29–006

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–304 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 1

BASIC PILOT EXTENSION ACT OF 2003

OCTOBER 7, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2359] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2359) to extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility verification, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 8

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 10

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 10

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 10

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 11

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 11

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 12

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 12

Committee Jurisdiction Letters .............................................................................. 14

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 16

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 42

2

1See, generally, section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

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.—

(1) SCOPE OF OPERATION OF BASIC PILOT PROGRAM.—Section 401(c)(1) of the 

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 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;’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 402(c)(2)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 

1324a note) is amended by striking ‘‘electing—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(ii) 

the citizen’’ and inserting ‘‘electing the citizen’’. 

(b) MAINTENANCE OF LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.—Section 402(c)(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(3) MAINTENANCE OF LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall post on the Department of Homeland Security’s website the names 

of the participants in the basic pilot program (described in section 403(a) of this 

division).’’.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2359 extends for five years the operation of the pilot programs for employment eligibility verification instituted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

and allows employers in all states to opt to participate in the basic 

pilot program. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

I. BACKGROUND

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (‘‘IRCA’’) made 

it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not 

eligible to work and required employers to check the identity and 

work eligibility documents of all new employees.1 IRCA was deVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Oct 08, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR304P1.XXX HR304P1
3

2See generally, section 274B of the INA. 3See e.g., Verification of Eligibility for Employment and Benefits: Hearing Before the 

Subcomm. on Immigration and Claims of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st 

Sess. (March 30, 1995). 4See generally, sections 403(a) and 404 of IIRIRA. 

signed to end the ‘‘job magnet’’ for illegal aliens and thus finally 

control illegal immigration into the U.S. 

If the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on 

their face to be genuine, the employer has met its document review 

obligation. Certain documents, such as passports and resident alien 

cards, establish both identity and work eligibility. Others, such as 

most Social Security cards, establish work eligibility. Others, such 

as drivers’ licenses, establish identity. 

If a new hire produces the required documents, the employer is 

not required to solicit the production of additional documents and 

the employee is not required to produce additional documents. In 

fact, an employer’s request for more or different documents than 

are required, or refusal to honor documents that reasonably appear 

to be genuine, shall be treated as an unfair immigration-related 

employment practice if made for the purpose or with the intent of 

discriminating against an individual because of such individual’s 

national origin or citizenship status.2

The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of IRCA. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can 

be obtained cheaply.3 Thus, the IRCA system both benefits unscrupulous employers who do not mind hiring illegal aliens but want 

to show that they have met legal requirements and harms employers who do not want to hire illegal aliens but have no choice but 

to accept documents they know have a good likelihood of being 

counterfeit. 

II. THE BASIC PILOT PROGRAM

In response to the deficiencies of IRCA, title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(‘‘IIRIRA’’) instituted three employment eligibility confirmation 

pilot programs for volunteer employers that were to last for four 

years. Under the ‘‘basic pilot program,’’ the proffered Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers of new hires would 

be checked against Social Security Administration and Immigration 

and Naturalization Service records in order to weed out fraudulent 

numbers and thus to ensure that new hires are genuinely eligible 

to work. The pilot is available to employers having locations in 

California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas. Approximately 11,787 worksites are currently participating in the 

pilot. Public Law 107–128 extended the authorization of the basic 

pilot for an additional two years, until this November. 

The pilot works as follows:4

• As under current law, once an applicant has accepted a job 

offer, he or she will present certain documents to the employer. The 

employer, within three days of the hire, must examine the documents to determine whether they reasonably appear on their face 

to be genuine and complete an I–9 form attesting to this examination. • The employer will have three days from the date of hire to 

make an inquiry by phone or other electronic means to the conVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Oct 08, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR304P1.XXX HR304P1
4

firmation office established to run the mechanism. If the new hire 

claims to be a citizen, the employer will transmit his or her name 

and Social Security number. If the new hire claims to be a non-citizen, the employer will transmit his or her name, INS (or Department of Homeland Security)-issued number, and Social Security 

number. • The confirmation office will compare the name and Social Security number provided against information contained in Social Security Administration records and, if necessary, will compare the 

name and INS or DHS-issued number provided against information 

contained in DHS records. • If in checking the records, the confirmation office ascertains 

that the new hire is eligible to work, the operator will within three 

days so inform the employer and provide a confirmation number. • If the confirmation office cannot confirm the work eligibility of 

the new hire, it will within three days so inform the employer of 

a tentative nonconfirmation and provide a tentative nonconfirmation number. • If the new hire wishes to contest a tentative nonconfirmation, 

secondary verification will be undertaken. Secondary verification is 

an expedited procedure set up to confirm the validity of information contained in the government records and provided by the new 

hire. Under this process, the new hire will typically contact or visit 

the SSA or DHS to see why the government records disagree with 

the information he or she has provided. If the new hire requests 

secondary verification, he or she cannot be fired on the basis of the 

tentative nonconfirmation. • If the discrepancy can be reconciled within ten days, then confirmation of work eligibility and a confirmation number will be 

given to the employer by the end of this period. • If the discrepancy cannot be reconciled within ten days, final 

denial of confirmation and a final nonconfirmation number will be 

given by the end of this period. The employer then has two options: 

The employer can dismiss the new hire as being ineligible to 

work in the United States. 

The employer can continue to employ the new hire. The employer must notify DHS of this decision. If action is brought by 

the government, the employer has the burden of proof in showing the new hire is eligible to work. If the employer fails to so 

prove, the employer will be deemed to have knowingly hired an 

illegal alien. 

The SSA and the DHS agree as part of the pilot to safeguard the 

information provided to them by employers and to limit access to 

the information as appropriate under law. An employer must agree 

not to use the pilot for pre-employment screening of job applicants 

or for support of any unlawful employment practice, not to verify 

selectively, and to ensure that the information it receives from the 

government is used only to confirm employment eligibility and is 

not otherwise disseminated. 

Section 405 of IIRIRA required the INS to submit to the House 

and Senate Judiciary Committees a report on the basic pilot program after the end of the third and fourth years the program was 

in effect. The INS selected the Institute for Survey Research at 

Temple University and Westat to prepare the report, which was 

submitted to the INS in December of 2001. 

5

5 INS Basic Pilot Summary Report at 24. 

6 Id. at 16. 

7 Id. at 34. 

8 Id. at 21. 

9 Id. at v. 

10 Id. at 16. 11 Id. 12 Id. at 33. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 23. 15 Id. at 25. 16 Id. at 17. 17 Id. at 16. 18 Id. at 17. 19 Id. at vi. 

The report found that out of 364,987 total transactions between 

November 1997 and December 1999, 269,269 (74%) of aliens were 

found to be work-authorized after a check of SSA records and another 48,067 (13%) were found to be work-authorized after a check 

of INS records; in 32,114 cases (9%), the SSA issued a final nonconfirmation, and in 4,121 (1%) cases, the INS issued a final nonconfirmation.5 Ninety percent of new hires found to be work authorized were immediately confirmed by the confirmation system.6 In 

only about 4% of total transactions did new hires contact the Social 

Security Administration or INS to resolve problems with their work 

authorization status.7 Of those employees who did contact one of 

the agencies, 99% were found to be work-authorized.8

The report found that ‘‘an overwhelming majority of employers 

participating found the basic pilot program to be an effective and 

reliable tool for employment verification’’ 9—96% of employers 

found it to be an effective tool for employment verification; 10 and 

94% of employers believed it to be more reliable than the IRCA-required document check.11 The percentage of employers who found 

the employment eligibility verification process for new hires to be 

‘‘not at all burdensome’’ increased from 36% before they participated in the pilot to 60% after they started participating, because 

of the greater certainty it provided them.12 83% of employers reported that the participating in the pilot reduced uncertainty regarding work authorization.13

