[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8235-H8237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IMPROVEMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM UNDER IMMIGRATION AND 
                            NATIONALITY ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4306) to amend section 274A of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to improve the process for verifying an individual's 
eligibility for employment, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4306

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before ``A person or 
     entity has complied'' the following: ``Such attestation may 
     be manifested by either a hand-written or an electronic 
     signature.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Such attestation may be manifested by either a hand-written 
     or an electronic signature.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``a paper, microfiche, 
     microfilm, or electronic version of'' after ``must retain''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the earlier of--
       (1) the date on which final regulations implementing such 
     amendments take effect; or
       (2) 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4306 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4306, which would allow 
employers to electronically complete and store Eligibility Employment 
Verification Forms, known as Forms I-9.
  Currently, employers must complete one of these forms for each 
employee to show that they have verified that the employee is eligible 
to work in the United States. The employer must then retain that form 
for at least 3 years and make it available for inspection by 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Justice Department's Civil 
Rights Division, and the Department of Labor.
  This legislation is straightforward and sensible. It would benefit 
employers in preparing and storing Forms I-9 and benefit the government 
in enforcing immigration, antidiscrimination, and the labor laws of our 
Nation.
  The current regulation requires employers to retain Forms I-9 ``in 
their original form or on microfilm or microfiche.'' This regulation, 
promulgated in 1988, has failed to keep up with modern technology. For 
this reason, almost all employers have resorted to keeping Forms I-9 in 
the original format in which they are completed, that is, on paper.
  With employers required to retain a Form I-9 for each employee for 
years, American businesses are holding an overwhelming number of the 
forms today. That is a lot of paper and paper which can easily be lost, 
damaged, or tampered with. This format is insecure, wasteful, and with 
the advent of electronic data storage, totally unnecessary.
  Allowing the electronic completion and storage of Forms I-9 would 
also aid the men and women charged with enforcing our law, particularly 
when auditing large employers with multiple outlets spread across the 
country. In reviewing the Forms I-9 of employers who choose to keep the 
documents electronically, officers will be able to request one 
electronic file instead of potentially thousands of paper documents. 
This legislation would not require employers to electronically complete 
or store Forms I-9. It would simply permit them to do so if they so 
choose.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and as well, I want to acknowledge 
the chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 
Subcommittee and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking 
member on the full committee.
  This is an important change on the benefits side of the immigration 
puzzle. This regulation, 8 CFR 274a2(b)(2) requires United States 
employers to

[[Page H8236]]

