|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
[Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (House)]
[Page H9893-H9898]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr28oc03-100]
BASIC PILOT EXTENSION ACT OF 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2359) to extend the basic pilot program for
employment eligibility verification, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2359
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 ``Basic Pilot Extension Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1324a note) is amended by striking ``6-year period'' and
inserting ``11-year period''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. USE OF EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMATION SYSTEM FOR
STATUS INQUIRIES BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Section 642(c) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1373(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``An inquiry described in the preceding sentence may be
submitted and responded to using the confirmation system
established under section 404.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 404(h) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Status inquiries by government agencies.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
confirmation system may be used to submit, and to respond to,
inquiries described in section 642(c). In the case of such an
inquiry, citizenship or immigration status information may be
provided in addition to the identity and employment
eligibility information provided under subsections (b) and
(c).''.
SEC. 4. OPERATION OF BASIC PILOT PROGRAM IN ALL STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 401(c)(1) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsiblity Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended by striking ``in, at'' and all
that follows through the semicolon at the end and inserting
``in all States;''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 402(c) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsiblity Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``electing--'' and all
that follows through ``(ii) the citizen'' and inserting
``electing the citizen''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2359, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it
unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens and
required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents
of all new employees. Unfortunately, illegal aliens have used the easy
and cheap availability of counterfeit documents to make a mockery of
IRCA. Today's document-based verification system just does not work,
and it frustrates employers who do not want to hire illegal aliens, but
have no choice other than to accept documents that have a high
likelihood of being counterfeit.
In 1996, Congress created a pilot program to help employers verify
worker eligibility. Under this program, the employers who elect to
participate in the pilot program may submit Social Security numbers and
alien identification numbers of newly hired employees to be checked
against Social Security Administration and INS records. This weeds out
bogus numbers provided by illegal aliens and thus helps to ensure that
new hires are genuinely eligible to work.
The pilot program has been a great success over its 6 years of
operation. A recent study conducted by the Institute for Survey
Research at Temple University, in conjunction with Westat, found that
96 percent of participating employers believe the pilot to be an
effective and reliable tool for employment verification; 94 percent
believed it to be more reliable than the IRCA- required document check;
and 83 percent believed that participating in the pilot reduced
uncertainty regarding work authorization. The study recommended the
continuation of the pilot.
Several participating employers indicated in a recent letter to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the
Committee on the Judiciary, that ``the pilot is the best tool employers
have to make sure they are not hiring unauthorized aliens. Employers
have embraced the tools granted by Congress and Congress should grant a
continuation of the pilot employment verification program.''
H.R. 2359, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert),
would extend the pilot program for an additional 5 years. It would also
allow volunteer employers throughout the Nation to participate in the
pilot. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is required to
operate the pilot in at least five of the seven States with the highest
estimated number of illegal aliens. There is no reason why employers
elsewhere in the Nation should not be allowed to participate and reap
the same rewards as the current participants.
The study of the pilot found that now is not the time to require all
businesses in the United States to participate. However, all this bill
does is to open the pilot program to additional volunteer employers.
The study explicitly found that ``the Social Security Administration
and INS are currently capable of handling'' a nationwide voluntary
program. That is all H.R. 2359 does. The study did indicate that the
pilot could be improved.
However, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims will elaborate, in the years since the time the
study reviewed the pilot, the INS and the Department of Homeland
Security have been successfully making these improvements. At the
request of the Department of Homeland Security, H.R. 2359 would also
provide that inquires by Federal, State, and local government agencies
seeking to verify or ascertain the citizen or immigration status of any
individual for any purpose authorized by law may be made using the
mechanism of the pilot program.
