    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        E-VERIFY: ENSURING LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT
                                    IN AMERICA
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
                                    PROTECTIONS

                                     OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-30

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    64-055 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                        TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Virginia,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                MARK TAKANO, California
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          ADELITA S. GRIJALVA, Arizona
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    RANDY FINE, Florida

                         R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
                  Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                     RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana             ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota,
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin              Ranking Member
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             GREG CASAR, Texas
    RANDY FINE, Florida                  MARK TAKANO, California

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on November 19, 2025................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Mackenzie, Hon. Ryan, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Omar, Hon. Ilhan, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     9

                                   WITNESSES

        Andress, Mrs. Jaime, Vice President and Chief Human Resource
          Officer, Caddell Construction, on behalf of The Associated
          General Contractors of America.............................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Gamvroulas, Mr. Christopher P., President, Ivory Development,
          on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.....    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Hahn, Ms. Jessie, Senior Counsel, Labor and Employment
          Policy, National Immigration Law Center....................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Jenks, Ms. Rosemary, Cofounder and Policy Director,
          Immigration Accountability Project.........................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    45

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia:
            Statement dated Nov. 19, 2025, from AFL-CIO..............    70
        Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan:
            Statement from TrueBlue, Inc.............................    71

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Ms. Rosemary Jenks.......................................    73

                E-VERIFY: ENSURING LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, November 19, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
                          Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon.
    Ryan Mackenzie (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Mackenzie, Messmer, Grothman,
    Fine, Walberg, Omar, Takano, and Scott.
        Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
    Technology; Halle Greenbaum, Staff Assistant; Libby Kearns,
    Press Assistant; Katerina Kerska, Legislative Assistant; Trey
    Kovacs, Director of Workforce Policy; Campbell Ladd, Clerk;
    R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director; Danny Marca, Director of
    Information Technology; John Martin, Deputy Director of
    Workforce Policy/Counsel; Audra McGeorge, Communications
    Director; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional Staff Member; Ethan Pann,
    Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Leah Raymond,
    Intern; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Katherine Anne Russo,
    Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Dominico Sassano,
    Intern; Ann Vogel, Director of Operations; James Whittaker,
    General Counsel; Damian Arambula, Minority Intern; Ilana
    Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Nikhita Chinmay, Minority
    Intern; David Dailey, Minority Chief of Staff; Rashage Green,
    Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel; Natalie
    Glezen, Minority Running Start Fellow; Scott Estrada, Minority
    Professional Staff; Maxine Jones, Minority Intern; Raiyana
    Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority
    Director of Labor Policy; Marie McGrew, Minority Press
    Assistant; Eleazer Padilla, Minority Staff Assistant; Veronique
    Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Minority
    Director of IT.
        Chairman Mackenzie. This Subcommittee on Workforce
    Protection will come to order. I note that a quorum is present,
    and without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess
    at any time. Today's hearing will examine the E-Verify Program,
    and how it can empower legal employment and protect American
    workers.
        Since the start of this year our Nation has made
    unprecedented strides in the fight to secure the border.
    According to Border Patrol, crossings at our southwestern
    border have fallen 96 percent from September 2023 to September
    of this year. With the crisis at the border finally being
    addressed, it is also important that we look at another issue,
    ensuring that American workers have the protections they need
    and deserve to compete against unfair, illegal labor that
    undercuts American workers' wages.
        Not only is it American workers who are the victims here,
    it is all workers. If they are being paid under the table and
    not given proper worker's compensation medical coverage, they
    are a victim. If they are an American worker who is having
    their wages unfairly undercut, they are a victim.
        Legitimate businesses across America are victims of unfair
    competition. Social safety nets lose out on valuable resources,
    programs like unemployment compensation do not get the payments
    they deserve to provide for all legal workers across our
    country. One way to address that issue is through the expanded
    use of E-Verify. E-Verify is a free, reliable, and proven
    program run by the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS,
    which helps employers verify that they are hiring only those
    with the legal right to work in America.
        E-Verify helps protect Americans from having their wages
    undercut by bad actors, hiring unauthorized workers. It also
    helps to provide a level playing field for those employers that
    are doing the right thing, and it treats American workers with
    respect and dignity.
        Since 1986, the Immigration and Nationality Act has
    prohibited employers from knowingly hiring or employing
    unauthorized workers. Under the law, all employees and
    employers must complete an I-9 form, and employers must review
    and verify documents establishing the identity and employment
    authorization of the employee.
        However, an employer often cannot know the information and
    documents received from a worker are valid. This is where E-
    Verify comes in. An employer can verify a worker's employment
    authorization electronically in a matter of seconds through the
    Social Security Administration data base, and if necessary, the
    DHS employment authorization data base.
        An employer has no civil or criminal liability when relying
    in good faith on information provided through the E-Verify
    confirmation system. Approximately 98 percent of the time the
    employer will receive a result that employment is authorized.
    When there is a mismatch, the employer informs the worker, who
    has 10 days to take action to resolve that mismatch.
        The E-Verify Program is voluntary for most employers, and
    there are more than 1.4 million enrolled. A growing number of
    states require all, or some employees in their State to use E-
    Verify. Adding E-Verify requirements for employees has
    bipartisan support.
        In 2019, I was the prime sponsor of Act 75 in Pennsylvania,
    the Construction Industry Employee Verification Act, and that
    was as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
    that I authored that legislation that became law.
        This legislation had the support of both labor and business
    groups, and it passed with strong bipartisan support, veto
    proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature, and Act
    75 helped ensure there is lawful workforce construction in the
    construction industry in my home State of Pennsylvania,
    protecting American workers from unfair competition, providing
    that level playing field that businesses are looking for, and
    helping to confirm all appropriate taxes are paid.
        Our witnesses from the construction and home building
    industries will share their experiences and their perspectives
    on how mandatory E-Verify in their states and industries has
    worked for them. They will also discuss the need to enhance
    workforce development, to bolster the American workforce in
    these industries. We can build on these lessons to ensure that
    more American workers than ever before are given the critical
