tv Immigration Legislation Markup Day Two - Part 2 CSPAN October 25, 2017 6:39pm-8:10pm EDT
you agree? >> at this point i think i would. we have a mission there. we know what it is, it's an important mission, let's see what the pentagon says. i don't think we re-evaluate the necessity for our soldiers being there at this point. >> one of the things we talked to you about this morning is an investigation by russia. can you give us a status report? >> the first question is, what's going on with the russian investigation most people think about russia's attempt to interfere in the u.s. election last year. i was in moscow last summer. i came home and said to me, they're going to try to intervene, mess with our election, no question that they would, and they did.
how did they interfere? what did they use? how do we stop with them from messing with our elections in the future. that's the beginning point. >> we're heading live now to the house judiciary committee. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. before smith. >> i want to thank you for bringing up this legislation today and for your strong support of it past and present. the labor participation rate is at a 40 year low. 20 million americans are unemployment or underemployed. millions of people continue to be hired who are not eligible to work in the united states, these jobs should go to american citizens and legal immigrants. the legal workforce act turns off the jobs magnet that induces
so many illegal immigrants to enter the united states. illegal immigrants take jobs from american workers and depress their wages. illegal immigration reduces the wages of american workers by $100 billion per year, with unskilled workers hit the hardest. according to a harvard expert on immigration. as the people's representatives in congress, we should do all we can to protect the jobs and wage s of hardworking americans and legal immigrants. the bill creates a fully electronic verification system. it's quick and elective,
confirming 99% of work pledgeable employees. over 740,000 businesses voluntarily use e verify, and an average of 1500 new employers sign up for it each week. one third of american jobs are now protected by e verify. the program is free and easy to use. in fact, e verify is available for use on smart phones and takes about two minutes. the cost is men school. three quarters of employers stated the cost of using e-verify is zero. they provide a social security number when they visit a doctor, open a bank account and buy a home. under the legal workforce act, employers use e-verify to check
the work eligibility of new hires. the requirement is phased in in the length of time depends on the size and nature of the employer's business. smaller businesses have two years to implement e verify. larger businesses have six months. the legislation also gives employers a safe harbor so they cannot be held liable if they use the system in good face. the bill imposes criminal penalties on employers and ploys who engage in identity theft. to protect identities, the bill gives u.s. citizenship the ability to block social security numbers that have been misused, the bill alous individuals to lock their own social security number so it cannot be used by
others to verify work eligibility. the legislation enables parents to lock the social security number of a minor child to prevent identity theft. the social security administration locks the number and notifies the owner that their personal information may have been compromised. importantly, the american people like and support e verify. a september 2017 washington post, abc news pole, shows that 82% of voters favor requiring business owners to check the immigration status of the employees they hire. e-verify receives the most public support of any proposed immigration reform. this bill saves jobs for legal workers. it deserves the enthusiastic vote of all members of congress
who want to put the interest of millions of american workers first. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. i would like to recognize the ranking member. miss laughgren. >> we have marked up different versions of the illegal workforce act. each time the bill has changed a little bit, some of those changes are improvements, the bill no longer carbs mandatory minimum criminal sentences, related to unlawful employment and the bill contains more provisions for the social security administration. and the bill now seeks to relieve some of the burdens that small businesses disproportionately face or expect to face once they are
required to use e-verify, i'm sure we will discuss small businesses more, since they've been the heart of our economic and job recovery in recent years. i wanted to recognize the concerns during recent markups. the bill's most important flaws have not been addressed. bill continues to provide no meaningful due process protection for authorized workers because of errors in the system. the idea that americans. we know that uscisi and the social security administration continue to work hard to reduce error rates and errors still exist about the most recent evidence shows an estimates 0.3% of all authorized workers including u.s. citizens, receive
tentative nonconfirmations, and must follow up with dhs or the social security administration, in order to avoid losing their jobs. a 0.3% error rate sounds real small. but the real world impact on new and existing hires could be quite dramatic, by requiring verification of all newly hired workers, which is approximately 54 million people each year, and permitting reverification of all current workers, approximately 155 million, the error rate would place between 162,000 and 400,000 unauthorized workers at risk of losing their jobs or job offers. many of these people will not be able to correct the errors, some will be able to correct the errors.
without adequate due process protections, people will unfairly lose their jobs. the bill also provides no penalties at all, for employers who fail to provide employees with notice of potential errors so they can correct them. uscis now provides direct notice of tentative nonconfirmations to persons who provide an e-mail address on their form i-9s, this accounts for only a small percentage of such notices, the vast majority are provided only to employers. which means that they hold the key to the ability of employees to correct potential errors. the acts of any kbens for an employer fails to provide the required notice to a worker, rendered the notice useless. the lack of a reasonable path for undocumented workers to legalize their status.