‘‘Some unauthorized workers were undoubtedly deterred from applying to pilot employers; however, the evaluation cannot provide 

good estimates of how often this occurs.’’ 14 The report found that 

64% of employers agreed that the number of unauthorized workers 

who applied for jobs decreased when the basic pilot system was 

used.15

‘‘[E]mployees were largely satisfied with the services provided by 

INS and the Social Security Administration.’’ 16 Of the employees 

who contacted local SSA or INS offices as part of the verification 

process, 95% who visited SSA offices said that their work authorization problem was resolved in a timely, courteous and efficient 

manner, as did 90% who visited INS offices.17 Only four aliens filed 

complaints with the Office of Special Counsel regarding federal 

agencies.18

‘‘Because the evidence points to both decreases and increases in 

discrimination caused by the Basic Pilot program, the evaluation 

could not determine whether the net effect of the program was discriminatory.’’ 19 The report found that 45% of participating employers interviewed said that the program made them more willing to 

6

20 Id. at 28. 21 Id. at 29. 22 Id. at 19. 23 Id. at 29. 

24 Id. at 17. 25 Id. at 37. 26 Id. at 38. 27 Id. at 41. 

hire immigrants (while 5% said it made them less willing).20 However, 30% of participating employers reported that they limited 

work assignments of new hires who had been tentatively nonconfirmed.21 Among the 67 interviewed employees who contested tentative nonconfirmations, ‘‘45% reported one or more of the following 

adverse actions: were not allowed to continue working while they 

straightened out their records, had their pay cut, or had their job 

training delayed.’’ 22 The report also found that ‘‘although failure to 

comply with the [memorandum of understanding] provision prohibiting employers from prescreening employees leads to discrimination, the level of discrimination does not necessarily increase due 

to the pilot, since non-pilot employers may also be prescreening. 

* * * The evaluation found no evidence that Basic Pilot employers 

were using the pilot to selectively verify new employees on the 

basis of citizenship .* * *’’ 23

As to database problems:

Most Federal officials interviewed agreed that the efficient operation of the pilot program was hindered by inaccuracies and outdated information in INS databases. One 

major contributory problem identified by INS officials is 

loss of data and delays in data entry for persons recently 

issued a new or replacement [work] authorization document * * * and for new immigrants and refugees. * * * 

INS is addressing its data entry delays through both policy 

and operational changes that are intended to significantly 

reduce the delay between the time a person becomes authorized to work and when the information is entered into 

the INS database and INS documentation is issued. Although some improvements have been made since the pilot 

evaluation concluded, others will take longer to implement.’’ 24

The report estimated that the total annual cost of the current 

pilot for the federal government, participating employers, and 

newly hired employees, is $6 million, and that the cost would be 

$11 million for a nationwide voluntary program and $11.7 billion 

for a nationwide mandatory program.25 The report found that the 

‘‘Social Security Administration and INS are currently capable of 

handling either of the voluntary programs described here [a voluntary program open to employers nationwide or an enhanced voluntary program in selected states], or some other program of limited scope.’’ 26 However, it recommended against ‘‘a mandatory or 

large-scale program.’’ 27

On June 10, 2003, the Committee received a letter from the 

American Meat Institute, Cargill, Inc., ConAgra Foods, Inc., the 

National Chicken Council, the National Meat Canners Association, 

the National Turkey Federation, Premium Standard Farms, Seaboard Corp., Smithfield Foods, Inc., and Tyson Foods, Inc., ‘‘asking 

7

for your support * * * in passing H.R. 2359. * * * The Basic 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 by adopting this bill 

quickly.’’

III. H.R. 2359

H.R. 2359 as amended by the Judiciary Committee would extend 

operation of the pilot programs for an additional 5 years.

Section 401(c)(1) of IIRIRA provided that the basic pilot program 

must be operated in, at a minimum, 5 of the 7 states with the highest estimated population of aliens who are not lawfully present in 

the United States. H.R. 2359 modifies IIRIRA to allow any employer to chose to participate in the pilot program, regardless of 

what state it is located in. It is time to allow volunteer employers 

throughout the nation to participate in the pilot. The pilot program 

study concluded that ‘‘the Social Security Administration and INS 

are currently capable of handling’’ a nationwide voluntary program. 

The basic pilot program has been operating very successfully for 

the past six years. As stated, 96% of participating employers believed it to be an effective tool for employment verification. In addition, 94% of employers believed it to be more reliable than the document check required by IRCA. 

Also, ‘‘employees were largely satisfied with the services provided 

by INS and the Social Security Administration.’’ Now, the pilot program can and should be improved. DHS must reemphasize to participating employers that they cannot take adverse actions against 

new employees tentatively found ineligible to work until there has 

been a final confirmation. And DHS must improve its databases, 

especially in imputing data for persons recently issued a work authorization document and for new immigrants and refugees. However, the report found that ‘‘INS is [already] addressing its data 

entry delays through both policy and operational changes that are 

intended to significantly reduce the delay between the time a person becomes authorized to work and when the information is entered into the INS database and INS documentation is issued.’’

The bill also provides that inquiries by federal, state or local government agencies under section 642(c) of IIRIRA may be made 

using the mechanism of the pilot programs. Section 642(c) provides 

that the Department of Homeland Security shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to 

verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status 

information. Implementation of this requirement has been hampered by lack of a defined system that verifies citizenship and immigration status. Currently several types of agencies, including departments of motor vehicles, professional licensing bureaus, and 

agencies providing clearances and badges to work in sensitive or 

secure areas, have sought to enter into agreements with the SAVE 

Program (which verifies immigration status for certain federal, 

state, and local government agencies that administer public benefit 

programs) to verify the status of individuals. These agencies can 

only verify noncitizen and naturalized applicants through the 

8

SAVE system. Although they can enter into separate verification 

arrangements with SSA, these additional verification steps are 

time consuming and duplicative. Moreover, SSA does not have the 

work authorization and citizenship status of all persons. Using a 

more comprehensive verification program, like the basic pilot, 

where all applicants are verified electronically through a single 

query that checks both SSA and, if necessary, DHS, databases, is 

clearly more efficient for these agencies. Furthermore, by verifying 

all applicants rather than only those declaring noncitizen status, 

the problem of false attestation to U.S. citizenship is largely eliminated, thus resulting in more accurate verification. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 2359. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 24, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2359 with an amendment 

by a vote of 18 yeas to 8 nays, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

roll call vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

2359.

9


Insert offset folio 13 here HR304.001
10

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 2359, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

OCTOBER 3, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure.

H.R. 2359—Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2359 would cost around 

$2 million a year over the 2004–2008 period, assuming the availability of appropriations. Enacting the bill would not affect direct 

spending or receipts. H.R. 2359 contains no intergovernmental or 

private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal government. 

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) and 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) administer three pilot 

programs to assist employers in confirming the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the United States. The programs 

provide employers with software, training, and access to BCIS and 

SSA databases to determine work eligibility. Under current law, 

the major pilot program will end in 2003, while the two other programs will terminate in 2005. H.R. 2359 would extend each program by five years and would expand the major pilot program to 

all 50 states (currently, it is offered in only six states). 

According to the BCIS, it costs $600,000 a year to operate the 

programs, mostly for the major pilot program. Implementing H.R. 

11

2359 would extend the major pilot program through the end of fiscal year 2008 and would extend the other two programs until the 

middle of fiscal year 2010. Thus, CBO estimates that extending the 

current programs would cost about $600,000 a year over the 2004– 2008 period. 

The major pilot program is currently available to employers in 

California, Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Nebraska. These 

states contain more than one third of the nation’s businesses. According to BCIS, expanding the major pilot program to all 50 states 

would cost about $1 million annually. In total, implementing H.R. 

2359 would cost around $2 million a year, subject to the availability of appropriations. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. This 

estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. Short title 

The short title of the bill is the ‘‘Basic Pilot Extension Act of 

2003’’. 

Section 2. Extension of programs 

Subsection (a) amends section 401(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the length of the basic pilot program (and 

the other pilot programs contained in section 401(c)) for additional 

five years. 

Section (b) provides that the amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on the date of enactment. 

Section 3. Use of employment eligibility confirmation system for status inquiries by government agencies 

Subsection (a) amends section 642(c) of the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by providing that 

inquiries made pursuant to section 642(c) may be submitted and 

responded to using the basic pilot program’s confirmation system. 

Subsection (b) amends section 404(h) of IIRIRA to specify that 

the basic pilot program’s confirmation system can respond to inquiries described in section 642(b) of IIRIRA and may provide citizenship and immigration status information in addition to identity 

and employment eligibility information. 

Section 4. Operation of basic pilot program in all states 

Subsection (a) amends section 401(c)(1) of IIRIRA to provide that 

the basic pilot program shall operate in all states. 

