Thread: House Hearing on E-Verify on May 6

steinreport(.)com

The Democrat-controlled House has begun to hold some hearings ostensibly to take testimony on issues related to the illegal immigration control measures in the SAVE Act. However, at the same time efforts have been underway to combat the collection of signatures on a discharge petition that would bring the legislation to a vote on the House floor despite the lack of a vote in the immigration subcommittee or the Judiciary committee, both of which normally would have to act on immigration legislation. One of those efforts has been to obtain a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on the effects of requiring the mandatory use by employers of the E-verify system that is now operating as a voluntary system nationwide and was made mandatory in Arizona at the start of this year. According to Congress Daily, a hearing will take place on May 6 in the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means committee.

(FAIR Comment: Rather than giving impetus to the SAVE Act, this hearing is likely aimed at eliciting testimony about why it would be costly and impractical to implement the E-Verify system, although SAVE Act sponsor, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) is scheduled to appear at the hearing.)

THE COSTS OF DOING NOTHING
It's time to pass the SAVE Act (H.R. 408

Dear Colleague,

Recent claims by some have pointed to the costs associated with H.R. 4088, the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, but they fail to take into account the costs of doing nothing. Many of these reports ignore education, medical, and incarceration costs for illegal aliens that our government absorbs every day. North Carolina and California alone pay several billion dollars per year to provide these public services to illegal aliens. After discussions with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation, they have agreed to revisit these aforementioned costs and also account for items in the SAVE Act that have already been appropriated since its introduction.

Opponents of the SAVE Act claim the federal government is reliant on $17.3 billion in revenue from illegal aliens over the next 10 years. They fear that if the United States enforces existing immigration laws the federal government could lose these 'vital' tax dollars. What message are we sending to our constituents with this rhetoric? Is this revenue loss more important than the rule of law and American security?

Additionally, the recent CBO report stated that enacting the SAVE Act would amount to $2 billion dollars per year in real costs for the first five years of implementation. This modest estimate represents 1/6,000th of our annual GDP. Recently, this Congress found $164 billion for tax rebate checks to jumpstart our economy. Surely we can justify $2 billion a year to secure our borders, protect American workers and enforce EXISTING LAWS.

Let's examine some of our opponents' erroneous claims:

Claim #1: Implementing the E-Verify employment verification system required by the SAVE Act would cost private-sector employers $136 million.

FACT: E-Verify is a quick, easy, and free web-based system for employers to use. The only "cost" is time spent entering information into the database.

FACT: According to the Homeland Security Department, 92 percent of all new hire queries are authorized in less than 5 seconds.

FACT: E-Verify is already being used by more than 59,000 employers on a voluntary basis. It is required by law in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Additionally, all state agencies in North Carolina use E-Verify. In total, nearly a dozen states already require some or all employers to use E-Verify. In fact, if a member of your staff is reading this, they have been processed through E-Verify when you hired them to work in your Congressional office.

FACT: According to Gannett News Service: "…Arizona mandated that all businesses use E-Verify starting Jan. 1, 2008 and fewer problems have been reported than originally feared, said Ann Seiden, spokeswoman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce that opposed the measure in the legislature last year."

"Companies haven't left the state in reaction to E-Verify, she said, and employers haven't reported major problems with the database."

"Anecdotally, we haven't heard as much backlash as we originally thought," Seiden said.

Claim #2: The bill would cost state and local governments $68 million to comply with employment verification requirements.

FACT: Employment verification is a FEDERAL responsibility. E-Verify is a FEDERAL program that will reduce the burden being placed on state and local governments. The legal status of a worker will be checked through the FEDERAL E-Verify database.

Claim #3: The SAVE Act represents $138 million in unfunded mandates.

FACT: This claim is unsubstantiated and completely ignores the CBO report from December 2007 on the costs of illegal immigration on local and state governments That report stated, "In general, state and local governments bear much of the cost of providing certain public services—especially services related to education, health care, and law enforcement—to individuals residing in their jurisdictions. Such programs constitute a major portion of those governments' annual expenditures…"

Examples from the December 2007 CBO Report:

The state and local governments in Colorado spent between $217 million and $225 million for education, Medicaid, and corrections for illegal aliens.