    protections they deserve.
        Areas where mandatory E-Verify also makes sense is for
    Federal contractors. We should be using E-Verify for all
    Federal contractors, but under current regulation, not even
    statute, only under current regulation, only large Federal
    contracts must use E-Verify. Small dollar contracts, and short-
    term contracts are excluded.
        That is why I have introduced H.R. 2641, the Day 1, Dollar
    1, E-Verify Act to codify a requirement that all Federal
    contractors use E-Verify. We should all agree that businesses
    providing services to the Federal Government, and being paid
    with taxpayer dollars must verify their workers as lawful.
        We also know that E-Verify is not perfect, and so we want
    to work to improve the system. Fraud can still occur through
    the use of stolen social security numbers, and other forms of
    identity theft. But E-Verify remains a common sense win for the
    American people. It helps employers comply with the law of the
    land while advancing the policy goals of ensuring a lawful
    workforce protecting American workers, and guaranteeing a level
    playing field for businesses hiring legal workers.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses,
    and now I yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
    statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Mackenzie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for your testimony today. Welcome back everyone. I
    hope my colleagues across the aisle are rested from their 8-
    week-long paid vacation. Over the last 2 months, I have been
    speaking with my constituents, and I have heard firsthand how
    the Trump administration's reckless economic policies and the
    Republican fueled healthcare crisis are impacting their lives.
        From higher utility prices to expensive grocery bills, to
    rising healthcare premiums, working families are feeling the
    strain as the cost of living continues to climb. I had hope
    that Congress would return ready to address the real issues
    affecting the American people.
        Instead our hearing today revolves around E-Verify, a 20
    year-old program that we already know does not work. E-Verify
    is an electronic employment eligibility verification system
    that began as a voluntary pilot program, and it is now used by
    only a small percentage of employers.
        Nothing stops any employer from voluntarily using E-Verify.
    Despite that fact that it has existed for decades, very few
    employers use it. Why? It simply does not work. Since 2006, my
    Republican colleagues have repeatedly tried to mandate its use
    across the board. Those efforts have all failed because of
    broad opposition.
        Widespread use of E-Verify is opposed by small business
    communities, civil liberty groups, religious organizations,
    agricultural associations and growers, privacy advocates,
    libertarian think tanks and immigration reform groups. Even
    some libertarian politicians have warned that a national E-
    Verify mandate would hand the government the ultimate on/off
    switch for whether any American is allowed to work.
        Think about that for a moment. My Republican colleagues
    claim to be pro-business, and the party of small government,
    and yet they want the Federal Government to expand a program
    that would only work with a massive national data base that
    tracks and consolidates private worker information.
        In practice, E-Verify has proven ineffective and harmful to
    employers, immigrants and American workers. The system often
    generates errors that deny American citizens, and legal
    permanent residents, job opportunities that they are fully
    qualified for. In 2018, a study by Cato Institute revealed that
    over 70,000 legal American workers were told by E-Verify that
    they were not authorized to work.
        If every employer were forced to use E-Verify, experts
    estimate that those errors would hit roughly 200,000 legal
    workers every year, with tens of thousands wrongly pushed out
    of the labor market entirely. E-Verify can also facilitate
    hiring discrimination against job applicants of color,
    especially those from Latino backgrounds, because employers
    might unfairly avoid hiring workers who look like they might
    not pass the system.
        This is the Republican plan, an ineffective system that is
    harsh on workers and burdensome on employers, and at a time
    when the surveillance State only continues to ramp up under
    President Trump, the last thing we need to give the government
    is another tool to intrude on our Constitutional rights, and
    economic freedom.
        To truly help workers, Congress should focus on policies
    that address the real needs such as rising wages, guaranteeing
    paid leave, and ensuring access to quality, affordable
    healthcare. Instead, congressional Republicans are trying to
    distract us from their own failing agenda. They are blaming
    immigrants and driving our communities while they rip away
    healthcare and nutrition assistance for millions of Americans,
    and jack up prices with their reckless tariffs in order to pay
    for massive tax cuts for the rich.
        At a time of real economic uncertainty, our job should be
    to protect people's livelihoods and bring costs down. E-Verify
    does nothing to help people pay for their food, their rent, or
    their childcare. It does nothing to protect workers from wage
    theft, abuse, or unsafe working conditions.
        Instead of focusing on a flawed system that would worsen
    discrimination, complicate life for small businesses, and cause
    undue stress for job seekers, Congress should use its power to
    address the real needs of working families. Despite America's
    plea for help, Congress has not raised the Federal minimum wage
    in 15 years.
        We are not focusing on how to expand access to paid leave,
    childcare, or healthcare. In this very Subcommittee of
    Workforce Protection, we have yet to hold a hearing this year
    that actually expands workers' protection. These are the things
    that this Congress and this Subcommittee should focus on to
    create an economy that works for everyone, not just for the
    wealthy and the well-connected.
        It is time to get back to work and deliver on the issues
    that the American people truly care about. When I am in my
    district, small business owners and workers are not asking for
    us to mandate E-Verify. I am hearing about prices rising, wage
    stagnation, hard-working people unable to find jobs, small
    businesses struggling under the weight of President Trump's
    tariffs.
        If we want to support the working-class people, we need to
    address these issues, and invest in our workforce, not build
    another broken surveillance tool. Thank you, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Omar follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mackenzie. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all
    members who wish to insert written statements into the record
    may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
    electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days
    after this hearing. Without objection, the hearing record will
    remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other
    extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted
    for the official hearing record.
        To the introduction of witnesses. Our first witness is Mrs.
    Jaime Andress, the Vice President and Chief Human Resource
    Officer for Caddell Construction in Montgomery, Alabama. Mrs.
    Andress is testifying today on behalf of Associated General
    Contractors of America.
        To introduce our second witness, I would like to recognize
    the Vice Chair of the Full Committee, the Representative from
    Utah, Mr. Owens.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to introduce
    Chris Gamvroulas, he is the President of Ivory Development in
    Salt Lake City, Utah. He is testifying on behalf of the
    National Association of Home Builders, and Utah is a very
    unique innovative collaborative State, and Chris is going to be
    a valuable voice today as we continue to have this
    conversation, so thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Our third witness is Ms.
    Jessie Hahn, Senior Counsel for Labor and Employment Policy at
    the National Immigration Law Center, here in Washington, DC.
    Our final witness is Ms. Rosemary Jenks, the Cofounder and
    Policy Director for the Immigration Accountability Project,
    also in Washington, DC. Thank you to all of you for being here.
        We look forward to testimony from each of you, and pursuant
    to Committee Rules, I will ask that each of you limit your oral
    testimony to a three-minute summary of the written testimony
    which you provided, as Committee members may have many
    questions. The clock will count down from 3 minutes.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice,
    however, we will not cut you off until you reach the five-
    minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
    aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
    to the Subcommittee, and with that I will recognize our first
    witness today, Ms. Andress. You are recognized for your
    testimony.