Subsection (b) amends section 402(c) of IIRIRA to provide that 

the Department of Homeland Security may not reject for a professed lack or resources an employer’s request to participate in the 

basic pilot program or limit the program’s applicability to certain 

states or places. 

12

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 2359 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT 

RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

DIVISION C—ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 

REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE OF DIVISION; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION 

AND NATIONALITY ACT; APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS 

OF SUCH ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION; SEVERABILITY. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’’. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV—ENFORCEMENT OF 

RESTRICTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYMENT 

Subtitle A—Pilot Programs for 

Employment Eligibility Confirmation 

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * *

(b) IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE; TERMINATION.—The Attorney 

General shall implement the pilot programs in a manner that permits persons and other entities to have elections under section 402 

of this division made and in effect no later than 1 year after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. Unless the Congress otherwise 

provides, the Attorney General shall terminate a pilot program at 

the end of the ø6-year period¿ 11-year period beginning on the first 

day the pilot program is in effect. 

(c) SCOPE OF OPERATION OF PILOT PROGRAMS.—The Attorney 

General shall provide for the operation—

(1) of the basic pilot program (described in section 403(a) of 

this division) øin, at a minimum, 5 of the 7 States with the 

highest estimated population of aliens who are not lawfully 

present in the United States;¿ in all States;

* * * * * * *

13

SEC. 402. VOLUNTARY ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) GENERAL TERMS OF ELECTIONS.— (1) * * *

(2) SCOPE OF ELECTION.— (A) * * *

(B) APPLICATION OF PROGRAMS IN NON-PILOT PROGRAM

STATES.—In addition, the Attorney General may permit a 

person or entity øelecting— ø(i) the basic pilot program (described in section 

403(a) of this division) to provide that the election applies to its hiring (or recruitment or referral) in one or 

more States or places of hiring (or recruitment or referral) in which the pilot program is not otherwise operating, or 

ø(ii) the citizen¿ electing the citizen attestation pilot 

program (described in 403(b) of this division) or the 

machine-readable-document pilot program (described 

in section 403(c) of this division) to provide that the 

election applies to its hiring (or recruitment or referral) in one or more States or places of hiring (or recruitment or referral) in which the pilot program is 

not otherwise operating but only if such States meet 

the requirements of 403(b)(2)(A) and 403(c)(2) of this 

division, respectively. 

ø(3) ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION OF ELECTIONS.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), the Attorney General shall accept all elections made 

under subsection (a). 

ø(B) REJECTION OF ELECTIONS.—The Attorney General 

may reject an election by a person or other entity under 

this section or limit its applicability to certain States or 

places of hiring (or recruitment or referral) if the Attorney 

General has determined that there are insufficient resources to provide appropriate services under a pilot program for the person’s or entity’s hiring (or recruitment or 

referral) in any or all States or places of hiring.¿

(3) MAINTENANCE OF LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.—The Secretary 

of Homeland Security shall post on the Department of Homeland Security’s website the names of the participants in the 

basic pilot program (described in section 403(a) of this division).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 404. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMATION SYSTEM. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) LIMITATION ON USE OF THE CONFIRMATION SYSTEM AND ANY

RELATED SYSTEMS.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

14

(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).

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Provisions 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 642. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND 

THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO INQUIRIES.—The Immigration 

and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within 

the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, 

by providing the requested verification or status information. An 

inquiry described in the preceding sentence may be submitted and 

responded to using the confirmation system established under section 404.

* * * * * * *

COMMITTEE JURISDICTION LETTERS

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, October 7, 2003. 

Hon. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

Attn: Joseph Gibson

DEAR CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER: This letter is to confirm our 

agreement regarding H.R. 2359, ‘‘Basic Pilot Extension Act of 

2003,’’ which was introduced by Rep. Ken Calvert and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary and in addition the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce. This bill would extend the authorization of the pilot programs for employment eligibility verification instituted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The basic pilot is set to expire next month, November, 2003; the bill would extend the pilot for five years. AmendVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Oct 08, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR304P1.XXX HR304P1
15

ments included in your Committee would expand the pilot to allow 

employers in all States to participate in the program. 

I support the five year authorization extension of the basic pilot 

program. I do have concerns that other matters may delay the legislation needed to extend the basic pilot program and stand ready 

to expedite those provisions. However, given this program’s importance to employers and employees who are currently participating 

in it and its impending expiration, I do not intend to hold a markup of this legislation. 

I do so with the understanding that this procedural route should 

not be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on these 

provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. I would also expect your support in my request to the Speaker for the appointment of conferees 

from my Committee with respect to matters within the jurisdiction 

of my Committee should a conference with the Senate be convened 

on this or similar legislation. 

I thank you for working with me regarding this matter. If you 

have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call 

me. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BOEHNER, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, October 7, 2003. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BOEHNER: Thank you for your willingness to 

waive consideration of H.R. 2359, the ‘‘Basic Pilot Extension Act of 

2003.’’

I agree that by waiving consideration of H.R. 2359, the Committee on Education and the Workforce in no way alters or waives 

its jurisdiction over the matters within the bill that fall within its 

Rule X jurisdiction. I further agree that I will support your request 

to the Speaker for conferees should this bill or similar legislation 

go to conference. 

I will place a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee on the Judiciary’s report on H.R. 2359 and in the Congressional Record during floor debate on H.R. 2359. I appreciate your 

cooperation in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman.

16

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT, BUSINESS MEETING, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER

24, 2003, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDI- CIARY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 

bill H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. 

For purposes of markup, I move its favorable recommendation to 

the House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read 

and open for amendment at any point.

17


Insert offset folio 27 here HR304.002
18


Insert offset folio 28 here HR304.003
19


Insert offset folio 29 here HR304.004
20

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indian, Mr. Hostettler, 

for five minutes to explain the bill. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 

or IRCA, made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work and required employers to check the 

identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. 

The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of IRCA. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can 

be obtained cheaply. Thus, the IRCA system both benefits unscrupulous employers who do not mind hiring illegal aliens but want 

to show they have met legal requirements, and harms employers 

who don’t want to hire illegal aliens but have no choice but to accept documents they know have a good likelihood of being counterfeit. 

Title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 instituted three employment eligibility confirmation pilot programs for volunteer employers that were to last 

for four years. Under the basic pilot, the Social Security numbers 

and alien identification numbers of new hires are checked against 

Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records in order to weed out fraudulent numbers and, thus, to 

ensure that new hires are genuinely eligible to work. 

The pilot is currently available to employers having locations in 

California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York and Texas. Approximately 11,787 worksites are currently participating in the 

pilot. The SSA and the Department of Homeland Security agree as 

part of the pilot to safeguard the information provided to them by 

employers and to limit access to the information, as appropriate. 

An employer must agree not to use the pilot for pre-employment 

screening of job applicants or for support of any unlawful employment practice, not to verify selectively, and to ensure that the information it receives from the government is used only to confirm 

employment eligibility and is not otherwise disseminated. 

In the last Congress we extended the authorization of the pilot 

program through this November. H.R. 2359, introduced by our colleague; Ken Calvert, would extend operation of the pilot programs 

for an additional five years. A 2001 study on the implementation 

of the pilot program found that 96 percent of participating employers believed the pilot to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification. The study recommended the continuation of the 

pilot. 

On June 10, 2003, I received a letter from the American Meat 

Institute, the National Chicken Council, the National Turkey Federation, among other trade associations and companies in the food 

processing industry, asking for my support in passing H.R. 2359. 

‘‘The basic 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 by adopting 

this bill quickly.’’ End quote. 

At the request of the Department of Homeland Security, H.R. 

2359 would also provide that inquiries by Federal, State or local 

government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship 

or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of 

21

the agency for any purpose authorized by law may be made using 

the mechanism of the pilot program. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2359 and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who wishes to give the minority 

opening statement? The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I don’t have an opening statement. I have——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all members’

opening statements will appear in the record at this point. 

[The statements follow:]

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

The Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, H.R. 2359, would extend for an additional 

five years the Basic Pilot Program to electronically verify the employment authorization of newly hired employees. The Basic Pilot program has been in effect since 

1996 and now operates in six states. 

