U.S. Senate Approved Several Amendments Dealing With Immigration Enforcement Not Included In The 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2892)

On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Senate approved several amendments dealing with immigration enforcement and benefits which were not included in the 2010 homeland security appropriations bill (H.R. 2892) passed previously by the House. An amendment introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) dealing with E-Verify was passed by a voice vote after a motion by Sen. Schumer (D-NY) to table it was rejected 44 to 53. Sen. Sessions’ amendment is extremely important because it could make the voluntary E-Verify program, in its present form, permanent and mandatory for all federal contractors beginning September 8, 2009.

The final federal contractor’s rule, which extends the use of E-Verify to covered federal contractors and subcontractors, including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, came as a result of Executive Order 12989. The rule was originally scheduled for roll-out last January 15, 2009, but had to be postponed because of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the legality of the rule.

The version of the bill passed previously by the House on June 24th would extend the E-Verify program for only two years. Thus, the existing differences between the amended version passed by the Senate and the House bill will have to be reconciled and a final version will need to be agreed upon in conference before changes can take effect.

Secretary Napolitano announced early on July 8th the department’s intention to rescind the controversial No-Match Rule in favor of the “more modern and effective” E-Verify. In a surprising but decisive response, the Senate also adopted an amendment from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that would prohibit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) from using any Fiscal Year 2010 appropriated funds to rescind the No-Match Rule.

Sen. Schumer, who led the effort to table Sen. Session’s amendment, stated that declarations made earlier by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that the Administration would support a regulation that requires employers to use E-Verify in order to be awarded federal contracts had rendered the amendment “moot.”

However, the real reason for Sen. Schumer’s opposition is that the present administration wants to enact immigration compliance laws that target employers and, Republicans, now the minority in the Senate, want to enact immigration compliance laws targeting employees. But in a surprising move, supported by a few Democrat senators, all amendments dealing with immigration enforcement offered by Republicans were approved.

More concerning for employers, however, is the apparent administration’s pursuance of a more capable and technologically advanced version of E-Verify. Sen. Schumer has stated repeatedly that E-Verify does not “go far enough” and made clear in several occasions that he favors a hi-tech employment verification system which employs biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, eye scans, and more. Similarly, Secretary Napolitano, who believes E-Verify is a “smart, simple and effective tool” has also made clear, in agreement with Sen. Schumer that “we need to continue to work to improve E-Verify, and we will.”

These declaration not only indicate that the Obama administration and key democratic leaders in Congress share the view that immigration compliance should target employers, but also, as it would appear, through the use of an “improved” or, in other words, a more capable and technologically advanced E-Verify that could include not only biometric identifiers, but also information sharing capabilities linked to other governmental agencies. 

The possibility of an “improved” version of E-Verify does not seem far-fetched when considered in light of present existing Memorandums of Understanding between governmental agencies which already allows for information sharing, past joint raids, and an appropriations bill which provides for $5.4 billion to fund DHS’s employment verification activities.

Further, such “improved” E-Verify, despite the potential tremendous governmental invasion into the workings of private institutions, could give the Obama administration a serious “footing” in dealing with millions of illegal immigrants, which can be “politically” cashed at a later time. 

So far it is unclear what immediate effects the Sessions and Vitter amendments would have if enacted. Both the federal contractor and No-Match Rules are currently suspended due to ongoing litigation.

Would the Paycheck Fairness Act Close the Gender Pay Gap?

A few weeks ago I was quoted in Cindy Goodman's column in the Miami Herald on the issue of the gender pay gap.  There is a significant pay gap -- on average, women earn about 78% of what men earn.  But is the cause of the pay gap gender-based pay discrimination, i.e. women earning less than equally qualified men for the same work?  Or are other factors primarily responsible? I argued that women's choices -- the majors they choose in college, the jobs they apply for, and later, the child rearing choices they make -- are far more important than pay discrimination in creating the pay gap .

