[Senate Hearing 113-238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-238
THE IMPACT OF MANDATORY E-VERIFY
ON AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
ROUNDTABLE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 16, 2013
__________
Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-554 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
----------
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Ranking Member
CARL LEVIN, Michigan DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TIM SCOTT, South Caarolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
WILLIAM M. COWAN, Massachusetts
Jane Campbell, Democratic Staff Director
Skiffington Holderness, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Opening Statements
Page
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., Chair, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana. 1
Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho.................. 5
Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from Florida................... 11
Witness Testimony
Poole, Sabrina, President and CEO, SERDI LLC..................... 3
Judson, Rick, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home
Builders....................................................... 3
Burton, David, General Counsel, National Small Business
Association.................................................... 3
Kearney, Ryan, Manager of Labor and Workforce Policy, National
Restaurant Association......................................... 3
Arensmeyer, John, founder and CEO, Small Business Majority....... 4
Fiorille, Frank, Senior Director of Risk Management, Paychex..... 4
Monaghan, Pete, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Data Exchange
and Policy Publications, Social Security Administration........ 4
Lotspeich, Katherine, Deputy Chief, Verification Division, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services........................... 4
Alphabetical Listing and Appendix Material Submitted
Arensmeyer, John
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Burton, David
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Fiorille, Frank
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Judson, Rick
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Letter dated June 4, 2013, to Senators Landrieu and Risch.... 35
Kearney, Ryan
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Report titled ``2012 E-Verify Survey: Summary of Results''... 39
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L.
Opening statement............................................ 1
Lotspeich, Katherine
Testimony.................................................... 4
Biographical sketch.......................................... 61
Report titled ``E-Verify Overview''.............................. 62
Map of States with Mandatory E-Verify Laws....................... 71
Monaghan, Pete
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 59
National Federation of Independent Business
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Poole, Sabrina
Testimony.................................................... 3
Biographical sketch.......................................... 32
Risch, Hon. James E.
Opening statement............................................ 5
Rubio, Hon. Marco
Opening statement............................................ 11
The Main Street Alliance
Letter dated May 28, 2013, to Senators Landrieu and Risch.... 72
THE IMPACT OF MANDATORY E-VERIFY
ON AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013
United States Senate,
Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:59 a.m., in
Room SR-428A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L.
Landrieu (chair of the committee) presiding
Present: Senators Landrieu, Shaheen, Risch, and Rubio.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, CHAIR, AND A U.S.
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Chair Landrieu. Good morning, everyone. Our Small Business
Roundtable on E-Verify will come to order. I really appreciate
your patience. Both while the ranking member and I were
required at an earlier meeting and we could not leave or the
business of that Committee could not get done.
So, we got here as soon as we could, and really, really
appreciate you all joining us this morning. I am going to start
with just a short opening statement. This meeting will go until
about 12:15, if you all can adjust your schedules to stay. If
some of you have to leave at 12:00, I understand.
Good morning and thank you for joining us for this
roundtable. The purpose of today's roundtable is to discuss the
ramifications of the E-Verify program on small businesses as
proposed in S. 744, The Border Security Economic Opportunity
and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.
The central question we will consider today or some of the
central questions are, one, is the E-Verify mandate in the bill
before the Judiciary Committee workable and affordable for
small businesses; two, how does the system currently work for
large and small employers in states where it is mandatory now--
and there are examples around the country.
Three, are there effective alternatives to the E-Verify
system that could be utilized by small businesses; and if so,
what would they look like and how would they be shaped and
designed?
And finally, what suggestions do the participants in
today's roundtable have to make the E-Verify system as
convenient as possible for small business owners?
We have assembled here today a very impressive group of
policy experts and small business owners to have a very
informal exchange. This is not official hearing but, of course,
our record will go into the Congressional Record and will be
submitted to the Judiciary Committee as they consider the
markup.
And so, what is spoken here, of course, is very important;
and hopefully, it will be helpful to members of Congress as we
move forward on this important piece of legislation.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee considers S. 744, the
goal of this Committee is to give a platform for small
businesses to speak about issues that are of particular concern
to them.
And this has come up as I have traveled around the country
and as people have come into my office there is a lot of
interest in how the E-Verify system, particularly in its
mandatory form, may affect small business.
So, we wanted this morning to provide a platform which is
one of the important roles of our Committee to discuss that. We
will share the ideas, comments, and questions, as I said, with
the Committees of jurisdiction. So, I thank you all for
preparing your remarks today.
As I mentioned, and the next week, I wanted to say, the
Committee will host another roundtable focused on some
different challenges faced by startups and small and medium
size business relative to workforce training and the workforce
gaps that are also part of the immigration reform bill. We just
want to make sure that small businesses get their voice heard
on these issues as this markup is going on.
According to the Small Business Administration's Office of
Advocacy, there are 28 million small businesses in the country,
including six million very small employers. Small businesses
represent over 99 percent of all employer firms, are
responsible for nearly 50 percent of all private-sector
employment, employing more than 55 million workers and account
for nearly 43 percent of all private-sector payroll.
So, there is nothing small in America about small business.
These businesses are not only critical to the Nation's economic
future but play a critical role in ensuring that those who are
working in this country are eligible to do so.
E-Verify, as the federal electronic employment verification
program available to employers to validate an individual's
lawful employment status, provides the primary means for
employers to do that.
E-Verify is an online system that uses data from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. That will be explained more
later and how it works currently.
At the federal level with the exception of federal
contractors, including small businesses contracting with the
federal government, participation in E-Verify is currently
voluntary in most parts of the country.
I am going to let you all discuss what is happening in
Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina. We will
discuss that in the form of questions.
So, let us get right into our panel discussion; and if each
one of you starting with Ms. Poole will identify yourself and
just say, you know, a word about yourself and your background
and maybe a comment or two for a minute about the number one
idea you want to leave with us today.
Ms. Poole. Good morning----
Chair Landrieu. You have to speak right into the microphone
and push your button to talk.
Ms. Poole. Good morning. I am Sabrina Poole. I am the
President and CEO of SERDI LLC. SERDI is a small, woman-owned,
8(a), certified IT consulting firm. We provide many services to
the Federal Government and have a few commercial clients.
I really want to discuss today and learn more about the
impact of E-Verify on my business. We are looking at cost. We
are looking at compliance issues with being compliant and not
being fined. And, I hope to leave here today with more
information and knowledge on how that is going to be fixed.
Thank you.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you.
Mr. Judson.
Mr. Judson. Thank you. My name is Rick Judson. I am a
builder and developer from Charlotte, North Carolina. I am also
the Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Home
Builders which is about 140,000 member companies, by
definition, the majority of which are small businesses.
I also ran a large insulation contracting firm,
subcontracting firm in 16 different states. So, dealing with
some of the regulatory environments from different states was a
challenge in its own right.
But NAHB does support fully some sort of E-verification
system. We want to make sure it is workable and economically
viable, just as you pointed out earlier. So, I am glad to be
here with you and hope to make some contributions.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Judson. We really appreciate
because the home builders are an important alliance in our
country and will be right in the forefront of many of the
aspects of this immigration bill.
Mr. Judson. Thank you.
Chair Landrieu. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. My name is David Burton. I am the General
Counsel for the National Small Business Association. We are
opposed to mandatory E-Verify; but I think in the current
political context, we are almost certain to get it.
We have come up with a number of specific proposals to make
an E-Verify system that will work better, work better for small
businesses but also protect ordinary American citizens who are
seeking employment in this country. E-Verify as proposed
without amendment will affect literally hundreds of thousands
of Americans adversely as they try to earn a living for their
families.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kearney.
Mr. Kearney. Good morning. I am Ryan Kearney. I am the
Manager of Labor and Workforce Policy with the National
Restaurant Association. Thank you for the opportunity to be
here. We are happy to discuss this important subject. I would
be more than willing to discuss an E-Verify survey that we
released two weeks ago that shows very high satisfaction among
our members that use E-Verify.
Chair Landrieu. Wonderful. Could you speak into the mic a
little bit more please.
Mr. Kearney. Okay.
Chair Landrieu. We will get back to the details but that
would be terrific, and thank you so much.
Mr. Kearney. Please do.
Chair Landrieu. Mr. Arensmeyer.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this roundtable. I am John Arensmeyer. I am founder and
CEO of Small Business Majority. We are a national small
business advocacy group founded and run by small business
owners.
We are here to make sure that any electronic verification
system does not create undue burdens for small business owners
and legally authorized workers. National scientific polling
that we conducted in March shows that nine in ten small
business owners agree that our immigration system is long
overdue for a major overhaul and are eager to fix the broken
system.