    STATEMENT OF MRS. JAIME ANDRESS, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF HUMAN
    RESOURCE OFFICER, CADDELL CONSTRUCTION, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA ON
        BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

        Ms. Andress. Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar,
    members of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, thank you
    for inviting me to testify today. My name is Jaime Andress, and
    I serve as Vice President/ Chief H.R. Officer at Caddell
    Construction, a general contractor based in Montgomery,
    Alabama.
        We are proud to work with the Federal Government to help
    build a range of civilian and defense installations across the
    U.S. and overseas. I am testifying on behalf of the 27,000
    members of the Associated General Contractors of America, or
    AGC, the leading association in the construction industry.
        At Caddell, my responsibilities include ensuring that every
    member of our domestic construction teams are authorized to
    work in the U.S., and that we fully comply with employment and
    immigration laws. We use E-Verify on every hire for our U.S.
    projects because we believe that having the legal workforce is
    not just our obligation, but it is at the heart of our
    commitment to fairness, integrity and our culture.
        E-Verify has been a useful tool, but it is not perfect. As
    Congress considers policy options, I respectfully offer the
    following: Improve the systems' accuracy. Some construction
    firms report the individuals who pass an E-Verify check are in
    fact undocumented workers.
        Also, consider eliminating the requirements that
    contractors who complete E-Verify also complete I-9s for those
    same workers. This places redundant compliance burdens on
    employers. We urge you to include compliance and technical
    assistance support for E-Verify users, particularly smaller
    businesses.
        Many construction projects include multiple construction
    firms. For instance, general contractors hire subcontractors
    who in turn subcontract portions of their work to other firms.
    Each firm should be individually held accountable for
    compliance with E-Verify requirements.
        Provide notices to employers regarding changes to work
    authorizations. Construction firms like ours want to be in
    complete compliance, but few firms have the bandwidth to
    constantly check to see if there have been any unannounced
    changes in work status.
        Finally, we urge consistency. There is a patchwork of
    varying State laws that make compliance more complex and
    costly. A clear uniform Federal standard would serve everyone
    better. The biggest problem with E-Verify is that we simply do
    not have enough qualified workers available for construction
    firms like ours to hire and verify.
        The AGC recently shared that 92 percent of construction
    firms are having a difficult time finding enough qualified
    workers to hire. The Federal Government spends 80 percent of
    its workforce development dollars encouraging workers to pursue
    a 4-year college degree, yet only 38 percent of Americans earn
    a 4-year college degree.
        That leaves only one-fifth of Federal dollars to support
    nearly two-thirds of the workforce. This funding imbalance is
    contributing to acute labor shortages within the construction
    industry, prompting firms either to not bid on projects, to
    raise prices, or to delay their construction schedules on
    projects they are bidding.
        We strongly support greater investment in domestic
    workforce development, including expanding access to trade
    schools, apprenticeships and skills training. Those efforts
    will take time; we encourage Congress to consider establishing
    new, and expanding existing employment-based visas that could
    provide lawful workers, while we work to prepare more Americans
    for permanent, high-paying careers in construction.
        Caddell, and the other members of the AGC stand ready to
    work with Congress, and Federal agencies, to strengthen our
    workforce, improve compliance, and ensure that America's
    infrastructure gets built by a legal, skilled, and reliable
    workforce. Thank you again for inviting AGC to testify before
    the Committee today. I look forward to answering any questions
    you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Andress follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr.
    Gamvroulas for your testimony.

          STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS GAMVROULAS, PRESIDENT, IVORY
     DEVELOPMENT, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
                      ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

        Mr. Gamvroulas. Good morning. Thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Association of
    Home Builders on E-Verify. To ensure that Ivory Homes only
    employs individuals authorized to work in the United States,
    and to comply with Utah law, we have used the E-Verify
    employment verification system since 2010.
        Ivory Homes recognizes the important role businesses play
    in ensuring a legal workforce. Our human resource team conducts
    employment verification for all new hires. While not entirely
    error free, the system is easy to use, and we have only
    encountered two instances of identity mismatch in the first few
    years of using the system.
        While E-Verify can be a logical starting point for
    discussion, it is not a substitute for the broader conversation
    around comprehensive immigration reform. That being said, I
    believe that certain recommendations will make it as accessible
    for small businesses as it is for larger and more well-
    resourced organizations.
        Our members are first and foremost small business owners,
    indeed, 80 percent of the members of NAHB have 10 or fewer
    employees. A few recommendations. First, any legislation must
    maintain current Federal guidance that employers are
    responsible for verification of the identity and work
    authorization status of their direct employees.
        While we do not verify the employees of subcontractors, we
    do require our subcontractors to follow Utah law, to verify
    legal work status of their employees. Further, we are
    prohibited from knowingly using unauthorized subcontract
    workers as a means of circumventing the system.
        Second, any requirement should provide a very strong safe
    harbor to ensure that those that use the system in good faith,
    will not be held liable for errors in the system. Third,
    employers should be able to begin the E-Verify process when a
    worker accepts a position, rather than be required to wait
    until after the worker's start date. This cannot be
    understated.
        We use valuable resources, precious resources, and we have
    to do the E-Verify after an employee accepts a position.
    Fourth, providing a telephonic option for employers to complete
    the E-Verify process is important. The reality is that the new
    homes in America are built in suburban and ex-urban locations
    that lack necessary internet infrastructure.
        Fifth, if employers are going to be required to use a
    Federal E-Verify Program, they must be assured that there is
    only one set of rules for compliance. As Congress considers how
    best to implement comprehensive immigration reform, we also
    urge you to pair the discussion with solutions for boosting our
    domestic workforce pipeline.
        In conclusion, I believe these recommendations can make E-
    Verify a system that is accessible to all. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gamvroulas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next I will recognize Ms.
    Hahn for her testimony.

        STATEMENT OF MS. JESSIE HAHN, SENIOR COUNSEL, LABOR AND
    EMPLOYMENT POLICY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON,
                                  D.C.