I support extending the Basic Pilot Program for employment eligibility 

verification. However in its current form, this bill goes much further than a simple 

extension. In fact, section three would permit states and local governments to use 

the Basic Pilot confirmation system as a national registry of all U.S. citizens and 

immigrants. This would expand the pilot program far beyond the purview of employment and dangerously close to a national ID program—with no privacy protections 

or safeguards against abuse by individuals within state and local governments. 

Congress requested a report on the Basic Pilot program which we did not receive 

before the last time we considered an extension of the program in this committee. 

Now that we have received it, two years late, it appears to recommend that the program should not be expanded beyond the pilot—both because there are flaws in the 

program and because an expansion would be expensive. In particular, the report 

points out that the efficient operation of the pilot program was hindered by inaccurate and outdated information in INS databases and that there have been complaints alleging actual or potential harm to individuals. 

Before we consider expanding this program far beyond its originally intended 

function, we must first examine whether it is accomplishing its prescribed goal and 

extending the pilot program for an additional five years will give us time to assess 

the deficiencies outlined in the report. Any expansion of the scope of the information 

sharing in the program would be a major change to existing law and should be carefully studied and considered on its own merits. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE

The Basic Pilot is a temporary, voluntary program for electronically verifying the 

employment authorization of newly hired employees. The Basic Pilot Extension Act 

of 2003, H.R. 2359, would extend the program for another 5 years. 

The primary goal of employment verification is to ensure that American employers hire workers who are authorized to work in the United States. Studies by the 

General Accounting Office (GAO), the Commission on Immigration Reform, and others have found that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Form 

I–9 paper employment verification system is confusing and easily circumvented. The 

goal of the Basic Pilot is to develop new employment verification procedures that 

will improve on the Form I–9 system by reducing false claims to U.S. citizenship 

and document fraud, discrimination, violations of civil liberties and privacy, and employer burden. 

INS and the Social Security Administration (SSA) implemented the Basic Pilot in 

November 1997, in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Nebraska was 

added on March 1999, to assist employers in the meat packing industry. 

Under the Basic Pilot, the employer examines the documents of a newly hired employee within 3 days of the date of which employment commences and reports the 

pertinent information to an office at the Social Security Administration (SSA). The 

SSA office compares the information provided by the newly hired employee with Social Security records. In the case of a foreign worker, the Social Security office will 

then pass the information on to a designated office at the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (BCIS). The BCIS office, which is taking the place of the 

former INS, compares the data provided by the employee with immigration records 

to determine whether he or she is authorized to work in the United States. 

22

If BCIS confirms that a newly hired alien employee is authorized to work in the 

United States, it issues a confirmation number. If BCIS determines instead that the 

new employee is not authorized for employment in the United States, it issues a 

tentative nonconfirmation number. Procedures are available to permit either the 

employer or the employee to contest a tentative nonconfirmation before it becomes 

final. 

The Basic Pilot is an effective employee verification program that makes it easier 

and safer for employers to hire foreign workers, which makes it easier for lawful 

foreign workers to find employment. A participating employer does not have to 

worry about sanctions for hiring an illegal worker. Under the program, the determination of whether an alien employee has valid work authorization is made by 

BCIS. 

The Basic Pilot has received support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). The USDA’s recent security guidelines for Food Safety Inspection Services 

include a recommendation that employers in the meat industry should consider participating in the Basic Pilot. 

Notwithstanding the fact that I favor the Basic Pilot, I have concerns about problems that have been encountered in implementing it. Section 405 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) required the 

Attorney General to submit a report on the Basic Pilot to the House and Senate 

Judiciary Committees. The Attorney General selected the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University to do the study necessary for the preparation of this 

report. The study was done before the Basic Pilot responsibilities of former INS 

were assumed by BCIS. The Institute identified significant but hopefully temporary 

areas of concern in the way the Basic Pilot has been implemented, such as the following examples: 

1. The efficient operation of the pilot program was hindered by inaccuracies and 

outdated information in INS databases. 

2. One-third of the employers said they had encountered difficulties in setting up 

the Basic Pilot program. Most of the problems involved modem connection, software, 

hardware, and telephone lines. Many employers also mentioned having these problems when the system was online. 

3. Approximately 39% of employers reported that SSA never or only sometimes 

returned calls promptly and 43% reported similar difficulties with INS. 

4. Improvements need to be incorporated into the Basic Pilot to reduce discretion 

in how employers use the system and in the extent to which they follow pilot procedures designed to protect employee rights. 

5. Procedural changes are needed to increase checks on name variations and to 

perform edit and consistency checks of the data entered by the employer. 

6. A complaint about the Basic Pilot that was mentioned by 16% of employers is 

that at times the number of employees hired is so great that it is impossible to submit the information required by the deadline of 3 business days. 

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the Basic Pilot is a good, effective program, 

and it is the best tool available for employers to ensure that their new hires are 

legally eligible for employment in the United States. In addition, the memorandum 

of understanding that employers and the government enter into for participating in 

the program ensures that the employers will use the program uniformly and without discrimination. I will support extending the Basic Pilot program, but I have reservations about the desirability of extending it for 5 years without an indication 

that the problems identified by the Institute for Survey Research have been resolved. For the same reason, I am opposed to expanding the program now. I agree 

with the Institute’s recommendation that the Basic Pilot is not ready for larger-scale 

implementation at this time. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING

Chairman Sensenbrenner, thank you for holding this markup today. Verification 

of employment eligibility is essential to enforcing our immigration laws. I understand that the bill we are considering today extends the current, basic pilot program. This is a step in the right direction. I would like to see this pilot program 

opened to employers in all states who would like to participate. And, although the 

program we are considering today is voluntary, we should work to make employment eligibility verification mandatory for all employers. 

Employment verification is good for business. We all remember the effect of the 

terrorist attacks of September 11th on American businesses and our economy. Wall 

Street was shuttered for several days, the market dropped markedly, businesses 

were wiped out, companies laid off thousands of workers, and the lives of hundreds 

23

of thousands of Americans were disrupted. There is no worse economic environment 

for business and workers than one without public safety and security. 

Employers who break the law and hire illegal aliens impose costs on our society, 

including, significant lost federal withholding for ‘‘off the books’’ paychecks, with 

taxpayers and honest employers picking up the costs of public health care, workers 

compensation and unemployment insurance, as well as Social Security and Medicare 

contributions. If illegal immigration is not stopped, our society must bear the effects 

of mass immigration on congestion, overcrowded schools, low wages and other quality-of-life measures. 

Finally, I am concerned about the plight of honest employers who follow the law, 

while their unscrupulous competitors gain an unfair competitive advantage by 

knowingly hiring illegal workers. We must enforce our immigration laws to level the 

playing field. Ensuring that employers do not violate the law by hiring illegal aliens 

is a key component of an overall common sense immigration policy.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

[The amendment of Mr. Hostettler follows:]

24


Insert offset folio 47 here HR304.005
25

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2359, offered by Mr. Hostettler. 

Page 3, after line 4, insert the following—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 

the amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. The 

gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The basic pilot program has been operating very successfully for 

the past six years. As I stated, 96 percent of participating employers believe it to be an effective tool for employment verification. In 

addition, 94 percent of employers believe it to be more reliable than 

the document check required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. 

The percentage of employers who found the overall employment 

eligibility verification process to be ‘‘not at all burdensome’’, increased from 36 percent to 60 percent after they started participating in the pilot, because of the greater certainty the pilot provides that their employees are legal. I think it is time to allow volunteer employers throughout the Nation to participate in the pilot. 

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security must operate 

the pilot in at least five of the seven States with the highest estimated number of illegal aliens. I don’t think there is any reason 

why employers located elsewhere in the Nation should not be allowed to participate. The study of the pilot program completed for 

INS stated that, ‘‘The Social Security Administration and INS are 

currently capable of handling a nationwide voluntary program.’’ My amendment would accomplish this aim. It would allow any 

U.S. employer to elect to participate in the pilot program. The pilot 

program study estimated that 80 percent of illegal aliens live in the 

five original pilot program States—California, Florida, Illinois, New 

York and Texas—and that these States contain 35 percent of the 

Nation’s employers. So it seems reasonable to hypothesize that 

overall usage of the program would likely double if it were opened 

up to employers nationwide. This is exactly what the study predicts. 

