[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2164
__________
JUNE 15, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-887 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
[Vacant]
Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 15, 2011
Page
TEXT OF THE BILL
H.R. 2164, the ``Legal Workforce Act''........................... 2
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 19
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 21
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 22
WITNESSES
The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 53
Prepared Statement............................................. 56
Barry Rutenberg, First Vice Chairman of the Board, National
Association of Home Builders
Oral Testimony................................................. 57
Prepared Statement............................................. 60
Craig S. Miller, Chair, National Restaurant Association (2005-
2006), Current Member, Board's Jobs and Careers Committee
Oral Testimony................................................. 68
Prepared Statement............................................. 71
Tyler Moran, Policy Director, National Immigration Law Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 81
Prepared Statement............................................. 83
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 25
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 97
Material submitted by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement... 111
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 115
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 117
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael M. Honda, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 119
Prepared Statement of Dunkin' Brands, Inc........................ 120
LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:19 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, Lungren,
Poe, Lofgren, Jackson Lee and Conyers (ex officio).
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. We will move ahead with our opening
statements in order to facilitate getting the meeting going. I
will call the hearing to order. Good morning.
Currently there are nearly 14 million unemployed Americans.
Making sure that they have every opportunity to find work is
more important now than ever. One way to do this is it to
reduce the number of jobs that go to illegal immigrants. The E-
Verify program will clearly do just that.
E-Verify allows employers to check the work eligibility of
new hires by running the employee's Social Security number or
alien identification number against Department of Homeland
Security and Social Security Administration records.
In 1995, I chaired the Congressional Task Force on
Immigration Reform. We published a 200-plus-page report with
more than 80 specific recommendations. One of those was an
electronic employment eligibility verification system, which
was included in Chairman Smith's 1996 immigration reform bill.
The system is now known as E-Verify. It is currently a
voluntary program for most of the almost 250,000 employers who
use it. It is free, Internet-based, and very easy to use, and
the employers who use it all agree.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Legal
Workforce Act. The bill mandates that all employers in the
United States use E-Verify to help make sure their workforce is
legal. The result of that will be that jobs are reserved for
citizens and legal residents.
The bill requires that employers be notified when they
submit one or more mismatched W-2 statements. Once the employer
receives the notice, they must use E-Verify to check the
employee's work eligibility and are subject to penalty if they
do not then follow the requirements of E-Verify in good faith.
And the Legal Workforce Act requires employees who submit a
Social Security number for which there is a pattern of unusual
multiple use to be notified of the use so that the rightful
owner can be determined. The employer must then be notified of
the unusual use and follow the E-Verify procedures for that
employee.
Another important change the bill makes to the E-Verify
process will help alleviate some of the burden on business.
Currently an employer is prohibited from using E-Verify until
after they have hired the employee. So sometimes they invest
time, money and resources into an employee only to have it turn
out that the employee is not work eligible. But the Legal
Workforce Act allows the employer to make a job offer
conditioned on an E-Verify confirmation. This change is simply
common sense.
The Legal Workforce Act implements a process whereby
employers can help ensure a legal workforce, and Americans will
have a chance to get every job possible in the U.S.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. And
at this point, I will recognize my friend, the Ranking Member
from California, Ms. Lofgren.
[The text of the bill, H.R. 2164, follows:]
HR 2164 IH ___________________________________________________
I
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2164
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make mandatory and
permanent requirements relating to use of an electronic employment
eligibility verification system, and for other purposes.
__________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011
Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gallegly, Mr.
Chaffetz, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Royce, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California,
Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Carter,
Mr. Kingston, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, and Mr.
Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on
Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of
the committee concerned
__________
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make mandatory and
permanent requirements relating to use of an electronic employment
eligibility verification system, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Legal Workforce Act''.
SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PROCESS.
Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Employment Eligibility Verification Process.--
``(1) New hires, recruitment, and referral.--The
requirements referred to in paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of
subsection (a) are, in the case of a person or other entity
hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment
in the United States, the following:
``(A) Attestation after examination of
documentation.--
``(i) Attestation.--During the verification
period (as defined in subparagraph (F)), the
person or entity shall attest, under penalty of
perjury and on a form, including electronic and
telephonic formats, designated or established
by the Secretary by regulation not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of the
Legal Workforce Act, that it has verified that
the individual is not an unauthorized alien
by--
``(I) obtaining from the individual
the individual's social security
account number and recording the number
on the form (if the individual claims
to have been issued such a number),
and, if the individual does not attest
to United States citizenship under
subparagraph (B), obtaining such
identification or authorization number
established by the Department of
Homeland Security for the alien as the
Secretary of Homeland Security may
specify, and recording such number on
the form; and
``(II) examining--
``(aa) a document described in clause (ii); or
``(bb) a document described in clause (iii) and a document
described in clause (iv).
``(ii) Documents evidencing employment
authorization and establishing identity.--A
document described in this subparagraph is an
individual's--
``(I) unexpired United States
passport or passport card;
``(II) unexpired permanent resident
card that contains a photograph;
``(III) unexpired employment
authorization card that contains a
photograph;
``(IV) in the case of a
nonimmigrant alien authorized to work
for a specific employer incident to
status, a foreign passport with Form I-
94 or Form I-94A bearing the same name
as the passport and containing as
endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant
status, as long as the period of
endorsement has not yet expired and the
proposed employment is not in conflict
with any restrictions or limitations
identified on the form;
``(V) passport from the Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM) or the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)
with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating
nonimmigrant admission under the
Compact of Free Association Between the
United Sates and the FSM or RMI; or
``(VI) other document designated by
the Secretary of Homeland Security, if
the document--
``(aa) contains a photograph of the individual and biometric
identification data from the individual and such other personal
identifying information relating to the individual as the Secretary
of Homeland Security finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes
of this clause;
``(bb) is evidence of authorization of employment in the United
States; and
``(cc) contains security features to make it resistant to
tampering, counterfeiting, and fraudulent use.
``(iii) Documents evidencing employment
authorization.--A document described in this
subparagraph is an individual's social security
account number card (other than such a card
which specifies on the face that the issuance
of the card does not authorize employment in
the United States).
``(iv) Documents establishing identity of
individual.--A document described in this
subparagraph is--
``(I) an individual's unexpired
State issued driver's license or
identification card if it contains a
photograph and information such as
name, date of birth, gender, height,
eye color, and address;
``(II) an individual's unexpired
U.S. military identification card;
``(III) an individual's unexpired
Native American tribal identification
document; or
``(IV) in the case of an individual
under 18 years of age, a parent or
legal guardian's attestation under
penalty of law as to the identity and
age of the individual.
``(v) Authority to prohibit use of certain
documents.--If the Secretary of Homeland
Security finds, by regulation, that any
document described in clause (i), (ii), or
(iii) as establishing employment authorization
or identity does not reliably establish such
authorization or identity or is being used
fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the
Secretary may prohibit or place conditions on
its use for purposes of this paragraph.
``(vi) Signature.--Such attestation may be
manifested by either a hand-written or
electronic signature.
``(B) Individual attestation of employment
authorization.--
``(i) In general.--During the verification
period (as defined in subparagraph (F)), the
individual shall attest, under penalty of
perjury on the form designated or established
for purposes of subparagraph (A), that the
individual is a citizen or national of the
United States, an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, or an alien who is
authorized under this Act or by the Secretary
of Homeland Security to be hired, recruited, or
referred for such employment. Such attestation
may be manifested by either a hand-written or
electronic signature. The individual shall also
provide that individual's social security
account number (if the individual claims to
have been issued such a number), and, if the
individual does not attest to United States
citizenship under this subparagraph, such
identification or authorization number
established by the Department of Homeland
Security for the alien as the Secretary may
specify.
``(ii) Criminal penalty.--
``(I) Offenses.--Any individual
who, pursuant to clause (i), provides a
social security account number or an
identification or authorization number
established by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that belongs to
another person, knowing that the number
does not belong to the individual
providing the number, shall be fined
under title 18, United States Code,
imprisoned not less than 1 year and not
more than 15 years, or both. Any
individual who, pursuant to clause (i),
provides, during and in relation to any
felony violation enumerated in section
1028A(c) of title 18, United States
Code, a social security account number
or an identification or authorization
number established by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that belongs to
another person, knowing that the number
does not belong to the individual
providing the number, in addition to
the punishment provided for such
felony, shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned for a
term of 2 years, or both.
``(II) Consecutive sentence.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
``(aa) a court shall not place on probation any individual
convicted of a violation of this clause;
``(bb) except as provided in item (dd), no term of imprisonment
imposed on an individual under this section shall run concurrently
with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the individual under
any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment
imposed for the felony enumerated in section 1028A(c) of title 18,
United States Code, during which the violation of this section
occurred;
``(cc) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for
the felony enumerated in section 1028A(c) of title 18, United
States Code, during which the violation of this clause occurred, a
court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such
crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any
separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a
violation of this clause; and
``(dd) a term of imprisonment imposed on an individual for a
violation of this clause may, in the discretion of the court, run
concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of
imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that
individual for an additional violation of this clause, except that
such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any
applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the United
States Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28,
United States Code.
``(C) Retention of verification form and
verification.--
``(i) In general.--After completion of such
form in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the person or entity shall--
``(I) retain a paper, microfiche,
microfilm, or electronic version of the
form and make it available for
inspection by officers of the
Department of Homeland Security, the
Special Counsel for Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices, or the
Department of Labor during a period
beginning on the date of the hiring,
recruiting, or referral of the
individual and ending--
``(aa) in the case of the recruiting or referral of an individual,
3 years after the date of the recruiting or referral; and
``(bb) in the case of the hiring of an individual, the later of 3
years after the date of such hire or one year after the date the
individual's employment is terminated; and
``(II) during the verification
period (as defined in subparagraph
(F)), make an inquiry, as provided in
subsection (d), using the verification
system to seek verification of the
identity and employment eligibility of
an individual.
``(ii) Verification.--
``(I) Verification received.--If
the person or other entity receives an
appropriate verification of an
individual's identity and work
eligibility under the verification
system within the time period
specified, the person or entity shall
record on the form an appropriate code
that is provided under the system and
that indicates a final verification of
such identity and work eligibility of
the individual.
``(II) Tentative nonverification
received.--If the person or other
entity receives a tentative
nonverification of an individual's
identity or work eligibility under the
verification system within the time
period specified, the person or entity
shall so inform the individual for whom
the verification is sought. If the
individual does not contest the
nonverification within the time period
specified, the nonverification shall be
considered final. The person or entity
shall then record on the form an
appropriate code which has been
provided under the system to indicate a
tentative nonverification. If the
individual does contest the
nonverification, the individual shall
utilize the process for secondary
verification provided under subsection
(d). The nonverification will remain
tentative until a final verification or
nonverification is provided by the
verification system within the time
period specified. In no case shall an
employer terminate employment of an
individual because of a failure of the
individual to have identity and work
eligibility confirmed under this
section until a nonverification becomes
final. Nothing in this clause shall
apply to a termination of employment
for any reason other than because of
such a failure. In no case shall an
employer rescind the offer of
employment to an individual because of
a failure of the individual to have
identity and work eligibility confirmed
under this subsection until a
nonconfirmation becomes final. Nothing
in this subclause shall apply to a
recission of the offer of employment
for any reason other than because of
such a failure.
``(III) Final verification or
nonverification received.--If a final
verification or nonverification is
provided by the verification system
regarding an individual, the person or
entity shall record on the form an
appropriate code that is provided under
the system and that indicates a
verification or nonverification of
identity and work eligibility of the
individual.
``(IV) Extension of time.--If the
person or other entity in good faith
attempts to make an inquiry during the
time period specified and the
verification system has registered that
not all inquiries were received during
such time, the person or entity may
make an inquiry in the first subsequent
working day in which the verification
system registers that it has received
all inquiries. If the verification
system cannot receive inquiries at all
times during a day, the person or
entity merely has to assert that the
entity attempted to make the inquiry on
that day for the previous sentence to
apply to such an inquiry, and does not
have to provide any additional proof
concerning such inquiry.
``(V) Consequences of
nonverification.--
``(aa) Termination or notification of continued employment.--If the
person or other entity has received a final nonverification
regarding an individual, the person or entity may terminate
employment of the individual (or decline to recruit or refer the
individual). If the person or entity does not terminate employment
of the individual or proceeds to recruit or refer the individual,
the person or entity shall notify the Secretary of Homeland
Security of such fact through the verification system or in such
other manner as the Secretary may specify.
``(bb) Failure to notify.--If the person or entity fails to provide
notice with respect to an individual as required under item (aa),
the failure is deemed to constitute a violation of subsection
(a)(1)(A) with respect to that individual.
``(VI) Continued employment after
final nonverification.--If the person
or other entity continues to employ (or
to recruit or refer) an individual
after receiving final nonverification,
a rebuttable presumption is created
that the person or entity has violated
subsection (a)(1)(A).
``(D) Continuation of seasonal agricultural
employment.--An individual shall not be considered a
new hire subject to verification under this paragraph
if the individual is engaged in seasonal agricultural
employment and is returning to work for an employer
that previously employed the individual.
``(E) Effective dates of new procedures.--
``(i) Hiring.--Except as provided in clause
(iii), the provisions of this paragraph shall
apply to a person or other entity hiring an
individual for employment in the United States
as follows:
``(I) With respect to employers
having 10,000 or more employees in the
United States on the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act,
on the date that is 6 months after the
date of the enactment of such Act.
``(II) With respect to employers
having 500 or more employees in the
United States, but less than 10,000
employees in the United States, on the
date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, on the date that is 12
months after the date of the enactment
of such Act.
``(III) With respect to employers
having 20 or more employees in the
United States, but less than 500
employees in the United States, on the
date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, on the date that is 18
months after the date of the enactment
of such Act.
``(IV) With respect to employers
having 1 or more employees in the
United States, but less than 20
employees in the United States, on the
date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, on the date that is 24
months after the date of the enactment
of such Act.
``(ii) Recruiting and referring.--Except as
provided in clause (iii), the provisions of
this paragraph shall apply to a person or other
entity recruiting or referring an individual
for employment in the United States on the date
that is 12 months after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act.