        Ms. Hahn. Chairman Mackenzie, Ranking Member Omar, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is Jessie Hahn. I am Senior Counsel for
    Labor and Employment Policy at the National Immigration Law
    Center. NILC has advocated for improvement to the E-Verify
    Program since its inception as the basic pilot program in 1997.
        Our position on E-Verify has always been clear, expanding
    this flawed system without comprehensive immigration reform,
    and strong worker protections will harm workers, employers, and
    the economy. Today I want to focus on three critical points
    that underscore why a nationwide E-Verify mandate would be a
    disaster.
        First, E-Verify is not ready for the millions of small
    businesses that would be forced to enroll under a national
    mandate. Only 13 percent of U.S. employers currently use E-
    Verify, despite its availability for more than two decades.
    That means 87 percent of employers, most of whom are small
    businesses, do not participate. Even in the states that have
    decided to require E-Verify, compliance is low, fewer than half
    of the employers who are required to enroll have enrolled in
    those states.
        A recent GAO study of the Federal contractors required to
    enroll, found that only 15 percent had done so. This is in the
    states and the businesses that are required to participate in
    E-Verify already. Why are they resisting? E-Verify is costly
    and it is cumbersome. Large employers with H.R. departments can
    absorb the burden, but small businesses cannot.
        They face complex verification processes, mismatches that
    delay hiring, and compliance costs that they are ill-equipped
    to manage. Forcing millions of small employers into this system
    without addressing these challenges will create both a massive
    compliance problem, as well as disproportionately harm small
    businesses.
        Second, E-Verify does not shield employers from ICE raids,
    or other enforcement actions. There is no safe harbor for
    participating in E-Verify. ICE raids have devastated companies
    that have used E-Verify for years, even in states where it is
    mandatory.
        Poultry companies in Mississippi, meat packing facilities
    in Ohio and Nebraska, have all faced raids and mass detentions,
    despite participating in E-Verify. Why? E-Verify cannot detect
    identity theft or confirm that the documents belong to the
    person who is presenting them.
        Employers who do everything right still remain exposed to
    audits, raids, and the reputational harm. If the system cannot
    fulfill its core purpose of accurately verifying work
    authorization, then what is the point of mandating it?
        Finally, even the Trump administration has admitted that E-
    Verify is unreliable. They promote it as a cornerstone of
    immigration enforcement, but at the same time DHS has
    acknowledged that the system is susceptible to identify fraud,
    and lacks a photo matching capabilities in many states.
        The White House itself even criticized a Maine police
    department this summer as reckless, for relying on E-Verify to
    check the work authorization of a recent hire. At the same
    time, the government is ramping up I-9 audits and worksite
    raids, creating a compliance paradox for employers.
        Employers are told to use E-Verify, but they are warned it
    will not protect them. This double bind forces businesses,
    especially small businesses, into an untenable position where
    even those who are trying to comply with the law cannot get a
    reliable answer from the government's own verification system.
        In short, E-Verify is not ready for a nationwide mandate.
    It is inaccurate, it is vulnerable to fraud, and it is not even
    enforced where it is currently required, so expanding it to
    millions of small businesses will destabilize labor markets,
    push workers off payroll, and into the informal economy, and
    expose employers to greater risks.
        Congress should reject any mandate until E-Verify is
    reformed and paired with strong worker protections, and a
    pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers. Anything less
    will create a crisis that harms workers, employers and the
    economy. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hahn follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mackenzie. Our last testifier is Ms. Jenks, and I
    recognize you now for your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF MS. ROSEMARY JENKS, COFOUNDER AND POLICY DIRECTOR,
          IMMIGRATION ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Jenks. Chairman Mackenzie, Chairman Walberg, Ranking
    Member Omar, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today about E-Verify. E-Verify is a critical tool for
    deterring illegal immigration to the United States. The vast
    majority of illegal aliens are coming here for economic
    opportunity, in other words, jobs.
        Prospective illegal aliens make a rational cost benefit
    analysis if they believe that the economic benefits of entering
    illegally outweigh the risks of the journey, and of being
    apprehended and returned home, they come. If they know they
    will not be able to obtain work here, many will not come.
        Removing the benefit of easily obtainable jobs,
    significantly shifts the calculation. In addition to deterring
    illegal immigration, E-Verify is a necessary tool to prevent
    the exploitation of illegal labor by international smuggling
    cartels, and unscrupulous employers.
        The cartels make billions of dollars smuggling people into
    the United States based on the promise of jobs here. Once they
    arrive, often in debt to the cartels, illegal aliens are
    vulnerable to unscrupulous employers. E-Verify is essential not
    only to deter illegal immigration, but also to provide good
    faith employers with a cheap and effective way to verify that
    the documents submitted by new hires are valid.
        With the proliferation of fraudulent documents, E-Verify
    removes the burden on employers to be document fraud experts,
    so long as the document submitted by new hires are reasonable
    valid on their face. In the absence of E-Verify, employers find
    themselves in a bind. If they accept documents that turn out to
    be fraudulent, they can be held liable for employing
    unauthorized aliens.
        If they request additional documents, they can be sued by
    the employee for civil rights violations. E-Verify eliminates
    that problem by allowing employers to submit the information on
    the documents for verification by the government, and then to
    rely on that verification. However, voluntary use of E-Verify
    may create an uneven playing field for some businesses.
        A business owner who wanting to obey the law participates
    in E-Verify, may have to pay a premium to recruit legal
    workers. His competitor, who does not participate in E-Verify,
    and does not mind violating the law to hire illegal workers,
    will be able to undercut the law-abiding employer by paying
    reduced wages, and cutting corners on benefits and safety
    compliance.
        Abiding by the law should not be a competitive
    disadvantage. Is the E-Verify system perfect? No. It is still
    possible for illegal aliens to game the system by using the
    identity of an American citizen, or authorized alien worker.
    This problem would be alleviated by requiring states to share
    driver's license photos with E-Verify.
        During the first half of 2025, more than 21 million new
    hires were run through the E-Verify system, 97.8 percent of
    those cases were confirmed virtually instantly. In order to
    become a truly effective deterrent to illegal immigration, E-
    Verify should be made mandatory for all employers in the United
    States.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Under Committee Rule 9, we
    will now ask questions of the witnesses under the 5-minute
    rule, and I will recognize myself first. The first question I
    have is for Ms. Andress. Your written testimony notes that your
    company has been using E-Verify for nearly two decades,
    processing thousands of new hires, and you found the program to
    be generally reliable and efficient.
        In addition to complying with the law, as a Federal
    contractor, what do you see as the additional benefits of using
    E-Verify?
        Mrs. Andress. Thank you for the question. We certainly see
    the additional benefits be that we have the ability to maintain
    a qualified and verified workforce. It is a huge commitment of
    ours to not just our employees, but also our clients to be able
    to have a stable workforce to be able to meet their project
    schedule, to deliver on what it is that we say, and it creates
    a lot of trust among our construction team members as well.
        It provides a lot of--it just really aligns with our
    commitment to ethnical hiring and provides a consistent
    approach as we grow our workforce.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Fantastic. Thank you. Ms. Jenks, in
    your written testimony, you discussed the prohibition on
    employers knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, and their
    obligation to examine employment authorization and
    identification documents for new hires.
        However, you point out a flaw in the system. It is
    challenging for employers on their own to confirm the validity
    of those documents. Could you elaborate on how E-Verify
    provides a solution for those employers? If you can--microphone
    please, thank you.
        Ms. Jenks. I did it. What happens is that the fraudulent
    documents have increasingly become better and better over the
    last few decades. We know that. There is a massive industry in
    fraudulent documents in this country, a lot of it generated by
    the cartels. The better the documents get, the harder it is for
    any average person to identify those documents as real or
    fraudulent.
        I mean we have people in law enforcement who have studied
    fake documents for decades, and may still have trouble
    identifying a good, fraudulent document. An employer should not
    be expected to do that. You know, we have the I-9 system.
        That was the initial version of well, we do not want you to
    hire illegal aliens because we know that that undercuts