The study also predicts that the total cost of the pilot annually 

for the government, employers and employees, would go from $6 

million to $11 million if made nationwide. This small increase in 

cost would be more than made up for by the powerful boost the 

pilot program would give to immigration law enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 

and yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope—This is an important issue, and if this amendment 

passes, there will be a great deal of opposition to the bill. The 

chickens and the turkeys and the other groups that support the extension of the pilot program support the extension of the pilot program, and the pilot program, at least in concept, makes a great 

deal of sense. Let’s find a way to allow employers to easily verify 

the work authorization status of the people that they want to offer 

jobs to. 

26

But the study that the chairman of the subcommittee refers to 

in speaking in favor of the amendment concludes that the worst 

thing to do now is to expand this pilot program, for a whole series 

of reasons. And I do have to put this into context. 

The subcommittee has never held the hearing on this. The INS 

spent millions of dollars commissioning a study. The study comes 

back with a series of flaws and problems that cause it to conclude 

that, while the pilot project should continue as we seek to iron out 

those flaws, the worst thing to do is to expand it. 

Without a hearing, without a subcommittee markup, without a 

discussion of the points made by the study commissioned directly 

about this program, we’re now being asked to provide an expansion 

to all States and all employers who want to participate. It’s a terrible mistake to do that. 

Let me try and outline some of the flaws pointed out by the INS’ own study of this program. First, the program was hindered by 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. 

According to the report, the greatest burden for inaccurate and 

unreliable data falls on workers, who are penalized by employers 

unsure of their work status. You call to verify. You don’t get a 

quick answer. You’ve got to move on in terms of your own employment needs. You’re going to pass over the employee who you otherwise wanted to hire, but can’t get the answer back from the pilot 

program’s verification process. 

A sizeable number of workers who were not confirmed were, in 

fact, work authorized, but for a variety of reasons, didn’t straighten 

out their records with the INS or the Social Security Administration. Forty-two percent of—not necessarily a representative sample, 

but a sample taken by the investigators—were found to be work 

authorized compared to less than a quarter which were most likely 

unauthorized. 

That’s a huge percentage of people who were otherwise authorized but told initially by the INS or the SSA, the Social Security 

Administration, that they were not work authorized. People who 

had a right to get a job, who the employer wanted to hire, were 

not hired because of misinformation. That’s a compelling argument 

against immediately expanding it without further probing what is 

being done to fix the flaws. 

Some employers surveyed did not follow the federally-mandated 

memorandum of understanding that they were required to sign as 

a condition of participating in the basic pilot. Participating employers engaged in prohibited employment practices, including preemployment screening. In other words, you’re only supposed to ask 

the worker you have offered a job to, you’re only supposed to verify 

that person, not prospective workers. You aren’t supposed to be 

getting information about people until you have decided, if this person is authorized, I want to hire him. That was not what went on. 

That not only denies the worker a job, but also the opportunity 

to contest database inaccuracies, taking adverse employment action 

based on tentative determinations, which penalizes workers while 

they and the INS work to resolve database errors and the failure 

of employers to inform workers of their rights under the program. 

27

Some employers compromised the privacy of workers in various 

ways, such as failing to safeguard access to the computer used to 

maintain the pilot system, including leaving passwords and instructions in plain view. We’re talking about personal information. 

We authorized that that be distributed, but only in secure ways. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, the committee will be recessed 

to go to the vote. We have one vote now and about three votes at 

12:30. 

Let me say we have to have a reporting quorum when we come 

back, because our sequential referral on the sex trafficking act expires on Monday. 

The committee is recessed. Members will please return promptly. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The committee will be in order. 

Without objection, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, 

will be recognized for two additional minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. I wish the Chairman of the Subcommittee were 

here. He and I had a conversation on the floor just a minute ago. 

This is about an unlimited voluntary expansion. The bill is not 

going to become law this year, this bill. A number of us have to 

oppose this bill unless we have a hearing where we have a chance 

to just understand what the problems that the INS’s own study 

concluded exists with this program, what they’re going to do to rectify it if it’s going to be expanded. I don’t have any problem with 

a bill extending the program. It’s the expansion of it that seems to 

me to compel that kind of a hearing. The Chairman set a hearing 

twice. Through no fault of his own, hurricane and some—I can’t remember what else it was. I think we ended up leaving a day earlier 

than we expected. We didn’t get to have that hearing. 

The thing I would ask is, given that it’s not going to become law 

this year, this is not going to pass the Senate this year, can we 

have the hearing, see if the INS and the Social Security Administration are going to make the corrections. And I will just end by 

quoting what the study said regarding the issue of inspection because it said, ‘‘The evaluation uncovered sufficient problems in the 

design and the implementation of the current program to preclude 

recommending that it be significantly expanded. Some of these 

problems could become insurmountable if the program were to be 

expanded dramatically in scope.’’

All these problems that I mentioned earlier are compounded perhaps in an exponential fashion with a massive expansion. The 

question remains whether the program can be modified in a way 

that will permit it to maintain or enhance its current benefits 

while overcoming its weaknesses. The study concluded it cannot, 

they cannot recommend it be significantly expanded. Congress 

mandated the study. INS chose who was going to do the study. The 

study came back, comes back, talks about flaws, recommends 

against expansion at this time. I say we at least have a hearing 

to study the specific flaws they found out before we move the bill 

further, and try to get a consensus on this rather than have it divisive. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

28

For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa seek recognition? 

Mr. KING. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In response to the gentleman, the information we have before us 

shows that they have commissioned a study. And that study, INS 

is currently capable of handling either of the voluntary programs 

described. And as I listen to this rebuttal I would just, I would just 

say this, that as an employer and someone who has met payroll 

and filled out I–9s for about 28 years, and at least after the Act 

was passed, that to argue that an employer shouldn’t have the opportunity to verify the legality of the person—not the applicant, but 

the person whom they’ve agreed to hire simply on the condition 

that they verify in a positive fashion that they have met the employment requirements in this country. If it works for a pilot program, if the study verifies that it does work in the pilot program, 

and if they’re prepared to move forward and I’m support of—I’m in 

support of Mr. Hostettler’s amendment, and I would like to yield 

the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

In response to my colleague from California’s concerns, I would 

just like to say at the outset that I do sympathize with the fact 

that we did not have a hearing on this, and actually did not mark 

it up on two occasions, once as a result of a lack of a quorum and 

the other as a result of Hurricane Isabel. We were forced to not 

hold such proceedings. 

But I would like to point out that according to the study the 

issue is whether we should have a voluntary program expanded to 

the rest of the country, over and above the current pilot states, and 

according to the study, it says quote: ‘‘Social Security Administration and INS are currently capable of handling either of the voluntary programs described here or some other program of limited 

scope.’’ However, compliance for the mandatory programs would 

most likely be poor unless there was a high probability of being 

monitored and penalized for noncompliance. And what we’re talking about here is not a mandatory program, but an expansion of 

a voluntary program. 

Another issue is the program as it is now compared to what the 

rest of the country are subject to with regard to IRCA of 1986. The 

rest of the country must comply with the Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986. There are pilot states that have the ability to 

use this program, which the preponderance of people who are using 

that program in the pilot states like much better than the old program. 

So what this amendment does is simply expand the program to 

allow for voluntary participation by companies across the country 

and not just those limited by the original, the original pilot. 

And so there is a difference. The study does say that Social Security and INS would be capable of handling it and that’s why——

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield just on that one point? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. You were not in the room when I read the conclusion of the evaluation that we mandated and INS commissioned. 

29

The evaluation, it says, quote: ‘‘The evaluation uncovered sufficient 

problems in the design and implementation of the current program,’’ which is voluntary. I mean the current program is voluntary too. Only employers who want to in those states participate. 

