macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will recall. I stated a moment ago that. in addition to requiring employer compliance with the paperwork provisions already in the bill. this amendment would require the employer to call in the social security number. That Is the only additional step that the employer would have to have. We do not have a builtin system nowstating whether or not you have void cards or valid cardsI do not think that would be a problem. Of course. there will be a certain cost to this. without any question. The main thrust behind this amendment is that it takes the recordkeeping off of the shoulder of the employer and puts It where It belongs. with the Federal Government.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

That Is correct. I am not trying to do away with what is already in the bill. I am trying to give the employer an absolute defense if that employer or entity makes that telephone call and gets back from the 800 number that this is a valid number. I want to give some degree of protection to the employer. and I know of no other way to do it except by doing it this way. There is no independent action on the part of the emtployer. He is relying completely upon what the Federal Government tells him when he makes the telephone call.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I understand that American Express. Master Charge. and all of these others complete 77 million calls a month. The evidence Indicates that we would not have anything like that.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

You have the burden of proof on a different person when you have an affirmative defense. Where you have an absolute defense. as my amendment says. the burden of proof is on the Government. On an affirmative defense. the person has to prove that his defense is a good defenise. This puts the burden of proof on the Federal Government to prove that this entity or person engaged in bad faith.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will recall. when we passed this bill in committee I think there was some language somewhere used that we were going to allocate about $600 million a year to carry out this immigration bill. $600 million each 3 years. 1984. whatever. This amendment that I am speaking of nowand I have heard the cost of $100 million mentioned this afternoon and $300 million for 3 years. There is absolutely no basis that I can find for that. The information that I have been able to receive indicates that the first year cost would be about $35 or $40 million. That would be an amount that is substantially less for enforcement than is now built into this bill.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. I could break it down. The total cost for the first year would be about $40 million. continuing costs would run about $35 million yearly. The firstyear. onetime cost for equipment for 21 regional office computers and one central processing computer is $1 million. Construction. building modifications. $1.5 million. Startup and related costs. $2.5 million for a total of $5 million. Continuing costs would be labor. programming and related Investigations includes 100 investigators.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

The additional costs. the continuing costs would run $17 million a year. a subtotal of $35 million a year. The total firstyear cost would run $40 million and taper off after that.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. of course. I cannot stand here and tell my dear friend from Kentucky that the telephone is going to always be the way to transmit information. It may be that some years down the line we will run into some other different type of system that will take precedence over this. I can say that the information that has been mentioned earlier. that it is used every day by the credit card companies and banks. The three biggest credit companies clear about 77 million transactions each month.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. at the inception of this plan. I think it would be impossible to state. I just know that it works in industry. in private industry.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the entity or the person wants to continue making and keeping records. that is his or her business. It will not be necessary in my opinion. under the purview of this amendment.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I want to point out to my dear friend from California that one thing that this amendment does not do. is make any effort to set up a national ID card. If it was. I would not be here supporting it. I am as opposed to that as the gentlemian is. The only thing that this does is an employer. picks up the telephone. he makes an 800number call. he gives his employer number. and the social security number that comebody has handed to him. On the other end of the line. 1e gets within 20 or 30 seconds the reply back that that social security is good. That is all that it does.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

The employer will call the tollfree number and give his employer identification number. Every employer today must have one of these numbers for tax purposes. The employer then gives the social security number to be verified to the computer operator. While the employer is still on the telephone. the computer checks the number against two periodically updated lists: First. to see if the number was ever issued as a social security number. and Second. to see if the number has ever been reported as defunct. or misused.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

The employer will be told that the social security number is not valid. The applicant for employment would be referred to the local or regioral office of the agency operating the verification system to clear up the problem. If the person is not an illegal adicn. the agency can issue a letter stating that there is no further problem with employing this person.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Then the employer is given a transaction code. signifying that the transaction has oc. curred. that the number was given. and that the number was found valid.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

