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

42–826 PDF 2008

ELECTRONIC EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEMS: NEEDED SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND PREVENT MISUSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Serial No. 110–132 

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 2 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 6 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

The Honorable Heath Shuler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

The Honorable Sam Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Arizona 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Mr. Jonathan ‘‘Jock’’ Scharfen, Acting Director, United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Service 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 

Ms. Carolyn F. Shettle, Ph.D., Senior Study Director, WESTAT 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 60 

Mr. Timothy Sparapani, Senior Legislative Counsel, Washington Legislative 

Office, American Civil Liberties Union 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 70 

Christopher J. Williams, Esquire, Director, Working Hands Legal Clinic 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 81 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82 

Ms. Glenda Wooten-Ingram, Director of Human Resources, Embassy Suites 

Convention Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 84 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 93 

(1) 

ELECTRONIC EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION 

SYSTEMS: NEEDED SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND PREVENT MISUSE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to nall, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, Waters, Sa ́nchez, Conyers, King, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, and 

Smith. 

Staff Present: Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; Andre ́s Jimenez, 

Majority Professional Staff Member; George Fishman, Minority 

Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing on the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

I would like to welcome our Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s hearing 

on Electronic Employment Verification Systems, otherwise known 

as EEVS, systems which, if made mandatory as some have proposed, would affect all 163 million United States workers and 7 

million employers in the United States. 

In this hearing, I look forward to examining how U.S. Workers 

may be impacted by a mandatory EEVS and explore ways to protect U.S. Workers from unintended consequences of EEVS error 

and/or potential misuse. 

Last year, the Immigration Subcommittee held two hearings on 

Employment Eligibility Verification Systems in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. The first hearing, on April 24, 

2007, examined problems with the current paper-based system as 

well as the Electronic Employment Verification System. And the 

second hearing, on April 26, 2007, explored proposals to improve 

employment eligibility verification with emphasis on the EEVS. At 

the time, four bills mandating the use of an EEVS had been introduced in the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress. 

There are now 11 bills pending before this Congress that would 

mandate the use of EEVS. 

2 

Currently, the only functioning EEVS is known as Basic Pilot or 

E-Verify. It is a voluntary program. Less than 1 percent of all employers in the U.S. are currently enrolled to use E-Verify. In addition, the Government Accountability Office says that only half of 

the registered employers are active users who have used the system at least once. At the current level of use, according to DHS, 

in August last year, E-Verify received approximately 2 million queries a year. If E-Verify is made mandatory for all employers, it 

would be 63 million queries a year for new employees. And there 

are many proposals that would go beyond verification of new employees to include existing, and there are 163 million estimated 

workers in the United States at this time. 

As we consider mandatory EEVS for all employees, we should 

consider problems in the existing program to avoid problems on a 

larger scale. Some of the issues we hope to consider today stem 

from reports produced by our own Government, a nongovernmental 

research corporation, and university. These reports raise concerns 

about U.S. workers being wrongfully denied work authorization 

under E-Verify. 

In April 2007, the Service Employees International Union testified before this Committee that, unless database errors are cured, 

24,000 of the 300,000 estimated workers in each congressional district would be erroneously denied the eligibility to work by EVerify. That did catch our attention, because all 24,000 of those 

American citizens will be calling our offices. 

The reports have also documented some employer misuse of EVerify. A 2007 Westat report states that 16 percent of employers 

reported that they had failed to train all of their relevant staff on 

their system. In addition, although E-Verify prohibits registered 

employers from using E-Verify for pre-employment screening of job 

applicants, this practice is common among employers. Almost onethird, 31 percent, reported using E-Verify to verify employment eligibility before the employee’s first day of paid work, including 

many who used pre-screening at the time of the employee’s application. 

Employers also reported significant difficulty meeting the requirement of verifying a new employee’s information within 3 days 

of the employee’s first day of work. According to Westat, GAO, and 

other outside experts, anyone who claims to be an employer can 

sign up to use E-Verify by signing an MOU with DHS and FSA, 

thereby obtaining the ability to access very private information. So 

we want to make sure that whatever we do as we move forward 

does keep secure the private information of our Americans. 