``(iii) Agricultural labor or services.--
With respect to an employee performing
agricultural labor or services (as defined for
purposes of section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)), this
paragraph shall not apply with respect to the
verification of the employee until the date
that is 36 months after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act. An
employee described in this clause shall not be
counted for purposes of clause (i).
``(iv) Transition rule.--Subject to
paragraph (4), the following shall apply to a
person or other entity hiring, recruiting, or
referring an individual for employment in the
United States until the effective date or dates
applicable under clauses (i) through (iii):
``(I) This subsection, as in effect
before the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act.
``(II) Subtitle A of title IV of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1324a note), as in effect before
the effective date in section 7(c) of
the Legal Workforce Act.
``(III) Any other provision of
Federal law requiring the person or
entity to participate in the E-Verify
Program described in section 403(a) of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1324a note), as in effect before
the effective date in section 7(c) of
the Legal Workforce Act, including
Executive Order 13465 (8 U.S.C. 1324a
note; relating to Government
procurement).
``(F) Verification period defined.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this
paragraph:
``(I) In the case of recruitment or
referral, the term `verification
period' means the period ending on the
date recruiting or referring commences.
``(II) In the case of hiring, the
term `verification period' means the
period beginning on the date on which
an offer of employment is extended and
ending on the date that is 3 business
days after the date of hiring. The
offer of employment may be conditioned
in accordance with clause (ii).
``(ii) Job offer may be conditional.--A
person or other entity may offer a prospective
employee an employment position that is
conditioned on final verification of the
identity and employment eligibility of the
employee using the procedures established under
this paragraph.
``(2) Reverification for individuals with limited work
authorization.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), a person or entity shall make an
inquiry, as provided in subsection (d), using the
verification system to seek reverification of the
identity and employment eligibility of all individuals
with a limited period of work authorization employed by
the person or entity during the 30-day period ending on
the date the employee's work authorization expires as
follows:
``(i) With respect to employers having
10,000 or more employees in the United States
on the date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 6
months after the date of the enactment of such
Act.
``(ii) With respect to employers having 500
or more employees in the United States, but
less than 10,000 employees in the United
States, on the date of the enactment of the
Legal Workforce Act, beginning on the date that
is 12 months after the date of the enactment of
such Act.
``(iii) With respect to employers having 20
or more employees in the United States, but
less than 500 employees in the United States,
on the date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 18
months after the date of the enactment of such
Act.
``(iv) With respect to employers having 1
or more employees in the United States, but
less than 20 employees in the United States, on
the date of the enactment of the Legal
Workforce Act, beginning on the date that is 24
months after the date of the enactment of such
Act.
``(B) Agricultural labor or services.--With respect
to an employee performing agricultural labor or
services (as defined for purposes of section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)), subparagraph (A) shall not apply
with respect to the reverification of the employee
until the date that is 36 months after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act. An employee
described in this subparagraph shall not be counted for
purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Reverification.--Paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall
apply to reverifications pursuant to this paragraph on
the same basis as it applies to verifications pursuant
to paragraph (1), except that employers shall--
``(i) use a form designated or established
by the Secretary by regulation for purposes of
this paragraph in lieu of the verification form
under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) retain a paper, microfiche,
microfilm, or electronic version of the form
and make it available for inspection by
officers of the Department of Homeland
Security, the Special Counsel for Immigration-
Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the
Department of Labor during the period beginning
on the date the reverification commences and
ending on the date that is the later of 3 years
after the date of such reverification or 1 year
after the date the individual's employment is
terminated.
``(D) Notice.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall notify a person or entity employing a person with
limited work authorization of the date on which the
limited work authorization expires.
``(3) Previously hired individuals.--
``(A) On a mandatory basis for certain employees.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than the date
that is 6 months after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, an
employer shall make an inquiry, as provided in
subsection (d), using the verification system
to seek verification of the identity and
employment eligibility of any individual
described in clause (ii) employed by the
employer whose employment eligibility has not
been verified under the E-Verify Program
described in section 403(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
``(ii) Individuals described.--An
individual described in this clause is any of
the following:
``(I) An employee of any unit of a
Federal, State, or local government.
``(II) An employee who requires a
Federal security clearance working in a
Federal, State or local government
building, a military base, a nuclear
energy site, a weapons site, or an
airport or other facility that requires
workers to carry a Transportation
Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC).
``(III) An employee assigned to
perform work in the United States under
a Federal or State contract, except
that this subclause--
``(aa) is not applicable to individuals who have a clearance under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12 clearance),
are administrative or overhead personnel, or are working solely on
contracts that provide Commercial Off The Shelf goods or services
as set forth by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, unless
they are subject to verification under subclause (II); and
``(bb) only applies to contacts over the simple acquisition
threshold.
``(B) On a mandatory basis for multiple users of
same social security account number.--In the case of an
employer who is required by this subsection to use the
verification system described in subsection (d), or has
elected voluntarily to use such system, the employer
shall make inquiries to the system in accordance with
the following:
``(i) The Commissioner of Social Security
shall notify annually employees (at the
employee address listed on the Wage and Tax
Statement) who submit a social security account
number to which more than one employer reports
income and for which there is a pattern of
unusual multiple use. The notification letter
shall identify the number of employers to
which, and the States in which, income is being
reported as well as sufficient information
notifying the employee of the process to
contact the Social Security Administration
Fraud Hotline if the employee believes the
employee's identity may have been stolen. The
notice shall not share information protected as
private, in order to avoid any recipient of the
notice being in the position to further
identity theft.
``(ii) If the person to whom the social
security account number was issued by the
Social Security Administration has been
identified and confirmed by Commissioner, and
indicates that the social security account
number was used without their knowledge, the
Secretary and the Commissioner shall lock the
social security account number for employment
eligibility verification purposes and shall
notify the employers of the individuals who
wrongfully submitted the social security
account number that the employee may not be
work eligible.
``(iii) Each employer receiving such
notification of invalid social security account
number shall use the verification system
described in subsection (d) to check the work
eligibility status of the applicable employee
within 10 business days of receipt of the
notification of invalid social security account
number under clause (ii).
``(C) On a mandatory basis for certain mismatched
wage and tax statements.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an
employer who is required by this subsection to
use the verification system described in
subsection (d), or has elected voluntarily to
use such system, and who receives a notice
described in clause (ii) identifying an
individual employee, the employer shall, not
later than 30 calendar days after receipt of
such notice, use the verification system
described in subsection (d) to verify the
employment eligibility of the employee in
accordance with the instructions in such notice
if the individual is still on the payroll of
the employer.
``(ii) Notice.--The Commissioner of Social
Security shall issue a notice to an employer
submitting one or more mismatched wage and tax
statements or corrected wage and tax statements
containing the following:
``(I) A description of the
mismatched information.
``(II) An explanation of the steps
that the employer is required to take
to correct the mismatched information.
``(III) An explanation of the
employment eligibility verification
requirement described in clause (i).
``(D) On a voluntary basis.--Subject to paragraph
(2), and subparagraphs (A) through (C) of this
paragraph, beginning on the date that is 30 days after
the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act,
an employer may make an inquiry, as provided in
subsection (d), using the verification system to seek
verification of the identity and employment eligibility
of any individual employed by the employer. If an
employer chooses voluntarily to seek verification of
any individual employed by the employer, the employer
shall seek verification of all individuals so employed.
An employer's decision about whether or not voluntarily
to seek verification of its current workforce under
this subparagraph may not be considered by any
government agency in any proceeding, investigation, or
review provided for in this Act.
``(E) Verification.--Paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall
apply to verifications pursuant to this paragraph on
the same basis as it applies to verifications pursuant
to paragraph (1), except that employers shall--
``(i) use a form designated or established
by the Secretary by regulation for purposes of
this paragraph in lieu of the verification form
under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) retain a paper, microfiche,
microfilm, or electronic version of the form
and make it available for inspection by
officers of the Department of Homeland
Security, the Special Counsel for Immigration-
Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the
Department of Labor during the period beginning
on the date the verification commences and
ending on the date that is the later of 3 years
after the date of such verification or 1 year
after the date the individual's employment is
terminated.
``(4) Early compliance.--
``(A) Former e-verify required users, including
federal contractors.--Notwithstanding the deadlines in
paragraphs (1) and (2), beginning on the earlier of the
date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment
of the Legal Workforce Act and the date on which the
Secretary implements the system under subsection (d),
the Secretary is authorized to commence requiring
employers required to participate in the E-Verify
Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), including employers
required to participate in such program by reason of
Federal acquisition laws (and regulations promulgated
under those laws, including the Federal Acquisition
Regulation), to commence compliance with the
requirements of this subsection (and any additional
requirements of such Federal acquisition laws and
regulation) in lieu of any requirement to participate
in the E-Verify Program.
``(B) Former e-verify voluntary users and others
desiring early compliance.--Notwithstanding the
deadlines in paragraphs (1) and (2), beginning 30 days
after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce
Act, the Secretary shall provide for the voluntary
compliance with the requirements of this subsection by
employers voluntarily electing to participate in the E-
Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) before such date, as
well as by other employers seeking voluntary early
compliance.
``(5) Copying of documentation permitted.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the person or entity may copy a
document presented by an individual pursuant to this subsection
and may retain the copy, but only (except as otherwise
permitted under law) for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of this subsection.
``(6) Limitation on use of forms.--A form designated or
established by the Secretary of Homeland Security under this
subsection and any information contained in or appended to such
form, may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement
of this Act and any other provision of Federal criminal law.
``(7) Good faith compliance.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, a person or entity is considered to
have complied with a requirement of this subsection
notwithstanding a technical or procedural failure to
meet such requirement if there was a good faith attempt
to comply with the requirement.
``(B) Exception if failure to correct after
notice.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
``(i) the failure is not de minimus;
``(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security
has explained to the person or entity the basis
for the failure and why it is not de minimus;
``(iii) the person or entity has been
provided a period of not less than 30 calendar
days (beginning after the date of the
explanation) within which to correct the
failure; and
``(iv) the person or entity has not
corrected the failure voluntarily within such
period.
``(C) Exception for pattern or practice
violators.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a
person or entity that has or is engaging in a pattern
or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or
(a)(2).''.
SEC. 3. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM.
Section 274A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Employment Eligibility Verification System.--
``(1) In general.--Patterned on the employment eligibility
confirmation system established under section 404 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish and administer a verification system through
which the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary, which may
be a nongovernmental entity)--
``(A) responds to inquiries made by persons at any
time through a toll-free telephone line and other toll-
free electronic media concerning an individual's
identity and whether the individual is authorized to be
employed; and
``(B) maintains records of the inquiries that were
made, of verifications provided (or not provided), and
of the codes provided to inquirers as evidence of their
compliance with their obligations under this section.
``(2) Initial response.--The verification system shall
provide verification or a tentative nonverification of an
individual's identity and employment eligibility within 3
working days of the initial inquiry. If providing verification
or tentative nonverification, the verification system shall
provide an appropriate code indicating such verification or
such nonverification.
``(3) Secondary verification process in case of tentative
nonverification.--In cases of tentative nonverification, the
Secretary shall specify, in consultation with the Commissioner
of Social Security, an available secondary verification process
to confirm the validity of information provided and to provide
a final verification or nonverification within 10 working days
after the date of the tentative nonverification. When final
verification or nonverification is provided, the verification
system shall provide an appropriate code indicating such
verification or nonverification.
``(4) Design and operation of system.--The verification
system shall be designed and operated--
``(A) to maximize its reliability and ease of use
by persons and other entities consistent with
insulating and protecting the privacy and security of
the underlying information;
``(B) to respond to all inquiries made by such
persons and entities on whether individuals are
authorized to be employed and to register all times
when such inquiries are not received;
``(C) with appropriate administrative, technical,
and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized
disclosure of personal information;
``(D) to have reasonable safeguards against the
system's resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices
based on national origin or citizenship status,
including--
``(i) the selective or unauthorized use of
the system to verify eligibility; or
``(ii) the exclusion of certain individuals
from consideration for employment as a result
of a perceived likelihood that additional
verification will be required, beyond what is
required for most job applicants; and
``(E) to limit the subjects of verification to the
following individuals:
``(i) Individuals hired, referred, or
recruited, in accordance with paragraph (1) or
(4) of subsection (b).
``(ii) Employees and prospective employees,
in accordance with paragraph (2), (3), or (4)
of subsection (b).
``(iii) Individuals seeking to confirm
their own employment eligibility on a voluntary
basis.
``(5) Responsibilities of commissioner of social
security.--As part of the verification system, the Commissioner
of Social Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security (and any designee of the Secretary selected
to establish and administer the verification system), shall
establish a reliable, secure method, which, within the time
periods specified under paragraphs (2) and (3), compares the
name and social security account number provided in an inquiry
against such information maintained by the Commissioner in
order to validate (or not validate) the information provided
regarding an individual whose identity and employment
eligibility must be confirmed, the correspondence of the name
and number, and whether the individual has presented a social
security account number that is not valid for employment. The
Commissioner shall not disclose or release social security
information (other than such verification or nonverification)
except as provided for in this section or section 205(c)(2)(I)
of the Social Security Act.
``(6) Responsibilities of secretary of homeland security.--
As part of the verification system, the Secretary of Homeland
Security (in consultation with any designee of the Secretary
selected to establish and administer the verification system),
shall establish a reliable, secure method, which, within the
time periods specified under paragraphs (2) and (3), compares
the name and alien identification or authorization number which
are provided in an inquiry against such information maintained
by the Secretary in order to validate (or not validate) the
information provided, the correspondence of the name and
number, and whether the alien is authorized to be employed in
the United States.
``(7) Offenses.--
``(A) In general.--Any person or entity that, in
making an inquiry under subsection (b)(1)(C)(i)(II),
provides to the verification system a social security
account number or an identification or authorization
number established by the Secretary of Homeland
Security that belongs to a person other than the
individual whose identity and employment authorization
are being verified, knowing that the number does not
belong to the individual whose identity and employment
authorization are being verified, shall be fined under
title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not less than
1 year and not more than 15 years, or both. If the
person or entity, in making an inquiry under subsection
(b)(1)(C)(i)(II), during and in relation to any felony
violation enumerated in section 1028A(c) of title 18,
United States Code, provides to the verification system
a social security account number or an identification
or authorization number established by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that belongs to a person other than
the individual whose identity and employment
authorization are being verified, knowing that the
number does not belong to the individual whose identity
and work authorization are being verified, in addition
to the punishment provided for such felony, shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned
for a term of 2 years, or both.
