[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17342-17350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              EMPLOYEE VERIFICATION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2008

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6633) to evaluate and extend the basic 
pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation and to ensure the 
protection of Social Security beneficiaries.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6633

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Employee Verification 
     Amendment Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

       Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is 
     amended by striking ``11-year period'' and inserting ``16-
     year period''.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Funding Under Agreement.--Effective for fiscal years 
     beginning on or after October 1, 2008, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     enter into and maintain an agreement which shall--
       (1) provide funds to the Commissioner for the full costs of 
     the responsibilities of the Commissioner under section 404 of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note), including (but not limited 
     to)--
       (A) acquiring, installing, and maintaining technological 
     equipment and systems necessary for the fulfillment of the 
     responsibilities of the Commissioner under such section 404, 
     but only that portion of such costs that are attributable 
     exclusively to such responsibilities; and
       (B) responding to individuals who contest a tentative 
     nonconfirmation provided by the basic pilot confirmation 
     system established under such section;
       (2) provide such funds quarterly in advance of the 
     applicable quarter based on estimating methodology agreed to 
     by the Commissioner and the Secretary (except in such 
     instances where the delayed enactment of an annual 
     appropriation may preclude such quarterly payments); and
       (3) require an annual accounting and reconciliation of the 
     actual costs incurred and the funds provided under the 
     agreement, which shall be reviewed by the Office of Inspector 
     General of the Social Security Administration and the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (b) Continuation of Employment Verification in Absence of 
     Timely Agreement.--In any case in which the agreement 
     required under subsection (a) for any fiscal year beginning 
     on or after October 1, 2008, has not been reached as of 
     October 1 of such

[[Page 17343]]

     fiscal year, the latest agreement between the Commissioner 
     and the Secretary of Homeland Security providing for funding 
     to cover the costs of the responsibilities of the 
     Commissioner under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a note) shall be deemed in effect on an interim basis for 
     such fiscal year until such time as an agreement required 
     under subsection (a) is subsequently reached, except that the 
     terms of such interim agreement shall be modified by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget to adjust for 
     inflation and any increase or decrease in the volume of 
     requests under the basic pilot confirmation system. In any 
     case in which an interim agreement applies for any fiscal 
     year under this subsection, the Commissioner and the 
     Secretary shall, not later than October 1 of such fiscal 
     year, notify the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee 
     on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate of the failure to reach the 
     agreement required under subsection (a) for such fiscal year. 
     Until such time as the agreement required under subsection 
     (a) has been reached for such fiscal year, the Commissioner 
     and the Secretary shall, not later than the end of each 90-
     day period after October 1 of such fiscal year, notify such 
     Committees of the status of negotiations between the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary in order to reach such an 
     agreement.

     SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF BASIC PILOT CONFIRMATION SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study regarding erroneous 
     tentative nonconfirmations under the basic pilot confirmation 
     system established under section 404(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
       (b) Matters To Be Studied.--In the study required under 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall determine and 
     analyze--
       (1) the causes of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations 
     under the basic pilot confirmation system;
       (2) the processes by which such erroneous tentative 
     nonconfirmations are remedied; and
       (3) the effect of such erroneous tentative nonconfirmations 
     on individuals, employers, and Federal agencies.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     the results of the study required under subsection (a) to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Finance and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

     SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF EFFECTS OF BASIC PILOT PROGRAM ON SMALL 
                   ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report containing the Comptroller General's analysis of the 
     effects of the basic pilot program described in section 
     403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) on small 
     entities (as defined in section 601 of title 5, United States 
     Code). The report shall detail--
       (1) the costs of compliance with such program on small 
     entities;
       (2) a description and an estimate of the number of small 
     entities enrolled and participating in such program or an 
     explanation of why no such estimate is available;
       (3) the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other 
     compliance requirements of such program on small entities;
       (4) factors that impact small entities' enrollment and 
     participation in such program, including access to 
     appropriate technology, geography, entity size, and class of 
     entity; and
       (5) the steps, if any, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     has taken to minimize the economic impact of participating in 
     such program on small entities.
       (b) Direct and Indirect Effects.--The report shall cover, 
     and treat separately, direct effects (such as wages, time, 
     and fees spent on compliance) and indirect effects (such as 
     the effect on cash flow, sales, and competitiveness).
       (c) Specific Contents.--The report shall provide specific 
     and separate details with respect to--
       (1) small businesses (as defined in section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code) with fewer than 50 employees; and
       (2) small entities operating in States that have mandated 
     use of the basic pilot program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 6633. This bill, negotiated by 
Members of both parties, will extend the basic pilot, otherwise known 
as the E-Verify program, for 5 years, while also ensuring that the 
Social Security Administration can continue to participate in the 
program without endangering its core mission of providing needed 
benefits to our seniors and the disabled. Without this bill, the 
authorization for the basic pilot program would expire this November.
  H.R. 6633 also commissions two studies, which should help Congress 
evaluate the basic pilot program as it continues to work through the 
issues raised by the electronic employment eligibility verification 
systems. One of the studies seeks the causes, the remedies, and the 
effects of tentative non-confirmations of employment eligibility. 
Implicit in the concept of false negatives is the converse; false 
positives. We naturally contemplate that the GAO study will address the 
question of erroneous confirmations as well.
  To understand the effectiveness of the basic pilot, we must not only 
know about U.S. workers falsely denied the authority to work, we must 
also know when it clears people who are not authorized to work.
  This Congress has been very active on the issue of electronic 
employment verification. Several committees, including the Judiciary 
and Ways and Means Committees, have held no less than five hearings on 
the subject. The Judiciary Committee alone held three hearings over the 
past year on electronic employment verification.
  In those hearings, we have learned that because the Department of 
Homeland Security relies on the Social Security Administration's 
databases and staff to query work authorization and fix erroneous 
records, the basic pilot program places significant burdens on the 
Social Security Administration. We don't want to jeopardize SSA's 
ability to carry out its core mission, which is to provide benefits to 
America's senior citizens and disabled Americans.
  We confirmed that electronic employment verification systems pose 
complicated issues; issues with serious consequences for American 
workers who could lose their jobs and even their right to work if 
employment verification isn't done right.
  We heard testimony in April, 2007, from the Service Employees 
International Union, in which we learned that, and I quote, ``Unless 
database errors are cured, 24,000 of the 300,000 estimated workers in 
each congressional district would be erroneously denied eligibility to 
work by basic pilot.'' That is 24,000 Americans and legal workers in 
each of our districts who could be stripped of their right to work 
because the government can't design a proper verification system.
  An independent evaluation of the basic pilot program commissioned by 
the Department of Homeland Security and conducted by Westat identified 
numerous issues with how the basic pilot program works. The Westat 
report documented abuse and misuse of basic pilot by employers. For 
example, 22 percent of employers who responded to Westat's survey 
recorded that they restricted work assignments to employees contesting 
tentative non-confirmations. It also noted significant privacy concerns 
in the program.
  In short, we have learned that there is much work still to be done 
and there are many questions left to be answered. Based on these 
findings, I do not believe that we can permanently reauthorize the 
basic pilot program or make it mandatory at this time. But as we 
continue to work comprehensively