{time} 1800
Under current law, DHS must already respond to these agencies'
request. The bill merely allows DHS to utilize the pilot program in
responding. And, the pilot program contains no new databases. It merely
relies on current Social Security Administration and Department of
Homeland Security records system.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This legislation will
provide willing employers throughout the Nation the tools they need to
hire a legal workforce and comply with the law.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2359, the Basic
Pilot Extension Act of 2003. While proponents of this bill claim it is
a simple extension of the basic pilot program for employment
eligibility verification, this bill actually comes dangerously close to
threatening the privacy of U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike.
H.R. 2359 would permit any government agency to use the basic pilot
confirmation system to check the immigration or citizenship status of
U.S. citizens and immigrants who come within their purview. This would
include those who seek drivers' licenses, it would include professional
licenses, or any person who is subject to an inquiry of a Federal,
State, or local government agency.
My own home State of Texas is one of the sites for the current pilot
program. Although the program was set
[[Page H9894]]
up with the best of intentions, a recent independent study conducted
for the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the basic pilot
program is not ready for larger scale implementation at this time. The
study identified problems such as inaccurate and outdated immigration
databases. It brought out the civil rights violations by employers and
insufficient privacy protections.
Although the program is not supposed to be used as a prescreening
mechanism before employment is offered, many employers are basing
hiring decisions on these checks. As a result, eligible workers are
being denied employment opportunities because an outdated database says
they are not eligible to work. The study concluded that these problems
could become insurmountable if the program were to be expanded
dramatically in scope.
Despite the findings of this study, this bill would expand a flawed
program to every State of the Union. I can only conclude that this
legislation is a veiled attempt to put in place the mechanism for
eventual adoption of a controversial national identification program.
The expansion of the pilot program would effectively create a single
database, with no privacy protections, that would make it much easier
for the government to track its own citizens.
Madam Speaker, it leads me to believe that such a vast invasion of a
citizen's privacy must be carefully examined and debated by Congress.
However, this broad expansion of government power has been attached to
a seemingly benign program extension circumventing any committee
hearings or subcommittee markup.
We all agree that we need to find ways to ensure employers hire
workers that are legally authorized to work in the United States;
however, the Basic Pilot Extension Act does nothing to take us closer
to this goal. Instead, this legislation expands a currently imperfect
program and creates a new and controversial identification database
that could threaten the privacy of all U.S. citizens and immigrants. I
urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2359.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, Halloween is coming up, and I am afraid that the
argument used by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) is designed to
scare people into doing something that this bill does not do. First of
all, the bill creates no new databases. The basic pilot program relies
on both the Social Security Administration and INS database, and there
is nothing added to these databases by this bill whatsoever.
Secondly, the bill does expand this voluntary program nationwide so
that employers in other States may volunteer to participate in the
verification of employment eligibility. Because the problem of illegal
aliens taking jobs away from Americans is a problem that exists in more
than the 45 States that are not covered by this program, there is
nothing wrong with giving these employers the opportunity to volunteer
to participate in the program.
Thirdly, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) seems to argue
against this legislation in that it will allow government agencies to
be able to find out the employment and Social Security status and
immigration status of people whose names are in an existing database.
The only change in the law is to allow the other government agencies
to utilize the pilot program database, which contains information that
is already available to the other government agencies through existing
law. I think if anybody is to be scared by this bill, it is people who
are trafficking in illegal and counterfeit documents which will be the
sole source of employment verification should this bill go down and the
pilot program be allowed to expire.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize two points about
the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. First, employers participating
in the pilot program find it of immense help in the day-to-day
operations of their businesses.
Second, despite some of what we have heard today already, the pilot
is working extraordinarily well and will only get better in the future.
The report commissioned by the INS to evaluate the program found that
``an overwhelming majority of employers participating found the basic
pilot program to be an effective and reliable tool for employment
verification.''
Participating employers appreciate the pilot because it reduces
uncertainty. The pilot ensures that their operations will not be
disrupted by the mass dismissal of employees after the Department of
Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration questions the
status of their employees. The pilot ensures that they will not be put
in a position of hiring illegal aliens, investing hundreds or thousands
of hours in training them, and then losing the benefits of this
investment years down the road when they are forced to dismiss illegal
aliens who were employees.