``(B) Consecutive sentence.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law--
``(i) a court shall not place on probation
any person or entity convicted of a violation
of this paragraph;
``(ii) except as provided in clause (iv),
no term of imprisonment imposed on a person or
entity under this section shall run
concurrently with any other term of
imprisonment imposed on the person or entity
under any other provision of law, including any
term of imprisonment imposed for the felony
enumerated in section 1028A(c) of title 18,
United States Code, during which the violation
of this paragraph occurred;
``(iii) in determining any term of
imprisonment to be imposed for the felony
enumerated in section 1028A(c) of title 18,
United States Code, during which the violation
of this section occurred, a court shall not in
any way reduce the term to be imposed for such
crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise
take into account, any separate term of
imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a
violation of this paragraph; and
``(iv) a term of imprisonment imposed on a
person or entity for a violation of this
paragraph may, in the discretion of the court,
run concurrently, in whole or in part, only
with another term of imprisonment that is
imposed by the court at the same time on that
person or entity for an additional violation of
this paragraph, except that such discretion
shall be exercised in accordance with any
applicable guidelines and policy statements
issued by the United States Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28,
United States Code.
``(8) Updating information.--The Commissioner of Social
Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall update
their information in a manner that promotes the maximum
accuracy and shall provide a process for the prompt correction
of erroneous information, including instances in which it is
brought to their attention in the secondary verification
process described in paragraph (3).
``(9) Limitation on use of the verification system and any
related systems.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, nothing in this section shall be
construed to permit or allow any department, bureau, or
other agency of the United States Government to utilize
any information, data base, or other records assembled
under this subsection for any other purpose other than
as provided for under this section.
``(B) No national identification card.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to authorize, directly
or indirectly, the issuance or use of national
identification cards or the establishment of a national
identification card.
``(10) Remedies.--If an individual alleges that the
individual would not have been dismissed from a job but for an
error of the verification mechanism, the individual may seek
compensation only through the mechanism of the Federal Tort
Claims Act, and injunctive relief to correct such error. No
class action may be brought under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 4. RECRUITMENT, REFERRAL, AND CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Additional Changes to Rules for Recruitment, Referral, and
Continuation of Employment.--Section 274A(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``for a fee'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by amending subparagraph (B) to read
as follows:
``(B) to hire, continue to employ, or to recruit or
refer for employment in the United States an individual
without complying with the requirements of subsection
(b).'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``after hiring an alien
for employment in accordance with paragraph (1),'' and
inserting ``after complying with paragraph (1),''; and
(4) in paragraph (3), by striking ``hiring,'' and inserting
``hiring, employing,'' each place it appears.
(b) Definition.--Section 274A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Definition of recruit or refer.--As used in this
section, the term `refer' means the act of sending or directing
a person or transmitting documentation or information to
another, directly or indirectly, with the intent of obtaining
employment in the United States for such person. Only persons
or entities referring for remuneration (whether on a retainer
or contingency basis) are included in the definition, except
that union hiring halls that refer union members or nonunion
individuals who pay union membership dues are included in the
definition whether or not they receive remuneration, as are
labor service entities or labor service agencies, whether
public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit, that refer,
dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of laborers for
any period of time by a third party. As used in this section
the term `recruit' means the act of soliciting a person,
directly or indirectly, and referring the person to another
with the intent of obtaining employment for that person. Only
persons or entities referring for remuneration (whether on a
retainer or contingency basis) are included in the definition,
except that union hiring halls that refer union members or
nonunion individuals who pay union membership dues are included
in this definition whether or not they receive remuneration, as
are labor service entities or labor service agencies, whether
public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit that recruit,
dispatch, or otherwise facilitate the hiring of laborers for
any period of time by a third party.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, except that the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take
effect 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act insofar as
such amendments relate to continuation of employment.
SEC. 5. GOOD FAITH DEFENSE.
Section 274A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Good faith defense.--
``(A) Defense.--An employer (or person or entity
that hires, employs, recruits or refers for fee, or is
otherwise obligated to comply with this section) who
establishes that it has complied in good faith with the
requirements of subsection (b)--
``(i) shall not be liable to a job
applicant, an employee, the Federal Government,
or a State or local government, under Federal,
State, or local criminal or civil law for any
employment-related action taken with respect to
a job applicant or employee in good-faith
reliance on information provided through the
system established under subsection (d); and
``(ii) has established compliance with its
obligations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) and subsection (b) absent a
showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
by clear and convincing evidence, that the
employer had knowledge that an employee is an
unauthorized alien.
``(B) Failure to seek and obtain verification.--
Subject to the effective dates and other deadlines
applicable under subsection (b), in the case of a
person or entity in the United States that hires, or
continues to employ, an individual, or recruits or
refers an individual for employment, the following
requirements apply:
``(i) Failure to seek verification.--
``(I) In general.--If the person or
entity has not made an inquiry, under
the mechanism established under
subsection (d) and in accordance with
the timeframes established under
subsection (b), seeking verification of
the identity and work eligibility of
the individual, the defense under
subparagraph (A) shall not be
considered to apply with respect to any
employment, except as provided in
subclause (II).
``(II) Special rule for failure of
verification mechanism.--If such a
person or entity in good faith attempts
to make an inquiry in order to qualify
for the defense under subparagraph (A)
and the verification mechanism has
registered that not all inquiries were
responded to during the relevant time,
the person or entity can make an
inquiry until the end of the first
subsequent working day in which the
verification mechanism registers no
nonresponses and qualify for such
defense.
``(ii) Failure to obtain verification.--If
the person or entity has made the inquiry
described in clause (i)(I) but has not received
an appropriate verification of such identity
and work eligibility under such mechanism
within the time period specified under
subsection (d)(2) after the time the
verification inquiry was received, the defense
under subparagraph (A) shall not be considered
to apply with respect to any employment after
the end of such time period.''.
SEC. 6. PREEMPTION.
Section 274A(h)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a(h)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Preemption.--The provisions of this section preempt
any State or local law, ordinance, policy, or rule, including
any criminal or civil fine or penalty structure, insofar as
they may now or hereafter relate to the hiring, continued
employment, or status verification for employment eligibility
purposes, of unauthorized aliens. A State, locality,
municipality, or political subdivision may exercise its
authority over business licensing and similar laws as a penalty
for failure to use the verification system described in
subsection (d) to verify employment eligibility when and as
required under subsection (b).''.
SEC. 7. REPEAL.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1234a note)
is repealed.
(b) References.--Any reference in any Federal law, Executive order,
rule, regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of, or
pertaining to, the Department of Homeland Security or the Social
Security Administration, to the employment eligibility confirmation
system established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is
deemed to refer to the employment eligibility confirmation system
established under section 274A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended by section 3 of this Act.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date
that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. PENALTIES.
Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter before
clause (i), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph
(10),'' after ``in an amount'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``not less
than $250 and not more than $2,000'' and inserting
``not less than $2,500 and not more than $5,000'';
(C) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``not less
than $2,000 and not more than $5,000'' and inserting
``not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000'';
(D) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``not
less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000'' and
inserting ``not less than $10,000 and not more than
$25,000''; and
(E) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as
follows:
``(B) may require the person or entity to take such
other remedial action as is appropriate.'';
(2) in subsection (e)(5)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, strike ``paperwork'';
(B) by inserting ``, subject to paragraphs (10)
through (12),'' after ``in an amount'';
(C) by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$1,000'';
(D) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting
``$25,000'';
(E) by adding at the end the following: ``Failure
by a person or entity to utilize the employment
eligibility verification system as required by law, or
providing information to the system that the person or
entity knows or reasonably believes to be false, shall
be treated as a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A).'';
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
``(10) Exemption from penalty for good faith violation.--In
the case of imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph
(4)(A) with respect to a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) or
(a)(2) for hiring or continuation of employment or recruitment
or referral by person or entity and in the case of imposition
of a civil penalty under paragraph (5) for a violation of
subsection (a)(1)(B) for hiring or recruitment or referral by a
person or entity, the penalty otherwise imposed may be waived
or reduced if the violator establishes that the violator acted
in good faith.
``(11) Authority to debar employers for certain
violations.--
``(A) In general.--If a person or entity is
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be
a repeat violator of paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of
subsection (a), or is convicted of a crime under this
section, such person or entity may be considered for
debarment from the receipt of Federal contracts,
grants, or cooperative agreements in accordance with
the debarment standards and pursuant to the debarment
procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation.
``(B) Does not have contract, grant, agreement.--If
the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney
General wishes to have a person or entity considered
for debarment in accordance with this paragraph, and
such an person or entity does not hold a Federal
contract, grant or cooperative agreement, the Secretary
or Attorney General shall refer the matter to the
Administrator of General Services to determine whether
to list the person or entity on the List of Parties
Excluded from Federal Procurement, and if so, for what
duration and under what scope.
``(C) Has contract, grant, agreement.--If the
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General
wishes to have a person or entity considered for
debarment in accordance with this paragraph, and such
person or entity holds a Federal contract, grant or
cooperative agreement, the Secretary or Attorney
General shall advise all agencies or departments
holding a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement
with the person or entity of the Government's interest
in having the person or entity considered for
debarment, and after soliciting and considering the
views of all such agencies and departments, the
Secretary or Attorney General may refer the matter to
any appropriate lead agency to determine whether to
list the person or entity on the List of Parties
Excluded from Federal Procurement, and if so, for what
duration and under what scope.
``(D) Review.--Any decision to debar a person or
entity under in accordance with this paragraph shall be
reviewable pursuant to part 9.4 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.'';
(4) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (f) to read as
follows:
``(1) Criminal penalty.--Any person or entity which engages
in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1) or
(2) shall be fined not more than $15,000 for each unauthorized
alien with respect to which such a violation occurs, imprisoned
for not less than one year and not more than 10 years, or both,
notwithstanding the provisions of any other Federal law
relating to fine levels.''; and
(5) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``Attorney General''
each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
SEC. 9. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Funding Under Agreement.--Effective for fiscal years beginning
on or after October 1, 2012, the Commissioner of Social Security and
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into and maintain an
agreement which shall--
(1) provide funds to the Commissioner for the full costs of
the responsibilities of the Commissioner under section 274A(d)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)), as
amended by section 3 of this Act, including (but not limited
to)--
(A) acquiring, installing, and maintaining
technological equipment and systems necessary for the
fulfillment of the responsibilities of the Commissioner
under such section 274A(d), but only that portion of
such costs that are attributable exclusively to such
responsibilities; and
(B) responding to individuals who contest a
tentative nonconfirmation provided by the employment
eligibility verification system established under such
section;
(2) provide such funds quarterly in advance of the
applicable quarter based on estimating methodology agreed to by
the Commissioner and the Secretary (except in such instances
where the delayed enactment of an annual appropriation may
preclude such quarterly payments); and
(3) require an annual accounting and reconciliation of the
actual costs incurred and the funds provided under the
agreement, which shall be reviewed by the Office of Inspector
General of the Social Security Administration and the
Department of Homeland Security.
(b) Continuation of Employment Verification in Absence of Timely
Agreement.--In any case in which the agreement required under
subsection (a) for any fiscal year beginning on or after October 1,
2012, has not been reached as of October 1 of such fiscal year, the
latest agreement between the Commissioner and the Secretary of Homeland
Security providing for funding to cover the costs of the
responsibilities of the Commissioner under section 274A(d) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)) shall be deemed in
effect on an interim basis for such fiscal year until such time as an
agreement required under subsection (a) is subsequently reached, except
that the terms of such interim agreement shall be modified by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to adjust for inflation
and any increase or decrease in the volume of requests under the
employment eligibility verification system. In any case in which an
interim agreement applies for any fiscal year under this subsection,
the Commissioner and the Secretary shall, not later than October 1 of
such fiscal year, notify the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee
on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance, the Committee on the
Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of the
failure to reach the agreement required under subsection (a) for such
fiscal year. Until such time as the agreement required under subsection
(a) has been reached for such fiscal year, the Commissioner and the
Secretary shall, not later than the end of each 90-day period after
October 1 of such fiscal year, notify such Committees of the status of
negotiations between the Commissioner and the Secretary in order to
reach such an agreement.
SEC. 10. FRAUD PREVENTION.
(a) Blocking Misused Social Security Account Numbers.--The
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of Social Security
shall establish a program in which social security account numbers that
have been identified to be subject to unusual multiple use in the
employment eligibility verification system established under section
274A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)), as
amended by section 3 of this Act, or that are otherwise suspected or
determined to have been compromised by identity fraud or other misuse,
shall be blocked from use for such system purposes unless the
individual using such number is able to establish, through secure and
fair additional security procedures, that the individual is the
legitimate holder of the number.
(b) Allowing Suspension of Use of Certain Social Security Account
Numbers.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish a program which shall
provide a reliable, secure method by which victims of identity fraud
and other individuals may suspend or limit the use of their social
security account number or other identifying information for purposes
of the employment eligibility verification system established under
section 274A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1324a(d)), as amended by section 3 of this Act. The Secretary may
implement the program on a limited pilot program basis before making it
fully available to all individuals.
(c) Blocking Use of Certain Social Security Account Numbers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
establish a program in which the social security account
numbers of an alien described in paragraph (2) shall be blocked
from use for purposes of the employment eligibility
verification system established under section 274A(d) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)), as amended
by section 3 of this Act, unless the alien is subsequently
admitted lawfully to the United States in, or the Secretary has
subsequently changed the alien's status lawfully to, a status
that permits employment as a condition of the alien's admission
or subsequent change of status, or the Secretary has
subsequently granted work authorization lawfully to the alien.