[[Page 17344]]

to reform our immigration system, we certainly should allow the basic 
pilot to continue as a voluntary program.
  I would like to especially thank my colleagues, Mike McNulty from New 
York; Lamar Smith from Texas; and Sam Johnson from Texas, for their 
tremendous efforts in working to negotiate this consensus bill to bring 
it to the floor today, as well as the author, Congresswoman Giffords, 
and the principal Republican cosponsor, Congressman Calvert, whose 
leadership is truly remarkable.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to reform our Nation's 
immigration laws and to improve the electronic employment verification 
process. We certainly hope that our efforts will be bipartisan. If all 
goes well to refine and improve this system going forward, it will not 
take the 5 years that is provided for in this act. But certainly none 
of us wants the current system to go away while we continue to work to 
improve and get an even better system.
  I think that this bipartisan bill is necessary to pass. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Congressman Calvert for 
introducing the original bill on which this legislation was based, and 
for sponsoring this legislation as well. Also, thanks go to Chairwoman 
Lofgren, who just spoke; Ranking Members McCrery and Johnson, and 
Chairman Rangel for reaching a compromise on such an important issue.
  The E-Verify Program protects American workers by ensuring that jobs 
are reserved for legal workers. The Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 created the basic pilot program, 
which is now known as E-Verify. For the last decade, this program has 
provided American employers who want to do the right thing with an 
effective way to ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce. It 
ensures that new employees are not providing their employers with fake 
Social Security numbers.
  As the E-Verify Program has grown more popular--over 69,000 employers 
nationwide now participate--it has become the subject of some very 
unfair criticism. To set the record straight, participating employers 
are happy with the basic pilot program. Last year, an outside 
evaluation determined that ``most employers found the Web basic pilot 
to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification'' and 
that an amazing 96 percent did not believe that it overburdened their 
staffs.
  The accuracy of the databases that lie at the heart of the basic 
pilot program also has been unfairly maligned. However, the facts about 
these databases could not be more encouraging.
  Last year's outside evaluation found that in less than 1 percent, 
only .6 percent of cases, do employees who were eventually determined 
to be work-authorized undergo secondary verification. This means that 
persons eligible to work receive immediate confirmation 99.4 percent of 
the time. For the native-born, 99.9 percent receive immediate 
confirmation. For employees born outside of the U.S., 97 percent 
receive immediate confirmation. That is a success rate any company in 
America would be happy to have.
  A common misperception is that secondary verification means error by 
a Federal agency. That is simply not the case. Secondary verification 
usually means that an illegal immigrant has been caught providing false 
information or that an employee has failed to update their records with 
the Social Security Administration. This is seldom acknowledged by 
those who question the E-Verify Program.
  Of the employees who were asked to contact local Social Security 
Administration offices as part of the verification process, 95 percent 
said their work authorization problem was resolved in a timely, 
courteous, and efficient manner.
  Finally, it has been alleged that the Social Security 
Administration's Inspector General has found the agency's database to 
be inaccurate. However, the Inspector General actually stated, ``We 
applaud the agency on the accuracy of the data we tested.''
  The legislation before us tonight reauthorizes the E-Verify Program 
for 5 years and puts in place a system to help ensure that the 
Department of Homeland Security covers the cost of the program.
  It is hard to believe that those who attack E-Verify are serious 
about reducing illegal immigration or saving American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the bill is on the House floor. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Mike McNulty has served 
our country well for many years. He will be retiring at the end of this 
Congress. One of the things he has stuck up for most was disabled 
workers who need their Social Security benefits. As a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, he has worked very hard on this issue.
  I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).
  Mr. McNULTY. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her kind 
comments, and also the gentleman from Texas, both of them, for their 
very hard work on reaching this bipartisan consensus.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to extend the basic pilot 
program, also known as E-Verify. I wish to especially thank my friend, 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Sam Johnson, 
for his longstanding service to the Nation and for his steadfast 
support of the effort to protect seniors, people with disabilities, and 
survivors. Together, we have worked since the start of this Congress to 
provide needed funding for the Social Security Administration to 
address unacceptable backlogs in disability hearings and the decline in 
the service to our constituents. Moreover, we must ensure that SSA is 
ready for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
  SSA has struggled to meet an increasing workload despite a decade of 
underfunding. Congress only recently increased funding to help address 
the backlog of disability claims, and we are working to continue that 
trend. It will take sustained adequate funding for SSA to meet the 
challenges of reducing its backlog while keeping pace with growing 
workloads.
  SSA plays a significant role in the E-Verify pilot program, which is 
rapidly growing under DHS's direction. There is broad consensus that 
SSA must be paid for this work. The legislation before us provides 
essential protections for seniors, people with disabilities, and 
survivors who need Social Security benefits to meet their daily 
expenses. It does so by ensuring that DHS and SSA enter into annual 
agreements that require DHS to pay SSA in full and on a timely basis 
for its E-Verify related expenses.