These are just some of the issues that have been raised. Before 

the Congress moves forward on an effort to expand this system, we 

want to consider the issues thoroughly so that they may be appropriately addressed. And I hope that this hearing will provide us 

with a thorough understanding of these issues and the opportunity 

to identify ways to address them successfully. 

I recognize our Ranking Member, Steve King, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

For the past decade, the Basic Pilot Program has given American 

employers a fast and easy method to ensure that their new employVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061008\42826.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
3 

ees are genuinely eligible to work in this country. Employers are 

signing up in droves, about 1,000 new employers per week, and 

that is also being inspired because some States have mandated 

that their home State employers use the Basic Pilot Program now 

referred to as E-Verify by DHS. 

Basic pilot allows employers to check the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers of new employees against Social Security Administration and DHS records in order to ensure 

that they match. This is what the American people want; 79 percent of Americans polled believe the Federal Government should 

require all employers to verify U.S. citizenship or lawful presence 

for each job applicant by a telephone or online check of a Federal 

database. 

The Basic Pilot Program reduces—and I am going to repeat 

that—the Basic Pilot Program reduces job discrimination. The 2007 

Westat report on the Internet-based Basic Pilot Program found 

that most users reported that the Web-based Basic Pilot Program 

made them neither more nor less willing to hire illegal immigrants—or hire immigrants, excuse me, legal workers. However, 

when change was reported, it was almost always in the direction 

of making employers more willing hire more immigrants. 

Now, the requirements of Basic Pilot Program do not always 

make sense for employers. For example, the way it prohibits employers from verifying individuals before they are offered a job; no 

employer wants to be forced to keep an illegal immigrant on the 

payroll for perhaps weeks while they go through secondary 

verification, and that is a burden. Employers should be able to 

check all job candidates before they are hired as long as they do 

so in a nondiscriminatory manner. Employers should also be able 

to verify their existing employees that they are work-authorized, 

not just for new hires. Not only will this give employers peace of 

mind, it will ensure that we don’t simply allow all 7 million employed illegal immigrants to keep their current job. 

This being said, USCIS does need to ensure that all employers 

who use the Basic Pilot Program adhere to the Memorandum of 

Understanding that they signed. USCIS is on the right track in 

beefing up its monitoring and compliance programs to better detect 

and deter potential misuse and abuse of the program by employers. 

The accuracy of the Basic Pilot Program is remarkable. The 2007 

Westat report revealed that just about 99 and a half percent—actually, it was 99.4 percent—of all work-authorized employees are immediately verified. Immediately verified. 

And the Basic Pilot Program is going to get even better. The system now automatically checks naturalization records before issuing 

a citizenship status mismatch. In addition, naturalized citizens 

who receive a mismatch are now able to contact DHS by phone to 

address the discrepancy. So it is getting better. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is also dealing with 

the potential for identity theft in different ways. First, it has added 

a photo-screening capability. This allows employers to compare the 

photos of employment-authorized documents and permanent resident cards, and those that are presented by employees through the 

employers, and compare those pictures against the images stored 

in the USCIS databases. DHS’s long-term goal is to allow employVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061008\42826.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
4 

ers to verify the photo on all identity documents that employees 

present. 

Second, in the future, the Basic Pilot Program will provide information on the suspicious multiple use of Social Security numbers 

in the context of Basic Pilot Program to ICE for investigation. 

Basic Pilot has proven its worth. It deserves to be made permanent, and employers deserve the right to be able to check the work 

eligibility of their entire workforces, not just new hires. I will shortly introduce legislation called the New IDEA Act. In fact, it is a refreshing of a bill that I introduced in the 109th Congress. That bill 

eliminates the deductibility of wages and benefits paid to illegals. 

It gives the employer safe harbor if he uses Basic Pilot/E-Verify, 

and it also extends Mr. Calvert’s legislation and makes it permanent and allows employers to verify current employees as well as 

job applicants. 

