-------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** ******** *************
******** ********* *************
** ** ** *** POLICY POST
** ** ** ***
** ** ** *** October 6, 1995
** ** ** *** Number 25
******** ********* ***
****** ******** ***
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDT POLICY POST Number 25 October 6, 1995
CONTENTS: (1) House Committeee Approves National ID System, Fight Moves
to House Floor
(2) Breakdown of Committee Vote
(3) Statement of Rep. Chabot
(4) Subscription Information/How to Contact CDT
This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its
entirety.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVE NATIONAL ID SYSTEM AS PROVISION OF
IMMIGRATION BILL -- PROVISION IS WATERED DOWN, FIGHT MOVES TO HOUSE FLOOR
On September 20, 1995 members of the U.S. House of Representatives agreed
to create a National Identification system. By a margin of 2 votes, the
House Judiciary Committee failed to remove a provision of the House
Immigration bill establishing a national registry of Social Security
Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Service data. The
Committee instead agreed to limit the scope of the system and to require
Congressional authorization before large scale implementation. Excerpts
from the Committee debate and the vote breakdown are printed below.
The effort to remove the national identification system provision is being
led by Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH). Chabot offered an amendment to
strike Section IV of HR. 2202, the "Immigration in the National Interest
Act" (sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX) which would establish a national
computer registry by combining Social Security Administration and
Immigration and Naturalization Service data.
The 'Employment Eligibility Mechanism' as the provision is called in the
legislation, would be used to monitor and track all hiring decisions made
by employers nationwide. As a result, the ability of every American to work
would be conditioned on the accuracy of the information in this national
data system.
Chabot's effort to remove the Employment Eligibility Mechanism was narrowly
defeated 15 - 17. The committee instead approved an amendment offered by
Rep. Martin Hoke (R-OH) to limit the scope of the program and require
additional congressional authorization before a nation-wide system could
be created. Debate now moves to the floor of the House, where another
attempt to remove the provision altogether is likely.
The 'Employment Eligibility Mechanism' has been vigorously opposed by a
large and diverse coalition, including organization such as the ACLU,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Center for Democracy and Technology,
and individuals such as William Kristol (Project for the Republican Future),
Jeff Eisenach (Progress and Freedom Foundation), and Jack Kemp
(Empower America), among others (for more information, see CDT Policy
Post No.15 URL:http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp150531.html).
Representative Chabot's amendment to remove the Employment Eligibility
Mechanism provision had broad bi-partisan support and the support of civil
liberties advocates, ethnic organizations, business leaders, and labor and
religious organizations. Chabot, who referred to the Employment Eligibility
Mechanism as "1-800-BIG-BROTHER, deserves credit for bringing this issue to
the forefront of the debate. Chabot has indicated that he will continue to
press for the removal of the provision as the bill moves to the House Floor.
Although the Committee did not remove the Employment Eligibility Mechanism
provision, Rep. Hoke (R-OH) offered an amendment to limit the Employment
Eligibility Mechanism to a pilot program which would be conducted in at
least 5 of the 7 states with the largest number of unauthorized workers.
Under the Hoke amendment, the pilot projects sunset on October 1, 1991, and
the system may not be established in non pilot states without additional
action by Congress. In addition, Rep. Becerra (D-CA) added language
directing the Attorney General to include an analysis of the system's:
1) ease and reliability; 2) impact on job loss due to inaccurate or
unavailable data; 3) effect on discrimination; 4) impact on privacy;
and , 5) cost and administration to employers. Both the Becerra and Hoke
amendments were approved by a voice vote.
CDT is pleased that the Committee moved to limit the scope of the Employment
Eligibility Mechanism and that Congressional approval would be required to
expand the program. However, CDT remains vigorously opposed to government
efforts to establish large scale national computer registries to track and
verify personal information about US Citizens. Such proposals clearly violate
the privacy rights of Americans, and create the potential for large scale
surveillance by law enforcement agencies and discrimination by employers.
CDT will closely monitor the progress of this issue and will update you on
its progress as the House moves forward.