                              {time}  1900

  I would like to thank our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who 
worked with us to include language in this bill to provide for full and 
timely payment to SSA for its role under the E-Verify program. This is 
a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to extend the ``basic 
pilot'' program, also known as ``E-Verify.''
  I wish to thank my friend, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security Mr. Johnson, for his long-standing service to the 
Nation and for his steadfast support of the effort to protect seniors, 
people with disabilities, and survivors.
  Together, we have worked since the start of this Congress to provide 
needed funding for the Social Security Administration to address 
unacceptable backlogs in disability hearings and the decline in service 
to our constituents. Moreover, we must ensure SSA is ready for the 
retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
  SSA has struggled to meet an increasing workload despite a decade of 
underfunding. Congress only recently increased funding to help address 
the backlog of disability claims, and we are working to continue that 
trend. It will take sustained adequate funding for SSA to meet the 
challenge of reducing its backlog while keeping pace with growing 
workloads.
  In light of these difficulties, we have been concerned about whether 
SSA has been provided the necessary resources by DHS to

[[Page 17345]]

meet its rapidly growing workload under the E-Verify program.
  I thank our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, who worked 
tirelessly with us to include language in this bill to provide for full 
and timely payment to SSA for its role under the E-Verify program.
  The Social Security Act prohibits the use of Social Security program 
funds for non-program related purposes. Therefore, SSA executes 
reimbursement agreements with other agencies whenever SSA performs work 
on their behalf.
  SSA plays a significant role in the E-Verify pilot program. Every 
query made by the system is run through SSA data and systems first. 
Every time there is a mismatch between the information sent via E-
Verify and the SSA database, employees are told to contact SSA. Many 
must visit SSA field offices to show necessary proof of identity or 
work-authorization.
  For this work, DHS is required to reimburse SSA. Yet the 
reimbursements have not always been made in a timely way. For example, 
the reimbursement for FY2006 was finally agreed upon within the last 
few weeks. Consequently, SSA has been forced to pay for the work using 
scarce Social Security administrative dollars, which are meant to be 
used to serve Social Security program participants.
  At the same time, E-Verify is growing as some States and the 
Administration require more employers to enroll in the system.
  The legislation before us provides essential protections for seniors, 
people with disabilities and survivors who need Social Security 
benefits to meet their daily expenses. It does so by ensuring that DHS 
and SSA enter into annual agreements that require DHS to pay SSA, in 
full and on a timely basis, for its E-Verify related expenses.
  It also includes an important GAO study on erroneous tentative non-
confirmations by the E-Verify system that are the primary cause of 
SSA's expenses. I am confident that the results of this study will help 
Congress improve the program in the next few years before it is 
expanded any further.
  I support this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, now I would like to yield to my friend the gentleman 
from Texas, Sam Johnson, a great American patriot and hero, for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I will tell you 
what, you are a protector of our future with Social Security, and there 
is nothing in this bill, thanks to the Judiciary people on both sides, 
that changes the Social Security Act or the laws and rules governing 
the use of Federal appropriations. Therefore, the current prohibition 
on Social Security's use of its limitation on administrative expenses, 
known as LAE, on trust fund monies for non-program purposes, remains in 
effect.
  Is that the understanding of the chairman?
  Mr. McNULTY. The gentleman is correct. Nothing in this bill changes 
current law regarding how the LAE or trust funds may be used.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. It is my understanding that the Social 
Security Act is quite specific with respect as to how Social Security's 
own funds, that is, trust funds and LAE, can be used, is that correct?
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, the ranking member raises an excellent 
point. Section 201(g) of the Social Security Act does prohibit SSA from 
spending its own funds on anything other than the programs it is 
responsible for administering.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. So Social Security would not be able to pay 
for E-Verify expenses if there weren't agreements with DHS that require 
that Department to pay Social Security expenses; is that correct?
  Mr. McNULTY. Yes, that is right. Section 201 of the Social Security 
Act allows SSA to spend its trust fund and LAE moneys only to pay and 
administer Social Security benefits, special veterans benefits, SSI and 
Medicare. Verifying employment eligibility does not fall into any of 
those categories.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the chairman for his supportive 
efforts to protect the Social Security programs and beneficiaries. We 
all recognize E-Verify is an important tool. We have to balance that 
recognition with the needs of our seniors, those with disabilities and 
others who depend on Social Security for their basic needs.
  Mr. McNULTY. I want to close by thanking Representative Johnson for 
his long military service, for enduring torture for all the people of 
this country, and for his excellent work as an elected public official.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, a sponsor of the bill that we are considering tonight, and 
the author of the legislation on which the bill tonight is based.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6633. As the 
original author of E-Verify in 1996, I have monitored the development 
of the program closely over the last 12 years. It has evolved from a 
humble five-State pilot program to a program that is available 
nationwide with over 78,000 employers participating.
  All employers in the United States are required by law to hire legal 
workers. E-Verify is the only tool available to employers to check the 
work status of newly-hired employees. It is timely, user-friendly, free 
to employers, and 99.5 percent accurate. In fact, 94.2 percent of 
checks to the system receive an instant green light to work.
  To date, for fiscal year 2008, over 5 million queries to the system 
have been run successfully. A total of 3.2 million queries were made 
for fiscal year 2007, and 1.7 million queries were made for fiscal year 
2006. Two States, Arizona and Mississippi, have made E-Verify 
mandatory, and almost all 50 States have legislation pending that would 
require the use of E-Verify at some level in the State. Individuals who 
receive a tentative non-confirmation have eight business days to 
contact the Social Security Administration or the Department of 
Homeland Security to start the process to clarify that status.
  DHS has also implemented the Photo Tool program for noncitizens who 
are authorized to work in the United States. The Photo Tool allows 
employers to check the photo presented on the employment authorization 
document with a photo in the DHS database.
  As the State of Arizona has demonstrated, E-Verify prevents 
individuals here illegally from obtaining work, and it solves the 
problem of deportation, since most people choose to self-deport when 
they are unable to find a job. E-Verify has proved it is effective, and 
it is imperative we do not let the program expire on November 30 of 
this year.
  H.R. 6633 extends E-Verify for an additional 5 years and requires two 
GAO reports that I believe will reaffirm the effectiveness and accuracy 
of this program. This legislation codifies the annual payment agreement 
between the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security 
Administration to ensure that SSA is receiving the funds necessary to 
run E-Verify.
  I commend Representative Giffords for her sponsorship of the bill. I 
thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Chairman 
Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their work on this effort as well. 
The American people have voiced their strong support for E-Verify. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6633 and extend E-Verify for 
an additional 5 years.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like 
to recognize a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 
for 2 minutes, a valued member of our committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the 
chairwoman of the subcommittee, and chairman of our full committee as 
well, and certainly the ranking member and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Let me also express my appreciation to Ms. Giffords. We have talked 
about this legislation. I congratulate her for her leadership, along 
with the cosponsors, including Mr. Calvert, Mr. McNulty and Mr. Johnson 
of my State, and all the others who are supporting this legislation.
  If you talk to businesses in your community, they want to do the 
right thing, and Americans want the right process to be in place. It is 
important that we hire Americans first, and I think we have been 
committed to that during the whole period of the discussion of 
immigration reform.
  But I also rise to say that it is important as we pass this 
legislation, giving