Our primary job creators agree something must be done
because immigration is good for America and good for small
business.
Chair Landrieu. We do not have to go into the statement
now. Just something a short. That is fine. That is perfect.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Okay.
Chair Landrieu. We will come back.
Go ahead, Frank. Mr. Fiorille. Frank Fiorille.
Mr. Fiorille. Good morning. Frank Fiorille. I am the Senior
Director of Risk Management at Paychex. Paychex actually has a
unique perspective on this since we actually pay one out of
every 15 private-sector employees every two weeks. What I would
like to see is how this group can strike the right balance of
not having something overly burdensome for small business and
yet an efficient solution to this problem.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Mr. Monaghan.
Mr. Monaghan. Thank you, Senator. I am Pete Monaghan from
the Social Security Administration. I am Deputy Associate
Commissioner for Data Exchange and Policy Publications. I am
here to discuss our role in E-Verify, how we verify the Social
Security number, and some other elements. I will be glad to
discuss that in more detail.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lotspeich.
Ms. Lotspeich. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kathy
Lotspeich. I am Deputy Chief for the Verification Division at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We run the E-Verify
program in partnership with the Social Security Administration.
I am happy to talk today about how the system works and to
clear up any questions or confusion people might have about its
operation.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you so much. Excellent introductions.
Senator Risch has joined us, and I explained that we were
delayed because we both were needed for a quorum in an earlier
meeting with Energy.
Senator, do you want to say any just short opening
statements. We are going to work until about 12:15.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, briefly, first of all, thank you all
for coming today. This is not the primary jurisdiction of this
Committee. It is the Judiciary and Rules Committee. In fact,
they are meeting right now writing this bill.
But we will have considerable input into them. Between the
Chairman and I, if we have got parts of that bill that need to
be changed, I think we have got sufficient horse power with the
members of our Committee to do that.
We are really interested in how this affects small
business. One thing I want to explore as we get into this, we
pass all these laws in America and law abiding American
citizens agree to them. They are a burden to some degree. Every
time we pass a law is a burden on somebody, some entity.
How many people are going to avoid this, that is, how many
people are going to, how many people are just not going to
comply? That is always of concern to me, and I will be
interested in hearing, Mr. Burton, your ideas on that and all
of you who represent these small businesses.
Mr. Burton, you have got a practical approach to this and
that is it is probably coming one way or another given the
current state of affairs in the country. So, how do we live
with this, that is, how do we make it better? How do we knock
the rough edges off of this?
Mr. Arensmeyer, I am looking for you too to help us and all
of you actually to help us with this, to make this as usable as
it possibly can to small business because there will be some
benefits with it too.
Obviously, if you comply with E-Verify, then you are off
the hook, that is, you do not have to worry about the Federal
Government coming in and breathing down your neck and causing a
problem which is a, which is always a problem for businesses
that hire immigrants.
So, with that, thank you so much all of you for coming and
thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you very much. Let us begin and we
are joined by Senator Shaheen. Did you have any brief comments
to begin, Senator?
Senator Shaheen. No. Unfortunately, I am going to have to
leave before the discussion is over but I am sure like the
Chair and Ranking Member my interest is in hearing how you
think this is going to affect small businesses and any changes
we can make to make it easier for our small businesses.
New Hampshire is a State that is primarily small business,
and so, we want to do whatever we can to try and ensure that
small businesses are benefitted and not harmed by what we might
do around the E-Verify.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Landrieu. Wonderful. Okay. Let us get right into our
roundtable. The process of these roundtables is very different
than a hearing. I am going to throw out some questions. If you
all want to respond, I will direct some questions to some of
the panelists but please feel like if you want to jump in and
if you do just put your sign standing up vertically and that
way I will know to call on you. We really want to have a good
discussion and we only have an hour so we are going to try to
get it as much as we can.
I want to start, Kathy, if you do not mind with you. If you
could do a three- or four-minute clear explanation as to the
system that is in effect today which I understand you are
primarily responsible for, one of the people responsible.
It is a voluntary system as far as the U.S. government
goes. It is mandatory, I understand, in a few states in the
union. Those would be Arizona, help me here, Alabama,
Mississippi, South Carolina with some exceptions. But it is
currently a voluntary system with small businesses. Here is a
map.
But take four minutes and explain to us how the system is
working now and to just kind of start our the discussion.
Ms. Lotspeich. Certainly. Thank you very much. For
reference, there is a power point. I will not stick to that but
just know you can look at that if you want to look at screen
shots or to take back with you.
But basically, the employer asks the employee to fill out
the Form I-9, which is that form that you must fill out to
prove that you are authorized to work in the United States. You
show documents.
The employer then takes that form and enters information
into the E-Verify system. That information is then sent to the
Social Security Administration and to the Department of
Homeland Security to check to see if there is a match. If that
name, Social Security number, date of birth, citizenship status
match.
If that information does not match, then the system will
send back what we call a tentative nonconfirmation. We call it
a TNC for short, a tentative nonconfirmation.
The employer then is instructed to inform the employee that
they have a tentative nonconfirmation and they must follow-up
with either the Social Security Administration or the
Department of Homeland Security.
Chair Landrieu. Currently, what is the percentage of
noncompliance and are you getting more accurate as the system
is being developed?
Ms. Lotspeich. When you say ``noncompliance'' you mean
people----
Chair Landrieu. How many are sent back to the employer that
asks to----
Ms. Lotspeich. Right now about 1.3 percent, looking at this
fiscal year 2012 data.
Chair Landrieu. How many did you process in the year?
Ms. Lotspeich. 21 million queries last year.
Chair Landrieu. Out of 21 million queries last year, you
only kicked back about 1.3 percent?
Ms. Lotspeich. That is correct.
Chair Landrieu. Can I assume that you all are learning more
and more and more since we have had a little bit of this
voluntary experience underneath our belts how to get that
quickly back, because that is what I think the small business
employers need to know?
Ms. Lotspeich. The employer gets to an answer within
seconds regardless.
Chair Landrieu. Seconds?
Ms. Lotspeich. Absolutely. So, at 98.3 percent of the time
in the fiscal year 2012, the employer got back an employment
authorized response. So, they did not have to do anything more.
They just had to record that response on the Form I-9 and store
it for their records.
If the answer that came back was a tentative
nonconfirmation, the system automatically generates a letter
for the employer to give to the employee that is pre-populated
with all of the employer's information about that, the
employee's information about that particular case and
instructions on what they are supposed to do next.
If the employee decides that they want to contest that
tentative nonconfirmation, then they sign this letter, give it
to the employer and the employer then refers that case either
to SSA or DHS; and by referring, basically they press a button
on the screen that says refer case.
Once a case is referred, a time clock starts for eight
federal working days. The employee then either has to go in
person to the Social Security Administration and update any
information or clarify any information that SSA needs in order
to close that case as work authorized or in the case of a
mismatch with Department of Homeland Security, then they can
call on us at 1-800 number and fax us information or send us
information that we might need to settle their case.
Right now out of all the cases that E-Verify runs, about .3
percent of them are work authorize individuals who needed to go
through this process. That .3 percent has been declining as we
have had a study done and about five years ago it was more
around .7 percent. So, we really tried to close that gap with
having work authorized employees having to go through this
process.
There are a lot of reasons that a person could get a
tentative nonconfirmation or data mismatch with E-Verify. For
example, they might not have updated their name or citizenship
status. There might have been an inadvertent error on their
Form I-9 or the employer may have also entered information
incorrectly into E-Verify.
And, do not forget that of this 1.3 percent that are not
coming back with an employment authorized, those are also
flagging people that are not authorized to work, and the
majority of people that get the tentative nonconfirmation which
is about almost 80 plus percent of them do not follow up with
either SSA or DHS to rectify that.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you so much. I am going to ask Mr.
Monaghan to jump in here, Peter, if you would. And, we have
been joined by senator Rubio, who is one of the lead sponsors
of our comprehensive immigration bill, and Senator, before you
came in, and thank you for your leadership.
Our Committee is focused on, as the bill moves through
Judiciary and it is being marked up today, our Committee is
giving voice to small businesses for them to really be able to
express either their support or nonsupport for the mandatory E-
Verify that is in the bill.
Most people here are supportive although there are some
that are not. But we are looking at all sides of that to see
if, you know, the language in the bill that you have introduced
with other colleagues should be improved or, you know, just
answering some questions that some of the small business owners
here. And Kathy just gave a good explanation of how it is
working now on a voluntary.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Kathy, let me follow up with you for just a
minute. I followed you all the way along and I think I
understand it. The one question I have is: Once the employer
sends in the information and says, I want you to verify, and
you guys take it back and say, no, this person is not
authorized, as I understand it, then you generate a letter and
the employer is required to give that letter to the potential
employee, the applicant. Okay.