    American workers and their wages, and it also leads to
    exploitation, but we recognize now that a paper system in the
    I-9 form is not sufficient, because that means that the
    employer has to be able to recognize this document that this
    new hire just handed over is fake.
        That is just not a reasonable expectation, so by allowing
    the employer to type in the information into the E-Verify
    system on those documents, and get an almost instantaneous
    answer in 97.8 percent of cases, that the employer can rely on.
    By that, I mean that the employer who relies on that
    information is not going to be prosecuted. It does not mean
    that the worker, if the worker turns out to be illegal, that
    worker will still be deported, so the employer will lose that
    worker, but the employer will not be criminally prosecuted for
    knowingly hiring an illegal alien.
        Chairman Mackenzie. With that growing challenge of false
    and stolen identities that are being used to circumvent E-
    Verify, in your view, what policy changes should we make to
    close those gaps?
        Ms. Jenks. The most important policy change at the moment
    is to require states to share the driver's license photos. E-
    Verify already has a partnership with the inlet system that
    allows for E-Verify to verify the authenticity of a driver's
    license in, I believe, it is 44 states and jurisdictions.
        There are 10 states that do not share even that
    information, but the additional step that is needed is to share
    the photo, because the only way that we are going to get at
    stolen identities and remember for every stolen identity there
    is an American or legal resident who has been victimized by
    that.
        To get at that, we need for the employer to be able to
    compare the person standing in front of them, the person on the
    document that they provide, and then the person on the document
    as it was issued by the State, so that three way comparison is
    what is critical to getting rid of that last part of the
    problem with E-Verify, which is stolen identities.
        Chairman Mackenzie. All right. Thank you for that. My time
    is about to expire, so I am going to recognize next the Ranking
    Member, Ms. Omar from Minnesota.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Hahn, thank you so much
    for joining us today. In your written testimony you outline
    several reasons why the E-Verify does not work the way that
    Committee Republicans claim it does. Could you walk us through
    the most significant problems with E-Verify's effectiveness?
        What do you know about the system's error rates and the
    number of work authorized people who are wrongfully flagged or
    rejected from employment each year?
        Ms. Hahn. Yes, thank you for the question. Mandating E-
    Verify nationwide would be a mistake because the system is not
    ready for the millions of small businesses that are not
    currently enrolled.
        Part of what we know about who is enrolled, that 13 percent
    of employers who are enrolled, is that they tend to be much
    larger employers, so they tend to have H.R. departments and
    more infrastructure and capability to handle compliance
    requirements, unlike the smaller businesses that by and large
    are not enrolled, and do not have that type of in house
    assistance to handle the burdens.
        That means that they need to do things like technology
    upgrades and staff trainings, and they will be facing different
    types of operational challenges in order to get to a point of
    compliance. On a nationwide level, people who have researched
    that have estimated that it would cost those employers
    collectively, billions of dollars to do that, to reach that.
        Even for businesses that do comply, those companies as we
    have discussed already face raids and audits. It does not stop
    that from happening. Despite championing the system, the
    administration is unable to kind of give employers any real
    protection against the unreliability of the data.
        What we do not have is good current data on the reliability
    of the system, and I think one thing that the Committee could
    focus on is getting a more current study on the error rates
    because the last time an independent external evaluation was
    conducted was in 2009.
        That is a very long time ago, but if you take the error
    rates that they found at that time, and you apply them to our
    current employment numbers, our national folks participating in
    the workforce, in the labor force, we think that anywhere
    between roughly 200,000 and 520,000 people each year who are
    work authorized, and have been hired and accepted an offer of
    employment, would be wrongfully denied because of the errors in
    E-Verify, the opportunity to start that job.
        I know that proponents of the system will talk about, you
    know, it has got a 97-98 percent effective rate. The fact is
    that in your jurisdiction, if you have people coming to you
    because you were denied the ability to start a job that you had
    been offered, and you have work authorization, that is still
    not going to be an acceptable number of 97 percent.
        Ms. Omar. Ms. Hahn, do you think the Federal Government
    should create this kind of national data base for workers, and
    why does this idea give you a pause?
        Ms. Hahn. Yes. I think in order for E-Verify to function
    properly, it would require a massive consolidation of data that
    does not currently exist, right? We would need State agencies
    and Federal agencies. We would need the photo data bases, and
    then in addition what we have not even talked about yet is the
    flaws in the SSA data base, and how those affect people in this
    system as well, right?
        The Numident Data base, which is the name of the data base
    at SSA, has errors in roughly 17.8 million of its records, and
    including things like outdated citizenship status for foreign
    born workers, and lawful immigrants, and so this is the reason
    why there is a higher error rate and disproportionate harm to
    people who are naturalized citizens, or who are work authorized
    immigrants.
        In order to correct all of those things, you would have to
    consolidate across Federal and State systems, a massive amount
    of personal data, and then it would need to be continuously
    updated, and you would have to link the identity information
    across the country, and that process is not only impractical,
    but it would effectively create a centralized national ID
    infrastructure that tracks every worker in America.
        That raises some serious privacy concerns, and beyond the
    risk of hacking, I think it would enable the government to
    conduct surveillance far beyond employment verification,
    eroding civil liberties, and creating a tool to monitor
    individuals in a way that it was never intended.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we will go to our
    esteemed Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Walberg from
    Michigan.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    holding this hearing, important subject. Ms. Andress, thank you
    for being here. This Committee, as you know, has jurisdiction
    over workforce issues, and certainly over training issues. We
    are keenly interested in seeing employees have their skills
    enhanced, and the opportunity for a fulfilling life.
        You mentioned in your written statement that construction
    wages are 19 percent higher, which is significant, than the
    average for all private sector wages. However, as we know, many
    reconstruction jobs are not filled for lack of employees to be
    there. What recommendations do you have to increase the number
    of qualified workers, keying in on qualified workers, who can
    fill these good paying jobs?
        Mrs. Andress. Thank you so much for the question. There are
    multi-steps that should be taken to help grow the workforce in
    general, but specifically for the construction industry.
    Expansion of workforce development programs, starting as early
    as primary or elementary levels, so that children and their
    support systems have access to not just that construction is a
    career, but it is a desirable one that creates legacy, and
    provides for families, and as something that really you can be
    a part of something much larger.
        It is not what people typically think that the industry is.
    Those workforce development programs, vocational trainings
    available to high school students, increasing support for trade
    schools, allowing them to take on more students at an earlier
    age as well would be supremely helpful.
        Continuing to partner between schools, community colleges,
    4-year programs, and providing that practical aspect to what it
    is that construction brings, and what that industry is.
    Supporting apprenticeships, mentorships, on the job trainings,
    all of those things are incredibly helpful to allowing
    individuals who do not know much about construction, but would
    be a great fit for the industry to be able to explore their own
    skills, and their own strengths, and be able to bring that into
    the industry.
        One of the things that we have done specifically, along
    with a number of the firms within AGC is a really renewed
    investment into internship programs, and that can certainly
    come from 4 year degreed students who have it as a requirement,
    possibly, of their program, or just something that they want to
    have the practical training to go along with what it is that
    they are learning in a classroom, but that increase in
    internships is really a key part of what I know is helping us
    internally develop our workforce, and other firms are seeing
    that as well.
        Support and policies that just promote recognition, that
    promote the desirability that talk about just the practical
    aspects that it is a high-paying career, and there is a lot of
    movement that individuals can have within the industry would be
    supremely helpful.
        Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, and that is another reason
    why we are very pleased that finally we have got Workforce
    Pell, short-term Pell, into the One Big Beautiful Bill, which
    we would like to expand as well. Thank you.