[[Page 17346]]

it an extension, and I frankly believe it should not expire in November 
of 2008, we have to also understand that there are States where this is 
voluntary. I heard Mr. Calvert say there are a number of States that 
will now put this in place through law, but there are a number of 
States that do not have it in place, and therefore it is confusing.
  We need to be able to ensure that there is a comprehensive approach 
to the border security question that all of us agree with, but also to 
recognize the hard-working tax paying individuals who are here, who 
really should be put in a process, a line, that eliminates this 
undercover workforce, that allows a pathway to citizenship with paying 
of fines, getting in line, not getting ahead of those who have been in 
line, and having a period of time that they are in this country.
  This particular basic pilot program, however, is vital for many of 
our businesses. For example, the construction industries that I have 
met with over and over again in Houston, Texas, and I know that have 
been engaged with Mr. Johnson and many in this Congress to try to move 
forward on this program that deals with the Social Security process.
  We have to ensure, however, as we put this in place, that it works, 
that the technology works, that the oversight works, and we have to 
make sure that in fact we get the accurate reports to make sure that 
those who are using it are benefiting from it.
  Mr. Speaker, I do ask my colleagues to support this legislation, but 
I also ask that we get to the point of comprehensive immigration 
reform. But as I say that, E-Verify is a good step, it is a positive 
step, and I know my business community will look forward it being in 
force.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my Texas 
colleague, Sam Johnson, who is the ranking member of the Social 
Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren and Mr. Lamar Smith. Those two worked well with us on Social 
Security, and I rise today to support the bill and extend the E-Verify 
program. The extension is, unfortunately, the least we can do to 
provide a workable tool for employers who want to do the right thing 
and verify that their new employees are authorized to work in this 
country. Americans need real immigration reform. We need to protect our 
borders and make sure Americans are not fighting for jobs with people 
who are here illegally.
  This bill is a step in the right direction. We have got a long way to 
go. I support a mandatory nationwide electronic verification system so 
we don't have a patchwork of conflicting State and local laws. 
Protecting Social Security is always the right thing to do, so as the 
ranking member on the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, I am 
pleased the bill includes provisions that ensure Social Security and 
DHS agree on funding to support E-Verify.
  However, I ask my colleagues, how long do we have to experiment with 
employment verification before Congress delivers a nationwide, 
mandatory, long-term solution that this country needs and the American 
people deserve?
  Last February, I, along with several of my Ways and Means colleagues, 
introduced the New Employment Verification Act, or NEVA. Representative 
Giffords and I have been working together on this bill that builds on 
the success of E-Verify while addressing its challenges.
  I hope everyone interested in this debate will take the opportunity 
to look at the information on this bill on my website. When it comes to 
immigration, the American people want, need and expect real solutions, 
and American employers need a first class system that helps them comply 
with the law.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would 
like to yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, a freshman leader in 
this area of the bill with Mr. Johnson, Congresswoman Giffords from 
Arizona.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, for all of your help in 
bringing the Employment Verification Amendment Act, H.R. 6633, to the 
floor today. This legislation is the result of a lot of hard work from 
Members on both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate the fact that 
Members have joined together to reauthorize the Department of Homeland 
Security's Basic Pilot Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification 
Program, also known as E-Verify. I particularly appreciate that this 
legislation calls for investigations into various aspects of E-Verify 
and ensures that we safeguard Social Security.
  E-Verify was one of three employee verification pilot programs 
created in 1997, and it has remained a voluntary program at the Federal 
level for 11 years with actually very few employers enrolled. However, 
recent actions at the State and the Federal levels are increasing 
demand on E-Verify and the Social Security system that it relies on. In 
the last 2 years, over a dozen States have passed employee verification 
laws, and some, like my home State of Arizona, have mandated E-Verify 
for all employers and imposed severe sanctions against those who do not 
comply.
  The administration is also increasingly requiring E-Verify's use. On 
June 6, 2008, President Bush signed an amendment to an executive order 
requiring more than 200,000 Federal contractors to use E-Verify.
  E-Verify relies on the Social Security Administration's data and 
systems to verify the citizenship and Social Security numbers of all 
newly hired individuals for their eligibility to work. According to the 
GAO, 100 percent of E-Verify queries are first checked against the 
Social Security database. The need to reauthorize the E-Verify this 
year presented us with an important opportunity to focus on key 
components of our Nation's immigration crisis, that is, the need for an 
effective Federal employee work authorization system.

                              {time}  1915

  I have been very clear that the current E-Verify system needs to be 
replaced or reformed. We need to create a mandatory Federal system that 
is both reliable and effective.
  Americans from across the country all agree that our farms, our 
factories, and other businesses should not abet the flow of illegal 
immigrants into the United States by providing them a place to work. 
Yet the Federal Government has failed on many accounts to enforce 
existing immigration laws. That forces local and State governments to 
do the Federal Government's work. Employment verification is vital to 
solving our immigration crisis, and that is why we are here today. 
Right now, the only options for States is E-Verify. It is still, 
though, a voluntary pilot program with some obvious flaws. As I have 
testified to three House committees, we can do better.
  But while this debate continues, E-Verify will expire this November. 
That is why I have introduced the Employee Verification Amendment Act 
to extend E-Verify, but only for 5 years. By reauthorizing E-Verify for 
5 years instead of the 10, we can move to a Federal mandatory system 
more quickly. Within 5 years or less, the Federal Government must 
develop a mandatory system that operates uniformly across all 50 
States. This is critical to fixing our broken immigration system.
  Developing the best mandatory system possible requires us to 
understand the pitfalls in the current E-Verify system, and that is why 
this bill includes some studies into how E-Verify impacts small 
businesses and accurately confirms workers' eligibility.
  Congress has to learn from the experience of employers and employees 
in States like Arizona. We are on the front lines of this immigration 
debate. Lessons learned from Arizona will help us develop a mandatory 
program that can identify undocumented workers in an efficient manner 
without fostering identity theft or violating workers' rights of United 
States citizens.
  This bill also requires DHS to provide timely and appropriate 
payments to Social Security. In order for E-Verify or any employee 
verification system to work, the Social Security database and system 
has to have the funding that it

