favor of a continuous stream of unskilled workers--those who compete
with Americans and other immigrants for low-wage jobs
* 1996: Voted for the Pombo Amendment to H.R.2202. The Pombo Amendment
to H.R.2202 would have created a massive new foreign agriculture worker
program that allowed agri-business to import up to 250,000 foreign farm
workers each year.
* 1996: Voted against the Burr Amendment to H.R.2202. The Burr
amendment to H.R.2202 would have continued a foreign nurses guestworker
program.
* 1990: Increased foreign worker importation.
* 1998: H.R.3736, voted to almost double H-1B foreign high-tech
workers.
* 1998: Voted AGAINST amendment to H.R.3736 that would have reduced
worker importation.
* 2003: Voted in favor of a worker importation program Rep. Johnson
voted for the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, H.R. 2739 that would
permit an unlimited number of Singaporeans to enter the U.S. as
temporary workers.
Dodd's voting records exposes deception on his recent bulletin:
No member of Congress would knowingly support government
programs that cause American workers to lose their jobs.
This is an obvious lie and he knows it. In 1998 Dodd did the right
thing by voting for bills that would have restricted the ability of
companies to replace American workers. The bills failed because the
overwhelming majority of Congress believed that companies should be
able to replace expensive American labor with the cheap young blood of
foreign workers. Congressional members understood that H-1B would cause
workers to lose their jobs and that's why they voted against the
protections. Dodd's excuse-making aside, Senators aren't dumb and
neither is he. H-1B and L-1 was written for one purpose - to lower the
cost of labor. Congress should never be allowed to take the easy-out
excuse of ignorance.
Notice that Dodd voted to double the number of visas in 1998. Dodd
probably knew that the 1998 protections would fail - it's called the
ol' smoke and mirrors trick of "make em' happy then stab 'em in the
back".
First, it would end the practice of allowing L-1 visa
holders to be subcontracted by one employer to another.
This has become a growing feature of the program.
Dodd incorporated Mica's flaccid bill into his. We see the whole
"indicia of an employment relationship" thing all over again. Dodd's
bill is no better than Mica's at stopping bodyshops from using L-1s.
This is feel good legislation.
I mentioned earlier that there is a growing body of
anecdotal evidence that suggests that both the L-1
and H-1B visa programs are creating problems for certain
categories of American workers. Why don't we have
more hard data on this important issue?
There is plenty of hard evidence but Dodd and his fellow Senators
refuse to read it. He is a graduate of the "hear no evil see no evil"
school of blind politicians. In 1996 OIG did a study with all the
evidence he would have needed to vote against doubling the H-1B cap in
1998. In addition there is more than ample studies but the only one
Congress cares to use are the biased studies done by Harris Miller of
the ITAA. Harris Miller has been labeling the evidence as anecdotal for
years and Dodd parrots him like a programmable toy.
Here are a few more problems with the Dodd/Johnson bill:
* It doesn't place a yearly cap on L-1 visas. That means that the
number of L-1 visas that can be issued will still be unlimited.
* L-1 employers now have a loophole-ridden "prevailing salaries"
requirement that looks just like the H-1B law. It will be just as
ineffective in preventing employers from exploiting L-1s for cheap
salaries.
* There is an anti-layoff provision on both H-1Bs and L-1s. Dodd gets
rid of the dependency loophole that allows 99% of the companies in the
U.S. to have layoffs that are used to replace American workers. The
90-day rule that says that companies can't replace an American worker
before of after 90 days was changed to 180 days. This sounds like a
tough rule, but companies can easily bypass it. Employers are in
violation only if they replace an American worker with an H-1B that has
"essentially equivalent" responsibilities. This is almost impossible to
prove and therefore never enforced. Companies can skirt this regulation
by changing job titles and responsibilities, or other means of
obfuscation like changing the location of a desk or cubicle. Dodd could
increase the window to 180,000 days and it wouldn't change the fact
that companies will ignore this rule.
* One year after the bill is enacted the Comptroller General of the
United States shall undertake an investigation to determine if the bill
meets "the legitimate needs of United States employers." We have all
sorts of government agencies that investigate this question but the
problem is that they are shams. The GAO is currently working on a study
and you can bet they will conclude whatever corporate lobbyists tell
them to conclude. Dodd could have called for something more meaningful
like a Congressional hearing but that might be a little to strong for
his corporate donors.