To preclude, recommending that it be significantly expanded, that’s 

a recommendation that they can’t—that’s their thing. We can’t recommend that it be expanded. Expanding it to 50 states, even 

though on a voluntary basis, is a significant expansion. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Reclaiming my time, they actually do not say 

that with regard to a voluntary program. They say that with regard to a mandatory program, that expanding it on a mandatory 

basis would not be appropriate, but a voluntary expansion, as the 

study says, relates to the fact that Social Security and INS are 

both capable of such an expansion of the voluntary system. And 

what we are saying is that no system is without some flaws, but 

the scenario that we find ourselves in is that the pilot program is 

a better program. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Time of the gentleman from Iowa 

has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman. I would 

like to rise in support of the underlining bill dealing with the extension of the basic pilot program because I do believe that we need 

to commit ourselves to the underlying premise which is that employers are hiring individuals based upon their credentials. I’ve always said that work is yet undone in this committee because we 

need to pursue the earned access to legalization, which would then 

provide documentation for a number of our undocumented aliens in 

order that they may do what they want to do, which is to come 

here and seek an opportunity and work legally in this country, reflecting on the concept or the premise that we are a Nation built 

of immigrants and of laws. 

I would say to the Chairman of the Subcommittee that we have 

had the good pleasure of being able to work out a lot of issues, and 

we did have some logistical problems in holding a subcommittee 

hearing on, a markup on this particular extension, and I would 

argue that the expansion to 50 states, albeit voluntary, will simply 

not be effective. The report does indicate that we have some basic 

problems with accuracy and timeliness of the INS in terms of the 

data that they need, needs to be improved. This inaccuracy hinders 

the INS databases from responding. A lot of their information is 

outdated. Many of the employers have called and have not gotten 

return calls. Of course the INS now is merged under the Homeland 

Security Department with a completely new name and recently appointed assistant secretaries and directors of the various programs. 

We need to give time for the pilot program to be really effective. 

I am committed to the fact that employers must do the right thing 

by way of documenting their employees as it relates to the impact 

on Americans and as it relates to the idea of ensuring the right 

kind of employment or the employment of Americans or those who 

are documented, if you will, legally permanent residents. That is a 

good goal to achieve. It balances alongside of protecting the homeland. 

30

At the same time, however, we don’t want abuses on either side, 

that people are intimidated because of their last name or because 

they speak a different language, because the employers don’t have 

the right information, because they can’t get the right information 

because the databases are not correct. For example, the data may 

be incorrect and someone may have secured their legal permanent 

resident status or legal status, and the records reflect that they 

have not received it. We know there are long waiting lines on attempting to obtain a green card or other documents, and therefore 

I think expanding it, even though it might be voluntary, I can’t see 

any light at the end of the tunnel at this point, that the DHS 

would be able to muster the resources and staff to do it right. I 

think it’s more than appropriate for this to be extended, for us to 

be able to get the bugs out of it, if you will, and as well to be able 

to work it well. 

Let me just add that 39 percent of employees—employers, excuse 

me, reported that SSA never or only sometimes returned calls 

promptly, and 43 percent reported similar difficulty with the INS. 

And so we really need improvements in training and in system 

software. I don’t see how we’re going to get that by allowing other 

states to come in, and even if it’s voluntary, other states might say 

they’ve offered for us to come in, let’s all join. That’s 50 states over 

the 6 we have. But I ask my colleagues to be indulging in this, to 

work on—what we really need to do is to provide documentation to 

many of those seeking legalization. I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to have hearings on the earned access to legalization. But 

with respect to the pilot program, I don’t think we have all of the 

T’s crossed and I’s dotted in this particular program. 

And I might say to the chairman that this is something that we 

worked on a year or two ago when the H1–B visas were in place, 

and we argued that we had sufficient talent here in the United 

States of individuals who were technologically savvy and trained to 

be able to fit that need of that industry. So we have all committed 

ourselves to ensuring that we employ Americans, but we should 

also commit ourselves to being fair to those who are here with documented status who come from a different country, speak a different language. I would not want the fact that we are technologically unsure to then abuse the process. And I’d ask that we oppose the amendment to expand this program. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that Mr. Berman has left. That’s unfortunate. I had wanted to ask him a question. But let me just state at this point, having looked at this issue, 

we have to balance the needs of people who, who Mr. Berman 

talked about, who have a problem, who are not treated well in the 

system that we currently have. But we also have employers who 

need to hire people who have training, who know what they’re 

doing and that can’t be taken out. They need to rely on those people and not have them removed by a Social Security no-match letter. 

31

And so I think—without other information, a bad program that 

helps voluntarily employers who are going to spend significant 

amounts of money on training and whose business would be significantly disrupted if those employees were jerked out from under 

them, is a fairly important thing, and maybe what we need to do 

is work on the program to make it work more efficiently and better, 

but still give employers the opportunity to protect themselves from 

hiring employees who in fact have good ID that looks good, who 

have Social Security numbers that may or may not be legitimate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take 5 minutes. I 

don’t have a dog in the philosophical fight, but the one thing that 

Mr. Berman said in his response in reading from the report, that 

is extremely troubling to me and is kind of the follow up to what 

Mr. Cannon just said, is that right now the pilot program is kicking out a lot of people who would otherwise be qualified because 

you can’t get the information you need to document that they are 

qualified. Therefore people, employers then pass over those qualified employees to go on to other employees and hire instead, which 

means that a significant number of people, percentage of the people 

who are participating in the pilot program, are failing to hire qualified employees because of the failure of Social Security or INS, 

which I think is—if we were talking about a situation where you 

were increasing security risk to the country might be justified, but 

it seems to me that we ought to be making the—resolving any 

doubt in favor of the employment of people who are really qualified. 

And as long as this system is disqualifying a significant number 

of people who meet the criteria and just can’t get it documented, 

I think we ought not be expanding the system until we get the system worked out where that doesn’t happen any more. And that 

seems to me to be the one compelling thing that I’ve heard, although I’m not on the Subcommittee. I haven’t been involved in 

this debate other than that, but I’ve been listening to both sides, 

trying to figure out what the more compelling argument is, and it 

seems to me that that’s the most compelling argument I’ve heard 

today. 

You’ve got people who walk in, get selected to be hired, then 

can’t get the Government to document what their real status is because the Government is not prepared or doesn’t have the resources, or drags its feet, or doesn’t return calls, that seems to me 

to be something that we ought not be condoning on a more, on a 

broader scale than in the pilot states that are already in the program. 

And I’ll yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll yield to the gentleman 

from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. 

32

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

In response to the gentleman from North Carolina’s concern as 

well as that of the gentleman from California, there has been discussion that a significant portion of people that ask for work authorization are actually turned down and leave, but the report 

found that out of over 360,000 total transactions between November of 1997 and December of 1999, that almost 270,000 or 74 percent of aliens were found to be work authorized after initial check 

of the Social Security Administration records, and another 13 percent, almost 50,000, were found to be work authorized after a check 

of INS records. 

So in 87 percent of the cases after the initial check, they were 

found to be work authorized, total transactions. 

In a little over 32,000 cases 9 percent—9 percent the Social Security Administration issued a final nonconfirmation, and in about 1 

percent of the cases the INS issued a final nonconfirmation. So 90 

percent of new hires found to be work authorized were immediately 

confirmed by the confirmation system. In only about 4 percent of 

the total transactions did the new hires themselves contact the Social Security Administration or INS to resolve problems with their 

work authorization status, which they have the ability to do with 

this pilot program, and if it is expanded they will continue to do 

that. 

Of those employees who did contact one of the agencies, 99 percent were found to be work authorized. So a significant portion of 

the individuals that seek to use the program to attain work authorization do, and so the suggestion or the idea that there is this large 

group of individuals who seek work authorization and are somehow 

denied, is not consistent with any other study. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And so I would like to say that once again it’s 

not a perfect program. I don’t know too many Federal Government 

programs that are perfect, but it’s not perfect, and we wish to, we 

wish to continue to resolve those problems, and INS has said in the 

report that they are resolving those, for example, data entry programs. 

But if it is not this much better program than the underlying 

IRCA program, then employers in Indiana and North Carolina and 

other places are going to be subject to IRCA. 

And as Mr. Cannon pointed out, if in the course of a work site 

compliance investigation, individuals who have been trained for 

two years, are found to be out of status and that they are in the 

country illegally, they will be arrested, detained, ultimately deported. And so the employer loses that two years of experience and 

training and investment because we do not have a better system 

in place than what the underlying law, namely IRCA of 1986, will 

allow them to do, and I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding——

Mr. SMITH. Just a minute. I’ve got the time, and I just want to 

add one——

Mr. WATT. Could I ask the gentleman to yield? 