I want to thank Mr. Calvert for introducing this legislation and 

having the vision more than 10 years ago to get us to this point 

where we are today. And I would ask this point, how do you perfect 

a system? We have a system that is almost perfect now. By a 

standard of measure, 1 out of 200 legitimate job applicants is rejected by the system, and generally that is because they have failed 

to register a name change. That is not a Government problem, except that Government needs to cooperate and facilitate the correction of that. And I think soon we will see it will be 1 out of 400. 

And maybe we will hear that testimony today. 

So how do you correct a system? You use it. And the comment 

about access to very private information, I am signed up on Basic 

Pilot. I have used it in my office, and I don’t have access to any 

private information except job applicant information. So perhaps 

we will get that issue illuminated a little bit as that hearing goes 

on. 

And then with regard to only 1 percent of employers use it and 

only 2 million hits a year compared to 63 million, we can grow this 

system to address this. We know how to do that, and it is—the answer is to use it. 

So, with that, I thank the witnesses for being here today. And, 

Madam Chairman, I look forward to their testimony, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand that the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee would like to make a opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair, I would. 

In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly 

employ illegal immigrants. Congress also required employers to 

check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. Unfortunately, the easy availability of counterfeit documents soon made a mockery of this process. Employers who didn’t 

want to hire illegal immigrants had no choice but to accept documents they knew were likely to be false. 

Congress took action in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The act created the Basic Pilot 

Program. For the last decade, this program has provided American 

employers who want to do the right thing with an effective tool to 

ensure that they are hiring a legal workforce. It ensures that new 

5 

employees are not providing their employers with fake Social Security numbers. 

As the Basic Pilot Program has grown more popular, over 69,000 

employers Nationwide now participate, it has been the subject of 

some very unfair criticism, and I want to set the record straight. 

Participating employers are very happy with the Basic Pilot Program. Last year, an outside evaluation found that, ‘‘most employers 

found the Web Basic Pilot to be an effective and reliable tool for 

employment verification, and 96 percent did not believe that it 

overburdened their staffs.’’ 

The accuracy of the databases that lie at the heart of the Basic 

Pilot Program has been unfairly maligned. However, the facts 

about these databases could not be better. Last year’s outside evaluation found that in less than 1 percent, actually only 0.6 percent 

of cases, do employees who are briefly determined to be work-authorized receive a tentative nonconfirmation and undergo further 

review. This means, as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 

mentioned a while ago, that persons eligible to work receive immediate confirmation 99.4 percent of the time. For the native born, 

99.9 percent receive immediate confirmation. And for employees 

born outside the United States, it is 97 percent receive immediate 

confirmation. 

A common misperception is that secondary verification means 

error by a Federal agency. This is simply not the case. Secondary 

verification most often means that an illegal immigrant has been 

caught providing bogus information or that an employee has failed 

to update their records with the Social Security Administration. 

This fact is seldom acknowledged. 

Even when persons eligible to work have to go through secondary 

verification, they are largely satisfied with the services providing 

by SSA. Of the employees who contacted local SSA offices as part 

of the verification process, 95 percent said their work authorization 

problem was resolved in a timely, courteous, and efficient manner. 

Finally, it has been specifically alleged that the Social Security 

Administration’s Inspector General has found the Agency’s database to be inaccurate. However, the Inspector General actually 

stated that, ‘‘we applaud the agency on the accuracy of the data we 

tested.’’ 

The Basic Pilot Program has worked well. In the vast majority 

of cases, employers find out immediately their new employees are 

work-authorized over 99 percent of the time, and legal workers receive instantaneous confirmation. We will hear testimony today 

from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that they are putting improvements into place that will make the Basic Pilot Program even more responsive. 

Finally, I want to applaud the Administration’s decision to require companies who contract with the Federal Government to use 

the Basic Pilot Program. This protects the American worker by ensuring that all Federal jobs, both direct and indirect, are reserved 

for legal workers. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Smith, thank you very much. 

I would now recognize the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

6 

Chairman CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, and 

Ranking Member Steve King. 

