Mr. Chairman. in response to the gentleman who has just spoken. I would like to read further from Secretary Brocks letter: With respect to the amendments impact on employer sanctions. we believe it would weaken their effectiveness because it would relieve employers who hire through State employment agencies of any direct responsibility for compliance with Federal immigration laws. This amendment exempts such employers from the requirement. imposed on all other employers. that they sign a government form attesting to the fact that they had examined the job applicants identification documentation and had no reason to believe that the applicant was an unauthorized alien. He goes on to say later: "We estimated that State public employment service agencies would spend up to $45 million annually"-and we are talking about State agencies. not the INS. not a Federal Government agency. but we are talking about a burden we are going to place on a State agency that has never had any role in the immigration business. These State agencies. and this is the reason that the National Governors Association also supports my amendment to strike the Brown amendment. in the estimate of the Department of Labor would have to spend $45 million annually. if only those people who now use the State employment office use them. but if other people were encouraged to use the State employment office. as the proponent of the Brown amendment suggests they would in order to get around the duty to examine the papers themselves. then that would increase the volume and would increase the cost proportionately. This is not a cost that is covered by anything in this bill.
Keywords matched
immigration