The computer creates a random verification number for each transaction it handies. The code is recorded along with the information given by the employer so that the code can later be checked if a question arises about the transaction.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would suggest that 21 regional data centers be established. with computers capable of receiving a days worth of calls at each center. At night. when few calls will be received. the regional centers would transmit their records of calls and transaction codes given that day to a national office for storage. The national office could also transmit to the regional centers misused numbers. which would also be brought to the attention of the operating agency for investigation.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

This system is the least likely program to grow into some sort of national computer ident1fication system. It uses a number that each worker is requred to use right now. It is not connected to any other computer system. The two lists of numbers it uses are generated internally. the most important list Is the one which has the nurnbt(rs of social secuTity numbers which have been lost. stolen. or used by illegal aliens. If someone look into the records of this system. they will find only the tax idenUtication number of the employer. the social security number of the Job applicant. the hiring site. and the transaction code used. Except for the new transaction code. this is all information which the employer already has to give the Government on the social security and unemployment forms. This is a small system. designed for Just one job. It will do that job quickly and inexpensively. without threatening to grow into something bigger.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary be permitted to sit while the House is considering bills under the 5minute rule on Wednesday. June 13. Mr. Chairman. I have talked with the minority. the gentleman from Ohio . We both agree we might not have anybody there. but the gentleman has no objection to this.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. our distinguished colleague and the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. the Honorabe Senate JOHN D. DINGELL. recently addressed the Banking Law Institute on the problems facing many of Americas finaneial institutions. His thoughts and incisive comments deserve the attention of those of us in the Congress concerned with th( problem and effects of dereuilation of the Nations financial depository institutions. I commend his remarks to my colleagues. REMAR.I iiY JonN D. DINGrt.L BFFORF THE lIANKING LAW IsriruTE FIRsT ANNUAL
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will yield further. we understand that is the case. but I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey would yield to the subcommittee chairman in the areas of concern to the subcomittee chairman. The response of the distinguished subcommittee chairman is that he will fight. but to what degree? Should we add. to the nth degree for amendments adopted by the House. regardless of whether the gentleman agreed or not. if it became the will of the House to so incorporate them into the legislation?
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise In support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman. first let me preface that heretofore all that we have heard with regard to undocumented has been the use and possible abuse in the agricultural sector. I have complained that this is not where the majority of the undocumented workers are and this is not where the pervasive abuse is but. rather. it is in the socalled sweatshops in tihe urban areas. I would like to mention. and if I might. invite my colleague from Callfornia. the author of the amendment to listen: I recently had a discussion with my di:stinguished colleague from California and asked him about the undocumented. why are not the Wage aid Hour provisions being applied In Los Angeles for example? Why are not the OSHA requirements being applied? Why are not the IRS regulalions being applied? The horror stories which he presented to me. specifically about Los Angeles. gave me great concern. Therefore. I think that he strikes at the need for this type of amendment. His information to me was that apparently there were not enough enforcement officials in the area. and I felt that perhaps there was an insidious use by unscrupulous employers in the urban area. Mr. Chairman. would the gentleman from California verify the statement that I have made with regard to the nonenforcement of those specific laws?