This is an important hearing on Electronic Employment 

Verification Systems, and we have a very distinguished panel. Representative Calvert started this, and then Representative Shuler 

wants to improve upon it. And now comes Representative Sam 

Johnson of Texas with his cohort, Representative Giffords, and 

they have got plan B. 

And so I want to commend the Chairwoman of the Committee 

and the Ranking Member for putting this kind of a hearing together today. It is very important. 

We are looking to sort out some of the facts and fictions about 

the way this program is operating and how we can improve the 

system. It sounds so simple, but there are 11 bills before this Committee already. They are basically plan A or plan B; but everyone’s 

interest I think is commendable, because what we are trying to do 

is see how we can improve the Electronic Employment Verification 

System. 

It starts out so simple, and solutions seem quite logical: How do 

we deal with illegal immigration? All new hires must be checked 

against Social Security and Homeland Security databases to see if 

they are legally entitled to work in the United States. What is the 

problem? Well, the problem is, how does the system really work? 

Essentially, we can become a super giant Government database 

on all Americans and require American workers to be registered 

and checked for hiring. True or false? Well, we will get the answers 

from you four this morning. 

It will impose a burden on small businesses, whether their workforce is 100 percent American or includes some immigrants. True 

or false? 

It will drive immigrant workers even further underground. True 

or false? 

It will cost $17 billion in lost tax revenue. True or false? 

It will constitute a significant step toward a national identification card. Boo. 

So, let’s get it on, Madam Chairman, and I thank you for this 

time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, and mindful of our 

busy schedules, the opening statements of all other Members, without objection, will be made part of the record. And we will now go 

to our first panel. 

All four of our colleagues sitting before us have been active and 

leaders in this issue. We appreciate their being here with us here 

today. 

I am going to first introduce Congressman Ken Calvert, who was 

elected in 1992 and represents California’s 44th Congressional District, which includes Riverside and Orange County. He is a former 

small businessman, and currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee. In 1996, he authored a bill that was included in 

the 1997 omnibus appropriation bill which created the Basic Pilot 

Program, which is now known as E-Verify. 

I think you were the first, Ken. 

7 

Next, we have Congressman Heath Shuler who represents North 

Carolina’s 11th District. Congressman Shuler received his B.A. 

From the University of Tennessee in 2001 and is a former professional athlete and business owner. He is married and has two children, Navy and Island, and he remains an active member in the 

Fellowship of Christian Athletes. 

We are also pleased to welcome Congressman Sam Johnson, who 

represents the people of Texas’s Third District. Mr. Johnson serves 

on the Committee of Ways and Means and is the Ranking Member 

on the Social Security Subcommittee. He returned home to Texas 

after serving in the U.S. Air Force for 29 years as a highly decorated fighter pilot. He flew combat missions in both the Korean 

and Vietnam wars, and was a prisoner of war in Hanoi for nearly 

7 years. After his distinguished military career, Congressman 

Johnson started a home-building business from scratch, and served 

in the Texas legislature. 

And, finally, I would like to introduce Congresswoman Giffords, 

who represents Arizona’s Eighth District, a diverse area that includes a 114-mile border with Mexico. She serves on the House 

Armed Services, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a thirdgeneration Arizonan, and the youngest woman ever elected to the 

Arizona State Senate. Congresswoman Giffords represented her 

hometown of Tucson in the Arizona legislature from 2000 to 2005. 

During her service in both the Arizona House and Senate, she 

worked on legislation to expand health care coverage for Arizona 

families, and to protect Arizona’s environment and open spaces. 

You are all welcome to submit your full statements for the 

record. You know that we ask that oral testimony consume about 

5 minutes. I know that Congressman Calvert has a competing obligation in the Transportation Committee, so we are going to ask 

Congressman Calvert to go first. And if you need to leave before 

we get to questions, we have all been there; we will understand. 

So let’s begin with you, Congressman Calvert. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member King, and Members of the Committee. Good 

morning. Thank you for inviting me here to testify today. 

