Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - July 08, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, I rise asking my colleagues to table the pending amendment filed by my distinguished colleague from Alabama to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
His amendment would both make E-Verify permanent and would immediately mandate all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify.
First, I have good news for my colleagues and good news for my colleague from Alabama. The Department of Homeland Security has just taken action--they were planning to do it before. It is coincidental but fortuitous that it occurs right now. It addresses a good part of the issue that my colleague from Alabama has raised.
Today, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement indicating ``the administration's support for a regulation that will award Federal contracts only to employers who use E-Verify to check employee work authorization.''
As we all know, E-Verify is a voluntary system, not a mandatory system. For Federal contractors, it will be mandatory, which is half and the most operative part of my colleagues' amendment.
The administration's Federal contractor rule extends use of the E-Verify system to covered Federal contractors and subcontractors, including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to Federal solicitation and contract awards starting on September 8, 2009--within a couple months.
Accordingly, I believe Senator Sessions' amendment is moot so far as it applies to Federal contractors and doesn't need to be approved by us in order for E-Verify to apply in this context.
He has another part of the amendment, which is to make E-Verify permanent. I remind my colleagues that E-Verify is in effect for the next 3 years. Making it permanent will extend to the outyears, but as chair of the immigration subcommittee, and with the support of Chairman Leahy, I have been investigating this issue.
I say to my colleagues that I don't think we want to make E-Verify permanent because it is not tough enough or strong enough. There is a gaping loophole in E-Verify. It is the best we have now. We should use it for Federal contractors. I support that. But there is a big loophole.
Let's say an illegal immigrant wants to say they are John Jones from Syracuse, and they know John Jones's Social Security number. They can easily get a fake ID that has John Jones's address on it, and they can submit it into the system, and nothing in E-Verify will stop that illegal immigrant from getting a job. Once they are in the system, they are approved time after time.
What is more, nothing about E-Verify stops a citizen from loaning their identity to friends and family so they can get a job. We need a biometric system, with a picture and a biometric identifier. That is the only way we will stop illegal immigration. E-Verify doesn't do it.
I assure my colleagues on our subcommittee on immigration, under Chairman Leahy's leadership as chairman of the full committee, we are investigating a biometric system which will once and for all stop future illegal immigration. To make this system permanent, when there is a better system in the offing, is premature.
I urge that the amendment be tabled. The first part has been adopted, and the second part to make it permanent, when we already have it for 3 years, is wrong when we can do better 3 years from now.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might have 30 seconds before the vote to make a request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, if I may respond to Senator Schumer, it is my understanding that Secretary Napolitano's executive order will be different than the Executive order the Bush administration had, finally, after some delay, approved in that it would say that a government contractor would not have to check the employment history of employees working for them through the E-Verify system--their validity--but only new hires they bring on, which is quite a different thing.
I am aware of a businessman in Alabama who has had highway-type work with good employees for many years--decades. He told me he is not now able to compete and is losing contract after contract because his competitor is using illegal labor. This is not an iddy-biddy matter; it is real. I hope I am incorrect about what I understand the Secretary's decision to be. If I am correct, I don't think the proposal is what it should be, and it will still be insufficient.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for 1 minute, with the permission of both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senator, my friend from Alabama, and I, in one sense, think alike on this issue--stopping future flow of illegal immigration. But he is right in that the order does not require them to check back with previous employers. That is not how E-verify works. They are not capable of doing it.
Obviously, we might want to set up 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 people and get them to start checking on previous employment, but that is not how E-verify works. It is one of the loopholes in the system. To say the administration is not doing it, that is true, but neither does E-verify require that. It probably should. But if we have a biometric, if we have a picture, it will be a lot better and we will not need it.
The Senator is sort of right and sort of wrong but always good-hearted.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source