Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JFAC directs Department of Labor to produce reports on E‑Verify and disability determination; members warn data limits
Summary
JFAC approved intent language directing the Department of Labor and related offices to study E‑Verify impacts and the costs of state versus federal disability‑determination administration, but some lawmakers warned the requested data may not exist.
The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee approved two separate pieces of intent language asking the Idaho Department of Labor to produce analytical reports, but several committee members warned the department may lack the data the motions ask it to collect.
The first approved language requires the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources (OEMR) to provide a report by Dec. 1, 2025, on use of funds, measurable actions and an overview of projects supported by a newly created council (the committee referred to the ‘‘Speed Council’’ language). That language was accepted by unanimous consent earlier in the meeting.
Separately, the committee approved language directing the Department of Labor to produce a report on the costs and benefits of using E‑Verify and the impact of illegal immigration on the state’s labor market, due Dec. 15, 2025. Senator Wintrow warned that the department does not collect immigration status data and that ‘‘the data doesn't even exist’’ to measure workers’ legal status; she said the report may therefore return limited results. Committee supporters said the review could draw lessons from other states that use E‑Verify.
The committee also approved language requiring a report comparing costs and benefits of administering disability‑determination services at the state level versus the federal level. Senator Wintrow again expressed concern that shifting the longstanding state role would be difficult and may not yield the anticipated results.
Roll call votes: the E‑Verify language passed with a combined total of 17 ayes and 3 nays (Senate 8‑2; House 9‑1). The disability‑determination language passed with a combined total of 18 ayes and 2 nays. During debate, Wintrow requested the record note the likely data limitations; other members countered that the department could review other states’ experiences and that the language is intended to inform future policy choices.
The motions instruct the department(s) to report but do not change current law or create a new program.