2. The state and local governments in Minnesota spent between $79 million and $118 million to educate an estimated 9,400 to 14,000 children who were unauthorized immigrants in the 2003 –2004 school years. The agency also estimated that an additional $39 million was spent for children who were U.S. citizens but whose parents were unauthorized immigrants (pg. 16) – TOTAL COST to MINNESOTA for EDUCATION – Minimum $118 million

3. The state and local governments in New Mexico spent about $67 million to educate 9,200 unauthorized immigrant schoolchildren in the 2003 –2004 school years. (pg. 16)

4. County governments that share a border with Mexico incurred nearly $190 million in uncompensated health care costs for illegal aliens in 2000; one-quarter of all uncompensated health care costs incurred by the governments in that year.

5. Law enforcement activities in four states – California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas – cost some COUNTY governments that share a border with Mexico a combined total of more than $108 million in 1999.

6. In 2006, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated that it would spend about $9.7 million on emergency Medicaid services for unauthorized immigrants that year. The agency's actual total spending for that year was $3.1 Billion.

FACT: Those claiming unfunded mandates also ignore other statements from the CBO's December 2007 report including:

"…estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."

"State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs."

"The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

"Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments."

Claim #4: The SAVE Act will cause $17 billion in anticipated tax losses during a ten year period.

FACT: The federal government should not be counting on revenues from an illegal workforce.

FACT: Those who claim that this bill will reduce tax revenue completely ignore the fact that illegal immigrants earn significantly less than legal immigrants, due to the nature of illegal labor. The CBO and other reputable organizations agree that tax receipts from illegal aliens do not cover the public assistance they receive.

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report that illegal immigrants, "…in New York State paid an average of 15 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes; other immigrant groups paid between 21 percent and 31 percent."

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report, "The average household income for unauthorized families is significantly less than that of both legal immigrants and native born citizens; therefore, that income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of other groups."

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report, "A related effect is that lower-paying jobs also result in unauthorized immigrants' having less disposable income to spend on purchases subject to sales or use taxes. State and local governments typically rely more heavily on revenues from those and other sources (such as property taxes) than revenues generated by taxes on income."

If Members of either party think misrepresenting a cost estimate on the SAVE Act with baseless claims is going to deter efforts to secure America's borders and enforce existing laws, they are mistaken. We ask our colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4088 and request that Congress stop trying to outsmart the American people on illegal immigration by talking tough and doing nothing.

Sincerely,

Heath Shuler Brian Bilbray
Member of Congress Member of Congress

Learn more about the SAVE Act and view co-sponsors of House and Senate

www.numbersusa.com

It seems that the cbo is getting its figures baised on a mass deportation, ie every Illegal just vanishes! It would never happen like that and I think that we would lose some off the bat but would recover much faster, with more jobs and better wages. Going to our economy and not shipped out somewere.

Judging by the membership of this subcommittee, it is extremely unlikely a balanced or enforcement-focused position was the impetus to convene such a meeting:

Subcommittee on Social Security
Subcommittee Home | Members | Jurisdiction | Hearings | Legislation

Members of the 110th Congress

Michael R. McNulty, NY Chairman (ABI "D")

Sander M. Levin, MI (ABI "D")
Earl Pomeroy, ND (ABI "C-")
Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA (ABI "D+")
Artur Davis, AL (ABI "D")
Xavier Becerra, CA (ABI "F")
Lloyd Doggett, TX (ABI "D-")
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH (ABI "D")

Sam Johnson, TX (ABI "B+")
Ron Lewis, KY (ABI "A-")
Kevin Brady, TX (ABI "A")
Paul Ryan, WI (ABI "C")
Devin Nunes, CA (ABI "C")

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/members.asp?comm=4

Wonderful "Phred" you can count this committee as one of the do nothing one sided congress committee's ( that is against the side of Americans)

Related info:

Sunday, May 4, 2008
Immigration on the defense
Letter from Washington: Don't look for any major progress with elections looming and lawmakers fractured on the issue.
DENA BUNIS
Washington Bureau Chief
The Orange County Register

Immigration has become a defensive sport in this town.

Last year Republican opponents of any benefits for illegal immigrants were successful in beating back a comprehensive bill that included legalization for the undocumented.