Mr. SMITH. Let me make one statement, then I’ll be happy to 

yield. 

33

And that is, in addition to the points that Mr. Hostettler just 

made—and I think they’re absolutely persuasive when it comes to 

supporting this amendment—I also just want to point out again 

that we are not talking about a mandatory program. I happen to 

have supported a mandatory program in the 1996 bill. That didn’t 

pass. We ended up with a voluntary program. But what’s good for 

6 states if good for 50 states. We’re ironing out the wrinkles, and 

in point of fact, employer sanctions are absolutely worthless if you 

don’t have a way to validate the status of people who are applying 

to work. If their Social Security cards don’t match they have several days to try to get that resolved by going to the Social Security 

Administration. A lot of people do not. My hunch is the people who 

do not are in fact in the country illegally, and that’s going to account for a large percentage of the people who don’t follow through 

and make the effort to validate their status. 

So let’s remember those points during the debate and we’ll be 

happy to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and again, I 

haven’t been at the center of this debate, but it’s quite obvious that 

Mr. Hostettler is reading maybe from a different report than the 

one that Mr. Berman is reading from. They seem to be drawing 

diametrically opposed results from the same report. 

And I’m looking at the report now, and I just don’t see that what 

the gentleman has indicated is correct. The recommendation, the 

last page of the report clearly says that: ‘‘This report concludes that 

we are not ready for larger-scale implementation at this time.’’ I’m 

quoting from the report. So if the gentleman is——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, there’s an inference in all this discussion that we’re fighting terrorism, and I’m at a loss to see how a 

substantial proportion of people trying to apply for a job at a meatpacking plant or a farm worker getting denied employment is going 

to have any effect—I mean is there any evidence that terrorists are 

applying for any of these jobs? 

The report says clearly that we’re not ready for this large scale, 

and it’s just going to cause such massive confusion, I would hope—

the point of the pilot is to get things straight before you go large 

scale and mess everything up. 

I will yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the first——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I just wanted to point out, as my distinguished colleague did, that under the recommendation section of 

the report, the very first line, the very first recommendation reads, 

and I quote, ‘‘Based on the evaluation findings, the basic pilot proVerDate jul 14 2003 22:09 Oct 08, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR304P1.XXX HR304P1
34

gram should not be expanded to a mandatory or large-scale program.’’ And I’m going to read further down the report. ‘‘The evaluation 

uncovered sufficient problems in the design and implementation of 

the current program to preclude recommending that it be significantly expanded. Some of these problems could become insurmountable if the problem were to be expanded dramatically in 

scope.’’ And I just want to point out that the amendment that’s being offered flies completely in the face of what the very first recommendation is, which is, maintain the test pilot program. Try to 

work out those bugs in the program, and don’t take the leap of 

faith of expanding it dramatically, because again, as the report concludes, those problems could be insurmountable. 

So with that, I would urge my colleagues to not support this 

amendment, and I would yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Hostettler 

amendment. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If not, a reporting—— Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Two amendments at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Which amendment does the gentlewoman wish reported? 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. We’re getting it now, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. This is amendment 143. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2359, offered by Ms. JacksonLee of Texas. Beginning on page 2, strike line 6 through page 3, 

line 4. 

[The amendment of Ms. Jackson-Lee follows:]

35


Insert offset folio 72 here HR304.006
36

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 

language proposed in Section 3 of the Basic Pilot Extension Act 

would permit State and local governments to use the basic pilot 

confirmation system to check the immigration or citizenship status 

of all U.S. citizens and immigrants who come within their purview. 

This would expand the basic pilot program far beyond the employment contact, and it would do so without a hearing on whether 

such State and local access to basic pilot information is inappropriate. 

Under the existing pilot program, employers provide the Department of Homeland Security with information about employment 

authorization that has been provided by a newly hired alien employee. DHS then confirms that the employee is authorized to work 

in the United States or reports that such work authorization cannot be confirmed. Fair enough. 

Under Section 3, however, the State or local government agency 

would be taking DHS for citizenship or immigration status information in addition to the identity and employment eligibility 

records obtained from the basic pilot confirmation, which is quite 

different from asking for confirmation or non-confirmation of the 

existence of work authorization. 

Moreover, Section 3 does not contain privacy protections or protections against abuse by individuals within State and local governments. Moreover, State and local governments already have access 

to an information system that they may use to determine whether 

documents provided by non-citizens match those in the DHS database. Such information is available through the Systematic Alien 

Verification for Entitlements—that’s the SAVE program—which 

was created by Section 121 of the Immigration Reform and Control 

Act of 1986. 

The SAVE program includes numerous safeguards to protect 

against misuse of information, discrimination, and inappropriate 

disclosure. Section 3 would move us in the direction of establishing 

a national register or database of all Americans, the necessary precursor to implementation of a national ID. It would do this by 

amalgating data of citizens and immigrants into a single database 

that would be used for multiple purposes outside of the employment content. 

I urge, therefore, my colleagues to consider the invasion of privacy that Section 3 now allows and the fact that it is redundant 

inasmuch as our local governments, State and municipal governments have access to this information. It is key, and I think because of our responsibilities in the Judiciary Committee, that we 

balance the protection of the homeland with our civil liberties. As 

we have seen a number of incidences coming about with PATRIOT 

Act I and now the proposals of PATRIOT Act II, it is our responsibility to find a very balanced perspective, keeping in mind the responsibilities to secure our homeland, but as well keeping in mind 

the responsibilities to ensure that our civil liberties and protected 

and our privacy is protected. 

With that, I yield back.

37

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

The language proposed in Section 3 of the Basic Pilot Extension Act would permit 

State and local governments to use the Basic Pilot confirmation system to check the 

immigration or citizenship status of all U.S. citizens and immigrants who come 

within their purview. This would expand the basic pilot program far beyond the employment context, and it would do so without a hearing on whether such State and 

local access to Basic Pilot information is appropriate. 

Under the existing Basic Pilot, employers provide the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) with information about employment authorization that has been 

provided by a newly hired, alien employee. DHS then confirms that the employee 

is authorized to work in the United States or reports that such work authorization 

cannot be confirmed. 

Under Section 3, the State or local government agency would be asking DHS for 

citizenship or immigration status information in addition to the identity and employment eligibility records obtained from the Basic Pilot confirmation, which is 

quite different from asking for conformation or nonconformation of the existence of 

work authorization. Moreover, Section 3 does not contain privacy protections or protections against abuse by the individuals within State and local governments. 

Moreover, State and local governments already have access to an information system that they may use to determine whether documents provided by noncitizens 

match those in the DHS database. Such information is available through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program, which was created by 

section 121 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (Pub. L. 99–

603). The SAVE program includes numerous safeguards to protect against misuse 

of information, discrimination, and inappropriate disclosure. 

Section 3 would move us in the direction of establishing a national register or 

database of all Americans, the necessary precursor to implementation of a national 

ID. It would do this by amalgamating data of citizens and immigrants into a single 

database that would be used for multiple purposes (outside of the employment context). 

I urge you therefore to vote for my amendment, which would delete Section 3 from 

the Basic Pilot Extension Act. 

Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have no——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Questions on the Jackson-Lee 

amendment? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Those is favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If not, a reporting quorum is 

present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill——

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I have another amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2359, offered by Ms. JacksonLee of Texas. Page 2, line 2, strike ‘‘11-year’’ and insert ‘‘9-year.’’

[The amendment of Ms. Jackson-Lee follows:]

38


Insert offset folio 82 here HR304.007
39

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It simply asks, because of the difficulties in the databases 

and the inability for the information secured by SSA to be accurate, 

because the inaccuracies noted in the report, that this extension be 

only for 3 years instead of 5 years. And I’d ask my colleagues to 

vote to have this be a 3-year extension as opposed to a 5-year extension.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

This amendment would extend the Basic Pilot Program for three years rather 

than for the five-year period that is provided for in the Basic Pilot Extension Act. 

As the committee knows, an independent evaluation of the Basic Pilot Program was 

conducted for the Department of Justice by the Institute for Survey Research at 

Temple University (ISR). That evaluation revealed a number of concerns about the 

implementation of the Basic Pilot, such as the following: 

1. The accuracy and timeliness of Immigration and Naturalization Service (IN) 

data need to be improved. The efficient operation of the pilot program was hindered 

by inaccuracies and outdated information in INS databases. 

