Mandatory submission to e-verify program…a few points more
Op ed by Nancy Ortiz
Scott Hochberg’s article Making E-Verify Mandatory: The Perfect Storm for Crippling the Social Security Administration and Jeopardizing the Social Safety Net discusses issues regarding the e-Verify system and a move in Congress to make it mandatory for everyone hired for a job in the US. He points out that eVerify is every bit as much a threat to SS and Medicare as any of the other benefit, COLA, or Medicare provider cuts now being discussed. I read Hochberg’s article with great interest and have a few additional points to add to his excellent analysis of this subject.
When the Immigration Reform Act took effect in 1987, I was the manager of the SS office in Northern Santa Barbara County in strawberry, broccoli, lettuce and wine grape country. Thousands of migrant workers pass through the area at the height of the picking season between January and May. Many stay with or without authorization so that about 60% of the population is Hispanic and/or non-English speaking/non-US national. You will find similar demographics up and down the California Central Coast in agricultural areas, so there’s nothing unusual about this.
I’ll spare you the war stories of actually implementing IRCA’s social security number provisions. This was the Bush I administration notable for its parsimony in budgeting for SSA operations. (How bad was it? How about no hiring, no overtime and no photocopy paper bad?) Farm workers in the area lined up with their new Immigration work visas in hand outside our office door at 6:00A and we interviewed Social Security Number applicants until 5:00P every day from 1987 til mid-1989. It was hard to get anything else done, but the normal operation got busier because of the recession that put maybe 15% of the workforce in our area out of work.
Alright, now it won’t take much imagination to imagine the same situation but worse, because now every worker would be subject to e-verify. Not just the “obvious illegals,” every single one who applied for a job. Hochberg’s article summarizes the projected workload from this but SSA’s workforce is now 20 or more years older
and really, really ready to retire. And, of course, Congress is talking about cutting the whole federal civil service workforce 10% across the board while maintaining an indefinite hiring freeze and whacking every agencies’ budget in its 2 Trillion to 4 Trillion dollar spending cuts. The President is ready to agree to at least 2 Trillion in cuts, but discussions are continuing.
Perhaps you can see now why making it illegal to work in the US without lawful admission was a bad, terrible, awful, rotten, really bad idea from the git-go. “All we would have to do to” avoid this debacle is revoke this provision and we could go back to doing business the way we did before 1987. The punitive notion of making
work without documents a “crime” has resulted in a flood of counterfeit and stolen documents. Field workers often buy many sets of documents (at high prices) before getting a set that will pass employers’ inspection. Every town in California and other border states has document mills. Sanctions against employers for hiring undocumented workers are virtually never imposed. Identity theft, impossible to prevent and prosecute effectively, is epidemic. And, on and on. All because of the notion that working in the US should be a crime.
If you remain unconvinced, let me remind you that the budget for SSA’s New New Computer Center was reduced about in this last round of spending cuts. This will make it impossible to meet an early construction deadline made necessary by the fragility of the existing computer system. This is estimated to result in causing SSA’s now aged and outdated computer processing and data storage systems to collapse
sometime between now and 2013. 2013 is supposedly the outside range of functionality assuming nothing catastrophic (such as a major power grid black out) happens between now and then. Otherwise, it can go at any time. Finally, I don’t need to remind you of the pending DIB appeals workload of approx. 700K cases still on hand.
But, in closing let me ask you–can you prove you are a US citizen or lawfully admitted alien with permission to work if I ask you right this minute? No, your drivers’ license isn’t enough. Your SS card isn’t ID. You may have a US Passport but it won’t resolve the matter unless it is current. Your current or former employer’s assurance isn’t enough either.
Prove to me who you are or you can’t work here any more. And, it says here on this little No Match notice that you aren’t who you say you are. So, what about it? Exactly who are you anyway, Mr. Working American?
NanO, and the other protect Ss at all costs types here, I think you might be missing the forest for a sprg of a tree. This today’s headline:
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts
from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
Just allow people to prove citizenship by posting an Adobe Illustrator image of their long form birth certificate on a the internet.
Sammy
someone’s still got to read the damn thing, and make a decision about whether it’s genuine.
used to be America was the one country in the world where you didn’t have to prove you had a right to be out on the street.