        Mr. Gamvroulas, your written testimony says that most home
    builders do not use E-Verify. What could the program do to make
    it easier for home builders to use E-Verify?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. One,
    it would be to continue to make it very accessible. I noted in
    my testimony that 80 percent of the members of the National
    Association of Home Builders have 10 or fewer employees. To a
    large degree, they just do not even know that it exists. These
    are sole proprietors, they are general contractors, they are
    mom and pop operators, and that is true for both the home
    builders, and the subcontractors that build our homes.
        I think that that is one of the reasons why most of the
    members of NHB do not use it is because they just do not even
    know that it is there. I do think that if it were to be
    expanded, there would be two things. One, an education
    campaign, but also a phase in program where you would start
    with the largest employers, and work it back and phase it into
    the smaller operators.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Jenks, I assume that
    having a safe harbor for employers would benefit the use of E-
    Verify. You would agree, I am sure?
        Ms. Jenks. Absolutely.
        Mr. Walberg. I have so many other questions, but I think
    what your point you made in your testimony was that while there
    are problems, yet the benefits of having this as a tool will
    work well, so my time has expired. I do not want to run the
    risk of using the good benefits of the Chairman, so I yield
    back.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, we will
    go to our friend from the minority, the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Scott from Virginia.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Andress, you
    indicated you had many recommendations to improve the E-Verify
    system. Does your organization support it if those
    recommendations are not achieved?
        Mrs. Andress. Do you mind repeating the question?
        Mr. Scott. Does your organization support mandating E-
    Verify, if we do not follow those recommendations and fix it
    first?
        Mrs. Andress. The system, as it is, is something that we
    support and recommendations to increase the accuracy and the
    efficacy of it would be something that the AGC would support.
        Mr. Scott. Well, would you recommend mandating it for
    everybody if we do not follow those recommendations, if we do
    not fix it first? Would you still support the mandate?
        Mrs. Andress. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. Well, you are not under subpoena. You do not
    have to answer.
        Mrs. Andress. Yes, no.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Gamvroulas, you indicated the small
    businesses are not ready for this. What do they do now?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. Thank you for the question. By and large,
    they do not actually use it. It has been the law in the State
    of Utah since 2010. The threshold for businesses initially was
    15 or more employees. That threshold was increased in 2022 to
    150 employees.
        By and large in the State of Utah, most small businesses,
    which the home builders and subcontractors are by and large
    small businesses are actually not using it. That being said,
    they are still prohibited by law from knowingly using
    undocumented workers.
        Mr. Scott. How do they verify whether people are documented
    or not?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. I do not know.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Jenks, if you have a very strong
    system, did you suggest that people might be working, as they
    say off the books?
        Ms. Jenks. It is entirely possible that some employers
    would still hire illegal aliens off the books, certainly. If
    there is a mandate for E-Verify, that becomes much easier for
    law enforcement to target.
        Mr. Scott. To target working under the books?
        Ms. Jenks. Exactly.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Hahn, can you say something about what
    happened in Arizona?
        Ms. Hahn. Yes. Arizona was one of the first states to enact
    a statewide E-Verify mandate, and what we saw is that after 5
    years of that law going into effect, only a third of employers
    had started to use it, but more broadly the issue is that it
    pushes workers off of payrolls and into the informal economy.
        Then that has knock-on effects, right because not just that
    they are no longer on the payroll, it is that the taxes are not
    being paid on those payrolls, and so specifically what they
    found in Arizona that was so interesting was that they
    documented that the State income tax collection had dropped by
    13 percent, but the sales tax collection only fell by 2.5
    percent.
        What that indicated to the researchers was that the workers
    were still there, and they were still working, and spending
    money, but they were no longer paying income taxes.
        Mr. Scott. Ms. Hahn, do we know what the error rate is on
    E-Verify?
        Ms. Hahn. We have 2009 data on the error rate. It is, I
    think, not the current error rate, but we do not have publicly
    available current data on the error rate. At the time what the
    2009 data said that the overall error rate for what are called
    tentative non-confirmations, which is the initial check that
    the system conducts, were .3 percent.
        It sounds low until you start thinking about that is
    200,000 people in the country.
        Mr. Scott. It means false positives?
        Ms. Hahn. Those are people who yes, are--well, people mean
    different things by false positive, so just to be clear, those
    are people who are authorized to work, and the system is saying
    they are not.
        Mr. Scott. 3 percent?
        Ms. Hahn. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Does anybody have different numbers? Okay.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we will go to Mr. Fine
    from Florida.
        Mr. Fine. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by
    saying I think illegal immigrants are a scourge in this
    country. I am going to walk through why before I get to my
    questions. I think what we heard a lot of misstatements here
    about correlation leading to causation. No. 1, illegal
    immigrants undercut American wages. They do by definition
    because they cannot work on the books.
        As a result they have to work off the books, and so that is
    true that taxes are not being paid, benefits are not being
    provided, and that, unlike what Ms. Hahn said, that is what
    leads to more legal workers working off the books, because in
    order to be competitive in the job market, companies begin to
    hire legal workers off the books in order to have them in
    addition to their illegal workers.
        That is what I have heard from my constituents who are in
    the construction business back home. They say how can I
    possibly compete for contracts following the rules, when I have
    to compete with those who do not? No. 1, illegal immigrants
    undercut the wages of American workers.
        No. 2, they do not pay taxes. Again, they are off the
    books. Then No. 3, they cost a fortune. When an illegal
    immigrant goes to the hospital, we pay for it because they
    cannot have health insurance. When an illegal immigrant sends
    their child to school, we pay for it because they are not
    paying those taxes.
        When an illegal immigrant drives a car for example, in my
    State of Florida, and they cause an accident, that causes
    expenses to Americans who have higher auto insurance rates
    because they effectively have to pay for the insurance of those
    illegals.
        I have a view that we should deport every single illegal
    immigrant in order to solve these problems, and I am always
    amazed by the fetishization that I hear on the other side
    toward these folks. The fact that people are not using E-
    Verify, means that we need to push them to use it more, and we
    need to increase the penalties to do it because that is what
    will increase the situation.
        If we want people to be trained so that they can take the
    jobs that illegal immigrants are taking, we need wages to go
    up. We need to stop competing with illegal immigrants. I do not
    disagree that many industries are reliant on illegal immigrant
    labor today. We need to fix that by sending the illegal
    immigrants home.
        I have a question for Ms. Jenks, this hearing is about E-
    Verify, but I want to take a step back. This did not just come
    out of the blue. It was done for a reason. Why did Congress
    find it necessary to create an E-Verify system?
        Why did they think it was important? Did they just sort of
    wake up 1 day? Why did they think it was necessary to require
    employees to only knowingly hire authorized workers, and then
    to impose sanctions on employers who failed to comply. What led
    them to do this?
        Ms. Hahn. It was first made illegal to hire an unauthorized
    worker in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It had
    been talked about by various Commissions and Members of
    Congress and so on for years and years prior to that, but they
    actually did it in 1986, and created the I-9 form, the paper
    system for employers to try to, you know, show that they were
    only hiring legal workers.
        The result of that was a massive industry in fraudulent
    documents. As a result of that industry in fraudulent
    documents, and specifically a recommendation by Barbara Jordan,
    the Chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, created
    by the 1990 Immigration Act, Congress, Lamar Smith actually,
    who was the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the
    Judiciary Committee at the time.
        By the way, today is his birthday, so it is very fitting
    that we are having this hearing today, and he will kill me if
    he hears me say that. He added this--the basic pilot program,
    this verification system that became E-Verify into the 1996
    illegal immigration reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
        It has evolved since that initial pilot program, which was
    very strictly limited to certain employers in five states, and
