U.S. lawmakers have proposed raising the annual-wage test for an H-1B employer exemption, potentially bringing more hires under U.S.-worker safeguards without setting a new wage floor for every visa holder.
Instead of a fixed $60,000 amount, the Senate measure would set the salary test at twice the Social Security Administration’s latest calculated National Average Wage Index. The agency lists the 2025 index at $72,800.33, making the calculation $145,600.66 a year. The bill sets a formula, so the amount would change with the index.
That figure is higher than the nearly $140,000 estimate in an Oct. 13 announcement by Rep. Glenn Grothman, which used an index near $70,000. Grothman introduced a House companion that day, after Sen. Jon Husted introduced the Senate bill Sept. 30.
The exemption concerns workers hired by H-1B-dependent employers, a classification based on an employer’s workforce size and number of H-1B workers. A worker can also qualify for the exemption with a master’s or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specialty related to the intended job. The Senate bill leaves that education route in place.
When a worker meets neither exemption test, additional recruitment and U.S.-worker non-displacement duties generally apply to a dependent employer, subject to statutory exceptions. Grothman says the change is intended to give U.S. workers more opportunity to compete; covered employers could face added compliance duties. A separate rule still requires H-1B employers to pay at least the higher of their wage for comparable employees or the prevailing wage for the occupation and area.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recorded 283,755 of 399,378 approved H-1B petitions in fiscal 2024 for India-born beneficiaries, about 71%. The figures count petitions, not distinct people, and do not show which involved dependent employers or workers who qualified for an exemption. They cannot establish how many India-born workers would be affected.
Grothman said the $60,000 test, set in 1998, has not kept pace with wages. Both bills were referred to their chambers’ judiciary committees. The existing test remains in force.