Christopher Dodd and Nancy Johnson are wolves and should not be trusted
to introduce legislation that will help American workers. There is a
possibility that these two politicians are experiencing repentance and
now seek to mend the damage they have done to the American
middle-class, but in all likelihood they are up to more political
shenanigans.
The Dodd bill could derail meaningful reform and it could even result
in nonimmigrant bills that are worse than what we have now. Once the
Senate starts "mucking" around with this bill they will add amendments
that will add more loopholes. Even worse, they could use the Dodd bill
to justify raising the H-1B limits. They could claim that since they
provided so many "worker protections" they can raise the H-1B limits.
http://dodd.senate.gov/fr-headline1.html
For Immediate Release
Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
The L1 Visa and American Interests in the 21st Century Global Economy
July 29, 2003
Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for permitting me to testify on such short notice before this
Subcommittee, on the very important topic of the "L1 Visa and American
Interests in the 21st Century Global economy." I want to express my
appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy you have extended
to me.
I would say at the outset that I strongly believe that citizens from
other nations have made and will continue to make enormous
contributions to our country. We are, after all, a nation that was
founded by immigrants.
And, we have remained vibrant and creative because our doors have
remained open to "supplement" the talents of a very gifted and skilled
American work force.
I would emphasize the word "supplement," Mr. Chairman. And note that I
did not say, "substitute."
I am sure that none of us believes that American workers should be
treated as 'second class citizens' when it comes to the security of
their jobs here at home -- and that security should not be jeopardized
by U.S. government programs and policies related to the temporary
employment of certain nonimmigrant visa holders. At the very least,
laws enacted by Congress should ensure that workers living in
Connecticut and elsewhere throughout America confront a level playing
field when competing for jobs.
No member of Congress would knowingly support government programs that
cause American workers to lose their jobs. Nor do I mean to suggest
that this is the stated purpose of the L-1 visa program that is the
subject of this hearing.
The stated purpose of the L-1 program is to allow for intra-company
transfers of certain executives, managers, and individuals with
specialized skills from foreign offices of companies to their U.S.
operations -- on a temporary basis.
During the economic boom of the 1990's, when jobs were easy to find,
evidence now suggests that abuses of L-1 and H-1B visas often went
unchecked. But the state of the job market has changed. Massive layoffs
have occurred at companies large and small, and it is now takes months
for laid-off workers to find new jobs. The unemployment rate is now
over 6%.
There is clearly a growing body of anecdotal evidence to suggest that
both the L-1 and H-1B visa programs have been -- and are being --
misused by some employers because of weaknesses in existing law and
implementing regulations, and because of ineffective or absent
government enforcement.
Between 1997 and 2002 some 3.4 million H-1B and L-1 visas were approved
by U.S. immigration authorities - 70,000 of those visa holders have
been employed in Connecticut. The L-1 visa program has grown
significantly during that time period: From 203,000 visas issued in
1997 to nearly 314,000 visas in 2002. This growth in visa approvals has
occurred while domestic unemployment has risen in the latter portion of
that time period.
One of the witnesses who the committee will hear from this afternoon
will give additional credibility to the belief that at least some
employers have not hesitated to take advantage of weaknesses in the L-1
visa program to replace American workers with lower cost L-1 visa
holders.
I have come to the conclusion that it is time for Congress to take a
serious look at the L-1 and H-1B visa programs and to propose remedies
for the offensive weaknesses in those programs - weaknesses that are
hurting our citizens. I hope these hearings today are but the first
step in that process.
I sought to take some steps of my own in that direction on Thursday,
July 24th, with the introduction of S. 1452 - the U.S.A. Jobs
Protection Act of 2003.
I was very pleased to be joined in that effort by one of my Connecticut
colleagues in the House -- Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, who introduced
the House companion bill on the same day.
Once enacted into law, the U.S.A. Jobs Protection Act of 2003 would
ensure that the L-1 visa program is utilized for the purposes for which
it was originally intended and that was not to displace American
workers with lower cost foreign visa holders. My bill would also
tighten the law with respect to the H-1B visa program, which is not the
subject of the hearing this afternoon.