I happened to be in the great Northwest when the mills all downsized because they were becoming automated. A few years later the mill owners blamed the lack of jobs on the spotted owl. and the workers were dumb enough to believe it. Yeah it was those damn hippies who took away my job.
It is a reliable fact of human nature and American politics that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
CoRev
we already know Obama is a fool. come to think of it, we already know that CoREv… ah… can be fooled.
Protecting SS at all costs seems like a reasonable idea to me. Depends on what you mean by all costs. All imaginable costs in the real world? or All the costs you and the Big Liars can dream up to scare the people with?
SS does not need to be cut. SS has nothing to do with the deficit. Cutting Social Security is a criminal plot by Peter Peterson and associates, mostly because Peterson hates people, but, hell, he stands to make a little money by the deal too.
The people can pay for their own Social Security by raising their own premium (the payroll tax) about forty cents per week per year to cover the cost of a longer life after they retire.
Forty cents per week. See if you can see that tree through the forest of lies.
If the only way to fund Social Security is hoards of illegals using fake and stolen SS numbers, we are in deep crap.
By the way, read the SSA-OIG reports, all of those fake and stolen SSNs cause great havoc with SSA administrative work.
How about just dropping the BOMB and getting all this B.S. over with? This doesn’t sit too well with any of us Seniors that live on what we get from S.S., while all the well offs play their school yard games just because they think it’s O.K. Oh, I forgot, they believe they are the chosen ones because they got where they are on the backs of others.
CoRev–Duh. I think everyone knows about the Administration’s SS position now. This article does not address that little mess. More on that anon.
sammy, A birth certificate proves that someone is/was an American citizen, if it is valid and unaltered. It does not prove that the person possessing the BC or alleging to have it (as in posted on the internet) is the person described on the BC. Only government issued ID documents permit a visual match through a photo usually (occasionally, biometric ID) do that. It takes a combination of documents to establish that a person is who he says he is. This has to be done face to face. No telephone or internet process will suffice.
All documents must be validated by a person competent to detect alterations, counterfeits, and possible stolen identities. So, putting something on the internet is valueless in establishing anything but an image on the internet. (Document validation is one of the things you do if you work in local SSA offices. It’s a particular interest of mine.) The birther phenomenon was driven by the false notion that a piece of paper, in and of itself, can prove citizenship all by itself. Impossible. NancyO
STR–SSA’s OIG periodically reviews SSA’s SSN and wage recording processes and always says the same thing. An unacceptable number of wage reports cannot be posted because of typo’s, failure to update name changes on SSA’s records, or the use of counterfeit or stolen SSN’s. This is not news. SSA has always had procedures to correct earnings records since the program began.
The hardest of these cases are ones in which more than one person has used a valid SSN. I had a case involving three people whose earnings had been scrambled together on the same record when I first worked in SSA. I did what I could with my end of the case and sent it on to the next office near where the second worker lived. They in turn forwarded it to the third worker’s office.
Almost 7 years later, just as I was leaving my first duty station, the case turned up again, incomplete after numerous attempts to contact the two workers who were foreign nationals. Not uncommon for this to happen. I suspect that case never got straightened out. But, since the US worker had requested us to try to correct his record, we had to keep trying. I was happy to try to help someone whose work record could have been appropriated by someone who would then disappear across the border. But, it’s not always possible. NancyO
A birth certificate proves that someone is/was an American citizen, if it is valid and unaltered. It does not prove that the person possessing the BC or alleging to have it (as in posted on the internet) is the person described on the BC. Only government issued ID documents permit a visual match through a photo usually (occasionally, biometric ID) do that. It takes a combination of documents to establish that a person is who he says he is. This has to be done face to face. No telephone or internet process will suffice.
Really? Hmmmm……
CoRev–SS benefits are real money. When politicians blythely talk about cutting benefits, they are proposing to steal money from both beneficiaries and the economy as a whole. Take $100 billion dollars a year out of circulation, do that for 10 years, and the first thing you know you’re talking about enough money to give Everett Dirksen fits. Remember, CoRev, one of the people stolen from may actually be you. NancyO
Shhh…. sammy’s thinking…
hey, if we implant a chip at birth, then anyone can prove they are who they say they are by just going to the neighborhood grocery store and getting scanned….
that’s an internet process. hey! incontrovertible proof!
