Speech #980211888

At least three or four of those defeats were my amendment. The gentleman is presenting at this time an amendment that I thought we originally should have in the bill as we tried to go through a very difficult and complex situation. How do we deal with the question of largescale illegal immigration in this country without providing an undue burden on the employers of this country and at the same time recognize that we are not going after ma and pa stores and we are not going after individuals who have to make decisions that the kid down the block who is going to mow their lawn. and so forth. with the possibility of criminal sanctions down the road. I might just mention that I believe the gentlemans amendment is in keeping with the original bill as requested to be introduced by the administration. I believe this was the administrations original position: That those who hire three or less employees ought not to come under the mandate of the civil and criminal sanctions. One of the arguments that has been made against this amendment in the past is that it is somewhat contradictory or inconsistent because if we truly want to get rid of illegal immigration. then we ought to do it entirely. I understand there is an inconsistency here. but we are talking about 5 percent of the total work force being subject to this rule by an imposition on their employers who by and large are ma and pa stores or happen to be housewives or families themselves who. in all likelihood. are not used to dealing with personnel files. or do deal in that kind of misty area of whether someone is supposed to be paid social security or not paid social security. or confront questions such as if you pay them by the hour are they an employee. if you pay them by the job are they independent contractors? So I think that under all circumstances. the gentlemans amendment makes sense.