we could design the best system imaginable, 100% accurate, available at no cost to big and small businesses alike, but if we impose that system nationwide, and did nothing to fix our broken immigration system, the consequences would be dire. this point is easily demonstrated when we look at the ag sector. spanning e-verify would be grim for the agricultural economy, resulting in closed farms, less secure america, less offshoring of millions of jobs. ironically, enough a prior version of the illegal workforce act recognized this fact in the 112th congress, the bill expressly exempted returning seasonal farm workers from its verification requirements, some called this exemption amnesty. others saw it for what it was, a clear admission that mandatory
e-verify without other meaningful reforms to the immigration system would impair our agricultural industry. and the millions of jobs held by u.s. workers that are supported by that industry. of course, the majority tries to address this problem by moving this bill along with the chairman's agricultural guest worker act, but as we saw in the markup of that bill all day today, the agricultural guest worker act is an unacceptable solution to our country's agricultural needs. the majority offers no solution for other parts of our economy. for example, we know that expanding e verify alone would drive undocumented workers off the books and into the underground economy which would decrease tax revenues. it's been concluded that the legal workforce act would have resulted in the net revenue loss
of $39 million over ten years and increased budget deficits over that period by about 30 billion. contrast that the cbo and jct's solution that the bipartisan senate bill 744 that the senate passed and the house refused to vote on would have reduced budget deficits by $150 billion over the first ten years and $685 billion over the next ten years. i firmly believe that e verify must play an important role in helping to fix our immigration system. in fact, i am not opposed to e verify. what i am opposed to is imposing e verify on a system that doesn't work. our job will not be done if we simply fix some of the glaring omissions in this bill and reported to the house floor. we need to fix the underlying problem with the broken immigration system, including the presence of 11 million
undocumented immigrants looking for a way to earn permanent legal status, and we've yet to see a proposal that even touches on that point. i would note further that in addition to the ag sector, we have crucial workforce support from undocumented immigrants as nannies, in the restaurant industry, in the hotel industry, and without them restaurants would close and parents would be without the help that they need. so we need to have a provision in an ongoing immigration reform bill that not only addresses the status of those who are undocumented but figures out a way for those who we need to provide services in our country to come here legally, with dignity and with protection for their rights as well as our own so that our economy will be well
served. until we do that, just doubling down through e verify is a big mistake and i oppose the bill. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentle woman and i recognize mr. smith from texas for an amendment. >> amendment offered by mr. smith of texas, strike all -- >> the amendment will be considered as read and i now recognize mr. smith to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment takes two technical changes to the legal workforce act requested by u.s. citizenship and immigration services. first, the amendment adds driver's licenses or identification cards to the list under section two of the bill. the amendment clairifies the photo matching tool to match the photograph with the picture on
the unemployment eligibility document or the face of the employee or both to confirm identity of the employee. i urge my college to support the amendment which helps the department of homeland security improve the administration of e verify to save jobs for american workers. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> i thank you. the gentleman from michigan. oh, are there any amendments to hr-371 hr-3711? >> i do have an amendment, mr. chairman, for 3711. >> yes. the clark will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by mr. smith of texas offered by mr. conyers in section two -- >> objection the amend the considered as read. >> i thank the gentleman and
members of the committee, this amendment corrects a serious imbalance in the bill by adding an enforcement mechanism to the bill's worker protections. this added enforcement mechanism is very necessary. hr-3711 contains several requirements intended to protect american workers, but these provisions are really nothing more than mere suggestions without any associated mechanisms for enforcement. as we know, the bill imposes a series of new mandates on employers, including requirements that they, one, verify approximately 54 million new hires each year. two, re-verify current employees
in certain circumstances. three, notify dhs if the employer chooses not to terminate an employee after receiving a final nonconfirmation. and four and last, refrain from putting false information into the system. if an employer violates any of these requirements, there are penalties. but when it comes to the bill's protections for american workers and authorized non-citizens, the bill is absolutely silent. for example, the bill requires employers to notify workers when e verify provides a tentative non-confirmation but imposes no penalty if the employer fails to
provide such notification. thus, robbing the employee of the ability to correct an error. in addition, the bill prohibits employers from terminating an employee or rescinding a job offer based on a tentative non-confirmation until that employer receives a final nonconfirmation, but again, the bill lacks any penalty provisions for violating that protection. hr-3711 also requires employers who choose to re-verify an existing employee to also re-verify all other employees at the same geographic location or all the employees in the same job category. once again, the bill fails to subject employers to any penalty if they break this rule.
in fact, re-verification can be a powerful tool to retaliate against workers at particular job sites or in certain job categories that are organizing for better worker protections. but this legislation actually bars review of an employer's decision to re-verify the workforce in any government investigation. so my amendment addresses these oversights by applying the existing penalty structure to violations of these provisions. these changes will better protect american workers. finally, this amendment makes the intentional misuse of the verification system an unfair immigration-related employment practice. this will empower the office of
special counsel to investigate such abuses and to ensure that persons harmed by unlawful conduct at least have an opportunity to obtain relief. i urge my colleagues on the committee to protect american workers and support i think a very common sense amendment. i thank the chairman and yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman for louisiana seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> it's been a long day but the two bills we've considered here are critical for our nation and i want to take this opportunity to reiterate why. as we're discussing amendments to this bill and others, farmers across the country face numerous obstacles and yet continue to
feed the united states and the world. last year louisiana exported over $16 billion in agricultural products. farmers know when it's time for harvest any shortage of labor can severely threaten the life of the business and/or the quality of the crop and that's why the agricultural guest worker visa program was created to provide a rely able safety net with temporary legal options. while i had some pending concern with aspects of the legislation, i voted in support of the necessary overall reforms included in the agricultural guest worker act earlier today. this current bill, the legal workforce act, referred to as e verify, has some critical reforms that i fully support. i trust our committee will acknowledge the need our communities are facing and the important step of implement is e verify. i'm squinsed that any path forward to ensure immigration legislation is effective requires mandatory e verify to
safeguard the security and eligibility of employment across the u.s. mandatory e verify has long been overdue and congress must now deliver on this needed security for authorized employment in american jobs. one important thing that today's bill collectively accomplishes is decreasing illegal immigration and increasing our adherence to the rule of law. the most effective awway to curtail illegal immigration is to begin with those laws and for that reason i'm voting to move both of these bills out of the committee so they can work together of accomplishing the goal of decreasing illegal immigration. i commend my farmers back in louisiana for their resiliency. not only do they work in the face of adversity and mother nature but the federal tape of bureaucracy. providing our farmers with the resources that they need, i think it's important to note the key role in my state, louisiana that they play in their goods throughout the nation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. johnson. the gentle woman from california
is recommended. >> i move to strike the last word. >> i just want to thank mr. conyers for offering this amendment and note that a requirement without any enforcement is unlikely to be utilized. in 2009, west stat actually did some research on this. on persons who received tentative noncompliant notices, current law prohibits taking adverse actions until you have a final notice. what they found was that more than one-third of the employers admitted that they took an action to reduce pay, restrict work assignments, delay trainings, even though they weren't supposed to do that, because there's no penalty. now, that doesn't sound like a
lot, but if we've got 465,000 americans who are subject to this, a third of that is 153,000 americans who could lose their jobs or have adverse implications to their job because there's no requirement really for notification that's enforceab enforceable. so we've got penalties spread throughout this bill. i know that most employers want to do the right thing, but there are at least a third of employers who have already admitted they don't follow the law on another similar aspect, and i think mr. conyers' amendment would fix that. it's modest, reasonable and i hope we can adopt it. i yield back.
