U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–586 PDF 2013

HOW E-VERIFY WORKS AND HOW IT BENEFITS 

AMERICAN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 7 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

Soraya Correa, Associate Director, Enterprises Services Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Christopher P. Gamvroulas, President, Ivory Development, on behalf of the 

National Association of Home Builders 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor, Immigration, and Employee 

Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

Emily Tulli, Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 2 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 7 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 9 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 51 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 74 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 90 

(1) 

HOW E-VERIFY WORKS AND HOW IT BENEFITS AMERICAN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:10 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Smith, King, Jordan, 

Labrador, Lofgren, Gutierrez, Garcia, and Pierluisi. 

Staff present: (Majority) Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & 

General Counsel; Andrea Loving, Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; 

and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good afternoon. This is a hearing entitled: How EVerify Works and How It Benefits American Employers and Workers. Welcome to all of our witnesses, and on behalf of all of us, we 

apologize for the fact that you were waiting on us. We had votes, 

and it is unavoidable. 

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will 

come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 

recesses of the Committee at any time. And again, we welcome all 

of our witnesses in the interest of time, and because you have been 

waiting on us, I am going to make my statement part of the record 

so we can get to your testimony quicker. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gowdy follows:] 
2 

Statement of Subcommittee Chairman 

Trey Gowdy 

Hearing on "How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits 

American Employers and Workers" 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Wednesday, February 27,2013 

Prior to 1986, there was no law prohibiting U.S. 

employers from hiring or employing illegal immigrants. 

To help end the "job magnet" for illegal immigrants, the 

"Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986," (I RCA) 

made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or 

employ individuals who are not eligible to work in the 

United States. It also required employers to check the 

identity and work eligibility documents of employees. 

Unfortunately IRCA simply said that employers 

must look at the identity and work eligibility documents 

and if those documents appeared on their face to be 

reasonably genuine, the employer had met his 

obligation under the law. 
3 

The IRCA provisions are still the only employment 

eligibility requirements on the books. As a result of the 

lax requirement a counterfeit documents business has 

flourished, ensuring jobs for millions of illegal 

immigrants in the U.S. 

The IRCA system benefits unscrupulous employers 

who do not mind hiring illegal immigrants but want to 

show that they have met legal requirements. And it 

harms employers who don't want to hire illegal 

immigrants but have no choice but to accept documents 

they know have a good likelihood of being counterfeit. 

Recognizing the deficiencies of IRCA's provisions, 

in 1996 Congress created the Basic Pilot Program, an 

electronic employment eligibility verification system 

which is now known as E-Verify. 

E-Verify is voluntary and initially was available only 

to employers in five states. Eventually, Congress 

expanded E-Verify nationwide. Certain employers are 

2 
4 

now required to use the system. For instance, the vast 

majority of federal contractors, employers of students in 

the Optical Practical Training program and even some 

H-2A employers must use it. 

Recently some states, such as South Carolina, and 

localities have required employers within their 

jurisdiction use E-Verify. 

E-Verify is administered by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) in conjunction with the 

Social Security Administration. It checks the 

employee's Social Security Number (SSN) or alien 

identification number against SSA and DHS databases 

in order to help determine whether the employees are 

work eligible. 

E-Verify is quick and easy to use. In fact a 

representative from USCIS will demonstrate an E-Verify 

query for us shortly. 

3 
5 

The accuracy of the system has been of concern 

but that accuracy continues to rise and recent statistics 

show that individuals who are authorized to work 

received immediate confirmation of that work eligibility 

99.5 percent of the time. 

And according to USC IS, a 2012 study shows that 

98.7 percent of queries resulted in a confirmation of 

work eligibility immediately or within 24 hours. 

The accuracy rate has continued to rise even 

though more and more businesses are signing up to use 

E-Verify. Over the years, USCIS has been making 

improvements to the system in order to improve 

accuracy. For instance, in 2008 they enabled the system 

to automatically check USCIS naturalization data. And 

in 2010 USCIS incorporated State Department passport 

data into E-Verify. 

These and other improvements are important steps 

in ensuring individuals who are eligible to work receive 

4 
6 

timely confirmation and individuals who are not eligible 

to work in the U.S. are not. 

E-Verify is not a perfect system, and we will hear 

some concerns today. But it is an easy and effective 

tool that must be part of any broad ranging immigration 

reform efforts. I look forward to the testimony of ollr 

witnesses. 

5 
7 

Mr. GOWDY. And with that, I am going to recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also make my 

statement part of the record and simply note that E-Verify can only 

work if we reform the immigration system. Otherwise, we are just 

finding out how dysfunctional it really is. That is one issue. 

And also I am concerned about the error rate. I know we are 

making great improvements, but if there is a massive expansion, 

we are talking potentially over 100,000 Americans who might lose 

a job and need a remedy. And I am hoping the Committee can deal 

with that. 

And with that, I will ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

I appreciate that Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy have scheduled this 

hearing to get updated information on the E-Verify system and how it is, and is not, 

working. Last Congress, we held three hearings on this issue, and we marked up 

a bill on it as well. I think we learned a great deal from all that work. 

For starters, we know that expansion of E-Verify can only happen in tandem with 

other necessary reforms to our broken immigration system. We also know that the 

E-Verify system continues to need improvement. 

Expanding E-Verify thus requires us to engage in two distinct conversations. How 

do we improve our immigration laws so mandatory E-Verify does not damage our 

economy and hurt U.S. businesses and workers? And how do we improve the system 

so that database errors and other problems do not harm them either? 

There is no dispute that our immigration system is broken and fails to meet the 

needs of our country. Just yesterday we discussed our system’s failure in the agricultural sector, where 50–75% of the 1.6 million people working in the fields are undocumented. If all growers were required to use E-Verify, we would confirm what 

we all know to be true: that American agricultural is built on the backs of undocumented immigrants. 

But would that knowledge help anyone? Just look at the damage done to farmers 

in Georgia and Alabama after those states made E-Verify mandatory. In the months 

after the laws were enacted, farmers suddenly found themselves with ripening harvests but without sufficient workers. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal bussed in exconvicts to do the work, but that was a complete failure. The losses in Georgia alone 

were estimated to reach $300 million. 

Without top-to-bottom-reform of our immigration laws, expanding E-Verify would 

devastate the agricultural economy, resulting in closed farms, a less-secure America, 

and the mass off-shoring of millions and millions of U.S. jobs, including all of the 

upstream and downstream jobs that are created and supported by our agriculture 

industry. 

Expanding E-Verify without more would also cost the government significant tax 

revenues. In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 

Taxation concluded that mandatory E-Verify in Rep. Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act 

would decrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over a 10-year period. Those offices 

determined that expanding E-Verify to an economy with a significant undocumented 

workforce would drive employers and workers off-the-books and into the underground economy. 

The end result would be lost tax revenues and depressed wages and working conditions for all workers, including U.S. workers. 

We also know that although the E-Verify system has improved over the years, it 

continues to need improvement. According to studies, USCIS has been successful in 
8 

reducing the E-Verify error rate. This means that fewer U.S. citizens and other authorized workers are now being incorrectly rejected by the system. 

But mistakes still happen. Recent USCIS data indicates that 0.26% of the 20.2 

million E-Verify queries submitted in FY 2012 were confirmed as employment authorized after first receiving a tentative non-confirmation. If E-Verify was expanded 

to cover all 60 million new hires each year, that error rate would mean that 156,000 

authorized workers would have to clear up errors in government databases—either 

by calling USCIS or visiting a Social Security office—to avoid losing their job. 

Of course, that assumes every employer uses E-Verify correctly. It assumes that 

employers do not use E-Verify to pre-screen workers before hire, and it assumes 

that employers properly notify employees when they receive tentative non-confirmations. But studies have shown that neither of those assumptions is accurate, which 

means that some authorized workers are undoubtedly being denied jobs or terminated based upon incorrect information in government databases. 

USCIS data shows that 0.9% of tentative non-confirmations are never challenged. 

Some of these cases certainly involve people who lack work authorization. But we 

know that this percentage—which amounts to 540,000 cases each year if applied to 

all 60 million new hires—includes people who were not informed of tentative nonconfirmations and who had no chance to correct their records and save their jobs. 

Expanding E-Verify—even as part of a broader immigration reform effort—without ensuring that proper safeguards are in place, is just one more way in which EVerify would not benefit American workers. 

The witnesses before us today will help us evaluate how E-Verify is working. Just 

as importantly, I think they will help us understand what more needs to take place 

if we are to expand the system to all employers. I am pleased to have these witnesses before us today and I look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I am grateful to the gentlelady for helping to 

expedite this. 

I am going to introduce all the witnesses and briefly give their 

bio, and then we will recognize from my left to right, your right to 

left. At some point after I do—I knew it was a matter of time before I made a mistake. 

I want to recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 

join you and the Ranking Member in putting my statement into the 

record. 

But I do want to say how important I think E-Verify is as we 

work through the entire issue of immigration law reform. We had 

a failure in 1986 with immigration that did grant a pathway to citizenship for nearly 3 million. The people who passed it at the time 

believed that they were taking care of this problem, but because 

they did not have a good enforcement mechanism, and the laws 

that were put on the books were indeed not enforced, we have a 

much greater problem today. 

E-verify is not the entire solution, but it is a critical part of the 

enforcement solution making it easier for employers to be able to 

know whether the person presenting their credentials to them for 

a job are indeed the person they say they are and have the authorization that they claim to have. And it does so electronically, which 

I think we are going to see a demonstration of here today, so let 

us get on with the opportunity to do that. 

And I will put the rest of my statement in the record. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 
9 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Thank you Chairman Gowdy. 

Nearly every discussion regarding the reform of U.S. immigration laws acknowledges that we must have in place a nationwide, mandatory system for employers 

to electronically verify the work authorization of their employees. 

That sentiment exists whether the discussion is about a comprehensive approach, 

as is being worked on by the Gang of Eight in the Senate, or more methodical approach, as preferred by many other Members of Congress. 

Even President Obama has stated his support for a mandatory electronic employment verification system. In fact, one of the titles of the White House immigration 

reform bill that was leaked to the press recently included just that—a mandatory 

electronic employment verification system. 

Of course there is already such a system in place. It is called E-Verify and was 

created by this Committee in the ‘‘Illegal immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.’’ 

At this point, the system is voluntary for the vast majority of U.S. employers. 

However some states and localities do require certain employers to use it. 

Over 433,000 employers are currently signed up to use E-Verify. It is easy for employers to use and is effective. In fact in a January 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), E-Verify received an 86 

out of 100 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index Scale. 

But the system is not perfect. For instance, in cases of identity theft, when an 

individual submits stolen identity documents and information, E-Verify may confirm 

the work eligibility of that individual. 

This happens because E-Verify uses a Social Security Number (SSN) or alien 

identification number and certain other corresponding identifying information such 

as the name and date of birth of an individual, to determine if the SSN or alien 

identification number associated with that corresponding information is work eligible. Thus if an individual uses a stolen SSN and the real name corresponding with 

that SSN, a false positive result could occur. 

It is my understanding that the percentage of cases in which this identity theft 

loophole is a factor is relatively small. The witness from USCIS will discuss this 

issue and what USCIS is doing to help prevent it. 

There are other improvements that may need to be made to E-Verify in the event 

that the system is made mandatory for all U.S. employers. And I look forward to 

hearing the witnesses’ views on any such improvements today. 

Each one of our witnesses has a distinct perspective on E-Verify. 

The USCIS witness will give us an overview of the system, how it works and its 

accuracy. The employer witness will tell us how E-Verify works as a practical matter in the business setting. And The U.S. Chamber of Commerce witness will discuss why the vast majority of the business community supports mandatory E-Verify. 

Employers must have an effective way to determine the work eligibility of their 

employees. Expanding and improving the already in place E-Verify system is the 

most cost-effective and sensible way to ensure just that. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the Chairman. 

I will introduce you, and then we will have a demonstration of 

E-Verify, and then we will recognize you for your opening statements. 

First, and I am just going to apologize in advance for pronunciations that are a function of my inability to phonetically do things 

very well, so I will apologize. 

Ms. Soraya Correa—is that close? All right. Perfect it probably 

is not, but maybe close. Currently serves as the associate director 
10 

for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Enterprises 

Services Directorate, and is responsible for delivering identity immigration status and employment authorization information in 

support of the USCIS mission. She also oversees the Biometrics Division, National Records Center, Records Division, and Verification 

Division. 

She has an undergraduate certification in acquisitions management from the American University in Washington, D.C. and a BA 

in management from National Louis University. 

Mr. Chris Gamvroulas is president of Ivory Development, the 

land acquisition and development affiliate of Ivory Homes 

headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Chris joined Ivory Homes 

in 1993 and was appointed president of Ivory Development in 1996. 

Since that time he has overseen the land acquisition, planning, and 

titlement construction of over 14,000 home sites and hundreds of 

acres of retail, industrial, and commercial properties totaling nearly $1 billion in real estate assets. 

He attended Harvard Business School Advanced Management 

Program and holds a bachelor of science degree in political science 

from the University of Utah. 

Mr. Randel K. Johnson is the senior vice president of the United 

States Chamber of Commerce for Labor, Immigration, and Employment Benefits Issues pending before Congress and the Federal 

agencies. Before joining the U.S. Chamber, he served as counsel to 

the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and 

the Workforce. 

Mr. Johnson is a graduate of Denison University and the University of Maryland School of Law and earned his master of laws in 

labor relations from Georgetown. 

And finally, Ms. Emily Tulli is policy attorney for the National 

Immigration Law Center. Her advocacy focuses on maintaining and 

expanding the rights of low-wage immigration workers, and she 

monitors and analyzes Federal legislative developments affecting 

immigrants in the workplace. 

She holds a JD from the College of William and Mary in the 

Chairman’s home State. 

With that I believe we have a demonstration of E-Verify, and you 

are welcome to take it away. 

Ms. LOTSPEICH. All right. We are going to bring this up on the 

screen here. Kathy Lotspeich. I am the deputy chief for the 

verification division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

and I am going to run for you this afternoon 2 cases, one case that 

goes through automatically and one case that gets a tentative nonconfirmation response. 

So just a note, I am using test data today on our test system. 

So this is what the log-in looks like. I am going to click ‘‘new 

case,’’ and it asks you what the individual attested to on their 

Form I-9. I am going to, for this demonstration, select ‘‘citizen of 

the United States.’’ It then asks what documents they presented on 

the Form I-9, and for this demonstration I am going to select ‘‘list 

B and C documents.’’ Then it asks which list B and C documents 

did you present, so here I am selecting ‘‘driver’s license’’ and ‘‘Social 

Security card.’’ 
11 

Then we go down to the next here. Hit ‘‘continue.’’ It is going to 

ask you what State the driver’s license was issued, selecting ‘‘Kansas.’’ And then it asks you to fill out the name of the individual, 

the date of birth. It is going to ask for the Social Security number. 

The system also wants to make sure the document shown for the 

Form I-9 is still valid, so it asks you for the date in which the document expires. And then you have to put in the higher date, which 

has to be within 3 days of the current date, and then you hit ‘‘continue.’’ 

So here you will see the responses. This individual’s employment 

is authorized. It has a little summary of the information that was 

submitted with this case, and then up here at the top is the case 

verification number, which the employer is asked to record on the 

Form I-9. 

Now, I am going to demonstrate a case where an individual is 

not automatically employment authorized, again using the same 

profile, driver’s license, Social Security, the State in which the card 

was issued. And all of this information is what the employer can 

find on the Form I-9. Expiration date and date of hire. Select ‘‘continue.’’ 

So here the system understands that it is about to issue a tentative non-confirmation or sort of a yellow light response in which 

the individual may need to follow up with the government. And it 

does remind the employer one more time to look at the case, so as 

you saw previously it went automatically through. But here we are 

trying to give them a second chance to avoid any typos. 

I am going to go ahead and click ‘‘continue.’’ And here it says 

that the individual has received a tentative non-confirmation. Underneath it states that the name or date of birth entered for this 

employee did not match Social Security Administration records. It 

clarifies that this does not mean that the employee is not authorized to work in the United States. However, additional action is required. 

So the employer would click ‘‘continue.’’ And here they can select 

a notice to give to the employee to tell them about the tentative 

non-confirmation, ask if they want to test or follow up with that 

tentative non-confirmation. We have this letter pre-populated in 

English and in Spanish, and we also have it translated in 17 other 

languages in our resource section. 

I will show what you what the notice looks like. So the notice has 

the information about the employee, the reason for the tentative 

non-confirmation. It gives information on what they are supposed 

to do. It reminds the employer that this information can be found 

in 17 other languages. And it asks the employee to sign that letter. 

The employer must give it to the employee. 

Also there are special instructions for the employee on the next 

page telling them what they must do and what their rights are. 

The employer must confirm that they have notified the employee 

of this tentative non-confirmation. It does not have to happen on 

the spot. The employer has the ability to save the case and exit if 

the employee is in their immediate view. It could happen over a 

day or so. Click ‘‘continue.’’ 

And if the individual decides to contest their tentative non-confirmation, then the employer has to refer this to the government 
12 

so we know to expect that person to contact us. If they do not 

choose to contest, they may be terminated. 

I am going to click ‘‘continue,’’ and here refer the case. And that 

case will then to go to either the Social Security Administration or 

the Department Homeland Security, and will wait for the employee 

to contact them within 8 days. 

And that is the conclusion of this demonstration. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you very much for doing that. I will now recognize our witnesses for their opening statements. We will begin 

with Ms. Correa. And the lights mean what they traditionally 

mean in life. A red light means do your best to wrap up that 

thought. 

And with that, Ms. Correa. 

TESTIMONY OF SORAYA CORREA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENTERPRISES SERVICES DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you. Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, 

and Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you our shared goal 

of effective employment eligibility verification through the E-Verify 

program. 

USCIS has made significant progress and improvements in the 

E-Verify program since we last appeared before this Subcommittee 

in February 2011. Our focus remains on ensuring the accuracy, efficiency, and integrity of the system while increasing awareness, 

knowledge, and understanding of the program for both the employers and the employees. 

I am pleased to report that use of E-Verify continues to grow and 

the system continues to score high marks in customer satisfaction. 

Since 2007, the number of employee has grown from 24,000 to 

over 430,000. Last Fiscal Year, E-Verify processed over 21 million 

queries, a more than five-fold increase since Fiscal Year 2007. 

E-Verify received a customer satisfaction score of 86 out of 100 

on the 2012 American Customer Satisfaction Index. The vast majority of users surveyed were likely to recommend E-Verify to other 

employers, were confident in its accuracy, and were likely to continue using the system. 

Improving the accuracy of the E-Verify system remains our primary goal. When examining E-Verify accuracy, it is important to 

look at 2 rates: accuracy for authorized workers and accuracy for 

unauthorized workers. I want to first talk about accuracy for authorized workers. 

A common misperception of E-Verify’s accuracy rate is that the 

underlying government data is wrong whenever a mismatch or a 

tentative non-confirmation or TNC is returned. However, TNC is 

only an indication of a discrepancy between the information provided to E-Verify and the information in the government databases. 

For example, the employee must notify the Social Security Administration of a name change following marriage or other legal 

proceeding. The employer needs to ensure that it enters the name 

exactly as it appears on the Form I-9, and the U.S. government 

needs to update its records in a timely fashion. Thus, the accuracy 
13 

of E-Verify requires the action of 3 parties: the employer, the employee, and the U.S. government. 

Independent evaluations of E-Verify conducted by Westat Corporation found that the TNC rate for authorized employees—those 

employees who had to resolve a TNC based on a data discrepancy, 

declined from .7 percent to .3 percent, resulting in an accuracy rate 

of 99.7 percent. With respect to unauthorized workers, the accuracy 

rate is based on the system issuing a TNC that ultimately results 

in a final non-confirmation or FN, because the unauthorized worker is accurately identified as not being eligible to work. The Westat 

study found that 94 percent of FNCs were accurately issued by EVerify. 

We also are working to improve the identify verification aspect 

of E-Verify. Detecting identity fraud in employment verification requires a multi-level approach which I laid out in my written testimony. 

In November 2010, USCIS expanded E-Verify’s photographic 

matching tool to include U.S. passports and U.S. passport cards. In 

the customer satisfaction survey, users rate the photo tool very 

highly as a method for reducing fraud. 

USCIS is developing other methods for reducing fraud, such as 

monitoring repeated use of Social Security numbers and a system 

enhancement that allows employees to lock their Social Security 

numbers in E-Verify. 

Our monitoring and compliance branch actively monitors EVerify to ensure employers use the system properly. USCIS is also 

working closely with the Department of Justice’s Office of Special 

Counsel to effectively prevent discrimination and misuse that adversely affects employees. 

To guard against avoidable TNCs and protect employee rights, 

USCIS launched Self-Check, a service of E-Verify. Self-Check empowers individuals by allowing them to verify their work authorization status online and proactively resolve records mismatches before formally seeking employment. Over 180,000 individuals nationwide have used the Self-Check service. 

To inform the public about E-Verify, USCIS has robust outreach 

initiatives that include radio, print, and online ads in English and 

in Spanish, as well as public events and live webinars. USCIS 

maintains a toll free employer customer line and employee hotline 

for E-Verify users. In addition, a new multimedia employee rights 

toolkit is available online in English and in Spanish to help employees understand the program. 

USCIS is committed to continue the expansion of the E-Verify 

program while ensuring the accuracy, efficiency, and integrity of 

the system. We are equally committed to increasing compliance, 

knowledge, and understanding of the program and how it benefits 

the American workforce. 

On behalf of all of my colleagues at USCIS, we appreciate Congress’ continued strong support of the E-Verify program. I again 

thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Correa follows:] 
14 

Prepared Statement of Soraya Correa, Associate Director, Enterprises 

Services Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

SUMMARY OF ADVANCEMENTS FOR TESTIMONY

Introduction 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our shared goal of providing effective mechanisms for verifying employment eligibility. My name is Soraya Correa, and, as the 

Associate Director for the Enterprise Services Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), I am responsible for overseeing the E-Verify program. I appreciate this opportunity to share information on USCIS’s continuing efforts to increase E-Verify’s accuracy and efficiency, maintain its integrity, and expand its use. I also want to use this opportunity to update the Subcommittee on 

progress that has been made with the E-Verify program since the previous Associate 

Director appeared before this Subcommittee on February 10, 2011. The work that 

we have completed to improve the program and the additional steps that we plan 

to take will ensure that we have an accurate and accessible System that meets the 

needs of employers and workers. 

Continued Program Growth 

I am pleased to report that the E-Verify program continues to grow. The number 

of employers registered to use the E-Verify Program has grown rapidly to more than 

432,000 as of February 2013 compared to only 24,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2007, with 

the number of new employer registrations averaging between 1–2,000 per week in 

FY 2012. More than 50,000 federal contractors are enrolled in E-Verify. 

We have seen a steady increase in the volume of queries. Last fiscal year, EVerify processed 21.1 million queries, a more than five-fold increase from the 4.0 

million queries processed in FY 2007. In FY 2012, almost 92 percent of those queries were on U.S. citizen workers. In FY 2013 to date, employers have run over 7.1 

million queries. Also, USCIS has continued to expand the number of databases 

queried and has deployed other enhancements to help minimize employer data entry 

errors to reduce E-Verify initial mismatches. 

Customer Satisfaction Increases as the Program Grows 

E-Verify continues to score high marks in employer customer satisfaction. EVerify was given a customer satisfaction score of 86 out of 100 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey performed in 2012. This is a one point improvement over the prior year score of 85, and our score has remained exceptionally 

high compared to the average score for a government program, which is 67. 

ACSI surveyed E-Verify users and evaluated key aspects of the program such as 

registration, the online tutorial, ease of use, technical assistance and customer service. Key findings of the survey revealed that the vast majority of users were likely 

to recommend E-Verify to other employers (score of 86), were confident in E-Verify’s 

accuracy (score of 87), and were likely to continue using the program (score of 94). 

One of the aspects of E-Verify that respondents liked the most was customer service. Of those surveyed, 13 percent had contacted E-Verify customer service representatives within the past six months. The index found that the majority of these 

respondents (score of 94) were satisfied with the customer service support they received from E-Verify. 

Increasing E-Verify Accuracy and Efficiency 

Improvements in Accuracy for Authorized Employees 

A common misperception of E-Verify’s accuracy rate is that the underlying government data is wrong whenever a mismatch—or tentative nonconfirmation 

(TNC)—is returned. However, a TNC only indicates that there is a discrepancy between the information provided to E-Verify and the information in one of the 

checked databases. This discrepancy can occur for several reasons: 1) an employee 

did not to update his or her information with the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or made an error when completing the Form I–9; 2) the employer made an error when entering information into 

E-Verify; 3) there was a data error in the employee’s government record; or 4) an 

unauthorized worker provided fraudulent information. In the latter situation, the 

TNC is not based on error but from E-Verify doing exactly what it is designed to 

do: detect and prevent unauthorized employment in the United States. 
15 

In all cases, E-Verify provides the employee with the option to contest the TNC 

and instructs employers to continue the employee’s employment while he or she 

works to resolve the issue as appropriate. Thus, the accuracy of E-Verify requires 

the action of three parties: the employer, the employee, and the U.S. government. For 

example, the employee needs to keep his or her records updated with the appropriate government agency, such as with a name change update at SSA following 

marriage. The employer needs to ensure that it enters the data as it appears on 

the Form I–9, gives prompt notice of the TNC to the employee, and allows the employee to work if the employee contests the TNC; and the U.S. government needs 

to update its records in a timely fashion when an employee adjusts status or updates information. 

USCIS continues to improve E-Verify’s accuracy by increasing the number of 

databases checked by the system and making enhancements to reduce the likelihood 

of employer typos and other data entry errors. The addition of naturalization and 

U.S. passport data has reduced mismatches for naturalized and derivative citizens 

by 30 percent on average. In October 2012, access to DHS’s Arrival and Departure 

Information System (ADIS) database was added to E-Verify, which helps to improve 

match rates for recent arrivals. 