As Paul Weyrich has said in support of this bill, ``If we are really
serious about enforcing the immigration laws we have on the books, then
we must provide the means for employers to quickly determine the
validity of the documents with which they are presented. The way the
pilot program works is simple and reflects plain common sense.''
The report indicated that the pilot program could be improved in a
few areas. Some employers had taken adverse actions against new
employees tentatively found ineligible to work, and INS databases had
to be improved, especially in the context of adding data for persons
recently issued a work authorization document and for new immigrants
and refugees. However, remember that the report evaluated operations of
the pilot in the 1990s. Since that time, INS and now the Department of
Homeland Security have been actively making any needed improvements.
DHS believes there has been ``an overwhelming improvement in the
timeliness of data entry, particularly in response to the events of
September 11.''
In fact, DHS now requires that all new data regarding an immigrant be
entered into the system within 3 days and all new information regarding
temporary visitors be entered within 14 days. As to employer
responsibilities, ``greater emphasis on pilot procedures has been added
to training materials, and safeguards have been added to pilot software
to increase compliance with required procedures. For instance,
employers will be required to certify that they have talked with their
employees and advised them of their rights if they cannot immediately
be confirmed.''
Finally, DHS reports that the soon to be implemented Internet-based
version of the pilot will greatly reduce or eliminate any remaining
problems.
In only about 4 percent of total cases did new hires contact the
Social Security Administration or INS to resolve problems with their
work authorization status. Of those employees who did contact the
government, 99 percent were found to be work-authorized. Thus,
employees who carried out their obligations under the verification
system, as it is today, were almost always found to be work-authorized.
It is not the verification system's fault when a new hire is
tentatively found ineligible to work, and then that new hire fails to
contact the Social Security Administration or the Department of
Homeland Security. It most likely means the employee does it because he
or she knows they are ineligible.
Madam Speaker, all this bill does is give willing employers
nationwide the voluntary opportunity to benefit from the pilot program
just the way participating employers have been benefiting for the last
6 years. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2359.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) just
said that this bill does not create a new database, and I disagree with
the gentleman. I disagree with the gentleman, and for the first time
since I have been in Congress do I agree with the organizations called
Americans for Tax Reform and the American Conservative Union.
In their report to H.R. 2359, they say that the Basic Pilot Extension
Act of 2003, that the undersigned organizations write to ask Members to
vote
[[Page H9895]]
against H.R. 2359 because this bill puts in place the mechanism for
eventual adoption of a national identification system.
They say, perhaps more importantly, section 3 of this proposed bill
establishes the precursor of a national identification system by
amalgamating data of citizens and immigrants into what is effectively a
single database that would be used for multiple purposes.
It is quite interesting if it is not going to do what the gentleman
says, why they do not just put it through the regular process and let
the committees debate it and discuss it and vote on it in committee
instead of attaching it to another bill. All of this to say that it is
alarming to see what is being done here by a group that is
circumventing the process that has worked here for years and years in
the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2359, the Basic
Pilot Extension Act of 2003. The basic pilot employment verification
system is the only system offered to employers to verify employment
eligibility for new employees.
In 1994, I spoke with a Border Patrol agent who identified a key need
in the enforcement of immigration laws: Employers need a simple and
reliable tool to verify the worker status of new employees.
{time} 1815
In response, I introduced a bill to create the basic pilot program to
do just that, operate in six of the most problematic States on a
voluntary basis. The basic pilot program has proven to be an
overwhelming success.
The basic pilot program is the best tool available for employers to
comply with immigration laws which prohibit hiring undocumented
immigrants. Recently, a contract cleaning service for Wal-Mart was
raided by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and over
250 employees were arrested. If Wal-Mart's cleaning service contractors
had used the basic pilot program and verified the I-9 documents
provided by their workers, this could have been avoided. We must
provide companies the option of using this employment verification
program and assist them in complying with Federal immigration law.