    then went nationwide in 2005. By the way, as a small business,
    our company employes five full-time workers, we use E-Verify,
    and I can tell you that it works in that the very first person
    I put through the system I actually hired from ICE, and did not
    expect a tentative non-confirmation for, and got one, and went
    to her with the letter that it told me to print out to hand to
    her.
        She said oh yes, I forgot to change my name with the Social
    Security Administration. She went over lunch and did that at
    the Social Security Administration in Washington, DC, came
    back, you know, still from her lunchbreak, and it was fixed. I
    ran her again and it was perfect.
        Mr. Fine. Thank you. Well, thank you. Look, this is a
    scourge. We need to be using E-Verify more because we need to
    deport every single illegal immigrant in this country. Thank
    you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Mackenzie. All right. Next, we are going to go to
    Mr. Messmer from Indiana.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
    our witnesses for being here today. Ms. Andress and Mr.
    Gamvroulas, my home State, Indiana, requires State agencies,
    local governments and State contractors to use E-Verify, which
    not only ensures their workforce is authorized, but sets an
    example that employers should hire legal workers.
        Could you discuss the legal requirements for your companies
    to use E-Verify, and would you say that meeting those
    requirements to participate in E-Verify is straightforward?
        Mrs. Andress. I guess I will start. Thank you for the
    question. Yes, it is straightforward to answer the second part
    of what you said. The legal requirements are that we are a
    Federal contractor, and so we are required to use E-Verify, and
    for consistency across all of our hiring practices, we do it
    for all of our hires across the U.S.
        Mr. Gamvroulas. Thank you for the question. I would concur
    with that. We have found that it is straightforward, fairly
    easy to use, and as I mentioned in my comments in 15 years we
    have only had two tentative non-confirmations, so identify
    mismatches out of the literally hundreds of people that we have
    hired as direct employees.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Ms. Jenks, the E-Verify Program
    helps employers ensure they are hiring authorized lawful
    workers. How does E-Verify also benefit American workers who
    should not have to compete for jobs with unauthorized workers?
        Ms. Jenks. Yes, that is absolutely critical for protecting
    American workers because we know that the law of supply and
    demand applies to the economy, you know. If you flood the labor
    force with workers, whether they are low-skilled, high-skilled,
    medium-skilled, whatever, you are going to reduce wages.
        When we have flooded the labor force with illegal aliens,
    we have reduced wages for American workers. They have to
    compete with people who understandably are willing to work for
    less, willing to take fewer benefits, willing to cut corners on
    safety compliance and all of that.
        American workers should not have to compete against illegal
    aliens.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. There has been several articles
    about workers using fraudulent documents that E-Verify did not
    catch. How could E-Verify be improved to reduce the fraud?
        Ms. Jenks. Yes. That is--it is an important improvement
    that is needed, and that is again to share for the states to
    share driver's license photos with E-Verify. I want to point
    out there is no E-Verify data base. There is not an E-Verify
    data base. E-Verify is an internet system that pings DHS data
    bases, and social security data bases. There is no, you know,
    centralized data base for all the workers in the United States.
        Sharing State driver's license photos would not change
    that. We are not talking about National ID Card or registry, or
    anything like that. This is a system that pings existing data
    bases.
        Mr. Messmer. Okay, thank you. Last Congress the House
    Republicans passed the Border Act of 2023, the Secure the
    Border Act of 2023, to fix some of the glaring issues facing
    our immigration system today. How would you recommend if we
    implemented the E-Verify on a national scale, and how would you
    recommend we roll it out, and what would you say are the most
    important features to keep?
        Ms. Jenks. I think that the legislation that was the E-
    Verify legislation that was included in the Secure the Border
    Act is the right legislation. It has been carefully crafted. It
    was actually negotiated with the business community,
    specifically to provide the, you know, single, Federal system
    so they don't have to navigate 50 different State laws on E-
    Verify.
        It is a rollout based on the size of the company. It is the
    most straightforward, most employer friendly, and most American
    worker friendly version of mandatory E-Verify, and it should be
    enacted. It was voted on by the House as you said, last
    Congress. It should be voted on again.
        Mr. Messmer. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your responses,
    and I yield back the rest of my time.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, we will go to Mr.
    Takano from California.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just curious Ms.
    Andress, do you believe that there is a labor shortage in this
    country, or do we have enough workers, or do we have too many
    workers?
        Mrs. Andress. I think there is an acute labor shortage,
    specifically within the construction industry.
        Mr. Takano. I am a little confused by Ms. Jenks' testimony
    that, you know, wages are being driven down by undocumented
    workers in the context of a labor shortage, so you know, but
    anyway, I want to go to Ms. Hahn. Ms. Hahn, one study for the
    Cato Institute estimates that E-Verify failed to stop nearly 12
    million unauthorized workers from being hired between--since
    2006 and 2019, while only stopping 3 million.
        That is a 20 percent success rate. Can you tell me why E-
    Verify is so bad at accomplishing its core mission, its core
    purpose? What is happening under the hood that explains such a
    poor success rate?
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you for the question. Yes, it is true. The
    Cato study in 2019 found that between 2006 and 2019, they
    blocked 3 million unauthorized hires, and allowed 12 million
    through. At the starting point that is showing that the system
    is failing on its own terms, on its own stated intent.
        It is designed to prevent illegal employment, but they
    confirmed 86 percent of unauthorized hires just in the year
    2018 alone, and the effectiveness has declined as workers have
    learned how to bypass the system, using borrowed identities.
    Despite billions in compliance costs, and the political
    emphasis on enforcement, the program really has not put a dent
    in unauthorized employment.
        It has imposed burdens on employers, as well as the lawful
    workers who faced these erroneous non-confirmations, and one
    thing I will just add is that if you look at the data in the
    states where E-Verify mandates have been enacted, the
    population of undocumented immigrants in those states does not
    decline by large, you know, by and large in the time after
    those State laws are enacted.
        Again, it is what E-Verify does, is it drives people off
    the books. It does not----
        Mr. Takano. Drives them off the books, and if we were to do
    a national mandate, we can assume that it is not going to
    necessarily have an impact on--if we follow what the State, you
    are suggesting that the State data would point to a Federal
    mandate, not being a solution to reducing the amount of
    undocumented.
        Ms. Hahn. That is correct.
        Mr. Takano. They just drive people off the books. Okay. In
    June, immigration--and by the way, is Cato a crazy liberal,
    radical socialist?
        Ms. Hahn. There are a number of issues on which the
    National Immigration Law Center and Cato have very different
    views.
        Mr. Takano. Yes.
        Ms. Hahn. This is one issue where we do actually share.
        Mr. Takano. All right. We could say that CATO is, you know,
    has no--there is not a sense that they would put out flawed
    data, or ideologically motivated information on this particular
    issue. In June, immigration authorities raided a meat packing
    plant in Omaha, Nebraska for hiring undocumented workers,
    despite the employer using E-Verify.
        When the President of the plant said as much as to the
    immigration officers during the raid, they, they immigration
    officials, told the plant manager that E-Verify, the E-Verify
    system is ``broken.'' In August, a police department in Maine
    was caught hiring an undocumented worker for his police force,
    despite using E-Verify.
        In response, the Trump administration's own spokesman for
    the DHS, called the usage of E-Verify, ``reckless,'' saying,
    ``It -- the Orchard Beach Police Department's reckless reliance
    on E-Verify violates Federal law, and does not absolve them of
    their failure to conduct basic background checks to verify
    legal status.''
        My views on the brutality and incompetence of the
    Department of Homeland Security's tactic aside, it seems that
    even the Trump administration acknowledges the inaccuracy of
    the E-Verify system. Ms. Hahn, why has DHS all of a sudden come
    out against E-Verify?
        Ms. Hahn. That is a good question. I do not know. It does
    not make sense to me that they could be on the one hand telling
    everyone that this is the system that they want employers to
    enroll in. They have a program called IMAGE that E-Verify is
    part of, and they are trying to encourage employers to
    voluntarily enroll through that program.
        At the same time, you know, the incident in Old Orchard
    Beach, Maine, this is a small beach town in Maine that hires
    seasonal police officers in the summer because they have an
    influx of people to the beach. The town manager, and the head
    of the police department went on national news and said, ``This