[[Page 17347]]

needs to handle the increased demand created by a verification system.
  The Social Security protections in this bill will keep E-Verify 
operational. They will also prevent interference with Social Security 
services to seniors, people with disabilities, and also to survivors. 
The AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare sent letters to the Ways and Means Committee reflecting these 
concerns.
  Before I close, again I want to thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for 
bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank Representatives 
Michael McNulty, Sam Johnson, Lamar Smith, and Ken Calvert as well as 
for their leadership on the bill and all of the staff's hard work.
  Illegal immigration continues to be a major problem for the United 
States of America. The Employee Verification Amendment Act is a step 
forward towards solving one aspect of the problem. This is the best 
approach at this critical time, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.


                                                         AARP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2008.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim McCrery,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen: On behalf of AARP's nearly 40 million 
     members, we write in support of the Social Security 
     Administration (SSA) funding provision contained in the e-
     verify extension bill. At a time when Social Security 
     recipients and applicants are facing ever-greater delays in 
     the prompt delivery of needed services, and disabled 
     Americans are enduring long waits for their earned benefits, 
     it is critical to secure SSA funding for all the 
     administrative tasks the agency performs. The SSA funding 
     provision of the bill specifically gives the agency greater 
     assurance that it will be timely and appropriately reimbursed 
     by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for expenditures 
     the SSA undertakes in administering the employee verification 
     program on behalf of the DHS. Ensuring that SSA receives 
     prompt reimbursement for these expenditures is critical to 
     the successful extension of the employee verification 
     program, as well as to protecting the integrity of core 
     services delivered by the agency.
       The SSA funding provision in this legislation does not 
     depart from the original funding framework established when 
     the employee verification program was created. The Department 
     of Homeland Security, and not the Social Security 
     Administration, has always had the responsibility for funding 
     the employee verification program, The SSA funding provision 
     clarifies the funding relationship by establishing a 
     quarterly advance payment as well as an annual accounting and 
     reconciliation of expenditures. Without full and timely 
     payments from the DHS (which in recent fiscal years have not 
     been forthcoming), the SSA is forced to rely on its own 
     administrative funding to operate the employee verification 
     program. Given that the agency already suffers from 
     significant administrative funding shortfalls which affect 
     millions of Social Security recipients and applicants, this 
     is unacceptable.
       The establishment of a clear statutory reimbursement 
     process for administrative tasks, such as e-verify, which the 
     SSA performs for other departments and agencies could 
     meaningfully contribute to the health of the agency's 
     administrative budget, and by extension, to the quality and 
     timeliness of the services the SSA delivers to Social 
     Security recipients and applicants. We urge you to adopt 
     legislation that gives the SSA the funding it needs to 
     administer e-verify without endangering the quality of 
     services the agency provides to workers and beneficiaries.
       If you have any further questions, feel free to call me, or 
     please have your staff contact Cristina Martin Firvida of our 
     Government Relations and Advocacy staff.
           Sincerely,

                                              David P. Sloane,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                Government Relations and Advocacy.
                                  ____
                                  
                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                 Social Security and Medicare,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2008.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Committee on Ways and Means,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: The National Committee to Preserve 
     Social Security and Medicare understands that the Judiciary 
     Committee intends, in the near future, to bring to the House 
     floor legislation to extend the current E-Verify program, 
     jointly administered by the Department of Homeland Security 
     (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The 
     National Committee strongly urges the inclusion of language 
     in the legislation that would ensure that SSA is being fully 
     and timely reimbursed by DHS for its costs of administering 
     the E-Verify system.
       We are very concerned about the negative consequences of 
     unreimbursed immigration workloads on an already overburdened 
     Social Security Administration. For every dollar that goes 
     uncompensated, a dollar is diverted from SSA's central 
     mission of serving its own beneficiaries--the elderly, people 
     with disabilities, and workers of all ages who have 
     contributed and earned the right to collect Social Security 
     benefits in a timely manner. As you know, SSA's resources are 
     already being stretched thin by a disability backlog 
     challenge. As a result, strains are being placed on other 
     agency services, especially those in local offices where 
     customers are experiencing long waits and unanswered phones. 
     As always, SSA employees are making a strong effort to 
     maintain their traditional quality service, but it is 
     becoming increasingly difficult.
       Unfortunately, Social Security has not always been fully or 
     timely reimbursed for the costs of the E-Verify program. 
     Agreements are negotiated annually between DHS and SSA. 
     However, SSA is often left bearing the burden of these costs. 
     For example, in FY 2005, SSA received only 80 percent of its 
     actual costs. For FY 2006, DHS failed to reimburse SSA for 
     any of its expenses. For FY 2008, costs remain in 
     negotiation. Clearly, these failures are affecting the 
     resources available to SSA for services to Social Security 
     beneficiaries.
       Earlier this year, I testified before the Subcommittee on 
     Social Security opposing the expansion of the E-Verify 
     program to a national employment verification system because 
     I believe it is a significant mistake to require SSA to take 
     on the burden of verifying the work status of every American 
     for immigration-related purposes. At that time, I noted that 
     the National Committee was not taking a position on the 
     underlying goals of any immigration bill before the Congress. 
     Similarly, the National Committee is not taking a position on 
     the extension of the current voluntary E-Verify program. 
     However, we do believe that it would be a serious disservice 
     to America's seniors, people with disabilities, and other 
     core customers of the agency if the current E-Verify program 
     were extended without including language to ensure that SSA 
     is being fully and timely reimbursed by DHS for the 
     significant costs of this unrelated immigration workload.
           Cordially,
                                               Barbara B Kennelly,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank 
the gentlewoman from Arizona for her comments and her endorsement of 
this bill.
  I yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who is 
the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your long work on 
immigration issues. I often come across legislation that was put in 
place during the nineties in particular and find out what kind of 
wisdom was there.
  I want to also thank the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee and 
the support on both sides of the aisle for bringing this 5-year 
reauthorization of E-Verify to the floor. But I especially want to 
thank Ken Calvert. It is a rare legislator that has the vision to put 
something in place that has the legacy that has already been created by 
E-Verify. His face and his name will be forever identified with this 
policy, which I think is the smartest, most technologically adaptive, 
and the most useful tool that we have for employers that want to hire 
legal workers in America.
  I look at this and I think, this is a reauthorization. It is a status 
quo. I would have liked to have had an opportunity to upgrade E-Verify, 
because we know a lot of things now that we didn't know when it was put 
in place.
  One of the things that we know are 98.6 percent of the names that are 
submitted in through E-Verify on the computer database; and, by the 
way, I have it in my office and I have run it and operated it and I am 
familiar with its inner workings in a way--98.6 percent of the first 
requests are approved. Remaining in that 1.4 percent are people who are 
not authorized to work in the United States and that very small piece 
of the database that does need to be upgraded. 99.9 percent of those 
that are born in the United States and are American citizens and are 
legal to work here are approved the first time through.
  So that remains in those statistics those who aren't authorized to 
work,

