Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006--Continued
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006--Continued
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 4177
Mr. GRASSLEY. The amendment as to title III has been filed. I am ready to take that up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. GRASSLEY) proposes an amendment numbered 4177.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators OBAMA, BAUCUS, and KENNEDY be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment represents a bipartisan effort to create an effective, workable employment verification system. Without a workable verification system, there is no point in having a bill dealing with immigration.
The amendment balances the needs of workers, employers, and immigration enforcement. The amendment would replace the current paper I-9 process with a new electronic verification system. This new system would allow employers to verify the legal status of their workers within 3 days of being hired. If the system cannot verify a worker's employment authorization, the employer would be notified and the worker must be discharged. If the system fails to operate as intended and a legitimate worker is erroneously discharged, the worker could be compensated by the Government for lost wages.
I understand that some of my colleagues believe that further changes are needed with respect to this provision, which would allow a worker who loses his job through no fault of his own to recover lost wages. I will continue to work with them, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over the provisions in this amendment, on this issue and the questions they have in subsequent conference with the House of Representatives. I believe this amendment must move forward, so I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn has been working very faithfully with us on this issue, so I don't take exception to anything he said except to clarify from my position what I want to accomplish.
First, I don't ever pretend to make perfect legislation. The English language doesn't allow that, even if that is the good intent. We have had several variations of the amendment that is before us and on which we will be voting. I have always made an attempt to do things through my committee in a bipartisan way. This is a bipartisan amendment. If there is an issue with this amendment that it may not be the linchpin for the verification we want, we are going to have an opportunity in conference to fine-tune this amendment. I want the Senator from Texas to know that I am open to that, and I hope--I haven't talked to my cosponsors, but I hope the cosponsors are also open to it because everybody indicated their intent to make sure the verification system works.
With that in mind, I hope this amendment will be adopted so we can move this process forward, and anything that needs to be done with this amendment, including all of the objections that have been raised, will be taken care of in conference.
I think we have a good compromise, so I am not starting out with the idea that we have to correct it, but we are going to try to address all these concerns because this is a very key part of any immigration bill that we pass.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess the question I have for the Senator is, if this amendment fails, there is a provision in the underlying bill that would go to the conference committee; isn't that correct?
Mr. GRASSLEY. That is correct.
Mr. CORNYN. I understand the obligation of the Senator from Iowa, as chairman of the Finance Committee, to try to work on a bipartisan basis, and I know he is committed to do that, and that is what this amendment represents. But I want to make clear that in the absence of this amendment being adopted, we still have a title III provision that can go to conference committee and be the subject of further negotiations.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, if the Senator will allow me to continue to use some of his time, I hope we would agree on this at least: If somebody is not employed because of a mistake that the Federal Government made, that we have a responsibility to make sure that person is made whole; that nobody should lose a job or not get a job because of a mistake made by some Federal bureaucrat. With that in mind, we ought to be able to move forward.
I think I heard the Senator from Texas say that is his motivation, that he would want to make sure nobody was harmed economically, not getting a job because of a mistake that the Federal Government made.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 4177
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided on the Grassley amendment. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ someone who is not authorized to work in the United States; and it required employers to check the identity and work authorization documents of all new employees.
The current employment verification process relies on a paper form known as the ``I-9.'' To complete this form, employers must examine one or more documents from a list of nearly 30 different documents. If the document provided by the employee appears to be genuine, the employer has met his obligation.
The employer is not allowed to solicit additional documents and the employee is not required to produce additional documents. In fact, an employer's request for more or different documents, or a refusal to honor documents that appear to be genuine, can potentially be treated as an unfair immigration-related employment practice. This obviously puts employers in a very difficult situation. If he accepts the document, he may be hiring an illegal worker. If he does not accept the document, he may be sued for employment discrimination.
The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the current I-9 process. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can be obtained easily and cheaply. Thus, the current system benefits unscrupulous employers who do not mind hiring illegal aliens but want to show that they have met their legal requirements, and it harms employers who don't want to hire illegal aliens but have no choice but to accept documents they may suspect of being counterfeit.
The failure of the current process is evidenced by the millions of ``no match'' letters generated each year by the Social Security Administration. Each year, the Social Security Administration processes about 250 million W-2s. It is able to match more than 95 percent of these. However, nearly 9 million W-2s contain names and social security numbers that do not match the Social Security Administration's records. It is widely believed that many, if not most, of these no matches are due to the employment of illegal aliens.
This problem must be addressed. We cannot control our boarders, or create an enforceable guest worker program, until we have a reliable and secure employment verification system.
I supported the creation of the Basic Pilot program in 1996 which allows employers to voluntarily check the employment status of their new employees. At the time, it was a pilot in 6 states. In 2003, I authored the law that provided all 50 states the option to use the Basic Pilot program. Unfortunately, those who are most likely to hire illegal workers are the least likely to use this system.