Then if the applicant is dissatisfied, they sign the letter
and the employer has to return the letter to you, is that
correct?
Ms. Lotspeich. Not exactly. So, let me walk through that
real quickly.
Senator Risch. Okay. Just that narrow area is where I am
confused.
Ms. Lotspeich. Yes. First of all, it is not applicant. It
is already somebody that has been hired. So, they have been
offered the job. They accepted it. They have gone through the
Form I-9 process and now they are onboard.
So, the employer gets a response. We never give a response
saying this person is not work authorize. We give a response
that says there is a mismatch with the data with the
government, and the individual----
Senator Risch. What is the employer supposed to do when he
gets that?
Ms. Lotspeich. The employer is supposed to give the
employee a letter telling them that they need to follow-up with
the government in order to rectify.
Senator Risch. Can employers say, I do not want to mess
with this. You are fired?
Ms. Lotspeich. No, they are not supposed to do that. They
sign a memorandum of understanding with the DHS saying that
they will issue this information to the employee and that the
employee has the right to continue working while they are
resolving the case. The employer may not terminate them.
Chair Landrieu. Mr. Monaghan, can you add a little bit from
the perspective of the Social Security Administration?
Mr. Monaghan. Sure, Senator.
Chair Landrieu. Speak into your mic if you would.
Mr. Monaghan. Sure. As Kathy said, we receive the
information from the system--name, Social Security number, date
of birth--and we confirm this information. If we have
citizenship information or lawful permanent residence
information, we send that back also and E-Verify gives the
employer the verification.
If any of those items do not match, then we send back a
tentative nonconfirmation. To fix that, hopefully the person
comes in to our office with the non-confirmation letter and
then notifies our employee exactly why they are there.
These cases typically involve a Social Security card fix.
We do this all the time. In E-Verify cases we have to do a
little bit more so E-Verify can notify the employer and stop
the eight-day clock.
So, the person comes into our office. They will need to
provide some kind of proof to correct or update their record.
For example, if the match failed because a person got married
and never changed their name, they would come into our office,
provide proof of name change. We would correct the record, stop
the eight-day clock.
Chair Landrieu. All of this has to be done within eight
days.
Mr. Monaghan. Right.
Chair Landrieu. Under the proposed law? No?
Ms. Lotspeich. Currently, yes. But under the proposed law,
I believe they have made a wider window for that process.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Could somebody check to see what that
is, on the staff, 30 days, et cetera?
Do people have any questions about this? John, do you want
to respond in any way to the current system that your members,
some of your members are using, because, in fact, I mean, I am
really coming at this neutral. I do not know a lot about this
issue one way or the other. I am generally supportive of the
immigration bill, but I do not have a strong feeling right now
about the system one way or another.
My State does not employ it so I am not that familiar with
it. But what I can say broadly in my understanding is this
could be a great help to small businesses who are currently
having to take this load themselves to do some of this work on
whether their employees have the right work permit or not.
If the system can be put into place, it could be a great
help to very small businesses that just push a button and they
get a response back pretty quickly. I mean, I could see this as
a benefit but I do not know.
Senator Risch. Madam Chairman, I agree with you 100 percent
except that it could not only be a great benefit, it could be a
real pain in the whatever for a small business.
Chair Landrieu. To the business?
Senator Risch. Absolutely.
Chair Landrieu. In what way?
Senator Risch. First of all, you know, to me, my philosophy
is that this problem should not be the employer's problem. This
should be the employee's problem. If this thing kicks back and
says that you are not qualified to work, as far as I am
concerned, I think that is the end of it for the employer.
That is not the law today, I understand, but the burden
ought to be on the employee, not on the employer. The employer
has got a business to run. He does not want to get involved
in--she is nodding her head yes--he does not want to get
involved in somebody has come in and they say, well, you have
got this. Well, now they want to be in talking to you for an
hour a day when you are trying to make widgets.
You know, that is the only problem I have with this. I
agree with you. To me, the real benefit is if you can get the
Federal Government off your back and you say, look, I got a
number that says this guy was cleared, get out, you know, and
you are done with the federal inspector or whoever.
Chair Landrieu. Now, remember, though, the way Kathy just
spoke about it--I understand what you are saying. But the way
Kathy just spoke about this, this is an employee that has
already been hired by the employer so the employer must like
this employee or they would not have hired them.
And, I would imagine that if they hired somebody, they
would like to keep them but maybe not----
Senator Risch. Well, they like----
Chair Landrieu [continuing]. But also benefit--let me just
say this--the benefit or the problem to resolve this is not
with the employer. It is with the employee.
If the employee cannot get their documentation correct,
then the employer can let that person go within 30 days, after
30 days.
And then I will get you, Jeanne.
Go ahead.
Ms. Lotspeich. Well, yeah, if they do not respond and
rectify the case within that eight-day time clock, then----
Chair Landrieu. Eight-day time clock.
Ms. Lotspeich. Yeah. But if there is a, the government----
Chair Landrieu. They can be fired.
Ms. Lotspeich. Yes.
Senator Risch. Okay. With no liability to the company.
Ms. Lotspeich. That is correct.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Let us talk about that. Jeanne, do
you want to say something, Senator? let me recognize you.
Senator Shaheen. To this issue, no.
Chair Landrieu. Go ahead. Let me recognize you. Go ahead.
Mr. Burton. And you should evaluate the General Accounting
Office's report on this. It takes three months, on average, to
resolve the typical tentative nonconfirmation.
If you suddenly impose this on all new hires, that could
easily become a year. Meanwhile, the small employer has to pay
and keep this person on even though it is more likely than not
that they are ultimately going to have to be discharged.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Let us talk about this. This
exactly----
Mr. Burton. There are a lot of other problems with E-
Verify. It is not a simple, painless thing. There are things
that can be done to make it better.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. That is what we want to talk about
today.
Senator Risch. That is what we want to get.
Chair Landrieu. That is what we want to hear.
Kathy, you respond. And then Senator Risch. Go ahead,
Senator Risch, you first and then Kathy.
Senator Risch. You said, and that confirms what you said
and that is that 80 percent of them do not even contact you to
straighten it out, am I right on that, 80 percent of the
kickbacks?
So that----
Mr. Burton. You have an easy out now. You go to an employer
where E-Verify is not mandatory because in most states it is
only federal contractors. So, you just go find someplace else
to work. Right.
So, there is not going to be an easy out in this new regime
we are talking about. Take the 1.3 percent number that she just
said and that has not been independently verified. It used to
be higher. All right.
That means that with 50 and 60 million new hires a year
that over half a million American citizens are going to get
caught up in this bureaucratic morass to exercise one of their
most fundamental rights, the right to work and earn a living
and support their family.
There is a need to make this fixed. There is the need to
make it right, and we can do it. But right now the way this
process is rolling, nobody is interested in making E-Verify
work.
Chair Landrieu. Hold on. Just a minute before you charge
off.
Mr. Burton. I thought I was doing well.
Chair Landrieu. The Senators and I would not be sitting
here if we were not interested and you would never have been
invited. So, the system may be rolling in other committees but
our Committee is sincerely interested in a bipartisan way of
hearing this so if everybody could just tap down a little bit.
I know you're feeling and so are we, you know, this is a
big movement but that is what our Committee is for and I am
very proud of our Committee to give voice to small business.
If we can figure out some of these things, we most
certainly will do so. So, let us try to be clear and specific.
But I understand what you are saying.
Right now because E-Verify is not mandatory, there are lots
of people working in this country, not American citizens,
people working in this country that should not be working in
this country because they do not have a work visa to work but
they are working anyway.
And, there is a big movement in the country to make sure
that American citizens get jobs and not people that are here
illegally, at the same time balancing that with the needs of
the workforce.
And so, when this becomes mandatory, you are right. What
happens is now, I guess, people that cannot get their
documentation straight just leave that employer and go to
someplace else where they will not be checked. But under the
new system, everybody is going to have to be checked if this
moves forward.
Senator Rubio, did you want to add anything on this----
Senator Rubio. Yes, couple of points.
Chair Landrieu [continuing]. Because I really appreciate
your views.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Right. And so, I think one of the, maybe
perhaps what is creating a lot of consternation is we are
looking at the existing system and saying, we are going to
apply this existing system to the whole world and make you do
it right away.