As a result of these efforts, a review of FY 2012 data found that approximately 

98.7 percent of all employees were confirmed as work authorized either automatically, or within 24 hours. The remaining 1.3 percent contained a mix of TNCs based 

on errors (whether employer, employee or government error) and TNCs where the 

person was not authorized to work in the United States. 

In 2011, we reported that another independent evaluation of E-Verify was underway. Although the report is currently under review, the Westat Corporation reports 

that the TNC rate for authorized employees—those employees who had to resolve 

a TNC based on a data discrepancy as explained above—continues to decrease. 

Using model-based estimates, the report concluded that the rate of authorized employees who need to follow up with SSA or DHS has declined from 0.7 percent to 

0.3 percent when comparing data from similar time periods in 2005 and 2010. This 

report will be released later this year. 

Maintaining the Accuracy and Integrity of E-Verify 

Strengthening E-Verify and Combating Identity Fraud 

Detecting identity fraud in employment verification requires a multilevel approach. First, the employer is required to verify identity of the new employee when 

inspecting his or her documents by ensuring that they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to that employee. However, if an unauthorized employee provides 

the employer with biographic data such as a name, date of birth, or Social Security 

number of an authorized individual backed up with documentation that appears 

valid—either by borrowing employment eligibility documents or presenting fake documents with valid biographic information—then E-Verify very well may indicate the 

employee is work authorized. In such cases, E-Verify is authorizing the person 

whose biographic data is submitted, and not the unauthorized worker who is fraudulently providing that data. 

USCIS takes extremely seriously the threat posed by identity fraud in this context 

and has taken a number of significant steps to enhance program safeguards. 

In November 2010, USCIS expanded E-Verify’s photographic matching tool to include U.S. passports and U.S. passport cards. The addition of U.S. passport photos 

allows the employer to match the photo displayed in E-Verify to the photo on the 

employee’s U.S. passport or U.S. passport card to determine whether the card was 

fraudulently produced. In FY 2012, approximately 15 percent of all E-Verify cases 

used the photo tool. 

E-Verify users rate the photo tool very highly as a method for reducing fraud. The 

2012 ACSI rating of E-Verify found that the photo tool scored 95 points on a scale 

of 1 to 100. Employers found the photo tool to be easy to use (score of 95) and 

thought it was helpful in preventing fraud (score of 94). The photo tool was the 

highest rated feature of E-Verify in the ACSI survey. 

Since our last testimony in February 2011, we further strengthened E-Verify’s 

anti-fraud capabilities by launching a pilot program in June 2011 that allows EVerify to match the information on a driver’s license presented by an employee with 

a participating states’ Departments of Motor Vehicles database. USCIS is piloting 

this effort with the states of Mississippi and Florida. 

These fraud-prevention efforts are proving successful. The recent Westat evaluation found that 94 percent of Final Nonconfirmations (FNCs) were issued correctly 

to employees not authorized for work. USCIS is developing other methods for reducing fraud in E-Verify, such as monitoring Social Security numbers (SSNs) that are 
16 

used repeatedly, evaluating other identity assurance techniques like those used in 

E-Verify’s Self Check, and developing an enhancement to allow employees to lock 

their SSNs in E-Verify so they cannot be used by others. 

USCIS Continues to Improve Monitoring of E-Verify for Misuse 

E-Verify’s Monitoring and Compliance Branch (M&C) continues to increase monitoring of E-Verify to identify potential instances of repeated and egregious misuse 

by employers. M&C uses and is updating and expanding behavioral algorithms to 

detect patterns of potential program misuse in E-Verify transactional data. M&C 

also uses different compliance assistance tools to assist employers with the proper 

use of E-Verify, such as emails, telephone calls, desk reviews, and site visits. In FY 

2012, M&C issued more than 65,000 compliance assistance actions (telephone calls, 

letters, and emails) and completed 35 site visits to provide assistance to employers 

and gain a better understanding of their use of the E-Verify program. Another example of M&C’s compliance assistance efforts is the E-Verify Self Assessment Guide, 

a publication launched in FY 2012 that employers can use to help detect and deter 

noncompliant activities and resolve them quickly. 

M&C also refers instances of suspected egregious noncompliance to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Department of Justice’s Office of Special 

Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (DOJ/OSC). In FY 

2012, USCIS referred three cases to ICE for suspected egregious noncompliance, 21 

cases to ICE for fraudulent documents, and 51 cases to OSC for suspected unfair 

immigration-related employment practices. 

Protecting Employee’s Rights 

USCIS works closely with DOJ/OSC to educate employers, prevent discrimination, 

and refer possible misuse that adversely affects employees. We provide E-Verify 

data to DOJ/OSC in response to law enforcement requests. DOJ/OSC also refers to 

USCIS those instances of employer E-Verify misuse brought to DOJ/OSC’s attention 

through charges filed with DOJ or through DOJ’s hotline that fall outside of DOJ/ 

OSC’s jurisdiction. USCIS also has co-produced with DHS’s Office for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties (CRCL) two videos in English and Spanish on employee rights 

and employer responsibilities that are posted to the USCIS YouTube web page and 

the USCIS and CRCL websites, and regularly conducts joint webinars with USCIS/ 

OSC on these subjects. Employees also can report complaints about E-Verify system 

misuse by calling the E-Verify Hotline and/or the DOJ/OSC Hotline. In our commitment to provide multilingual materials for employees, all TNC and referral letters, 

which instruct employees on how to resolve a TNC, are currently available in 17 

foreign languages. 

To further protect employee rights, in March 2011 USCIS launched Self Check, 

a service of E-Verify, in five states and Washington, D.C. Self Check is an innovative service that empowers individuals to check online whether government databases used by E-Verify correctly match the information they enter into the systems 

and to proactively resolve records mismatches before formally seeking employment. 

Since 2011, we have expanded Self Check nationwide (including to U.S. territories) 

in both English and Spanish. Over 180,000 individuals nationwide have availed 

themselves of the Self Check service. The number of individuals using Self Check 

continues to grow due to outreach materials on Self Check available online in a new 

Employee Rights Toolkit. Self-Check also uses identity assurance techniques to prevent an individual from checking the work authorization of another person and to 

prevent unfettered access to E-Verify from other entities, such as employers who 

would use Self Check to prescreen for other purposes. 

USCIS is continuing to develop initiatives that protect employee rights. Another 

major effort under development is the ability for employees to receive an email 

alerting them that they have received a TNC and to check with their employer. This 

initiative is contingent upon the employee providing an email address during the 

Form I–9 employment verification process for the employer to enter into E–Verify. 

This feature will provide the added benefit to employees of a secondary notification 

of the TNC. USCIS, in collaboration with SSA and DOJ/OSC is also developing a 

formal process for employees to request a review of FNCs that they believe were 

received in error. 

Increasing the Use of E-Verify 

USCIS has developed a robust outreach program to increase public awareness of 

E-Verify’s significant benefits. USCIS informed millions of people about E-Verify in 

FY 2012 through radio, print, and online ads in English and Spanish, and thousands more through 186 public events, 355 live webinars, and distribution of infor-
17 

mational materials. In FY 2012, USCIS handled more than 217,000 calls from EVerify employers through its toll-free customer line and more than 116,000 calls 

from employees through its employee hotline. 

E-Verify users can get the latest information on E-Verify from the E-Verify Connection newsletter. The newsletter has an estimated 1 million readers. E-Verify Connection provides employers and employees with information and updates about employment eligibility, verification Form I–9, E-Verify and Self Check, plus a schedule 

of upcoming events, such as webinars and local presentations. 

Other public education accomplishments include the release of E-Verify User 

Guides for both the employee and the employer, in English and Spanish, and an 

updated and redesigned E-Verify Questions and Answers web site. The Employee 

Rights Toolkit is available online, also in English and Spanish, with multimedia materials to help assist employees with the employment-eligibility verification process 

and other important topics (e.g., upcoming releases). 

To help the public learn about the employers enrolled in E-Verify, USCIS updated 

the E-Verify website in FY 2012 by adding a brand new online search tool. The EVerify Employer Search Tool gives the public the ability to search and view E-Verify 

employers. Individuals can now search, filter, sort, and view employer information 

by name, state, city, zip code, and workforce size. 

Future outreach communications will be aimed at emphasizing the exceptional 

customer satisfaction level of E-Verify employers and the program’s continued and 

successful attempts to improve year after year based on customer feedback. 

Conclusion 

USCIS is committed to continue the expansion of the E-Verify program while ensuring the accuracy, efficiency, and integrity of the system and simultaneously increasing compliance, knowledge, and understanding of the program and how it benefits the American workforce. 

On behalf of all of our colleagues at USCIS, we appreciate Congress’s continued 

strong support of the E-Verify program. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Gamvroulas. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER P. GAMVROULAS, PRESIDENT, 

IVORY DEVELOPMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

Members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

My name is Chris Gamvroulas. I am the president of Ivory Development based in Salt Lake City. Ivory Homes is one of the more 

than 140,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders. To ensure Ivory Homes only employs individuals authorized to 

work in the United States, we use the E-Verify employment 

verification system. 

In 2010, the State of Utah imposed a requirement that all employers with 15 or more employees must use E-Verify. Ivory Homes 

worked closely with the Utah legislature to craft a reasoned approach to balance compliance with the law with the needs of employers, particularly small businesses. Once the State enacted the 

law, Ivory Homes immediately came into compliance with E-Verify. 

We trained our human resource staff to act in accordance with the 

law. On the whole, we have found E-Verify to be an efficient and 

effective system. 

Generally speaking, the system is easy to use and has the potential for quick turnaround. Since 2010, Ivory Homes has processed 

approximately 320 employees through E-Verify. In all that time we 
18 

have only had 4 hires receive a tentative non-confirmation, none of 

whom to date have protested the mismatch. 

Anecdotally, we suspect non-employable applicants refrain from 

pursuing jobs once they learn their identification will be processed 

in E-Verify. We believe that E-Verify is working as intended, and 

it is possible the potential hires who might be undocumented are 

self-policing. 

The implementation of the system has not been without its problem. However, none of them has proven to be impossible to overcome. For example, there is no notification of when the system is 

updated and new training requirements have to be passed. That 

has caused confusion and delays within our human resources staff. 

There must be a process to inform and educate business about the 

requirements of and changes to the program beyond what is in the 

Federal Register. These are simple improvements that would enhance the system and make it more user friendly for all businesses, 

large and small. 

As an employer, it would be preferable for our company 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. If a newly-hired employee eventually receives a 

final non-confirmation confirming that they are ineligible to work, 

we lose time and resources dedicated to training that individual 

only to have to start the hiring process all over again. Allowing us 

to verify worker status the day they accept the job offer will give 

us more lead time to handle tentative non-confirmations. 

Last Congress, NAHB, of which Ivory Homes is a proud member, 

supported the Legal Workforce Act introduced by former Chairman 

Lamar Smith. This legislation was an important first step in creating a system that is workable, and we hope to see similar elements in any new legislation you consider. The Legal Workforce 

Act provided a strong safe harbor to ensure that those of us who 

use the system in good faith will not be held liable by the government or by the employer’s workers for errors in the system. 

The legislation also maintains current law with regard to the 

verification of an employer’s direct employees. Under current law, 

Ivory Homes, like all employers, are responsible for verification of 

the identity and work authorization status of their direct employees only. While we do not verify the employees of subcontractors, 

we are precluded from knowingly using unauthorized subcontracted workers as a means of circumventing the law. 

E-Verify can only confirm work authorization based on those documents presented. It cannot confirm whether the person presenting 

those documents is, in fact, the same person represented in those 

documents. The government also must be able to improve the EVerify system by seeking ways to limit or eliminate identify fraud. 

This is also another reason why it is vital to have an effective 

safe harbor in any legislation. Until E-Verify can detect cases of 

fraud, employers who use E-Verify should not be held accountable 

for unauthorized workers who have cleared the system because of 

identity theft. If E-Verify is federally mandated, it must work for 

the smallest employer as well as the largest. The reality is that 

many small businesses cannot access the Internet from a job site. 

Providing a telephonic option for employers is, thus, important. 
19 

Finally, if employers are going to be required to use the Federal 

E-Verify program, they must be assured that there are only one set 

of rules needed for compliance. A strong Federal preemption clause 

is critical. 

In conclusion, my experience with E-Verify in Utah has been 

positive. The system has been proven to be easy to use, protects 

employees’ privacy and rights, and we generally find it to be an efficient and effective system. 

I and my association support comprehensive immigration reform. 

Last Congress, NHB supported the Legal Workforce Act. We look 

forward to working with you on this key element of immigration reform. Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gamvroulas follows:] 
20 

, ~ 

NAHB. 

Testimony of C11ristOJlher P. Gam\'roul/tS 

I'rt>sident, " 'ory De"'elollml"nt 

On Behalfofthe 

National Association of nome Builders 

Before the 

nouse Judiciary Committee 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Hellrinl,: on 

Uow £. Verif)' Works lind Uow It Benefits American Employers and Workers 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 
21 

Testimony of Chris Gamvroulas 

On Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

February 27, 2013 

Introduction 

On behalf of the more than 140,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders 

(NAHB), I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the E-Verify program. My 

name is Chris Gamvroulas, and I am the President of Ivory Development, the development 

affiliate of Ivory Homes based in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Ivory family of companies includes 

Tvory Homes, Ivory Development, and ICO Commercial Management. We are the largest 

homebuilder, land developer, and multi-family builder in Utah. Since 1996, I have overseen the 

land acquisition, planning, entitlement and construction of over 14,000 home sites, and hundreds 

of acres of retail, industrial and commercial properties. 

To ensure Ivory Homes only employs individuals authorized to work in the United States, we use 

the E-Verify employment verification system. We also contract with a third-party who performs 

background checks on prospective employees to help ensure workplace safety and integrity. We 

dedicate our best efforts to complete our due diligence and to comply with the law. 

Tn 20 I 0, the state of Utah imposed a requirement that all employers with 15 or more employees 

must register with and use E-Verify. There are no financial penalties, but employers who are 

noncompliant cannot hire any new employees until they come into compliance with the law. 

Ivory Homes was skeptical when the state of Utah first proposed these new verification 

requirements. However, once the state enacted tbe law, we thought it was very important to 

embrace the new requirements. Thus, Ivory Homes immediately came into compliance with the 

new E-Verify requirements, and we quickly trained our human resources personnel to act in 

accordance with the law. On the whole, we have found E-Verify to be an efficient and effective 

system. 

Generally speaking, the system is easy to use and has tbe potential for very quick turn-around. 

The law itself simply requires an employer to input an employee's identification data online, 

which is then matched with U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security 

Administration's records. If there is a mismatch, E-Verify immediately notifies the employer, 

and the employer is then required by law to provide particular information about the employee's 

rights to resolve the mismatch. It is then incumbent upon the employee to choose whether to 

contest the mismatch with the federal government within the next ten work days. 

Since 2010, Ivory Homes has processed approximately 320 employees tbrough E-Verify. In all 

that time, we have only had two hires who received tentative non-confirmations, neither of 

whom protested the mismatches. We have seen an uptick in applicants refrain from pursuing our 

jobs once they learn their identification will be processed in E-Verify. We believe this is 

evidence that E-Verify is working as intended, as it is possible that potential hires who might be 

undocumented are se1t:policing. 

The implementation oftbe system has not been without its problems; however, none of them has 

proven to be impossible to overcome. For example, there is no notification of when the system 

is updated and training requirements have to be passed, and that has caused some confusion and 

2 
22 

Testimony of Chris Gamvroulas 

On Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

February 27, 2013 

delays with our human resources personnel. There must also be a better way to inform and 

educate small businesses about the requirements of and changes to the program beyond what is 

in the Federal Regis/er. These are simple improvements that would enhance the system and 

make it more user friendly for all businesses, large and small. 

As an employer, it would be preferable for our company 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. 

If a newly hired employee eventually receives a final non-confirmation confirming that they are 

ineligible to work, we would lose time and resources dedicated to training that employee, only to 

have to start the process all over again. Allowing us to verify our workers' status the day they 

accept the job offer will give us more lead time to handle tentative non-confirmations. 

Prior Support for E-Verify Legislation 

Last Congress, NAHB, of which Ivory Homes is a member, supported the Legal Workforce Act 

(H.R. 2885), introduced by then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith 

(R-TX). This legislation was an important first step in creating a system that is workable. All of 

the following elements were included in H.R. 2885, and we hope to see them again in any new 

legislation. 

Under current law, Ivory Homes, like all employers, are responsible for verification of the 

identity and work authorization status of their direct employees only. The program must 

continue to focus on the direct employer-employee relationship, holding every U.S. employer 

accountable only for the identity and work authorization status of their direct employees. While 

we do not verify the employees of subcontractors, we are precluded from knowingly using 

unauthorized subcontracted workers as a means of circumventing the law. Any new legislation 

contemplated should maintain current law. 

Second, it is of the utmost importance that any mandatory E-Verify program contains a safe 

harbor to ensure those who use the system in good faith will not be held liable by the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, or by the employer's workers, for errors in the E-Verify 

system. While the agencies have worked diligently to reduce error rates, the nationwide use of 

the system could lead to an increase in errors as more workers are run through the program. 

Whether the system falsely identifies an unauthorized worker as authorized, or vice versa, 

employers who rely in good faith on the information in the mandatory system should not be 

penalized for taking action based on the system's responses. 

A related and significant concern is the issue of identity theft. Under current law, employers are 

required to use the "reasonable person test" when reviewing identity and work authorization 

documents. When a new hire presents documents that would to a reasonable person appear to be 

genuine, an employer must accept them, and the employer may not demand additional 

documents to test their validity. 

E-Verify can only confirm work authorization based on those documents that are presented. It 

cannot contirm whether the person presenting those documents is in fact the same person 

3 
23 

Testimony of Chris Gamvroulas 

On Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

February 27, 2013 

represented in those documents. For this reason, the issue of identity fraud must be better 

addressed by Congress to ensure that a national E-Verify system is not rendered useless by a 

resultant upswing in the utilization of false documents. This is also another reason why it is vital 

to have an etTective safe harbor in any legislation. Until E-Verify can detect cases of fraud, 

employers who use E-Verify should not be held accountable for unauthorized workers who have 

cleared the system because of identity theft. 

Third, a national program must include provisions to ensure that the system is workable for all 

US employers, including our nation's small businesses. Approximately 80% ofNAHB's 

members have less than 10 employees, many of which do not have a human resources 

department, a legal department, or even conduct business or hiring in an office setting. This is 

true for the vast majority of our most important resource: our trade partners, subcontractors, and 

suppliers. 

If E-Verify is mandated, it must work for the smallest employer, as well as the largest. It is 

therefore very important that telephonic access to the system be available. The reality is that 

many businesses around the country, despite leaps in the technology sector, do not have access to 

high-speed internet or the technology to access the internet from a jobsite. There must also be a 

better way to inform and educate small businesses about the requirements of and changes to the 

program beyond what is in the Federal Register. Small businesses, for the most part, do not 

have access to this document, and in fact, many have never even heard of it. 

Finally, any legislation which mandates the use ofE-Verify nationwide must include a strong 

pre-emption clause, preventing state and local governments from creating and enforcing their 

own versions of verification requirements for employers. If employers are going to be required 

to use the federal E-Verify program, they must be assured there are only one set of rules needed 

for compliance. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, my experience with E-Verify in Utah has been positive. The system has proven to 

be easy to use, and we generally find it to be an etllcient and etTective system. 

T and my association support comprehensive immigration refonn. Last Congress, NAHB 

supported the Legal Workforce Act, and we look fOf\lliard to working with you on this key 

element of immigration refonn. 

While contemplation of mandatory E-Verify is a step toward addressing the illegal immigration 

issue, it should not be the only step. The protection and security of our nation's borders is of the 

utmost concern. Congress must also improve the nation's broken immigration and visa systems 

to tlnd a better way for workers to legally enter the United States for employment when our 

economy needs them. Finally, Congress must address the concerns created by the growing 

illegal immigrant population and create a system whereby they can achieve legal status. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

4 
24 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDEL K. JOHNSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LABOR, IMMIGRATION, AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, Members of the Immigration Subcommittee. I 

was going to say good evening, but I moved it back up to good 

afternoon. 

I welcome this opportunity to talk about the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce’s views on E-Verify. In past testimony before this Subcommittee and others, our view was that the reform, as Mr. Smith 

will remember we used to call it Basic Pilot. We took the view that 

really it was not ripe for prime time and should not be imposed on 

employers for a variety of reasons. 

However, times and circumstances do change, and sometimes it 

becomes necessary to reevaluate one’s assumptions and position. 

Obviously we at the Chamber move very slowly and carefully before we consider whether or not to support a new mandate on our 

members. 

To this end, and frankly because I do value my job, we created 

a task force to the Chamber comprised of a broad section of our 

membership in January of 2011 to assess whether E-Verify should 

be expanded and changed into a mandate on employers for 

verification obligations. That task force comprises a good section of 

our members, small to large, trade associations and companies. 

And ultimately after a lot of analysis, we concluded that the Chamber should support a mandatory E-Verify system, provided certain 

critical conditions are met. 

My written testimony goes through these, but let me summarize. 

First, I think as the government testimony has already indicated, 

there has been a lot of numerous technical improvements to the 

system. Is any wrong tentative non-confirmation acceptable? Well, 

no. No, it is a problem if any U.S. citizen gets denied a job, but 

it is reassuring to know that the correction process is now a lot 

easier. And that, look, I think this is one situation where we cannot 

let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Secondly with regard to cost, I know there is some information 

in the record with regard to various numbers ranging from $2.7 billion to less. All I can say is our economist has looked at the studies. 

I believe those studies have overestimated the impact on some of 

the Chamber members. 

I think the bottom line, though, and where the rubber meets the 

road, Mr. Chairman, is that our members report that they have 

adapted to the system well, and I hear very, very little in terms 

of adverse impact and cost on their operations. 

Third, I think most importantly, and our prior witness already 

talked about, we need a strong preemption clause with regard to 

State and local E-Verify laws. Various kinds of balances have to be 

struck when you are talking about preemption, and we are well 

aware of that. But certainly our members’ view is that we need one 

law across the country, setting one standard for employment 

verification. 
25 

Fourth, and I want to emphasize this, we cannot support an EVerify law that required a re-verification of an entire workforce. I 

will not beat a dead horse on this, except for to state the obvious 

that if you have 100,000 employees in a company, it is extremely 

burdensome to all of a sudden run everybody through a new reverification process, particularly when you have already done that 

under the I-9 process. Furthermore, I think it is quite clear that 

eventually, given the turnover in our workforce, most workers will 

be run through E-Verify eventually in any case. So we are past the 

days when an employee stayed with one company forever, let us 

face it. 

Fifth, with regard to safe harbors, I just want to make clear that 

if an employer is going to comply with the system, he or should 

have some sort of safe harbor from litigation, either from enforcement procedures by the Federal Government or by an employee 

who may be wronged because of some adverse information provided 

to the system. 

Sixth, and kind of on a more technical basis, but very important 

to our members, is trying to change the statutes such that the I0 process, which is largely now a written document, can be changed 

so that an employer can populate the information on the I-9 directly into E-Verify, skipping sort of this paperwork step. 

And seventh, and Mrs. Lofgren talked about this, I think any 

new mandate needs to be rolled out relatively slowly. Perhaps we 

could relate it to border security or some other criteria that seems 

to be popular these days. But we are bringing a lot more people 

into the system, so it should be rolled out slowly and hopefully tested as it was rolled out so we see some kind of—we get the kinks 

out of the system before it applies to new hires. 

And lastly, I think it is quite clear we all know about the problems with agriculture. It is sort of the 800-pound elephant in the 

room that we used to not talk about, but we do. They have a lot 

of unauthorized workers in their workforce. Our country depends 

on that industry. We need to recognize that a new E-Verify system 

simply imposed on that industry would be a disaster. I certainly do 

not have a solution, but we need to try and find one with regard 

to the application of E-Verify to agriculture. 

And lastly, I just want to note that we do support, unlike the 

President’s bill, the advocation of E-Verify to the entire workforce. 

His bill, in fact, exempted something like 60 percent of all employers. 

And lastly in my 6 seconds, I just want to note that we have 

strongly supported E-Verify as part of comprehensive immigration 

reform. We will continue to do so. Our 4 planks have been border 

security, more visas for the high-skilled, lesser-skilled agriculture, 

a reliable employment verification system, and a means to bring 

the undocumented out of the shadows and give them some kind of 

legal status in this country, and not blocking a pathway to citizenship. 

Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 
26 

Statement 

of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

ON: 

TO: 

BY: 

DATE: 

" HOW E-VERIFY WORKS AND HOW IT BENEFITS 

AMERICAN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS" 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION ANO BORDER 

SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

RANDEL K. JOHNSON 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LABOR, IMMIGRATION AND 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

tll« "",,,II<, , .. , .... ~" "I<'II~ .. """ I.",,,". P"'~' lI,tII,,,I,o. <eM.,."_ ,,,1,,,,· ... ,1.1 .,,,,ul .. ,,,,,, h.,,,'I~" .... ,,;,1 .. 1 L""'~1>m 

l<>(.< IUIY. """"".". "I'f"'''''''''' ,l1li , .... ,"""'M!II 
27 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing the 

interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and 

local chambers and industry associations. 

More than 96% of Chamber member companies have fewer than 100 employees, and many of 

the nation's largest companies are also active members. We are therefore cognizant not only of 

the challenges facing smaller businesses, but also those facing the business community at large. 

Besides representing a cross-section of the American business community with respect to the 

number of employees, major c1assitications of American business-e.g., manufacturing, 

retailing, services, construction, wholesalers, and finance-are represented. The Chamber has 

membership in all 50 states. 

The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. We believe that global interdependence 

provides opportunities, not threats. In addition to the American Chambers of Commerce abroad, 

an increasing number of our members engage in the export and import of both goods and 

services and have ongoing investment activities. The Chamber favors strengthened international 

competitiveness and opposes artificial U.S. and foreign barriers to international business. 

Positions on issues are developed by Chamber members serving on committees, subcommittees, 

councils, and task forces. Nearly 1,900 businesspeople participate in this process. 