This year it's the Democrats who are trying to keep a tough enforcement bill from reaching the floor of the House.

In the meantime, rank and file activists on both sides of the issue seem to have lost some of their steam.

Evidence? The rallies Thursday around the nation paled in comparison to the more than one million people who marched two years ago at the height of the national immigration debate.

And more than that, there seems little or no will here on Capitol Hill to tackle an issue that has been a no-winner for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Last year the defensive plays were mainly in the Senate. Senators who opposed the bipartisan comprehensive bill, drafted initially by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain, flooded the Senate floor with killer amendments. And they basically staged a successful war of attrition against a measure that frankly in the end was held together with weak Scotch tape.

This year the Democratic leadership is all about keeping supporters of freshman Democrat Heath Shuler's SAVE Act from getting the 217 signatures they need on a so-called discharge petition to force the North Carolina member's bill to the floor. (House leaders control what bills get to the floor. The only recourse members have is to get a majority to sign a petition demanding a bill be voted on. Because of vacancies, they now need 217 votes for such a petition.)

So far Shuler's backers have 186 signatures, including 10 Democrats. Orange County's five GOP representatives have signed. Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez has not.

Shuler's bill basically incorporates much of the enforcement aspects of last year's Senate bill but doesn't include any of the provisions that supporters of comprehensive immigration reform say would end the revolving door of illegal immigration – a workable temporary work program and a solution for the 12 million illegal immigrants living here now.

While for two years the Senate stepped up to at least debate the issue, the House has basically been hoping this whole matter would just go away.

It hasn't. And this discharge petition has boxed the Democratic leadership into a corner. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team remained silent on the issue, Democrats annoyed that their leaders were ignoring the issue might just be tempted to sign it.

So what do the leaders do when they don't really want to do anything of substance but want to appear as if they're moving on the issue?

Hearings of course. When in doubt, bring in some witnesses, talk about it, create a record and say, 'see we've done something.'

So starting this week one House committee after another will hold hearings on various aspects of the immigration issue.

Tuesday, two panels will be meeting at the same time. The tax writing Way and Means committee will review the employer verification system – both the voluntary program in place now and the mandatory one Shuler's bill includes.

Rep. Ken Calvert, who drafted the original workplace verification system called the Basic Pilot, will be first up at Ways and Means. His system, renamed E Verify by the Department of Homeland Security, expires in November. So regardless of what else happens on the immigration front he'll be looking to get a measure enacted that would renew that program.

Over in the Education and Labor Committee lawmakers will be talking about whether employers are making enough of an effort to hire American workers before turning to foreign labor.

Again, little but information is expected to emerge from theses sessions.

Now, immigration subcommittee chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose may yet try to make some fixes in immigration law to make the current system work better – like the wasted visa situation she highlighted in a hearing last week. But she has acknowledged that nothing big is likely to happen this year.

Behind the scenes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has decided to streamline her immigration baby – the Ag Jobs bill. She is shopping around a version that would provide agricultural workers with a five year worker permit that doesn't lead to permanent residency or citizenship. Her people say the idea is to give some relief to growers who say they cannot find enough people to work the fields. Because of that, Feinstein has said, farmers are moving their operations to Mexico where the labor supply is.

If all Feinstein needed were 50 votes this measure would probably sail through, particularly given that she steers clear of any so-called amnesty provisions. Trouble is given the Senate rules, she would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and it's not clear if that many votes are there. So the California Democrat is looking for a bill to attach these provisions to.

In the meantime, immigration advocates are banking on the fall elections.

While the presumptive GOP nominee McCain has done a virtual about face in his support for comprehensive reform, chances are if he is elected president, he wouldn't veto the kind of bill he once co-sponsored with Kennedy.

And both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton support the comprehensive approach.

On the day of the marches, in fact, Clinton put out a statement reiterating her promise to get a comprehensive bill introduced in Congress during the first 100 days of her administration.

A key to how much attention any new administration would pay to the issue, insiders say, will be in an analysis of the November vote. If Latinos — a growing voting block that has yet to reach its potential – come out in big numbers, lawmakers could sit up and take notice.

We'll be watching.

Bunis is the Register's Washington bureau chief.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bill ... rehensive#