So, let me just back up and say a couple of things about
immigration reform. There will not be immigration reform
without some sort of employer verification system, because,
when we talk about securing the country, the magnet that does
bring people in here illegally is the desire to work. So, there
is a need for some sort of system.
We recognize the costs of it and, you know, we want to make
sure this is not something that is so costly that people cannot
use and also you have to scramble back and fix it.
So, let me just say that if there are ways to make it
better, everybody wants to make it better. But a couple of
points I would say.
Number one, we are not talking about suddenly requiring it
of anybody. I have heard that term used a moment ago.
Especially for smaller-sized businesses, there is a significant
phase-in period. I think it is four years if I am not mistaken.
Is it four? So, that is number one.
Number two, our desire is not to create a mechanism to
force businesses to do anything. It is to create a safe harbor
so that basically if you end up hiring someone who turns out to
have been here illegally, you can say I ran them through the
system. Here are the papers I printed from that screen. They
said this was their name. I ran it against this database and it
said that they were okay and I have got a paper that proves it.
That becomes a safe harbor for the employee, employer, I am
sorry, to be able to protect themselves against what is going
to be a significant increase in penalties for those who do
violate the law in that regard.
The last point, and the one you raised about people that
are in this country that may get caught in the bureaucracy, so
there are a couple of ways that we created a couple of safety
valves in that regard.
One of them is, if I am a U.S. citizen and I go apply for
work and somehow I get caught up in a snafu where it is saying
I am not authorized, I just produce a passport. That passport
is a valid passport.
That is the kind of good faith, de facto information that
will allow you to overcome. The employer would have to make a
photocopy of that passport, put it in the file and say the
system kicked him back but we got this passport. This is their
picture. That is the guy I saw, and that is why I hired them.
Those are just one example and I know this is pretty
detailed. I think it is one of the largest portions of the bill
because of how detailed it is.
But I appreciate you holding this hearing because this
system has to work. I mean, it has to work for everyone
involved. On the employer side, the enormous majority of
employers are not in the business of hiring illegal aliens to
work for them. They simply want a way to verify that, if we are
going to require that, if we are going to create these
penalties for people that hire those who are here illegally,
then you have got to create a system that people can comply
with so that they have a safe zone.
Otherwise, you are at the mercy of what we have today which
is somebody shows up with a Social Security card with someone's
name on it, they claim to be that person, and that is it.
And if you hire them and it turns out that that is not the
person, you could be in trouble even though you are relying on
what looked like a valid Social Security card.
If we can make this right, it will be better for everyone
but we have got to make it right and certainly we want to make
sure that that happens.
And I appreciate, I think this Committee is the logical
place to take the lead in any changes that we need to make in
the current language we have drafted to ensure that these goals
that I have talked about are being met.
Senator Risch. Madam Chairman, first of all, Marco, we are
glad to have you here. This is really important because, you
know, we sit here in the halls of Congress and we draft these
laws and there is all the language and, like you say, it is
pages and pages.
And yet, we all think, well, you know, this is how it is
going to be. Mr. Burton tells us what happens. Every small
business in America knows what happens when you get mixed up
with the Federal Government, whether it is OSHA whether it is
EPA, whether it is Homeland Security, whoever it is.
What we draw up here, in our minds everything is neat and
clean and orderly. But when the bureaucracy gets a hold of it,
they start writing rules and regulations that we do not have
any control over and it just becomes a nightmare for people, I
mean.
So, in any event, I think it is really important that we do
hear these kinds of things and we do make it work as best as
possible.
Chair Landrieu. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I understand that the current system is
free to employers and maybe Senator Rubio can answer this
question. What is being talked about in terms of the new system
that will cover everybody, how is that going to be paid for? Is
there going to be a charge to the businesses who participate?
And my second question I think is for you, Kathy. I am
sorry I cannot pronounce your last name.
Ms. Lotspeich. Lotspeich.
Senator Shaheen. Ms. Lotspeich. I think your answer to
Senator Landrieu was about how many potential employees who are
being checked out do not pass the E-Verify test.
My question is: Do we have enough data to know what the
inaccuracy is of E-Verify in its current form and can we
extrapolate if we take it broader for all businesses what the
percentage of accuracy is going to be?
Senator Rubio. Just on the cost side, so the bill,
obviously there is a startup cost to enhance this E-Verify
system so that it is accurate in terms of the information,
because right now the bigger problem is if I give you a name,
if I show up with a Social Security number that I bought from
somebody and you run it through the system, it will say, yeah,
he is verified but that is not me. And so, the system needs to
be enhanced.
That is being paid for through a series of fees and the
fines that are being leveed on those who have violated our laws
on the visa programs, not the small businesses that are
utilizing E-Verify but on the visa programs that we are putting
in place to create a fee schedule that help pay for the
upgrades to E-Verify and the upgrades to the entry-exit
tracking system as well for guest workers.
Senator Shaheen. Can you answer on the accuracy piece?
Ms. Lotspeich. Absolutely, yes.
We have seen an increase in accuracy for work authorized
workers. So, about five years ago .7 percent of all queries
were work authorized employees who had to follow up with the
government and then were subsequently found work authorized.
That has declined to about .26 percent, about .3 percent, since
we have been working on enhancing the system in 2007.
I believe the latter part of your question was whether or
not we could extrapolate that to the broader population. I
think it is challenging to do so because the employers that are
enrolled in E-Verify now are not necessarily a representative
sample of all employers.
However, I would say that of our employer base now, 81
percent of them have 100 or less employees on their payroll.
So, we consider those to be smaller employers.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Chair Landrieu. You wanted to say something?
Mr. Burton. Well, we talked about a number of things but
one of the amendments being offered today by Senator Franken
would establish an advocate's office within USCIS, similar to
the Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS and that would protect
American citizens and small employers so that they could issue
an assistance order if there is a mistake in the database and
USCIS bureaucracy runs amok and that is one specific thing that
I think deserves support from people who believe in E-Verify.
There is also, I think, a need to re-evaluate the level of
penalties in the proposal. The criminal penalties associated
with E-Verify now are more comparable to what we would normally
associate with violent felonies.
They were 10 years; now they are five years. The penalties
are up to $25,000 per violation and then following the White
House proposal that was leaked, the current bill also would
allow those penalties to be increased by the Administration
potentially to as much as $75,000 per violation if there was a
previous employment or other labor law violation potentially as
little as $500.
These are ruinous fines. It will destroy people's life
savings for failure to use E-Verify even if their employees
were lawful. Just a failure to use E-Verify can destroy
someone's life; and there are a number of other things as well.
The accuracy standards should be high. The USCIS, as you
just heard, claims 0.26 percent. There has to be incentives in
this bill for USCIS is to meet accuracy standards.
They help everyone. They help employers. They help ordinary
Americans. Those error rates are not very good compared to what
you would normally see in the private sector. This is just a
database matching program. They should be able to do better and
there needs to be incentives for them to care.
It was only when the GAO looked into this that they
actually started to substantially reduce it. We need to put
incentives in the bill. People respond to incentives. We know
that. The same with government agencies. They respond to
incentives.
Chair Landrieu. Well, those are some excellent suggestions.
And one thing, Senator Rubio, that, I mean, there were
three or four very good suggestions that, you know, will be
recorded from this roundtable. But one that came immediately to
my mind is that the penalties should be different for big
businesses and small businesses.
I mean, a $75,000 penalty to GE is absolutely nothing, and
a $75,000 penalty to an employer that has two employees is
literally life wrecking. So, I need us to consider that. Maybe
there needs to be a penalty scale or something like that for
small and large businesses.
Mr. Burton. The bill does contain graduated----
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Let us look at that graduated penalty
piece.
John, what are some of the thoughts that you can give and
then, Rick, I am going to call on you to kind of add some
things to this discussion. Your organization strongly supports
the bill, and why do you not talk for a few minutes about why,
for E-Verify.
Mr. Arensmeyer. First of all, I wanted to echo, I mean, we
do support an enforcement mechanism. Our polling shows that
small businesses across the country want an enforcement
mechanism. I think the question is the devil is in the details.
How is that enforcement mechanism working?
I want to echo what David said. We are very concerned about
the penalties, and we also do support the amendment to set up
the office to help small businesses.
I also want to pickup on this error rate. We do support the
amendment, the bipartisan amendment by Senators Franken, Lee,
and Hirono to actually delay implementation of the enforcement
mechanism for businesses of fewer than 50 employees until that
error rate does get back down or meets the current standard of
.26 percent, because I think we do not know what is going to
happen when the system, it may be accurate that it is .26
percent now but once it starts to encompass the whole country
with many more employers, I think it is going to be a bigger
concern.