Rusty
we are not in deep crap. As I never tire of saying… SS can be funded by the people who get the benefits… as it always has been… if they just raise their premium by forty cents per week per year to pay for the extra cost of living longer.
meanwhile, the “plan” to have SSA verify everyone’s identity to prevent the terrible scourge of illegal workers…. remember that the great Social Security crisis is that there “won’t be enough workers”…. while cutting SSA’s funding looks like it can crash SSA. hey! it’s a win win.
Sammy. Remember what I said yesterday? I said, don’t rile me up about stuff I know about. I behave badly and regret it later. Really?? Yeah, REALLY. Here are some details
If you receive SS benefits and want to report a change in your earnings, for example, you can call the National 800 number and give ID information to establish you are the person on the record. What’s your mother’s maiden name, place of birth, date of birth and the like which are available on SSA’s SSN data base. If you can’t come up with matching info, the rep doesn’t take the work report.
Now, suppose you are up to no good, have all the matching ID info, and call the 800 Number pretending you are her to change your despised MIL’s address so that her paper check will be misdirected, returned to Treasury and cancelled. This in turn will cause your MIL’s record to show she moved and no checks will be issued until a new address is reported. No way to prevent this happening in a small number of cases. However, if you are talking about establishing the identity of a person who is claiming to be a deceased American citizen (happens regularly) nothing but face to face interviews will do. NancyO
OK Nancy,
I’ll let you in on it: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=296881
Last remarks regarding WND article. None of the people shown as sources for the article saw the paper document. Consequently, none of their views and opinions is valid. Period. NancyO
Leaving aside my personal stance on the immigration issue, this program seems dubious at best. The discussion above perfectly illustrates a key point, even if the program was 100% effective it does not mean that it would result in the expulsion of even a small percentage of illegal immigrants. Rather, the burden will be felt by individuals who submit themselves to this kind of verification with no recourse should there be a mistake. And, I am assuming since this is an automated system backed by a (reportedly) underfunded and underdeveloped infrastructure, there will be several zero tolerance policies in place.
The result? More hassle for everyone for the sake of putting a stamp on a page to demonstrate in words only that we are doing something to resolve a hot national issue.
NanO, don’t attack the messenger. Respond to the adminstration’s proposal.
Even 35 years ago I was required to present a birth certificate to start working. Once you get a passport book or today a card, its not that expensive to keep it up to date, ($3 per year or $30 for 10 years). It should work as well as the book for id purposes. Note that if your birth certificate does not have the full name of both parents it is no longer adaquate for the dept of state. (The first time to get a card there is an additional $25 fee. The book now costs $110 for 10 years.
Gee Lyle
I guess I got in under the wire. I started working when this was still a free country.
Note that when I started at a major oil company 35 years ago a birth certificate was required. (perhaps for benefit purposes, although a copy was also required when I applied for my pension). So at least in one case the wire came down in 1976.
I’m curious to ask if that is your delight that is bleaching through the screen in response to Obama’s possible sell out and stupidity? So explain to us all just how it is that reductions to the Social Security program will result in deficit reduction. If the intention is to stop honoring the debt represented by the Trust Fund Special Treasury notes then what is to prevent other Treasury notes from becomiing “just so many worthless IOUs?” Remember the concept ot the slippery slope. By law the Trust Fund debt is real and supposed to backed by the full faith and credit concept. If the Congress can eliminate one form of debt by fiat then it can do the same to your personal Treausry investments, if you have any.
And if the approach is to reduce benefits to a point below the FICA income then what is to be done with that income. Again by law it is not available to the general budget to cover costs, but only as a form of debt to that budget. So how does that work as a deficit reducer? There is no way by which a reduction of Social Security benefits results in an increase in available funds to reduce the deficit other than by theft. The “pay roll tax” is for the exclusive use of the Social Security program. It is a scam. Are you pleased that your Republican Party leadership is requiring such an approach to a balanced budget? Are you actually promoting the idea of taking from the working classes retirement fund and giving it to the rich by refusing to raise their taxes? That’s what its all about. If money to reduce the deficit comes at the expense of Social Security benefits then it is no less than raising the t axes of the working class in order to retain the assets of the wealthy. Does that give you a sense of power and accomplishment? That’s not on Obama exclusively if its being demanded by the Republican leaders. I can’t wait to hear those Tea Party seniors bleat like sheep when they realize that the government is messing with their Social Security, and their Medicare benefits can’t be far behind.