2. There have been complaints alleging actual or potential harm to individuals. 

Although employees were largely satisfied with the services provided by INS and 

the Social Security Administration (SSA), they occasionally have made complaints 

to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice about INS implementation of the pilots. 

3. The Basic Pilot system needs computer and technical support improvements. 

One-third of the employers said they had encountered difficulties in setting up the 

Basic Pilot program. Most of the problems involved modem connection, software, 

hardware, and telephone lines. Many employers also mentioned having these problems when the system was online. Further, 39% of employers reported that SSA 

never or only sometimes returned calls promptly and 43% reported similar difficulty 

with INS. 

4. Improvements are needed in training and in system software. Improvements 

need to be incorporated into the Basic Pilot to reduce discretion in how employers 

use the system and in the extent to which they follow pilot procedures designed to 

protect employee rights. System program changes are needed also to increase checks 

on name variations and to perform edit and consistency checks of the data entered 

by the employer.

5. Quality assurance measures need to be incorporated into the program. Periodic 

reports are needed to identify information which suggests that employers may not 

be using the system correctly and to summarize general trends in verification requests. 

6. Employers sometimes fail to follow mandated safeguards for the Basic Pilot. 

There is evidence that employers are engaging in practices specifically prohibited by 

the Basic Pilot MOU. 

7. Concerns regarding employee privacy. Although the majority of employers appear to safeguard their employees’ privacy, some did not exhibit the same level of 

concern. For instance, 15% of employees who were told about problems with their 

work authorization reported that they were not told in a private setting. 

8. Missed deadlines. One complaint mentioned by 16% of employers about the 

Basic Pilot is that at times the number of employees hired is so great that it is impossible to submit the information required by the deadline of 3 business days. 

9. Failure to inform employees of their rights. Employers do not always follow procedures designed to inform employees and prospective employees of their rights. 

Only half of the establishments posted the required Basic Pilot program notice 

where job applicants could easily see it. It appears that 73% of the employees who 

should have been informed of work authorization problems were not. These employees were thus precluded from resolving the problems. Nineteen percent of pilot employers reported that they do not always provide employees with a printed Notice 

of Tentative Nonconfirmation. 

I am opposed to a five-year extension of the Basic Pilot in the absence of evidence 

indicating that enough progress has been made in addressing these concerns to warrant such a lengthy extension. My amendment would provide a three-year extension 

which is more than generous under these circumstances. I also hope that an oversight hearing will be held early next year to evaluate the progress that DHS has 

made in resolving these problems. 

40

Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The—does the gentlewoman yield 

back? 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Jackson-Lee 

amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A reporting quorum is present. The 

question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2359 favorably 

as amended. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it—— Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Roll call. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A roll call is ordered. Those in favor 

of reporting the bill H.R. 2359 favorably as amended will, as your 

names are called, answer aye, those opposed, no, and the clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

Mr. HYDE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

Mr. CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart. 

Ms. HART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Aye. 

41

The CLERK. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler.

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson-Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson-Lee, no. Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there members in the chamber 

who wish to cast or change their votes? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 8 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report favorably 

is agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably 

to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of 

a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today. 

Without objection, the chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes, and all members 

will be given 2 days as provided by the House Rules in which to 

submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.

(42)

1Letter to Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner and Honorable John Conyers, Jr., from Americans for Tax Reform and the American Conservative Union; September 24, 2003. On file with 

House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff. 2Letter to Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., from the National Immigration Law Center; September 24, 2003. On file with the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff. 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We write these views in opposition to H.R. 2359, the ‘‘Basic Pilot 

Extension Act of 2003’’. H.R. 2359 would extend for an additional 

five years the Basic Pilot Program to electronically verify the employment authorization of newly hired employees. While we support a basic Extension of the pilot program to continue to examine 

ways to verify employment eligibility, H.R. 2359 extends the program far beyond the employment context and puts in place the 

mechanism for a controversial national identity system. Additionally, amendment passed in the committee expands the program to 

all fifty states, without regard to the existing program’s inaccuracies and significant privacy concerns. 

Section 3 of the ‘‘Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003’’ would permit 

any government agency to use the Basic Pilot confirmation system 

to check the immigration or citizenship status of all U.S. citizens 

and immigrants who come within their purview. This would include those who seek driver’s licenses, professional licenses, or any 

person who is subject to an inquiry of a federal, state or local government agency. Such a vast expansion would magnify the existing 

privacy and inaccuracy problems that already plague the current 

program. Moreover, the provision lacks any privacy protections or 

protections against abuse by state and local governments. For these 

reasons, conservative groups such as Americans for Tax Reform 

and The American Conservative Union 1 and immigration groups 

such as the National Immigration Law Center 2 strongly oppose 

H.R. 2359. 

Most importantly, we are concerned that section 3 is a veiled attempt to put in place the mechanism for eventual adoption of a 

controversial national identification program. The expansion of the 

program under section 3 would effectively create a single database 

that would be used for multiple purposes far beyond the employment context and would make it much easier for the government 

to track its own citizens. Such a vast invasion of citizens’ 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 mark-up. Rep. Jackson-Lee attempted to 

remove this controversial piece from the bill with an amendment, 

defeated by voice vote, that would have struck all of section 3 from 

the bill. 

We further oppose an amendment passed in the Judiciary Committee that would expand the pilot program to all fifty states withVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Oct 08, 2003 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR304P1.XXX HR304P1
43

3 INS Basic Pilot Evaluation Summary Report; January 29, 2002. 

4The INS report states at page vii: ‘‘Based on the evaluation findings, electronic verification 

of employment authorization as tested in the Basic Pilot, while potentially a valid concept, is 

not ready for larger-scale implementation at this time.’’ 5The INS report states at page 41: ‘‘The evaluation uncovered sufficient problems in the design and implementation of the current program to preclude recommending that it be significantly expanded. Some of these problems could become insurmountable if the program were to 

be expanded dramatically in scope. The question remans whether the program can be modified 

in a way that will permit it to maintain or enhance its current benefits while overcoming its 

weaknesses.’’

out regard for the significant deficiencies of the current program. 

An INS funded report, issued only after the last extension of the 

program was granted, found that the current pilot program was 

hindered by inaccuracies and outdated information in the INS 

databases and that it did not consistently provide timely immigration data.3 The report also found that some employers compromised 

the privacy of workers in various ways such as failure to safeguard 

access to the computer database. Some participating employers also 

engaged in prohibited employment practices, including pre-employment screening which denied workers both a job and the opportunity to correct database inaccuracies. Due to these findings, the 

report concluded that the Basic Pilot is not ready for larger-scale 

implementation at this time. 

Supporters of the amendment dismissed concerns about privacy 

and data inaccuracies, citing that the proposed expansion would be 

voluntary and that the problems cited in the report were not major. 

In truth, the report in no way excludes voluntary expansion from 

its recommendations.4 In fact, any nationwide expansion, mandatory or voluntary, would be significant because the program currently exists in only six states. Even further, the INS commissioned 

report clearly cautions that the program should not be significantly 

expanded because the above cited problems could become insurmountable if the program were expanded in scope.5

It is imperative that before Congress expands the Basic Pilot 

Program, it must first ensure that the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (BCIS), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) focus on accurately updating their databases to prevent authorized workers from being turned away from jobs. The existing 

privacy problems must also be addressed. For these reasons, Rep. 

Jackson-Lee offered an amendment, defeated by voice vote, that 

would have enabled a Congress to more frequently examine the 

Basic Pilot Program by changing the extension from five additional 

years to three.

44

Although we support extending the Basic Pilot Program for employment verification, we oppose the ‘‘Basic Pilot Program Extension Act of 2003’’ because it goes far beyond a simple program extension and would significantly change current law. This legislation 

not only expands a currently imperfect program, it also creates a 

new and controversial identification database that would threaten 

the privacy of all United States citizens. It would be irresponsible 

for Congress to make such a significant change to existing law 

without first considering it on its own merits.

JOHN CONYERS, Jr. 

BOBBY SCOTT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

WILLIAM DELAHUNT. 

TAMMY BALDWIN. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