process and retain I-9 forms for up to 3 years. These forms are used to 
verify the employment eligibility and identify all employees in the 
United States. They are required to be kept on paper or on microfilm or 
microfiche.
  This was fine in 1988, when the regulation was promulgated. Computers 
were expensive and less widely used in 1988. Paper records were an 
unavoidable burden then, and microfilm and microfiche were being used 
far more in 1988 than they are now. It is not appropriate to be 
restricted, however, at this point in time to such records on that kind 
of data in this computer age that we live in today.
  Most of our corporations and small businesses are technologically 
sophisticated and therefore are able to access the information highway. 
More than half of the benefits applications that are submitted to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Service are filed on its Web site, but 
employers are still required to maintain paper I-9 forms.
  Employers should be permitted to keep the Form I-9 in electronic form 
as an option. In addition to saving paper and storage space, an 
electronic storage system would permit a central reservoir of sensitive 
data and allow retrieval of I-9 forms in a fraction of the time it 
takes to retrieve paper, microfiche, or microfilm copies and might, in 
fact, Mr. Speaker, be even more accurate.
  H.R. 4306 simply would allow employers the option of electronic 
processing and storage of the I-9 forms. This would include electronic 
signatures.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The regulation 8 CFR Sec. 274a2(b)(2) requires United States 
employers to process and retain I-9 forms for up to 3 years. These 
forms are used to verify the employment eligibility and identity of all 
employees in the United States. They are required to be kept on paper 
or on microfilm or microfiche. This was fine in 1988, when the 
regulation was promulgated. Computers were expensive and less widely 
used in 1988. Paper records were an unavoidable burden then, and 
microfilm and microfiche were being used far more in 1988 than they are 
now. It is not appropriate to be restricted to such records in the 
computer age that we live in today.
  More than half of the benefits applications that are submitted to the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service are filed on its website, but 
employers are still required to maintain paper I-9 forms. Employers 
should be permitted to keep the Form I-9 in electronic form. In 
addition to saving paper and storage space, an electronic storage 
system would permit a central reservoir of data and allow retrieval of 
I-9 forms in a fraction of the time it takes to retrieve paper, 
microfiche, or microfilm copies.
  H.R. 4306 simply would allow employers the option of electronic 
processing and storage of the I-9 forms. This would include electronic 
signatures. I urge you to vote for H.R. 4306.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon) the author of the bill.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4306, legislation that I introduced along with the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 
ranking member of the subcommittee, for their support of this bill. 
This is a noncontroversial bill that reinserts logic into the 
regulatory process by updating an outdated regulation.
  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the 
Employment Eligibility Verification form, also known as the I-9 form, 
to be completed and stored by an employer in order to verify the 
employment eligibility and identity of the employer's workforce.
  The statute also stipulates that all employers must maintain these 
documents for at least 3 years after the date of hire or 1 year after 
employment is terminated, but many employers maintain the forms for 
longer periods of time simply because of the cost to audit the files 
every year.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the real regulatory burden occurs with the 
accompanying regulations. These regulations require that the employer 
must retain the forms ``in their original form, either paper or on 
microfilm or microfiche.'' When these regulations were promulgated, 
microfiche was in the stratosphere of technological progress, but to 
place this in proper perspective, these regulations went into effect 5 
years before Adobe Acrobat was invented. With new technology available 
today, it is vitally important that the Congress streamline burdensome 
and outdated regulations.
  The House Corrections Day Advisory Committee was implemented to fix 
such things. H.R. 4306 went before the Correction Committee, a 
bipartisan committee cochaired by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and received the 
committee's blessing that this legislation should receive consideration 
and passage because it rectifies an outdated regulation.
  The need for this legislation is evidenced by the hundreds of 
millions of records that are stored in warehouses across the country in 
order to comply with the IRCA regulations. All businesses, especially 
those with high employee turnover, have a burden maintaining these 
documents in storage all over the country. Most companies do not use 
microfiche, so they are inundated with reams of paper to file and 
maintain. Some companies ship all their forms to one centralized 
location while others maintain the document where an individual is 
originally hired, even if he is transferred, causing audits to be 
complex and inefficient. The nonuniform method causes burdens to the 
employers and the investigators who may need to access specific files.
  This legislation enhances security and provides greater privacy 
protections for employees. Electronic computer storage with backup 
systems is far more secure than paper-based systems in which the paper 
documents can be lost, damaged, misfiled or accessed by unauthorized 
individuals. The automatic time and date stamping of documents which 
occurs on automated systems will also help prevent fabrication or 
tampering.
  It is our intent to provide employers a more practical option to meet 
their obligations. By permitting these forms to be completed and stored 
on a computer rather than simply on paper, an employer can avoid 
unnecessary administrative and storage costs. This will allow employers 
to reinvest the savings, benefiting the broader economy through the 
creation of new jobs.
  In addition to allowing the electronic completion and storage of the 
I-9 forms, this legislation also allows employers to convert existing 
I-9 forms into electronic versions for storage purposes. An employer 
who continues to use paper I-9 forms with handwritten signatures should 
be able to convert those forms into an electronic version for storage 
and security purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not mandate anything new. It 
allows employers to adopt electronic completion and storage of I-9 
forms if they so choose. For a small employer with few employees and a 
few new hires per year, the paper route may be the most logical.