Several years ago, I was happy to work with Chairwoman 

Lofgren to help improve our legal immigration system with a bill 

that allowed legal permanent resident applicants to name a new 

sponsor if their original sponsor died during the process of becoming a United States citizen, and I look forward to working with the 

Chairwoman on the two bills I have introduced regarding E-Verify. 

H.R. 19 would make the program mandatory. H.R. 5596 would 

provide a straightforward 10-year extension to the current program. 

When I first wrote the bill that created E-Verify, I intentionally 

created it on a limited basis for the very reasons we are here today: 

to ensure that it would not be abused or be a source of misinformation. It is vital that participating employers who volunteer to use 

8 

this program and the new employees who are hired are not 

disenfranchised. 

From its humble beginnings in just five States, E-Verify is now 

available Nationwide, with approximately 70,000 employers participating. A recent Westat report shows that 94.2 percent of all 

checks to the system are automatically verified as authorized to 

work. The remaining 5.8 percent are employees that receive an initial mismatch and need to take further action to prove that they 

are authorized to work in the United States. 

For many people, this means their Social Security records are in 

need of an update. Perhaps they have a new marital status or have 

become naturalized citizens. For 90 percent of those individual 

cases, the process takes less than 2 days of the 8 business days allowed to work out either DHS or SSA to correct that discrepancy. 

It is important to point out that if an individual’s personal information is out of date or incorrectly reported with SSA, this information must be rectified anyway to ensure that their Social Security credits are properly recorded. 

Just a few weeks ago, E-Verify introduced software changes that 

will automate the correction process which reduce the number of 

visits to the Social Security offices from five presently to two or 

three per thousand, a 50 percent improvement. 

Of the 5.8 percent of queries that do not receive instant 

verification, 0.55 percent resolve the mismatch, and the remaining 

5.3 percent walk away from the process entirely. Why do they walk 

away? Because E-Verify is denying jobs to people here illegally. 

I would also like to point out that the protection is already in 

place to specifically protect workers from employers abusing this 

system. First, employers must check all new employees. It is 

against the law to use it as a screening tool. When an employee 

is notified there is a mismatch, they are provided with instructions 

on how to correct the information. That instruction sheet also provides a toll free number to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Employment Practices. E-Verify also has launched 

an information campaign aimed at informing and promoting employees of their rights within the program. Participating employers 

must also post a notice visible to prospective employees of their 

rights and a phone number to the Special Counsel. 

E-Verify has also an Office of Compliance, and a monitoring 

branch has begun monitoring employer usage of the program. 

After a recent hearing held by the Subcommittee on Social Security, I met with the people who run E-Verify to ask them about 

some of the questions raised at the hearing about the program and 

problems employers in Arizona have encountered. 

E-Verify has never notified an incorrect final nonconfirmation. 

This is good news for the both the employers and employees who 

are in increasing numbers being required to use the program. The 

State of Arizona and Mississippi require all employers to use EVerify. And Friday, President Bush signed an executive order requiring all Federal contractors to use the program. 

E-Verify is not perfect. No system is. But it is a very good system 

that has safeguards to ensure that employers’ and employees’ 

rights are being protected in accordance with the law. 

9 

I thank you for inviting me here today, and I apologize that I 

must leave, as I mentioned to you, Madam Chairman, for the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I appreciate your 

time. And if anybody would like to have questions later on, I would 

be more than happy to attempt to answer them. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:] 

10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Calvert.eps
11 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman Calvert. 

And if we do have questions, we will forward to them in writing. 

We thank you very much. And good luck over in Transportation. 

Congressman Shuler, we would be pleased to hear from you now. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman Conyers, thank you for being here. 

Madam Chair, thank you for hosting this Committee. 

Ranking Member King, thank you for all your hard work on 

many legislations dealing with immigration. 

Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, last year I introduced H.R. 4088, the bipartisan SAVE Act, with 44 Democrats and 

46 Republicans. Today, 245 Members of Congress from 44 States 

have joined their constituents in calling for a debate and a vote on 

the SAVE Act. 