    is the system that we have been offered. If there is another
    system that we should be aware of that you would like us to
    use, please tell us what it is.'' They complied with the law.
        Chairman Mackenzie. We are going to--time has expired, so
    we will go to our next questioner, Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I want to talk to Mr. Gamvroulas.
    I used to be in the State Legislature, and there are certain
    lobbyists you get used to showing up in your office, and I got
    to know the lobbyist for the local carpenters union very well.
    Again and again, he would come into the office and scream about
    we had to do more about all these carpenters who got employer
    ID number, and were working, and undercutting the local
    carpenters.
        OK. This was a routine theme of the Democratic party. We
    have got to be out here. We have got to be more aggressive. We
    have got to get rid of these 1099s, in which they are driving
    down wages. Why and when did the Democratic party go from
    saying that above all we could not have--above all we had to
    prevent these people coming in this country and working, and
    undercutting American labor.
        Today, when it seems to me, they want more and more people
    in this country. Could you speculate on what happened in the
    interim there?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. I cannot. I appreciate that. Neither our
    company, or the NHB wants to speculate on when that happened
    with the Democrat party. What I can speak to is the experience
    that we have had, and the interest of the National Association
    of Home Builders to have a legal workforce.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms. Andress, do you have a comment on
    how that could have happened? How I mean we have gone from 180-
    degree turn here in which all of a sudden the Democrats are
    doing all they can to drive down the cost of labor?
        Mrs. Andress. I too, have no comment on that.
        Mr. Grothman. Ms. Jenks, or Ms. Hahn, we will go to Ms.
    Hahn. Say what happened between when I was in the State
    Legislature 15 years ago and like the No. 1 goal of the
    Democrats and the carpenters union was to make sure we did not
    have all these illegals running around, or immigrants running
    around.
        Today when it seems to me the goal is to get more
    immigrants as possible.
        Ms. Hahn. I am sorry, I cannot comment on behalf of the
    carpenters union, or the Democratic party.
        Mr. Grothman. It is kind of a--okay.
        Ms. Jenks.
        Ms. Jenks. Yes, I would be happy to comment. The biggest
    shift that we have seen is that the unions in general, not any
    specific union, but the unions in general decided that
    protecting American workers was no longer the goal because
    getting membership dues was more important, and so to increase
    membership dues, including from illegal aliens, and other
    immigrant workers, or non-immigrant workers, they would change
    their position.
        I mean the unions used to be the strongest advocates
    against amnesty and against illegal immigration, and that
    flipped.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, hopefully somebody will step
    forward and look out for the average guy, oh, you already did.
    The guy by the name--I am trying to help out right now, Mark
    Rile was the lobbyist back for the Wisconsin carpenters.
        I will ask you--I will give you a question. One of the
    reasons housing costs today are through the roof is we do not
    have enough people who are electricians or plumbers, or what
    have you. Can you give us any ideas as to how--and I am afraid
    the cost of a house will continue to be high because we do not
    have enough people in the pipeline, and we should have seen it
    coming.
        Ten years ago it seemed like all the plumbers and
    electricians were 60 years old, so we should have seen this
    coming. I think schools were giving young kids very bad
    information. Can you think of any way we can kind of quickly
    get more qualified construction workers in the workforce?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. Yes. As has been stated, strong domestic
    and foreign-born workers, and skilled training. I will take you
    to one of our jobsites, and you will see a lot of very skilled
    labor. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the
    workforce on home building sites in the U.S. are foreign born
    workers.
        We need to----
        Mr. Grothman. Really quick, I will ask you because I am
    running out of time. What does a plumber or carpenter with 5
    years' experience, what can you expect that they will make
    today?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. Oh, they will make just under six figures
    if they have got 5 years of experience.
        Mr. Grothman. Just under six figures for a carpenter?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. That is correct.
        Mr. Grothman. For a plumber, probably more, huh?
        Mr. Gamvroulas. The skilled labor for sure.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, I hope they have a lot of young people
    listening, so they do not make the mistake of going to college.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you, and with that our members
    have concluded questioning. I want to thank all of our
    testifiers here today. The time has expired, but we will
    certainly welcome any comments for the record, so if you would
    like to submit those, we will make sure that those get into the
    record. With that, we are going to head to closing remarks. I
    would like to recognize our Ranking Member for her closing
    statement.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to
    our witnesses for speaking with us today. Over the past 2
    months when Republicans shut down the government, working
    families have been feeling the sting of a slowing job market.
    Higher prices for food, gas, and unaffordable healthcare.
        Instead of returning to Congress to address the economic
    issues facing the American people, we wasted this morning
    discussing and outdated and ineffective program that does
    nothing to lower everyday costs, improve job quality, or make
    workplaces safer and fairer.
        E-Verify would pile more paperwork and liability onto small
    businesses, exasperate hiring discrimination, and deny
    qualified American job opportunities due to system errors. No
    one is stopping businesses from choosing to use E-Verify. Most
    do not bother with it because of its rampant problems. Working
    families and small businesses are not asking for E-Verify.
        They are asking for higher wages, paid leave, access to
    quality, affordable healthcare and childcare. It is our duty to
    step up and deliver effective solutions to these problems on
    behalf of our constituents, and build an economy that works for
    everyone. With that, thank you, and I yield back the rest of my
    time.
        Chairman Mackenzie. Thank you, and again I would like to
    thank all of our witnesses for testifying in today's hearing.
    The topic of E-Verify is a very important one for America's
    workforce, and after 4 years of massive inflation during the
    Biden administration that absolutely crushed working families,
    I cannot think of a better topic to focus on than figuring out
    how we can raise American wages.
        What we see with the exploitation of illegal immigrants who
    are unauthorized to work in this country, is that they are
    being taken advantage of, being paid under the table, being
    paid substandard wages. That is wage theft. That is something
    we should be focusing on, on this Committee. Wage theft of any
    employee, any worker in this country who is authorized to be
    here.
        That is something we should focus on. Then when it comes to
    all of the American workers who are out there, again, after
    being crushed with higher prices and massive inflation for 4
    years during the Biden administration, we want to figure out
    how to raise American wages. The way that we can do that is by
    focusing on things like E-Verify.
        This testimony today was very informative. We have heard
    about the ways that we can actually improve the system. One
    thing that came up during minority questioning was that 3
    million illegal immigrants were blocked from getting hired.
        That is a fantastic thing. That is incredible that we
    stopped 3 million people from being unauthorized to work in
    this country, stealing American wages, taking American jobs,
    that's great. That is a good thing that this system did, and we
    should be thankful for the fact that that occurred.
        The problem exists. The 12 million illegal immigrants were
    taking American wages and American jobs, so we should be
    figuring out solutions to that problem. How do we address that?
    The minority wants to again be in the 20 percent minority. This
    is an 80/20 issue. People will support American workers.
    American wage increases every single day against illegal
    immigrant labor that is stealing from them.
        They are stealing American wages, stealing American jobs,
    stealing taxpayer money, and the Democrats want to do nothing
    about that. That is what we heard today. We have an obligation
    to stand up for the American worker, and this Workforce
    Protections Subcommittee does that responsibility at every
    single hearing.
        We take it very seriously, and E-Verify is something we
    should expand upon as we move forward. We are going to continue
    to stand with American workers, as we move forward, continue to
    increase American wages, and I want to thank all of you
    patriots for being here today, testifying on behalf of your
    employees and the American workers, who rely on all of us to
    get these things right to protect them in their jobs every
    single day.
        With that I will conclude, and I want to say thank you
    again, and enjoy the rest of your day. With that, this
    Subcommittee is closed, and we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional submissions from Representative Scott follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions from Representative Walberg
    follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Ms.
    Rosemary Jenks follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]