What does the bill do?
First, it would end the practice of allowing L-1 visa holders to be
subcontracted by one employer to another. This has become a growing
feature of this program.
It also takes away a big incentive for replacing American workers with
L-1 visa holders by requiring that these new workers be paid the
prevailing wage.
It requires that before a U.S. employer seeks to bring in a specialized
worker from a foreign affiliate of his or her company, that a
documented, good faith effort must have been made to fill the position
with an American worker.
Mr. Chairman, the L-1 visa program was established to allow companies
to temporarily bring to the U.S., managers and executives with an
institutional memory of the firm's practices and policies, to pass on
that knowledge. I agree that such institutional expertise is invaluable
to the success of a company's operations in the U.S.
But the individuals who are granted visas under this provision should
have a well-established work history with the company to qualify for
such a visa.
That is why I have included a provision in S. 1452 to require that
individuals seeking L-1 visas must have been employed by the company
seeking their transfer to the U.S., for two of the last three years,
rather than the six month or one year time periods required by existing
law.
I mentioned earlier that there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence
that suggests that both the L-1 and H-1B visa programs are creating
problems for certain categories of American workers. Why don't we have
more hard data on this important issue? I would tell this committee
that it is because there has been very little government oversight or
enforcement of these programs - particularly the L-1 program.
I have attempted to address this deficiency. S. 1452 contains
provisions that will require the Labor Department to oversee this
program. It will finally provide the Labor Department with authority it
currently lacks to investigate potential violators of the law and to
impose sanctions.
The bill also makes a number of reforms in the H-1B visa program, which
I will not go into this afternoon. I know that the Subcommittee has a
number of witnesses it wishes to hear from this afternoon.
With the permission of the Subcommittee I would ask that a copy of S.
1452 and a summary of the bill be included in the record of the
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, based upon the many Connecticut families I have heard
from on this subject, together with the testimony you will hear today,
I believe that the L-1 and H-1B visa programs have contributed to the
growth in unemployment in Connecticut and elsewhere. It is within this
committee's legislative responsibility to analyze the problems created
by current law and practice, and to propose remedies.
As you do so, I would urge members to give consideration to S. 1452 as
you think about what proposals you will make to fix problems with the
L-1 and H-1B visa programs.
What is self-evident is that the status quo is not acceptable. American
workers have a right to expect Congress to do what is necessary to
protect their jobs - so that they will be able to continue to provide
for their families. I intend to work to change the status quo with
respect to the L-1 and H-1B programs. I look forward to cooperating
with this subcommittee toward that end.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, Members of the Committee.
USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 2849 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2849
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the H-1B
and L-1 visa programs to prevent unintended United States job losses,
to increase the monitoring and enforcement authority of the Secretary
of Labor over such programs, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 24, 2003
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. MICA, Mr.
GREENWOOD, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the H-1B
and L-1 visa programs to prevent unintended United States job losses,
to increase the monitoring and enforcement authority of the Secretary
of Labor over such programs, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds the following:
(1) The H-1B and L-1 visa programs were established to enable United
States employers to hire workers with the necessary skills and allow
the intracompany transfer of certain workers in the employ of companies
with operations outside of the United States.
(2) Employers have used the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to fill hundreds
of thousands of positions in United States firms.
(3) According to a General Accounting Office report, 60 percent of the
positions being filled by workers provided under the H-1B visa program
are related to information technology.
(4) The median annual salaries for information technology employment
was $45,000 in 1999.
(5) In 2001, Congress specifically banned the displacement of United
States employees by H-1B visa holders and mandated that employers pay
H-1B workers prevailing United States wages.
(6) United States unemployment in information technology specialties
has increased over the last 2 years making it more difficult for
employers to certify that they are unable to find American information
technology employees to fill vacancies as required to gain approval of
H-1B visa applications.
(7) United States consular officers in foreign countries in the past
have expressed concerns that the L-1 visa program was being exploited
beyond the original purpose of the program by allowing employers to
bring in workers who subsequently are employed by other companies.
(8) It has been reported that the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service was reviewing the L-1 visa program to assess whether companies
were using the L-1 visa to circumvent restrictions associated with the
H-1B visa program.