>> thank you. now recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. first, it makes sweeping changes to the employment actions considered to be in violation of e verify under hr3711 and makes the e verify system more employer friendly. employer seeking work could apply to almost any action. it's not defined in the amendment and is overly broad. we should not punish employers for undefined mistakes. the amendment also strikes the provision in the legal workforce act that allows a job offer to be contingent on the confirmation of work eligibility. this common sense provision spares an employer from having to go through the process of hiring an individual who turns out not to be eligible to work. under the e verify system, 99% of prospective employees receive
a confirmation of work eligibility, 99%. as far as the other 1%, the average time to resolve their situation is only two and a half days so no one is subjected to any hardship here. the amendment unnecessarily burdens employers who use e verify and allows illegal immigrants to continue to take jobs that should go to american workers. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. are there any other members who wish to be heard? if not the vote is on the conyers amendment. all in favor say aye. oppose nay. clearly the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> record. >> a record vote has been requested and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. goodlatte.
mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. schaubit. mr. issa. mr. king votes no. mr. franks votes no. mr. gom ert. mr. jordan. mr. poe. mr. marino. mr. marino votes no. mr. gaudy. mr. labrador. mr. farn thorld. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. desantis. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliff. ms. robey. mr. gates. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs. mr. rutherford. mr. rutherford votes no.
ms. handle. ms. handle votes no. mr. conyers? mr. conyers votes aye. mr. nadler. mis ja ms. jackson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. deutsch. mr. deutsch votes aye. mr. gutierrez. ms. bath. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. sis lienee. mr. swal wall. mr. liu. mr. liu votes aye. mr. rars kin. mr. schneider. mr. schneider votes aye. >> any other members who wish to be recorded. the chairman from virginia. >> mr. goodlatte votes no. >> the gentleman from new jersey.
>> mr. sis lienee votes yes. >> the gentleman from idaho. >> mr. labrador votes no. >> gentleman who's up first, ohio. >> mr. jordan votes no. >> the gentleman from texas. >> mr. poe votes no. >> mr. farn thold. the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. schaubit votes no. >> the gentleman from new york. >> mr. nadler votes aye.
>> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 11 members voted aye. 16 members voted no. >> the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by ms. love gren. in section two of the proposed -- >> without the objection the amendment is considered as read. >> this amendment delays verification requirements from applying to seasonal agricultural workers until the department of homeland security in consultation with the department of agriculture certifies that requiring verification of such workers will not cause a significant shortage of persons available to
perform agricultural laborer services in the country. i think we have to delay e verify in agriculture until dhs and usda can certify. why? if we don't provide meaningful legal status to undocumented farm workers, we should at least delay the bill's application until we have confidence that the industry won't be decimated by a loss of workers. i realize in the prior bill we had a trigger that the bill would go into effect, it was linked with e verify. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a lot more confidence than i do that the bill that we marked up and reported out at the committee is actually going to work. and if we don't actual ly apply
the imposition of e verify to a workable farm labor program, we could end up with a huge mess on our hands. without reforms that work, e verify could cause disruptions in the nation's food system and as we know, over 15% of our economy relies on agriculture. the industry itself represents 2% of gdp. now, 2016 survey of the department of agriculture reveals that a massive 93% of foreign-born farm workers had been here for at least five years. 55% have been here for at least 15 years, many for more than 15 years. as i mentioned during the markup in the prior bill, extending the possibility of a temporary visa once those workers of
long-standing residence in the u.s. is unlikely to bring them forward. so they are going to be underground. we've got this untried ag job bill that the chairman believes and apparently my colleagues across the aisle believe will work, but if it doesn't and we mandatory e verify, the ag sector, we will find out what we already know which is that more than half of those who are working there are undocumented. and if they go away with no replacement, we're not going to be eating too many salads. so i do think that this is a modest effort as we know. donald trump is president and the department of agriculture and the department of homeland security secretaries were appointed by him, so this
decision would be made by departments that are headed by members of the majority party here in the house. i think, i would hope, that we would trust them to call it as they see it and see whether we're going to have an adequate workforce before the hammer comes down on the agricultural sector. that's my amendment. i think it makes sense. i hope we support it and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i'll recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. i oppose it because it makes the application of e verify to the agriculture industry conditional on the approve of two cabinet secretaries. chairman goodlatte is committed to providing the agriculture industry with a workable system. the markup of his bill is proof of this commitment. the legal workforce act gives agricultural employers one and a half years from the date of enactment to transition to e
verify for their newly hired employees. this implementation time matches the time frame in chairman goodlatte's guest worker bill. besides delaying implementation of e verify, this amendment aggregates congress's role in determining immigration policy which is established clearly in the constitution. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i'll yield back. any other members who wishes to be heard on the amendment? if not the vote is on. all in favor say aye. oppose nay. the nays have it. >> mr. chairman, could i have a recorded vote on this one. >> recorded vote has been requested and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. goodlatte. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. schaub it. mr. schaub it votes no. mr. issa. mr. king. mr. king votes no. mr. franks. mr. gom ert.