[[Page 17348]]

who may be here illegally, or those who are here legally that aren't 
authorized to work. And the balance of that is mostly people who have 
gotten married and women who have not changed their name and the 
database doesn't match. USCIS has brought that up to speed here within 
the last several months and set it up so that their database search 
goes out to two different categories. It looks for those name changes 
that have to be cleaned up. And the other are naturalized citizens. 
Sometimes the paperwork of naturalized citizens doesn't catch up in 
time, and there has been a little delay gap that has caused a little 
bit of error. That gap has been narrowed substantially by I think a 
good technological move by USCIS.
  What I would have liked to have seen is that we reauthorize E-Verify 
and provide that employers can simply check those prospective employees 
and make it a condition that E-Verify could be used with a job offer. 
Not hire the person and wait for the answer in the 8 days to come back 
but make a job offer conditional to an E-Verify approval. And I believe 
an employer should be able to use E-Verify for current employees.
  Those two changes would have gone a long way towards allowing an 
employer to verify that their entire employee base is legal. Otherwise, 
under the circumstances that we have, an employer is compelled to hire 
someone and then find out if they are legal. I think that is the wrong 
message to send.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I support this reauthorization, but I submit that we can do better. 
When you require an employer in the United States to hire someone 
blindly as to whether they will be a legal or an illegal employee, and 
then after they hire them and put them on the payroll and set them up 
for the salary and benefits package, then they get to put the request 
in to go out through the Internet database, search the Department of 
Human Services' database, the Social Security Administration's 
database, and have it come back verified or not verified, that is the 
wrong side of this equation. I want it on the right side. I want an 
employer to be able to say, I didn't hire anyone illegally. But we put 
them in a bad position with this.
  We could have done better. We could have upgraded. But this is a 
very, very good tool. To add to this, I am hopeful that and do expect 
that we will see USCIS link to E-Verify the digital photographs of 
those who are here working on a green card and those kind of cases. If 
we are able to do that, then we can verify that the face of the 
individual who presents the documents actually matches the documents of 
the individual. That is another improvement that comes along hopefully 
administratively.
  Additionally, I will add to this that I am extra invested in E-
Verify, because I have introduced legislation and will reintroduce it 
again this week that is called the New IDEA Act. That lets the IRS come 
into this mix, deny Federal deductibility for wages and benefits paid 
to illegals, gives safe harbor to employers that use E-Verify, and now 
it puts together the team and requires the IRS to communicate with the 
Social Security Administration and communicate with the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  We have the tools to do this. We can work and cooperate and 
coordinate together with our different departments of government in the 
same fashion that a company would work and cooperate and coordinate 
with their different departments of their company. We are not doing 
that yet. We are taking a step in the right direction, and I am very 
glad to hear the bipartisan support that we have for E-Verify.
  I again congratulate Ken Calvert for a work in progress, well 
started, not yet well done. I urge adoption of this, and I appreciate 
the extension and the reauthorization.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would 
like to recognize Congressman Moore from the heartland of the country, 
Kansas, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. My thanks to Chairwoman Lofgren for yielding me 
time. I would like to acknowledge the many hours and hard work my 
friend from California and her staff have put into the many hearings 
they have had on our country's history of immigration and the need for 
reforming our immigration laws.
  I would like to thank my fellow Blue Dog, Congresswoman Gabrielle 
Giffords, for drafting the bipartisan Employee Verification Amendment 
Act, and her leadership on addressing illegal immigration. I would also 
like to thank Social Security Subcommittee Chair Mike McNulty and 
Ranking Member  Sam Johnson and their staffs for their work in ensuring 
we protect Social Security as we extend and improve E-Verify.
  Due to their work, Social Security trust funds will not be raided, in 
contravention of current law, to fund the costs of the E-Verify 
program. Our seniors and persons with disabilities should not and will 
not be burdened with these costs under our bill.
  This year, House committees have held hearings examining how E-Verify 
works and how it might be improved. I am pleased we have reached the 
bipartisan compromise the House is now considering. We must crack down 
on employers who knowingly hire and take advantage of undocumented 
workers, and this bill will help do that.
  This bill will continue E-Verify without interruption for 5 more 
years, which is very important, and will protect Social Security. The 
bill also requires the evaluation of the E-Verify databases and the 
need to improve them, as well as the impact E-Verify may have on small 
businesses, nonprofits, and municipalities. We need to address these 
and other legitimate concerns, like identity theft, so we can implement 
a far more effective and efficient mandatory employment verification 
system in the near future with other immigration reforms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray), who is the chairman of the Immigration 
Reform Caucus.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, 99 percent plus efficiency. Where else in 
the Federal Government can we claim that we have a program that is over 
99 percent effective, efficient, and gets the job done?
  I am here to support this bill; and, sadly, I am here to support it 
at a 5-year extension rather than the 10-year originally proposed. And 
my big question is, those that did not want to extend it to 10 years, 
what don't you understand about 99.6 percent efficiency for the 
American citizens in the United States? Is it too efficient and that is 
why we are not today extending it 10 years? That is a question I think 
that every Member of Congress is going to have to answer to their 
constituency in the very near future.
  Mr. Speaker, the employee verification system is not a pilot program 
anymore. For over 5 years, it has been a national program not 
restricted to the five original States but universal throughout the 
United States. It has been so effective that judiciaries across this 
country, judges, have required that anyone caught hiring illegal has 
been required to use this system to make sure it doesn't happen again.
  The system is so effective that the executive branch and the 
legislative branch has made this the gold standard for hiring 
employees. Congress today does and has been required to make sure that 
Social Security numbers and names match before we hire them. The 
executive branch had asked for Congress themselves to do that. You 
haven't heard the horror stories and the end of the world because 99.6 
percent is a number hard to argue with. The executive branch was 
confronted by this number, and now has mandated that any contractor and 
every government operation will use this system from now on. The 
question, Mr. Speaker, is why are we just maintaining the status quo 
for 5 more years?
  Two years ago, the American voters were very upset with the fact that 
the