Without this system, employers have no means of verifying legal work
status for immigrants, causing many employers to discriminate against
legal workers. This program gives employers the confidence to hire
legal immigrants, reducing discrimination in the workplace.
Additionally, H.R. 2359 allows employers from any State to
voluntarily use this program. Many of my colleagues expressed concerns
that this will expand the program too far, too fast. The reality is
that the current program States are home to 80 percent of illegal
immigrants, which means the impact on the system will be relatively
small. After 7 successful years, it is time to give all employers the
option of verifying their workforce and avoiding entanglements with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
As a former restaurant owner, I tried to do the right thing. When I
filed those forms, that I-9, and put two identifications in the back of
that form, I hoped that they were legal. But many times you cannot tell
the difference. The only chance that an employer has today to try to do
the right thing is verifying the legitimacy of that Social Security
number against the name of the potential employee that is coming in for
employment. This is the only way they can do it, Madam Speaker. If we
take this away, there will be no other options for employers.
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for their work on this
important bill. I hope that we keep this program intact in this
country. We need it desperately as employers.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2359. I think
it is important to point out a few facts. First of all, the people on
this side of the aisle would be speaking in favor of this bill if it
were simply to extend the sunset date on this pilot program to allow
the pilot program to continue to work out the weaknesses and
deficiencies that the INS study found in the program.
But this program does far more than that. This program goes from a
pilot program in 5 States to a nationwide program. While my friend from
California, the sponsor of the bill, may be correct, although I am not
quite sure how he knows where 80 percent of the illegal immigrants are
located, but let us assume that for a second the fact is 80 percent of
the employers are not located in those 5 States. This is a massive
expansion of the pilot program.
In 1996, we created the pilot program. In the law in 1996 we told the
INS to get people to study how the program was working. The INS went
and did that. They commissioned two different groups, organizations, to
study the program and what was happening with those employers who were
voluntarily participating. The study came back. What did the study say?
The study said, based on the evaluation findings, the basic pilot
program should not be expanded to a mandatory program, and this does
not do that, or a large-scale program. I would suggest that opening it
up to every employer in America on a voluntary basis constitutes that
kind of large-scale expansion which the study commissioned by the INS
and required by the Congress said we should not do.
Why did they say that? They talked about the problems and the
deficiencies in this program. It would have been nice if the
Immigration Subcommittee of Judiciary had had a hearing on this bill
where the authors of the study could have come forward and answered
questions and developed it; but we had no hearing, we had no markup,
the bill was taken directly to a markup in the full committee and put
on the floor, not with a rule to allow amendments to address specific
deficiencies in the operation of this pilot program, not with a rule
that allowed any kind of amendments, but on suspension where no
amendments can be made.
What the study found about the program, I think, is very important.
The program was hindered by inaccuracies, inaccuracies and outdated
information in the INS databases. The program did not consistently
provide timely immigration status data which delayed the confirmation
of a worker's employment authorization in one-third of the cases. The
employer has decided to hire somebody. He participates in this program.
He asks Social Security and INS to verify that person. In one-third of
the cases he does not get an answer and then does not hire that person
but goes to another person. A person who was fully authorized to work,
who was in this country legally, is denied a job because of
inaccuracies and a slow-to-respond operation from the INS and the
Social Security Administration.
A sizable number of workers who were not confirmed, who were
rejected, it turned out were work authorized, but there was something
wrong in the processing of their papers. There was a mistake in the
database. When they went out and checked who these people were, it
turned out well over 42 percent of the sample that they used were work-
authorized, but were told by the people operating the pilot program
that they were not. Forty-two percent of that sample did not get a job.
In some cases, the employer did not follow the rules and the guidelines
of the pilot program. In other words, the program was riddled with
deficiencies.