mr. gom ert votes mr. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes no. mr. poe. mr. marino. mr. marino votes no. mr. gaudy. mr. labrador. mr. farn thold. mr. collins? mr. collins votes no. mr. desan tez. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliff. mr. ratcliff votes no. ms. robey. mr. gates. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs. mr. rutherford. mr. rutherford votes no. ms. handle. ms. handle votes no. mr. conyers. mr. conyers votes aye. ms. jackson lee. mr. cohen. mr. johnson of georgia. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. deutsch.
mr. deutsch votes i. mr. gutierrez. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. sis lienee. mr. sis lienee votes aye. mr. liu. mr. liu votes aye. mr. rastkin. mr. schneider. mr. schneider votes aye. >> any other members who wish to record their vote, the chairman from virginia. >> mr. goodlatte votes no. >> the gentleman from idaho. >> mr. labrador votes no. >> the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. >> mr. frafrpgs votes no. >> the gentleman from texas. >> mr. poe votes no. >> any other members who wish to record their vote? the gentleman from maryland is not recorded and he is free to vote.
>> mr. rastkin votes aye. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 10 members voted aye. 18 members voted no. >> other amendments? >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i have an amendment. >> the amendment to the amendment offered by mr. johnson in section two -- >> without objection the amendmentings considered as read and the gentleman from georgia is recognized to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment provides critical due protest protections for authorized workers who incorrectly receive final nonconfirmations. the amendment provides an administrative appeals process with judicial review which allows workers to retain their jobs during an appeal and
ensures that back pay and attorney's fees will be awarded to workers who lose their jobs due to system or employee error -- employer error. as it stands, the bill has no protections for workers who receive erroneous final nonconfirmations. my amendment provides the following basic protections. it establishes an administrative appeal process to challenge final nonconfirmations and judicial review of such appeals. employers must inform workers about the administrative appeals process when providing them with written final nonconfirmations. workers have 15 business days to file an appeal. appeals from persons claiming to be u.s. citizens or nationals go to social security administration and appeals from persons claiming to be authorized aliens go to the department of homeland security.
final nonconfirmations are stayed until a resolution of the appeal and if the appeal is denied or further stayed for 30 days to provide time to seek judicial review. the initial stay may be terminated if ssa or dhs determine the appeal is frivolous or dilatory and the 30-day stay may similarly be terminated if a court makes that finding. also, up to $75,000 in compensation and up to $50,000 in reasonable attorney's fees are available from the government if a stay of nonconfirmation is denied during an administrative appeal or a court reverses a denial of an administrative appeal and the error is not the result of employee or employer error and the amendment makes available
compensation for lost wages upon wrongful termination. without this amendment u.s. workers and authorized immigrants will be wrongfully fired and left without recourse. this amendment would ensure that citizens and other authorized workers do not wrongly lose their jobs as a result of this bill and that those who do lose their jobs due to errors receive basic due process protections to ensure that we make things right and help them get back on their feet. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. johnson. i'll recognize myself in opposition. this amendment is an attempt to make e verify overly burdensome. its wage compensation provision overturns a supreme court ruling that employers don't need to pay back wages to illegal immigrants since they held those jobs illegally. the legal workforce act balances
the legitimate concerns of all interested parties regarding e verify. the business community, the american people who want to see immigration laws enforced and legal employees. this amendment upsets that balance in favor of one party to the detriment of another. specifically, the amendment creates an administrative process following an e verify nonconfirmation. if an individual's employment is terminated or they are not hired based on e verify's issuance of a nonconfirmation of work eligibility, the individual has access to the administrative and judicial review process. the legal workforce act retains the current deadlines for final verification determination. the bill requires dhs to issue the final determination within ten working days of the date that the employee or potential employee receives notice of a tentative nonconfirmation. hr 3711 provides for the process that is in place to ensure the
reservation of a noncontested employee. dhs issues a letter requesting that the employer not take action until a resolution has occurred. the average resolution time under this process is only two and a half days. a final determination deadline is necessary in order to give employers an opportunity to find another employee and to prevent illegal immigrants from taking jobs. the administrative process created by this amendment could postpone by several months a final determination of work eligibility, or it could leave the eligibility process open-ended. there's no actual deadline for the time within which an individual must file the initial administrative appeal. illegal immigrants could work for years under this amendment as their appeals drag on which abuses the process. the lack of a time limit on final determination of work eligibility is an unnecessary burden on american businesses.