[[Page 17349]]

then Republican majority refused to confront the issue that the number 
one source of illegal immigration was illegal employment, and that 
there was a simple, easy way to stop the problem if there was a will in 
Washington to get it done, and that system was E-Verification.
  Today, we are confronted with a 5-year extension of what we have had 
for over 5 years rather than moving forward with a system that can 
address the number one source of illegal immigration, a simple system 
that can not only stop illegal immigration but stop a lot of problems 
related to that.
  The SAVE Act was introduced by a Democrat named Heath Shuler from the 
great State of North Carolina. It was supported by over 156 Members of 
the House of Representatives. It has actually received a discharge 
petition that is within less than 30 people to sign it to be able to 
bring it to a vote. That would make it a universal phase-in system to 
allow every employer and require every employer to not only use E-
Verification before hiring somebody, but using E-Verification before--
are you ready for this?--claiming a tax deduction for employing 
somebody who may be illegal.

                              {time}  1930

  I wish that Democrats and Republicans could have got together on that 
bill the way we did with this one. But sadly, the leadership of the 
Democratic Party in this House and Speaker Pelosi has blocked any 
legislation of substantive numbers that does not include an amnesty for 
the 20 million people illegally present.
  Mr. Speaker, there are those who talk about compassion about those 
who are illegally here. Well, let me give you another number. Three 
hundred-plus illegals are sitting in prison today because an employer 
in Iowa did not use the E-Verification system before hiring them. And 
if you don't care about illegal immigration, and you say you care about 
immigrants coming to this country illegally, and you want to be 
humanitarian, then require the people that are exploiting them to check 
through E-Verification as a mandate, not a voluntary, so that future 
illegals that come into this country are not put in prison because 
their employer didn't check that the name and the Social Security 
Number matched.
  I wish this town would act on its verbiage and its promises half as 
much as they expect the American people to respond to the 
responsibilities of citizenship.
  As Members of Congress, we are now placed at having to vote for a 5-
year extension rather than a 10, and we are denied the ability by the 
Speaker of the House to vote on a bill that is bipartisan, and able to 
address this issue. And I would ask that the SAVE Act be brought 
forward as soon as possible so we can back up this voluntary program 
with a mandatory one that will take care of the problem.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I reserve my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have one last speaker on this 
side and I will recognize him or yield to him right now, and that is, 
again, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) my remaining time, which I 
believe is 2 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  First I wanted to say that the narrow gap that we have in efficiency 
that has received some criticism, if you don't use a list, you can't 
improve the list. Using the list improves the list. And as good as it 
is, as close as it is, and the improvements that have been brought 
forth, we can get it to become among the best lists in the country if 
we just use E-Verify, and I expect that will be the case.
  As I look at the overall immigration picture, and we talked about 
enforcement and how effective is enforcement. There was an announcement 
that came out today, a press conference this afternoon, I think about 
2:30, that rolled out a study done by Citizenship Immigration Services, 
CIS, Dr. Steve Camarota. And as I read through the report, and I am 
speaking from memory, not from a document, that report, I believe, 
references this way. Since last August, by their study, 1.3 million 
illegal aliens have self-deported, have gone back to their home 
countries, have left America. 1.3 million. And the analysis that is 
there predicts that at the present rate of self-deportation, and that 
is what it is, that we will see the illegal population in the United 
States be cut in half if that pace continues. That is a huge 
accomplishment.
  And the people that said, well, we can't deport them all, didn't 
understand that they got here somehow. They got here on their own, and 
many of them have now decided to go back on their own. And here are the 
reasons.
  The first one is enforcement; that ICE has begun to enforce 
immigration law, and as they have begun to do so, and it is the same 
time, in conjunction with an economy that doesn't have as much demand 
for lower skilled laborers. And then additionally, the publicity that 
surrounds the more intense enforcement that we have seen has put that 
all together in a package that is saying to some people that are here 
illegally that it is better for them to go home.
  Now I have argued for a long time the administration should enforce 
the law. I have never believed that they enforced it consistently 
enough nor aggressively enough. But this is an exact response to this. 
The Swift raids in Iowa, the Postville raids in Iowa, ICE doing their 
job. And if ICE does not do their job, we don't have this 1.3 million.
  And additionally, during the Eisenhower administration, they got 
about a 10-1 self-deportation for every one that was picked up and 
deported. This is a 7-1 self-deportation. That is a real difference and 
a real change.
  I support this. We can do better. And I urge its adoption.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there are lies, darn lies 
and statistics. Isn't that the joke?
  There have been a lot of figures thrown out here today. I think it is 
important to note that, according to the GAO, of the 7 million 
employers that are in the United States, less than 1 percent actually 
use E-Verify.
  And the GAO also tells us, based on their analysis, that the SSA 
records contain errors about 4.1 percent of the time; 4.1 percent over 
163 million workers is a lot of folks. So we have our work cut out for 
us.
  I will note that there are 11 different bills that have been 
introduced by Members of this House with different ways and ideas on 
how to improve the employment verification system. We need to do an 
improvement of this system. I hope that that will be a bipartisan 
effort. But we are not going to get that done between now and November. 
And so it is important that we extend the existing program so that at 
least we have this in place.
  I would note that Mr. Camarota and the Center for Immigration Studies 
is not the USCIS. That is sort of a think tank that wants to restrict 
immigration. It is an advocacy group.
  But the real point is that you can track immigration, both legal and 
unauthorized, into the United States based on the exchange rate between 
the peso and the dollar. And as our economy weakens, you see less 
individuals either coming or staying. That doesn't mean that we don't 
need to get this system improved and that we don't need to have a 
comprehensive reform of our immigration laws and system, because what 
we have now is not working as well as it should be in the interests of 
our wonderful America.
  I am happy to support this extension at this time. I have appreciated 
working with the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith, in 
getting this bipartisan consensus. I hope that we can get this through 
the Senate promptly.
  And as I said in my opening statement, I have every expectation that 
the necessary improvements to the E-Verify system or the employment 
verification system will not take 5 years. Hopefully, that will be done 
well before the 5 years has expired, and that we will be pleased with 
the necessary improvement that we will craft together.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6633, the 
E-Verify