Theoretically, I have to say, if we could get an accurate, quick
employee identification system where employers could know they were
getting accurate information and workers who were authorized to work in
this country, who were here legally, who had a right to work could get
the right answer, then I would say let us talk about expansion and let
us pursue that by continuing this program. But I urge this body to
reject an effort to expand this nationwide to add not simply employers
but State, local and Federal Government agencies to the list of people
who will be using a program when that program by the INS's own study
was riddled with deficiencies and weaknesses which
[[Page H9896]]
delayed responses, which kept people who are here legally from getting
jobs or rights they would otherwise get, or be entitled to get simply
because of inaccuracies in the database. This is not the kind of a
program to expand at this time.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I agree with much of what the gentleman from California
pointed out.
I want to summarize my comments and say that this bill provides for
the extension and expansion of a program to verify if employees are
legally authorized to work in the U.S. But we have Representatives on
both sides of the aisle who oppose this bill because it expands this
current pilot program to all 50 States, when today the pilot program is
currently covering only six States. That includes California, Texas,
Florida, New York, Illinois, and Nebraska. They are the ones who have
these pilot programs. This legislation would allow all the States then
to have access to what is existent right now in the database.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2359.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, I think we ought to put this legislation into its
proper perspective. First, yes, this bill expands the pilot program
voluntarily to the 44 States where employers cannot get this
information. But it is a voluntary program, and only those employers
who choose to participate will participate. No employer will be forced
to participate under this piece of legislation either in the 44 new
States that are opened up or in the six existing States.
Secondly, there is nothing in this bill that expands the database or
which is the precursor for a national identification card. Nothing
whatsoever. I personally am strongly opposed to a national ID card and
will not support any legislation that establishes a national ID card
either through the front door or through the back door.
Thirdly, this legislation allows State and local governments to use
the basic pilot program to access information that they can get from
the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security
Administration through other means. It just makes it easier when a
State and local government needs to get this information for them to
get it. If we do not include this change in the law, then a private
sector employer will be able to get the information in a much easier
manner than our State and local governments. That does not make any
sense at all.
Finally, let us look at what will happen if this bill is voted down.
The basic pilot program will expire next month in the six States that
have been using it for the last 6 years. That means that when it
expires, those employers that have been using the basic pilot program
for verification of the legal employment status of those people that
they wish to hire will be forced to go back to paper documents. There
are a lot of counterfeit paper documents out there. You can get them on
the Internet, and you can get them on the street corner. But now in the
State of California, an illegal alien can get a driver's license, which
is one of the documents that is acceptable for employment verification
status under the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. Thus, even a
legitimate California driver's license would not verify the employment
status of someone who presents that document, whether that person be a
U.S. citizen, a permanent resident alien who has employment status, or
an illegal alien who obtained a legal California driver's license as a
result of the law that was signed by Governor Davis just a few weeks
ago.
If this bill is voted down, we would go back to the bad old system of
using documents as the exclusive way of establishing an applicant for a
job's legal ability to be able to get that job under our immigration
law. That would be a terrible tragedy.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill in
the manner in which it has been brought to the floor.
The Basic Pilot program was intended to streamline the process of
identifying employees eligible for work in the United States. Though
the Basic Pilot program has been successful for many employers in the
six participating States, there are enough serious questions about its
workings that I do not believe it is ready to be implemented in all
fifty States.
The bill will open up the database used in this program to all
government agencies, including local and state governments. This is far
more than a simple extension. There are no privacy protections for
individuals in this bill. The database can be used for a plethora of
reasons, not limited to the verification for employment by local,
State, and federal governments across the country. This will open the
door to abuse.
The database has proven to have out of date information specifically
in regard to visa status. Before this program is used nationwide it is
imperative that the system be purged of these inaccuracies. This poses
threats that both hinder a person's legal ability to work, as well as
allow ineligible individuals to obtain employment.