2 
28 

Testimony before 

House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary 

Wednesday, February 27,2013 

Hearing on 

How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American Employers and Workers 

Statem ent of 

Randel K. Johnson 

Senior Vice President for Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits 

US. Chamber of Commerce 

Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distiflb'llished members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the US. Chamber of Commerce to testify on the subject 

ofE-Verify and the nation's employment veriiication system, a key component of immigration 

reform. My name is Randy Johnson, and I am the Chamber's Senior Vice President for Labor, 

Immigration and Employee Benefits policy. 

The Chamber has been asked to testify before House Subcommittees concerning the expansion 

ofE-Verify on at least five prior occasions, during the period 2006 to 2009, once before your 

Subcommittee and also before Subcommittees of the Ways & Means Committee, Small Business 

Committee, and Government Oversight Committee. On each occasion, the Chamber, while 

supporting broad reforms to our legal immigration system, expressed opposition to the 

mandatory expansion of E-Verify without extensive improvements to the workability and 

reliability of what we saw as a burdensome system. 

Today, however, after input from our members, the US. Chamber supports E-Verify and the 

primary purpose of my testimony today is to explain why and under what conditions. 

WHY DOES THE CHAMBER SUPPORT E-VERIFY? 

The Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing more than three million 

businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region in the United States. There are 

currently about 6.05 million active businesses across the country 1 Of these, about 1% employ 

more than 10,000 employees, yet these employers account for more than 27% of the American 

workforce2 On the other hand, about 60% of all businesses in America employ less than five 

workers, although these employers account for just 5% of employed persons in our economy.' 

In total, about 98% of all U.S. businesses employ less than 100 staff, comprising nearly 50% of 

the workforce 4 The Chamber membership follows similar contours. Thus, the Chamber takes 

1 U.S. Economic CensLls. , [d. 

, [d. 

, [d. 
29 

seriously its responsibility to represent the interests of both large and small employers and can 

only support an E-Verify mandate that addresses the concerns of both. 

The U.S. Chamber created an E-Verify Task Force in January 2011 to assess the Chamber's 

position on whether or how E-Verify should be expanded. What we learned from our members 

was that the E-Verify system is greatly improved and, while not perfect, could be workable with 

continued technical improvements accompanied by specific, important legislative changes. 

In particular, we learned the following in our assessment ofE-Verify: 

Technical Improvements and Costs 

First and foremost, many of the technical issues underlying E-Verify have been or are in the 

process of being addressed. For example, Tntel famously experienced Tentative Non 

Confirmation (TNC) rates in excess of 12%5, even though TNCs were eventually cleared. It is 

cumbersome for employers, as well as employees, when employees are incorrectly issued TNCs 

despite being authorized for employment. In the E-Verify system, the employer must notify the 

employee of the TNC but it is the employee who must take action to contest the TNC. It turned 

out that Tntel had such a high rate ofTNCs because E-Verify did not link to SEVTS (the Student 

and Exchange Visitor Infonnation System) and Intel hires many trainees and interns including 

foreign students and exchange visitors. Once E-Verify was linked with SEVIS, this problem 

virtually disappeared and Intel's annual TNC rate is now between 2% and 3%. 

Another example of responsive technical fixes within E-Verify relates to name mismatches, 

some of which can result in issuance of TNCs to authorized workers, a particular concern for 

American citizens and especially naturalized citizens. The Government Accountability Office 

has reported that about 10% ofTNCs are for name mismatches and that nearly 76% of these 

name mismatches relate to American citizens 6 To begin to address this concern, E-Verify has 

now been linked to the Department of State's Passport Agency so that any American citizen with 

a passport can be verified even if there are name mismatches in other government records. 

Some have claimed that expanding E-Verify nationwide would cost in excess of $2.7 billion, 

most of which would be costs borne by small businesses,7 but our in-house economist has 

advised that economic commonsense suggests otherwise. The cost estimates appear to be based 

solely on the cost information in the 2008 Westat data'" This infonnation is dated, however, and 

with technical improvements to E-Verify and statutory changes, average costs would be expected 

to decline as the system improved and provided employers certainty. Significantly, the 2008 

Westat study reveals that 76% of responding employers stated that the cost ofusing E-Verify 

was zero ($0)9 Extrapolating to the full economy the costs that 24% of respondents identified 

5 Sec Intel's April 200S commellis IllliW~\l}'}L"'''JlfC1,-"~Dl1l9Slj;;LQicg!lJt(;:,L'';;JJI''QllC1IU''''i''LQl'g!rU~j:i1!~I,l:IIIc[<;,':_' 

\~rili'_J!_dJ as part the FAR rulemak.ing 

December 2009 Westat study evaluating 

review or April to June 2008 data. 

government contractors, consistent \vith Lhe 

"Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation." based on a 

Ii December 2010. GAO study evaluating E-VerifY. "Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-VerifY. but 

Significant Challenges Remain." 

'Bloomberg Government, Jason Arvelo. "Assessing E-Verify Costs for Employers and Taxpayers." (January 2011 

Brief) and "Free E-Veriry Hits Small Business Hardest" (January 27, 20 I I article). 

, December 2009 Westat study evaluating E-Veriry. "Findings or the E-Veriry Program Evaluation:' based on a 

review of April to June 2008 data 

9 Id. at p. 184. 

4 
30 

has limited value. Lastly, the $2.7 billion estimate incorrectly applies data from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics' Job Opening and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) to calculate the expected 

annual number of new hires, leading to overstatement of costs. It has been variously estimated 

by economists that JOLTS amplifies hire numbers by at least 25% because it includes internal 

promotions and transfers between establishments that are part of the same employing business. 

Preemption 

The patchwork of state laws and policies that relate to employment verification and E-Verify is a 

hindrance to the business community, which aJways places a premium on the certainty of 

governing rules. This concern was not only from large multistate employers but also expressed 

by small employers in part because many small employers do business in more than one 

jurisdiction. In fact, the number one concern expressed by Chamber members regarding 

expansion ofE-Verify was to ensure there was a unifonn national policy and that no states or 

localities had companion laws or their own enforcement. As part of the Task Force 

conversations in 2011, the Chamber reviewed state laws relating to employment verification and 

E-Verify and found at that time: 14 states mandated the use of E-Verify for private employers, 2 

states made E-Verify optionaJ, 21 states required E-Verify be used by state government 

contractors, 4 states imposed separate obligations on independent contractors, 13 states imposed 

sanctions relating to the employment verification obligation, and 11 states had business licensing 

sanctions.'" 

Reverification 

Chamber members were adamant that any expansion ofE-Verify could not include running 

E-Verify queries on each employer's current workforce - since each E-Verify query requires 

updated 1-9 data. In addition to being burdensome, such "reverification" seems unnecessary 

since employers have already gone through a process required under law (Form 1-9) to verify 

employment authorization, and such reveritlcation presents particular burdens for federal 

contractors, who have already completed a process under the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

relating to some but not all current workers. Reverification of the 143 million Americans 

currently working is a stumbling block to every employer in America, except those that work 

solely without permanent staff like temporary staffing agencies and seasonal businesses, among 

others. 

Reverification of current workforce wi11largely be unnecessary because over time most workers 

will be veritled in E-Verify at some point as new hires. There are approximately 60 million new 

hires annually in the US. economy and while that does not capture all workers, and many of the 

new hires annually are the same workers turning over to new jobs, there is a relatively small 

percentage of workers that ultimately won't be verified through E-Verify after several years, so 

after a few years a large majority of the workforce being confirmed through E-Verify. 

Safe Harhors 

]1) For current and updated inronnation about state action 

Leb~slators QtJ]Rj!W1j'Wm;1l,l.olI;/1';Sl]",s:,eA'o;m,hJi[ll"rlligistlte,l:lYi~-rl;la\"Q,tQ:·imIlliJ"";l1!iQlhllld-,j'wrnigr~"t'Lll'iP" 

follows the issue closely. 

5 
31 

Much of the conversation of our members in assessing E-Verify related to the need for safe 

harbors. It was and remains very important to our members that businesses using subcontractors 

are not liable for their subcontractors, as under current law, unless the employer knew about the 

subcontractors' actions. A general contractor is often precluded from taking steps to obtain more 

knowledge about subcontractors in order to ensure joint employer status is not created. 

Employers were also concerned about the creation of any new private rights of action, which our 

members strongly oppose. Some of our members reported that they have avoided E-Verify 

because they did not see any added protections against enforcement, even when the employer has 

not knowingly hired an unauthorized alien. All agreed that for employers using E-Verify, there 

should be a good faith standard to establish employment verification compliance, with the 

burden of proof shifting to the government. It was a top priority of our members to exempt any 

employer using E-Verify in good faith from any liability, civil or criminal. 

Integrating 1-9 With E-Verifj, 

Importantly, almost all Task Force members spoke about the value in eliminating the 1-9 

employment veriiication form as a separate requirement, and suggested that there be one, single 

employer obligation regarding employment eligibility verification.ll The key component of the 

1-9 process is the employer attestation that an employer representative has reviewed original 

identity and work authorization document(s); this is the attestation that should be integrated into 

E-Verify. Presently, employers who use E-Verify have to separately complete the 1-9 fonn and 

then transfer data from the \-9 into E-Verify. Congress would have to amend the governing 

statute in order to integrate the 1-9 into E-Verify. Significantly, in order to accommodate all 

sizes and types of employers, E-Verify would need to be provided in a fully electronic version, 

integrating the 1-9, and also be available by phone for small employers who don't have separate 

human resources functions and for those employers making hires remotely. Ensuring the ability 

to run E-Verify queries after an offer of employment but before the first day of work was also 

mentioned by some Task Force members, who weren't clear ifE-Verify pennitted this even 

though 1-9 forms can be completed after an offer but prior to the first day of work. 

Phase-in 

Our Task Force discussed various options for rolling out an expansion of E-Verify across the 

country, and the key area of agreement is that there should be a phased process over several 

years so that not all companies begin using the program at the same time. Critical infrastructure, 

carefully defined, should go first, and small businesses last. 

Agriculture 

Because of the impact to and importance of national food supply and distribution, it is important 

to ensure agricultural production employers have meaningful access to a program to sponsor 

lawful workers before being subject to E-Verify. 

CHAMBER RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING E-VERIFY 

11 Interestingly, this position mirrored a finding Crom the December 2010 Wcstat study on why employers do not usc 

E- Verify. --The Practices and Opinions of Employers 'ivho do Not Participate in E- Verify." v.'here 77% of 

respondents not using E-Verify said using E-Verify \vould be beneficial if the 1-9 \vas eliminated. 

6 
32 

The US. Chamber recognizes that an enhanced employment verification system with obligations 

by employers must be part of any immigration refonn package. We accept that there must be 

adequate penalties for an employer's failure to complete the employment veritication process, 

but we insist that there be one, single national policy and uniform enforcement with safe harbors 

for good faith employers and an integrated, single employment veritication system. 

The Chamber's top tier concerns around expansion of E-Verify, and the issues we think need to 

be addressed prior to any mandatory expansion ofE-Verify, are: 

I. Preemption - Statutory expansion ofE-Verify should immediately bar the etfect of any 

state and local laws mandating the use ofE-Verify or establishing state or local 

employment verification schemes. The Chamber understands that federal legislation 

mandating the use ofE-Verify will allow states to pass laws focused solely on state 

licensing authority that can be a penalty for employers who do not use the electronic 

verification system when mandated to do so by federal law. 

2. Reverification - Employers have already verified their current workforce through the 1-9 

employment veritication process and, therefore, "reverification" should be unnecessary. 

The E-Verify mandate should be prospective on new hires. The US. Chamber will 

oppose an obligation for private sector employers to be subj ect to mandatory 

reverifi cation of their entire current workforce. Mandatory use of E-Verify on current 

workforce should apply to staff assigned to critical infrastructure sites. With respect to 

federal contractors, any mandatory E-Verify legislation should establish that current 

workforce assigned to such contracts be veritied in E-Verify, except that individuals 

exempted by the FAR provisions must likewise be exempted under any proposed 

legislation. Provisions may allow the voluntary use of E-Verify on current workforce 

but, in order to provide clarity to employers and to better protect from inadvertent 

discrimination or the appearance of discrimination, any employer that voluntarily chooses 

to use E-Verify must do so on its full workforce and it must be clear that no government 

agency can use the employer's choice on whether or not to use E-Verify voluntarily on 

previously hired staff to either target companies for investigation or as part of any 

enforcement matter. 

~. Safe harbor - It is critical that there be new, very strong safe harbor language, protecting 

employers who act in good faith, starting with a presumption that those that use E-Verify 

are good faith actors. As under current law, employers must continue to be obligated for 

compliance relating solely to their own direct employees. There are two good faith 

defenses: employers who act in good faith cannot be liable under any state or federal 

civil or criminal law for any employment-related action taken in reliance on information 

provided through E-Verify, and, in addition, the burden of proof shifts when employers 

act in good faith such that DRS may not proceed in any enforcement matter unless it 

shows by clear and convincing evidence that the employer had knowledge that an 

employee is an unauthorized alien. Further, employers who act in good faith may have 

penalties waived or reduced and good faith employers may not be penalized for de 

minimlls violations. It would be ideal for there also to be recognition of business 

disruption avoidance during the transition period to a new mandatory E-Verify system. 

7 
33 

4. Integrated single employment verification system, integrating 1-9 requirements into 

E-Verify - Such integration should be required before any mandatory use by employers, 

so that both a fully electronic option and telephonic option will be available to 

employers. Current law requires employers to both complete the 1-9 employment 

veritlcation process and, where the employer uses E-Verify, to separately input data from 

the 1-9 into E-Verify. The key component of the 1-9 employment veritlcation process, an 

employer attestation regarding review of original documents 

5. Phase-in- Employers should be phased-in to any E-Verify mandate and once phased-in 

obligated to useE-Verify on all new hires. The phase-in should take at least three years 

after the establishment of an integrated employment veritication system. E-Verify 

queries should be permitted as ofthe date of job offer, and must be done no later than the 

third day of employment, for each new hire. 

6. Agriculture - We have made it clear that we believe production agriculture should be 

treated ditferently in that a new, workable agricultural worker visa program should be 

established before that industry is mandated to use E-Verify. 

CONCLUSION 

In the past, the U.S. Chamber has opposed the expansion ofE-Verify. However, in light of 

improvements in E-Verify, its use by federal contractors, and the focus on a more reliable 

employment veritication system as a necessity, as well as a logical prerequisite to further 

immigration reform, the U.S. Chamber reassessed its position. Consulting with our members as 

to whether or how E-Verify should be expanded, we have concluded that the time has come to 

establish a single, national policy regarding employment veritication and the use ofE-Verify. 

If Congress wants the business community to "turn off the jobs magnet," however, it is vital 

Congress make the employment veritlcation system and E-Verify work for employers. The 

Chamber conditions support ofE-Verify expansion upon making the system workable for the 

businesses obligated to verify employment authorization of hires, to include the above six issues. 

The U.S. Chamber remains committed to advocating for reform to fix our broken immigration 

system, and believes that a workable and reliable employment veritlcation system is only one 

part of necessary immigration reforms. 

In the immigration realm, we have attempted to work with groups that are not our natural allies, 

such as the AFL-CIO,12 to show we are serious about putting politics aside and t1nding solutions 

regarding immigration refonn. We stand ready to work with this Subcommittee in the same 

vem. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the Chamber, and 1 look forward to your 

questions. 

l~ On Febmary 21. 2013 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AfL-CIO issued a joint statement of principles 

regarding reforms for a visa program for lesser-skilled \vorkers. 

8 
34 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Tulli. 

TESTIMONY OF EMILY TULLI, POLICY ATTORNEY, 

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 

Ms. TULLI. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

share the National Immigration Law Center’s perspective on EVerify. The National Immigration Law Center has advocated for 

changes to E-Verify since the program’s inception, and continues to 

have grave concerns about the program. E-Verify makes all workers, citizens and immigrants alike, more vulnerable in the workplace. 

Across the country, labor law violations are rampant, and workers are regularly denied their basic rights, like minimum wage and 

overtime. And too often when they try and assert these rights, they 

face retaliation. 

E-Verify actually makes this problem worse because it encourages bad behavior by employers. E-Verify encourages employers to 

misclassify workers as independent contractors and move them off 

the books. It also gives employers one more tool to retaliate against 

workers, so if a worker complains about mistreatment, the employer can decide to use E-Verify against the worker. When employers can easily abuse some workers, all American workplaces 

suffer. 

E-Verify employers routinely violate the program rules, and that 

hurts workers. The only way a worker knows that he has an EVerify error is if an employer tells him. E-Verify is a program that 

is based on an agreement between the employer and the government, and workers are really just stuck on the sidelines, even 

though they have the most to lose from an error. 

For instance, 42 percent of workers say that they are not notified 

by their employer of an E-Verify error. And if a worker does not 

know that an error exists, they have on way to correct it. It is vitally important that the worker know about errors in their records 

because errors can lead to workers getting fired through a final 

non-confirmation. 

Because the livelihood of U.S. citizens is at risk, even seemingly 

small error rates really matter. Using USCIS’ own statistics, at 

least 50,000 U.S. workers experienced an E-Verify error last year, 

and that is with 93 percent of employers not using the program. 

I will give you two examples of E-Verify errors. A U.S. citizen in 

Tennessee actually received an error notice from her employer. She 

went to the Social Security Administration office to fix it. She 

thinks she fixes it at Social Security, but E-Verify generates another error, an FNC, and she gets fired. 

Another example, a U.S. citizen experienced an error because an 

employer made a simple mistake when they were typing the employee’s Social Security number into the system. Again, that worker went to a Social Security office, could not resolve the error there. 

E-Verify generated an FNC, a final non-confirmation, and the 

worker got fired. 

The most disturbing piece of all of this is that for workers who 

lose their job because of an E-Verify error, there is no formal proc-
35 

ess in place for them to get their jobs back. And that is a problem 

for thousands of workers who experience these errors. As you can 

imagine, these problems are only going to grow exponentially if we 

mandate the program. 

Given these concerns, NILC has recommendations about how to 

move forward. First, Congress needs to pass immigration reform 

legislation that protects employee rights and has a road to citizenship for the millions of unauthorized workers in our communities. 

Protecting workers is the best way to put unscrupulous employers 

out of business and raise standards at the workplace. 

Second, we have got to make sure that E-Verify is not misused. 

Employers should not be able to use E-Verify as a way to avoid 

their obligations. If they participate in the program, they should 

have to follow the program rules, and violations of those rules 

should come with penalties. There are currently no meaningful 

penalties for employers who do not follow the rules. 

Third, make sure that the thousands of citizens and legally authorized immigrants who experience errors have a way to correct 

errors and keep their jobs. Government errors should not stand between citizens and their jobs. 

Last, if mandatory E-Verify is part of an immigration reform proposal, you need to phase it in. Like Mr. Johnson was referring to, 

you need to phase it in gradually with benchmarks for performance. After each phase-in, we need to evaluate what is happening 

during the phase-in, the number of American workers losing their 

jobs, the number of employers misusing the program, and the program’s accuracy rate before moving forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tulli follows:] 
36 

Statement of Emily Tulli 

Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

Hearing "How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American Employers and Workers" 

February 27, 2013 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to share the National Immigration Law Center's perspectives on E-Verify. 

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is a nonpartisan organization exclusively 

dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants and their families. 

We conduct policy analysis, advocacy, and impact litigation, as well as provide training, 

publications, and technical assistance for a broad range of groups throughout the U.S. 

Since its inception in 1979, NILC has earned a national reputation as a leading expert on the 

intersection of immigration law and the employment rights oflow-income immigrants NILe's 

extensive knowledge of the complex interplay between immigrants' legal status and their rights 

under U.S. employment and labor laws is an important resource for immigrant rights coalitions, 

and faith and community-based organizations, as well as policymakers, legal aid attorneys, 

workers' rights advocates, labor unions, government agencies, and the media. 

NILC has analyzed and advocated for improvements to the E-Verify program since it was first 

implemented in 1997 as the Basic Pilot program, and has extensive experience assisting 

advocates and attorneys in responding to problems with the program as it affects workersimmigrants and U.S.-born alike. Throughout the years, we have worked closely with the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Social Security Administration (SSA), and the 

Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment 

Practices (OSC) on issues related to E-Verify and its adverse impact on workers. 

As Congress considers reforming our nation's broken immigration policies, we remain strongly 

opposed to a federal requirement that all employers use E-Verify because of the program's 

database error rates, lack of worker protections, lack of due process, insufficient privacy 

protections, and the significant amount of employer misuse of the program. Any mandatory 

electronic employment eligibility verification regime should, at a minimum, address these 

concerns, and must be coupled with a broad legalization program. 

NILC advocates for passage of broad and humane immigration reform legislation that provides a 

clear roadmap to full citizenship for the II million aspiring citizens. This would make it possible 
37 

for immigrants to fully integrate into the nation's social and economic fabric, with all the rights 

and responsibilities entailed in full integration. Full citizenship should ensure that everyone 

living in the US. has access to economic supports, affordable health care, workers' rights, and 

the freedom to live free from fear of detention and deportation. 

Overview 

Now is the time for Congress to pass an expansive immigration reform bill that creates a road to 

citizenship for unauthorized immigrants and ensures robust protections of all workers' rights so 

that abusive employers cannot undercut employers who comply with our employment and labor 

laws. For years, this committee has discussed E-Verify, debated its merits, questioned its 

etlicacy, and lauded its successes, while immigration refonn proposals introduced in Congress 

languished. And while the problems associated with E-Verify are worthy of discussion, its use 

does not prevent employers from hiring unauthorized workers effectively. E-Verify does nothing 

to address the underlying economic realities that drive the employment of unauthorized workers 

and will actually serve to make matters worse. 

Mandatory E-Verify has been part of every immigration reform bill since 2005 and NILC has 

worked on a bipartisan basis to craft proposals as part of immigration reform that ensures due 

process, worker protections, and privacy safeguards for all workers. The starting point for any 

mandatory E-Verify proposal, however, is a road to citizenship for the II million immigrants 

who are currentl y unauthorized. 

However, mandating E-Verify without creating a fully work-authorized labor force will set the 

program up for failure and exacerbate our current economic challenges. With 8 million 

unauthorized workers living and laboring the United States, a worksite enforcement-only 

approach has resulted in more workers being pushed into the underground economy and has 

robbed state and federal governments of much-needed tax revenue. Unscrupulous employers 

have had more tools to coerce and control their employees, driving down working conditions for 

all workers-immigrant and citizen alike. Employers in certain industries, like agriculture, have 

struggled to till positions. And because of E-Verify's error rate and lack of due process, 

mandatory E-Verify will require hundreds of thousands of US. citizens and work-authorized 

immigrants to visit a government office or lose their jobs. 

E-Verify will not succeed unless it is paired with a broad and inclusive legalization package and 

substantial reforms to ensure due process and worker protections. 

I. E-Verify makes workers more vulnerable. 

Without a fully authorized workforce, E-Verify makes workers more vulnerable. In workplaces 

across the country, workers are routinely mistreated, experiencing violations of basic labor 

rights, like nonpayment of minimum wage or overtime and retaliation. The US. Department of 

Labor estimates that nearly half of the businesses they investigate have labor law violations 1 

These problems are even worse for workers in low wage employment. According to one study, 

1 Intelfaith WOlkeI' Justice Toolkit available at http://,,'-\v\v.\yagcthcft.orglrcsourccs/rcsourccs.html. 

2 
38 

26 percent of workers were paid less than minimum wage for their previous week's work and 

nearly 76 percent did not receive the legal wage for overtime hours 2 Workers even face 

retaliation for merely asserting their legal right to work in the U.S 3 E-Verify compounds 

workers' vulnerability and undermines labor and employment laws and standards. Worksite 

enforcement etforts, like E-Verify, weaken the ability of federal and state agencies to effectively 

enforce labor and employment laws. In addition, employers readily use immigration compliance 

tools, such as verification and reverification of employees' work authorization, to retaliate 

against workers who complain about mistreatment and to undercut workers' efforts to improve 

their working conditions4 

Tnstead of strengthening the enforcement oflabor laws in the workplace, without immigration 

refonn, use ofE-Verify does just the opposite. Tn fact, work site immigration enforcement 

actually incentivizes worker mistreatment, including misclassification of workers as independent 

contractors, subj ecting them to sham subcontracting arrangements,S or retaliating against them if 

they complain about their boss' illegal activity6 Making E-Verify mandatory would only 

exacerbate that problem. Tn addition to hurting workers, a nationwide E-Verify mandate would 

create a competitive advantage for bad employers. Almost everyone, including U.S Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (TCE),7 agrees that mistreatment of unauthorized workers provides 

bad employers with a competitive advantage over good employers. 

II. Employers routinely misuse E-Verify and workers suffer. 

Although E-Verify has employer rules governing the treatment of workers, employer 

noncompliance with these rules is very high. For instance, the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Service (USCIS) requires employers to notify a worker of an E-Verify Tentative 

Nonconfirmation (TNC) and prohibits adverse treatment of the worker8 However, employers 

often do not notify workers ofa TNC. This is particularly problematic because workers must 

contest a TNC, or risk losing Iheir johs. Tn t1scal year 2009, 42 percent of workers reported that 

they were not informed by their employer of a TNC, resulting in the denial of their right to 

:: Nationa1 Emp10yment La"" Project, IJl'oken /.aws, Unprotected /Vorkel's: l'in/anons of !-.fllp/oyment and I,ahar 

Laws in America '.I Cities at http'//nelp.3cdn.net/59719b5a36109ab7d8_5xm6bc9ap.pdf 

') Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Press Release "Justice Department Settles ,,,ithFlorid1 Janitorial 

Services Company Over Immigration and Nationality Act Violnfions," avaibble at 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr!2012/September!12-ert -1169 .htmL 

4 Written Statement of Emily Tulli, WOlkeI' Rights Policy Attollley, National IUlluigration Law Center, submitted to 

the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and 

IntemationalLaw, Hearing on ICE Worksite Enforcement: Up to the Job?, Jan. 26, 20ll, 

www.nile.org/document:html?id~J60, p. 5. 