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Therefore. Mr. Chairman. as to what has been aimed at the agricultural sector about possible abuse and substandard wages and all that. we know that the greater majority are not in agriculture but. rather. are in urban areas. as attested to by my dear colleague. the gentleman from California. Many times when the argument is made. I have asked the question. "How can you pay less than minimum wage if there is wage and hour inspection of your business? How can you have unsafe sweatshop conditions if there is enforcement of OSHA? How can you not have to deduct the contributions to Social Security or to Internal Revenue for income taxes If there is enforcement of these laws?" The gentleman from California verifles that in his perusal of the situation they apparently are not being enforced. and this is an attempt then. therefore. to come into where the major problem is with the undocumented taking jobs away from the domestic and lowering the wages. which is in the highly urban areas of the United States.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California . Let me add that what the gentleman is going to be doing also is enhancing the working conditions of citizens and legal residents of this country.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. what the gentleman does is. not only is he dealing with the situation as he directs the crux of his amendment to the undocumented. but the fall out will be that if we enforce OSHA. if we enforce Wage and Hour. and if we enforce IRS and social security. he will be doing a great benefit to citizen workers by cleaning up the sweatshops that abound apparently. although I have not seen them. around Los Angeles and many of the other urban areas of the country. I think the gentleman has a twofold purpose here. and his amendment should be supported. It is a shame that we have. to say that we are going to have to apparently push OSHA and the Wage and Hour people that. eithei for lack of money or personnel. have not done a good job. I do not know whether they have or not. but judging from the testimony of my colleague. the gentleman from California . they have not in that area.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. my statement in the general debate expresses my sentiments on this issue. but basically what the gentleman is trying to do is place the enforcement of the law in the existing agencies and not on prospective employers and an onerous unconstitutional burden on prospective employees. whether they be citizens or not. I think that this Is a proper way. it is indeed reform in the immigration process. not novel. but the fact is that present laws are not being enforced. This Is a way to enforce them and not place an undue onerous burden on legal residents or citizens and place the enforcement of the law where it belongs. with the enforcement agencies. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I ask an "aye" vote on this amendment.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this amendment deals with international bridges and toll roads on the border between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada. At the suggestion of the Justice Department. we used their language so that the bridges and toll roads may be placed in the same category with vessels and aircraft. so that all would be treated alike.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I commend the gentleman for an excellent amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment and commend our colleague from New York for introducing it. It is but a very small step in preventing undue suffering and humiliation for many people who seek asylum in our country. We still have a problem with the basic low on asylum which prevents many people who need a haven from prosecution and perhaps even death in many instances. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I take issue with my dear friend from Texas. and the author of this amendment. I think that this amendment is a bad amendment. I do not believe there is any way in the world that this immigration law can be enforced without the direct intervention and help of local law enforcement officials. When the gentleman makes a blanket statement that no officer or employee of a State. county or other local government law enforcement agency may stop and question. detain or otherwise hold a person solely on the ground that the person is or may be a deportable or excludable alien. I think when that is done. we are making it such that the manner in which illegal aliens in my part of the country live and the places they live and the manner in which they live. we are going to have the local law enforcement people to help us enforce this law.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