The program itself is not the issue at hand. The intentions of the
Basic Pilot program are good for employers, employees and our economy
in general. It modernizes and speeds the ability of Americans to start
working. However, these intentions are fruitless if the program is not
effective or efficient. Before we open this program up to the rest of
the country we must ensure that it is free of the kinks that have come
up since its beginning. Then and only then, should this system be
available for employers throughout the country.
This bill clearly goes beyond a simple extension. It is
controversial. The Basic Pilot Extension Act deserves hearings,
debates, and amendments to be offered. Thus, I must vote against
suspending the rule and passing this bill and I urge my colleagues to
do the same so that H.R. 2359 can be considered under normal
procedures.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in
opposition to The Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003 (H.R. 2359) and
urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill.
The Basic Pilot Program is a new, more reliable way for employers to
verify that employees are legally eligible to work in the United
States. I support the Basic Pilot Program and I support an extension of
the program for an additional five years.
However, I oppose the Basic Pilot Extension Act because this bill
goes well beyond just extending the program for an additional five
years.
This bill makes the Basic Pilot Program a national employee
verification system available in all 50 states. Currently, the Basic
Pilot Program is being tested in only 6 states so that flaws in the
program can be addressed. Those flaws were detailed in a report by the
Institute for Survey Research at Temple University. The report
concluded that the Basic Pilot Program is not ready for larger-scale
implementation at this time, and that the Program should remain
available in only 6 states until the many problems with the program are
addressed.
The problems described in the report include inaccurate and outdated
information in the INS databases used to verify employment eligibility.
The report also describes problems with the reliability of the training
and system software, hardware, and telephone systems used in the Basic
Pilot Program. The report also described how employees had their
privacy violated, were not fully informed of their rights under the
Basic Pilot Program, and that employers failed to submit forms in the
required time deadlines.
Despite these problems and despite the explicit recommendation of the
Institute for Survey Research for needed improvements, this bill
expands the Basic Pilot nationwide and includes provisions that go well
beyond merely verifying employment eligibility.
This bill adds a new provision that allows federal, state, or local
governments, not employers, to use the pilot program to access the
databases to obtain citizenship and immigration status information on
anyone for any reason they wish. This includes both citizens and non-
citizens, and unlike other regulations that control the use of federal
databases, there are no limitations that protect the employees against
discrimination, privacy violations, or other misuse. This new provision
is very close to the establishment of a national register of all
immigrants or a national identification card program.
Madam Speaker, the Basic Pilot Extension Act should be opposed for
all of the reasons I have described. Another serious concern is that
the Judiciary Committee did not hold any hearings on the changes to the
information sharing provisions of this bill, and the Subcommittee on
Immigration did not consider this bill at all. The Basic Pilot
Extension Act of 2003 will threaten the privacy of all Americans and is
riddled with flaws. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2359,
the Basic Pilot Extension Act. The existing Basic Pilot Verification
[[Page H9897]]
Program assists employers in verifying the authenticity of new
employee's eligibility information. The program operates in six States,
including my state of Texas. Authorization for the program expires next
month.
The bill before us today would go a great deal further than extending
the pilot program in its current form. It would expand the program to
all 50 states, despite the fact that a recent Immigration and
Naturalization Service-funded report concluded that the Basic Pilot
Program is not ready for nationwide implementation. The report cited
concerns about invasions of privacy and factual inaccuracies. We need
to address these problems before we extend the program to the rest of
the United States.
Also, the bill expands the program beyond the area of employment,
allowing any government agency to use the system to verify the
immigration status of any individual for any purpose authorized by law.
Expanding the program in this way would only magnify privacy concerns
with the current Basic Pilot Program.
Finally, it is unfortunate that this bill is being brought before the
House under suspension of the rules. Legislation of this magnitude
requires far more than careful consideration that we have been afforded
the time to have here today.
Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote
no on H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2359, the Basic
Pilot Extension Act. H.R. 2359 will create a new and controversial
identification database that will threaten the privacy of all
Americans.