So again, I mean, you know, there is huge support,
bipartisan support in the polling that we just did across-the-
board, more bipartisan support than we ever see for anything
else, for immigration reform.
It absolutely includes strong enforcement mechanisms but I
think what is so important about you holding this roundtable
here is that we do have to make sure that whether it is the
penalties, whether it is the error rate and how that is going
to impact small businesses, whether there is adequate support
from the Federal Government, that those are taken into
consideration as the enforcement mechanisms are set up.
Chair Landrieu. Excellence.
Go ahead, David.
Mr. Burton. Well, I appreciate the support.
A number of other things that, I mean, there is one very
good thing that Senator Rubio alluded to in the legislation
which is a provision that would protect employers who made
employment decisions based on E-Verify's mandate from
liability, and the language in the bill is superb on that
front, and it is something that we had sought.
But there is, however, I think something that we have not
focused on and that people usually do not know. The current law
and the new law would prohibit employers from discharging
people until they have gotten a permanent nonconfirmation.
Okay.
If, through the process of lodging an appeal, that can drag
out for many months and potentially when we increased by a
factor of 12 the number of inquiries, by as much as a year. And
yet, they are probably going to have to get discharged.
So, the small employer is going to be very reluctant to
spend a lot of money training a person, integrating them into
their 10- or 15-person company. We need to have a----
Chair Landrieu. I think that is a very legitimate point. So
continue.
Mr. Burton. Senator Rubio indicated that the bill would
allow someone that had been through the I-9 process and had a
U.S. passport to, in effect, trump E-Verify. Well, while I
believe that is a very good idea, I read the bill and I do not
see it in there. I may be mistaken. It is obviously a long
bill.
I think it should be in there and I would support it being
in there. We have proposed it being in there but I do not think
it is in there.
Chair Landrieu. Let us follow up on that. But what Senator
Rubio said, I think, is an excellent answer to that problem
which would be you could present your passport. End of
discussion. Everything is fine.
Senator Rubio. I will just have somebody provide the
language that cites that provision. If it needs to be improved,
we can do that. But that is certainly the intent and we believe
that is exactly what the bill will do to create that safety
harbor for folks.
Let me go ahead and let you finish because there is another
point I want to make.
Chair Landrieu. If I could just finish and then I will get
you.
I think we will provide that language regarding the
passport. But in the event that a passport is not available,
because not everyone has a passport, correct? That would be
very interesting. How many Americans have passports? Who knows
what percentage of Americans, adult Americans over 18 have
passports? Does anybody know?
Mr. Burton. In the neighborhood of five percent.
Chair Landrieu. Five percent. Let us find that out, please.
Somebody google it, ask Siri----
[Laughter.]
How many Americans over the age of 18 have passports,
number one.
Number two, if that is not sufficient, I think this issue
of what happens when you do have an employee that has been
hired that gets kicked back because their paperwork is not
accurate, the burden that that could place on a very small
employer.
Now, this is what this Committee focuses on and no other
Committee in the Congress focuses on this, Senator, and you are
a proud member of this Committee.
We are not talking about GE, IBM, you know, Exxon in this
Committee. We are talking about 20 million businesses that have
one employee or two employees or, you know, three employees.
When you have one of your employees, half of your employment,
one person, that gets kicked back and you operate with two
people, this is what we need to focus on. Okay.
So, keep your eyes on this. Ten people, five people, 25
people, and how this is going to work for them. The big
companies can figure this out. But this Committee is focused,
and I am a passionate advocate for these small businesses. I
have tons of them in my State.
So, let us figure that out.
Senator. Let me call on you and then, John, I am sorry,
Rick.
Senator Rubio. You actually touched the point I was going
to raise is I think the passport will go up as a result of
hopefully more people getting passports.
The other option that people have and we will share that
with you as well is there are some states that comply with Real
ID, not every state does, and we are not mandating that states
do that.
But if a state has a Real ID mandate and they can produce a
picture identification from one of those states, that will also
apply as de facto proof of legal status.
So, we are looking for ways to address that issue
particularly for those that are here. And then those who are
here on non-immigrant status will also have documentation
unlike what they have had in the past.
So, those that do rely on, whether it is guest workers or
temporary workers or, you know, people that are not permanently
with status in the United States will also make it easier to
identify with them.
Then the key in all of this is to integrate the system. So,
I just left a moment ago. I was watching the Judiciary
Committee debate. So, one of the questions is, you know, one of
the 40 percent of the people in this country illegally did not
jump a fence. I mean, they came in on some sort of status that
expired; they are still here. We do not know who they are
because we do not track the exits. We only track the entries.
That is going to change.
So, what will happen hopefully in real time is that on day
61, if I am here on 90-day visa or what have you, on day 91 the
system will automatically upgrade and on day 91 you will go
from being an authorized or authorize to unauthorized.
Hopefully, that will all be operating in real time.
I did want to go through, real quickly, the implementation
schedule. So, the folks who will be immediately required to
have this in place, the Federal Government, the federal
contractors. Critical infrastructure will be required to have
it within one year, and there are some concerns about how that
language is structured and we should visit that in a broader
context.
Employers with more than 5000 employees have two years to
comply. Employers with more than 500 employees will have three
years and Ag employees will have four years and all other
employees, meaning those under 500, will have four years to
comply.
So, agriculture and basically small business will have four
years to come up to this, and we think that is a pretty
significant period of time to get the infrastructure in place.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Let me just comment on that and then,
Rick, I want you to.
Under four years which would be terrific if it were all
small businesses giving them some time. But, Senator Rubio,
under critical infrastructure, you will have some small
business owners, depending on how that is identified in the
bill, falling under that which you pointed out we should be
concerned about.
In addition, some federal contractors are very small
businesses because we really push our federal procurement
officers to contract with small businesses. We may want an
exception there because I do believe that the very small
businesses should be at the end of the compliance chain.
If they want to, that is fine. If they can do it
mandatorily, I mean, they can do it voluntarily as they are
doing it now. But until the system gets work through so that
they get the benefit of having the most efficient, less
cumbersome program, and I think you probably agree with that.
So, let us look at that. And Real ID is embraced by 41
states, just FYI.
Senator Rubio. Almost all of them.
Chair Landrieu. 110 million people over 18 years of age
have a passport. So, that would probably be 50 percent of 18
year olds.
Senator Rubio. A lot higher than I thought.
Chair Landrieu. A lot higher than I thought as well.
So, you know, because some people, about a third of our
country is under 18. So, I am just quickly dividing the rest.
So, about half. So, about 50 percent of adults have passports
and 41 states implement some form of ID.
Senator, I will get you and then I really want Mr. Judson
to say a word.
Senator Rubio. I just want for your staff and for yourself,
on page 425 of the bill it will outline the Real ID and the
passport.
Chair Landrieu. You can come forward and read it.
Senator Rubio. We do not want to read that holding, do we?
Chair Landrieu. This is very informal. You can sit there
and read something or speak into the mic.
Senator Rubio. He has to text his mom to tell her he is on
C-SPAN.
[Laughter.]
Chair Landrieu. Put the mic closer to you.
Mr. Baselice. It reads from page 424 to page 425, and it
covers the covered identity documentation. It goes on to say it
is a United States passport, passport card, or documented
evidence of lawful permanent resident status, or employment
authorized status issued to an alien.
Mr. Burton. Well, that is in the I-9 process. It is the
same as current law.
Mr. Baselice. But we are getting rid of the paper I-9 and
moving to electronic form of I-9 as opposed to just having the
same paper documents that you will have moving forward in the
E-Verify system.
Mr. Burton. That does not, on the face of it, address the
question. All employers still have to go through the I-9
process which is always involved in some sort of type A or type
B identification. Type A being a passport or a permanent
resident card. Type B being Social Security card or something
similar like that. That has not really changed. It is just
changed in form not substance.
Now, let us hypothesize. The USCIS E-Verify says this
person gets a TNC. All right. What we need to have is a rule
that says if they have a blue passport, they are good to go.
All right. In effect, that a type A identification trumps an E-
Verify TNC.
You might want to require that the employer notify USCIS
that there is this problem with their database. But the
presumption should then shift so that the employer and the
employee are lawful unless USCIS can disapprove it, because the
State Department has issued that person a passport. All right.
And that is not the way the law is.
Chair Landrieu. That is a very good point. The benefit, if
you produce a passport issued by the United States, the burden
of proof should shift away from the person with the passport
to, you all can fix that.
Senator Rubio. Yes. That is easy. I do not think that would
be controversial.
Chair Landrieu. It is easy to fix and that is a very
excellent suggestion, not that we can amend the bill in this
Committee but Senator Rubio has a little bit of an inside
track.