companies should have a cutoff date at which point they can move on to find a different employee if necessary. the amendment also requires the government to compensate the individual for lost wages, reasonable cost and attorney's fees. taxpayers should not be required to foot this bill. furthermore, the bill already allows a remedy if an individual alleges that they would not have been dismissed from a job but for an error of the e verify system. the individual can file a claim using the federal tort claims act and seek injung tif relief. the last provision of the amendment attempts to overturn the supreme court ruling in hoffman plastic compounds versus national labor relations board. the court ruled that the nlrb could not order a company to give back pay to an unauthorized worker. this amendment specifically states that a former employee's status as an illegal immigrant or illegal worker shall not be a basis for back paying remedies
to the employee. for all of these reasons i oppose the amentment and urge my colleagues to do the same. any other members who wish to be heard on this amendment? if not the vote is on. the gentleman from georgia's amendme amendment, all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> any other amendments tonight? voting forum being present -- pardon me? >> who seeks recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized for the purpose of amendment and the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by mr. deutsch. in section 274-a of the immigration and nationality act -- >> without objection the amendment will be considered as
read and the gentleman from florida is recognized to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would strike the provision in the underlying bill that prohibits class actions from being brought by workers who unjustly lose their jobs due to an error in the e verify system. this provision would severely limit and in many cases eliminate any legal recourse for thousands of workers who lose their jobs due to database error. prohibiting class actions would also remove the ability of the courts to effectively and efficiently resolve cases involving large numbers of workers who are harmed by similar systemic e verify errors. class actions are an essential means by which the courts can effectively address claims that are systemic in nature or impact a large number of people in a similar manner. cases that will be too expensive to litigate on an individual case-by-case basis are often brought as class actions. class actions enjibl individuals who are not in a position
financially to bring their own lawsuits to have a court here and adjudicate the claim as part of a group of people similarly impacted. class actions also enable the court to officially administer their dokts to resolve cases rather than having to resolve numerous individual cases. the legal workforce act provides a process for individuals to seek protection in the courts if that individual would not have been dismissed from a job but for an error of the verification mechanism. however, this process limits individuals to seeking compensation through the federal tort claims act and injung tif relief to correct the verification error. this section of the bill prohibits class actions from being filed to seek relief for a verification error that may have occurred under the e verify system. prohibiting class actions would remove a tool used by overburdened federal courts to effectively manage their
dockets. if class actions are prohibited, courts would be unable to address potential e verify problems having similar characteristics involving a large number of individuals in a single case. consolidating similar claims into a class action allows our federal courts to resolve similar allegations in an economic manner that avoids redundant litigation, something that i know that the chairman deems important. class actions also open the courthouse doors to people to have their claims of wrongdoing heard and resolved in the judicial system. the legal workforce act limits a worker who unjustly loses a job due to an e verify error. to seek restitution through the extremely lengthy and federal tort claims act or injung tif relief, in addition the tort claims act has a cap on fees for attorneys. this creates yet another barrier for egrieved individuals to
receive back pay for losing their jobs. it makes it impractical for any attorney to represent an aggrieved individual against the federal government on a contingency basis to recover lost wages. indeed under this bill cases seeking lost wages filed by egrieved individuals will be very costly. these cases have to be filed in federal court. it will take months and in some cases years to resolve. in these instances, a class action may be the only way for a group of individuals to receive legal representation and have their case against the federal government heard in federal court for wages that were unjustly lost as a result of an e verify error. moreover, members of this committee are not in a position to determine that claims alleging wrongful termination due to an e verify error are too diverse and don't justify class certification. that's a determination that should be left to those who are in the best position to review the specific facts of a
particular case. those would be our federal judges. because a class action could be the best method for individual workers who lose their jobs for similar e verify errors to have their cases heard in court and permits the court to officially manage their docket and consolidate claims into one case, i urge support of my very reasonable amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. deutsch. i'll recognize myself in opposition to a very well stated amendment. however, pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure, class actions may be brought where the class is so large as to make individual suits impractical and where there is a legal and factual claim in common among the class members. termination on grounds of employment eligibility is fact specific. there's no justification for class actions in this instance since each individual who alleges they were wrongfully terminated based on the employment eligibility verification process has unique
circumstances surrounding the determination. employers already are subject to penalties if they misuse the system. if an individual was harmed on account of the program, the legal workforce act allows individuals to file suit using the federal tort claims act. advocates for illegal immigration might be attempted to use this class action to shut down e verify with an injunction. to me this is contrary to protecting jobs for american workers which should be the goal of congress. for those reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. any other member who wishes to be heard. if not the vote is on the deutsch amend. all in favor a aye. opposed nay. the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> recorded vote? >> the clerk will call the role. >> mr. goodlatte. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. shabit. mr. issa.
mr. king. mr. franks. mr. goem ert. mr. goem ert votes no. mr. jordan. mr. poe. mr. marino. mr. gaudy. mr. labrador. mr. farnthold. mr. farnthold votes no. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliff. mr. ratcliff votes no. mr. robey. mr. gates. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs. mr. biggs votes no. mr. rutherford. mr. rutherford votes no. ms. handle. ms. handle votes no. mr. conyers. mr. conyers votes aye.
mr. nadler votes aye. ms. lofgren. mr. johnson of georgia. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. deutsch votes aye. mr. gutierrez. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. sis lienee. mr. sis lienee votes aye. mr. liu. mr. liu votes aye. mr. raskin. mr. schneider. mr. schneider votes aye. >> other members who wish to be recorded, the chairman from virginia. >> mr. goodlatte votes no. >> the gentleman from idaho. >> no. >> the gentleman from ohio.
>> mr. jordan votes no. >> pennsylvania. >> mr. marino votes no. >> the gentleman from ohio. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. poe votes no. >> the gentleman from arizona. >> mr. franks votes no. >> the gentleman from iowa. >> mr. king votes no. >> the gentleman from florida. >> mr. gates votes no. how is the gentleman from ohio recorded? >> no. >> he's recorded as no. the clerk will report.