The program allows employers to verify the legal status of newly
hired employees by using immigration databases. Although well
intentioned, the program is severely flawed. Over 40 percent of the
employees denied by this program, were authorized to work. We need a
program that works, not one that unjustly denies families the ability
to put food on the table.
Some employers that have used this program as a screening tool, have
not allowed workers to contest incorrect information, and have even
refused to let employees know of their rights under the program.
Madam Speaker, the information being reported by this database is
flawed and it is a result of the inaccurate and outdated information
contained in the databases of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services. We cannot continue to support a program that denies workers
the ability to earn a living just because a computer in Washington,
D.C. has bad information. But, the most troubling part of this bill is
that it allows any local or state government to look up the immigration
status of any American citizen or immigrant for virtually any reason.
It is clear that H.R. 2359 will place all workers, and especially
minority and immigrant workers, at risk of discrimination, mistreatment
and labor rights violations. Immigration experts, civil rights
advocates, and even a Congressionally mandated study of the program all
say that--the Basic Pilot should not expand nationwide.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, today H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot
Extension Act, was brought to this floor on the suspension calendar.
The suspension calendar should be used to pass bills which are not
controversial. Given the issues involved with this legislation, the
leadership should not have brought this bill to the floor as a
``suspension.'' This is but the most recent example of abuse of the
suspension calendar during the 108th Congress.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the H.R. 2359,
The Basic Pilot Extension Act, because this program has not
demonstrated a record strong enough to be extended across the country.
I know first hand that this pilot program has not lived up to its
expectations because my home state of California is one of the test
areas.
Madam Speaker, as you know, many employers in the counties I
represent, Marin and Sonoma counties, just over the Golden Gate Bridge
from S.F, depend on immigrant workers to staff their vineyards, dairies
and businesses. I certainly support providing employers the tools they
need to hire only those workers authorized to work in the United
States. While the intent of this pilot program was a good one, it has
not lived up to its promises. Now it is plagued with problems including
new hires being denied by the program when they were actually
authorized to work and employers abusing the program to engage in
prohibited employment practices. These anti-worker practices include
pre-employment screening, denying eligible workers jobs or the
opportunity to contest inaccuracies in the database. Creating more
loopholes for bad employers to conduct unfair labor practices was not
the intent of this pilot project.
Madam Speaker, until these and other abuses are fixed, we should not
be quick to expand the program. That's why I am asking my colleagues to
join me in opposing this legislation, so that we can that the basic
pilot program is friendly to workers as well as employers before
expanding the program.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of
H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. This Member, who is a
co-sponsor of the measure, would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for introducing the measure and
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts in bringing H.R.
2359 to the Floor.
Under H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Program, which is an employment
verification program, would be extended through 2008 and, indeed, would
expand access to the program for the entire U.S.
Madam Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986
correctly prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens or
people with non-immigrant visas. Unfortunately, at that time, Congress
did not give employers the corresponding tools with which to comply
with this Act.
For example, due to concerns regarding discrimination, employers are
limited in the questions they may ask of potential employees to verify
if those individuals are authorized to work in the U.S. If the
employment verification documents that potential employees produce
appear to be legitimate, then employers must accept the documents as
legitimate without further inquiry of the potential employee.
During Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement
raids, certain employers were found to have hired large numbers of
illegal aliens, either knowingly or unintentionally, and subsequently
they were subject to penalties. As technology has progressed to allow
for the cheap and quick production of legitimate-looking fraudulent
documents, the inability of employers to distinguish between valid
documents and fraudulent documents has significantly increased. It
became clear that businesses dedicated to complying with the IRCA
needed new tools to assist with the endeavor.
When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) of 1996 was enacted, it authorized the creation of three
employment verification tools, including the Basic Pilot Program.
Initially, employers in California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Florida,
New York, and Iowa could voluntarily use the Basic Pilot Program to
compare the information received from potential employees with
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) databases to determine if
potential employees could be employed legally in the U.S.