(2) Aliens described.--An alien is described in this
paragraph if the alien--
(A) has a final order of removal from the United
States;
(B) voluntarily departs the United States;
(C) is voluntarily returned; or
(D) is a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) whose work authorization has
expired and who is not the subject of an application or
petition that would authorize the alien's employment.
SEC. 11. BIOMETRIC EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, after consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security
and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
shall establish by regulation a Biometric Employment Eligibility
Verification pilot program (the ``Biometric Pilot''). The purpose of
the Biometric Pilot shall be to provide for identity authentication and
employment eligibility verification with respect to enrolled new
employees which shall be available to subject employers who elect to
participate in the Biometric Pilot. Any subject employer may cancel the
employer's participation in the Biometric Pilot after one year after
electing to participate without prejudice to future participation.
(b) Minimum Requirements.--In accordance with the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a), the following
shall apply:
(1) Identity authentication and employment eligibility
verification by enrollment providers.--The Biometric Pilot
shall utilize the services of private sector entities
(``enrollment providers''), with appropriate expertise, which
shall be subject to initial and periodic certification by the
Secretary, to provide--
(A) enrollment under the Biometric Pilot of new
employees by means of identity authentication in a
manner that provides a high level of certainty as to
their true identities, using immigration and
identifying information maintained by the Social
Security Administration and the Department of Homeland
Security, review of identity documents, and background
screening verification techniques using publicly
available information;
(B) protection of the authenticated information
through biometric technology; and
(C) verification of employment eligibility of such
new employees.
(2) Database management.--The Biometric Pilot shall provide
for databases of identifying information which may be retained
by the enrollment providers. Databases controlled by the
Commissioner and Secretary of Homeland Security shall be
maintained in a manner to capture new entries and new status
information in a timely manner and to interact with the private
enrollment databases to keep employment authorization status
and identifying information current on a daily basis. The
information maintained in such databases shall be subject to
the requirements established pursuant to subsection (e), except
that--
(A) use of the data shall be limited to obtaining
employment eligibility verification only, unless the
new employee consents to use the data for other
purposes, as provided in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary; and
(B) other identifying traits of the new employees
shall be stored through an encoding process that keeps
their accurate names, dates of birth, social security
numbers, and immigration identification numbers (if
any) separate, except during electronic verification.
(3) Accessibility to employers.--Availability of data
maintained in the Biometric Pilot shall be managed so that any
subject employer who participates in the Biometric Pilot can
obtain verification with respect to any new employee enrolled
with any enrollment provider serving in the Biometric Pilot.
(4) Limitations relating to biometric data.--Any biometric
data maintained in the Biometric Pilot relating to any new
employee shall be--
(A) encrypted and segregated from identifying
information relating to the new employee, and
(B) maintained and linked to identifying
information relating to the new employee only by
consent of the new employee for the purpose of
verifying employment eligibility or approved correction
processes or for other purposes specifically authorized
by the employee as provided in regulations prescribed
by the Secretary.
(5) Accuracy of association of data with enrolled new
employees.--The enrollment process under the Biometric Pilot
shall be managed, in the case of each new employee enrolled in
the Biometric Pilot, so as to result in the accurate
association of data consisting of name, date of birth, social
security number, and immigration identification number (if any)
with the established identity of the new employee.
(6) Limitations on accessibility of information.--Data
stored in Biometric Pilot relating to any enrolled new employee
shall not be accessible to any person other than those
operating the Biometric Pilot and for the sole purpose of
identity authentication and employment eligibility verification
in connection with the new employee, except--
(A) by the written consent of the new employee
given specifically for each instance or category of
disclosure for any other purpose as provided in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary; or
(B) in response to a warrant issued by a judicial
authority of competent jurisdiction in a criminal
proceeding.
(7) Public education.--The Secretary shall conduct a
program of ongoing, comprehensive public education campaign
relating to the Biometric Pilot.
(c) Employer Responsibilities.--In accordance with the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a), the following
shall apply:
(1) Use limited to enrolled new employees.--Use of the
Biometric Pilot by subject employers participating in the
Biometric Pilot shall be limited to use in connection with the
hiring of new employees occurring after their enrollment in the
Biometric Pilot.
(2) Use for limited period.--Use of the Biometric Pilot by
any subject employer participating in the Biometric Pilot in
connection with any new employee may occur only during the
period beginning on the date of hire and ending at the end of
the third business day after the employee has reported for
duty. Use of the Biometric Pilot with respect to recruitment or
referral for a fee may occur only until the first day of such
recruitment or referral.
(3) Responsibility of employers to enroll new employees.--
In connection with the hiring by any subject employer of a new
employee who has not been previously enrolled in the Biometric
Pilot, enrollment of the new employee shall occur only upon
application by the subject employer submitted to an enrollment
provider, together with payment of any costs associated with
the enrollment.
(4) Limitations on selective use.--No subject employer may
use the Biometric Pilot selectively to verify any class, level,
or category of new employees. Nothing in this subparagraph
shall be construed to preclude subject employers from utilizing
the Biometric Pilot in connection with hiring at selected
employment locations without implementing such usage at all
locations of the employer.
(d) Employee Protections.--In accordance with the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a), the following
shall apply:
(1) Access for employees to correct and update
information.--Employees enrolled in the Biometric Pilot shall
be provided access to the Biometric Pilot to verify information
relating to their employment authorization and readily
available processes to correct and update their enrollment
information and information relating to employment
authorization.
(2) Right to cancel enrollment.--Each employee enrolled in
the Biometric Pilot shall have the right to cancel such
employee's enrollment at any time after the identity
authentication and employment eligibility verification
processes are completed by the subject employer described in
subsection (c)(3). Such cancellation shall remove from the
Biometric Pilot all identifying information and biometrics in
connection with such employee without prejudice to future
enrollments.
(e) Maintenance of Security and Confidentiality of Information.--
(1) In general.--Every person who is a subject employer
participating in the Biometric Pilot or an officer or
contractor of such a subject employer and who has access to any
information obtained at any time from the Department of
Homeland Security shall maintain the security and
confidentiality of such information. No such person may
disclose any file, record, report, paper, or other item
containing information so obtained at any time by any such
person from the Secretary or from any officer or employee of
the Department of Homeland Security except as the Secretary may
by regulations prescribe or as otherwise provided by Federal
law.
(2) Penalty for disclosure in violation of subparagraph
(a).--Any person described in paragraph (1) who knowingly
violates paragraph (1) shall be guilty of a felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
$10,000 for each occurrence of a violation, or by imprisonment
not exceeding 5 years, or both.
(3) Penalty for knowing disclosure of fraudulent
information.--Any person who willfully and knowingly accesses,
discloses, or uses any information which such person purports
to be information obtained as described in paragraph (1)
knowing such information to be false shall be guilty of a
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $10,000 for each occurrence of a violation,
or by imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both.
(4) Restitution.--
(A) In general.--Any Federal court, when sentencing
a defendant convicted of an offense under this
paragraph, may order, in addition to or in lieu of any
other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant
make restitution to the victims of such offense
specified in subparagraph (B). Sections 3612, 3663, and
3664 of title 18, United States Code, shall apply with
respect to the issuance and enforcement of orders of
restitution to victims of such offense under this
subparagraph. If the court does not order restitution,
or orders only partial restitution, under this
subsection, the court shall state on the record the
reasons therefor.
(B) Victims specified.--The victims specified in
this clause are the following:
(i) Any individual who suffers a financial
loss as a result of the disclosure described in
paragraph (2) or (3).
(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security, to
the extent that the disclosure described in
paragraph (2) or (3) results in the
inappropriate payment of a benefit by the
Commissioner of Social Security.
(C) Deposit in the trust funds of amounts paid as
restitution to the commissioner.--Funds paid to the
Commissioner as restitution pursuant to a court order
under this subparagraph shall be deposited in the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, as
appropriate.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the beginning of this new Congress, the new majority
has repeatedly emphasized four key priorities: growing our
economy, creating new jobs, decreasing spending and reducing
the size of government. These are the crucial needs they say
that must be focused on; nothing else matters. They say this,
but then we see this bill, a bill that undermines every one of
their stated priorities.
Rather than grow the economy and reduce the size of
government, this bill seems to confuse those goals. It grows
the government, dramatically increases government intrusion
into all of our lives, and adds tens of billions to the burden
already shouldered by taxpayers. At the same time it shrinks
our economy, decimates at least one industry, and destroys
millions of jobs. All that, and the program it mandates doesn't
even work half the time.
There is no greater proponent of technology in this
Congress than me. It makes sense to have an electronic system
for checking work authorization that works and contains
sufficient safeguards. Since 2005, every serious proposal to
fix our broken immigration laws has included such an electronic
system to ensure we have a legal workforce, but it can't be
done alone. Our system has been broken far too long for one-
sided solutions. The E-Verify provisions in each of those
former bills were paired with other reforms to fix the entire
system. Without those other reforms, mandatory E-Verify would
wreak tremendous damage.
The majority says this bill is meant to protect American
jobs. They claim that every time we remove an undocumented
worker from the country, we open that job for a native-born
worker, but this ignores the realities of our complex economy.
A bill cannot be said to protect jobs when it destroys many
more jobs than it ostensibly saves.
Let us be clear, mandatory E-Verify does not mean that
undocumented works will pack up and leave the country. Most of
these workers have been here for many years, and they have
family and other ties to the country. They aren't just going to
leave because this bill passes. Instead employers will simply
move these workers off the books or misclassify them as
independent contractors, which this bill does nothing about.
This is exactly what happened in Arizona after it made E-Verify
mandatory. Rather than leave for other States that don't
mandate E-Verify, the vast majority of undocumented workers
stayed right in Arizona and either went off the books or became
independent contractors.
If implemented nationwide, this would have tremendous
costs. The Congressional Budget Office has scored other
mandatory E-Verify bills such as the SAVE Act of 2008, and it
has concluded that mandating E-Verify without other reforms
would cost taxpayers $17.3 billion in lost tax revenues as
employers and employees move into the underground economy. We
would also see depressed wages and working conditions for all
workers as unscrupulous employers are further able to abuse
workers and undercut employers that play by the rules.
This bill also disproportionately affects small businesses,
the engines of job creation in America, just when we needs
those businesses to create jobs the most. A recent Bloomberg
government study concluded that mandatory E-Verify would cost
small businesses about $2.6 billion every year to verify new
hires through E-Verify. But because the bill requires checks on
many existing hires as well, the cost of small business would
be even greater.
If the intent is to provide jobs, it makes no sense to
impose massive costs on small businesses when they would be
spending this money to actually create jobs. This is
essentially economic suicide.
We also need to take into account that E-Verify is not a
perfect system. The Social Security Administration has
estimated that mandatory E-Verify would force 3.6 million
workers to go to the Social Security Administration to correct
their records or lose their jobs. This assumes the worker is
even told by an employer that there is a discrepancy. An
independent study by the Department of Homeland Security shows
that up to 42 percent of applicants who receive tentative
nonconfirmations are not informed of the discrepancy by the
employer, thereby denying them the right to contest the
finding. At a time of 9 percent unemployment, putting millions
of American workers' jobs on the line is grossly irresponsible.
Finally we must consider that some industries like
agriculture are at least partially dependent on undocumented
workers. Up to 75 percent of migrant farm workers are
undocumented, and the percentage is growing. Losing those
workers would be devastating. American farms would go under,
America would be less secure, and we would see a mass
offshoring of jobs, including all of the upstream and
downstream American jobs supported by agriculture.
This bill appears to recognize this by delaying
implementation in agriculture and providing some special carve-
outs to protect the industry. But upon closer inspection, those
carve-outs are just illusions. Carve-outs to the carve-outs
require the eventual verification of all workers, turning this
bill into a ticking time bomb for agriculture and all of the
jobs supported by it.
On this I must make one more point. The bill recognizes
that our farmers need undocumented farm workers, but the bill
then does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address this. Instead
the bill actual increases criminal penalties on farmers and
farm workers alike, making each of them even more vulnerable
than they already are. What kind of bill recognizes our
dependence on certain workers and then ups jail time and fines
on those workers and those that hire them?
After paying them lip service, this bill leaves American
farms and American jobs at risk, and it makes both American and
immigrant farm workers further vulnerable to exploitation.
Please tell me we can do better than that. And please don't
tell me the solution is the H2A reform. Don't tell me that the
solution to this problem is to deport 1.5 million experienced
farm workers who are already doing this important work just to
replace them with millions of new temporary guest workers which
would have to come and go every single year. This would be a
massive and terribly expensive undertaking and is simply just
never going to work.
Now I think we have reached a milestone here. We have
finally recognized that undocumented farm workers fill a need
that we desperately need filled, and now that we have
recognized that, let us do something about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the full
Committee and sponsor of this important bill, Lamar Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Legal Workforce Act will open up jobs for millions of
unemployed Americans. With unemployment at 9 percent, jobs are
scarce, especially for low-skilled Americans.
Twenty-four million Americans are unemployed or have given
up looking for work, yet according to the Pew Hispanic Center,
7 million people are working in the United States illegally.
These jobs should go to legal workers.
The E-Verify system allows Social Security numbers and
alien identification numbers of new hires to be checked against
Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland
Security databases. This will help employers determine who is
eligible to work in the U.S. The program is free, quick and
easy to use.
You have to show your Social Security number to visit the
doctor, go to the bank, or buy a home. It makes sense that
businesses would use the same identification to ensure they
have a legal workforce by checking the legal status of their
employees.
The E in E-Verify could just as well stand for easy and
effective. It takes just a few minutes to use and easily
confirms 99.5 percent of work-eligible employees.
The Legal Workforce Act requires that all U.S. employers
use E-Verify to check the work eligibility of new hires in the
U.S.
H.R. 2164 balances immigration enforcement priorities and
legitimate employer concerns. It gives employers a workable
system under which they cannot be held liable if they use the
system in good faith.
The bill preempts State E-Verify laws, but respects States'
and localities' inherent authority to condition business
license issuance and maintenance on compliance with the Federal
E-Verify mandate.