I caught some flak for my politically incorrect comments. But my comments were not off-the-cuff opinions -- they were based on the conclusions of numerous studies on the issue.  For example, take a look at the American Association of University Women's 2007 study, "Behind the Pay Gap," which is available online.  The study explains that women tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the fields men tend to go into, such as engineering, math and business. Women are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments. And, many women choose to leave the workforce or go part-time to raise families. When they re-enter the workforce in a full time capacity, they don't earn as much as men who continued working full-time all along.  The study concludes that only a small portion of the pay gap might be attributable to discrimination.

Still not persuaded that the pay gap is mostly the product of choices women and men make?  Read this article from Reason Magazine, in which Harvard economist Claudia Goldin is quoted as saying that there isn't evidence of systemic pay discrimination. "There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- 'probably not all, but most of it.'"

Which brings us to the Paycheck Fairness Act.  The PFA would amend the Equal Pay Act to  "provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex," according to this summary of the bill from GovTrack.  One of the ways the PFA would accomplish this is to revise the "any factor other than sex" defense.  The summary states that the PFA:

Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.

States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Avers that such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential; and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

It's not clear how these new legal standards would play out in practice.  One thing is clear, though:  Employers would have a more difficult time defending cases of alleged pay discrimination brought under the Equal Pay Act.  

Proponents of the PFA argue that new legislation is necessary to close the pay gap. But because the pay gap is, for the most part, not the product of pay discrimination, the legislation would not close the gap significantly. Besides, Title VII and the current version of the Equal Pay Act, as well as state and local laws, already prohibit gender-based pay discrimination and impose significant penalties against employers that are found liable.  So it's hard to see why the PFA is necessary. 

What's the status of the PFA?  It passed the House in January and is currently pending in the Senate. If if it passes the Senate, there is little doubt that President Obama will sign it.  Stay tuned.

 

House Approves Measure To Extend E-Verify by Five Years

On July 31, 2008, the House approved "H.R. 6633" to extend E-Verify, the federal government's electronic employment verification system, by five years. In spite of the many signs previously given by U.S. Representatives approved without amendment, HR 6633 or the Employee Verification Act of 2008, 407-2.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to extend the life of the voluntary program five years to Oct. 31, 2013. U.S. representatives initially supported legislation to scrap E-Verify in favor of a new mandatory verification system, but according  Giffords, she introduced a five-year extension to make time for more study of the current system. Further, Giffords told lawmakers during House floor remarks that "within five years or less, the federal government must develop a mandatory system that operates uniformly across all 50 states." Technically, the bill would authorize two Government Accountability Office studies about aspects of E-Verify. The first study would examine erroneous tentative nonconfirmations under E-Verify, specifically focusing on the causes of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations, processes to remedy errors, and the impact of such errors on individuals, employers, and federal agencies. The second study would analyze the effect of E-Verify on small businesses and other small entities using the program. That study would focus on the cost to small entities of complying with E-Verify, an estimate of the number of small businesses participating in E-Verify, an analysis of compliance requirements such as reporting and recordkeeping, and steps DHS can take to minimize the economic impact of participating in E-Verify. 

I agree with SHRM that E-Verify is not a long-term solution.  A "temporary extension" in order to allow additional time to design a fair and effective employment verification system is a workable proposition for employees and employers alike. The bill now moves to the Senate, which is in recess until Sept. 8, 2008.

House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Approved Bill to 'Recapture' Unused Employment-Based Visas

The House subcommittee approved a bill that would allow the "recapture" of previously unused employment-based visas. The bill ("H.R. 5882"), introduced April 23 by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee, and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), was approved on July 31, 2008 during a markup session. Eight Democratic representatives approved the bill. The bill now moves to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. The objective of the bill is to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to recapture visas that were authorized between fiscal year 1992 and 2007, but went unused due to bureaucratic delays. The bill prevents visas from being lost in the future by rolling them over to the following fiscal year. The visa recapture applies to both employment-based visas and family-based visas.

Rep. Lofgren stated that "H.R. 5882 is about ensuring that bureaucratic inefficiency and waste do not stand in the way of U.S. citizen families and businesses trying to use our immigration system in a legal way."  The bill does not change the present number of available visas and does not add visas to caps.  What the bill does is find visas lost due to "bureaucratic inefficiency."  If the bill eventually becomes law, it would mean that approximately 557,000 additional or "lost" visas would be available for use.  It would appear that a broad coalition supports the bill. Such law could have a very positive effect on Florida, but immigration reform would still be needed to affect its economy.