Madam Speaker, throughout the 1990's, many legal immigrants and
illegal aliens moved to Nebraska seeking jobs in the meatpacking
industry. Subsequently, this Member began to receive contacts from
businesses in his district concerned about their capacity to comply
with the IRCA. Therefore, on November 30, 1999, this Member joined his
House and Senate colleagues in the Nebraska Congressional Delegation in
a letter to then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner requesting the
extension of the Basic Pilot Program to Nebraska. This Member continues
to firmly believe that providing Nebraska businesses with the tools to
hire a legal workforce is an important component in maintaining a
stable economy in the state and in meeting needs to effectively enforce
immigration laws in this country's interior. On March 19, 1999, the
U.S. Department of Justice granted Nebraska businesses access to the
Basic Pilot Program. Currently, about eight Nebraska businesses
actively utilize the program.
Madam Speaker, for Congress to allow the Basic Pilot Program to lapse
following the horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, would demonstrate true negligence. More than ever, the U.S.
must fully enforce its immigration laws to protect its citizens from
future attacks. In its capacity to identify document fraud and illegal
aliens, the Basic Pilot Program can indeed play a role in the fight
against terrorism.
In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.R.
2359.
Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, which passed the
House Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2003. The Basic Pilot
Verification Program is a voluntary program that employers use in
conjunction with the Bureau of Immigration and Citizenship Services
(BCIS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to confirm
employment eligibility in my home State of Nebraska, among others. This
pilot, which started in November 1997, involves verification checks of
the SSA and the BCIS databases of all newly hired employees regardless
of citizenship. Unfortunately, the Basic Pilot program is scheduled to
terminate on November 30 of this year.
The agricultural economy of Nebraska's Third District relies heavily
on immigrant labor. Employers across my district have told me
[[Page H9898]]
that they want to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986, which made it unlawful for employers to knowlingly hire or employ
aliens not eligible to work, and required employers to verify documents
of new workers. However, a simply visual check of these documents by
employers will not tell them if these are in fact counterfeit
documents, and that this potential new hire is in fact an illegal
alien.
I have heard from many business people in the Third District about
their need for the Basic Pilot program. Employers need the appropriate
tools to ensure that they are indeed hiring eligible workers. By
checking the new hire's documents against the BCIS and SSA databases,
the Basic Pilot program allows employers to feel more confident about
their new hire.
H.R. 2359 will extend the Basic Pilot program for employers in
Nebraska and all other states for five years. I thank my colleague,
Representative Calvert, for introducing this much needed extension, and
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2359.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Basic Pilot Program was
originally authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act. It allows employers
in six states to verify the validity of the Social Security numbers of
new hires. H.R. 2359 reauthorizes this program, and expands it to allow
employers in all fifty states to voluntarily participate in the Basic
Pilot Program.
The program offers employers the opportunity to ensure that the
individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States.
Illegal immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from American
workers. Recent studies show immigration has depressed the wages of
American workers by more than $2,500 per year. Our education systems
spend millions of dollars educating illegal immigrant children. And
hospitals spend millions of dollars providing health care to illegal
aliens.
Ninety percent of the American people believe that we should reduce
illegal immigration. Seventy-nine percent of individuals polled
recently agree that the Federal government should require employers to
verify the work status of potential employees.
The main attraction for the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens who have
crossed our borders is work. If we want to stop illegal immigration--
and its negative impacts--we must reduce the availability of jobs for
illegal aliens. This pilot program combats illegal immigration because
it allows employers to make sure they are hiring someone who is
eligible to work in the United States.
Everyone who is concerned about lost jobs and unemployment should
support the expansion of the Basic Pilot Program. If we are serious
about saving jobs for citizens and legal immigrants, we should pass
H.R. 2359.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2359, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
 Follow @ilwcom Share this page | Bookmark this page The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |