In our first report to Congress last fall, U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility, we sought to recommend a comprehensive strategy. We chose to focus much of that report on measures to control illegal immigration because growing frustration about it undermines our first commitment to legal immigration in the national interest.
Worksite enforcement, the subject of today's hearing, is particularly important to restoring the credibility of our commitment to the national interest in immigration. The Commission's recommendations for reducing the pull of the employment magnet are crucial to success in deterring illegal immigration.
The Commission's recommendations in this critical area fall into two categories: one, developing and implementing a better system to verify work authorization at the worksite; two, the need to couple worksite verification with enhanced enforcement of wage and hour and other labor standards, including provisions to protect workers from discrimination.
Let me sum up the Commission's reasons for proposing that we develop a better system for worksite verification. Reducing the employment magnet is the linchpin of a comprehensive strategy to reduce illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are here for jobs. That is the attraction. So the only effective way to deter illegal immigration must include the worksite.
Better border enforcement is necessary, but not sufficient. You heard testimony last Friday that visa overstayers make up fully one-half of the influx of illegal aliens, 150,000 out of 300,000 who take up permanent residence here illegally every year, on top of an illegal population that exceeds 4 million already. No amount of border enforcement can solve that half of the problem-the people who enter legally and then do not leave when they should.
We simply must develop a better system for verifying work authorization. That is central to effective enforcement of employer sanctions.
The system we have now, the I-9 process, is doubly-flawed. It does not do what it was supposed to do, namely deter the employment of illegal aliens. What it does do, we do not want-namely, burden businesses with paperwork, while creating abundant opportunities for fraud and forgeries. It may even provide an excuse for, if it does not actually provoke, discrimination against workers who happen to look or sound foreign.
Honest employers are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Because the system is based on documents, employers are placed in a position of making judgments many do not feel qualified to make.
Identifying forgeries is difficult, even for trained professionals. If an employer accepts false documents presented by an unauthorized worker, that employer is vulnerable to employer sanctions for having hired someone under false pretences, regardless of the fact that they may well have been fooled themselves. Yet, if an employer chooses to doubt particular documents and asks for more from some workers and not from others, that is discrimination.
The Commission believes that we must develop a better system of worksite verification and that the way to do it is immediately to test the most promising option. After examining a wide range of alternatives, the Commission concluded that the most promising option for secure, nondiscriminatory verification is a computerized registry based on the social security number.
For decades, all workers have been required to provide employers with their social security number. Depending on the results of pilot projects that are now being designed, the cumbersome I-9 process, with its dozens of documents and blizzard of paper, could be replaced by a single electronic step to validate information every worker must already provide.
The Commission examined the Telephone Verification System, called TVS, which the INS has been testing. We are aware that the INS will expand this system, first from 9 to 200 sites, and eventually to 1,000 sites. We support this INS effort-but only as an interim measure. It is not the solution.
The fatal flaw in the TVS system is that it ultimately depends on self-attestation. Workers are asked whether they are citizens or aliens. It is simply not sound law enforcement to rely on lawbreakers to tell the truth.
The Commission also looked at the feasibility and effectiveness of reducing the number of documents used in verification. Again, we support such efforts as interim measures. But the fatal flaw here is the vulnerability of all documents to counterfeiting. We heard expert testimony that any document, even the most tamper-proof ones, can be forged so well that only experts can identify the fakes. Employers cannot be expected to identify counterfeit documents.
The Commission believes electronic validation of the social security number is the most promising option because it holds great potential for accomplishing the following:
The Commission did not try to micromanage the Executive branch's implementation of this recommendation in advance. We deliberately did not spell out precisely how the software of the registry would be designed, although we did specify that just six pieces of information seem necessary: name; social security number; place and date of birth; mother's maiden name; and status code. Nor did we limit the innovation that might be applied in pilot projects to test the registry. But we did speak to some of the most important aspects.
First, hunt where the ducks are. The Commission recommends that pilot projects be undertaken in the five high-impact states-California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois-because that is where the bulk of the illegal alien problem is. We also recommend that, in time, the pilots should be extended to several less-affected states. But we did not recommend that the registry be tested throughout all of the five states immediately, nor even in all of any one of the states. Pilot projects should start small. Before going to the next phase, we should have results to guide us.