>> mr. chairman, 10 members voted aye, 20 members voted no. >> the nays have it. >> mr. chairman. >> i'm hoping there aren't many more. >> sorry to disappointment you but i have an amendment at the desk. >> okay. the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute -- >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if enacted hr 3711 -- these entities are required to verify
individuals before they can assist them with getting a job. my amendment would simply strike this requirement. this provision is clearly meant to target unions and hiring halls who are simply working to protect workers and find them employment. this entities do not benefit from the employees services and do not receive payment for recruitment and referral services yet in some cases the e verify might fall into the hands of labor unions. it says nothing about employers who hire workers as independent contractors will have to use e verify. employers referred by unions get a free pass and shift the cost and responsibility onto those unions. it's not the union's job to make sure an employer does not violate the law by hiring unauthorized workers. it only makes sense that the employer who benefits from the work performed should confirm work authorization. this bill also allows for selective reverification of workers and gives employers a powerful tool to crack down on workers who are organizing for better wages and working
conditions. this is because the bill allows employers to reverify workers at a single geographic location or at the option of the employer all employees as a single job category. employers will be able to retaliate against employees on a particular job site or category simply because they're organizing for better treatment. even worse, under this bill, if employers conduct discriminatory reverification, employers will have immunity from further scrutiny of these decisions. the bill states an employer's decision about whether or not to seek verification of its current workforce may not be considered by any government agency in any proceeding investigation or review. this is a blatant attempt to prevent the national labor relations board and other government agencies from scrutinizing whether decisions were made to suppress lawful organizing activities or discriminate against certain classes of workers. it harms the ability of labor
unions to organize and represent the rights of workers. i strongly opposed this attack on labor unions and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank the gentleman from rhode island and i'll recognize myself in opposition. the legal workforce act requires day labor hacenters and other entities to use e verify for those individuals they recruit for employment regardless of whether or not they receive payment for doing so. thised alters the text. many low calties around the country have opened day labor sites to provide places where workers often illegal immigrants are matched with employers for the day. low calties that open these sites are deliberately seeking to aid illegal immigrants and employers who want to evade immigration laws. section four of the bill requires localities that set up day labor sites to use e verify
to check the employment eligibility of those seeking jobs at those sites. it helps ensure that illegal immigrants do not wrongfully obtain employment. all entities that recruit or refer potential employees should be required to use e verify to help ensure the potential employee is work eligible. exemption from this requirement simply based on the fact that they do not receive a fee tofor the referral or recruitment undercuts the goal of the legislation which is to save jobs for american workers. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back. the question is on the gentleman from rhode island's amendment. the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> record. >> mr. goodlatte. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. shabit. mr. isa.
mr. king. mr. king votes no. mr. franks. mr. goem ert. mr. goem ert votes no. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes no. mr. poe. mr. marinmarino. mr. marino votes no. mr. gaudy. mr. labrador. mr. farnthold. mr. farnthold votes no. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliff. mr. ratcliff votes no. ms. robey. ms. robey votes no. mr. gates. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs. mr. biggs votes no. mr. rutherford. mr. rutherford votes no. ms. handle. ms. handle votes no. mr. conyers.
mr. conyers votes aye. mr. nadler. ms. jackson lee. mr. cohen. mr. johnson of georgia. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. deutsch. mr. deutsch votes aye. mr. gutierrez. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. sis lienee. mr. sis lienee votes aye. mr. swalwall. mr. swalwall votes aye. mr. liu. mr. liu votes aye. mr. raskin. mr. schneider. mr. schneider votes aye. >> any other members who wish to be recorded. the chairman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. >> mr. goodlatte votes no. >> and how is the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, recorded? >> no. >> okay, thank you. the gentleman from ohio, mr mr. shabit.
>> voted no. >> the gentleman from texas. >> mr. poe votes no. >> the gentleman from arizona. >> mr. franks votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 10 members voted aye. 19 members voted no. >> nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. any further amendments? the gentle woman from california. >> i have an amendment at the desk i believe. >> clerk -- you don't have that
amendment? >> it's being walked down right now. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by ms. lofgren. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentle woman is recognized to explain her amendment. >> mr. chairman, this is the lofgren/giapole act. it increases penalties for immigration employment practices. it bill before us increases penalties for unlawful employment but does not similarly raise penalties for unfair immigration-related employment practices found in section 274-b of the immigration and nationality act. this amendment makes sure that both sets of penalties are increased equally so that
discrimination based on national origin and citizenship and other forms of intimidation and harassment are sufficiently penalized. why should the penalties on 274-a of the immigration and nationality act go up but 274-b of the act be ignored. the amendment would help ensure that the fight discrimination against foreign-born citizens and legal immigrants. you know, the current e verify users are disproportionately large businesses and federal contractors relatively sophisticated employers that voluntarily enroll in the system. there are some small businesses as well, but the current users are more likely to use the system properly than a mom and pop store that may not really
have used the system before and may not have the advice in an hr program like a large company may have. noncompliance with program rules would almost certainly increase if all employers were required to use the system. now, i mentioned the west stat study that was done earlier and they found that employers in arizona are generally less compliant with e verify procedures than e verify employers outside of arizona. this is probably because unlike most e verify users, most arizona employers did not volunteer to use the program. i don't think it's about arizona. it's about mandating the use so that smaller companies and those who didn't volunteer why also included. according to that west stat study, many employers assume