We are committed to stopping illegal immigration through improved border security, employment verification, and interior enforcement. We cannot continue to ignore our immigration crisis by 

passing it on to future Congresses and future Presidents. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimates that over 12 million people are currently here illegally, and as many as 6,000 illegal aliens are crossing the borders every day. The vast majority of 

these individuals come to our country in good faith, to find work 

and better their family’s life. 

The SAVE Act recognizes that America is a Nation of immigrants 

and a Nation of laws. Our country must have a welcome mat to 

those who are here legally. It must also consider the rules of entry, 

the cost of illegal immigrants placed on the local and State governments, and the effect of millions of unemployed Americans. 

While the SAVE Act has a strong emphasis on border security 

and interior enforcement, the real thrust of my legislation deals 

with employer verification. Dishonest employers who seek to exploit low-skilled immigrant labor and the Government’s inability to 

secure its borders are the major reasons for the rapid increase in 

our illegal population. In most cases, the job offered acts as a magnet, drawing people over 20-foot walls and through inhumane 

desert conditions to find work. 

Two decades ago, our Government tried to stop illegal hiring 

through the form I-9 for all new employees hired after 1986. While 

employment verification is current law, form I-9 compliance alone 

requires business owners to be document experts, as they determine that an ID is valid. This places serious liability on them if 

they make a mistake. To deal with these concerns, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. That is now known as EVerify. 

The SAVE Act would expand the pilot program nationwide over 

a 4-year period, affecting 40,000 larger businesses in the first year 

and slowly including smaller businesses in the final 3 years. EVerify is free, easy to use, and it allows participating employers to 

successfully match 93 percent of new hires to DHS and SSA databases in less than 5 seconds. 

12 

For every 1,000 workers running through the system, 942 workers are instantly verified by the system; 53 workers don’t bother to 

contest the mismatch, likely because they are here illegally; only 

5 workers successfully contested this mismatch. Therefore, EVerify’s error rate is less than one half of 1 percent. DHS is unaware of one case since 1996 where a U.S. Citizen was denied employment because of an error in the E-Verify system. 

According to the Department of Labor, there were 7.8 million 

new hires in the U.S. during the first 2 months of 2008. In that 

same period of time, over 1 million new hires were checked through 

E-Verify. On that basis, E-Verify is handling at least one in eight 

new hires already. Based on a recent load testing, the system has 

the capability of handling 240 million inquiries per year. That is 

four times the number of people in the U.S. who are usually hired 

in a given year. 

E-Verify outlines a fair and proper method of using the system 

in multiple languages to protect employees from discrimination of 

hiring practices. E-Verify gives employers the tools that they need 

to follow the Nation’s immigrationlaws and to avoid the penalties 

that result in hiring illegal aliens. 

Madam Chairman, I have the utmost confidence in this program, 

as does the Secretary of Homeland Security, who just yesterday 

stated that E-Verify should be used by all Government contractors 

based on the present executive order. The Secretary has also testified that E-Verify is ready for national rollout. And, additionally, 

the Democratic Governor of Arizona who recently signed E-Verify 

into law says her State has not experienced major problems with 

E-Verify. 

Every congressional staffer and employee of a Federal agency has 

passed through the E-Verify system over the past decade. E-Verify 

is required by law in various degrees in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, 

Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and my home 

State of North Carolina. 

Prior to each State making this effort, several interest groups 

warned of the impacts or disaster that E-Verify would have if it became law. Yet, the spokeswoman from the Arizona Chamber of 

Commerce, a group who opposed the E-Verify in its State legislation last year, said: Fewer problems have been reported than originally feared; companies have not left the State in reaction to EVerify; and employers have not reported major problems with the 

database. 

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak on EVerify and the SAVE Act today. It is a pleasure just to testify today 

with my friend Ken Calvert, Gabbie Giffords, and a true American 

hero, Sam Johnson. 

Mr. Calvert and I agree that mandatory employment verification 

is a solution to this problem. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have on the SAVE 

Act today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuler follows:] 

13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA


Shuler-1.eps
14 


Shuler-2.eps
15 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman Shuler. 