The Legal Workforce Act increases penalties on employers
who knowingly violate the requirements of E-Verify. It creates
a fully electronic employment eligibility verification system,
and it allows employers to voluntarily check their current
workforce if done in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Furthermore, the Legal Workforce Act gives USCIS additional
tools to help prevent identity theft. For example, the bill
requires DHS to allow individuals to lock their own Social
Security number so that it cannot be used by imposters to
verify work eligibility. And it requires USCIS to lock the
individual Taxpayer Identification Number or Social Security
number of non-U.S. Citizens who are deported are voluntarily
returned, voluntarily depart, or whose work authorization
expires so that no one can get a job using those same numbers.
It also imposes criminal penalties on employers and employees
who engage in or facilitate identity theft.
Studies by Westat and USCIS showed that E-Verify's work
eligibility confirmation rates continue to improve as the
system is upgraded.
Last year's USCIS data shows that 98.3 percent of employees
were confirmed as work authorized within 24 hours. And a 2009
Westat report found that those eligible to work are immediately
confirmed 99.5 percent of the time.
And importantly, the American people support E-Verify. A
recent Rasmussen poll found that 82 percent of likely voters
``think businesses should be required to use the Federal
Government's E-Verify system to determine if a potential
employee is in the country legally.''
Unfortunately, many States do not enforce their own E-
Verify laws, and others only apply E-Verify in a very limited
way. The Legal Workforce Act will help ensure that employers
from every State are on equal footing when it comes to hiring
employees. This bill could open up millions of jobs for
unemployed Americans.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today and look forward to a very
informative hearing, but I would also like to single out and
especially thank our colleague Ken Calvert, who has been a
partner in this effort for--Ken, how many years now have we
been working on this?
Mr. Calvert. A long time.
Mr. Smith. A long time, many years. And I think we are
getting to the point where we can pass a good bill. But thank
you for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Our next speaker will be the gentleman from Michigan, the
former Chairman of the full Committee and current Ranking
Member of the full Committee, my good friend Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thanks, Chairman Gallegly.
This is in some ways a traditional breakdown of views
between labor and the business sector in our country. I have
statements from the president of the AFL-CIO, the United Farm
Workers, church organizations, American Civil Liberties Union,
the National Immigration Forum all telling me that this is a
measure that we ought to move very carefully on. And so from
the outset, since there is always a possibility that this bill
might happen to get accepted or get through the Senate some
kind of way, we are dangerously close to the possibility of
getting legislation. What that means to me is we are going to
need more than one hearing.
I want to say that very clearly in advance, and I say that
in the presence of the distinguished full Committee Chairman as
well as the Subcommittee Chairman. I can see now we are going
to need another hearing on this matter. But why?
Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Mr. Gallegly. Just to set the record straight, and, of
course, we want to make sure that we fully review the text of
this bill, but I would remind the gentleman that this
Subcommittee already had a hearing on E-Verify in February, so
this is our second hearing.
Mr. Conyers. Well, there wasn't any legislation then.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
We did raise a concern with the Chairman of the full
Committee that the bill kept changing. And our staff was up
until early hours of the morning every day this week. The
actual final bill was not received by us until 3 o'clock
yesterday afternoon. And so I understand there are many things
that need to be worked out, but to have a legislative hearing
on a bill that didn't exist in its current form before 3
yesterday I find troubling and something that when we were in
the majority we did not do. And I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. Well, would the gentlelady yield on that, or
the gentleman? The Committee, the minority did receive a copy
of the draft bill, if I am not mistaken, a week ago today.
Subsequent to that there were some changes, I don't believe of
any significant substance, which was gone over with your staff
yesterday morning. And this is not----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, that is incorrect, and I like
your staff.
Mr. Gallegly. I do, too.
Ms. Lofgren. I am not critical of the staff, but the bill
was changed in ways we consider significant and less than 24
hours ago. So I just point that out. It is something that we
think is a problem. We think there are significant changes. I
understand your staff has worked very hard to try and refine
this. I don't criticize them for that, I just note that the
policy of having a legislative hearing on a bill that didn't
exist 24 hours ago I find problematic. And it is something that
when we were in the majority we did not do. And I yield back to
Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. What I am suggesting in asking for another
hearing in advance isn't whether we had one before when there
wasn't a bill or not. So we have three hearings on a measure;
what is so awful about that? I mean, there are huge
implications involved in what we are doing here. We get 5
minutes to question four witnesses, to ask them questions. We
seldom have time to even have a second round because the
demands on the floor are so pressing.
So anyway, I am just throwing it out. Please don't
foreclose that possibility. That is why I am asking for it now
instead of waiting until we all start running out of here and
then say, can I have a second hearing; and you will say, well,
I think this is enough. And I think it is not enough.
Now, back to the substance here. There is one overriding
problem with this bill: It won't work. Outside of that it is
pretty good. But we have some very serious considerations.
Could I have an extra couple minutes, sir?
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, the gentleman will be
given an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
The first thing is it is going to create an increasing
underworld of employers going off the books to classify workers
as independent contractors. In other words, the gamesmanship,
if you think there's some going on in immigration and
agriculture now, you haven't seen anything yet if the bill that
is before us becomes law. It would cost lots of tax money that
we would lose. It would push undocumented workers--and, by the
way, I hope somebody mentions the fact that if it weren't for
undocumented workers, I think our agricultural system would
collapse. I would like any of the witnesses who would like to
react to that, please do, and any of my colleagues as well.
I remember we had a hearing once, Ms. Lofgren, where one
fellow said that you could get American workers, you don't even
need undocumented workers. And we said, well, where would you
get American workers to do stoop labor in the United States in
the 21st century? I think everybody here acknowledges the
answer is that you couldn't get anybody. You have got to use
immigrant labor. The question is how do you make it as legal as
possible. And the way that it is being done here, as our
witness Attorney Moran will explain in more detail, is that
this isn't going to work. As a matter of fact, it is going to
cost American jobs because this system won't work, the
immigrant system won't work as it is created here. Why? And I
conclude because of the error rate that everyone in this hall
knows is around 30 percent. You can't have a system with a 30
percent error rate. It won't work no matter how many hearings
we have. And therein lies the problem.
And so I ask unanimous consent, Chairman Gallegly, to put
in a Trumka statement, and an American Civil Liberties Union
statement, and some church statements as well.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, they will be made a part
of the record of the hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. And I thank the gentleman for his testimony,
and we will move on with our witnesses.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallegly. We are very fortunate to have a very
distinguished panel of witnesses today. Each of the witnesses'
written statements will be entered into the record in its
entirety. And I would ask the witnesses to make every effort to
summarize his or her testimony to 5 minutes in order that we
can get into the questioning session. And as I said, your
entire statement will be made a part of the record of the
hearing. We provided the lights there to kind of give you a
guideline to see how the 5 minutes is moving along.
Our witnesses today, the first one is a very good friend of
mine and colleague of mine from California, Ken Calvert, who
represents the 44th District. He was first elected to Congress
in 1992. Rep Calvert is a graduate of San Diego State
University, where he received his bachelor of arts degree in
economics; a former small business owner, employer of 17 years,
and currently sits on the House Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Barry Ruttenberg serves as the 2011 first vice
president of the board of National Association of Home
Builders. He also is president of the Barry Ruttenberg &
Associates, Incorporated, in Florida, which has developed more
than 1,000 homes in the Gainesville area. He is a graduate of
Northwestern University and earned his MBA from Harvard
University. I won't hold that against you.
Mr. Craig Miller is the former president and chief
executive officer of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Incorporated, and
was the founder and chairman of the Miller Partners Restaurant
Solutions. From May 2005 to May 2006, Mr. Miller served as
chairman of the National Restaurant Association, and he holds a
bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida.
And our fourth witness, Ms. Tyler Moran, is policy director
at the National Immigration Law Center, where she coordinates
the development and implementation of the center's policy
agenda. Prior to being appointed policy director, Ms. Moran
directed the National Immigration Law Center employment policy
work.
With that, we will start with my friend from California Mr.
Calvert.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize in
advance if I have to leave. We are having a markup at the
present time, so I may have to go for a vote before questions.
Hopefully I will be able to be here for the entire hearing.
I would like to thank you and my good friend Chairman
Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, the entire Subcommittee for
inviting me to testify on the Legal Workforce Act, which would
require employers to conduct mandatory employment eligibility
verification. I would like to thank Chairman Smith for the hard
work that he and his staff have put into the Legal Workforce
Act.
As mentioned, before I came to Congress, I operated several
restaurant businesses. I was required by law to hire a legal
workforce, but there was no tool available to determine if
identifying documentation presented at the time of employment
was fraudulent. As someone here who has actually owned a small
business and employed people, I am somewhat offended to say
that I would actively illegally--or businessmen in general
would go off the books and hire people. By the way the illegal
element would be involved in doing such a thing is pretty bad.
Most small businessmen are honest people, and they would do the
right thing.
When I first created employment verification in 1996, we
wanted to build a system that would utilize existing
information processes that were reliable, fair and simple to
use. At that time and still today, every employer is required
to file an I-9 form on paper identification documents. The
solution was simple: Provide employers a way to check that a
given name and a Social Security number match government
records.
Today E-Verify has over 268,000 employers, representing
900,000 hiring sites. In fiscal year 2011, they have documented
more than 2.9 million queries run through the system.
The Legal Workforce Act would essentially make E-Verify
mandatory by requiring the Secretary of the Homeland Security
to implement a verification process for a mandatory employment
verification. Of the millions run through the computer E-based
system--let us get this off the table about this error rate. Of
the millions run through the E-verification system, 98.3
percent of employees are instantly verified, instantly.
Individuals who are given a tentative nonconfirmation are given
8 business days to contact the Social Security Administration
or Department of Homeland Security regarding their case.
Currently 1 percent, 1 percent, of all queried employees
choose to contest the E-Verify result, and only one-half of
them, that is 1/2 of 1 percent, are successful in contesting
that the government's information was incorrect. E-Verify is
doing its job it was intended to do: denying employment to
people in the United States not authorized to work. E-Verify is
ready for mandatory use.
The Legal Workforce Act would phase in mandatory
requirement over 24 months for most employers, with the
exception for agricultural labor, which will be given 36 months
to comply. As a Member from an agricultural State, as is the
Chairman, I think it is important to ensure our agricultural
community has the labor they need. I support parallel
legislation to provide a workable guest labor program that
includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that guest workers
leave on time. This should be easier to do, because with
mandatory employment verification, guest workers will not be
able to secure a legal job in the United States after their
seasonal work visa expires.
The Legal Workforce Act also implements worker protections
for mismatched Social Security numbers and use of multiple
Social Security numbers. The bill provides a good faith
exemption for employers who use the program, while increasing
the penalties for employers who knowingly, knowingly, hire
illegal immigrants.
The Legal Workforce Act is a thoughtful, comprehensive
approach to mandatory employment verification, and E-Verify is
ready to fulfill that obligation. America is ready for
mandatory employment verification. Over 80 percent of Americans
support this program, as mentioned by the Chairman. Employers
are required by law to hire a legal workforce, and mandatory E-
Verify will ensure they are complying with the law.
While the legal name of the current program is the basic
pilot program, the effective brand name is E-Verify. Many
businesses have incorporated the term ``E-Verify'' into their
business and marketing plans. I would strongly suggest we
enshrine that name to provide clarity and continuity for
businesses currently using E-Verify.
E-Verify is an extremely effective program, as we have seen
from recent actions all over the country. Arizona to Rhode
Island, mandatory employment verification is quickly becoming a
reality.
As Members of Congress responsible for controlling the
border and enforcing legal employment, let us build upon what
works and give the American people what they want, a Federal
law mandating employment verification.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Ken.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Ruttenberg.
TESTIMONY OF BARRY RUTENBERG, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Ruttenberg. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly, Ranking
Member Lofgren, Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 2164, the
Legal Workforce Act. My name is Barry Rutenberg, and I am the
first vice chairman of the Board of Directors of the National
Association of Home Builders. NAHB appreciates the efforts of
Chairman Smith and the Subcommittee to work proactively to
craft E-Verify legislation that will be workable for U.S.
employers.
The immigrant community has historically played a vibrant
and important role in the construction industry, comprising
about 21 percent of our workforce. However, the influx of
illegal immigrants into the U.S. is a concern, and NAHB members
do not support illegal immigration. Our members do seek
workable solutions to effective employment verification, such
as the legislation being considered today which would mandate
E-Verify for all employees.
As Congress considers mandating E-Verify, we want to share
some of our key concerns. First, the program must continue to
work on the direct employer/employee relationship, holding
every employer accountable for the work authorization status of
direct employees, only those whom they had the power to hire
and fire. The legislation maintains current law in this regard,
and NAHB strongly supports that decision.
Second, the legislation must require all entities who refer
workers to employers, like union hiring halls and day labor
centers, to also verify workers. We are pleased to note that
legislation does create that requirement.
And third, legislation must have a strong preemption clause
creating one set of Federal rules and preventing State and
local governments from creating their own patchwork of
differing verification requirements. NAHB is pleased to note
that the legislation includes language to expressly preempt
State or local laws relating to hiring, employment or status
verification of unauthorized aliens; however, we urge the
Subcommittee to provide clarity regarding limits to the States'
use of business licensing laws to ensure that States through
licensing do not create a new conflicting series of immigration
regulations related to enforcement.
Fourth, a mandatory program must contain a robust safe
harbor for employers in order to ensure that those who use the
system in good faith will not be held accountable by DHS or by
employees for errors in the E-Verify system. The draft
legislation provides employers with a good faith defense to
prosecution and limits employees to recourse under the Federal
Tort Claims Act. NAHB believe that these safe harbors fairly
protect employers who are using the system in good faith.
And fifth, any attempt to mandate E-verify must include
provisions to ensure the system is workable for all U.S.
employers, including small employers. To that end E-Verify must
permit telephonic access to the system so that employers who do
not have high-speed Internet access, who do not work in
traditional office settings can comply. The legislation
specifically requires the system to operate through toll-free
telephone and other toll-free electronic media.
E-Verify should allow employers to begin the worker
verification process as soon as possible in the hiring process
to provide businesses with enough time to rectify a tentative
nonconfirmation before an employee's start date. This will also
prevent instances where an employee has completed training and
started working, only to be terminated due to the belatedly
received final nonconfirmation.