(9) The Department of Labor has had very limited authority to enforce
the program requirements of the H-1B visa program and no legal
authority to police the L-1 visa program.
(10) Historical weaknesses in the administration of the H-1B program by
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service caused unnecessary
delays in processing employer requests and also made the H-1B program
vulnerable to abuse.
(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the H-1B and L-1
visa programs are utilized for the purposes for which they were
intended and not to displace American workers with lower cost foreign
visa holders, by closing the loopholes in the programs and
strengthening enforcement and penalties for violations of laws.
SEC. 3. L-1 NONIMMIGRANT VISAS.
(a) WAGE REQUIREMENTS; LIMITATION ON PLACEMENT OF INTRACOMPANY
TRANSFEREES; DISPLACEMENT OF WORKERS- Section 214(c)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
`(F) No alien may be admitted or provided status as a nonimmigrant
described in section 101(a)(15)(L) unless the importing employer has
filed with the Secretary of Labor an application stating the following:
`(i) The employer will not place the nonimmigrant with another employer
where--
`(I) the nonimmigrant performs duties in whole or in part at 1 or more
worksites owned, operated, or controlled by such other employer; and
`(II) there are indicia of an employment relationship between the
nonimmigrant and such other employer.
`(ii) The employer shall make available for public examination, not
later than 1 working day after the date on which an application under
this subparagraph is filed, at the employer's principal place of
business or worksite, a copy of each such application (and such
accompanying documents as are necessary). The Secretary shall compile,
on a current basis, a list (by employer and by occupational
classification) of the applications filed under this subparagraph. The
Secretary shall make such list available for public examination in
Washington, D.C. The Secretary of Labor shall review such an
application only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies. Unless the
Secretary of Labor finds that an application is incomplete or obviously
inaccurate, the Secretary of Labor shall certify to the Secretary of
Homeland Security, not later than 7 days after the date of the filing
of the application, that the requirements of this subclause have been
satisfied. The application form shall include a clear statement
explaining the liability under this clause if an employer places a
nonimmigrant with another employer in violation of clause (i).
`(iii) The employer is offering and will offer during the period of
authorized employment to aliens admitted or provided status as a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(L) wages that are at
least--
`(I) the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other
individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific
employment in question; or
`(II) the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in
the area of employment;
whichever is greater, based on the information available at the time of
filing the application.
`(iv) The employer did not displace and will not displace a United
States worker employed by the employer within the period beginning 180
days before and ending 180 days after the date of filing of any visa
petition supported by the application.
`(v) The provisions of section 212(n)(2) shall apply to a failure to
meet a condition of clauses (i), (iii), and (iv) and subparagraph (G)
in the same manner as such provisions apply to a failure to meet a
condition of section 212(n)(1)(F).'.
(b) APPROPRIATE AGENCIES REFERENCES- Section 214(c)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1)) is amended by
inserting after `Department of Agriculture.' the following: `For
purposes of this subsection with respect to nonimmigrants described in
section 101(a)(15)(L), the term `appropriate agencies of Government'
means the Department of Labor.'.
(c) RESTRICTION OF BLANKET PETITIONS- Section 214(c)(2)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(A)) is amended by
striking `In the case of' and all that follows through the period and
inserting the following: `Not later than January 15 of each year, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary of
Labor to ensure that procedures utilized in that calendar year to
process blanket petitions shall not undermine efforts by the Department
of Labor to enforce the provisions of this subsection and shall
consider any recommendations that the Secretary of Labor proposes to
such procedures to enhance compliance with the provisions of this
subsection.'.
(d) ACTION ON PETITIONS- Section 214(c)(2)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting before
the period the following: `, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, determines that an
additional period of time beyond 30 days is necessary to ensure the
proper implementation of this subsection'.
(e) EMPLOYMENT HISTORY- Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) is amended by striking `one
year' and inserting `2 of the last 3 years'.
(f) PERIOD OF ADMISSION- Section 214(c)(2)(D) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(D)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `7 years' and inserting `5 years'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `5 years' and inserting `3 years'.