Now we will turn to Congressman Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SAM JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

I appreciate Chairman Lofgren and the Chairman, Mr. Conyers, 

and Ranking Member King, Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

You know, protecting the privacy of American citizens is vitally 

important to me and America. As the Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee, we’ve spent years studying that issue. 

There are certain guiding principles we must respect in order to 

craft a truly effective, secure, reliable, Electronic Employment 

Verification System. 

These are: one, prohibit unlawful employment; two, protect workers; three, partner with employers; four, reduce the risk of identity 

theft; and, finally, protect Social Security. 

I have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 5515, the New Employment 

Verification Act, or NEVA, with Congresswoman Giffords. First, 

NEVA prohibits unlawful employment by eliminating the paperbased and error-prone I-9 process. The employee’s name, Social Security number, and date of birth instantly would be checked 

against the Social Security database. 

Second, NEVA protects workers. In my bill, Social Security 

verifies American citizens, and DHS verifies legal immigrants. The 

Social Security Administration, not DHS, has the responsibility to 

track the earnings history of every worker to ensure they receive 

the correct amount of disability or retirement benefits. Americans 

trust the Social Security Administration, and they believe the agency does a good job. I do, too. 

An agency responsible for tracking terrorists and securing our 

border should not be keeping tabs on when and where Americans 

work. Yet, according to their own privacy documents from February 

2008, the Department of Homeland Security is building databases 

and maintaining data on the work history of American citizens and 

American employers. 

Over 2 weeks ago, Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Mike 

McNulty and I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking about privacy protections provided by Homeland Security in its E-Verify system. 

I ask that a copy of this be inserted in the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, it will be entered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

16 


G-1.eps
17 


G-2.eps
18 


G-3.eps
19 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

This letter resulted from an incident that occurred during a May 

Subcommittee hearing where the Customs and Immigration Service provided information to Representative Shuler, who then shared 

with each Member of our Subcommittee through our staff, a copy 

of employers in our congressional districts that are registered to 

participate in E-Verify. The questions we posed to Secretary 

Chertoff are important and must be answered before E-Verify is extended. We have got a privacy problem here, and we ought to do 

something about it, in my view. 

Third, NEVA makes employers part of the solution. The critical 

difference between E-Verify and NEVA is that employers would 

transmit their newly hired employee’s information through a system 90 percent of them already use to help States track down 

deadbeat dads. Only 1 percent of employers today use E-Verify. 

NEVA also provides liability protection to employers who unknowingly hire illegal workers through a subcontractor and provides an exemption for penalties for initial good-faith violation. 

Fourth, NEVA will reduce identity theft. As the highly publicized 

raids in the meat-packing industry have illustrated, we know a 

simple check of names, Social Security number, and date of birth 

will still be subject to document fraud and identity theft. To address this problem, NEVA allows employers to voluntarily take the 

additional step of using Government-certified private-sector experts 

to authenticate the identity of a new employee and harden the 

identity with a biometric. 

Finally, NEVA would protect Social Security by requiring the 

Congress to provide the Social Security Administration with advanced funding to get the job done. 

Social Security is integral to employment verification, and I will 

be working to ensure it is not relegated to the status of an afterthought. After years of inaction by the Congress, the American people are fed up with broken laws and broken promises, and I think 

it is time for a new direction. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAM JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

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

thank you for holding this hearing on the crucial employee verification component 

of the immigration reform debate. Protecting the privacy of American citizens is a 

great concern to me. 

Over the last several years, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Ways 

and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, on which I serve as Ranking Member, 

have held a number of hearings on employment verification and its impact on citizens and workers. After years of studying this issue, I believe there are certain 

guiding principles that we must respect in order to craft a truly effective, secure, 

reliable, electronic employment verification system. These are: 1) prohibit unlawful 

employment, 2) protect workers, 3) partner with employers, 4) reduce the risk of 

identity theft, and 5) protect Social Security. 