NAHB appreciates that the final legislation provides
employers with the opportunity to begin the E-Verify process on
the date on which an offer of employment is extended, and also
provides that the job offer can be conditioned on final
verification of the worker's work authorization.
A mandatory E-verify system must be phased in based on
business size, with larger, better equipped employers first.
This will provide a test of E-Verify's ability to handle
increased demand and provide smaller employers time to learn
about the system.
The draft legislation has a 2-year phase-in based on
business size. With over 7 million employers being brought into
the system and the possibility of overload issues occurring,
NAHB urges the Subcommittee to consider extending the total
phase-in time period.
In conclusion, NAHB recognizes the importance of the
employer's role in addressing the illegal immigration issues
and looks forward to working with you as you move forward on
this legislation. While mandatory E-Verify must be a first step
toward addressing illegal immigration issues, it should not be
the only step. Congress must improve the Nation's broken
immigration and visa system to find a better way for workers to
legally enter the U.S. For employment when our economy needs
them.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with the Subcommittee
today, and I look forward to any questions.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Rutenberg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutenberg follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Miller.
TESTIMONY OF CRAIG S. MILLER, CHAIR, NATIONAL RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION (2005-2006), CURRENT MEMBER, BOARD'S JOBS AND
CAREERS COMMITTEE
Mr. Miller. Good morning, Ranking Member Lofgren and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much
for allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Rutenberg, could you turn your mic off?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. I could run a dishwasher, but these microphones
sometimes.
Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for
allowing me to testify today on behalf of the National
Restaurant Association on the Legal Workforce Act, which would
create a national E-Verify mandate. My name is Craig Miller. I
am a lifetime restaurateur that has directly created over
40,000 jobs during my restaurant career. I served as chairman
of the board of directors of the National Restaurant
Association from 2005 to 2006, and I am currently serving as a
member of the Board's Jobs and Careers Committee, which has
policy oversight at the association over employment
verification issues.
For many years the National Restaurant Association has
provided input on the best ways to improve the E-Verify
program. After reviewing a draft of the Legal Workforce Act, we
are pleased to see that our concerns are being taken seriously,
while so many other attempts to move forward without careful
consideration of the impact of such a mandate on employers
could have had devastating effects.
As you may know, many of our members and their suppliers
have been earlier adopters of the voluntary E-Verify program.
Some owners have been requiring the use of E-Verify by their
operations back as early as 2006. Our members use the program,
and the association itself also uses the program and have found
E-Verify to be both cost-effective and fast in helping
guarantee a legal authorized workforce.
I would like to outline some improvements that the Federal
E-Verify program should have to gain broad support within our
industry and compare those potential improvements to the
version of the Legal Workforce Act we have been able to review.
First, there needs to be one law of the land. Out of
frustration, States and local communities have responded to the
lack of action at the Federal level with a patchwork of
employment verification laws, leaving employers who must deal
with a broken legal structure exposed to unfair liability and
the burden of numerous State and local laws. Under this act
States and localities are preempted, preempted, from
legislating different requirements or imposing additional
penalties. But they may decide to revoke a business license for
failure to participate in the program as required under Federal
law.
Second, special consideration for small business must be
made. Smaller employers do not have universal access to high-
speed Internet connections, are less likely to have human
resource staffs or legal staffs, and in our industry, unlike
others, management does not work at a desk or behind a computer
all day. Thus we are glad to see that the Legal Workforce Act
calls for the creation of a toll-free telephonic option for
doing E-Verify inquiries and allows, but does not mandate, the
copying of additional documents.
Third, to maintain an equal playing field, the association
believes an E-Verify mandate should be applicable to all
employers in our industry, all employers. However, we
understand that small businesses may need more help and more
time to adapt. Thus we are encouraged by the Legal Workforce
Act tiered approach for rolling out E-Verify, starting with
employers having more than 10,000 employees and ending 3 years
after enactment with agricultural employees.
As the president and CEO of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, I
implemented E-Verify in 2006, and I can tell you it works.
Fourth, there is a good tool that employers should be
allowed to use that is unavailable under the current E-Verify
framework. Currently employers are not allowed to preverify
prior to hire. In essence, a business owner has to hire someone
before they can even check whether they are legally able to
work in this country. The association supports the options to
check the employment authorization status of job applicants at
the time of a job offer. Encouraging job applicants to self-
check and allowing them to fix any errors before they begin
employment is a very good approach.
Fifth, the association supports the inclusion of the
strictly voluntary reverification provision, but objects to
mandatory reverification provisions of the entire workforce. We
have been using I-9s since the late 1990's. One of the
association's foremost concerns is to ensure that any new E-
Verify mandate does not become overly costly or burdensome for
our industry and others.
Sixth, the employer needs to be able to affirmatively rely
on the responses to the inquiries into the E-Verification
system. With the rate of acceptance now well into over 99
percent, as Chairman Smith said, employers would like to have
the tools to determine in real time or near real time the legal
status of a prospective employee or applicant to work. The
association appreciates that, as we understand the Legal
Workforce Act, 13 days after the initial inquiry there will be
a final response for those that do not come back as work
authorized during the initial inquiry.
The association agrees that employers who knowingly employ
unauthorized aliens ought to be prosecuted under the law.
Respect for the law is very important. The current ``knowing''
legal standard for liability, also found in the Legal Workforce
Act, is fair and objective and gives employers some degree of
certainty regarding their responsibilities under the law and
should therefore be maintained. Penalties should not be
inflexible, and we would urge you to incorporate statutory
language that allows enforcement agencies to mitigate penalties
based on the size of the employer and the good-faith effort
that employers are taking to comply, rather than tying to
specific, nonnegotiable dollar amounts.
Eight, the association objects to the expansion of
antidiscrimination provisions beyond what is found in current
law. However, we understand that those wrongfully harmed by the
system should have some mechanism to seek relief. Thus we
support the Legal Workforce Act's provision that allows these
wrongfully harmed employees to seek relief under the Federal
Torts Claims Act.
Ninth, the Federal Government will need adequate funding to
maintain and implement an expansion of E-Verify. The cost
should not be passed on to the employer with fees or inquiries
or through other mechanisms. This association supports the
Legal Workforce Act provision that keeps the requirements as in
current law where an employer does not need to keep copies of
driver's license, Social Security cards, et cetera.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Part of the government's effort to roll out E-
Verify to all employers should be closing loopholes for
unauthorized workers. In the National Restaurant Association's
opinion, notwithstanding a few clarifications, a broad Federal
E-Verify mandate that is both fast and workable for business of
every size under practical, real-world working conditions. I
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Moran.
TESTIMONY OF TYLER MORAN, POLICY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Ms. Moran. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and
Ranking Member Lofgren, for the opportunity to testify on E-
Verify and share my thoughts on the Legal Workforce Act. The
National Immigration Law Center has analyzed and advocated for
improvements in E-Verify since it was first implemented, and I
have personally work on the program since 2003.
Despite what we have heard today, the Legal Workforce Act
is not going to create jobs, but it will result in the loss of
jobs for hundreds of thousands of American workers at a time of
9 percent unemployment. And because the bill doesn't legalize
the 8 million undocumented workers in our economy, it is going
to result in billions of dollars in lost tax revenue, in
addition to criminalizing both farmers and workers in the
agricultural industry. And as Mr. Conyers points out, it
doesn't work. Fifty-four percent of undocumented workers who
are put through the system are not detected.
So I want to start out by addressing the error rates. As a
percentage it might sound very impressive and like the system
works, but when you look at the actual numbers, it is very,
very concerning. Making E-Verify mandatory is going to force
anywhere conservatively from 1.2 million to 3.4 million workers
to stand in line at a government agency or lose their jobs, and
close to a million workers are going to lose their jobs.
And I think that the Legal Workforce Act is actually going
to increase the number of workers that are going to lose their
jobs because it now allows and even encourages prescreening of
employment eligibility. Right now this is prohibited. It is
very concerning that it would be allowed because currently of
the employers that illegally prescreen workers and discover
that their worker has an error, 33 percent of them never offer
them the job. And of those workers who aren't offered a job, it
takes almost half of them 2 months or longer to find their next
job.
I want to highlight a story of a U.S. citizen that called
us for help because she is one of 80,000 workers that lost
their jobs in FY 2010. Her name is Jessica. She applied for a
job at a good-paying telecommunications company in Florida. Her
employer told her that she had an error, so she went to the
Social Security Administration. She had her name changed, and
so she had to fix the record. They told her it was okay.
She went back to the employer. The employer said, sorry,
you are not confirmed. She drove back to Social Security.
Social Security said, our records are fine, you should be fine.
She went back to her employer, and the employer said, I am
sorry, but the system can't confirm you, I have to fire you.
Despite pleas to SSA, DHS, the toll-free hotline, she didn't
get her job back, and she was out of work for 3 months over the
Christmas holiday. And she now has a lower-paying job.
Like Jessica's experience with E-Verify, the Legal
Workforce Act doesn't include any real due process for workers
who were fired due to this system.
I also want to point out that this bill provides absolutely
no protections for workers. Sixty-six percent of workers report
that their employer has taken some type of adverse action
against them by firing them, demoting them, giving them lesser
pay. And, in fact, I think, Mr. Smith, you highlighted that if
you reverify the workforce, you have to do so in a
nondiscriminatory manner. That language is not in the final
copy of the bill, if I am correct.
On the economy, if the Legal Workforce Act is passed
without legalizing the workforce, the results are going to be
devastating. Undocumented workers are not going to leave the
country because of the Legal Workforce Act. They and their
employers are simply going to move off the books into the cash
economy, or they are going to be misclassified as independent
contractors.
I think Ms. Lofgren noted the CBO score of $17 billion in
lost tax revenue. Arizona, that law has been in effect for 3
years, and guess what? It hasn't worked. People didn't go home,
they didn't leave the State. Eighty-three percent of workers
still in the State, and they have gone off the tax rolls, or
they have reappeared as independent contractors.
The Legal Workforce Act also fails to recognize the needs
of agriculture, I think, as Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren have
pointed out, up to 75 percent of which is undocumented. There
is this illusion of a carve-out that really isn't a carve-out
because of the reverification. And the bill incentivizes
companies to rely on labor contractors who aren't the true
employer to get around the verification requirements. So while
the bill goes after union hiring halls and day labor centers,
it lets these labor contractors get off scott-free.
So what are the solutions? I know this bill has been sold
as a commonsense solution, but it is anything but that. I know
people are frustrated with unemployment, everyone is
frustrated, but this just isn't the answer. It is just a
fantasy to think that if we put an employment verification
system on line that people are going to leave the country. It
is just not going to happen. It is not how the labor market
works, and I think Cato Institute has testified that it is not
a 1-to-1.
So I have included a number of recommendations in my
written testimony, but I want to highlight three for what it
takes to create a system that works, and I have done a lot of
thinking about this. One, you have to do it when you legalize
the undocumented workforce so you don't just kick them off the
rolls. An immigration reform bill would increase GDP by a
cumulative amount of $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Two, you have to have real due process. Workers cannot be
fired because of a system and have no recourse.
And three, the system needs to be phased in over a longer
period of time, with performance evaluation, database accuracy,
employer misuse to ensure that it is working as you all
actually intend it to.
So this bill doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. Not
only is it the antithesis of big government conservatism, but
in a year when Congress is talking about cutting budgets and
only funding high-performance programs, this program just
doesn't make the cut. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Ms. Moran.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moran follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Moran, in your written testimony, and as
you elaborated in your verbal testimony that workers won't
leave the country if E-Verify is mandated, you did say that
pretty specifically in your opinion.
Ms. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Gallegly. But isn't it true that illegal immigrants are
leaving States that institute E-Verify mandates? In fact, just
last week in the Atlantic Journal Constitution published an
article entitled ``Many Illegal Immigrants Leaving''--or ``Many
Immigrants Leaving Georgia Behind,'' outlining how illegal
immigrants are leaving the State since they cannot find jobs
after the State mandated businesses use E-Verify. That is a
common known thing at least in the State of Georgia.
In your written testimony, page 3, you point out that the
construction industry has a 20 percent unemployment rate. The
home builders who are actually in the construction trade are
sitting at this table with you, to your right, now supporting
Legal Workforce Act. Do you think that you know better what is
best for the industry than those who actually are in the
industry?
Ms. Moran. Well, I don't purport to know that, but let me
first address the issue about people leaving. There have been
no formal studies about E-Verify except in Arizona. And I think
that you received a letter from one of the authors of the study
from the Public Policy Institute of California, which said that
83 percent of workers actually stayed in the State. And I
believe he said that if it is mandated, that you wouldn't even
see as many people leave who they left in Arizona, because
interstate migration is much different than leaving the
country. So that is the only real actual study that we have.
Again, I know people are frustrated with unemployment, but
this program doesn't solve it.
Mr. Gallegly. What will they do if they can't find a job?
Ms. Moran. What will who do?
Mr. Gallegly. Those that are illegal, and they are E-
Verified, and the employer won't hire them, what will they do?
Ms. Moran. Well, what will happen is the employers will
just move them off the books in the cash economy. I mean, our
economy would be decimated if 8 million workers simply
disappeared. I mean, think of not only----
Mr. Gallegly. Even with the increased penalties.
Ms. Moran. Excuse me?
Mr. Gallegly. Even with the increased penalties.
Ms. Moran. In Arizona you lose your business license, you
are fined, you got the sheriff going after you. Half the
employers in Arizona aren't even using the program, and of
those who do, ICE has found that employers are coaching workers
about how to get around the system and teaching them which
documents to present to get around the system, and this doesn't
bill doesn't address that.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Miller, you know, there is a lot of discussion among
the ranks that illegal immigrants only take jobs that American
citizens will not take. We continue to hear that.
Recently a company in your industry, Chipotle, a large
national corporation formerly owned by, I believe, the
McDonald's Corporation, and I think--what do they have, 1,000
stores, plus or minus? A large, large operation. ICE found out
that they had many illegals working for them and cracked down,
and they were terminated. And, of course, Chipotle executives
and the corporation was fined, and that process is going on.