Lyle–35 years ago, there was no requirement for the employer to complete and retain a form I-9. But, some employers back then did ask for proof of age and citizenship, anyhow. The federal government did because there was a law requiring all federal employees to be US citizens. Then, about 1982, SSA began requiring a certified BC and picture ID to receive a SSN. Now employers must ask to see proof of citizenship (BC or passport) and ID (government issued ID with photo.) The e-Verify system would be over and above existing I-9 documentation of citizenship for employment purposes. NancyO
Curt–There is recourse in case of a bad response online. Most of the time it requires the job seeker to go to SSA to correct its records regarding ID information for the worker. Sometimes, it also requires the person to correct or clarify his immigration status with ICE. The lines at SSA are long enough for such interviews. But, the lines at ICE to resolve immigration status problems beat SSA’s all hollow. Anyhow, once SSA’s records are corrected, the worker will have no further problems with the e-Verify system. The system does not work well for people having double or hyphenated last names (Spanish last names, for example), or very long last names such as Thai or Indonesian names.
Of course, if the worker isn’t here legally, there is no solution but regularizing his immigration status. Or finding an employer who is willing to be “flexible” in the use of the system. It may be mandatory, but 100% compliance with the law is unlikely. In any event, IRS seldom if ever audits employer records so would likely never suffer any penalty for neglecting to run the query. In any event, most employers don’t fire people if the wage reports bounce. So, there are ways to get around any system and most of them were invented years ago. NancyO
Nancy,
NO ONE has seen the paper document. That would settle everything. So, why not?
CoRev of course the White House this morning said the reports were wrong, Obama did no-such-thing. So we don’t know nothing. Whenever following “breaking news” reports like this, these words from Jonathan Bernstein this morning are accurate: “There simply is no way to tell, while negotiations continue, what is posturing and what is real, what is a bluff and what is someone’s bottom line. Of course, advocates shouldn’t just sit back and wait to see what happens; they should, well, be advocating, as best they can. So if something is floated in the news, it usually makes sense for advocates to treat it as a trial balloon — and if they don’t like it, shoot it down as strongly as they can. But that doesn’t tell us anything about whether the original report was something that’s a done deal, something that was in fact a real trial balloon, or even something that reporters just got wrong.” (I frequently put my money on the last one–reporters just love to make news, ya know, and if being slightly inaccurate or misleading can accomplish the goal, well, that’s a pretty minor infraction compared to the whoppers they constantly hear!)
Because it’s silly. People establish a known identity very early in life. But I said no more. NancyO
Given situations like the kosher meat packing plant in Iowa reported on where the managment ignored details and took lying i-9s at face value as well as employeed underage workers, is it not suprising that a reacton occured. A few rotten apples taint the entire barrel. Agriprocessors was a completly rotten apple, also doing financial crimes. If companies rub the governments nose in their not following the law is it suprising that a reaction will occur.
CoRev
are you just blithering? Nancy responded to the admin’s proposal and did not attack the messenger. You need to check your tape.
Ah Lyle
there you touch on an interesting point. the companies are lying, therefore the government has to do something.
which is why the righties hate the government. it sticks its nose in their lying business.
but the government is run by the liars in congress, and they do the business of the lying businesses…
sometimes it’s just government stupidity, and sometimes it’s just normal human stupidity, and sometimes it’s bad faith.
Nancy,
Your position on the Social Security Administration’s responsibilities, staffing, and funding in support of the E-Verify program operated by DHS is not based on current facts as evidenced by the Congressional testimony of a SSA commissioner in April 2011. Apparently, you bought into Hochberg’s article without performing any further researh to verify his various claims.
Scott Hochberg cited the testimony of Tyler Moran at the April 14, 2011 E-Verify hearing of the Subcommittee on Social Security, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee. Interestingly, Hochberg failed to cite any of the testimony provided by a commissioner of the Social Security Administration at the same subcommittee hearing. The reasons are obvious.