5 See Jim McTagLle, "The Underground Economy: TIIegal Tlllmi!:"TImts and Others Working Off the Books Cost the 

U.S. Hundreds of Billions of Dol1ars in Unpaid Ta:\es," THE WALl, S'I"REET JOIIRl\AL ClASS ROO\1 EDITION, April 

2005, a\'ailable at htLp:l/wsjc1assroom.colll/archi\'e/OSapriecon_Ll11dergTOLlnd.htlll; Lora Jo Foo, --The VLllnerable and 

Exploit1ble Immigrant Workforce and the Need for Strengthening Worker Protective Legislation," YALE LAW 

JOUR'IAL 103 Yale LJ. 2179, May 1994, ovoilable at www.wiego.orgipoperslFoolmmigrantWorkers.pdf 

('; Broken Lnvs. supra note 2, at 3 

i "Responsible employers who seck to conduct their business lm",fully arc put at an unfair disadvantage as they by to 

compete with unsclUpulous businesses. Such businesses gain a competitive edge by paying illegal alien ,yorkers low 

wages" Jmmigraliol1 and ('us/oms Ji.n/ol"cemenl WOl"h'i/e Ji.n/ol"cemenl flac/sheet available at 

http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/wolksite.htm. 

8 E-Verifv User Manual for Emplovers, September 2012, at p. 10 

" 
39 

contest the finding'! In fact, a survey of376 immigrant workers in Arizona found that 33.5 

percent had been fired, apparently after receiving an E-Verify TNC, but that none had been 

notified by employers that they had received a TNC or given information to appeal the finding. to 

Moreover, some employers use E-Verify to illegally prescreen workers. Under the current EVerify rules, 33 percent of these workers prescreened are not otl'ered ajob and 47 percent of 

these workers could not find a new job for two months or longer, 11 Often, employers likely do 

not offer workers who receive TNCs ajob because of the amount of time and resources it costs 

to fix the errors, and because many employers falsely assume that foreign-born workers who 

receive a TNC are undocumented. t2 

Tn a mandatory system, employer misuse ofE-Verify will likely rise. Current E-Verify users are 

disproportionately large businesses who use the program voluntarily. Size and the voluntary use 

of the program make them more likely than an "average" US. employer to use the system 

properly. Noncompliance with program rules would almost certainly increase if all employers 

were required to use the system. For example, in Arizona, the first state to malce E-Verify 

mandatory, employers are less compliant with E-Verify procedures than E-Verify employers 

outside of Arizona." 

ill. E-Verify does not prevent the hiring of unauthorized workers. 

Based on the experiences of Arizona and Alabama after passage of their mandatory E-Verify 

laws, it is clear that E-Verify does not prevent unauthorized workers from getting hired. Tn 2008, 

the Arizona legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAW A), a bill mandating EVerify's use for all employers in the state. 14 LAW A contains severe penalties and fines for 

failure to use E-Verify, including revocation or suspension of a business license. However, 5 

years after the bill's enactment, one out of three employers are using E-Verify and only 43 

percent of businesses had enrolled in the program. 15 In 2011, Alabama's legislature passed the 

Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, an anti-immigrant law 

containing an E-Verify mandate. In the months after enactment, between 79 and 96 percent of 

employers had not even signed up to use E-Verify, despite the law's penalties.'" 

In this economic environment, employers are desperate to keep their workforces and most do not 

comply with E-Verify mandates, despite stiff penalties imposed by states. When employers do 

comply with an E-Verify mandate, ICE agents report that some unscrupulous employers coach 

9 Findings of the Web-Based E-f'crijj; Program Evaluation (We stat, Dec. 2009), mvw.uscis.gov/uSCISIE-VerifVlEVerrlVlFinal%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-09 Jpdf, p. 154, 199 

](I Caroline Isaacs, Sanc:Jioning Arizona: The Hidden Impac:Js a/Arizona's Emplo.ver Sanctions Law (Washington, 

DC: American Friends Sen!lce Committee, 20()9). \\'\\'\\'.afsc.orgiLLlCson/htla/GeLDocumenLAction/iI74700. 

11 WestaL, supra note 9, p. 140. 

1: Finding<ofthe rVeh-/Jased /Jasie Pilot r,'valuation (Weslat, Sept. 2(07), httpJltill}LLrI.conli2iddgs,p. 77. 

11 Westnt, supra note 9, p. 237. 

'"Legal Arizom Workers Act (LAW A), Ariz. Rev, Stat §§ 23-211 to -216 (2009) 

1'5 Joe Henke, "Arizona's E-Verif}; employment checks are spotty," Crollkite iVews ,)'ervice, avail1ble at 

http://\y\yv'r'.yumasun.comJnC\ys/velify-84245-businesses-mizolla.html 

Hi See Jay Reeves, ··Most Alabama Finns 1vIiss Illllnigration Goals," The Associaled Press, Aplil4, 2012. The 

percentage range cited \yas calculated by diyiding the stated number of AL registered companies (provided by 

USCIS equaling 18,137) bv the number of tot a! companies doing business in the state as reported by the Alabama 

Department of Revenue (368,613) mId the state Department ofIndustrial Relations (85,000). 

4 
40 

workers whom they suspect are not work-authorized, helping them get around the system. They 

do this by asking the workers to provide an identity document that E-Verify's photo-matching 

tool (which is used to confirm workers' identities through a photo comparison) cannot verify 

(e.g., driver's license pictures, which are not in the databases E-Verify uses).'7 

In addition to employer noncompliance with E-Verify mandates, the program does not 

effectively identify unauthorized workers. Westat researchers found that in 2008,54 percent of 

unauthorized workers for whom E-Verify checks were run were erroneously confirmed as being 

work-authorized. 18 

IV. E-Verify is costly. 

E-Verify currently costs the federal government about $100 million per year19 If made 

mandatory nationwide, these costs would rise dramatically. Mandatory E-Verify would cost the 

government and employers billions in lost revenue and implementation costs without ridding 

US. workplaces of unauthorized workers. After reviewing a mandatory E-Verify proposal in 

2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that implementation of mandatory E-Verify 

would decrease federal revenue by more than $17.3 billion over ten years because it would 

increase the number of employers who pay workers under the table, outside of the tax system. 20 

The reality is that unauthorized workers will continue to work for employers, despite the 

existence of an electronic veritlcation system. Many abusive employers will recruit unauthorized 

workers as part of their workforce knowing they can get away with violating state and federal 

employment laws because they can threaten workers with deportation. These employers often 

move unauthorized workers into the underground economy, misclassifying them as independent 

contractors, and simply not running them through any employment eligibility verification 

system21 As workers move off the books, revenue is drained from federal and state 

governments' dwindling coffers. 

In addition to robbing the federal and state governments of revenue, an E-Verify mandate would 

threaten the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. When employers move workers into the 

underground economy, the trust fund loses those workers' contributions. This is particularly 

troubling given the needs of America's aging baby boomers 22 Over the next 20 years, the 

number of senior citizens relative to the number of working-age Americans will increase by 67 

percent, which means that they will "transition from being net taxpayers to net recipients." They 

17 Richard M. Stana, Report to rhe SlIhco1nmittee on S'ocia/ Security', CommiTTee 011 Wa:vs and Aleans. US'. [Jouse of 

Representatives: f(mp/o.Y71lcnt I "cl'tficanon, rederal /lgellcies !Iave 'f'aken 5/teps to Improve f'"'-I"·er~fj.!, hut 5/ign(jicant 

Challenges Remain (Govemmellt ACCOUlltabil1ty Orfice, Dec. lO1O, GAO-11-146). 

www.gao.gov/new.items/dIl14G.pdf,p. 22. 

1R Westat,supra note 9, p. 118. 

19 DH..)' Budget;'1 Brif:::t2012, p. 154. avail1ble at: wWH'.dhs.gov'x/;brmy'assets'budget-b;b-j~)2012.p({l 

20 Letter to Rep_ John Conyers, Chair, Committee 011 the JudicialY, U.S. House of Represcntativcs, from Peter 

Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 4, 2008, mvw.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx1doc9100/Iu4088ltr.pdf 

21 McTague, supra note 5 

22 Baby boomcrs gobbling up Social Security smplus, The Associated Press, available at 

http://www.oregonlive.com/today Iinde:'<.Ss£l20 12/08/babL boomers _gobbling_ social_ s.html 

5 
41 

will be "supported by a smaller workforce that is struggling to meet its own needs,,23 It is 

estimated that two-thirds of undocumented immigrants currently pay payroll taxes, which added 

$12 billion to the Social Security trust fund in 200724 In fact, the trust fund had received a net 

benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants by 

2007, which represents 5.4 to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets. The chief actuary of 

SSA has stated that without undocumented immigrants' contributions to the trust fund, there 

would have been a "shortfall of tax revenue to cover [payouts 1 starting [in 1 2009, or six years 

earlier than estimated under the 2010 Trustees Report. ,,25 Mandatory E-Verify would drive 

unauthorized workers in the underground economy, robbing the trust fund of their contributions 

and threatening the entire system's solvency. 

Mandatory E-Verify would cost business billions as well. Based on 2010 data, ifE-Verify was 

made mandatory, it would cost 2.7 billion dollars, with America's small businesses paying 2.6 

billion dollars of that cost. 26 Small businesses have noted that mandatory E-Verify would be a 

"direct threat" to businesses and local economies.27 Realizing that mandatory E-Verify forces 

small businesses "to act as immigration agents," they have urged Congress to "do better" and 

comprehensively reform the immigration system" 

V. E-Verify errors cause u.s. citizens and work authorized immigrants to lose their 

jobs. 

DRS has signitlcantly improved the program's error rate since its initial implementation. But 

with E-Verify, program errors that threaten the economic livelihood of U.S. citizens and workauthorized immigrants are a cause of great concern. According the USClS' s statistics, E-Verify 

immediately confirms 98.3 percent ofworkers 29 Using the agency's most recent estimate of 

errors, in fiscal year 2011 between .28 and 1.65 percent of all workers run through E-Verify 

receive a TNC.") That means that for fiscal year 2011, between 46,515 and 274,103 U.S. citizens 

:23 Dmvell Myers, 'thinki1lf!. ilhead /Ihout OUI' Immigrant Vl/fllre: ,Vn1' trend) and .Hutual IJenefits in Our /lging 

.')'ociety (Im1TIlgration Policy Cenler, Jan. 200X), 

http://v.\\w.immibrratiollpolicy.org/sites/derault/files/docslThink ing<'Io20 Ahead%20 1 -OX. pdf. 

24 Ed,,,ard Schlmlatcher-M1tos, --Hm\' illegal immigrants are helping Social Security," The Washingtoll Post, Sept. 

3. 2010. http·II\Hvw.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/contentiorticleI20 10/09/021 AR20 10090202673.html. 2'5 ld. 

2" Jason Arvello, "'Frec' E-Velify May Cost Small Businesses $26 billion: Insight," Bloomberg, Jml. 28,20 II. 

T! Letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Sept 14, 2011, 

available at: https:!lsalsa.demoeraeyinaetion.org/o/371/imagesMSA-letter-to-House-Judiciary-Committee-on-HR2885%20-Scpt-20 Il.pdf 

28 J.Kelly Conklin, "E-VClify program would be costly to small businesses, HOlls/on Chronicle, July 14,2011. 

avai lab Ie at: http://w\v\v.ehron.com/opinion/oLLtlook/articiefE-Verify -probTfam-\'\-'ould-be-eostly -to-small207X257.php. 

"2'9.o::,'tatistics and Reports, (USCIS, Fiscal Year 2011), available at 

ilttp:l/www.usciscgovjporta!l5i!e/us"i5bll~l1llitenle])ld4c2a3ejb<)ac8924396a]543f6Qlaf?ygne"'tcJ"1nnel~}c57951)9,, 

clbJ~2 jOYgJl\TCMJ()QO_OQt>92ca60aRCRD. 

lC1uscrs states th1t for fiscal year 20 11, .28 percent of employees '"ere confirmed as ,,,ork authorized after 

contesting and resolving a TNC. The agency repolts that 1.13 percent of employees reeeiyed TNCs and did not 

contest the TNC because they did not choose to or ,,,ere unaware of the opportunity to contest the TNC. uscrs docs 

not provide estimates for the percentage of these workers who actually have work authOli7ation, but ,,,ere una,,,are 

of their opportunity to contest the TNC. The agency reports that 0.24 percent of employees received a TNC winch 

remained unresolved at the end FY 2011. uscrs also docs not provide estimates for the percentage of these ,,,orkers 

6 
42 

and work-authorized immigrants experienced an E-Verify error that required them to contact a 

government agency to tlx a database error or risk losing their jobs 3 ! 

Westat, an independent evaluator of the E-Verify program, states that approximately 0.8 percent 

ofTNCs are issued in error32 Since there were 20 million E-Verify queries by employers in 

fiscal year 2012, 160,000 workers had to contact a government agency to fix a database error or 

risk losing their jobs" 

More startling, the Westat model can be used to evaluate the number of individuals who likely 

received a final nonconfirmation (FNC). An FNC requires an employer to fire the worker or 

incur liability for violations of immigration law. 34 Of the 0.8 percent of workers who received a 

TNC in error, 0.3 percent35 were able to correct the error and keep their job-meaning 0.5 

percent of all workers receive a final nonconfirrnation in error. In fiscal year 2012, 

approximately 100,000 workers likely received erroneous findings from the system and may 

have lost their jobs as a result36 

Examples of job loss include: 

\vho likel) have \'\.'ork authori/atioTI, bLLL ,,,,ere LLlla\\are of thelT opporLLLllity Lo contest the TNC. Given the lack of 

data speci(ying number of \VOrk-aLLthori;:ed individLlals \'\.'ithin the 1.13 percent and .24 percent the error rale and 

estimate of ,yorkers experiencing a TNC error is stated as a range. ,')'ee United States Citizenship and Inulligration 

Services, Statistics ond Reports. Fiscal Yeor 20 II. ovoiloble ot: 

http://www.uscis.gov/portallsite/uscis/mellUitelll.ebld4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6dlaj?vgne"ichOlUlel~7c579589c 

db 7 621 OV gnVCM I 00000b92ca60aR CRD 

31 In FY 20II, there were 16,612,J33 E-Verifv cases. Of those cases, .28 percent of employees were confll1ned as 

work authorized after contesting <lud resolving a TNC (meaning the employee was ,Yolk authorized); 1.13 percent of 

employees received TNCs nnd did not contest the TNC (menning the employees were possibly work nuthorized); 

nnd .2-1- percent of employees received a TNC which remnined unresolved (menning the employees were possibly 

,"vork authori;:ed). In tolal1.65 percent of all E-Verify cases resulted in a TNC. The 46,514 figLLTe was arrived at by 

TIlLLltiplying 16,612,333 by .28 percent. The 274,103 figure was arrived at by multiplying 16,612,333 by 1.65 

percent. 

12 Employers receive a TNC from either SSA or DHS ,,,hen the agencies are Ul1:1ble to auton1:1tically confirm a 

worker's employment eligibility. A "tentative nonconfirn1:1tion" notice is not an indication of all immigration 

viol1tion, and vmrkers 11:1ve the right to contest the finding ,,,ith the appropriate agency. For erroneous TNC rote, 

see Westat, supra note 9, p. 117. 

3.< There ,,"ere npproximatcly 20 million E-Verify queries in fiscal year 2012. Sec E-r Terifv Receives High Rulings in 

Customer Survcv (U.S. Citizenship and irmnigration Services, Feb. 21, 2013), 

http://www . uscis.gov iportallsitciuscisimenuitem.5af9bb9 5919fJ 5c66f61417 654 3f6d laj')vgnextoid~ I 67 I cd7 ebecfc3 

IOVgnVCMI00000082ca60aRCRD&vgncxtchanncl~68439c7755cb9010VgnVCMIOOOOO~5fJd6aIRCRD. 

Approximately 0.8 percent of work-authoril'.ed individLLals receive a TNC in error. See Weslat, supra note 19. The 

160,000 figLLTe was arri\·ed at by multiplying these two numbers. 31 8 USC ~1324a 

,~ ,)'tatisti;s and Reports (U.S. Citizenship alld Inunigmtion Services, Feb. 4, 2011), 

http·iiwww.uscis.goviportolisiteiuscisimenuitelll. eb Id4c2a3 e5b90c8924 3c60 7 54 3f6dlaf?vgnexioid~7 c5 79589cdb 7 6 

21 OV gn VCM I 00000b92c0600RCRD&vgnextchallilel~7 c579589cdb 7 62 I OV gnVCM I 00000b92c060aRCRD. 

3G There ,,"ere npproximatcly 20 million E-Verify queries in fiscal year 2012. Sec U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Selviees supra note 40. AppIOximatcly 0.5 percent of ,york-nutholized individuals receive n finnl nonconfirmntion 

in etTor (0.8 percent receive an erroneou.<,' TNC and 0.3 percent arc able to eOHect their TNC This results in 0.5 

percent of illdividunls receiving an eIToneous TNC that could not be COITected nnd therefore becmne an eIToneous 

final nonconfinnation.) The 100,000 figure ,yns nnived at by multiplying these two numbers. 

7 
43 

• U.S. citizen in Tennessee was fired in October 2012 despite properly resolving her TNC. 

Although the worker visited an SSA office to resolve the issue in a timely fashion, EVerify issued an final nonconfirmation (FNC) and the worker was fired. After advocacy 

by the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, the worker was reinstated. 37 

• A US. citizen received a TNC notice from an employer based on a mistyped Social 

Security number. However, when the worker showed up at an SSA office to resolve the 

TNC, SSA personnel were unable to assist her because the referral letter was not signed 

by the employer and the worker eventually received an FNC and was fired. After 

advocacy by the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, the worker was 

reinstated. 3R 

• A U.S citizen from Florida was hired for a well-paying telecommunications position in 

October 2010. After she was hired, her employer ran her information through E-Verify 

and received a TNC. Her employer did not explain to her what a TNC meant, nor did he 

explain any of her rights. The worker went to an SSA office to resolve the situation, but 

she could not resolve the issues. She tried to communicate this to the employer, but she 

ultimately received an FNC and was tired. After her temlination, she went to great 

lengths to correct the error, but was unable to do so. She was unemployed for over 3 

months, including over the Christmas holiday, but accepted a new lower-paid position'" 

• A US. citizen and former captain in the US. Navy with 34 years of service and a history 

of having maintained high security clearance was flagged by E-Verify as not eligible for 

employment. It took him and his wife, an attomey, two months to resolve the 

discrepancy40 

IfE-Verify is made mandatory, the number of workers experiencing errors, and possibly losing 

their job, would be dramatic. Currently, E-Verify is used by only 7 percent of employers41 

However, ifE-Verify were to become mandatory, using Westat's statistical model, about 1.2 

million workers would have to contact a government agency or risk losing their jobs and about 

770,000 workers would likely lose their jobs. 42 These numbers are likely underestimates. 

Employers that audit their own E-Verify data report higher error rates than federal govemment 

estimates. For example, when Los Angeles County audited its use ofE-Verify for county 

1'7 Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel, Hotline Interventions, avaibble at: 

http"/I\Y\Yl\'justice.gov/crt/abont/osc!htm/telephone _interventions/index. php 38 lei. 

3

r

) Jessica St. Fleur, Wrillen Slatemenljor fhe House Committee on the Judiciar:v. Subcommitlee on Immigration 

Polic..v and Enforcement: Hearillg on E-Vcrijj.'- Preserving Jobsjor American Workers, Feb. 10,2011. 

40 Account related at a Jarr 24,2009, town hall meeting in Ashtabula, OR, sponsored by Building Uruty in the 

COlllIllunity and billed as "Why We Need Comprehensive Immigration Refonn.·· 

41 See F-I rel'~jj} Receives JTigh Rarings in Customer Survey (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sen!ices, Feb. 21, 

2(13), 

llLtp:IIVt\\'w. uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb959191l5e66f614176543f6d 1 aJ?vb'lle:\.toid= 1671 ed7ebecfc3 

10VgnVCMI00000082coGOaRCRD&vgnexteha11llel~G8439c7755eb90IOVgnVCMI0000045f3dGalRCRD. There 

are 6J)49,655 employers in the United States. See ,)'tatistics about Busilless Size Ollclllding Small Business) (U.S. 

Census Bureau) available at http·llv'f""'''.census.gov/econ/sll1:111bus.html 

42 About 0.8 percent ofworkcrs receivc an erroneous tcntativc nonconfiunation, or "TNC." Westat, supra note 9, p. 

117. There arc eUlTently about 154,794,000 million workers in the U.S. The 1,234,296 figure was arrived at by 

multiplying these hvo numbcrs. Approximately 0.5 percent of ,york-auth01i7cd individuals rcceivc a final 

nonconfirrnation in enor. The 773, 970 figure was anived at by multiplying 154,794,000 million by the 0.5 

elToneous finalnonconfinnation ratc. 

8 
44 

workers, it found that 2.0 to 2.7 percent of its E-Verify findings from the SSA were erroneous in 

2008_09. 43 

Perhaps most disturbing about these statistics is the fact that workers who experience an 

erroneous FNC have noJormalway to resolve it. Mandatory E-Verify would mean that 770,000 

workers would likely lose theirJob with noJormal way to correct errors or be reinstated. 

VI. Citizens and work authorized immigrants face tremendous challenges correcting 

E-Verify errors. 

When workers receive a notice of a TNC, they often have to take unpaid time off from work to 

correct an error at an SSA office, which may take more than one trip. In tiscal year 2009,22 

percent of workers spent more than $50 to correct database errors and 13 percent spent more than 

$100.44 Challenging a TNC at a local SSA office may take more than one trip, and in 2009, the 

waiting times for SSA office visits were 61 percent longer than they were in 20024 , During the 

period March 1,2009 through April 30, 2010, about 3.1 million visitors waited more than 1 hour 

for service, and of those visitors, over 330,000 waited more than 2 hours'" Further, in fiscal year 

2009, about 3.3 million visitors left a field office without receiving service 47 American Council 

on International Personnel members report that corrections at SSA usually take in excess of 90 

days, and that employees must wait four or more hours per trip, with repeated trips to SSA 

frequently required to get their records corrected48 If E- Verify was made mandatory, these wait 

times llre likely to increase sign!ficttntfy. 

VIT. Recommendations 

1) Enact immigration reJorm that protects workers' labor and employment rights. 

Instead of focusing on inetl'ective "solutions," Congress should pass commonsense legislation 

that overhauls our nation's immigration system and protects all workers' rights. Unlike E-Verify, 

which would decrease contributions to state and federal tax revenue, passage of immigration 

reform would provide an estimated $1.5 trillion dollar benetit to the gross domestic product over 

10 years in addition to $66 billion boost in federal tax collection49 If implemented as part of 

broad and inclusive immigration reform, protections for workers' labor and employment rights 

can "help rid the system of bottom-feeding employers who hire and underpay and otherwise 

-11 Marc Rosenblum, E-VerifJ.'.· ,)'trcngths. Weaknesses, and Proposalsjor Reform Migration Policy Institute, Feb. 

20 II), hltp:llwww.migrationpolicY.orgipubslE-Verifv-Insightpdf 

54 Westat supra note 9, pp. 203-204 

44 rustoma WaiTing Times in The S'ocial Security .1dministration '."I Field Offices (Social Security Administration 

Office of the Inspeclor General, OcL 2(10), hllp:liw,,,,",ocialsecurily.govioigi ADOBEPDFi A-04-I 0-I I 034.pdf, p . 

. ,. 

4~Id. 

-1fi ld. 

" American Council on Intermtional PersoflLleI, "Comments on Proposed Rule Pnblished at 73 Fed. Reg. 33374 

(June 12,2008)," August 11, 2008. 

48 Customer Wailing Times in lhe Social Securi(v Adminislralion 's Field Offices, supra note 44 

4

r

)Thc Financialist_ The Cosl (?! Parlisall Po/ilics (Tmmigration Rcfollll) http-ll",,,,,,,,,_thcfinancialist_com/thc-cost-ofpartisan-politicsl 

9 
45 

exploit cheap immigrant labor, dragging down wages and workplace standards for everyone"SO 

In addition to creating E-Verify worker protections, immigration refonn should include the 

Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act (POWER Act, H.R. 2169, S.1195) 

and other essential safeguards to ensure that workers can enforce their workplace rights. 51 

2) Ensure that E-Ver!tjl is not used to undermine workers' rights under labor antI 

employment lmv. 

Too often, workers experience egregious violations of their most basic workplace rights. When 

these workers complain about the unlawful treatment, they face retaliation, in the form of firing, 

suspension, or eve~physical abuse. S?me workers face retal,iation for merely assertingtheir right 

to work In the U.S.' Because E-Venty compounds workers vulnerabthty and undennlnes labor 

law, the program should explicitly prohibit the use ofE-Verify to undermine workers' rights 

under labor and employment law. This prohibition should come with meaningful penalties. 

Because worksite enforcement undennines the enforcement oflabor law, the Department of 

Labor should be given additional resources that allow them to expand labor law enforcement in 

states mandating E-Verify's use. 

3) Create a review process th(lt would aflow citizens (lnd work authorized individuals to 

correct errors in their records (lnd maint(lin their jobs. 

Using USCIS's minimum estimates, nearly 56,000 U.S. citizens and work authorized immigrants 

would experience an E-Verify TNC." Using Westat's statistical model, approximately 100,000 

US. citizens and work authorized individuals experienced an FNC, meaning that they were 

likely terminated. Workers experiencing an FNC had no formal way to resolve this error, get 

their job back, or get compensation for the time they were out a job due to the government's 

mistake. USCIS should create a process to allow U.S. citizens and work authorized individuals to 

correct TNCs and FNCs easily, remain on the job while they correct these government errors, 

and receive compensation for any time they are out of a job. 

4) Prohibit employer misuse of E-VerifY. 