that all employees who receive tentative nonconfirmation were unauthorized workers and therefore required them to work longer hours and in poorer conditions. now, that's a violation of the law, but there is no -- nothing in this bill that relates to that discrimination. this amendment would protect work authorized noncitizens who are far more likely to get erroneous nonconfirmations and suffer abuse and exploitation. the error rate for nationalized citizens has improved over the years but the error rate for noncitizens but legal residents has remained unchanged. again, going back to the west stat report, lawful permanent residents are 250% more likely to have an erroneous, tentative i don't know confirmation than
u.s. citizens .2%. other noncitizens are 2,000% more likely to have an erroneous tnc than u.s. citizens. i'm sure you'll recall, mr. chairman, when i chaired the subcommittee on immigration, i had immigration counsel, very skilled lawyer, who was a naturalized citizen of the united states. because the house of representatives does e verify, when she went down to get her e verification it came back that she wasn't authorized to work, but she was. it took her, i think, almost two months to get that straightened out. now, we're the house of representatives, we presumably know what the law is and certainly you and i do. she was not terminated while that got straightened out. but there are employers who are small, don't have an hr
department, who might just fire that person and there's no ramification here in the bill. so this would remedy that. i think we should treat this violation as seriously as a violation of 274-a of the immigration nationality act. that's my pitch and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. this amendment increases penalties for unfair immigration-related employment practic practices. it is a common complaint that the department of justice at least in the past has been overzealous in their pursuit of claims against employers even in cases in which the employer acted inadvertently and without malice. for instance, employers have been held libel by the previous justice department when the software they purchased to help with their i-9 compliance contained a formatting error of which the employer had no
knowledge. under this amendment, the penalties for such perceived violation since they are deemed strict this is liability would be greatly increased. any other members who wish to be concerned? >> the gentle lady from washington. >> i'm in support of this amendment that the congresswoman and i have authored and i think it's important to recognize why we're talking about this bill. i think the other side has said that if you're going to increase the number of agricultural workers as we did with the last bill and even though our side understands that that is -- it was structured in a way that would be hugely detrimental to those workers and to american workers, your side was making the argument and i think there was an amendment to tie these two bills together that you didn't want to do that without having an effective e verify system that would then enforce
who was actually taking these jobs and making sure that they were documented. the reality is that the kato institute -- and i can't believe that i'm quoting kato. i'm quoting breitbart. but just to show that this is really a bipartisan issue here or not a partisan argument but the kato institute has put out a report on incredibly low compliance of e verify including when it is made mandatory in states. ms. lofgren mentioned this but they say in the beginning that the main reason why e verify is uneffective is because employers ignore it. so they're stating very clearly that even though this is a mandate, employers simply don't comply. so if the goal of the other side is to make sure that there is an e verify program and that people are actually complying and that somehow this is a counter to the
idea that there's going to be no checks on the workers who are working, then you need to have a functioning e verify program. this is not a functioning e verify program unless you have this study. the states of alabama, arizona, mississippi and south carolina have all mandated everify for all new hires in their states. and they were at different dates. 2008 for arizona. 2010 for south carolina, 2011 for mississippi. and 2012 for alabama. and in those four states the law basically said that every employer had to run all new hires' identity information through everify and in response to a freedom of information act to the request filed by kato, what they were able to show is that there were far fewer e
verify cases or queries than new hires in the state. and so that discrepancy said employers weren't runing all of their new hires through the data base and so the number of e verify cases basically the conclusion of the study was only 57% were run through e verify in states where 100% of new hires were mandated to be e verified. so at the very minimum, it can't be effective if employers don't use it. so this amendment is saying since you all felt so strongly that the other bill was not going to be effective unless you had had everify with it, all we're saying is if you're going to have penalties around employees, then you have them around employers because unless employers are committing to use
e verify and we have a lot of problems with trying to push through an e verify bill when we have not passed comp ruhencive immigration reform. the reality is it's going to be -- create chaos across our country. if you're going to insist on penlizing the employees, then we think you should have some penalties arund employers. >> i want to point out that the study that she mentioned i believe is about 10 years old and out of date and i say that because it does not aloafor the technological improvements we've had to e verify. i would like to reassure you it's much more efficient. in addition i want to add i like it much more when she quotes breitbart than the other sources. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman but reclaiming my time i wanted to say what i'm quoting from is different than what ms. laugh grn is quoting from but this is
a kato study that was done and it looked at data from 2015. so it's extremely recent data and it does show that this is in 2015 the data that was analyzed was in 2015 in four states that had mandated the use of e verify for all new hires. so we are speaking about two different studies. this one does include the technological improvements. >> those states did not implement the e verify system completely that is in this bill so they may have had uneven results but i take what the woman says and look forward to seeing the study. >> i thank the chairman and reclaim my time to say i think the reality is they mandated implementation of e verify, the bill is also saying that we're going to have an e verify system but the underlying point is employers are not using the e verify system even when
mandated. i yield back. >> and the question is on the california's amendment. the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments? the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. gutierrez. >> that will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment. >> yes. i have an amendment and it acknowledges that e verify is a mandatory component of comprehensive immigration reform and it it cannot be enacted as a stand alone bill. it creates an effective date that makes the legal work force act contingent by requiring the secretary of homeland security to testify there are sufficient lawful methods for those