Now, with thousands of employees that were illegal that
were put away from--taking their jobs away, how in the world is
Chipotle able to survive now that all of these illegal
immigrants that were working there--did they have to close down
their doors, or did they have any Americans that applied for
any of those jobs?
Mr. Miller. I didn't hear, Mr. Chairman, that any of the
restaurants closed. In reality what has been happening, and it
happened with personal experiences in the business that I owned
and operated, is in using E-Verify, when an undocumented worker
is exposed, they go across the street and get another job. That
is what has been happening. That is in real life.
Mr. Gallegly. That is really kind of where I wanted to go,
and my time is running out, but the fact is there were American
unemployed people standing in line to take those jobs; is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. Number two, when ICE went in and did the
enforcement, they enforced sanctions against the employers,
which is all well and good, and I support that, but they didn't
do a doggone thing to the thousands of people that working
there illegally. They just went down the street or across the
street and went to work somewhere else; is that correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Gallegly. That is under current law, correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much.
At this time I would yield to the gentlelady from
California Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was reading the op-ed piece that Mr. Miller posted in the
Fort Worth Star Tribune a number of years ago, and here is what
that op-ed piece that he wrote says: ``The economic
consequences of removing the 1 in 20 employees who are
undocumented from America's workforce would be devastating. The
restaurant industry, the Nation's largest private-sector
employer, sustains 12.5 million jobs in restaurants directly
and millions more in other industries.''
It goes on to say, ``Clearly we can't fix our broken
immigration laws simply by enforcing them more stringently. We
need to make them reflect the law of supply and demand and the
need to secure our borders. Only by reforming immigration
policy in this way will we improve enforcement and strengthen
America's economy, securities and values.''
I ask unanimous consent to put this op-ed piece into the
record.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Moran, you studied this over a period of
time as an academic, and we throw--what is it they said? There
are lies, darn lies, in statistics? But I think it would be
helpful if we could get actually a picture that is complete,
because--and I am asking you to do that. In fact, it is true
that most of the people who use this system get an instant
verification. I mean, it is in the nineties, that is correct.
There are two questions about that. We have, I believe, an
analysis I would like you to address that somewhere in the
neighborhood of half of the people who really aren't eligible
to work are cleared in that system anyhow. That is one of
statistics that has been thrown out.
The other thing, DHS had an independent study done, and
they said that in the case--that about 42 percent of applicants
who are dinged on the system are never told, and so they don't
have a chance. If they actually are eligible to work, they
don't have a chance to prove that up because nobody ever told
them what the issue was.
And then the second statistic I would like to you throw
some light on is that when there are contests, what is the
outcome? And I think that when people contest the dinging, my
understanding is that more than half of them actually prove up
that they are lawfully here. So if 42 percent are never told,
that is a bunch of Americans presumably who actually had a
right to work, but they weren't told, and now the government is
going to keep them unemployed at a time of 9 percent
unemployment.
The second statistic I would like you to--set of
statistics--to identify is what this means across the entire
American workforce. I talked to my daughter, a lawyer in San
Jose. I say, look, there is an error rate of about a percent.
She said, oh, my God, you would never do that in business. She
is a corporate lawyer. I mean, if you had that kind of error
rate in the business she is in, it would be catastrophic. Could
you address how many millions of American citizens are likely
to be unemployed because of defects in the database?
Ms. Moran. Okay. Let me try to break this down. So a lot of
us have been operating off this the Westat study, which DHS
commissioned over a number of years, and they use a statistical
model. And so their model says, as I think someone pointed out,
a little under 1 percent of U.S. Citizens and legal workers are
improperly dinged by the system, and about half of those who
are improperly dinged never correct their records--never are
able to correct their records for numerous reasons. Forty-two
percent of employers don't notify them, they just can't correct
their records with SSA like Jessica did. And so if you
extrapolate those out, it is a little bit over a million people
in a mandatory system having to go to correct records.
I want to point out, though, whenever employers have
audited their own data, they have come up with much higher
rates. So L.A. County, for example, audited their own use of E-
Verify and found a 2.3 percent error rate, not a .8 percent
error rate. And Intel a couple of years ago announced that they
had a 12 percent error rate, all of these people that had been
cleared.
So I guess the point is that we do have a statistical
model, and I think it is alarming in and of itself that there
are a few million workers that could be affected, but then you
also have real-life experiences. And I think you know SSA did
their own run on the numbers, and they said 3.6 million people
would come to their offices.
What happens when people contest, I think that was your
question, sort of what is the outcome? So approximately 1
percent are authorized, they should never have been dinged, and
half of them can correct. That means half can't correct. We
estimate that a little under a million people in a mandatory
system will not be able to correct their records, and they will
lose their jobs. This is why the lack of due process is really,
really concerning, because they can't get their job back, they
can't get their wages back. And that is what is happening under
the current system.
On the 54 percent of workers that can get through, I mean,
right now if I present a legitimate document, the system can't
detect that, and that is what is happening in Arizona.
Employers know that, you know, the State driver's license won't
be detected by the system, and so they coach workers in
providing that document. This bill doesn't address that at all.
And I think, you know, getting all 50 States to give up their
driver's license data, I think we tried that in REAL ID, and
they said no.
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank our witnesses. We heard some
powerful testimony in favor of the bill today, and that is much
appreciated.
Congressman Calvert, let me address my first comment to
you. You made a very good case for why E-Verify works, both
from a personal business owner's point of view, as well as
being able to quote the various figures that back up our case.
You actually updated my figures. I didn't realize there are now
268,000 employers who voluntarily use E-Verify, and I know that
about 1,300 more businesses are now voluntarily using the
program every week. So clearly it works.
And you and I both use the figure that 99.5 percent of
work-eligible employees are immediately confirmed. By the way,
that may make it the most effective government program in
existence. I don't know of any other government program that
works 99.5 percent of the time.
I basically just want to give you an opportunity to see if
there is any other way you feel that we can demonstrate that
the program works.
Mr. Calvert. Well, first let me just make a point, too, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for your question. I certainly take
exception to the assumption that mandatory E-Verify would turn
law-abiding employers into lawbreakers because they don't want
to comply with the law.
I was in private business, I was in the restaurant
business, all my life as a family business. We comply with the
law. And most small business people I know, 99 percent of them
comply with the law. They don't go out of their way to put
employees off the books in the so-called cash economy, whatever
the hell that is.
These academics that make these arguments never been in
business in their life. They have never employed a person in
their life. They don't even know how the system works to employ
an individual or how the economy works. So I just want to make
that point.
One thing about preemption. I think it is important. My own
county, we have cities and communities that are doing their own
preemption, I mean, their own law on E-Verify, because they are
frustrated with the Federal Government. We do need a national
law because it is pushing--like a State of California which
will never put an E-Verify law in--pushing a lot of these
people that are unemployed in the State of California. It
already has a 12-1/2 percent unemployment rate. So bordering
States that are putting in mandatory E-Verify are pushing folks
into the State of California. So it is an important bill.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Rutenberg, I appreciated your testimony. Let me ask you
the question, can small businesses just as well as large
businesses comply with E-Verify? I know home builders go from
small businesses to large entities, and I wanted to see if you
thought it was going to be equally applicable to both.
Mr. Rutenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe it is going to be much harder for the small
businesses to comply. I know that Monday, as a builder, I
worked 15 hours and was only in my office for about 15 minutes
at one point. We are on the mobile, on the go, and we would
have to count on our subcontractors and our vendors to do the
E-Verify for themselves. We would not be able to control that.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Miller made the same point and also pointed
out that in the bill we have the phase-in last for the small
businesses to give them an opportunity to gear up. So we
actually changed the approach on it just because we had
understood that small businesses needed a little bit more time,
so we took that direction.
Mr. Rutenberg. I appreciate that.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Miller, let me ask you, you mentioned as far
as the National Restaurant Association goes and the owners, why
don't you support an exemption for some employers of the E-
Verify system? You made the case, I think correctly, that
everybody has to play by the same rules. But why don't you
support an exemption for some other entity?
Mr. Miller. As someone that voluntarily put in e-
verification, I saw what happened when it was not equally
applied to all businesses. The employees that did not qualify
to be employed by my company would literally walk across the
street to a competing business. And this is one of those cases
where we need a Federal law that will provide equal playing
fields for all businesses to tap into the legal workforce.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Ms. Moran, let me direct my last question to you. Let me
give you some figures that I think are indisputable. If you do
question them, let me know.
The first is I believe that there are 24 million Americans
who are unemployed or so discouraged they have given up looking
for work. Of those 24 million unemployed Americans, 19 million
do not have a college degree, have a high school diploma. There
are roughly 7- to 8 million people working illegally in the
United States. And according to my figures, the most recent
unemployment rates for Americans with only a high school
education--these are the Americans that are competing with
these jobs taken by illegal workers--21 percent for all
Americans, but it is 25 percent unemployment rate for Hispanic
Americans, 30 percent unemployment rate for Black Americans.
It seemed to me that almost everything you have said--and
it is a legitimate point of view from your perspective--but
almost everything you said seemed to me to put the interest of
illegal workers ahead of the interest of unemployed American
workers. Why wouldn't we want to do everything we could for
these unemployed Hispanic Americans and Black Americans and
open up jobs for them?
Ms. Moran. I am putting the interest of the economy first
and the impact that it would have. In terms of the numbers
about those without a high school diploma, I am not an
economist. I mean, you know, Dan Griswold from Cato, you know,
we are not best buds on most things, he is the one that says
this is not how the economy works, and that, yes, there would
be some workers that get jobs, but generally it is just not a
1-to-1, and that those workers----
Mr. Smith. I wasn't talking about 1-1. Thirty percent Black
Americans with only a high school education are unemployed, 25
percent Hispanic Americans. They are the ones that would
benefit from the E-Verify program when we free up those jobs.
Ms. Moran. I hear what you are saying. All I am telling you
is what the economists are saying. Conservative, libertarian,
liberals are all saying the same thing, which is that it is
just not going to create jobs for all of those workers. I am
not an economist so I can't----
Mr. Smith. I don't think all economists are saying that,
and, again, when we hear from employers, when we hear from
people who had practical experience, it is just the opposite.
Those jobs are being freed up. But we just have to agree to
disagree on that.
Ms. Moran. Okay.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
Is there something I am missing in Mr. Miller's example of
Chipotle or any other restaurant where they find an illegal
working and fire him, and that he advises the Committee that
the illegal just walks across the street and gets another job?
Is that the way it happens in your estimation or in your
experience? This is to Attorney Moran. Am I missing something
there that people that get fired just go get another job
somewhere else where they are not checked, and that is why he
likes mandatory.
Ms. Moran. I am an employer, and I would be affected by E-
Verify because I have a babysitter, so I just want to put that
on the record.
Yeah. I mean, this is going to hurt employers that abide by
the rules. If you abide by the rule, you are going to use E-
Verify. You know, half of them will be detected, half of them
won't. But a lot of employers simply are not going to comply
with the law.
And I can't remember if, Chairman Gallegly, you just made
this point or someone made the point about employers are going
to comply. In Arizona, half aren't complying. Half are not
using the system. So it is not like these are bad employers;
they just need their workforce, and they don't want to go
under.
Mr. Conyers. And a person that doesn't--that can't get a
job through E-Verify just goes to an employer that doesn't use
E-Verify.
Well, maybe that is a case for Mr. Miller arguing that we
ought to make it mandatory, and then everybody will----
Ms. Moran. What I am saying is when it is mandatory,
employers still aren't complying with the law. In Arizona it is
mandatory for every employer, and half of them are not using
it, and others are using it improperly. So just because you say
it is mandatory doesn't mean it is mandatory.
That is why the real solution is legalizing the 8 million
undocumented workers in our economy. Otherwise everyone is just
going to be figuring out how to get around the system until you
find a real solution.
Mr. Conyers. So, now, if we effect comprehensive
immigration reform and get a pathway to legalizing people, then
it seems to me that you might not even need E-Verify after
that.
Ms. Moran. Well, you know, we think that is the first thing
that has to happen if you put E-Verify on line. There are a lot
of other things. I mean, I would write a very different bill
than the Legal Workforce Act that included worker protections
and phase-ins. There are just lots of things that need to do to
make it work. It has made a lot of improvements, but it is just
not there.
Mr. Conyers. Well, Mr. Rutenberg, do you think that we
could work toward an immigration reform system that would clear
up some of the fundamental problems? You know, the way I am
understanding the lawyer here is that this is a kind of an
attempt to put a band-aid over a bigger problem. Until we deal
with immigration as a big subject, with millions of people now
having no way to get to citizenship, we are going to always be
in this fix.
Mr. Rutenberg. What we tried to do in our testimony was to
say that we are starting to see a quiltwork patch of different
regulations at the State and the local level, which has the
danger of becoming a very difficult environment to work within.
We think that it is preferable to have a national E-Verify
program which still--it is in the process of being refined and
has made serious improvement.
Mr. Conyers. Do you support comprehensive immigration
reform?
Mr. Roberts. We believe that we need to have a sustainable,
workable immigration policy.
Mr. Conyers. Well, that means depending on what I mean by
comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Miller, do you believe in comprehensive immigration
reform; that is, working out a way for the 8 million people,
especially the ones that have kids here and been working for
years and paying their taxes, that we get it straightened out
once and for all.
Mr. Miller. The first thing I believe in is the rule of
law.
Mr. Conyers. We all, you know----
Mr. Miller. I question whether everyone takes the same
position that I do that if the law exists, that you are
supposed to enter this country in a legal way----
Mr. Conyers. Wait a minute. Do you support comprehensive
immigration reform or not?
Mr. Miller. No. I don't think that that is the answer.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. That is fair enough.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony and
your presence here.
I would like to first start off with having noted in the
opening remarks, of which I did not offer one, that Mr.
Conyers' statement that agriculture would collapse if we didn't
have illegal workers, I represent a big chunk of Iowa, and we
do a lot of agriculture, and I can tell you that America is not
going to go hungry if we enforce the rule of law. We will raise
the food we need to feed the people in this country, and we
will export a lot of food to feed people in many other
countries. We have that ability, and we are resilient enough
and entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of the
opportunities there and create new ones. And with the genetic
design that we have, we are increasing corn yields 3 to 4
percent a year, for example, and we need fewer people instead
of more people.