There continues to be significant employer misuse of E-Verify-including pre screening of 

workers and adverse action against workers who receive TNCs. Workers who report 

mistreatment should be treated as whistleblowers. Without significant penalties for employer 

mistreatment, and strong worker protections, employer misuse flourishes. We should learn from 

the failure of employer sanctions created by the Immigration Refonn and Control Act of 1986 

(TRCA),54and ensure that the penalties do not result in employee sane/ions, as has been the case 

SI) Immigration Reform and /Vorkers' Rights, The Ne\'\.' York Times, February 20,2013, a\,ailable at: 

http-Ilwww.n:l1imes.comI20 13/02/2110pinioniinulligration -reform-and -workers-rights.html? _pO 

~1 More information about worker protections and immigmtion reform is avail1ble at --Strengthening OUI Country 

and Promoting Shared Prosperity· Workers' Rights Priorities for Immigration Reform 2013" avail1ble at 

https:!/llilc.orglworkerpriorities20 13 .html 

52 Department of Justice, supra note 3. 

5_' USCTS 's minimum cnor rate estimate is 0 28 was for FY 20 11_ The 50,000 lvas reached at by multiplying 

USeIS's enor rate to the to the 20 millionE-Verify queries by employers inFY 2012. 

54 8 U.S.c. §§ 1324a-1324b 

10 
46 

with [RCA. As a result of [RCA, employees who speak up in the face of abusive treatment are 

often tired or detained and deported while the employer simply turns around to hire another 

unauthorized worker without any penalties. 

5) Before any expansion ofE-VeriLv as part of immigration reform, ensure that the 

program meets specified requirements regarding database accuracy, 101V error rates, 

privacy, and measurable employer compliance before implementation. 

Mandatory employment verification would represent an enormous increase in utilization of the 

program, from only 20 million name checks-only 7% of employers-in fiscal year 2012 to over 

60 million name checks if applied only to new hires. Moving forward without addressing 

problems within the system will result in harm to all workers and businesses. Tn Georgia, the 

implementation of state E-Verify mandate resulted over 1,000 doctors and other medical 

practitioners temporarily losing work eligibility because of insufficient staffing at local licensing 

offices." Perfonnance evaluations should address, at a minimum: wrongful tenninations due to 

system errors, employer compliance with program rules, and the impact of the system on 

workers' privacy. The best way to ensure that implementation of mandatory E-Verify is accurate 

is to set standards for system perfonnance upfront, clear benchmarks that need to be met, and 

timelines for meeting those metrics. These metrics should be met befbre any expansion of EVerify is implemented. 

Conclusion 

E-Verify is a costly, ineffective program that does not prevent employers from hiring 

unauthorized workers, but does threaten all workers' rights. With annual price tag of$100 

million, U.S. taxpayers should expect more. A wide variety of organizations, including privacy 

advocates and business associations, oppose the program's mandatory use and have called on 

Congress to refonn the program 56 And with immigration refonn on the horizon, before any 

expansion ofE-Verify is considered, significant problems must be addressed. As a voluntary 

program, nearly one third of all E-Verify employers use the program to pre screen workers and 

over 40 percent of workers are robbed of their ability to contest a possible program error. Last 

year alone, nearly 50,000 workers experienced an E-Verify error that required them to contact 

the government or risk losing their jobs. And ifE-Verify were made mandatory, about 1.2 

million workers would have to contact a government agency or risk losing their jobs. 770,000 

workers would likely lose their jobs. It is time for Congress to stop focusing on ineffectual 

worksite enforcement and instead focus on passing commonsense immigration reform. It is clear 

that the public is ready for the II million Americans at heart to become Americans on paper, as 

diverse constituencies are expressing their support for immigration refonn. For example, the 

AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce support immigration reform,57 as do faith leaders," 

~'i Jim Burress, Georg)a Immigration Law n-;ps up Doctors and ;Vurses. NPR, November 13. 2012. 

"Coalition Letter Against Mall(l1tory E-Verify. February 20.2013, available at· 

http://~,'''Ylv.ac111.OIg/filcs/asscts!c\·crify coalition letter final short - slglk'ltoric5.pdf. 

57 Joint Statement of Shared Plinciples by U. S. Chamber of COllUllcrcc President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue & 

AFL-CTO President Richard Trumka, Fcbmary 21, 2015, available at http:!h.y,y,y aflcio_orglPrcss-RoomlPrcssReleases/Joint -Statement -of-Shared-Plineiples-by -U. S. -Chamber -of-Commeree-President -and-CEO-Thonills-J.-

Donohue-AFL-CIO-President-Riclillrd-Tnunka 

11 
47 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, ma’am. I thank all of our witnesses. 

At this point I would recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

all the witnesses for their testimony. 
48 

Ms. Correa, I wanted to start with you. I appreciated the demonstration of how the program works well in most instances, and 

I wanted to ask you to step back in time a couple of years. Your 

predecessor testified in this Subcommittee on the same issue 2 

years ago, and her written testimony indicated that the USCIS was 

exploring ways to lock identities for Social Security numbers. 

Your testimony today says essentially the same thing, that you 

are developing that capability. And so I am wondering what 

progress you have made on the SSN lock ability since 2011, and 

when will you expect to see that capability implemented? 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you for your question, Chairman. Excuse me. 

We have been working on the features to lock the Social Security. We are working with the Social Security Administration and, 

of course, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as the privacy officers, to make 

sure that we develop a locking capability in the system that protects the rights of the employees, ensures that the Social Security 

number is properly locked in the system, and that works. 

We expect the enhancement to be completed later this year, and 

we would be able to come back and brief you a little bit more on 

exactly how that would work. We are still exploring how to do that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Gamvroulas, you mentioned in 

your testimony that you were skeptical of Utah’s E-Verify requirement when it was first enacted in 2012. What concerns did you 

have prior to actually using E-Verify, and after you began using it, 

did those concerns become a reality or have your concerns been allayed? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. 

Well, we were concerned about the accuracy and the timeliness 

because we had not been using it previously. Once we were able 

to train our human resources people, we found it to be, as you saw 

in the demonstration, fairly easy to use, although it did take some 

time initially to train our human resources people. 

We were concerned, candidly, more about the impact on Utah 

businesses because we were concerned. One of the reasons we were 

skeptical about it was that Utah would be one of only a few States 

that would have enacted a mandatory E-Verify system. We were 

concerned about what that would do employers and employees and 

to the business culture and climate in Utah. 

We have found that that has not happened. For the most part, 

those that use the system that we are aware of have also had similar experiences as we have that it is an efficient and effective system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you and your HR staff prefer using the I-9 

form or E-Verify? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. We prefer to use the E-Verify. And the reason 

is that it gives, as I mentioned in my testimony, the idea of safe 

harbor. And that is not just for the company, but for the individual. 

If you are the human resources person for a company and you are 

checking off the boxes that the information you have been given, 

that you have verified that those documents are real. The I-9 process, you are simply taking the documents, stapling them to an application. They go in a file, and you might be audited, you might 

not be audited. 
49 

In the case of the E-Verify, we can print out the confirmation letter. We can put it in the file with the information. And if we are 

ever audited or if we are ever investigated, we can demonstrate 

that we have gone through the process and verified the information. And so our human resources people have told me unequivocally that they prefer the E-Verify system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me give Mr. Johnson an opportunity to tell 

us what he is hearing from his members who currently use EVerify as to whether or not the system is easy to use or too burdensome and too costly. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, they have found it quite easy to use. Obviously 

any time you got a new technology, there is a little ramp-up costs 

at the beginning, but once you get used to it, it is working very 

well. 

Ironically, Congressman, one comment I have gotten is sometimes a concern that it does not catch everyone who is undocumented, and then sometimes when the government shows up for a 

raid, that results in, even though the employer has not knowingly 

hired anyone who is undocumented, it results in rating that a destabilization of the workforce. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So if they have acted in good faith, we need to 

find a better way to handle that. If there is evidence that they have 

not—let me give Ms. Tulli an opportunity to respond and ask you 

a particular question. 

You make a valid point in your written testimony when you note 

that even in states that have E-Verify mandates for all employers, 

not every employer has signed up for the program. So what kind 

of enforcement mechanism do you support in order to help ensure 

that employers sign up for the program? 

Ms. TULLI. Thank you for the question. Exactly to your point, Mr. 

Goodlatte, what we note in my written testimony is that there is 

widespread employer non-compliance. In Alabama, 8 out of 10 employers are not using the program. Arizona, 5 years after enactment, 1 out of 3 are not. 

We think that the best enforcement measure is actually a broad 

and robust legalization plan. That plan should include comprehensive immigration reform with employee protections and a road to 

citizenship for the unauthorized workers who are currently in our 

country. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. But to get back to this piece of that entire 

process, do you have specific suggestions that would encourage employers to use it more than they do, other than mandating it, which 

we certainly are obviously considering because I think any type of 

immigration reform that you just outlined would have to include a 

piece that assured us that we were not going to have a repeat of 

the 1986 experience where we did not have enforcement, and employer sanctions were not pursued aggressively. And quite frankly, 

employers have had legitimate complaints about forged documents. 

E-Verify is at least a partial answer to that, and so we think it 

is a partial answer to the big puzzle of where you would like to get 

in terms of some kind of legalization. This hearing today is not 

about all of those aspects of the matter, but we would welcome any 

input you want to give us later on about ways you can make this 

system work better. 
50 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before asking my question, I would like to ask unanimous consent to place statements in 

the record from the Service Employees International Union, the 

American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for Humane Immigration, Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Hispanic Federation, 

and a letter from a broad coalition consisting of organized labor, 

faith, civil rights, and immigrant rights organizations. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
51 

Stronger Together 

MARY KAY HENRY 

Internatlonill President 

ELiSEO MEDINA 

Inter'latJo'lal Secrerary-Ireasurer 

KIRK ADAMS 

F.xecutlve Vice Preside'll 

MICHAEL P. FISHMAN 

Executive Vice President 

GERI~Y HUDSON 

E><eculive Vice President 

EILEEN KIRLIN 

ExecuavE' Vice PreSIDent 

VALARIE LONG 

Execuuve Vice Preside'lt 

TOM WOODRUFF 

E><ecullve Vice PresicJent 

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION 

CT\X!, CLC 

1800 Massachusetts Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

202.730.7000 

TDD:202 730.7481 

WW'vVSEIU org 

Statement of Eliseo Medina 

International Secretary Treasurer, Service Employees International Union 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

Hearing "How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American Employers and 

Workers" 

February 27, 2013 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the 

Subcommittee, for holding hearings to gather information on E-Verify. I write today on 

behalf of the 2.2 members of the Service Employees International Union (ilSEIU") who 

work in health care, state and local governments, and in building services. 

SEIU has long advocated for common sense immigration reform that comports with 

our national values; provides a clear roadmap to citizenship for hardworking.. 

taxpaying immigrants; builds the strength and unity of working people; keeps families 

together; and guarantees the same rights, obligations, and basic fairness for all 

workers, no matter where they come from. 

At the same time, we have consistently opposed expansion of the E-Verify programor making the program mandatory-outside the context of comprehensive 

immigration reform. Although E-Verify is often portrayed as an easy way to curtail the 

employment of unauthorized workers in the U.s. , many of our members have 

experienced the downsides of the program, including its database error rates, lack of 

worker protections, lack of privacy protections, and employer misuse. 

We believe that it makes no sense to implement any expansion of such a flawed 

program in the absence of complete commonsense immigration reform that includes 

legalization of individuals now in the United States, a path to citizenship for those 

individuals, and a workable plan for the future flow of foreign workers to the extent 

they are needed here in the United States. Immigrants come to the United States to 

seek work, and in certain industries, U.S. employers want to hire these workers, 

because they cannot find enough American workers. As long as some employers need 

undocumented workers to conduct their businesses, they will find a way to hire those 

workers and mandatory E-Verify by itself will not work. Implementing mandatory EVerify while there still is a demand for undocumented workers will only drive 
52 

employers underground so as to avoid E-Verify. The resulting vast expansion of the underground 

economy, cash payments, work off of the books, and misclassified independent contractors would not 

be good for workers, taxpayers, or law-abiding businesses. 

SEIU therefore supports the expansion of E-Verify Q.!JJ.l(. if it is part of a complete commonsense 

immigration reform bill that significantly reduces the pool of undocumented workers and those 

employers who have an incentive to bypass and subvert the system. Even in the context of 

comprehensive reform, Congress should remember that it is putting in place a program that will be 

mandatory for every business and every worker in the country, not just for immigrants or those who 

employ them. If mishandled, hundreds of thousands of workers each year could face bureaucratic 

hurdles before starting new jobs. Our entire economy could suffer. As a result, its implementation must 

be undertaken with great care. Certain features and critical improvements must be incorporated to EVerify to ensure that it works properly and sufficiently protects the privacy and due process of all 

workers. 

For this reason, labor and business are in agreement that any expansion of E-Verify must be done in a 

measured manner. According to the Chamber of Commerce, "the best approach for a broad E-Verify 

mandate would be to move from one phase to the next as the system is being improved to take care of 

inaccuracies and other inefficiencies ascertained through the earlier phase. This would also allow DHS to 

properly prepare for the new influx of participants. In addition, the needs of the different types offirms 

and establishments need to be considered during the roll out." 

Failing to address ongoing problems within the system would not help to achieve its stated goals and 

would result in harm to all workers and businesses. For example, in Georgia, implementation of a 

mandatory system has resulted in at least 1300 doctors and other medical practitioners temporarily 

losing work eligibility because of insufficient staffing at local licensing offices. These are the kinds of 

losses we need to prevent, and can only do so by a measured roll out of the E-Verify expansion. An 

unrealistic timeframe would likely delay implementation of the new system because it leads to 

inadequate and unrealistic planning, and misallocation of resources and taxpayer monies, and lead to 

other experiences such as Georgia's. 

Each time a system grows substantially larger, serious new technical issues often arise that were not 

previously a significant problem. Mandatory employment verification would represent an enormous 

increase in utilization of the program, from 16.4 million queries in FY 2010 to over 51 million if applied 

only to new hires. The tried and true method of ensuring that a program works as it is taken to scale is 

to ensure that the system works at an acceptable level at each stage before it is expanded. Congress 

should include such a best practice in any legislation, requiring certification that database accuracy 

standards have been met and that the system is operating smoothly and correctly at each stage of 

expansion before further expansion is permitted. 

We urge Congress to implement any such phased-in expansion of mandatory E-Verify by region rather 

than by size of employer. This is preferable because in many industries large employers compete with 

much smaller employers. Requiring larger employers to implement E-Verify while their smaller 
53 

competitors are not required to do so would put those larger employers at a competitive disadvantage. 

A phase-in by region would be fairer and should begin with states that currently mandate E-Verify's use 

for most or all employers (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, North 

Carolina, South Carolina). Starting the phase-in with these states will permit a faster evaluation of 

database accuracy and operation of E-Verify from states that have had significant experience with EVerify before it is extended to other states. By rolling out E-Verify based on regions ofthe country, with 

those states that already have mandatory E-Verify in their laws implementing the mandate first, 

Congress would put employers who compete with each other on equal footing. 

Any such expansion of mandatory E-Verify should continue the current practice of reserving its use to 

new hires, except where re-verification is permitted under current law (e.g. when work authorization 

expires). There are two important reasons why this is preferable. First, requiring employers to re-verify 

their existing workforce would cause much greater confusion and disruption of the workplace than just 

applying it to new hires. It would add more bureaucracy to the process; it would be extremely 

expensive; and it would be burdensome for employers as well as the workers who would have to work 

with their employers to address the errors. Second, limiting use of mandatory E-Verify to new hires 

would require approximately 51.7 million queries per year, whereas expanding its use to include the 

entire workforce would nearly triple that amount, generating ISS million queries. The total number of 

errors generated by the system would substantially increase, as would the costs associated with 

correcting those errors. Given the strain that expanding E-Verify will put on the system, the prudent 

thing to do would be to limit its application to new hires. 

For the same reasons, Congress should not require re-verification where the workforce stays in place 

after an employer buys another employer or where service contracts turn over from one employer to 

another. Many times when one employer buys another employer or where a service contract is lost by 

one employer and picked up by another, the workers remain at the same workplace performing 

essentially the same work. It makes no sense for employers to run E-Verify on these employees when 

the previous employer already has verified the workers status. Such a requirement simply adds costs to 

the business change and inconveniences to both the new employer and the workers while doing nothing 

additionally to ensure that the particular workforce is authorized to work in the United States. 

Beyond phase-in, it is essential for Congress to put protections in place to avoid employer misuse of the 

system as well as mechanisms for workers to contest erroneous nonconfirmations. Among other 

improvements in the current program, there should be: 

Penalties for misuse ofthe program to undermine enforcement of labor rights; 

Protection against use of the program to retaliate against workers; and 

Safeguards such as permitting workers to remain on the job throughout the process of 

contesting an erroneous nonconfirmation as well as compensation for lost work due to 

government errors 

Thank you for considering our thoughts on this matter. 
54 

ACLU 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

wRln·E.. ... STATEMENT OF 

THE AMER ICAN CIVIL UBERTIES UN ION 

Fora Hearillgon 

" lIow E-Vcrify Works Hud lI ow ll Ikntfils AmericJltI EmploYfrl !Iud rk ~rs" 

Submiued to the Iiolise JudiciR I')' Comminel' 

February 27. 1013 

ACLU Washington Ll'gislati"e Office. 

Laura W Murphy, Director 

Christopher Calabrese, Legislative Counsel 
55 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) submits this statement to the House 

Judiciary Committee on the occasion of its hearing addressing "How E-Verify Works and How it 

Benefits American Employers and Workers.") This statement aims to provide the Committee 

with an appraisal of the privacy and civil liberties implications ofa mandatory employment 

verification system Cmandatory E-Verify")2 

Several immigration reform proposals have called for mandatory E-Verify in some form."' 

For example, the Senate Gang of Eight proposal describes a "tough, fair, effective and 

mandatory employment verification system,,4 Unfortunately, E-Verify is a flawed electronic 

employment-eligibility screening system that imposes unacceptable burdens on America's 

workers, businesses and society at large. For example a mandatory E-Verify system with a 

mere 1 % error rate would affect approximately 1.5 million American workers. Nationwide, 

E-Verify would create a virtual national ID and would lay the groundwork for a possible 

biometric national ID system, thereby imposing significant privacy and civil liberties costs on all 

Americans, including lawful workers, businesses, and taxpayers. 

I. Privacy Concerns 

A. Natiofial If) 

E-Verify is an internet-based system that contains identifying information on almost 

every American. It includes names, photos from passports and DHS documents, some drivers' 

license information, social security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, workers' 

employer, industry, and immigration information like country ofbirth5 The internet-enabled 

process operates by allowing employers to check the system to see if a newly hired employee is 

work authorized. Right now, it is largely voluntary except where it is required for federal 

contractors and by some states. 

This vast collection of personal information is already well on its way to becoming a 

national identity system. When E-Verify began, it was used essentially for document 

1 The ACLU is a nationwide, non-pmiisan organization of more than a half-million members, countless additional 

activists and supp0l1ers, and 53 affiliates natiomvide dedicated to enforcing the fundamental rights of the 

COllslitLLtion anu laws or the Unitcu SLales. The /\CLlJ's \Vashinglon Legislative 0[T1CC (W'l.O) cOllllucts 

lcgisl<Jtivc and adminislratih': advocacy [0 <JUHIllCC the organiLation's goal of protecting the privacy rights of every 

Allll.'Tican ({nu prolecling the rights or immigranb;', including supporling a roaulllap to citi/'Ln~hip ror a~piring 

Americans. 

~ For a statement the ACLU's broader position on 11l1J1l1,;1UlIUU 

the Rules:' The White House, 

The document notes the mandatory' electronic employment 

proS'Talll will en~LLrC privacy and confidcnliahly or all \\-'orkcrs· pcrsonalinforlllation" and \ViII 

"incllLde(~) import:mt procedlLral protcctions." 

..j. Brad Plumer. READ: Senators release bipartisan plan for immigration reform, Washington Post, 

Available at: 

Privacy Impact 'l..;;sessmentfor the F-l'·er(fy Program, lJSCIS Verificalion ])ivi~ion, May 4, 2010. 

2 
56 

verification. Workers would present Social Security cards and other information and the system 

would assure that number or other record was legitimate and belonged to an individual who was 

work authorized. With the addition of more information to the system, especially photographs, 

the nature of E-Verify has changed. It is rapidly becoming a system for identifying workers - by 

entering identifying information and receiving a photograph. Recently some lawmakers have 

called for this system to be further supplemented by a physical card which would contain 

identifiers such as fingerprints or other biometrics which could be used to verify identity as part 

of the E-Verify process'" 

These two proposals - biometric national ID and mandatory E-Verify - could easily 

become a wide-ranging government permission slip necessary to access basic rights and services. 

Social Security numbers, originally intended to be used for distribution of benefits, were never 

meant to be used for identification. Now it is almost impossible to function in America without 

one. Ifit becomes mandatory, E-Verify could expand in much the same way. An internet 

connection and access to the system could lead to unwarranted harassment and denial of access 

to TSA checkpoints, voting booths, and gun permits, or other harmful uses not yet envisioned. 

Further, as described below, E-Verify is plagued by errors and bureaucratic hurdles to work. If 

Congress expands the system to become a national ID system, these problems would quickly 

become not only employment issues, but also problems with travel and other fundamental 

freedoms. 

Such a national identity system could also enable other types of data surveillance. If 

combined with other databases, including data on travel, financial information or 

communications, E-Verify would be a gold mine for intelligence agencies, law enforcement, 

licensing boards, and anyone who wanted to spy on American workers. Because of its scope, it 

could form the basis for surveillance profiles of every American. 

While the bipartisan Senate plan calls for "procedural safeb'llards to protect American 

workers, prevent identity theft, and provide due process protections," no safeguards can change 

the fact that creating a biometric national ID would irreparably damage the fabric of American 

life 7 Our society is built on the presumption of privacy: as long as we obey the law, we are all 

free to go where we want and do what we want - embrace any type of political, social or 

economic behavior we choose-without the government (or the private sector) looking over our 

shoulders or monitoring our behavior. This presumption of personal freedom is one of the keys 

to America's success as a nation. It encourages us to be creative, motivates us to pursue our 

entrepreneurial interests, and validates our democratic instincts to challenge any authority that 

may be unjust. A national ID system would turn those assumptions upside down by making 

every person's ability to participate in a fundamental aspect of American life - the right to work 

- contingent upon government approval. 

B. Identity Theft 

Ii Danny Yadron, Senators in Immigration Talks AJull Federal IDs Jor All Workers, Viall Street Joumal, feb. 2 L 

20a 

~ Plulller at 1. 

3 
57 

The system is vulnerable to another privacy harm: data breaches and attacks by identity 

thieves. Since the first data breach notification law went into effect in California at the 

beginning of 2004, more than 607 million records have been hacked, lost or disclosed improperly 

including those related to E-Verify.' As just one example, in October and December 2009, 

Minnesota officials learned that the company hired to process the state's E-Verify forms had 

accidentally allowed unauthorized individuals to gain access to the personal information of over 

37,000 individuals due to authentication practices and web application vulnerabilities in their 

system9 

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not doing all that it can to 

protect the E-Verify system. A software industry best practice is to have a third party security 

professional audit systems in order to look for information security flaws in the software code or 

the confi~\uration of servers. These so-called "red teams" are used by the military, the National 

Security Agency, the Department of Energy, as well as by private industry. '0 However currently 

it appears that DHS has only taken piecemeal steps taken to improve the security of the E-Verify 

system, none of which suggest the presence of a comprehensive information security program. 11 

Regardless of whether or not Congress makes the use of E-Verify by employers 

mandatory, it is absolutely vital that E-Verify receive a thorough audit by independent security 

experts, that all flaws are fIxed, and that DHS commit to re-auditing the system each year. The 

E-Verify system contains sensitive personally identifying information on millions of Americans, 

is connected to the internet, and it should be assumed that it will be a target for hackers. 

IT. Existing Problems with the System 

A. Error Prolle Databases 

Implementing E-Verify nationwide would require reliance on massive and inaccurate 

databases, and the room for error is enormous. Currently, E-Verify has been implemented in only 

a fraction of the country's workplaces. If applied to the entire workforce and with a 

~ Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Chronology of Data Breaches, 

IHlll:l[~~'0Jsmi~Q.YIigh:t~J)I£LaxLCllroJ1J2~ffiJJL~Jt~JJQs.h1111· 

;) John Fay, FTC ,Settlement llighlights the importance o/Jll'Otecting Sensitive 1-9 LJata in an })ectron;c World, 

Cluardian T-9 And F-Verify nlog, May 4, 2011 

lU See Rohin Mejia, ReJ Team Vcr~LL~ Blue Team: How to Run an I-:rrcclivc Simulation, eso Onhnc, March 2X, 

2008. available at !illQ.l!}DY2YQQ!.!!!lli1L£,f!2lIlU!1:lli'.~!.;Ji!22!.12~ltc!.!Il:Y.Q:811O:Qlill':::k:]!ll::!l.QC'l::!2.::l!!!Jdl!l::0t!£S~E.: 

"Engages outside security 

expelis to conduct periodic security assessments of Google -s infrastnlCture and applications-} 

11 Vi/estat Corporation, findings of The 12-VerifY Program Evaluation, 2009, at page 36 ("users staff report that 

they have undertaken a number of effOlis to improve E-VerifY ... including exploring ways to make E-Verify more 

secure.") and page 108 COther future changes expected are ... Improvements in the registration proces5 to make it 

more ~eeLLfe'·). See also Claire Slaplcton, Privacy Rraneh Chief, USeIS, Privacy Impact !\s~es~ment for Lhe EVerify Prob'T<UTI, May 4, 2010 C--H- Verify ha~ implcm("~1led a broad range of leehnicaL operational, and physical 

security measure~ to protect the system and its information. These security measures include access controls for both 

intenwl and external users ... 12-Verify' has an automated mechanism to ensure that users change their passwords at a 

specified interval. User accounts are locked after several failed attempts to log on ... Pass\vord data is encrypted 

wilhi11 the system. E-Verify i~ located \"..·ilhi11 a multi-layered firewall architecture .. --). 