My amendment today would create a new worker verification system for employers to use to determine if their workers are eligible to work in the United States. While this new system is based on the Basic Pilot, there are a number of important differences. The new system will be mandatory for all employers who hire any new employees beginning 18 months after Congress appropriates the funds needed to implement the system.
The system can be compared to a ``red light,'' ``green light,'' and ``yellow light'' verification. The employer, in the course of hiring a new worker, must submit certain information within 3 days of the hiring. The Secretary of Homeland Security, with the assistance of the Commissioner of Social Security, will turn around, in less than 10 days, and provide a positive confirmation or a tentative non-confirmation--that is a ``green light'' or a ``yellow light.'' If DHS provides a tentative non-confirmation--a ``yellow light''--then the burden will be on the worker to resolve the matter. If the worker contests the non-confirmation, DHS will have 30 days to provide a final response to the employer. If the final response is negative--a ``red light''--the employer is required to discharge the worker.
The new system would be Internet based. However, the Secretary will also provide access through a toll-free telephone number so that small, rural, and underserved areas can use the system as well. There are a number of important worker protections built into this new system. During the initial implementation of the system, if DHS cannot resolve their worker's status within 30 days, DHS will grant an automatic default confirmation. If the worker loses his job through no fault of his own due to a mistake by the system, he can seek administrative and judicial review to recover lost wages. The system would also give workers the ability to verify their own information prior to obtaining or changing jobs. This would give workers the ability to know their status before applying for a job and give them the opportunity to correct any mistakes.
Finally, until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the system is able to correctly resolve 99 percent of all the cases involving eligible workers within 30 days, then the automatic default confirmation will remain in effect. This safeguard is designed to ensure that no eligible worker is denied a job due to bureaucratic delays or excessive workloads at DHS or SSA. Once the system is certified by the secretary, the automatic default confirmation is changed to an automatic default non-confirmation. There have been some concerns raised that once illegal workers are no longer able to use phony IDs and fake social security cards, they will attempt to steal someone else's identity. We have addressed this problem by allowing workers--on a purely voluntary basis--to put a ``block'' on their own SSN. This would work much like a ``credit freeze'' or the ``do not call'' list that already exists under current law.
A worker could block his own number to prevent someone else from using it and then unblock his number whenever he needed to obtain or change jobs. The amendment also provides important protections for employers who use the system. They will no longer be forced to choose between questionable documents or an employment discrimination lawsuit. They will be able to rely on the information provided by the system. They will be protected from liability if they fire a worker based on that information. Finally, the amendment provides safeguards to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information contained in the system. Individuals and employers will not have direct access to Federal databases. Rather, they will submit information and only receive back a confirmation or non-confirmation of that information. The amendment also provides that the information in the system cannot be used for any purpose other than provided by law.
With respect to information sharing, the amendment contains important language regarding the use of tax return information.
The protection of taxpayer information is a cornerstone of our voluntary tax system. These protections are found in section 6103 of the tax code and are designed to strike the balance between taxpayer privacy and legitimate law enforcement. Several members raised this issue during the Judiciary Committee markup. I urged my colleagues to defer any action in this area until the members of the Finance Committee had an opportunity to review this issue.
Some of the proposals in the Judiciary Committee were very broad. In this amendment, we have taken a more focused approach. We identified the specific information that would be needed to identify potentially illegal workers and crafted an amendment to 6103 that permits such use while maintaining all of the privacy protections afforded by 6103.
Specifically, we allow the Social Security Administration to share taxpayer identity information with DSH for the next 3 years. The information that can be shared would be for those employers who had more than 100 employees with names and numbers that do not match, and employers who used the same social security number for more than 10 employees.
In addition, DHS would be able to request that SSA provide information to identify employers who are not participating in the system, and employers who are not verifying all of their new employees. This information sharing would sunset after 3 years unless Congress extends this authority. We will closely monitor the use of this authority to determine if it should be extended.
Relying on Social Security records to help enforce immigration law also raises a critical issue with respect to the Social Security Administration's ability to perform its primary functions. This amendment addresses this concern by requiring DHS to reimburse SSA in advance for the cost of any data it obtains.
Let me again point out that--unlike the House bill--this amendment only applies to new hires, with some limited exceptions under the discretionary authority of DHS.
However, I would note that despite the high turnover rate seen among some workers, many workers are employed by the same employer for many years.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one-half of all workers have been employed by the same employer for 5 or more years. More than one-quarter have been employed by the same employer for 10 or more years.
Without verification for all employees, many illegal workers might never be detected under a system that only checks new hires.
I understand that a requirement to verify all employees is viewed as overly burdensome. But, as mentioned earlier, the Social Security Administration processes roughly 250 million W-2s each and every year and is able to verify more than 95 percent. It might turn out that the additional burden of checking everyone would be very minimal. I suspect we will have to revisit this issue in conference with the House--if we make it that far.
In conclusion, let me urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It represents a significant step forward in creating a more reliable and secure employment verification system.
http://thomas.loc.gov/