House Appropriations Committee Approves DHS Funding Bill, Rejects E-Verify Extension

On June 24, 2008, The House Appropriations Committee approved a U.S. Department of Homeland Security funding bill for $39.9 billion.  However, the bill also rejects an amendment to extend the federal electronic employment verification program or E-Verify.

The approved bill carries an increase of $2.2 billion from that of 2008. The amendment submitted by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) extending the E-Verify program did not have enough votes at the committee level to pass. Without the extension, E-Verify is scheduled to expire November 30, 2008.

Federal Government Contractors Must "E-Verify" Employees' Eligibility To Work

On June 9, the White House announced that President Bush had signed on June 6 an Executive Order (“the Order”) amending Executive Order 12989. The Order, an aggressive move to keep illegal immigrants out of the US workforce, requires contractors and others doing business with the federal government to use E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot or Employment Eligibility Verification Program). E-Verify is an electronic employment verification system run by DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration, which permits participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of newly hired employees. E-Verify is voluntary for private companies, but mandatory for government agencies. The Order, which will also apply to new hires initially, in time, will affect millions of workers working for federal contractors nationwide. 

One of the problems with the Order requirements is that E-verify has shown some critical flaws even when operating in a relatively small environment.  E-Verify is also problematic from a business perspective because errors in the Social Security database can lead to flagging legal residents and citizens.  The June 10th's issue of the LA Times states that "Chertoff said E-Verify cleared 99.5% of qualified employees automatically. But in 2006 the Social Security inspector general found discrepancies in 17.8 million records for citizens and legal immigrants that would create a "significant workload" to correct. Lawmakers and other critics warned that forcing the more than 200,000 federal contractors to join E-Verify could overwhelm the Social Security Administration and create havoc for legal workers. 'As the administration requires more employers and workers to move into E-Verify, it should at the same time ensure that the system does not impinge upon U.S. citizens' fundamental right to earn a living,' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), head of the House subcommittee on immigration. Firms doing business with the government risk losing their contracts if they break federal rules. Some business executives worry the new requirement could add expenses. 'There's concern about increased costs and delays in hiring brought about by inaccuracies in the database,' said Neal J. Couture, executive director of the National Contract Managers Assn. Timothy D. Sparapani of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that E-Verify was 'not real immigration enforcement' because the system could not detect applicants who used documents stolen from legal workers. He predicted the system would prompt more identity theft by illegal immigrants.' 'American workers' identities are essentially going to become a black market commodity,' Sparapani said."

The Order states that the basis for requiring government contractors to use E-Verify is that the “Order is designed to promote economy and efficiency in Federal Government procurement. Stability and dependability are important elements of economy and efficiency. A contractor whose workforce is less stable will be less likely to produce goods and services economically and efficiently than a contractor whose workforce is more stable.”  I find the government’s statement suspicious because the government, although it has failed time and time again, has tried on repeated occassions to push legislation or regulations that would impose a mandatory electronic employment verification program on all US employers. Further, the Order is presented as being designed to promote "economy and efficiency" along with "stability and dependability," but the reality is that there is nothing economic, efficient, stable or dependable about skilled and unskilled jobs that cannot be filled because there are not enough American workers readily available to work. 

Interestingly, employers in the health care business using the Medicare program, janitorial services providing services to courts, universities getting federal student loans for its students or grants for some of its projects and programs, companies in the defense industry, and even contractors serving food in cafeterias in any government agency will be considered government contractors and will have to comply with this order.

The government in its zeal for security and enforcement is failing to consider the true economic impact these measures will have on employers and consumers. Enforcing this type of order in the absence of immigration reform which could provide employers with helpful avenues could doom - against contrary government opinion - many efficient employers.  I am not sure how the government is going to enforce this Order, but for us in Florida enforcing these measures could have a long lasting negative effect.