For More Information Contact:
Deirdre Mulligan, Staff Council
deirdre@cdt.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Breakdown of the Judiciary Committee vote to remove the Employment
Eligibility Mechanism (EEM) section form the House Immigration
legislation (HR 2202)
In Favor of Removing the EEM Opposed to Removing the EEM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) Henry J. Hyde (R-IL)
Bob Inglis (R-SC) Carlos J. Moorhead (R-CA)
Steve Buyer (R-IN) Bill McCollum (R-FL)
Martin R. Hoke (R-OH) George W. Gekas (R-PA)
Fred Heineman (R-NC) Howard Coble (R-NC)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Michael P. Flanagan (R-IL) Steven H. Schiff (R-NM)
John Conyers (D-MI) Bob Barr (R-GA)
Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) Barney Frank (D-MA)
Jack Reed (D-RI) Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Howard L. Berman (D-CA)
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC) John Bryant (D-TX)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA)
Jose E. Serrano (D-NY) Sonny Bono (R-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Ed Bryant (R-TX)
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)
Charles T. Canady (R-FL)
Absent
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Robert C. Scott (D-VA)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Excerpts from Rep. Chabot's (R-OH) statement in favor of his amendment:
The system has been referred to as dialing 1-800-BIG-BROTHER. It will be
costly to operate; it won't work; and it will send exactly the wrong message
as to whether the government is to be the master or the servant of the people.
Our focus should be on illegal immigrants and the people who smuggle them in,
not on innocent, law abiding American citizens.
Now, some people argue that we should oppose this system because it will lead
inevitably to a national ID card. . . But I believe that this system is
tremendously misguided even if one does not believe that it will evolve
into a national ID. We should stop this habit of turning to the private
sector and forcing small business to act more and more as an arm of the
federal government. And we should get the federal government out of the
face of innocent citizens.
Would this 1-800 number system even work? I suppose that depends in part on
your assumptions about whether those bad employers who now rely on undocumented
labor would even call the number in the first place. And it depends, of course,
on your assumptions about the infallibility of government data and government
employees. Is everyone's name in the system now? No. Would every keystroke
entered into the computer be perfectly executed? Perhaps, but an error rate of
only one percent would at the very least cause great heartache for about 650,000
Americans each year. And while we may believe that government is perfect
(I confess I don't), would the employer always record the correct verification
number? Personally, I worry about getting those verification numbers wrong every
time I order some ticket by telephone.
* * *
Would government be able to resist the temptation gradually to expand the
uses of this new system once the set-up costs have been incurred? Will we
use it to track people, or to store more and more information on them? The
answer again depends on your view of government, informed perhaps by your
view as to whether use of the social security numbers has up to now been
limited to their initial function.
But let's just consider the system at hand. I just don't think I was sent
here to establish this sort of bureaucracy. And I'm not surprised that the
spectrum of people opposing these provisions is extremely broad and
encompasses folks who are all over the lot on other immigration issues.
My amendment will strengthen the bill, Mr. Chairman, for I do not believe
that this legislation will be able to carry the weight of 1-800-BIG-BROTHER
when it comes to the floor. I urge adoption of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CDT POLICY POST LIST
CDT Policy Posts, which is what you have just finished reading, are the
regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology. CDT
Policy Posts are designed to keep you informed on developments in public
policy issues affecting civil liberties online.
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMAITON
1. SUBSCRIBING TO THE LIST
To subscibe to the policy post distribution list, send mail to
"Majordomo@cdt.org" with:
subscribe policy-posts
in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank)
2. UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THE LIST
If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list,
you can send mail to "Majordomo@cdt.org" with the following command
in the body of your email message:
unsubscribe policy-posts youremail@local.host (your name)
(leave the subject line blank)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest
organization. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public
policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic
values in new computer and communications technologies.
Contacting us:
General information on CDT can be obtained by sending mail to info@cdt.org
World-Wide-Web:
http://www.cdt.org/
ftp:
ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/
snail mail:
Center For Democracy and Technology
1001 G Street, NW Suite 700 East
Washington, DC 20001
voice: +1.202.637.9800
fax: +1.202.637.0968
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the CDT Publications Page
Return to the CDT Home Page