What happens in business is that you follow the path of
least resistance to maximize your profits. For example, I have
a constituent that has a 16-row corn planter, and he is a
master marketer, sitting at the Internet and on the phones on a
regular basis maximizing his profits. He bought land in Brazil
because it was an investment that looked good, and in spite of
his big equipment he has in Iowa, he has 96 one-row cultivators
down there. These are men with hoes that work cheaper than he
can run equipment.
So we will do the things necessary as an example to raise
the food and feed this country and feed the world. I just
wanted to bring that part up and make an early comment on that.
I have a number of questions.
Mr. Miller, I appreciate your testimony, especially on your
statement about the approval of the language in the bill that
allows for a preemployment check. And I have long been
aggrieved by existing E-Verify law that requires you to hire
the illegals before you can verify that you have hired illegal
employees, as I appreciate your reinforcement of that component
of it. And there are a number of standards out there. One of
them is Iowa's drug testing law as I wrote the language that
would be as a condition of employment, a preemployment test for
drug testing or preemployment test for legal status.
I am interested in what you might say about the difference
between mandatory and voluntary testing of current or legacy
employees. If we don't make it mandatory for legacy employees,
then what do you think is the result on the illegal workforce
that exists in employment today.
Mr. Miller. Well, Mr. King, coming from the restaurant
industry where people and employees change positions, change
companies very frequently, if you looked at it from the way we
do in terms of turnover of jobs, a lot of entry-level workers,
a lot of people work for different companies. Some of our
employees work for two or three different companies at a time.
I believe that if we start this process the way this bill
is intended, and that we don't require a pre--that we verify
all of the existing employees, that this is the best way that
we can implement this system on a broad basis and accomplish
over a period of time what we want to accomplish, and that is
make sure that all workers in America are legally--are here
legally and have the right to work in America.
Mr. King. Not the whole step, but a good step in the right
in the right direction, then, to summarize.
And then there is also a provision in there for
agricultural seasonal employees, that if they have been
employed by the employer in the past in a seasonal business,
that they don't need to be verified again. And as an employer
in the restaurant business, does that--do you look at that and
think that that is a special provision for an individual
profession? I will see it from a seasonal construction business
that if I have seasonal employees that have worked for me in
the past, and they have to be verified when the frost goes out
every spring, but workers that come in in the San Joaquin
Valley would not, what is your view on that from a justice or
equity standpoint?
Mr. Miller. Well, we have a process called the H2B visa for
seasonal workers. Our industry, particularly the resort part of
our industry, unfortunately right now the Department of Labor
is actually creating even higher barriers that prevent the HB2
visa program to work effectively. So I believe that the way
this act is written, that we can get through over time and be
able to make sure that we maintain the viability of all of our
businesses. And agriculture is special, to Mr. Conyers' point.
Mr. King. Thank you.
If I could quickly ask Ms. Moran, you made the comment that
the bill, the language came out of it that was a
nondiscriminatory language. And I would point out that if you
read the language closely, that the words ``nondiscriminatory''
came out, but the substance of the effect of it remain that one
would have to test all the employees similarly situated or
within that. And as the interpretation that I have is that if
you are an employer, and you employ 10,000 or more, or any
number for that matter, and you think that you have a problem
with illegal workers in a certain area, might be sanitation
within the plant, you would still be required to run all 10,000
of those employees through--under the language that I see in
this bill, all 10,000 employees through E-Verify if you thought
you might have had a problem within a small segment of your
employment base, perhaps 100 of your 10,000.
You are concerned about nondiscrimination. I think that
discriminates against the employer, who in good faith would
want to have a legal workforce, but would be prohibited from
that by the burden of having to punch 10,000 names through the
computer to be able to clean up one segment of this factory.
What would be your thoughts on that?
Ms. Moran. Well, I think we saw from IRCA that there was a
lot of hiring discrimination when they implemented the employer
sanctions. I think there was a series of 3 or so GAO reports
that documented that that actually did happen. So I do think it
is important that if the employer is going to reverify someone,
they have to reverify everyone.
Mr. King. So, what is the problem with an employer
reverifying a segment of their workforce if, say, it is
sanitation, or mechanics, or my truck drivers, or bulldozer
operators? If I have got no problem with the white collar part
of this, but I do have a problem with the blue collar, why
would you disagree with that philosophically? And if I could
ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute so the
gentlelady could respond?
Ms. Moran. Because from a worker's perspective, it is
really a problem. So let us say that you wanted--you know,
certain workers you expect are undocumented, maybe they are
Latino, so you decide to reverify them. Already we have a super
high, I would say, error rate.
Mr. King. Ms. Moran, how would an employee know if they are
being reverified, and how would an employer discriminate
against an employee who was a legal worker?
Ms. Moran. Because they would be the subject of a database
error. Naturalized U.S. citizens are 30 times more likely than
native-born----
Mr. King. Mr. Smith's testimony in his opening statement
resolved that issue. So how does an employer discriminate
against an employee? If the employee doesn't know they are
using E-Verify to verify that they are a legal worker, the only
thing they can do is take action against an illegal.
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. I will
give her an opportunity to try to respond, and then we will go
to the next speaker.
Ms. Moran. I am a little bit confused by the question,
because I am not quite sure how you can know that someone is an
illegal worker unless you reverify them. It would result in
discriminatory use. And there aren't any worker protections. I
think there is a line that says that you can't take adverse
action or something. There are no penalties attached, so right
now there is a high level of employer misuse with voluntary
users.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
clarify this significant point that we have here. There has
been an allegation of discrimination, and I think the witness
is the expert and can answer.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection, the gentleman will have 1
minute for the purpose of clarifying his question.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My point is this, that as an employer, if you had one or
several employees that you suspected were illegal, and the
documentation would give you that lack of confidence, so their
lawful ability to work in the United States, an employer
under--the way I would propose this language--could then sit
down in their HR department, light up their computer, punch the
I-9 information into the E-Verify database, and verify that
they could lawfully work in this country for their company.
If an employer did that, the employee would have no idea
that that process was taking place. Therefore, if they were a
legal employee, zero discrimination could possibly take place.
And if they were illegal, they would be dismissed according to
the intent of this congressional legislation. So how does
discrimination take place under E-Verify?
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Moran.
Ms. Moran. So, first of all, the Westat study, I can't
remember if it was this one or the last one, found that when
employers--when workers who are foreign born, Latino, Asian,
foreign-born workers, are the subject of an error, they make an
automatic assumption that they are undocumented.
And so the point I am trying to make is that people of
color, foreign-born workers are going to be more likely to be
the subject of this reverification, and when they are, they are
therefore going to receive more errors and be the subject of
more adverse action. So it is not direct--it is unintended
maybe, or it is indirect discrimination, but it is
discrimination.
Mr. King. The computer doesn't know what color they are. I
yield back.
Ms. Moran. But the employer does.
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 1 minute to
be able to yield to the Ranking Member Mr. Conyers, please.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
To my friend Steve King, and I don't know much about Iowa
except that last time I went in with Obama to carry your State,
you guys there deal in corn, and corn is a machine-sensitive
operation. There isn't any stoop labor. You are not picking
apples.
Mr. King. We used to plant it by hand.
Mr. Conyers. You used to. But it is mostly machinery. So
the kinds of questions that involve the restaurant business and
home-building is a little bit different, Steve. And that is the
only thing I wanted to point out. That is why you don't have
this kind of problem much in your State.
And, by the way, I will probably be back in your State next
year.
Mr. Gallegly. Good luck, Mr. Conyers.
I would yield to the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much. And I
thank the Ranking Member. And let me thank all of the witnesses
as well. And thank you for allowing me to acknowledge that I
was in a Homeland Security hearing on radical Muslim issues
that delayed me coming here. Another opportunity to set the
record straight.
But in any event, in his absence, and I hope to speak to
him directly on H.R. 2164, to Mr. Smith, I would greatly
appreciate having the opportunity to expand the horizons of E-
Verify for an amendment that would add comprehensive
immigration reform. I think it is an excellent vehicle to amend
it with the comprehensive immigration reform language that many
of us have been working on for more than a decade. If this is
going to be the vehicle that is going to travel dealing with
the question of immigration, why not look at it comprehensively
to answer a number of concerns.
The other question I would like to put on the record--Mr.
Smith, I am sorry, I didn't see you there--is I cannot find the
basis of funding in this particular legislation. And from my
perspective--and I will ask Ms. Moran at a certain point--it
looks as if this bill is going to exponentially add costs to
the government. And as I understand it, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are looking to slash the budget and, in
fact, have no money.
So I don't see how we are going to effectively use this
without tying comprehensive immigration reform, which, Ms.
Moran--and I am not posing a question--to my knowledge all the
bills that I have reviewed, including my legislation and other
legislation, assesses fees which go back into the Treasury, and
therefore it is self-providing.
Let me ask Mr. Rutenberg. I am a strong supporter of the
home builders. I work a lot on the home building issues. I want
you to build, build, build and employ, employ, employ. We have
a strong contingent in Texas, as you well know.
My simple question to you is do you or do you know of your
State organization, local organization that support
comprehensive immigration reform? Do you have that body of
thought among your members?
Mr. Rutenberg. I don't think that we have a consensus on
comprehensive.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you do have some sectors that agree
with that?
Mr. Roberts. In 160,000 members, I have somebody who agrees
with almost everything.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, do you know--have you visited--I am
not sure, where are you from?
Mr. Rutenberg. Florida.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you familiar with those in Texas?
Mr. Rutenberg. I know a quite a number. I have attended
your meetings frequently.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So I would imagine you have
seen some body of thought in Texas agreeing of comprehensive
immigration reform.
Mr. Rutenberg. I cannot speak to that. I do know that we
thought that E-Verify was a good start to this point.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you against comprehensive immigration
reform that would allow people to get in line in a second line
and pay fees, and continue to contribute to the American
public, and serve in the United States military?
Mr. Rutenberg. I personally do not have an opinion for this
Committee on comprehensive reform. I will tell you----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. My time is short. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, I understand you represent restaurants, and is
that the National Restaurant Association?
Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. And what is your position on
comprehensive immigration reform?
Mr. Miller. We tried that back in 2005 and 2006, as I am
sure you recall.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Who tried it? The restaurants tried it?
Mr. Miller. No. Our Congress tried it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't know who tried it then. You must
not be reading the legislation. But what is your answer?
Mr. Smith. I think he is referring to the Senate bill. I
would give him a chance to respond if I were you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Senate bill didn't pass.
Mr. Miller. Having lived on the front lines of an
immigration policy or a lack of an immigration policy for my
entire career as a restaurateur, I looked at this bill----
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are trying to--I don't want to cut you
off, but I need to get to Ms. Moran. But what you are saying is
I am taking anything I can get because you need to have some
order. Is that my understanding?
Mr. Miller. I am here in support of this bill because I
think it will move----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I got it. When you are desperate, you
gotta get something, and I appreciate it.
Ms. Moran, can you now just pose the question to help Mr.
Miller, because as I recall, the National Restaurant
Association did support comprehensive immigration reform during
my lifetime in the United States Congress.
Tell us how bad this bill will be in terms of cost, in
terms of small businesses, and in particular the errors that
will now burden the Social Security office in order to handle
people who are going to be discriminated against.
Ms. Moran. Yeah. I talked a bit about the error rates, but
definitely the impact on the Social Security Administration is
going to be enormous. And I testified at the hearing last month
about that, and we can submit that testimony for the record.
You know, the only----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Maybe you can help Mr. Miller, because
that is why he is here.
Ms. Moran. We have worked together in the past on
comprehensive immigration reform--not ``we'' personally, but
certainly we have worked with the businesses on a comprehensive
immigration reform bill that included E-Verify and legalization
in the past. I think you are referencing the Senate efforts in
2006 and 2007.
Regarding the costs, we only have one real score on the
mandatory E-Verify program, and it is $17 billion in lost tax
revenue. We have another score that puts about 5- or 6 billion
it costs to actually run the program.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Five- or six billion?
Ms. Moran. To actually sort of put it on line; not the tax
loss, but actually running the program.
I have--I would like to submit for the record, I have got
four pages of quotes from small businesses saying, ``I don't
want this,'' testifying in Florida and other States saying that
they don't want E-Verify; that they don't have an HR
department, that their sister does it or their mom does it;
that they don't have the expenses; that they can't handle
helping people fix their errors.
So I know that we have got some business associations here,
but the Main Street Alliance submitted a letter to this
Committee saying this is not good for small business. So I
think we have got some sort of like big business insider D.C.
groups and we have got some Main Street groups that are saying
this isn't for them.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady's time
has expired.
I ask unanimous consent that a June 14, 2011, letter,
support for the Legal Workforce Act, from the American Council
on International Personnel; a June 14, 2011, press release from
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting the Legal Workforce
Act; and a June 15, 2011, letter to Chairman Smith from the
Society for Human Resource Management supporting the Legal
Workforce Act be made a part of the record for this hearing.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that one of
the major authors of the bill wasn't able to stay here for the
hearing, I would like to renew my consideration of the
leadership here that we have another hearing on this subject.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Michigan's request is duly
noted.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gallegly. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to submit some information
into the record, and I would like to add, if you would, to Mr.
Conyers' request, and I thank you for duly noting it, is the
opportunity to have a hearing--and, Ms. Lofgren, let me thank
you for your leadership--but to have a hearing on a number of
comprehensive immigration reform legislation offered by a
number of individuals in this Congress, some of which had
bipartisan support. I would like your consideration.
But I would like to put into the record two points made
with the present E-Verify structure. It is indicated that a
million people will be unemployed, and that the loss of revenue
will total now $23 billion based upon the implementation of
H.R. 2164.
Mr. Gallegly. With respect to the lady's first comment,
that will be so noted.
As it relates to the unanimous consent request, that will
be placed into the record under unanimous consent.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Gallegly. I would like to thank our witnesses today for
their testimony, and without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded, and ask
the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that the
questions and answers will be made a part of the record of the
hearing.
Without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials for inclusion in the record. And
with that, again I thank the witnesses. And the Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record