[[Page 17350]]

Amendment Act. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that can be used to 
verify the employment eligibility of newly hired employees. It does so 
by checking the worker's Social Security number and citizenship status 
against the Social Security database. For non-citizens, it also checks 
work authorization status against a separate Department of Homeland 
Security database.
  E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot, was one of the 
recommendations to come out of the 1995 Task Force on Immigration 
Reform, which I chaired.
  While I support this legislation, I also firmly believe E-Verify 
participation should be mandatory for all employers throughout the 
country. We know that most illegal immigrants come to this country 
looking for work. If they are unable to find and hold jobs, most will 
go home on their own. Even more important, when they learn that finding 
jobs in the United States is more difficult, other illegal workers will 
be less likely to come to this country in the first place.
  E-Verify is currently used by more than 75,000 employers. Almost 
everyone authorized to work in the United States is immediately 
verified by the system. Only about one-half of 1 percent of employees 
queried who are actually eligible to work in the United States receive 
a ``tentative non-confirmation.'' But this system gives them the 
opportunity to correct their information and ensure their tax and 
Social Security records are accurate.
  Mr. Speaker, E-Verify works. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
employees verification amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  The Employee Verification Amendment Act reauthorizes the Department 
of Homeland Security's (DHS) Basic Pilot electronic employment 
eligibility verification program, also known as ``E-Verify.'' Without 
congressional action, E-Verify will expire in November 2008. This 
legislation provides for a 5-year extension of this voluntary program 
for the electronic employment verification of employees. It also 
includes provisions that ensure DHS provides timely reimbursements to 
the Social Security Administration (SSA) for E-Verify's use of SSA 
resources. Two Government Accountability Office studies are also 
authorized.
  The bill provides for the Department of Homeland Security's basic 
pilot program. Specifically, DHS's electronic employment eligibility 
verification program (known as ``Basic Pilot'' or ``E-Verify'') is 
scheduled to expire in November 2008. This legislation reauthorizes E-
Verify as a voluntary pilot program for an additional 5 years--through 
2013.
  E-Verify is an internet-based system that can be used to verify the 
employment eligibility of newly-hired employees. It does so by checking 
an employee's Social Security number and citizenship status against the 
Social Security database and, for non-citizens, it checks work 
authorization status against a separate DHS database.
  In the last 2 years, over a dozen states have passed employee 
verification laws. Some, like Arizona have mandated E-Verify for all 
employers while other states require employers in certain sectors, such 
as government employers and contractors, to verify their employees' 
work authorization status.
  The Federal government is also increasingly requiring E-Verify's use. 
On June 6, 2008, President Bush signed an amendment to Executive Order 
12989 requiring that more than 200,000 federal contractors to use E-
Verify. This action will likely triple the number of requests that must 
be processed through E-Verify.
  Importantly, the bill provides certain protections to Social Security 
beneficiaries. This is critical because E-Verify relies on the Social 
Security Administration's data and systems to verify the citizenship 
and Social Security numbers of all newly-hired individuals for their 
eligibility to work.
  According to the GAO, 100 percent of E-Verify queries are first 
checked against the SSA database. When there are data mismatches, 
workers are instructed to contact SSA and must visit an SSA field 
office in order to resolve the discrepancy. As E-Verify grows, so does 
SSA's workload.
  DHS is responsible for funding SSA's costs related to E-Verify; using 
the Social Security Trust Fund for E-Verify is against federal law.
  In prior years, DHS's reimbursements to SSA have been either delayed 
or not forthcoming at all.
  The bill also provides for two GAO studies to be completed. First, it 
requires a study of the basic pilot confirmation system. The GAO will 
report to Congress on the causes of erroneous tentative 
nonconfirmations, how they are remedied and the effect they have on 
individuals, employers and Federal agencies.
  Second, the bill authorizes a study of the effect of the basic pilot 
on small entities. The bill requires that the GAO will examine the 
experiences of small entities (small businesses, non-profits and 
municipalities) with using Basic Pilot by investigating direct and 
indirect impacts on basic pilot participants. It will also provide 
specific data on businesses with fewer than 50 employees as well as on 
small entities operating in states that have mandated use of the basic 
pilot program.
  This legislation ensures that DHS provides timely and appropriate 
payments to SSA, so that E-verify does not interfere with SSA's ability 
to serve seniors, people with disabilities, and survivors.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the extension of the e-
verify program, which I have supported since it was initially created 
under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996. Since that time we have continued our fight to strengthen our 
immigration laws.
  Unfortunately when we had the debate in 1996 my colleagues did not 
approve an amendment to make our Social Security card counterfeit-
proof. Since that time, I have worked with my colleagues in a bi-
partisan way to ensure that we improve our employment verification 
system and Social Security cards so that neither is susceptible to 
fraud. To achieve this goal I have introduced H.R. 98, the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Social Security Protection Act with my colleague 
from Texas, the distinguished chair of the House Intelligence Committee 
and former Border Patrol Agent Silvestre Reyes. This bill would go a 
long way to address the employment magnet that draws illegal immigrants 
to the United States.
  It is important to note that the bill before us commissions further 
studies on the e-verify program. We know from a 2005 GAO study on e-
verify that the system is still susceptible to fraud and cannot 
identify when multiple people are using the same Social Security 
number. The raids conducted of Swift Meatpacking plants in 2006 showed 
the ease with which fraudulent Social Security numbers were used to 
gain unlawful employment. Swift was an e-verify participant and yet was 
found to have been employing several hundred illegal immigrants.
  While I support this measure to extend the program, I hope very much 
that we can have a more open debate on the need to prevent fraud in our 
employment verification system. Only when we address the need to 
improve the security of the Social Security card and employment 
verification system will we be able crack down on the employment magnet 
that draws people to this country illegally.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this, 
and I would yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6633.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________