a:3:{s:16:"field_story_body";a:1:{i:0;a:2:{s:5:"value";s:1632:"<span style="font-size: larger;">Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have been pushing for the creation of a biometric ID card&nbsp; that would use personal markers such as fingerprints to make it easy for employers to check the status of prospective hires. But Graham said cost estimates came back higher than he expected, and</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);"><em><strong><span style="font-size: larger;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;That seems to have been cost-prohibitive, so we're looking at other ways to achieve the same goal,&quot;.</span></strong></em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: larger;">E-Verify was launched as a pilot program in 1997 and now is used by about 7 percent of employers. It's largely voluntary as a federal program but mandatory in some states. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: larger;"><span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0);"><em><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Draft immigration legislation by President Barack Obama, which he has said he'll offer if the Senate group doesn't come to agreement quickly enough, would make E-Verify mandatory nationally, and the Senate group is likely to take the same route.</strong></em></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: larger;">For the complete story read the rest of the article at:</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/senate-immigration-group-national-id-too-costly-203225949--politics.html"><span style="font-size: larger;">http://news.yahoo.com/senate-immigration-group-national-id-too-costly-203225949--politics.html</span></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />";s:6:"format";s:1:"2";}}s:17:"field_story_image";a:1:{i:0;a:10:{s:3:"fid";s:4:"3115";s:4:"list";s:1:"1";s:4:"data";a:3:{s:11:"description";s:0:"";s:3:"alt";s:0:"";s:5:"title";s:0:"";}s:3:"uid";s:1:"1";s:8:"filename";s:17:"bio_metric_ID.jpg";s:8:"filepath";s:44:"sites/default/files/images/bio_metric_ID.jpg";s:8:"filemime";s:10:"image/jpeg";s:8:"filesize";s:5:"65567";s:6:"status";s:1:"1";s:9:"timestamp";s:10:"1364481958";}}s:12:"field_weight";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:"value";s:2:"19";}}}