4 
58 

conservative 1 percent error rate (as a recent Migration Policy Institute paper estimates12), 

1.5 million work-authorized employees could be terminated if they are unable to fix their 

records. If applied only to new hires, 517,000 workers could lose their jobs." 

Correcting a record or contesting a detennination is a difficult and in some cases 

impossible task. Sometimes workers don't have the time or never learn they have the right to 

contest their detenninations. Studies from cities and states where E-Verify is in place have 

shown this, with disastrous consequences. A survey of 376 immigrant workers in Arizona 

(where use ofE-Verify is required) found that 33.5% were fired immediately after receiving a 

tentative denial in the system and were never given a chance to correct potential errors. 

Furthennore, not one of those workers was notified by the employer that he or she had the right 

to appeal the E-Verify finding, despite such a requirement in the memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) that all employers sign with DRS before using the program. 14 

Some workers are never able to resolve an error. For example, Jessica St. Pierre, a U.S. 

citizen telecommunications worker in Florida, was initial1y hired for a position. However she 

was unable to start work due to an E-Verify error. Despite her pleas to government otlicials, she 

was unemployed for several months and eventually had to take a lower paying job." The error 

was eventual1y traced to the employer incorrectly entering her name. 

These error rates are caused by a variety of factors. Women or men who changed their 

names at marriage, divorce, or re-marriage may have inconsistent files or may have never 

informed either the Social Security Administration or DRS of name changes. Simple key stroke 

or misspelling errors also contribute to the volume of erroneous data. Individuals with naming 

conventions that differ from those in the Western world may have had their names anglicized, 

transcribed improperly, or inverted. The GAO predicted that ifE-Verify were made mandatory 

for new hires nationwide, approximately 164,000 citizens per year would receive a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC - a system output saying the individual does not have a match in the system) 

just for name-change related issues.'6 It would be even more damaging if applied not just to new 

hires, but to existing workers as well. 

The high number of error rates occurring among certain cultural groups can lead to an 

appearance of discrimination in the employment process. Five out of25 employers 

acknowledged to GAO that TNCs were more likely to occur with Hispanic employees having 

hyphenated or multiple surnames. '7 Additionally the TNC rate for employees who were 

eventual1y authorized to work was approximately 20 times higher for foreign-born employees 

than for U.S.-born employees from April through June of 2008." These striking disparities 

l~ Doris Meissner 3nd Marc RosenblUlll, Tilf ,)'.f.\:t C;f~le_xatiQ{i_'!.tE-J=Ctdv,' Qf!;(j!L"t fnjploX!l1(n!J~7frjJkI<!j!H~BjgJ!t 

(Migralion l)olic~' Instil ute, July 20(9), hJ1p_./j~ru,>_,llliJ;raU()JlJ~'lir;I,_t)l gil)JlQ,~:Y_el i(L~!I~i_~Hl :E-'lr~T:-()}17!)~~lJili. 

1 ~ ld. 

1-1 Caroline Isaacs, Sanctioning Arizona: The Hidden Impacts of Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law (American 

F ricnd~ SeTV] cc C()mml tke, 2009), \\' \!'_~y~_,:~Cj~' __ 9fg~~ \}£~,"_(_i~ lJN /!}l(T~~~DS_;c(:~m~Y) V\~ \i~)_l]Ii[( -:l}lH!. 

]5 v\/rittcl1 Slatemcnt of Jcs~ica St Pierrc, "l!.·-Ver(fy Prt"st"l'ving Jobs for .'lnwrican Workers" llolfu Committee on 

the Judiciary ,')'ubcollImittt"t" on Immigration Policy and Enj(ycell/el/t Ht"aring, Febnuuy 10,2011. 

]G GAO, Fedr:TulAgenc:ie's Have Taken Sfeps fo Improve' E-JTeriJ}·. bUf Signijic:anl Challenges Re'main, p.19. 

]C Jd. p. 20. 

l' Jd. p. -'10 

5 
59 

could easily lead employees to believe they were being judged on more than just their 

credentials. Moreover, employers may shy away from hiring non-native-born individuals or 

those with foreign names because of a fear they would be harder to clear through the system. 

B. Process for Discovering Errors in the System 

Workers injured by data errors need a way to resolve those errors quickly and 

permanently so they do not become presumptively unemployable. Workers face two distinct 

challenges. The first is to learn that errors in their records exist and the second is the lack of 

fundamental due process protections for resolving those errors. 

In order to alert workers to errors in their record we recommend two approaches. The 

first is to allow workers to check their own records and the second is to provide direct notice to 

workers wheneverthey are the subject of an E-Verify search. 

Self-Check 

We commend U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for beginning this process by 

creating a self-check system that allows workers to check on their E-Verify data. It is a 

tillldamental privacy principle that individuals should have access to their own information in 

order to assure its completeness and correctness. 

We have some specitic concerns about how the self-check program will be implemented. 

First of all, self-check is a tool for allowing workers to correct their records. It must not be used 

as a pre-screening tool. If employers imposed a self-check requirement - etTectively serving as 

an E-Verify pre-screening tool- they would shift the cost from the employer to the employee. In 

keeping with the statistics cited above, such costs would fall disproportionately on immigrants, 

minorities, and women. This would undennine the anti-discrimination provisions built into the 

system to ensure that authorized workers are able to contest TNCs and document their eligibility 

to work. 

Second, the system must protect the privacy of both employers and employees. 

Considering high rates of identity fraud associated with the E-Verify system, it is no surprise that 

individuals are very concerned about the retention of their personal information in a database to 

which more and more people are gaining access. There must be clearly defined limits in regard 

to potential sharing of personal infonnation. 

Third, there must be an option for self-check access to people without credit histories. If 

self-check relies on background check information, then it will be unavailable to populations of 

foreign nationals who have only recently arrived in the u.s. and have not yet developed a credit 

history. This would include some of those with the most complicated immigration situations 

such as refugees, asylum seekers, and people with temporary protected status. 19 

Worker Notice 

l':l '['he American Immigration I.awycls AS~Oclati()n. "."-l'"er(fy S'e(fCheck ProKram. Novemher 29, 2010 

6 
60 

Currently the only mechanism allowing individuals to learn when their records have been 

checked in the E-Verify system is through notification by an employer. The practical result of 

this policy is that the person best positioned to identify and report misuse ofE-Verify checksthe worker - never learns about them. The problem is particularly acute in cases of identity theft 

In many cases, workers could provide a wealth of valuable information about misuse of the 

system if they were notified when verification checks occurred, given a place to report misuse of 

their information, and provided with a minimum amount of education. On the last point, it 

would be helpful to provide as part of this notice information such as, "Have you started a new 

job in the last few days? If not, your personal information may have been improperly accessed 

in a government database." 

For example, if a worker learns of multiple improper checks, it may indicate his or her 

personal information has been sold for use by undocumented workers seeking employment. 

Alternately, a single improper check may be evidence that a worker's personal information has 

been stolen from another source (such through a data breach) and thieves are using a hacked EVerify account to validate the accuracy ofthe information before using it for purposes such as 

credit card fraud. Finally, a notitlcation that comes when a worker has only applied for ajob 

may be evidence of improper pre screening. 

System notification and reporting could be implemented easily. The Social Security 

Administration already has address information for beneficiaries (it performs an annual mailing 

of benefit information) and notice could include a link that allows individuals to directly report 

back on problems. The conditions when verification typically occurs are fairly straightforward 

(the beginning of employment), so an individual could reasonably understand when a 

verification is improper and report it. Such a notice would also provide a timely reminder to a 

worker's right to appeal and educate the worker about the E-Verify system. 

C'. Due Process Protections 

Once workers learn of errors in E-Verify, they need a robust system for contesting those 

mistakes. Absent such a system, mandatory E-Verify could render a worker unemployable 

because they cannot get work clearance from the system. Meaningful due process under EVerify should: 

• Create an administrative review process for erroneous final non-confirmations 

(FNCs) with worker protections, including a stay of the FNC while the worker 

pursues the appeal; 

• Create an appeal process for the administrative review, including a stay of the FNC 

while the worker pursues the appeal; 

• Create a judicial review process for the administrative appeal with remedies for 

wrongly terminated workers, including damages and reinstatement; 

7 
61 

• Establish a 24-hour hotline, with interpretation available in multiple languages, which 

will receive inquiries from workers and employers concerning determinations made 

by E-Veri fy; and 

• Prohibit employers from misusing E-Verify and create penalties for misuse. 

Currently, there is no formal redress for workers who receive an erroneous FNC resulting 

in a bar from employment. In some cases uscrs or the Otlice of Special Council for 

Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), has intervened to correct erroneous 

FNCs, but this cannot be a meaningful substitute for a formal process. While there is currently a 

DHS employee hotline, it is only available 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and has representatives who 

speak English and Spanish. Because many low wage workers often work long hours at multiple 

jobs and speak languages other than English or Spanish, the hotline must be more accessible. 

Ultimately without a fonnal process, E-Verify errors place an enormous financial burden 

on workers, particularly those who are low-income. Without redress, and withjob loss, low wage 

workers face challenges including eviction and loss of health care benefits 11 is unacceptable 

that work-authorized citizens and immigrants lose their jobs and suffer economic hardship due to 

errors in the verification system, and when that does happen they should be compensated. 

II I. Conclusion 

For all of the above reasons, the ACLU believes that E-Verify is a fatally flawed system. 

It should not be mandated nor should it be part of any comprehensive immigration reform 

update. 

8 
62 

I OOillTION f1lR om IIIHIGBllT R1GIITS OF WS ANU 

The Ho"o",b l,,-TN'yGnwdy 

Subc<>mmltt.,.. M Imm1&'31111" and Bord., Security, Ch"irm~u 

2138 Rayhurn ",,~eOm,e Q,lIldlng 

Wash ing""" DC 20515 

The onor~ble oe Lofgren 

R.lnklng Memt>er ofSubcQmmftteooQn lmmlgr.ttlon and UorderSecurlty 

14(11 l.ongworth U"',S/! om", BuU,Ung 

Washl~tlIn. DC20515 

r~bl'\'~1)''26.2013 

Re: u.s. 11005" ol Repr se"t:>!I ~1'!S ,udlclal')' Subcommittee lin Immig"'U"" and BQrde r Security: 

" Ilow [-Verily Workli and Un .. it DeneIlIsAmeri'<I" EmployeN and Worke,.,." 

The Coalition fnr lhml~ne Immigrant RIghI.'! of l.os Angele.- {CUIRIJljl. a regl<>"ol n'/plltz"thm .. nuse 

ml"'on I. In adv"lCe the hu,nan and civil righ!.'! of ["""Ie"""!!; and refug"". In Ln. A,,~el .... CItIRt.A 

3dVll<~les on heh.1lf of lhi! comnlunlty throuSh ""I,ry and advocacy, org:"'i.]ng. """,,",UOIl and 

oomm,mity building. On behalf of (fIiRLA I am wrlring to express our view5 (Ill the ~promlng 

~ubcummluee bea ring on E-Verl/J to be held Febrt.ary 27" 11\ the House Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Borden. 

CIIiRI.II I. committed to working wi~h YUl1 to n.lU"~ Ih~\ immigration reform becomes a ..... 111y IhlS 

yur. How .... er. we belle",,- Ihnl E-Yerlfy Is a fundament~ll y n~wed progr:lm, and ac<onlln~l~ we ha~e 

~lTong rt~erv~tIOIlS reg~rdlllll any plaM for It> e~pallSlo,. In our t;,~ most I"'>llltles, fr<lm Los 

AlIgt! ~, Coun\~ to Sa" Diego. refrained from Introducing It In 20 11, GovenlOr jerI')' 8 rown "'Sood a 

IdW prohlt>1t1ng n~ loe<l lurisdlctl"n from ,,,,,ndJUng the prOgr"dm, thert'by helping bllSlT>eSSe$ and 

government avoid the doc:umented rlsk1; del~lIed bel(lw. 

Us~ of E· Yerify h..- e~p;o nded dr"""'tlcally .ince 2004 The primary Imp"!.." behind Ihe adop!ion nf E· 

Verify has b ... n bOIl! .1lI," and f...:leral go"~mme!ll nlandale. IhHI g<lvt'rn",.nt contractors. and, In 

~ome ,ases. a ll b-uslnesses. ""rollin Ihe program. E·Ve rify mand" ~ 3rt Qllfn coupled ... IIIt employer 

~3n<tl<ln~ lam . .... ·hkh ~"" II~e em IQY~1'$ (Qr hlrlllg and retalnlnll undocumented workers. o,.,splle the 

~urr~nl 'fl<1I, ularily' Q( E·Verify mandates. Ihls program Is delrim~mal 10 IInr domen1< w<>rkfnrce. 

While U,e £·Verify prolV" "' ill I~ud...:l by the US ~p"r11lletll Qfllo",el.nd S«ulily [DIlS) and 
63 

enforcement ~gencle.., th e prognlln has had ~ number of negative effe(;t$ OIl tJ.uslne$$ owners. 

3" h"rl~ and native wnrker$, 3$ well as u"documented workers. 

E-Vetify ha. an "na<:a!r'~l>ly high error r .. I •• and this dlspnJl"'rtioMleiy Imfta<t. wrork-ellglble 

In,,nlg'3"1.<. lell"l I"'nn.t,enl ''''Ideou .. (lPIt<). and tIlIlurdll'te<! rltl.en~ Th~se errOR are often 

attrlbuu.ble to mistakes In federal recotd5 or l/la«IIrale Inft"t by the ~mpjl/)'er. 1~ 5 aurlal 10 nnlc thot 

ev'<!n ~t 99% ;l«ul1>Cy, <wer 1.S m1l11(m workers could be ImJ13"t~d II E-Yerlfy WiI.' Imftlemenl~d In 

lo.by'. deHalle ec!>nomv. where findlnA and m"lnt3lnl~ • 100 em he dlmcult. ~nv error Ihat would 

p,.""m " pe1"S<Jn from dolng.o 10 one Ion 'nany. In otddlilon 10 the strt! •• thaI a "non co"llrm~Uo,,· 

error can produ"," fo, the Indlvid"31 In que.<Uotl, the<'. is al<o the questlo" of now much e"tra 

adminlnrailve WQrk I. n~ded 10 dear "I' Ihese ml'13~e, hy federal ogendM alrt!ady r:lrrylng ~eavy 

CII.<eload~. 

Emftloyersal.n face a number ofls ... "",f,h.y tlloose.orwere 10 be "'qlllre<! 10 "s~ E-Yerlfy. In .lat"" 

wh~re E-Yenfy js ~ulred, employers willi ml&hlothi!rwlse no'partirlpale In Ihe .y.'~IIt, whelherd". 

10 user difficulty. IlIten"'l .,,,,.,,,s, . 'hearor~mentlolll'd accuracy I.«u~ or lIablilly wu ... are (nreed 10 do 

so 11'<1 they face Slale pellahles. Th ... e difficulUes ~re ~mp llfied for .• mall bllslo ...... which Ita"" r.wer 

",sou"",. II> devo te 10 C<lmplJ~'\C~, While the E-Yerify program II; theoretically f",e to bUl.ine .... , It 

rt!qulrt!. ooth Infra<truclun and all hwesullemof.",ployee expertise. A 201] Bloumi>o'l! Govern,nent 

"Iudy 6t1n,ated that mandatory use of E-V.rlfy would eosl ,man bu,ln,," ... (SOO employe .. 3nd 

under) aooLlI $2.6 hillion doUar. a ye~r. 

SUMi:lIIUal ""Idelle" of etnployer m"use of thi! program has al,o bef,n documented. Unauthoriud 

prol'lke. include Ihe unlawful pre-"I.T""nlog of job ~pplicalllS, Ille Inapproprlale 1"'""II .. Uoo or 1\00-

conllnned .mploy"eo (empll/)'''''' who •• Infonn.tloo doe. tlnl 10alch Ih. SSA dat.:lb ... ") aod rt!t.allllUno 

agalo.t work.rs. Aithllugl' 0101110y" rs aro 1~rt!Ucally accounlable III 1""01",,111>0 and Cu'loms 

Enfo~nt.nl (ICE) ~nd US CIIl""n alit! 1I11n'18r~t1on St('llices (USC1S) for ml1us"ofln~ ')'!ol"m, s.nult,,,-

eMorcemenl nf tn"- prohibition' fTllbe<lded In E-Verify ~ppears \0 be scant.. Workers who ~rt! 

mi~'ako!nly classified as non-conllrmed bear the. burden of proof. They TTt.:Iy face an UdllOU5, 

unrotnl"'OS.led. ""d Un'''-''lOs"mlng .xperlence ,, ~ Ihey endeavor to correct Ihl'1' erroneous non_ 

oonOnned 51"tu$' There ~re ~w !y<lem~ of ;,ccountlbll!ty lor rel'llfying dlscrimln.tory misuse of EVerify. ~nd workers ",ho have been dlscrlmlna'ed ag;,insl h~n a difficult lime having IMlr compl~fnts 

rectilled. 

The Congressional B"dS.t om"" slilled thaI a .... tlonwide e.p.",lon of E-Ycrlfy would hav~ Ih. likely 

cons~quc"",e <)f de.:re •• lng federal r,,-venucS by 517.3 billion from ye.rs 20()9-2018. This """uetlon 

"'Quid come from Ihe f&ct that employers would 00 longer be withholding income 300 en'plnyn,enl 

lases from undocum.nt....:! immlgranlS. bUI would ",ther either choose nO' 10 employ Ihes<! in<llvlduals 

or wo"ld I ... nsitlon them to • dlffert!nl fI'IY sy.lem In which their pay" not rel'O"<"IIln tile federal 

government. 

An npetimenli,1 program like E-Verlfy is simply 001.a good fil for America ', economy Ibal draws fmm 

a large variation ofworlcl'l'$. h,s"mm"!),, natiolt,1l1y man<l.tting E-Verlfy. Would hd~e di,;astrou. eff..ru 

on Ihe U.S, economy, lm,,,,ferring 1M COIIl; nrth e program to employers and lax I>aY'rs whll. ~reall~ 
64 

deell holes in the ~Ire~dy fragi le wtJr\cfurce. As. we labor together on leg.llzing Imponant segments of 

our worl(ln~ pqpulatlon. It would tw! unwise to simul"'''.OUSly subjtctlhe enUre US population to this 

typ<! of Jwee-plrlg verifiCiltlon SCMm •. w. u~~ 1M «Iomlltleo! to <Onslder the totality or Ibis ptmpcct, 

and e~amlM E·Verlfy"s tru~ ImpatlOn AmenCil. 

If you h;w~ ~ny q"e~ ions; please contaCf jO$epl! Vtllel~ ~llvillel @lChlrl,.org or rul~ Medina oll 

nn~d;na@<hlrl ... org. 

Slnce",ly . 

. ~. 

J",ellh VUI~I. 

(III RIA Poil,,), OiT<"Ctor 
65 

• • • • 

• 

• hispanicfederatlon 

• • T~kII1A Hhip;trUc ca.U58~ to hoart 

Ui ~Jla ni c Federlllion 

SllIlCnlt nl for the Record 

[louse Cornmittr.t 00 the Judiciary 

SlIbcomrnillee on Immignrlion and Border Security 

lIearing on: " lI ow E· Verify Works and How it Btnrfits Amcrica n ElIlllloyc rs and 

\\lurkers" 

Fl'bru:n)' 27, 20 13 

The Hispanic Federation respectfully submits this Slltem .. nl for thil rewrd of !oday 's 

hearing before the Subcommillee on Immigrdlion and Border Security of [he House 

Committee on Ihe Judiciary on "How E-Verify Works and How it Benefits American 

Employers and Workers," 

The Hispanic Federation (HF) is a weial service and advocacy membership organi,Zation 

thaI represents and ,,,orks with nearly 100 Latino lion-profit community-based agencies 

to promote the social, political and economic well being of HispHnic Americans. Since 

its inception in 1990, the Federation has empowered aud odvauced the aspirations and 

needs of the Hispanic community by improviug education achievement, increasing 

financial stability, strengthening Latino nonprofits, promoting healthy communi ti es, and 

giving voice to our community. 

Ov~rvit'w 

The Latino community now represents 17 percent of the population-or 51 .9 minion 

residents ;n the United Stales and 15 pen:;cnt of the country's labor force.

t The Hispanic 

Federation has serious concems o\'er proposals thm mandate the use of E.Verify and the 

deleterious impact thcse proposals have on Latino workers and sUlall business owners. 

An enforcemem+only approach will not fi l( our broken immigration system Eight million 

undocumented workers are not going to leave the country b.:cou.e of mandatory E· 

Verify ~ Instead the mandatory use of E.Verify will impose new costs on employers, 

, Seth Motel lInd E,t<'tll P'~lC nL $t ... II.flical f>(Jf"lr(1l 1 lljll,spcmic$ III Ihe I '"i,,,d t(ll"~·. l()ll (PCW HisIXUlIc 

Cenler, FctJ. tS. }nI3), lWlp 11",,\\ pcwhi.wnk; 9n;/2nIJI02 J5/5!~li!!]jc;lh1Q!llJ!Jl;9f-hj~l);!n jC$-i Itw;. 

IlIlled-slalq-201 11 

! Passel. JctTn:~ s .. ~,td D·Vcrd COIuL "~II'h"rl:"d ttl/lllig"",1 Porl,lnllOf!." ,\'lI/i"",,1 "'1(1 &me 7';eml$. 

)/lJ(J (Pe\\ Hispcml.: CCnler, FctJ. I. 2111 \) ItllpY/mnl .pc" 1tisp.1nic.orgilO 11 /l):zh) 1Il,n.1U1hon~­

i"unjgn"~-pOptilaljon-tlm:'lionaJ"",, '1lI -S1,11c -l re 'llI s-20 101 
66 

drive jobs into the underground economy, increase unemployment, and deprive the 

government of federal, state and local tax revenues 3 

Instead of layering E-Verify on top of a broken immigration system, we need to fix the 

system. A workable solution is broad reform of our immigration system that includes a 

path to legal status, which includes citizenship, for undocumented immigrants. This 

would result in a large economic benefit-a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross 

domestic product over 10 years and ensure that all workers and jobs are protected4 

Concerns with mandatory E-Verify 

The Hispanic Federation has serious concerns on the impact of a mandatory employment 

veriiication program on Latino workers and small business owners including, but not 

limited to: 

Requiring the use of E-Verify will disproportionately affect naturalized citizens, 

foreign-born and Latino workers. 

Although E-Verify error rates have improved, the system is still not foolproof If EVerify were to be made mandatory more than three-quarters of a million legal workersincluding U.S. citizens-would stand to lose their jobs because of the system's error 

rate 5 Of particular concern is the system's disproportionate impact on Latino workers. EVerify error rates are 30 times higher for naturalized U.S. citizens and 50 times higher for 

legal nonimmigrants than for native-born U.S. citizens. Mandatory use of E-Verify will 

create a new set of employment challenges for the more than 18.7 million foreign-born 

Latinos in the country6 At a time when Latinos are already facing higher unemployment 

rates than the general population, a mandate to implement an error ridden system is 

simply unacceptable 7 

Requiring employers to use E-Verify will place burdeus on all businesses, especially 

Latiuo small businesses. 

Latino businesses are the single fastest growing segment of small businesses in the 

country, expanding at nearly twice the rate of the national average between 2002 and 

3 F:xpanding F:-Veriji; will Undermine Joh (irowih and Cripple Small Rusiness, (NILe. Jan.20 II). 

www.niic.orgldocument.htm!?id=327 

"Dr. RaId Hinojosa-Ojeda. Raising the Floor ji}r American rr(}rkers: The Fconomic Benefits oj 

Comprehensive immigration Reform (Center for American Progress, Jan. 7. 2010). 

http://ww'w .amcricanprogrcss. orgjissucs/ilmnigrationlrcportl20 10/01/07/7 187/rdising -the -floor-fo ramerican-workersl 

5 Tyler Moran, Testimony berore the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social 

Security, Hearing on the Social Security Adlninistration's Role in Verifying Employment Eligibility, April 

14.2011, available al hllp:l/www.nilc.org/teslimom-eevs.hlnd 

6 Seth Motel and Eileen Pattern, Statistical Portrait a/Hispanics in the United States, 2011 (Pew Hispanic 

Ccntcr, Feb. 15. 2013). http://www.pewhispanic.org/20 13102/15/statistical-portrdit -of-hispanics-in-thcunited-states-20 III 

i In February 2013. the Latino lUlclnploYlllcllt rate was 9.7 percent. Emplo}'!!1ent Situation Summary 

(Department or Labor Statistics, Feb. 1.2013), http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nrO.htm 
67 

2007 S Approximately 2.3 million businesses are owned by Latinos. These businesses 

generate $271 billion in sales each year9 Mandating the use ofE-Verify will hurt Latino 

small business owners by adding another government regulation. According to a 

Bloomberg Government study, small businesses will spend $2.6 billion every year to 

implement E-Verify. With an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent for Latinos and the 

economic recovery of small businesses still precarious, it does not make sense to burden 

job creators with an additional $2.6 billion per year. 

Given these realities, the Hispanic Federation remains opposed to the mandatory 

expansion of E-Verify in immigration reform. However, should Congress insists on 

enacting a mandatory employment verification system, at the very minimum it should: 

• Phase the system incrementally with vigorous performance evaluations and 

ensure data accuracy; 

• Protect workers from unreasonable burdens and misuse of the system; and 

• Contain strong anti-discrimination protections, due process and privacy 

safeguards. 

Conclusion 

Unless the current unauthorized workforce is provided a path to legalization, requiring 

the use of E-Verify is destined to fail. The time to modernize our immigration laws is 

long overdue, and the Hispanic Federation stands ready to work with this Committee and 

Congress to achieve this important goal for our country, the American people, and all 

those seeking to contribute their talents and energy to our great nation. 