Second, there must be objective, systematic evaluation of the pilot programs. This Commission expects to have meaningful results from the initial phase of pilot testing by 1997. We will incorporate these results in our final report to Congress, so that we can make an informed recommendation on whether that system should be implemented nationwide, with particular attention to civil liberties and privacy concerns. The features of pilot programs should include:
But it is also possible that electronic validation through a telephone system would require no document at all. Every ATM system uses a PIN number to protect our money. We should test to see if personal information, such as the mother's maiden name and date of birth, that is already part of the social security database, can serve the same function for worksite verification.
By way of comparison, the Urban Institute estimates that illegal aliens cost seven states more than $2.1 billion a year. Spending $300 million over five years to save $2 billion each year is a sound investment.
But the INS cost must be added to the SSA estimate. The Clinton Administration's latest budget request calls for $28.3 million for verification system pilots, although this also includes the expanded TVS program. The bulk of the INS cost, however, will be cleaning up their own data, which should be done regardless of the pilot projects to improve worksite verification.
Evaluating the results of pilot programs with these criteria must include objective measures and procedures to determine whether current problems related to fraud, discrimination, and excessive paperwork requirements for employers are effectively overcome, without imposing undue costs on the government, employers, or employees. The evaluation should pay particular attention to the effectiveness of the measures used to protect civil liberties and privacy.
The Commission also recommends reducing the fraudulent access to so-called "breeder documents," particularly birth certificates, that can be used to establish an identity in this country. We recommend these steps:
The Commission also recommends imposition of greater penalties on those producing or selling fraudulent documents. RICO provisions to facilitate racketeering investigations also should cover conspiracy to produce and sell fraudulent documents.
Let me also summarize the Commission's recommendations regarding labor standards and discrimination. Vigorous enforcement of labor standards and enforcement against knowing hire of unauthorized workers are an integral part of the strategy to reduce illegal immigration. Labor standards and employer sanctions should be seen as mutually enforcing.
The Commission believes that enforcement of employer sanctions, wage/hour, child labor, and other labor standards can be an effective tool in reducing employment of unauthorized workers. But we found that current enforcement efforts are inadequate.
The Commission specifically recommends:
We are particularly concerned that the current level of coordination between the INS and the Department of Labor is insufficient. The Commission has urged the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the current division of responsibilities between the Departments of Justice and Labor in the enforcement of employer sanctions and labor standards.
Enhanced coordination to promote cooperation among all of the agencies responsible for worksite enforcement is critical. Strategies to promote coordination at both the headquarters and field operations level would include:
Enhanced employer sanctions and labor standards enforcement should be coordinated with improvements regarding enforcment of antidiscrimination provisions. The Commission believes that an improved verification process is the best defense against discrimination. Nevertheless, some improvements can be made in the interim, to reduce immigration-related discrimination.
The Commission recommends that the Office of Special Counsel initiate more proactive strategies to identify and combat immigration-related discrimination at the worksite. OSC should target resources on independent investigations and on programs to assess the incidence and prevalence of unfair employment practices related to immigration.
Finally, there must be an education component. Thousands of new businesses begin operation each year; many more new workers enter the labor force annually. The Commission recommends that the educational efforts of the responsible federal agencies be coordinated, and continued. The INS and the Department of Labor must communicate a single message to all employers and employees. The Commission also recommends the development of new strategies, including the enhanced use of technology, to inform employers and workers of their rights and responsibilities under the law.
Those are the Commission's recommendations on worksite enforcement. They are a part of the comprehensive approach to immigration reform that this Commission is developing. As you know, the Commission is well along in the next phase of its task, considering the national interest in legal immigration, including categories, priorities, and limits.
The key to our work so far has been that, through intense discussions, we have managed to arrive at a bipartisan consensus. We hope to continue that record in a systematic evaluation of what our immigration policy should be in the twenty-first century. In that effort, we have appreciated this Subcommittee's support and consideration of our work.
I will be glad to answer any questions.