Senator Rubio. Well, I think these are the kinds of things
that I--have they dealt with that part of the bill? When are
they going to take amendments up?
Mr. Burton. Today.
Senator Rubio. They are in the midst of that today. So, I
think there is still time for those sorts of amendments.
Chair Landrieu. Well, there most certainly is time, because
there are going to be amendments on the floor in this bill and
this bill is just, you know, with all due respect to the
Senator who is a cosponsor of the bill and is moving through
the Judiciary Committee, the rest of the Senators are going to
have a lot to say about what happens when this bill hits the
floor, and it is not just going to be put in a package and
rolled on out of here.
So, we are going to collect a lot of information on this
Committee; and if it can get marked up in the Judiciary
Committee, fine. But I am sure it is not going to be perfect
when it comes out of Judiciary. It can be amended on the floor.
So, that is a very good suggestion and it is minor but
important, and that is what we are hoping to give you some
confidence that we really do want to listen to many, many
different views of small businesses.
Rick.
Senator Rubio. I just wanted to echo what you said. I
always viewed the bill as a starting point that because it is
so complex and involves the entire country. This is an issue
that impacts the entire country.
I would just actually say that the, I would, even though we
are under this jurisdictional issues in play, I would encourage
and will work with, after this conversation with whomever the
stakeholders are and your staff.
I think it would be very powerful if there were amendments
that we could help come up with from the Committee through your
staff and we could actually say this is a Small Business
Committee amendment basically, or suggestion. I think the folks
on Judiciary are looking for that kind of input since their
expertise is not----
Chair Landrieu. Exactly. And that is exactly why we are
having this as the first of three roundtables on points in the
immigration bill and, Senator, how we present that to you and
the cosponsors and to Senator Leahy who knows and has blessed
this roundtable, we do not know whether we will do it in the
form of an amendment or do it in the form of a letter to you
all with sort of strong signatures from both sides of our
Committee, and you are a member of this Committee.
So, I am really hoping for your leadership and I know you
have a lot on your plate. So, we will get as much to you as we
can.
But, Rick, I want to really calling you and then Ms. Poole
I will get to you. Do you want to jump in on any of this, Mr.
Judson, your members and how, listing to all of this, how do
you think your members are going to feel? Are they going to be
happy about E-Verify, pushing buttons and getting immediate
response; and do they trust that that system can work that way?
Mr. Judson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you both for
what you are doing. I think you recognize the bureaucratic
impact this could have on small business versus small business
or large business versus small business. I think if you look at
our membership which is almost 150,000 member companies with an
average employee base being about eight people, they do not
have HR departments. They work out of wherever they are.
Chair Landrieu. Right. They work out of the trunks of their
cars and their pickup trucks.
Mr. Judson. They do. But I think it behooves us all to have
a comprehensive immigration policy. Something we can live with
and work with. That is affordable, practical, pragmatic.
One of the things that I think is important in that and I
could spend the rest of the hour with it. But there are six
right bullet points. I will be glad to get a copy to you and
Senator Rubio before this day is over, to make the systems work
more logically as opposed to why they will not work.
Chair Landrieu. Perfect.
Mr. Judson. So, I will be glad to get that to you. But they
have all been addressed to some degree. The safe harbors if you
do the right thing, if you are trying to do the right thing.
The issues of what his employer-employee relationship. The
fact that you could verify at the initial date of offering of a
job offer as opposed to waiting three or four or five days when
the person shows up and you may be hiring an illegal
unintentionally. So. But I will get those points to you and I
think they are intended to be contributory and constructive.
But I think we, as an industry, support the fact that we
are going to be able to hire people legally. Our industry is in
desperate need of labor but we want to make sure that it is
done properly. This is the point that I made three weeks ago to
your larger Senate immigration hearing here. We want to be a
contributor.
Chair Landrieu. Wonderful. And that is very excellent. For
those of you that are opposed to it, I would love to see you
come to the other side; but even if you cannot and stay on the
side opposed, give us some good suggestions because the bill
may move and it may not. Who knows.
I mean, I think there is a lot of political power on both
sides moving it forward. But, you know, until the bill is
finally passed and signed by the President, it is not the law.
We have the time to improve it.
And, I am going to stay focused like a laser on how this
bill is going to affect 25, you know, employers of 50 and less
to try to get it, if it is going to get signed it into law, in
the least intrusive way and the most helpful way possible to
them, because I really believe in small business in America and
so do most of the colleagues that serve on this Committee or we
would not have signed up for it.
Mr. Burton. Most aspects of this legislation we support. It
is E-Verify that is our primary concern.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. And we are trying to try to fix it if
we can.
Mr. Burton. We want to do things to make it better.
Chair Landrieu. Yes. Thank you very much.
Ms. Poole.
Ms. Poole. As a small-business owner, I support E-Verify
because I am a federal contractor; and although it is not
mandatory, as we stated, when I get a statement of work from
the government, the government has now put in that compliance
requirement in the statement of work. They want to make sure
that we are liable to use E-Verify on the employees that we
will place on the contract.
Chair Landrieu. And you are already required to do that?
Ms. Poole. Yes. And I want to make the point clear. It is
already in the statement of work coming down from the Federal
Government.
I am a federal contractor. I only support the Federal
Government which means that when I get a statement of work, I
must do what they tell me to do in the statement of work or
else I lose my contract and I get a very bad past performance
rating that the whole world can see.
Chair Landrieu. But hang on. How could we help you in this
new system to take a little bit of that burden off of you,
because now the burden is going to almost shift and maybe it is
different, I know it is different for federal contractors now.
But is there any way that this immigration bill can help
federal contractors like small business contractors giving them
less burdensome paperwork or accountability that you can see,
Kathy or Peter, or is their status going to stay the same?
I mean, right now, and if I am wrong, forgive me. Right
now, it is voluntary for the country. Nobody has to do it
except small businesses that are federal contractors. Correct?
Ms. Lotspeich. And some states where they require it.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. And some states. Minor. Correct?
Ms. Lotspeich. Yes.
Chair Landrieu. So, my question is: Is there anything that
you can see in this bill that we are drafting that could
relieve them of some of the burden that they have right now?
Ms. Lotspeich. No, because they are being asked to use it
now and they would be asked to use it then. And I did not hear
anything----
Chair Landrieu. You are using the same pushbutton system
now?
Ms. Poole. Yes.
Chair Landrieu. So it works for you.
Ms. Lotspeich. I did not hear any issues you are having.
Ms. Poole. As a workaround solution, what we are doing
which may get us in some compliance laws with DOL, the
Department of Labor, we are trying to hire only cleared
employees which eases the burden of any discrepancies with the
E-Verify system.
So, for example, if I am placing folks in a federal
contract, you have to have an MBI which is a minimum background
investigation to come work for me.
So, when I am interviewing you to put you on the federal
contract, that is what I asked you.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. But why cannot when a person walks in
to comply with your contract, you just press a button and get
the information whether they are clear or not? Why is that not
working for her?
Ms. Poole. If a person----
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Hold on just one second.
Kathy, why is that not working for her?
Ms. Lotspeich. I mean, I am afraid you are going to have to
ask her. I do not know. She did not give any specific reasons.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Go ahead.
Ms. Poole. If you are cleared, the government has a system
called JPAS which is through DOD. So, before I hire you, I go
into JPAS, and have my HR department check you by Social
Security number and they will see in JPAS when you had a
minimum background investigation, if you have a top secrets,
which agency cleared you.
Chair Landrieu. So, is this because she is a DOD contractor
that she has a different system than all other small
businesses, working with different agencies?
Ms. Lotspeich. What she is talking about is not related to
E-Verify so I am not sure.
Ms. Poole. Well, it is.
Senator Risch. Do you guys recognize that system, though?
Ms. Lotspeich. No.
Senator Risch. If you are qualified with that system, does
it work with----
Ms. Poole. That is my question. That is what I am saying.
If they qualify that is another thing that you pointed at. If
they qualify and they already have a TS clearance and they
already have a background check----
Chair Landrieu. Right. They should not have to go through
twice.
Ms. Poole. Exactly, because DOD does an extensive two-year
background on a person.
Ms. Lotspeich. Okay. I mean we, the regulation was issued
by the FAR. We did not issue that regulation.
Chair Landrieu. What is FAR?
Ms. Lotspeich. The Federal Acquisition Regulations. It is
part of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
Chair Landrieu. Let me suggest this. I am going to suggest
that after this meeting you all talk and get together and see
if we can submit something from you, not from small business,
recommendations to this Committee to either--if she has got to
go through this now and she says it is not a big problem but
she has to go through it, then we want this excepted under the
new system for all of small business contractors working with
DOD. We do not want them to have to do two. We will talk later.