R The Latino Labor Force il1 the Reco)'ery, (Dcpartmcnt of Labor Statistics), 

http://www.dol.goY/ sec/medi8/reports/hisp8nicl8horforce/ 

9 TheJmpact orE-Verify 011 Latinos (NLeR, Scpo 2011). 

hllp://www.nclr.orgfimages/uploads/pages/NCLRimpactofeverifyonLatinosfactsheet.pdf 
68 

February 26, 2013 

TI,e Honorable Trey Gowdy 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Chairman 

2138 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

TI,e Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

140 I Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: U.s, House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security: 

"How E-VerifyWorks and How it Benefits American Employers and Workers" 

Dear Chairman Gowdy: 

The undersigned organizations representing organized labor. faith, civil and immigrant rights 

organizations are committed to working with you to ensure that immigration reform becomes a reality this 

year. However, we believe that E-Verify is a fundamentally tlawed program, and accordingly we have 

strong reservations regarding any plans for its expansion. In our state most localities, from Los Angeles 

County to San Diego, refrained from introducing it. Tn 2011, Govemor Jerry Brown signed a law 

prohibiting any local jurisdiction from mandating the program, thereby helping businesses and 

govenunent avoid the documented risks detailed below. 

Usc of E-Verify has expanded dramatically since 2004 The primary impulse behind the adoption of EVerify has been both state and federal govenunent mandates that government contractors, and, in some 

cases, all businesses, enroll in the program. E-Verity mandates are often coupled with employer sanctions 

laws, which penalize employers for hiring and retaining undocumented workers. Despite the current 

'popularity' of E-Verify mandates, this program is detrimental to our domestic workforce. While the EVerify program is lauded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and enforcement agencies, 

the program has had a number of negative effects on business owners, authorized and native workers, as 

well as undocumented workers. 

E-Verity has an unacceptably high error rate, and this disproportionately impacts work-eligible 

immigrants, legal pellnanent residents (LPRs), and naturalized citizens. These errors are often attributable 

to mistakes in federal records or inaccurate input by the employer. It's cmcial to note that even at 99% 

accuracy, over 1.5 million workers could be impacted if E-Veriry was implemented In today's delicate 

economy, where finding and maintaining a job can be difficult. any error that would prevent a person 

from doing so is one too many. In addition to the stress that a "non contirmation" error can produce for 

the individual in question, there is also the question of how much extra administrative work is needed to 

clear up these mistakes by federal agencies already carrying heavy caseloads 
69 

Employers also face a number of issues if they choose, or were to be required to use E-Verity. Tn states 

where E-Verity is required, employers who might otherwise not participate in the system, whether due to 

user difficulty, intemet access, , the aforementioned accuracy issue or liability issues, are forced to do so 

lest they face state penalties. These difficulties are amplified for small businesses, which have fewer 

rcsources to devote to compliance. While the E-Verify program is theoretically free to businesses, it 

requires both infrastmcture and an investment of employee expertise. A 2011 Bloomberg Govenllllent 

study estimated that mandatory use of E-Verity would cost small businesses (500 employees and under) 

about $2.6 billion dollars a year. 

Substantial evidence of employer misuse of the program has also been documented. Unauthorized 

practices include the unlawful pre-screening of job applicants, the inappropriate penalization of nonconfirmed employees (employees whose information does not match the SSA database) and retaliation 

against workers. Although employers are theoretically accountable to Immigration and Customs 

Enforccment (ICE) and US Citizen and hllmigration Scrviccs (USCIS) for misusc ofthc systcm, genuinc 

cnforcemcnt of thc prohibitions embcddcd in E-Vcrity appcars to be scant. 'Vorkcrs who arc mistakcnly 

classified as non-contlrmed bear the burden of proof. They may face an arduous, uncompensated. and 

time-consuming experience as they endeavor to correct their erroneous non-<:onfirmed status. There are 

few systems of accOlmtability for rectitying discriminatory misuse of E-VerifY, and workers who have 

been discriminated against have a difficult time having their complaints rectified. 

The Congressional Budget Oftlce stated that a nationwide expansion of E-Verity would have the likely 

consequence of decreasing federal revenues by $17.3 billion from years 2009-2018. This reduction 

would come from the fact that employers would no longer be withholding income ,md employment taxes 

from undocumented immigrants. but would rather either choose not to employ these individuals or would 

transition them to a different pay system in which their pay is not reported to the federal government. 

An cxpcrimcntal programlikc E-Vcrify is simply not a good fit for Amcrica's cconomy that draws from a 

large variation of workers. Tn summary, nationally mandating E-Verity. would have disastrous effects on 

the U.S. economy. transferring the costs of the program to employers and tax payers while creating deep 

holes in thc already fragile workforce. As we labor together on legalizing important segments of our 

working population. it would be unwise to simultaneously subject the entire US population to this type of 

sweeping verification scheme. We urge the committee to consider the totality of this prospect, and 

examine E-Verify's tnle impact on AInerica 

If you have any questions. please contact Joseph Villela at .L\-illQ):<,:0,QllITI'LQl1; or Rita Medina at 

g!,-~giU;t~~l]~h_iXl~,--Qm· 

Sincerely, 

Amistad Covenant Church 

Asian South East Asian Societies 

Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR) 

CACTA 
70 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. As I mentioned in my few statements 

at the beginning of the hearing, I think it is obvious that any EVerify system that it is going to be mandated for all employers cannot precede reform of the immigration system, and I think for obvious reasons. 

I mean, the most glaring example is in the ag sector, as has been 

referenced. We know that American agriculture is heavily dependent on undocumented migrant workers, and we could do E-Verify 

and prove that is true, but we already know it is true. And the net 
71 

result would just be damage to the economy, and to the farmers, 

and to the workers. So I just think any E-Verify system, if we are 

going to consider it, would have to be concurrent with reform of the 

system. 

But even with that, I have not supported this program in the 

past, but I am trying to keep an open mind that if we were to reform the immigration system and this were part of it, how would 

we deal with the issues that we have looked at over the years? 

And, you know, there are lies, darn lies, and statistics. 

Bloomberg did a study, and I think you referenced it, Mr. Johnson, although you did not mention Bloomberg, estimating a very 

high cost for small businesses to implement that. I do not know if 

the figure of $2.6 billion for small businesses is correct or not. But 

we do understand that in a December 2010 survey of employers 

who currently do not use E-Verify, 25 percent of the small employers said they were not enrolled because they do not have a computer. I mean, they are not online. So this is going to be problematic for them. And the last thing we want to do in a tough economy 

is put more costs, especially on the small business sector. 

So I am asking—I do not know, Ms. Correa or Ms. Tulli or any 

of you—whether you have ideas on how we might accommodate 

those small businesses that are not in a position to utilize the system that you have—I could not really see it because of the lights. 

But, you know, it is not accessible to them in the same way it is 

to people who are online. 

Further, question about, and it has been referenced by Ms. Tulli. 

We have had situations where people who are authorized to work 

were dinged, and some of the statistics—and we are making improvements, I mean, which is great. But if you scale it up to the 

entire workforce, it is hundreds of thousands of people potentially 

if you just extrapolate out the error rate, who would be American 

citizens who would be told, you know, you are not legal. 

And I was just telling the Chairman when I chaired the Subcommittee, I had a lawyer who worked for me, Traci Hong, who 

was an immigration lawyer, and I was Chair of the Immigration 

Subcommittee, and she was an American citizen. And when she 

went down to the House office employment center, she got dinged 

as not authorized to work, and she was an American citizen. I 

mean, it took her a long time, even though she was a really good 

immigration lawyer and I was Chair of the Subcommittee, to actually straighten it out. So I know firsthand that it can be a real pain 

for people. 

And so I am looking for how do we put something in place to prevent trauma to people who are legally here, even if it is not—I am 

not going to say it is every case. But if it is 150,000 Americans, 

that is a big deal, and we need to think through how to protect 

those people. 

So those are 2 questions among many others, but I only have a 

short period of time. Ms. Correa, or Ms. Tulli, or any of you, can 

you address those two main issues? 

Ms. CORREA. If I may, Chair—excuse me, Congresswoman 

Lofgren—I apologize. First of all, I will talk about the accessibility 

by the small companies, the companies that do not always have 

web access. We certainly recognize that issue. We understand it. 
72 

And so some of the things that we have been doing recently here, 

we have upgraded all of our web browsers so that companies and 

employees can actually access E-Verify and Self-Check, which is a 

service of E-Verify, for the employees. They can actually access it 

using their smart phones. 

We are also working on developing an actual downloadable application for smart phones because what we are finding is that many 

in that community out there do have that capability, and we recognize that there are a lot of the smaller—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be a big help. 

Ms. CORREA. Yeah. There are smaller companies out there that 

actually hire onsite. They hire temporary workers. So we want to 

make it as accessible as possible. 

We also continue our outreach efforts, going out and talking to 

these communities and gaining a better understanding of their 

needs, their concerns, so that we can build that into the enhancements that we are working on for the system. 

Last, but not least, Self-Check. I think it is important to recognize that Self-Check is out there as a tool so that individuals can 

go in and validate—in other words, go in, enter their data. They 

literally are going into E-Verify, and it gives them information in 

advance as to whether or not they might encounter a mismatch or 

tentative non-confirmation when their employer runs it. And that 

gives them the ability to address that potential mismatch before 

they actually seek employment. 

So those are 3 of the things: the outreach, of course, the accessibility by smart phones, and then also the Self-Check service. But 

certainly we continue talking to the community out there. We continue our outreach efforts because we certainly want to understand 

and address the needs of all the businesses out there. 

I also would like to point out that in looking at our statistics in 

E-Verify, 81 percent of the companies in the system today are actually companies with 100 or less employees. So the small business 

community is actively registered in the system, and we continue to 

monitor the progress to make sure that they are not encountering 

any problems. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Ms. TULLI. If I could have an opportunity to respond as well? 

Mr. GOWDY. Certainly. If you would, to the extent you can, make 

it as—— 

Ms. TULLI. Brief. 

Mr. GOWDY. Concise. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. TULLI. Yeah, gotcha. So, Representative Lofgren, to your 

question about what can be done in the context of a legalization to 

make the program better, I outlined this in more depth in my testimony. 

First, we need to get that error rate as low as possible. When 

American jobs are on the line, we need to make sure the system 

is as accurate as possible. 

Second, we need to create a formal process for folks to contest errors, particularly those final non-confirmations, an easy way to do 

that so a government error does not stand between you and your 

job. 
73 

Third, we need to create penalties for employers who misuse the 

program. It is a real problem. The employer has to tell you if there 

is an error, and if the employer does not tell you, then you have 

on way to contest it or even know about it. 

And lastly, like Mr. Johnson mentioned, I think we need gradual 

phase-in where after each phase-in, we check benchmarks, see how 

many workers have lost their job, and check the accuracy rates. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you both. 

Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I just want to 

quickly ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 

from the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, the Leading Builders of America, the Mason Contractors Association of America, the National Roofing Contractors 

Association, the National Electrical Contractors Association, supporting a nationwide mandatory electronic employment verification 

system containing certain provisions, such as a Federal preemption 

clause and certain debarment provisions. 

Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
74 

Febmary 27, 2013 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy 

United States House of Representatives 

2409 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Gowdy: 

As leading associations in the construction industry, we write to share our thoughts on the House 

Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing entitled, "'How E-Verify Works and 

How it Benefits American Employers and \Vorkers" The undersigned construction associations represent 

thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands of workers in all facets of constmction-from home 

building, to road construction, to heavy industrial production, to specialty trade contractors and material 

suppliers 

TIle constnlction COllUllUl1ity supports the implementation of an efficient, practical and accurate 

employment verification system that provides ample protection from liability for employers who comply 

with the system in good faith. This system should be phased in according to company size, and should not 

burden employers either fin,mcially or functionallv. Importantlv, like other employers in other sectors, 

the construction industry firmly believes that any employment verification system should hold all U.S. 

employers accountable for the work authorization status of their direct employees, and not create 

vicarious liability by holding employers accountable for the hiring decisions made by entities with whom 

they have a contract, subcontract, or cxchange. 

Tn the 112th Congress, our organizations supported the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 2885), introduced by 

then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). We believed that this 

legislation was the iirst step in creating an employment eligibility veriiication system that is workable for 

both employers and employees. Wc particularly appreciated this legislation's efforts to addrcss our 

concerns and provide strong safe harbor protections for employers against liability and penalties when 

acting in good faith, along with providing protection from any vicarious cross-liability that could be 

inlposed on employers. 

\Ve believe that any new mandatory verification system needs to include certain provisions Such items 

include: 

Fedcral Prccmption to help address the patchwork of conflicting and confusing state and local 

laws: 

A "knowing" intent standard for liability for both employers and contractors that have 

subcontractor relationships; 

A telephonic option for using the system: 

Reasonable documcntation and response timcs; 

A safe harbor for emplovers who use the svstem: 

The verification process should apply to new hires only and should provide an option for 

employers to begin verification once an offer has been made to the employee: and, 

Any dcbarment provisions follow the process outlined in the Federal Acquisitions 

Regulations. 
75 

Mr. GOWDY. I would now recognize the immediate past Chairman 

of the full Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a 

brief statement, make a couple of points, and then ask a few questions. 

Twenty-three million Americans are unemployed or under employed. Meanwhile, 7 million people are working in the United 

States illegally. These jobs should go to legal workers. 
76 

We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by 

requiring all employers to use E-Verify. E-Verify immediately confirms 99.7 percent of work eligible employees. I do not know of any 

government agency that has that kind of efficiency, and quite 

frankly, that is probably as close to perfection as we are going to 

get on this human earth. 

Over 400,000 employers across the United States voluntary use 

E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of their employees, 

and 1,700 new businesses voluntarily sign up every week. 

In 2008, the House passed a stand-alone 5-year extension of EVerify by a vote of 407 to 2. And in 2009, the Senate passed a permanent E-Verify extension by voice vote. So it has overwhelming 

congressional support. 

And the public also supports E-Verify. February 2012, Pulse 

Opinion Research poll found that 78 percent of likely voters favor 

mandating that all employers electronically verify the immigration 

status of their workers. That included 81 percent of the Democrats, 

81 percent of Black Americans, and 76 percent of other minorities, 

primarily Hispanics. 

The Westat study has been mentioned a couple of times. I do not 

want to spend much time on it because it is old and frankly out 

of date, and I think at this point it had been discredited. But its 

estimate when it came to the error rate or the cost was based entirely on speculation. And the study actually says, ‘‘It is important 

to recognize that without direct evidence of the true employment 

authorization status of the workers with cases submitted to EVerify, any estimate of the level of identity theft’’—that was their 

concern about the error rate—would be very imprecise. And, in 

fact, the Legal Workforce Act that I introduced last year contains 

a number of provisions aimed at preventing the use of stolen identities in E-Verify. So we have addressed that problem in a number 

of ways. 

Also in regard to the cost, I wanted to point out that another 

study reveals that three-quarters of the employers stated that the 

cost of using E-Verify was zero. And I think, Ms. Correa, you mentioned a while ago that we can now access E-Verify on smart 

phones. I mean, this is something that has become a lot easier to 

process. 

Well, let me address a couple—maybe they are more comments 

than questions. And I actually hand out a lot of thank yous here. 

Ms. Correa, I would like to, first of all, say I do not think I have 

ever enjoyed an Administration official’s testimony more than I enjoyed yours today. I want to thank the Administration personally 

for being a strong advocate for E-Verify and for looking for ways 

to both expand it and improve it. 

And actually your 99.7 percent figure of approving work-eligible 

employees is actually an increase from a few months ago when it 

was 99.5 percent. So it is even better as we go along. 

Mr. Johnson, I wanted to thank you for the Chamber’s reevaluation of E-Verify. And may I ask you to comment briefly on the cost 

and error rate that some people say are disadvantages of E-Verify? 

You mentioned it briefly in your oral statement. You went into 

more detail in your written statement. I wonder if you would reemphasize that. 
77 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the $2.7 billion cost study, yeah, obviously 

that is an alarming figure. It is a still a billion, not an ‘‘M.’’ And 

we had our economist look at it, and I think there are a couple of 

points. 

One is that it was based on old data, and the reality of it is once 

people get accustomed to new technology, the cost of compliance 

goes down. Secondly, more technically, it relied on the so-called 

JOLTS study to estimate how many new hires there are going to 

be in the economy, and, therefore, how many people get run 

through E-Verify. But the JOLTS study, which DLS does, includes 

also people who transfer within companies and are not necessarily 

new hires. And it includes people who are not going through EVerify. I think the big part of it, though, is that there is an initial 

cost, and then after the cost diminishes radically. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, look, the fact is that small business, the unit 

cost for an employee, and I do not care if you are talking about this 

law or a labor law, unit cost per employee typically under regulations is more of a small business. There is just less way to spread 

it around, that is just the reality. But it is not particularized of this 

program. That is true generally. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you, Mr. Johnson And, Mr. Gamvroulas, 

I just wanted to thank you for your favorable comments about the 

Legal Workforce Act from last year. And also I think in your written testimony, you may not have mentioned it in your oral testimony, and I do not have time for a question. Let me just make a 

statement. 

I think you checked 320 employees. You got 2 red flags who were 

not confirmed, and both of them decided not to contest it. So it 

sounded to me like you were at about 100 percent effectiveness for 

the E-Verify program. And thank you for being a witness than can 

talk to us about the practical impact and that it works so well. So 

thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, 

former Attorney General, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses. 

The first thing that I would like to comment is that I believe that 

all of you support the concept of comprehensive immigration reform, and I commend you for that. 

Now, as I see it, an expanded E-Verify system should be part of 

a new immigration system in our country because we all realize 

that having 11 million undocumented immigrants around or underground makes no sense. It just shows that the system has not been 

working. 

Having said that, I have a couple of questions for Ms. Tulli, but 

any of you could comment further. The first thing is, how can we 

ensure that any expansion of E-Verify addresses the concerns you 

have raised in your testimony, such as database errors and employer compliance? 

Ms. TULLI. There are a couple of key things that need to happen. 

As you stated, Mr. Pierluisi, E-Verify should only be considered in 
78 

the context of a broad immigration reform that has a road to citizenship for the unauthorized workers currently living and laboring 

in our communities. 

A couple of quick things. First, get the error rate down as much 

as possible. We want it as close to perfect as possible when American jobs are at risk. We want to create penalties for misuse because, again, it is the employer who has to tell the employee about 

the tentative non-confirmation. So if the employee does not know, 

they do not how to contest it. They are completely powerless. 

We also need to think about the phase-in, and the phase-in needs 

to be gradual to make sure that we are getting it right. It is better 

to do it correctly than it is to do it quickly. And so after each 

phase-in, we need to step back, look and see how the performance 

is happening in the field, and evaluate from there. 

And lastly, we need to make sure that there is a process for folks 

who receive those final non-confirmations in error to correct those 

effectively. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I believe you stated that 42 percent of workers 

were not informed by their employer of a tentative non-confirmation in 2009. Is that right roughly? 

Ms. TULLI. That is correct. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Now, are employers not required to do so? Why 

do they not? 

Ms. TULLI. Under E-Verify’s program rules, employers are required to tell employees about non-confirmation. The problem is 

that there are no penalties if they do not do that. So we need to 

create penalties so that employers will actually comply with the 

program rules. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. And am I right by interpreting something you 

said that it sounds like employers are selectively using E-Verify. Is 

that right? 

Ms. TULLI. Based on the same study, 33 percent of employers 

pre-screened workers, and that is particularly problematic because, 

again, if you are a U.S. citizen who has an error in the system and 

an employer pre-screens you, you have no way to know that. You 

will just continue not to get hired, particularly in a mandatory system. You will go from job to job being pre-screened, not being hired, 

but not be aware of the error. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Ms. Correa—I say ‘‘Correa’’ because my Spanish 

gets in the way. But I see that you want to comment. Go ahead. 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you, and ‘‘Correa’’ is the right way to say it. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Okay. 

Ms. CORREA. Yes, sir. Yes, if I could comment. First of all, on 

misuse of the system, as I indicated in my testimony, we do have 

a robust monitoring and compliance section that is monitoring the 

use of the system. We actually look at tentative non-confirmation 

notices. We look at whether employers are printing those out because they are supposed to print them out, sit down, and talk to 

employees. If we see or encounter any instances where it does not 

appear that an employer is properly using the system, we do make 

immediate contact with the employer. 

If there is any follow-up instance where we see that the behavior 

has not been corrected, we take further action. We conduct site visits. We provide training. And if all of that fails, we actually refer 
79 

cases to the Office of Special Counsel at the Department of Justice 

if we believe there is discrimination, or even to ICE if we see any 

misuse or improper use of the system. 

I also would like to comment on the fact that employers are told 

specifically in all the guidelines, the memorandum of understanding, and all the materials that they are not to pre-screen employees. And if we become aware of any such behavior, we immediately refer those cases. 

Last, but not least, I did want to comment a little bit on the review process. When a TNC comes through and the employer sits 

down with the employee to discuss the TNC, the employee can contest the TNC. If they decide to contest, they have 8 days to contact 

the Federal Government, provide whatever information, because I 

do want to point out what that generates a TNC is a mismatch between the data that was entered into E-Verify and the data that 

we are checking against other databases. So an employee does have 

8 days to come to the agency, to DHS or Social Security, depending 

on what the case is, to correct that data. If it takes longer for us 

to make that correction, we hold that case as pending, and we notify the employer. 

The other thing I would like to add is that while we do not have 

a formal process for the final non-confirmation review, we do review final non-confirmations if an employee contacts us. In Fiscal 

Year 2012, we reviewed a little over 1,400 final non-confirmations, 

and an interesting statistic that came out of that was that in 83 

percent of the final non-confirmations that we reviewed, the employee had actually abandoned the TNC. In other words, they did 

not follow up, or contest it, or, if they indicated they were going to 

contest, they did not follow through. 

So I do want to point that out and mention that we are going 

to formalize this final notification process, this final non-confirmation process, to make it a more formal process so that an employee 

could come to us for a formal review of any final non-confirmation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. My time is up I see. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would start with you, Ms. 

Correa, and ask you, if one were going to try to improve upon this 

99.7 percent number, and I support everything I heard Mr. Smith 

say and complimentary, especially to you for working so intensively 

on improving E-Verify. But if the remaining three-tenths of 1 percent, most of that, I think you I understood you to say, has to do 

with married names that did not get changed. And is that how you 

get it fixed now? If we are going to get it better, if it could be gotten better, is that what is required is to use E-Verify? 

Ms. CORREA. Well, let me clarify. The name change was an example of a potential mismatch. But the answer is to get those errors down, what we have got to make sure is the tentative non-confirmation is properly being returned for a mismatch, and that the 

employee reaches out to us or to the Social Security, whichever 

agency it is, to make sure that that data gets fixed in the system. 

But we certainly continue to try to find ways to get that error rate 
80 

down to make sure that we are getting to the employees and making them aware of what they can do to fix that information. 

Mr. KING. This is so much better than it was predicted to be just 

a few years ago. Thank you. 

And then, Mr. Gamvroulas, in the business that you are in, I 

heard you say that you believe that you should be able to use EVerify, I would use the language, with a bona fide job offer rather 

than having to hire someone and find out that they are unlawfully 

working in the United States. 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Thank you. That is an important distinction. 

And in my comments, the point that I was trying to make was 

that, and this runs a little bit counter to the other testimony, is 

that we cannot run E-Verify until we have actually hired the person, the person who has actually been hired has accepted the employment, and they are on the payroll. And that is when we are 

able to input them into the E-Verify system. 

And so that is problematic because they are now in the system. 

Mr. KING. And you have actually hired someone who cannot legally work in the United States, and under a different interpretation, might have actually been in violation of law. 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. It might be tentative non-confirmation, and it 

might be something that they can go to the Social Security Administration and get cleared up, and that is great. But in the meantime, they are on the payroll, and until that is cleared, they are 

an employee and we are investing time—— 

Mr. KING. So you would like to be able to offer here is a conditional job offer. I will have to run you through E-Verify. If you clear 

that, you can go to work for our company. 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Yes. 

Mr. KING. That is what I wanted to clarify, and I think that is 

an important piece. I think Mr. Johnson agrees with that piece. 

But I want to come back to you. I will come back to you, Mr. Johnson, in a moment. 

On current employees, and you have contractors that would like 

to use E-Verify to make sure that they could clean up their workforce on their current or legacy employees? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. The subcontractor base that we use, the vast 

majority of them are small businesses. And in the State of Utah, 

currently the vast majority of them are not required to use EVerify because they have fewer than 15 employees. 

Mr. KING. But would you support the elective for an employee to 

do so at their discretion on current employees? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Johnson. We would not support that. We 

would take the same position as the Chamber that legacy employees should not be post-screened. 

Mr. KING. And I have read the position of the Chamber on this, 

and I am curious from you, if you can tell me the concern that has 

been voiced is that an employer might step into some type of liability if they utilize the E-Verify on current employees. Why would 

one object to allowing an employer to use their discretion on using 

E-Verify? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Mr. Johnson. I can only speak for my company, and why we would be concerned about that. But we would 
81 

be concerned and we would not that because we believe that it 

would open us up to complaints of discrimination. 

Mr. KING. But would you object to other companies utilizing it 

at their discretion? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Our company, we would maintain our position 

and concur with the Chamber to—— 

Mr. KING. And if we wrote into a bill a safe harbor for those who 

legitimately use E-Verify for current employees, that would also resolve the concern, would it not? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. I am sorry. I do not think I understood your 

question. 

Mr. KING. If we wrote into the bill a safe harbor for employers 

to utilize E-Verify on current employees—— 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. On current employees. 

Mr. KING. Maybe I misstated it, but would that not resolve your 

concern as well? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. I still think I would be concerned as an employer that that would open us to—— 

Mr. KING. But as an employer, do you not have an independent 

attitude about making your own decisions? See, I am thinking that 

I as an employer for all the years that I have met payroll, and 

there are great many of them, I wanted to make my own decisions, 

and I did not want government to tell me that I could not. And I 

did not like it when government said to me that I could not use 

E-Verify unless I had actually put the person on my payroll. 

And so this is the same principle in my mind. If an employer 

wants to clean up his workforce and we have got a tool to do it that 

is 99.7 percent accurate, if some people are concerned about that 

liability, why would we not want them to make that decision themselves because they are responsible people in this country, too? 