                              {time}  1430

  But in the industries with high employee turnover, electronic 
completion of I-9 forms will save time and money and help in 
enforcement.
  I would like to thank the staff that worked on this bill. Personally 
I would like to thank from the Committee on the Judiciary Phil Kiko, 
Joseph Gibson, Art Arthur, George Fishman, Perry Apelbaum, and Nolan 
Rappaport; from leadership, Brett Loper and Andrew Shore; and Robert 
Knotts from the staff of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); 
and Todd Thorpe and Matthew Iandoli from my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), 
who has been very diligent on these issues.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his help and cooperation and 
that of his very fine staff; the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and his fine staff; and my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas

[[Page H8237]]

(Ms. Jackson-Lee), for her help and support. Most especially I would 
like to say to my coauthor, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), it 
has been a pleasure to work with him on a commonsense approach to 
solving a problem that is a wave of the present.
  The law dates back 16 years, but the technology is changing every 
minute. What seems to be a simple change in this bill I think will have 
a profoundly positive effect on businesses, small and large, around the 
country.
  As we have an increasingly diverse workforce with people from all 
over the world enriching our economy and our country, that workforce 
carries with it the responsibility to maintain records on the legal 
status of various workers. The maintenance of those records is 
burdensome, expensive and done in an ungainly way, an unseemly way in 
some cases, under present law.
  The purpose of our bill is to make it much more simple. We say to 
employers that at their option they may retrieve these documents and 
create these documents and store these documents on electronic records 
rather than paper records. It is a small improvement for business, but 
I think it is a significant improvement that will make the records more 
accurate, more accessible, less burdensome to maintain and less 
expensive to maintain. This is how business ought to be done here.
  I again thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for his leadership 
on this and all others on both sides of the aisle. I would urge our 
colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure that I added as well my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for his great 
work, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) on this 
legislation, and also the cooperation of the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  One of the provisions that we were able to keep in recognizing the 
importance of technology is giving the option of having paper, just in 
case there are those who had to utilize that method because of their 
own lack of access to the superinformation highway.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add what I heard from the 9/11 
Commission families yesterday regarding a debate that we will have 
tomorrow, and I understand that, but it did have to do with immigration 
issues.
  My concern as we move this legislative initiative along is that it is 
unclear to the American public as we lump together the question of 
benefits versus enforcement. This bill that we have before us helps to 
enhance the benefits side of the responsibilities of homeland security, 
and that is to ensure legalization, to ensure process, to ensure that 
the system works. We have so much intimidated Americans around the 
question of immigration that, unfortunately, we have not been able to 
move valuable legislation on the question of immigration reform.
  Let me cite, Mr. Speaker, some issues that in fact the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) worked long and hard on. We have not 
been able to bring that back up again, 245(i) which is the 
reunification of family members. We have not been able to address that, 
families who are here legally. We have not been able to address those 
questions.
  The whole question of immigration reform as it relates to documenting 
illegal immigrants, many of us have had comprehensive reform packages 
ready and waiting to be addressed, particularly talking about earned 
access to legalization, the Dream Act, which allows those individuals 
who were born here who happen not to be citizens to access higher 
education, legislation that deals with technology that would help 
secure our borders more definitively, and basic civil rights and civil 
liberties that are contained in the Comprehensive Fairness Reform Act 
of 2004 that the ranking member and I were joined on by a number of 
Members.
  We can begin to define immigration the way we have done so in this 
debate today as balancing fairness and the rights of Americans as 
relates to making sure they have an immigration system that works, and 
then working with certainly those who are concerned about ensuring the 
safety of the homeland, particularly measuring out immigration reform 
that deals with security, but also deals with fairness. I think we 
would be much further along and I think this legislation points to the 
fact that Americans are willing to welcome bipartisan immigration 
legislation that helps fix the backlog, that helps fix some of the 
problems that employers face.
  Might I just say in conclusion, we are going to be talking about 
another bill in just a moment here dealing with physicians. But our 
school districts around the country, many of them have asked for 
flexibility in immigration as it relates to school teachers who have 
been utilized in the elementary and primary and secondary schools, 
along with those who have been utilized in our higher education.
  So we have a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. I believe the more we can 
do this in a bipartisan way, we will be making long headway. I know the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) has often said in fixing a broken 
system and separating out the question of terrorism and immigration, 
separating out enforcement, which has a bipartisan approach, from, if 
you will, the benefits side of it, that makes the system work on behalf 
of the good work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4306.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4306, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________