Ryan, go ahead.
Mr. Kearney. I just wanted to echo Rick's comments. You
know, with the survey that we have, we already see that half of
our corporate-owned chains use it. The satisfaction among both
corporate chain users and small business users in about 80
percent.
So, it is a high satisfaction level. But when you really
get down to the details of small businesses and who uses it, it
is really about 23 percent. So, if you look at those----
Chair Landrieu. Okay, 23 percent of small businesses are
voluntarily using.
Mr. Kearney. That is correct.
Chair Landrieu. Tell me now again, 23 percent of small
businesses in America.
Mr. Kearney. Are early adopters of E-Verify.
Chair Landrieu. Are early adopters.
Mr. Kearney. Of restaurants.
Chair Landrieu. Of restaurants?
Mr. Kearney. Yes.
Senator Risch. What do you call a small business?
Chair Landrieu. And what is a small business, under how
many?
Mr. Kearney. Probably 25 I think is what our survey put
out. But my point in this is if you look at the three quarters
that do not use it, the overwhelming response on why is because
they do not have a dedicated HR professional.
Again, these are restaurants. A lot of restaurants do not
even have offices or WiFi. So, again, I kind of want to stress
what Rick said he is if we are going to have a new E-Verify
system or we are going to make improvements to it, we need to
limit the burdens.
Chair Landrieu. Exactly. What I--and I think Senator Risch
and I are going to be together on this. While I am a supporter
of comprehensive immigration reform, I am not going to support
a bill that is overly burdensome to small business.
So, I am going to really focus on this as this bill moves
forward. Let us talk about this for a minute. We do not want an
HR office in every small business in America. We want this on a
mobile app. We want them in their pickup truck, somebody they
are hiring out on their ranch, they need somebody to do some
work, we want it on a mobile app, hit a button, put the
information in and it comes back immediately.
And we want to minimize the impact on these businesses. I
am not interested in setting up, you know, for every farmer in
America or every, you know, person in America to have to set up
a big, complicated system.
Now, we have four years under the current bill, let me
finish, we have four years under the current bill for small
business to comply. So, it is not like this year, six months
they have to. But we can really start working on that now to
minimize the impact if we work hard on it.
Go ahead.
Senator Risch. I apologize. I had to step out.
Chair Landrieu. Go ahead.
Senator Risch. Have you had a discussion about, and this is
just a rumor. I heard that they have been talking about
eliminating the ability, the option to pick up the telephone
and call as opposed to using the Internet.
Have you had any discussion about that?
Chair Landrieu. Has anybody heard anything about that,
about not being able to use the telephone?
Mr. Kearney. The toll-free telephoning option is included
in the legislative text.
Senator Risch. Is in the current text?
Mr. Kearney. That is correct.
Senator Risch. Okay.
Chair Landrieu. Toll free.
Mr. Kearney. In both S. 744 and The House Legal Workforce
Act.
Senator Risch. Is that important to you?
Mr. Kearney. That is very important.
Senator Risch. Mr. Burton, is that important to your
people?
Mr. Burton. It is not something that the members that I
have talked to, which has been a lot, have talked a lot about.
Senator Risch. It will now.
It is for somebody who does not have a computer. It will be
very important.
Mr. Burton. Right. But in this day and age at least most of
the guys who are involved with us in terms of giving us input
probably do have computers. So, I mean it makes a lot of sense
to me. Do not get me wrong. It is just not something I have
heard a lot about.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Go ahead. I am sorry, Ryan, did you
finish. I want you to finish and then please, Frank, because we
only have about 15 more minutes.
Mr. Kearney. Okay. I will be very brief. Just adding to the
telephonic option, I mean, think of sort of your average small
restaurant, your corner restaurant, you do not necessarily have
an office or maybe a computer. It depends. The ability to have
that toll-free number at zero cost to the employer is important
to us.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Frank and then John and then Ms.
Poole.
Mr. Fiorille. I just wanted to bring up the point on this.
Chair Landrieu. Put the mic closer to you.
Mr. Fiorille. The burdensome for small businesses and that.
The businesses always have the option to outsource that. For
example, small business do not want to do payroll. They do not
want to worry about the compliance stuff. They can outsource
that to a company like Paychex. So, I think these small
businesses always will have that option to do something like
that.
The other example I would like to mention to is this
reminds me of my background is in banking. And when banks put
in the AML OFAC screening processes, back then there were a lot
of issues in the beginning but they all got worked out to where
the process over years got very smooth and is very well run. To
me it is very analogous to that.
The last point I want to make, what we did not really
mention, I do not think, is the self-check process that they
can do. So, the employees can actually go in and kind of get
almost like preapproved, if I am correct, to be self-checked on
this. Is that correct?
Chair Landrieu. Kathy is that. She is saying no. Go ahead.
Ms. Lotspeich. No. You can check yourself but you cannot
take that to your employer. Your employer still has to verify
that.
Mr. Fiorille. But you can do it, right? You can go ahead
and check yourself, right?
Ms. Lotspeich. Yes, you can check yourself.
Mr. Fiorille. So, maybe there is some improvement in there
that we could work on.
Chair Landrieu. That is interesting. Also knowing that when
you were out, Senator, we found a good thing that half the
adults have passports, more than we thought. Half the people
over 18 approximately have passports. And that if we put a
passport, if you get into a jam and you can produce a passport,
we could write the bill that it would clear you immediately.
Senator Risch. Is that in the text now?
Chair Landrieu. Well, they are working on it. Senator Rubio
does not, he says it is but it might not be as specific as it
should be. So, that is kind of a good idea.
Senator Risch. And a passport would cure all ills.
Chair Landrieu. It could. That is one of these suggestions.
Now, what the Judiciary Committee will think about this or what
other Senators will think, but I think it is kind of an
interesting thought because that is a document that has been
given a lot of attention, before you are given a passport,
about your status. And if we do not trust our passport system,
there is something wrong.
And so, we can shift the burden to the government and not
have a citizen that has a passport been told, well, you cannot
work. Well, I have a passport, you know, that has my status on
this.
So, I think that is something that we could really help
with.
John, and then I will get you Ms. Poole.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Just really quickly, I wanted to just, a
couple of other points from our scientific survey of small
businesses. On our survey 15 percent use E-Verify or a similar
system, and only one in four said it was easy to use.
Chair Landrieu. Wait. Only one in four said it was easy to
use?
Mr. Arensmeyer. Said it was easy to use.
Chair Landrieu. This is not good.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Right. Well, I mean, what I think it says
is we have a lot of work to do.
Chair Landrieu. Well, that is what we want to focus on. So,
can you give us some interesting feedback from them about what
would make it easier for them?
Mr. Arensmeyer. Yes. We did not really delve into the
details but we may do that.
Chair Landrieu. Well, please do, and the faster you can do
that with your networks the better because----
Senator Risch. They ``why'' is real important. Why is it
not working?
Chair Landrieu. Why is it not working and, you know,
because I really. I am just going to speak for myself. I am
really going to focus, as I said five times this morning, on
this immigration bill as it moves through and its impact to
small business, and the better information, the quicker
information I can get from networks that are both for the bill
generally and against but how it could be improved the better I
will be able to help and the members of my Committee will be
able to help.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Just real quickly. I mean we just skirted
over, David talked a little bit about the penalties. I mean the
penalties are really, really extreme including what is it now?
Five years. I mean I understand this would not be applied all
the time but a potential five-year jail sentence. I mean, there
does need to be, we recognize there needs to be enforcement
with teeth. I mean, if you do not have teeth, it is not going
to work.
Chair Landrieu. If anybody tries to put a small business
owner in jail like in the next year, this Senator will probably
lose it. Okay. I know him well enough so I mean we better be
careful before we start putting people in jail.
Mr. Arensmeyer. And the other related, not quite as extreme
thing is that, and again David talked a little bit about this,
the practicalities as we are talking about all of this and this
is why we are really pleased you are holding this roundtable,
because sometimes, you know, people do not recognize that a lot
of the practicalities that we are talking about are just
impossible for small businesses.
Chair Landrieu. Exactly.
Mr. Arensmeyer. In fact, having an employee in limbo, I
mean as a longtime small business employer, somebody who runs a
profit now----
Chair Landrieu. You cannot do that. You cannot have an
employee in limbo for more than 24 hours.
Mr. Arensmeyer. It does not work.
Chair Landrieu. It does not work for a small business
owner. It might work, like I said, GE and IBM, they could have
100 employees in limbo. They would not even flinch.
