Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to voice my reservations with Vitter amendment No. 1375.

The Vitter amendment would prohibit any funds in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill from being used to change the Bush administration's ``no-match'' letter regulation. This controversial regulation deals with the obligations of employers who receive what are known as no-match letters from the Social Security Administration.

The Social Security Administration sends no-match letters to employers when a Social Security number or other information provided by an employee does not match the agency's records. This is part of the Social Security Administration's efforts to improve the accuracy of their records, but the Bush administration wanted to use no-match letters to get the Social Security Administration involved with enforcing our immigration laws. The theory was that an employee whose information doesn't match the Social Security Administration's database is probably an illegal immigrant. However, the reality is that the vast majority of people whose data does not match the Social Security Administration's information are U.S. citizens who changed their name when they married or whose information is wrong due to typographical or other clerical errors.

The Bush administration's no-match rule would make employers liable if they fail to take action on a no-match notice, even though no-matches are often caused by database errors. A small business owner that receives a no-match letter would be faced with the choice of firing the employee or following costly and burdensome requirements for resolving the no-match. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that the cost of the no-match rule would be at least $1 billion annually. This is not a price we can afford, especially given the current condition of the American economy.

The no-match rule would also have a dramatic and harmful impact on millions of hard-working U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong. Experts estimate that as many as 3.9 million authorized workers will be the subject of a no-match letter. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that as many as 165,000 legal workers will be wrongfully fired if the no-match rule goes forward.

In addition to all these problems, the no-match rule would not actually improve the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Social Security Administration has repeatedly said that a no-match letter makes no statement about a worker's immigration status. And the Social Security Administration's databases do not have complete or accurate information about workers' immigration status. In fact, according to the Social Security Administration's inspector general, at least 3.3 million records in the administration's database have incorrect citizenship information.

The no-match regulation is opposed by a broad coalition of business, labor, civil rights, and religious groups, from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.

The no-match rule would turn the Social Security Administration into an immigration enforcement agency. This would detract from its primary mission of administering retirement benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

The no-match rule was blocked by a court order shortly after it was issued and two years later the rule still hasn't taken effect. The court found that the rule would ``result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers.''

Yesterday, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that she plans to rescind the no-match rule. She believes that using the Social Security Administration to enforce our immigration laws is ineffective and will harm millions of innocent small business owners and employees.

Instead, Secretary Napolitano plans to use electronic verification so that employers can determine whether their employees are legally authorized to work. There is work to be done to improve the current electronic verification system but this is a much more efficient approach than dragging the Social Security Administration into immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Secretary Napolitano is taking a different approach from the previous administration when it comes to worksite enforcement. Secretary Napolitano has launched a new effort to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

This is the right approach and I commend Secretary Napolitano for seeking to rescind the no-match rule and refocus DHS on unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The Vitter amendment would prevent DHS from going forward with its plan to rescind the no-match rule. Congress should not micromanage DHS's efforts to enforce our immigration laws.

For these reasons, I have serious reservations about the Vitter amendment and I will urge the conferees not to include it in the conference report.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source