PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 24, 2007
L-1 Nonimmigrant Reform Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise L-1 (intracompany transfers) nonimmigrant visa provisions.
Prohibits entry of an L-1 worker unless the employer has filed a labor condition application with the Secretary of Labor which shall attest that: (1) wage and working condition comparability exists; (2) no strike or lockout exists in the occupational classification at the employment site; (3) the employer has notified the bargaining representative or the employees about the prospective L-1 hiring; (4) the L-1 application contains occupational classification and wage and working condition information; and (5) there has not been nor will there be any lay-off of U.S. workers 180 days before or after the L-1 hiring.
Directs the Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish processes for receipt, investigation, and disposition of violation claims; (2) establish a process to permit an L-1 alien who files a complaint to work for another employer; and (3) report annually on the use of L-1 workers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth employer violation provisions. Makes an employer liable for the return transportation costs of an L-1 worker dismissed from employment prior to the end of the authorized admission. Imposes a fee on an L-1 employer.
Establishes in the Treasury the L-1 Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account, which shall be used for data processing, labor enforcement, and training and education of U.S. workers.
Establishes an annual 35,000 L-1 visa limit.
Eliminates L-1 blanket visa authority.
Requires: (1) an L-1 worker to have a bachelor's degree or higher in his or her area of special knowledge; and (2) verification by the Secretary of State.
Increases the prior foreign employment requirement.
People & committees
Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2504 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2504 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2504 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2504 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.