Here are some Social Security Administration E-Verify facts presented by the SSA commissioner that Hochberg conveniently omitted from his scare tactic article:
Testimony of Marianna LaCanfora, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, April 14, 2011
EXCERPTS:
“The support we provide to DHS for E-Verify is not related to the benefit programs we administer; therefore, DHS reimburses us for all costs we incur in support of its program.”
“At the same time, DHS also changed the process for contesting tentative non-confirmations based on citizenship mismatches. Under this process, naturalized citizens who receive a tentative non-confirmation can call DHS directly to resolve the issue. While new hires still have the option of resolving the mismatch in person at one of our field offices, this new process provides better, more convenient service to the public and helps reduce the number of visitors coming to our field offices to change their records.”
“In 2009, we completed a major improvement to our systems that support E-Verify. We isolated E-Verify workloads from our mission critical workloads. No other workloads run in this isolated E-Verify environment; therefore, use of the E-Verify system does not affect our mission critical workloads, and increases in our mission critical workloads do not affect the operation of E-Verify.”
“The more robust design of this system increases our capacity to handle E-Verify queries. At DHS’ request, we designed the system to accommodate 60 million queries a year because United States employers hire about 60 million workers each year. In time, we may need additional capacity, but we expect our systems will be able to handle potential expansions, provided we receive necessary resources and lead times. This systems environment will help us provide prompt, efficient, and accurate service to those seeking employment.”
“We continue to make improvements to support the E-Verify program. This month, we are adding enhancements to our computer systems to help us identify individuals who are visiting our field offices due to an E-Verify tentative non-confirmation. This new functionality will help us better serve the public by ensuring that our employees update EV-STAR, and thus E-Verify, with the most current case information. These enhancements demonstrate our continued commitment to help DHS improve E-Verify.”
“Funding For E-Verify”
“DHS reimburses SSA for all operating costs related to the E-Verify system, including our systems maintenance costs and the costs of assisting new hires who visit our field offices and call our […]
MG,
Way to ruin their “The Evil Doers are Killing Social Security” fantasy.
In the absence of an Open Thread, note this:
All this talk about E-Verify is fine, but I would be far more concerned about the following short notice hearing scheduled for 9 AM, Friday.
Chairman Johnson Announces Hearing on Social Security’s Finances
scheduled for Friday, July 08, 2011
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=249609
Chairman Johnson Announces Hearing on Social Security’s Finances
Jul 08, 2011
http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=249611
*Witness list
sammy,
They took it too far.
Good catch MG, thanks. The focus of the hearings, as stated in the announcement:
“The hearing will focus on Social Security’s benefit expenditures, how benefits have changed over time, options for change, and their impacts. Also, efforts by the SSA to inform workers of their future benefits through the Social Security Statement will be examined.”
Given all of the professional papers that exist on the issue of Social Security solvency from both academic and governmental agency sources what is the purpose of such a hearing? This is not a rhetorical question. Can someone point out to me what additional information is to be gained from statements limited to ten pages by witnesses then subjected to oral argument? Why can’t Chairman Johnson simply have a few staff members gather together a bibliography of the most well regarded papers and reports on the subject, submit those to a peer review process and have the findings published for the purpose of members of the Congress having access to studied opinions which would hopefully be supported by factual data? That can’t happen in a Congressional hearing environment.
The SSA executive delivered the message that SSA executives are doing a great job managing e-verify and the SSA will be a-okay as long as the money flows from DHS to SSA executives. Hochberg, meeting Huffpo’s requirements for hyperbole, emphasizes specters. The SSA executive said what he needed to say and I’m sure it’s accurate. Hochberg’s specters (and his accompanying data) are worth communicating, along with Nancy’s added observations: I’m not at all confident that SSA will get the money it needs, e-verify will pose management challenges at the SSA, and the fallible automated system absolutely is only a research and decision aid for fallible human beings making calls that affect lives. This indeed needs to be watched by Congress and the fourth estate.
MG–I read every golden word which falls, bejeweled, from the Commissioner’s lips. I always do, because my old managment organization sends transcripts of all hearings to its members. I know what the man said.
I also know that I never met a Commissioner yet who didn’t welcome (think roses and song, here) any proposal made by any President since Roosevelt. Difference now is that this Commissioner was a Bush appointee who selected Andrew Biggs to be his Principal Dep. Commissioner during Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security. Speaks for itself.