If the gentleman will yield further. I am not in favor of anybody going out here on the street and just hauling somebody in because he does not like the way he looks. but I can envision many instances where it is going to be absolutely necessary for the Federal people to contact the local. especially the local sheriff. deputy sheriffs. city police people. constables. It is going to be absolutely necessary that they utilize those people in helping to try to enforce this bill. As I understand the gentlemans amendment. he would exclude that. They would not have an opportunity to interfere in any way in the enforcement of this statute. Is that understanding correct?
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

If the gentleman will yield further. suppose that the Federal officials had an allpoints bulletin out for some people who were in this country in violation of the law.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

If the gentleman will yield further. suppose that situation existed where they had put out an allpoints bulletin for someone that they were looking for and they came through a small town and a sheriff had that information and saw this car or these people. Is the gentleman stating that under this amendment he would not have the right. that sheriff would not have the right. to stop and question and determine whether or not that is the person for which an allpoints bulletin might have been issued?
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

But as I understand the gentleman. he is stating by this amendment that local law enforcement officials or State officials could not. under any circumstances. ever stop and question somebody because they thought they might be deportable or an excludable alien?
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

I thank the Chair. and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. MAz- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the ZOLI] for his generous offer. but all I gentleman from Texas EMr. D3 LA need is 3 minutes. GARZA] has expired. Mr. Chairman. I want to relate what For what purpose does the gentleI think would be a problem in relation man from Kentucky [Mr. MAZZOLA to letting local law enforcement offi- rise? cers enforce immigration law. Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman. I unIf I were to put on my boots and my derstand that I have 5 minutes. and blue jeans and my red flannel shirt this is the last time I will rise. I will and get on a bus from Washington and use my 5 minutes. and I will yield all head for Mission. TX. I would be of my time. First. I promised my taken off the bus at every village and friend. the gentleman from New hamlet by the local marshal. the local Mexico I would constable. and the local chief of police yield time to him. and I yield 2 miand asked. "Where are you going. utes to my friend. the gentleman from boy?" I would hear this all the way New Mexico. down to Mission. TX. Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman. This is the danger of letting local I thank my eolleaguethe gentleman law enforcement officers. inexperi- from Kentucky (Mr. MAZZOLI. enced in immigration matters and per- I think It Is an Incredibly dangerous haps biased against certain looking situation that we are facing here late types. enforce the law. It is a very dan- at night. after we are tired. It is imporgerous procedure to allow that type of tant that we clarify this. operation. We cannot have local law enforceNow. working in conjunction with ment officials Involved in the INS job. immigration officials. there I have no I would be a massive violation of the concern. but I assure the Members rights of American citizens. that this would be an onerous burden The U.S. Civil Rights Commission in on people that look like me. We would September of 1980 recommnended as be dragged off the bus at every village one of its major priorities that Conand hamlet. gress should clarify the role of
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

I yield to the gen- minute of my time to a member of the tleman from Kentucky. Hispanic Caucus from a border area
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. Mexico. that there is nothing in the that needs to be clarified. because it is committee bill that provides for indea very. very dangerous process if we pendent local enforcement of Federal are allowing local law enforcement at immigration law. There is nothing any level to enforce immigration law. there. Right now I understand that in The gentleman has set up a straw Texas they have been sued for civil man. and he Is kicking the straw man rights violations for stopping people to death. There is no such thing. That on the street. is why I could not support the gentleBut I assure the Members that. mans amendment. There is no such under the guise of immigration thing In the bill. The gentleman Is crereform. if we adopt the bill and it ating 4 straw man out of whole cloth. allows for local law enforcement to en- Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman. force immigration law. a Member of will the gentleman allow me to continCongress from the 15th District of ue? Texas would not be able to go in blue Mr. MAZZOLI Mr. Chalrmen. I jeans and a plaid shirt on a bus from have yielded my time and I want the here to Mission. TX. without being gentleman to speak. but I ask him to stopped. I would say. 15 to 20 times please speak to what is In the bill. and having to identify himself beyond There is nothing in the bill. We are the norm. not talking about perceptions or Ideas. Therefore. if it is not clearand it is There is nothing in the bill that pernot to meI would support th- mits local law enforcement. carte amendment offered by the gentlemai blanche enforcement of Federal immifrom California. gration laws. There is nothing there.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary be permitted to sit while the House is considering bills under the 5minute rule on Thursday. June 14. 1984. I have already talked to the minority. the gentleman from Ohio and he is agreeable to this.
Date: 1984-06-13
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield. yes. I said it has been clearly by the minority. I talked to the gentleman from Ohio about this. and he has agreed to it.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the fourth Agriculture Committee amendment would delegate to the Attorney General. rather than the Secretary of Labor. the authority to issue regulations governing the aggregate period H2 workers may stay in the United States. It was the view of the Agriculture Committee that while the Department of Labor was the proper agency to certify the need for H2 workers. the Attorney Generalacting through the Immigration and Naturalization Servicewas in a better position to determine how long the workers could stay once admitted. This amendment would place responsibility in an agency that historically is responsible for the immigration policy of the Nation. Moreover. the change authorizing the Attorney General to issue such regulations brings the bill into conformity with existing procedures and regulations. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MoRRIsoN of Washington was the sponsor of the amendment in the committee. At this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington for further explanation of the amendment.