PERM Labor Certification Fee Increase

Summary#

This bill would make employers pay a new fee when they file a permanent labor certification application (the PERM process). The fee would be at least $10,000 in fiscal year 2027 and would rise each year with inflation. Half of fee revenue goes to a new “PERM Fee Account”; half goes to the Treasury’s general fund. Money in the PERM Fee Account would be split between the Labor Department and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for USAJOBS upgrades.

  • Main change: Employers filing Form ETA‑9089 (PERM) must pay a fee set at the greater of $10,000 or an amount the Secretary of Labor sets by rule for FY2027, adjusted annually for inflation after that.
  • Fee split: 50% of collected fees go into a PERM Fee Account; 50% go to the general fund.
  • Account use: Of the PERM Fee Account deposits, 50% may be spent by the Secretary of Labor without further appropriation; 50% may be spent by the OPM Director to upgrade and maintain USAJOBS (the federal job posting site).
  • No waivers: The bill says these fees cannot be waived or reduced.
  • Timing rule: Annual adjustments use the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‑U) for July, rounded down to the nearest $10.

What it means for you#

  • Employers who hire foreign workers permanently (PERM filers): You must pay the new fee when you file the PERM application. That fee will be at least $10,000 in FY2027 and may be higher if the Labor Secretary sets a higher amount by rule. The fee rises with inflation each year.
  • Foreign national job applicants seeking permanent work-based green cards: The employer who sponsors you will have an added cost to file the PERM application. The bill does not change the underlying recruitment rules, approval standards, or processing steps for applicants.
  • Small businesses: This could increase the cost of sponsoring a permanent foreign worker. The bill does not include a waiver for small employers.
  • U.S. workers and job seekers: The bill does not change recruitment requirements directly. The stated funding for USAJOBS upgrades could affect where federal job ads are posted or how applications are collected (this is a funding purpose set in the bill).
  • Department of Labor and OPM (federal agencies): The Labor Department would receive funds it can spend without further appropriation. OPM would receive funds for improving USAJOBS or a successor platform.
  • Taxpayers / Treasury: Half of the fee revenue would be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill itself sets a minimum fee: at least $10,000 per PERM filing in fiscal year 2027, or a higher amount if the Secretary of Labor sets one by rule.
  • The fee is adjusted each year by the July CPI‑U inflation change, rounded down to the next lowest multiple of $10.
  • Revenue split: 50% of fees collected each year go to the PERM Fee Account; 50% go to the Treasury general fund.
  • Use of Account funds: Of the amounts deposited into the Account, 50% are available to the Secretary of Labor to spend without further appropriation; 50% are available to the OPM Director to upgrade and maintain USAJOBS or a successor site.
  • The bill forbids waiving or reducing the fee.
  • The bill does not include a fiscal estimate of total revenue, administrative costs, effects on government processing time, or impacts on employers’ budgets.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make employers pay a substantial fee when they seek to hire a foreign worker permanently, which could increase employer responsibility for recruitment decisions.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would provide dedicated funding to the Labor Department and to modernize USAJOBS, which could help with labor market testing and job postings.
  • Supporters may see the fee as a way to recover government costs of processing and oversight for permanent labor certification.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that a high, non‑waivable fee (at least $10,000) may place a heavy burden on employers, especially small businesses, and could deter legitimate sponsorships.
  • The bill does not provide a fiscal estimate, so it is unclear how much revenue it would raise or how that would affect the federal budget and program workloads.
  • It is unclear whether the split of funds (half to the general fund, half to the Account, and then split again) aligns program costs with the money spent, or whether it diverts funds away from processing and oversight.
  • The bill does not explain how OPM and DOL will prioritize or measure upgrades to USAJOBS, so the practical benefit of the dedicated OPM funding is uncertain.
  • One possible trade-off is that employers may pass increased costs to workers or consumers, or reduce hiring, but the bill does not address these downstream effects.