Mr. Arensmeyer. Right.
Chair Landrieu. But when you are running a small business
and you only have to be people that work for you, having one
person in limbo is a big deal.
So, let us focus on the limbo piece and how we can fix that
and let's focus on jury members saying it is too complicated
and what we can do.
And let me get Ms. Poole and then I will get you, Senator.
Ms. Poole. Real quickly. I would like to see three things
come out on this whole discussion. For me as a federal
contractor, the burden should be on the employee, not the
employer, because right now everything I bid is lowest price,
technically acceptable. If I have to lower my profit margin to
stay afloat so I do not sink as a small woman-owned business,
then I also have to keep the employee on the payroll until this
thing happens and I can not bill him to the government. And if
I fire the employee, I may go to jail.
So, I really would like to see something come out of that.
Chair Landrieu. You need help.
Ms. Poole. Yes.
Chair Landrieu. You need help. We are here to try to help.
Ms. Poole. Thank you.
Chair Landrieu. Anything else you want to add?
Ms. Poole. That is basically it. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Well, let me say that, first of all, and,
David, to you and to others who have reservations like myself,
this is the one shot we have got because when this bill was
drafted, my experience, I did almost 30 years in our State
senate, and as with every law, what you just talked about the
law of unintended consequences comes back and bites us more
often than not.
At the State level we fixed them every year. This outfit
never fixes these things. They pass the monumental 3000-page
bills and not only is the bill a wreck but then the thousands
of pages of regulations that follow it come out and they are
nothing like we intended at all.
So, the language of the bill needs to be specific. It needs
to tell these agencies what they can and, more importantly,
what they cannot do.
So, now is our chance and we have got to be serious about
this because if this thing does go, we are all going to have to
live with it. So, we need to be really serious about looking
for the unintended consequences in here and how it is going to
attack us.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you. And we are going to have
comments from those who have up. Go ahead, Ms. Poole.
Ms. Poole. No.
Chair Landrieu. Done. Okay. If you could put your little
marker down.
Mr. Judson.
Mr. Judson. Senator, your comment of unintended
consequences is very accurate. We have encouraged our members
whether they have to or not to try to use the E-Verify system,
want to get familiar with it. Something is coming and we want
to be on the cutting age with it.
But I think the biggest concern they have across-the-board
is that of accuracy. If it is .26 percent or 2.6 percent or 26
percent, that is quite a variance. If we are going to use it,
if we are going to have something, we make sure that it is
covered properly. It is accurate. That if we hire someone, that
person is legitimately employable and we can begin a training
process, because in our industry these are entry level jobs for
the most part and that is where the immigrants are starting.
That is where even our own domestic labor is starting with the
opportunity to learn a trade.
So, we make an investment in these people and we want to
make sure they are being hired properly. To do that, we have to
start with the premise that the information we receive from the
E verification is accurate.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. I am going to come back to you to do
see if our idea of a mobile app is in your plans to develop
one.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I just wanted to mention a couple of quick
things. First of all, to emphasize John's discussion of the
penalties, even a first-time violation is $2- $5000 per
violation, all right, for not using E-Verify in the latest
bill. It has been higher.
But that means that if you, say, had 10 employees and your
employees are all legal, you just did not use E-Verify, that
you are potentially on the hook for a $50,000 penalty for the
first time you did not use E-Verify. These penalties really, I
think, show a lack of perspective in terms of what they can do
to a small firm.
Chair Landrieu. So, in the bill there is a penalty for not
using E-Verify?
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh.
Chair Landrieu. In the bill.
Mr. Burton. Correct.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. And there are also penalties, well,
for not using it and they are graded up. Okay.
Mr. Burton. Penalties for hiring unauthorized workers but
for just----
Chair Landrieu. But they are hard different penalty is for
different, okay.
Mr. Burton. In point of fact, probably it would be imposed
concurrently.
Senator Risch. Should not the room rule be no harm-no foul,
that is, if you hired somebody whether you use E-Verify or did
not use E-Verify and the person is perfectly legitimate person
to work----
Mr. Burton. We would be absolutely fine with that.
Senator Risch. That would seem to me, I mean, that is
common sense and that does not always work in Washington, D.C.,
but that is a common sense approach to this thing. No harm-no
foul should be the law.
Mr. Burton. I just also wanted to make you, Senator
Landrieu, the wait is not going to be a couple of days. I mean,
GAO has determined that now it is on average three months which
means many times it is more than that.
Once we increase by a factor of 12 a number of people going
through this system, it is going to be very long. It is not
going to be simple.
Chair Landrieu. We are going to try to make it better. Go
ahead.
Mr. Burton. The other thing is that we need to have
independent evaluation of this. I mean, I am sure you see this
all the time in your oversight capacity. Unless GAO or the
Inspector General, someone else is evaluating the error rates,
you are going to be told one story rather than another.
Chair Landrieu. Correct. We do not want them evaluating
themselves.
Mr. Burton. That is correct, and then we need to have
actual consequences and standards. So, standards as to what the
error rates should be and then consequences if they are not.
You know, I have some ideas of what the standards should be
but the consequences could easily be simply that they do not
apply to the smallest businesses because those are the
businesses that are going to have the most adverse consequences
when you have unjustified errors in the system.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you. Kathy, will you respond and then
we are going to wrap up and have some closing remarks.
Ms. Lotspeich. Sure. Thank you very much.
I just wanted to say, you mentioned a couple of times about
30 days or three months for resolving a TNC. That would be a
very, very extreme case. I just wanted to let you know that the
average right now for resolving a TNC with the Social Security
Administration is 3.4 days, and the average with resolving one
with the Department of Homeland Security is 5.6.
Chair Landrieu. Okay. Averages are important and I want to
say this because if Bill Gates, when he was worth $40 billion,
I think he is worth a lot more than that. But if he walked into
a homeless shelter, you know, one day and there were 39 other
men there, the day before he got there their average would be,
you know, zero.
And if he spent one night in the homeless shelter and you
took an average, their average would be, you know, $1 billion
each. Not a good reflection of what the homeless shelter really
looks like. Average is can throw things off a lot.
So, what I would like is not just averages submitted by
what your worst case was, what your, you know, best case was,
kind of mediums and ranges from you all about X number of cases
the X amount of time.
Averages are but they are not always as accurate a picture
of what is going on in. All right. The way I think we should
end this, and Senator, we want to add some ending remark.
I am very encouraged to by what I heard today because I
think there were some excellent suggestions made by all of you.
Those of you that are leaning for, towards supporting the bill,
some of you are leaning against supporting the bill but I think
all of you gave some great input.
And particularly from a federal contractor that is already
being mandated to operate in the system, we got some very good
information from you, Ms. Poole.
I am going to talk with Senator Risch about how he wants to
proceed. But one thing that we have done after these
roundtables is gather all this information, majority and
minority staff, and then almost have like a staff working group
that could work together to sort through some of the ideas that
both the Democratic staff and the Republican staff could agree
on.
And then the Senator and I will look at that document and
if we can fashion something together that we could send to the
Judiciary Committee for their consideration or we might put
something together that could turn into a floor amendment, a
small business floor amendment jointly supported by Republicans
and Democrats, that is one possibility.
The other is our staffs meet. We do not completely agree on
everything. The Republicans may have a document that they would
submit. The Democrats may submit a document.
But I promise you that the suggestions that you all have
made today you will see them again. And we really appreciate
it.
This record will be open for two weeks until May 30. So,
any additional information you want to send; and finally, John,
I really want you to follow-up, if you can, with your survey
members of your three fourths that said they are not happy with
the system and try to see if they can identify these three or
four things that they are least happy with. If anybody else
wants to do that, that would be great.
Go ahead.
Senator Risch. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me say
that, you know, we are dealing with a very narrow part of the
immigration reform bill that is being talked about here.
My experience over many, many years is I have very, very
little confidence in the Federal Government to do just about
anything. When this thing is enacted, I absolutely guarantee
you there is going to be problems with it; and all we can do
for the purposes of self-preservation is to twist on it as hard
as we can right now, try to anticipate what the consequences
are going to be, and do the best we can to make it as simple
and least burdensome to particularly small businesses.
We always talk about small businesses here and that is 25
people, I guess even up to 500 people on some definitions that
we have. But small businesses to me are people that employ one,
two, three, four, five people and these are the people that are
going to get caught up in this mess.
I think it is up to us, up to this Committee and up to you
who advise us to try to make this pill as easy to swallow as it
can, knowing it is going to be a tough pill to swallow.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chair Landrieu. Thank you. And, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6554.046