(g) RECRUITMENT; ADMINISTRATIVE FEE; DEFINITIONS- Section 214(c)(2) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)), as amended
by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
`(G) In the case of a petition to import aliens as nonimmigrants in a
capacity that involves specialized knowledge as described in section
101(a)(15)(L), the employer, prior to filing the petition, shall file
with the Secretary of Labor an application stating that the employer
has taken good faith steps to recruit, in the United States using
procedures that meet industry-wide standards, United States workers for
the job for which the nonimmigrants are sought.
`(H) The Secretary of Labor shall impose a fee on an employer filing a
petition to import aliens as nonimmigrants described in section
101(a)(15)(L) to cover the administrative costs of processing the
petition.
`(I) The Secretary of Labor may initiate an investigation of any
employer that employs nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L)
if the Secretary of Labor has reasonable cause to believe that the
employer is not in compliance with this subsection. The investigation
may be initiated not solely for completeness and obvious inaccuracies
by the employer in complying with this subsection.
`(J) In this paragraph:
`(i) In the case of an application with respect to 1 or more
nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) by an employer, the
employer is considered to `displace' a United States worker from a job
if the employer lays off the worker from a job that is essentially the
equivalent of the job for which the nonimmigrant is sought. A job shall
not be considered to be essentially equivalent of another job unless it
involves essentially the same responsibilities, was held by a United
States worker with substantially equivalent qualifications and
experience, and is located in the same area of employment as the other
job.
`(ii)(I) The term `lays off', with respect to a worker--
`(aa) means to cause the worker's loss of employment, other than
through a discharge for inadequate performance, violation of workplace
rules, cause, voluntary departure, voluntary retirement, or the
expiration of a grant or contract; but
`(bb) does not include any situation in which the worker is offered, as
an alternative to such loss of employment, a similar employment
opportunity with the same employer at equivalent or higher compensation
and benefits than the position from which the employee was discharged,
regardless of whether or not the employee accepts the offer.
`(II) Nothing in this clause is intended to limit an employee's rights
under a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract.
`(iii) The term `United States worker' means an employee who--
`(I) is a citizen or national of the United States; or
`(II) is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence or
is an immigrant
otherwise authorized by this Act or by the Secretary of Homeland
Security to be employed.'.
(h) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 214 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by striking `Attorney
General' each place that term appears and inserting `Secretary of
Homeland Security'.
SEC. 4. TEMPORARY NONIMMIGRANT WORKERS.
(a) H-1B DEPENDENT EMPLOYERS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 212(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (E)(ii), by striking `an H-1B-dependent employer
(as defined in paragraph (3))' and inserting `an employer that employs
H-1B nonimmigrants'; and
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking `(regardless of whether or not
such other employer is an H-1B-dependent employer)'; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (E), by striking `If an H-1B-dependent employer'
and inserting `If an employer that employs H-1B nonimmigrants'; and
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking `The preceding sentence shall
apply to an employer regardless of whether or not the employer is an
H-1B-dependent employer.'.
(2) CONFORMING DEFINITION AMENDMENT- Section 212(n)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(3)) is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and
(B), respectively.
(b) DISPLACEMENT OF WORKERS- Section 212(n) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(F), by striking `90 days' each place that term
appears and inserting `180 days'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(C)(iii), by striking `90 days' each place that
term appears and inserting `180 days'.
(c) ENFORCEMENT ACTION- Section 212(n)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
`(I) The Secretary of Labor may initiate an investigation of any
employer that hires nonimmigrants described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) if the Secretary of Labor has reasonable cause to
believe that the employer is not in compliance with this subsection.
The investigation may be initiated not solely for completeness and
obvious inaccuracies by the employer in complying with this
subsection.'.
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE FEE- Section 214(c)(9)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)(A)) is amended by striking `before
October 1, 2003'.
SEC. 5. COMPTROLLER GENERAL INVESTIGATION.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall undertake an
investigation to determine--
(1) how the amendments made by this Act are being implemented;
(2) the impact that the amendments made by this Act have had on
employers and workers in the United States; and
(3) whether additional changes to existing law are necessary--
(A) to prevent American workers from being displaced by nonimmigrants
described in subparagraphs (L) and (H)(i)(b) of section 101(a)(15) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)); or
(B) to meet the legitimate needs of United States employers.
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to
Rob Sanchez is board member of NAEA - www.NAEA.US
Back to archives