Note the date of the Commissioner’s statement. That was before the wonderful budget bill passed by Congress this summer. Now, the Commissioner’s tune is quite different. His recent statements project severe operational problems, workload backlogs in additon to those that currently exist, and of particular note, a slowdown in clearing the existing 650-700K backlog of DIB hearings. Good luck if you need help on a problem with your SS checks this year. MG, I know my stuff. Think what you want, but expect an argument. A good one from me. NancyO
They are. NO
Wait and see, MG. NO
PJR–I sure am glad you are sure that all will be well in SSA. SSA will get the money it needs. Yep. Right. And Tooth Fairies and Easter Bunnies will dance at the feast. NO
“This indeed needs to be watched by Congress and the fourth estate.” PJR
And therein lies the rub. What Congress is that that is going to provide oversight and funding as required? If the goal were to weed out terrorists and those dangerous illegals of all stripes the Congress would pass legislation calling for the establishment of private contractors to be paid to carry out those tasks. Adequate funding of a government agency isn’t currently in the cards.
The fourth estate?
What is that? Are you referring to someone’s third country home? You’re more likely to see a fifth column in action when it comes to disclosures of government agency activities. Maybe News Corp could have some SSA office phones tapped in order to get to the heart of the matter.
MG
let me note that you begin your comment by impugning the motives of the person who wrote the article calling our attention to the possible problems of making e-verify mandatory for all workers.
this is typical of MG
then let me note that you fail to understand that the last line of the article you cite contradicts your thesis.
this is typical of MG.
Jack–This committee has already held a hearing on SS financing earlier this year. IIRC it was in connection with the Trustees’ Report and CBO’s analysis of it. SSA’s Chief Actuary, the Commissioner, various agency players such as the CFO testified that everything is perfectly ok through 2036 for full benefits and 77% of benefits thereafter. Other witnesses from think tanks like CATO, AEI, Heritage, and so on warned that dire consequences in 25 years can only be avoided by drastic cuts now. Same old same old.
You’re quite right that no hearing need be held. So, I speculate that the purpose of this hearing is to publicize something the Chairman wants to plug. Such as “cut now to save SS”. The list of invited witnesses will provide clues to the object of the exercise, no matter how it is advertized now. NancyO
Nancy I think you misunderstood. I said “I’m not at all confident that SSA will get the money it needs . . .” as the first of three reasons to worry. (I’d bet against Congress and DHS regarding the flow of money for this project, and if I’m wrong and the money keeps flowing, the other two reasons for worry remain.) The SSA executive’s assurances that the e-verify operation is completely isolated from other SSA operations is a good thing to the extent that it’s accurate, but also I know how quickly this can change, especially when a senior manager must rob peter to pay paul.
You’re right, PJR. I apologize for what I said. Sorry and I’ll take care to avoid this mistake again. NancyO
“from 1987 til mid-1989.”
“This was the Bush I administration notable for its parsimony in budgeting for SSA operations.”
No it wasn’t, except for the last 5 or so months.
Not only has Obama/Democratic polices increased uncertainty, they are making economic recovery and via horrible energy policies overall conditions worse for Americans. From a recent report:
”
Among the report’s key findings:
Key administration officials, including President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have gone on record in support of higher energy prices as a means to promote “green” technology by making it more economically viable. The failed “cap and trade” legislation is a prime example of this approach. “The result of this government action is less production, higher costs for producers, and more expensive energy,” the reports states.
The United States currently boasts the largest domestic energy resources on earth — “greater than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined.” New technology has allowed for greater access to these resources — with the potential to increase domestic production by up to 40 percent — but government regulations threaten to severely limit or restrict development.
Despite the fact that the United States relies on carbon-based fuels for more than 80 percent of its energy needs, the Obama administration has been “aggressively suppressing” the utilization of these fuels.
Current administration policies have limited the domestic production of oil by restricting access to resources located along the outer continental shelf. Many of these restrictions were put in place before the disastrous Gulf oil spill.
Government agencies have stepped up efforts to regulate energy production indirectly through environmental restrictions, for example, by placing on the Endangered Species list certain animals that live in resource rich habitats, or “targeting independent energy producers for environmental concerns not related to their operations.””
From here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267928/report-finds-obama-policies-blame-high-energy-prices-andrew-stiles