Mr. GAMVROULAS. Mr. King, I would be concerned about E-Verify 

being used as a tool to do that. If somebody wants to clean up their 

workforce, there are many other ways that they can do that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Gamvroulos, and I really regret the 

clock has run down. 

I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you again 

for calling this hearing. I would like to ask Ms. Tulli, why is the 

error rate for a naturalized U.S. citizen—what is it for naturalized 

U.S. citizens in the E-Verify system? What is the error rate? 

Ms. TULLI. So the error rates, there are a lot of facts and figures, 

and you can see more in my testimony. What we know is that naturalized U.S. citizens are 30 times more likely to experience an 

error, and we estimate based on the statistical model included in 

Westat that if this were to go to scale, 1.2 million Americans and 

legally authorized workers are going to experience an error. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And why do you think that is so? That is pretty 

high. 

Ms. TULLI. That is a lot of workers. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is a lot of people. 
82 

Ms. TULLI. That is why we are here today suggesting that the 

error needs to be as close to perfect as possible. When a government error can stand between an American citizen and their ability 

to work, that is a problem. So as we consider taking this program 

mandatory as part of immigration reform, we need to make sure 

that we have protections in place for exactly this sort of situation. 

I elaborated earlier on the idea of creating a formal process for 

these final non-confirmations. Workers’ jobs should not be on the 

line, and, again, we are talking about citizens and legally authorized immigrants. Those jobs should not be on the line because there 

is an error in a government database. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So you extrapolate it is 30 times higher for naturalized citizens. Interesting. 

I was shocked by the example in your written testimony of a veteran, a former captain in the United States Navy with 34 years of 

service who was flagged by E-Verify as not eligible. It took an attorney 2 months to resolve the problem. Why would it take 2 

months to resolve it for a 34-year veteran of the Navy? 

Ms. TULLI. Exactly. This is precisely the problem. When people 

experience errors, U.S. citizens experience errors, particularly this 

final non-confirmation, it can be incredibly difficult to correct those 

errors. When a worker receives a tentative non-confirmation, they 

have 8 Federal working days to correct that tentative non-confirmation, but they have to take time off of work, and they have 

to go to a Social Security office. 

So if you live in a large State where there is one Social Security 

office, you might be driving 100 miles to get there. Then once you 

are there, you are going to have to stand in line. You are going to 

have to pay for gas to get there. You may have to pay for babysitting. 

With the final non-confirmation there is no formal process in 

place to contest these errors. And again, when we are thinking 

about taking this program to scale, based on Westat’s statistical 

model, we estimate that 770,000 people could be in a similar position to the example you referenced, the U.S. Navy captain. And 

that is a problem as we think about making this program mandatory within immigration reform. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Do you support E-Verify as part of comprehensive immigration reform or as independent? 

Ms. TULLI. We think that the first step is immigration reform to 

bring people out of the shadows, and to make them part of our democracy. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Would you see E-Verify as an essential part of 

comprehensive immigration reform? 

Ms. TULLI. If E-Verify is part of the package. I mean, first you 

have to see what the legalization program looks like and how many 

workers are actually going to qualify to be on that road to citizenship. If it is part of the package we have outlined, specific changes 

that need to be made to the program. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But you support E-Verify as part of comprehensive immigration reform. 

Ms. TULLI. As part of comprehensive immigration reform, we 

have to know what the legalization package looks like. So I am 

happy to talk to your office about what the thinking is around the 
83 

legalization piece, because for us, if you legalize a small portion of 

the workforce, that does not get it done. We need an entirely legal 

workforce, or else, as we have heard earlier today, it is a problem. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Oh, I get it. So you have read some excerpts, and 

there might just be a small group of people. 

Ms. TULLI. I am not making any assumptions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. That is good not to do that. So let me ask, 

Ms. Correa, so why is the error rate so high? What do you think? 

Ms. CORREA. I am sorry? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Why is the error rate so high, 30 percent? Why 

do you think it is so high? For naturalized citizens. 

Ms. CORREA. So let me talk a little bit about error rates. I apologize because it is very confusing. There are numbers flying around. 

So when we talk about the 99.7 percent accuracy rate, that is the 

accuracy rate where the system is properly returning a response 

back that an authorized worker is authorized to work. In other 

words, that the system recognizes when we check out the databases, based on the Form I-9 data, that this individual is properly 

authorized to work. That is what that accuracy rate represents. 

The second accuracy rate that I talk about in my testimony is the 

94 percent accuracy rate for unauthorized workers. That rate 

means that the system accurately returned a TNC that ultimately 

became an FNC, a final non-confirmation, for individuals that were 

not authorized to work. So an unauthorized worker was properly 

identified as not being authorized to work. 

On the 30 percent figure—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am out of time. 

Ms. CORREA. I am sorry. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is just we did—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You are welcome to finish your answer as far as I 

am concerned. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. Please. 

Ms. CORREA. Okay. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yeah. I just thank you so much since, you 

know—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I am not used to people limiting themselves. That 

is what took me off guard. But you are welcome to finish your answer. 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you, sir. So the 30 percent, there are many 

reasons that could happen. It could have to do with how the name 

was inputted into the system, these appear to be issues from before 

because these are old statistics that we are talking about when you 

talk about the 30 percent, how people hyphenated their names, 

spaces, those kinds of things. 

We have actually, and you may have seen in it in the demo, we 

have actually added features in the system to provide for quality 

assurance to remind employers to double check how they entered 

the names into the system to guide them on how to enter dates and 

those kinds of information. 

So we are working at addressing that kind of issue. We believe 

that a lot of what you saw in that 30 percent figure, which I believe 

came from the Westat study from 2009, were based on those kinds 

of issues, and those are corrections that we have made to the system since then. 
84 

I do not have the figure in front of me now, but I certainly could 

check to see if we have an updated number in that area. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. We need you comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot do it without E-Verify, and we need it 

to work. Thank you. 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

And the Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, 

Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding this important hearing. 

Mr. Tulli, I am a little bit confused by your testimony. You give 

the example of the U.S. Navy captain, and I understand how frustrating that can be. But I was an immigration attorney, and I had 

the experience of helping people who had false hits on E-Verify. 

And it is pretty simple. You just go to the Social Security office, 

you show that you are the person you said you were going to do. 

You show that you have a Social Security number. And most of the 

time the mistakes are because you transposed a number or something like that. 

So I know you are using the extreme example, but is it not true 

that the majority is just simple cases that I am referring to, the 

great majority of them? 

Ms. TULLI. For TNCs, Representative Labrador, specifically? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Uh-huh. 

Ms. TULLI. So you are correct that for TNCs, typically a worker 

has to go to a Social Security office and try and correct the error. 

But that really varies worker to worker. 

And as I mentioned before, how easy it is to get a Social Security 

office, particularly if you are working a low-wage job or 2 jobs, and 

trying to correct that error can be incredibly difficult. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But they are trying to work. I mean, I am having 

a hard time with your testimony because we want to get something 

done here in Congress. We want to get immigration reform done. 

I want to have a bipartisan solution. And all you are throwing out 

is reasons why we should not have E-Verify, reasons why we have 

a problem with E-Verify. 

You are saying that it has to be—you are not even sure that EVerify should be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. And 

I think if advocates for immigration reform keep coming here and 

having problems with the enforcement mechanisms that we need 

to have in order to have a viable immigration system, I think you 

are going to spoil any chance that we have right now to have comprehensive immigration reform. And I am really concerned about 

that. 

Ms. TULLI. If I may respond. I am glad to hear that you are interested in working toward a solution, a comprehensive solution, on 

immigration reform. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I have been interested for 15 years, so thank you. 

Ms. TULLI. That is great to hear. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah. 

Ms. TULLI. In terms of the enforcement measures that you are 

referring to outlined, and I know my written testimony is long. It 
85 

is about 12 pages. But we outline the exact tweaks in the program 

that we see are problematic now. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But somebody just asked you specifically if you 

believed that E-Verify is part of a solution, you know, it is a part 

of the comprehensive needs that we have in Congress for us to 

solve this problem, and you could not answer that question. 

Ms. TULLI. Well, as I answered it, we have to know what the legalization portion—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. No, the question is, do you think E-Verify is part 

of a comprehensive solution. 

Ms. TULLI. And my answer is, we know that there are problems 

with E-Verify now, and I have outlined what they are. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. You are not going to answer the question. 

Mr. Johnson, do you think E-Verify is a necessary part of a comprehensive solution? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, we do. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Ms. Correa, do you think E-Verify helps us 

in having a comprehensive solution? 

Ms. CORREA. Sir, I believe that E-Verify is an effective tool for 

enabling employers to verify the employment eligibility of the individuals that they are hiring. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Now, Ms. Tulli, when you say we needed 

to create penalties for people who misuse E-Verify, what kind of 

penalties are you talking about? 

Ms. TULLI. We are open to discussing what penalties. Right now 

there is absolutely no meaningful penalty, so we would love to 

work with your office in thinking through what those penalties 

could look like. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But can you give me an example? What do you 

think would be a meaningful penalty? 

Ms. TULLI. Right now there are no penalties, so any step in that 

direction is a good step. I do not have specific suggestions on exactly what those penalties should look like. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Now, you used the example of pre-screening. You 

said that 30 percent of employers are currently pre-screening using 

E-Verify. Where do you get that data from? 

Ms. TULLI. The Westat study, 2009. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Now there have been some problems with 

that Westat study, is that not true? 

Ms. TULLI. What problems are you referring to, sir? 

Mr. LABRADOR. It says that it was done in 2009. That that number is based on studies from 2009, and that study has been questioned by some groups, is that correct? 

Ms. TULLI. I am not aware of significant questioning of the study. 

It is an independent evaluation of the program. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And one of the questions that I have is, how are 

people using E-Verify for pre-screening when they did not have 

people’s Social Security numbers? 

Ms. TULLI. How are they using it for pre-screening? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Pre-screening, yes. 

Ms. TULLI. Well, presumably in the job application process, employers were asking for the relevant data that would be—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Is that not a violation of the law? 

Ms. TULLI. It likely is. 
86 

Mr. LABRADOR. So they are already violating the law. So if they 

are already violating the law, there should be something already in 

place. 

If I require somebody’s Social Security number when I am employing them, before I employ them in the pre-screening process, 

I have violated the law, is that not correct? 

Ms. TULLI. What violation of the law are you referring to, Representative Labrador? 

Mr. LABRADOR. You cannot ask for a Social Security number 

when you are asking for an application. 

Ms. TULLI. I do not know if you are referring to a labor law or 

exactly which law you are referring to. It is not a violation of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act or any labor law that I am familiar with. 

What we do now is that Westat is an independent evaluation of the 

program functioning, and 33 percent of employers were running 

workers through the program before they were ever hired. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

And I will recognize myself. I am not as good as Rau ́l on this 

kind of law, and I am really bad with numbers. I went the liberal 

arts route. But I am going to try a number. 

Forty-two percent apparently it has been alleged today, 42 percent of punitive employees who receive a TNC are not notified. 

Have you heard that statistic today? 

Ms. CORREA. I heard that statistic today, yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. How would they know that? 

Ms. CORREA. Sir, today the way the process works is the employer is required to notify the employee and sit down and review 

the—— 

Mr. GOWDY. But where would the 42 percent come from? It 

strikes me that that would only come from people self-reporting 

that they did not receive something. And that is not historically a 

really valid way of determining things. 

Ms. CORREA. I believe that that 42 percent is possibly coming 

from the Westat study. I am not sure. And that Westat study, it 

is important to point out, it is based on modeling. It is based on 

statistical modeling. So it is not an accurate look, or I should not 

say ‘‘an accurate,’’ but it is not looking at the data contained in the 

system. 

What I can share with you is that, first of all, we are not seeing 

that pattern. We are not seeing that kind of number. Our monitoring and compliance branch is watching the system. They are 

watching how employers use the system. One of the indicators that 

we have out there is when the employer prints the TNC because 

they are required to print the TNC to discuss it with the employee. 

The other indicator is the referral letter that is generated by the 

system. So I do not believe that 42 percent exists today. 

Mr. GOWDY. Me either. That was kind of my point. 

Ms. CORREA. In fact, I know that it does not exist today. 

Mr. GOWDY. Historically, people do not always, at least in my 

previous job, historically people do not always self-identify correctly; hence, Ms. Tulli, we have hearsay rules where people cannot 

say certain things because it is not inherently reliable. So let us 

do away with the 42 percent. 
87 

To the extent it does happen, what tools can we give you to make 

sure it happens less? Whether it is 42 or 14, how can we help you 

make sure it happens less frequently? 

Ms. CORREA. Well, thank you for that question, sir. 

I want to clarify something. In our monitoring and compliance 

activities, what we are seeing is that the first step in monitoring 

and compliance, if we see any kind of behavior that is inappropriate, we immediately send an e-mail to the employer. We contact 

them. Typically within 90 days, we will follow up if we see that behavior again. We are not seeing that. We are seeing that the employers are taking corrective action. 

But if the employer does not take corrective action, then we follow up with things such as site visits, desk audits, et cetera, because we certainly want to make sure that people are properly 

using the system. 

I also want to talk, if I may, address the issue of penalties because I do not want folks to think that we are not monitoring the 

system and that we are not referring cases. That is not true. In 

Fiscal Year 2012, we referred 24 cases to ICE for further investigation and 51 cases to the Office of Special Counsel for unfair employment practices. So if we see behavior that is inappropriate on 

the part of any employer, we are referring the cases. 

The tools that we use, again, is monitoring the system. We have 

a very robust staff that follows through. We want to make sure 

that we continue to train people, that we provide the right tools, 

and that we inform the employees. 

So one of the things that we are working on is an enhancement 

to the system where the employee, if they provide their e-mail address on the I-9 form and the employer inputs it in the system, we 

will e-mail the employee so that they are aware of a TNC to minimize the likelihood that an employee would not know about a TNC. 

And I also would like to add one more fact that an employee, addressing the issue of, you know, getting to Social Security offices, 

et cetera. An employee has 8 days to address the issue. But if they 

need more than 8 days, if they contact us, we put the case in a 

pending status and notify the employer, because our goal is to 

make sure that we address a mismatch. And if there is truly a mismatch in the system, we want to make sure that that problem is 

corrected. 

Our goal is to make sure that people are properly authorized to 

work. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I will just say this kind of in conclusion before 

I ask Mr. Johnson a question. Anyone who wants a job and is eligible and qualified to have one, I mean, we all want a zero percent 

error rate. And I know you do, too. 

But we had a hearing this morning in this very same room on 

drones, and they do not have 100 percent get it right rate. And I 

am not minimizing the consequences of your .03 error rate. I just 

think that is pretty doggone good. And like I say, another one of 

your sister agencies does not get it 100 percent right when it comes 

to drones. 

Mr. Johnson, 76 percent of the employers say there is no cost to 

implementing E-Verify. Is that right? 
88 

Mr. JOHNSON. The 76 percent, that is not my figure. I will say 

that I have a labor relations committee and an immigration subcommittee, and I had a special task force on this issue. And the 

feedback from our employers was that, and I am not saying it was 

a mathematical stamp across the entire country, which the system 

works quite well with very little hassle. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, I was talking about startup costs. It struck me. 

I saw a statistic somewhere, 76 percent say zero in terms of startup costs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. GOWDY. Which—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is where the Westat study, and as I understand, we had our economist look at this, extrapolated from the 24 

percent of businesses that reported some costs, and then made a 

national calculation, but ignored the fact that 76 percent of the 

businesses reported zero costs. 

So obviously when you have some number of businesses reporting X costs and other ones reporting zero, Congressman, there is 

something odd going on there in the reporting. I cannot really identify what exactly it was in the Westat study. All I can tell you is 

where the rubber meets the road, my membership, they see this as 

a very sustainable burden and part of, I think, their deal in trying 

to move the country forward on immigration reform frankly. 

Mr. GOWDY. And to use E-Verify is free. 

Ms. CORREA. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you need a smart phone or a computer and Internet access 

Ms. CORREA. Access, uh-uh. 

Mr. GOWDY. And the dues I think to join your organization are 

what per year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is a—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Is that confidential? Would you be willing to give 

some kind of voucher in exchange for buying a smart phone? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you, for small businesses, they get a 

great deal. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am kidding with you. You do not have to answer 

that. But it is free, and it is accessible, the smart phone, Internet 

access. 

Ms. CORREA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am curious where that $2 billion figure came from. 

But with that, my time has expired. 

On behalf of Chairman Goodlatte and everyone, thank you. We 

apologize again for the delay with votes, but you have been very 

helpful, very informative. We appreciate your collegiality both with 

the Subcommittee and with each other. 

And with that, we are adjourned. 

Ms. CORREA. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(89) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
90 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security 

ASiAN AMERICAN 

JUSTICE CENTER 

Febmary 26, 2013 

The lionorable Trey Gowdy 

Chair 

House Comminee on the Jlldidary 

Subcomminee 011 Immigratioo & 

Border Slx:urily 

U.S I'louse of Represem<llives 

W35hingiOll, DC 205 15 

MI:MR[R or 

ASIAN AMERICAN CeNTER 

FOItADVANClNG )U'\Tlc r 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

Ranking Member 

House Comminee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration & 

Border Security 

U.S. House of Repre~en!8ti \les 

Washi",b'lOIl, DC 20515 

~ The Subcommittee on Immigration & ord~r Security hearing on "How ENerify Wor\:s 

and 110w It B~nen s American Employers and Workers" 

Dear Chair Gowdy and Ranking Member Lofgren; 

On behalf of the A~ian American Ju ict' eemer (AAJC) and the other amliate membersl orthe 

Asian American Ccmt"rfor Advancing Justice, 3 non-profit, non-partisan affiliation representing 

the Asian American ami Pacific Islander (AAPI) community on civil and human rights iS5Ues, 

we write concerning IOOa y's $llbcomminee 011 Immigration Policy and Enforcement's hearing 

"How E-Verify Works and How It Benefits American Employers and Workers'-' We commend 

tht:- Subcomnlinee for holding this important hearillg alld w()uld like 10 express our deep concern 

and opposition 10 the implementlltioo of a mandatory E-Verify program nlltioowide. Mandating 

~- eri ~ will have a destructive impact on \\'Orkers, employers and our economy as a whole. 

Asian American 311thorized workers- including citizens and green card holders - facc a higher 

risk orbeing flaggl!d as undocumented by E-Verify than U,S-bom workers. In 2009, n study 

commissioned b.y thr Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found the error rate for forei gnborn workers was JO 1!tllt'S hi h~,. than that of U.S.·born workers_" This is particularly troublinl! 

to the more than S milliOfl foreign born AAPls who live in the U.S 3 If E-Verify is made 

mandatory, a disproportionate Immber of AMIs will be wrongly identified and have their jobs 

jeopardized 

E_Verify also promotes discrimination against AAPIs. The same DHS-C()mmissioned study 

found that many employers lIolawfully use E.verify 10 prescreen employees, ttolawfully took 

adverst employment actions based on tentAtive non-COnfimlstiol1 notices, and failed to infoml 

, h' lIIIdi,;O" 10 AAJC. UIC Olt." ".,mbo", or,h" A.i"" A".,,,C3U Celli'" ro, M ·."''''gJ" .. '''''"''' As .. " A",,,n eon 

hl5l,I"'C "I Chins<>, Al;uw LII" a.uc ... OIl ~" FI3,.,,5CO. mol AsiKu P"""i,, A" ICIX'" L<lpt C'''le, '" Los Auselcs. 

W~I, F;"di,, ~ont"' E_Vcnfy PKlGIa'" Enh"''''''' (Doce,ub" , 2009). 2 10 OI"nd."IlIlc .. 

~1t "",, "sc'} g<,," ll ~C"!SIF~ V,' n!\ IE_ v."r) /f "'1!I"lOE-V9nf)'h2oRn""~"'1I 2- (,-(}<J 2-,"I( 

U.S. Cen .... B,uc.u, We II .. P"""lc: .<\""". '" 11", Un" ed SUII ..... C"",,, .. 20(IOSI..:e,.1 Ropom, 20 ",·.,lobk AI 1~lp ,/I""'"" "",,,.,,s S,,,"lpmdllOlUpubsk .... ,_1 7 pd( 
91 

employees of their rights 4 In addition, the U.S. General Accountability Office reports that 

uscrs is limited in its ability to identify and prevent the misuse ofE-Verify, with little or no 

authority to impose penalties.' 

Ivloreover, E-Verify depresses working conditions for all workers. E-Verify builds on the flawed 

employer sanctions framework and incentivizes employers to pay workers "off the books," 

resulting in increased labor abuses. A mandatory system will drive existing vulnerable 

undocumented immigrant workers - as well as those who will inevitably continue to come into 

the country to tind work to support their families unless the root causes of migration are 

addressed - further underground and subject to exploitation. Such conditions are ripe for wage 

thetl, indentured servitude, unsafe working conditions, debt-bondage, and other workplace 

abuses. These workplace abuses encourage a race to the bottom by employers that hurts all 

workers, disadvantages law-abiding employers, and cripples consumer spending that holds back 

the whole economy. 

Procedural safeguards and other protections - while important to implement - do not erase EVerify's harms. E-Verify proponents claim that the system will be crafted with procedural 

safeguards to protect American workers, prevent identity theft, and provide due process 

protections. These assurances are dubious; procedural safeguards do not eliminate the lost 

productivity and time needed to correct inaccuracies in the system. They will also be difficult to 

navigate for the nearly one-third of AAPls who face language barriers" Further, proposed limits 

on DHS enforcement actions and U-Visa expansions suggested by some E-Verify proponents do 

not address the vast majority of workers who, faced with the threat of potential deportation, will 

be unwilling to come forvvard or file claims to enforce their workplace rights. 

E-Verify also increases regulatory burdens on enwlovers. particularly sma" business owners. 

AAPls own more than 1.5 million small businesses in the US., with receipts of$507.6 billion7 

E-Verify will require compliance training and infrastructure for electronic submission and 

subsequent work verification These compliance costs will disproportionately affect small 

businesses. Resolving tentative and false non-confirmations expends additional time and 

resources that small businesses can ill afford to lose. Workers with errors in their records often 

have to take unpaid time otl'to resolve the issues with the Social Security Administration (SSA) 

or the DHS. Members of the American Council on International Personnel reported that 

corrections at SSA usually take in excess of 90 days, a wait of four (4) or more hours per trip, 

1 5,'ee Wesla~ supra note 2. 

5 Richard M. Stann, U.S. Govellllllent Accountability Office, Testimony: Employment Verification: Federal 

Agencies Have Improved E-Verify, but Significant Challenges RemailL G available at 

http:/;'Y""'iv.gao.gov/ne\Y.itellls/dJ 1330t.pdf 

('; Limited English proficiency ranges from 18% (Japanese Americans) to 51% (Vietnamese Americans) <llllong the 

different AAPI ethnic groups. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2009 American Community Survey, 3-Year 

Estin1:1tes. 

U.S. Census Bmeau, Facts for Features: ASlanlPacific American Heritage Month (May 2011), available at 

llJJIu't\\'\'I.~el1slls.gO\·;ne\"smoI:n/rele:1ses/archlves/racts for featllrc..L,W.eci<ll ecilLiol1S/cb l1-m)6.htlnl. 
92 

Æ 

with frequent trips to SSA to get a record corrected8 This decreases the productivity of the 

workers and employers alike. 

The U.S. cannot afford to divert scarce governmental and financial resources towards funding 

this deeply flawed progranL 

According to the U. S. Congressional Budget Otlice, implementing a mandatory E-Verify 

program (without legalizing the current undocumented population) would force employers and 

workers to resort to the black market, outside of the tax system. This would decrease federal 

revenue by more than $17.3 billion over ten years9 In a time of slowed economic growth and 

limited resources, the federal government cannot afford to expand E-Verify. 

Instead of expanding E-Verify - a system that hurts the economy and promotes workplace 

exploitation - we should establish full labor and workplace rights and protections for all workers 

regardless of immigration status, repeal employer sanctions, and fix our broken immigration 

system through broad reform that includes a clear and fair roadmap to citizenship for all 11 

million undocumented immigrants This would result in a large economic benefit-a cumulative 

$1.5 trillion in added US. gross domestic product over 10 years") 

For all of these reasons, we oppose an expansion of the E-Verify program. 

Sincerely, 

MeeMoua 

President & Executive Director 

Asian American Justice Center 

On behalf of: 

Asian Pacitic American Legal Center 

Asian Law Caucus 

Asian American Institute 

S Tyler Moran., National Immigration Lmv Center, Written Statement to House COlllmittee on the Judiciary, 

Subcommittee 011 Tmmigratlon Policy and Enforcement, Hearing on: "E-Verify: Preserving Jobs for American 

Workers" (FebruaI}' 11, lOll), available at h1Ju.J0'!.\\ w.nik.org iimmscHlph mmhrcaempvelif!e-veli(\-. 

testjmonyni1c-2011-02-1 O.pdr (citing American Council on IntemaLiollal Personnel, -'Comments 011 Proposed Rule 

PLLblishedal73 Fed. Reg. 33374 (June 12, 200X)," ALLgLLslll, 2(08). 

';) Peter R. Ors;:ag, DirecLor, Con!:,'Tessl0nal BLLdget Offlce, Letter to Rep. John Conyers (April 4, 2(08), a\·al1able at 

http/lwww cbo.goy/Etpdocs!91x.,/doc910I)!hr-108HltLpdf. 

111 RaLLl Hlnojosa-Qjeda, Ulllverslty of CahfoTT11a Los Angeles, Ralslng the Floor for American Workers: The 

Econo1TIlc Benefits ofComprehellslve im1l11gratl011 Refonn (January 2(10),10 a\·allable at 

hltp:/:\v\\ \'t'. i mmi brrationpo liey .org/sites/ de faulUfiles/ docs! H i llojosa'Yo20-

~{,20R<lising%201he%l20F]oor}o2 Ofor'Yo20 American%20\V orkers':10200 10710. pdf.