undocumented to suggest to lawful, permanent residency. and just for the history, this is not new. this is not innovative. this is not your side of the aisle trying to make america safe and trying to make america secure. i would ask to inter into record hr-4321. only part of it, mr. chairman. the employment verification, e verify introduced december 15th, 2009. with 100 democrats with an e verification component stronger and more useful and more effective than the one presented here today. wait a minute. see what it says here. oh, when the senate on june 27th, 2013, put s 7-47, which almost every democrat co sponsored once it passed the senate says enforcement into
employment verification system. so when i introduce a co comprehensive immigration bill with congressman flake and senator mccain and senator kennedy, we introduce a bipartisan bill in 2005, guess what it had? employment verification. we always understood it's an essential part. he knows because he introduced the bill with us in 2007 as an original sponsor of the bill. as does the gentle lady from california, jackson lee and i'm sure if the rest of us had been here, we'd be original sponsors. we understand that it only works in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. otherwise what you do is take people from being on the books, paying federal taxes, state taxes, fica taxes and you put
them underground and allow them to be exploited because we know a quarter of the undocumented have been here 20 years, have families, bess. do you really want to run them out of the country? don't answer that because i know you do. but that's not the correct way to do things. the correct way to do things is to say let's make sure every employer out there we jail them, we send them to jail. we fine them, we bankrupt them if they hire people outside of the verification system. because i on this side i know only want one work force in america, one under the same rules and protections and work force protections and obligations and responsibilities but the only way you're going to be able to dathat is if you do comprehensive immigration reform. so if you want e verify, don't don't have a republican proposal. have an american proposal. one that this side of the aisle
can embrace and then we can have the verification system that is so necessary. but if you insist on a republican prueposal then, it will never come to fruition as we will never have a verification system until both sides of the aisle come toorths in both the senate and the house house. so don't feel too prouds of yourselves. this is not an original idea. 2005. and congressman blake again. you see the version that other members of this committee -- i'm sure you're an original sponsor of the bill. so there are many people here on this committee that introduce the bill with e verification. but anytime anybody seriously
has wanted a verification system, they have done it within the context of comprehensive immigration reform because that is a reflection of the value lofz america. in fact most members on the other side, your voters want a way to take the undock ymumentet of the shadows, make sure they're paying taxes. not a verification system that would simply push them further underground. but not eliminate them. so let's do the right thing and have an american proposal that your side and our side can go. it says let's legalize and bring them green cards and out of the shadows. >> thank you and i'll recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. it prevents the implication of hr -- until a time when the secretary of homeland security says there are sufficient lawful
methods for illegal aliens to get sufficient lawful status. and thus implement of e verify would be subject to the whim of whom ever happens to be secretary of the department of homeland security at the time. if that individual happens to be opposed to the use of e verify in general, there's an incentive never to certify that sufficient lawful methods are in place. this provision also abdicates the role in determining immigration policy which is found in the constitution. so i urge my colleagues to oppose it and the question is on the gutierrez amendment. all in favor, say aye. the nays have it. the recorded vote has been requested. >> mr. smith, mr. smith votes no. mr. shabt votes no.
mr. isa, mr. king. mr. franks. mr. goemer. mr. gomer votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. po, mr. morino. mr. merino votes no. mr. loudy, mr. labrador. mr. fairen thoel votes no. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck, mr. buck votes no. mr. rad cliff, he votes no. ms. roby votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana, mr. johnson votes no. mr. bigs. mr. bigs votes no. mr. rutferred. mr. rutherford votes no. ms. handle volts no. mr. coniers votes aye. mr. nadler aye. ms. jackson lee.
mr. cohen. mr. johnson of georgia. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. deutsche votes aye. mr. gutierrez votes -- fl jeffreys, mr. sis leany votes aye. mr. swaulwell, mr. lieu. mr. lieu votes yes. mr. rasken. mr. eye ms. i pall. >> aye. >> the gentleman from virginia, the chairman. >> he votes no. >> gentleman from idaho. >> votes no. >> gentleman from texas. >> mr. po votes no. >> gentleman from arizona. >> mr. franks votes no. >> gentleman from iowa. >> mr. king votes no.
>> clerk will report. >> 10 voted aye. 20 voted nays. >> the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on a substitute. those in favor say aye. those oppose no. and the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the motion to report the bill hr 3711 as amended favorably to the house. those in favor say aye. those oppose no. the ayes clearly have it and the order is recorded favorably. recorded vote is requests. >> mr. good -- votes aye.
mr. smith votes aye. mr. shabt votes aye. mr. king votes aye. mr. franks votes aye. mr. gomer votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. poe votes yes. mr. merino votes yes. mr. goudy. mr. labrador. mr. labrador votes yes. mr. fairenhold votes yes. mr. collins yes. mr. desantos, mr. buck votes yes. mr. rad cliff votes yes. ms. roby votes aye. mr. gates votes yes. mr. johnson of louisiana. yes. mr. bigs. mr. bigs votes yes. mr. rutherford yes. ms. handle votes yes. mr. coniers.
>> no. >> mr. coniers votes no. >> mr. nadler votes no. ms. laugh grn votes no. ms. jackson lee, mr. johnson of georgia. mr. johnson votes no. mr. deutsche votes no. mr. gutierrez votes no. mr. bass, mr. richmond. mr. jeffreys. mr. sis leany votes no. mr. swaulwell, mr. lou. mr. lou votes no. -- votes no. mr. shiner -- >> are there any other members who wish to be recorded in the
room? if not the clerk will report. sure. >> mr. chairman 20 votes aye, 10 voted no. >> would you repeat that, please. >> mr. chairman, 20 members voted aye, 10 members voted no. >> the ayes have it and the bill is approved. with that objection i ask unanimous consent that the letters of support from the following groups be entered into the record. numbers u.s.a., national association of home buildings, essential worker immigration coalition, international franchise association, the associated general contractors of america, the national restaurant association and the national roofing contractors
association. as i mentioned, the ayes have it and the bill is reported favorably to the house. they'll have two days to submit views. a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and the staff is advised to make technical and conforming changes. i want to thank all the members for being here tonight on such an important piece of legislation. we stand adjourned.