This past February I, along with several of my Republican Social Security Subcommittee colleagues, introduced H.R. 5515, the New Employee Verification Act, or 

NEVA which now has bipartisan support, including my distinguished colleague Congresswoman Giffords from Arizona. NEVA represents an innovative and comprehensive approach to worksite enforcement and I would like to take a few minutes to 

explain how NEVA represents those key principles. 

20 

1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ‘‘Privacy Impact Assessment for the Verification Information System Supporting Verification Programs.’’ February 22, 2008. Pages 2, 3. 

First, NEVA prohibits unlawful employment by eliminating the paper-based and 

error-prone I-9 process with an electronic verification system that builds upon the 

lessons learned from E-Verify. The employee’s name, Social Security number and 

date of birth would be instantaneously checked against the Social Security database 

in much the same way that E-Verify does currently. The critical difference is the 

entry of data using a platform already used by employers which I will discuss shortly. 

Second, NEVA protects workers by ensuring that no U.S. citizen seeks permission 

to work from a federal law enforcement agency. The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) has always had the responsibility to track the earnings history of every worker to ensure they receive the correct amount of disability or retirement benefits. 

Americans trust the Social Security Administration and they believe the agency 

does a good job—I do too. I believe that these earnings should be accurate and a 

mandatory electronic employee verification system would help increase accuracy 

sooner and maintain accuracy through workers’ lifetimes. 

An agency responsible for tracking terrorists and securing our borders should not 

be keeping tabs on when and where U.S. citizens work. Yet the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is building databases and maintaining data 1 on the work 

history of American citizens and American employers. 

Over two weeks ago, Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Mike McNulty and 

I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking about privacy protections provided by 

Homeland Security in its E-Verify system. I ask that a copy of that letter be inserted in the record. This letter resulted from an incident that occurred during a 

May Subcommittee hearing where the Customs and Immigration Service provided 

to Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC), who then shared with each member of our 

Subcommittee, the employers in our Congressional Districts that are registered to 

participate in E-Verify. The questions we posed to Secretary Chertoff are important 

and must be answered before this E-Verify program is extended when it expires in 

November. 

NEVA puts the Social Security Administration in charge of employee verification 

because it is their fundamental job to track earnings and because the vast majority 

of those who work in this country are American citizens who should not be tracked 

by DHS. Under NEVA, Social Security verifies U.S. citizens and the DHS verifies 

non-citizens. Also, DHS maintains its essential role in worksite enforcement, bolstered by increased penalties for those employers who do not comply. 

To further protect workers, NEVA also provides extensive administration and judicial reviews so workers can challenge any decision they believe is in error, creates 

penalties for unauthorized use of information, and establishes an advisory panel of 

public and private experts to ensure the highest degree of efficiency, accuracy, and 

privacy. 

Third, NEVA makes employers part of the solution. NEVA partners with employers and creates an easy-to-use system. Employers would transmit their newly hired 

employee’s information through a system 90 percent of employers already use to 

help states track down dead beat dads, each State’s new hire reporting system. The 

information would be routed to the SSA and would provide nearly instantaneous 

work authorization. NEVA also provides liability protection to employers who unknowingly hire illegal workers through a subcontractor and provides an exemption 

from penalties for an initial good faith violation. 

Fourth, NEVA will reduce identity theft. As the highly publicized raids in the 

meat packing industry have illustrated, we know that a simple check of name, number of date of birth would still be subject to document fraud and identity theft. 

NEVA allows employers to voluntarily take the additional step of using government certified private sector experts to authenticate the identity of the new employee and to then harden the identity to a biometric, such as a finger print. After 

the employer verifies that the same person who went through the screening is the 

same person who shows up to work, the employee may then ask that their personal 

information be erased. 

Finally, NEVA would protect Social Security by requiring that employers use the 

system for newly hired employees only. From what we know about the illegal immigrant population, where they work, and the annual rate of new hires in key industries, this will minimize the additional burden placed upon an already strained 

agency, while preventing unlawful employment. Also, NEVA would require the Congress to provide the SSA with the financial resources needed before the agency can 

perform employment verification. 

21 

Proponents of a mandatory E-Verify system rarely acknowledge the need to properly fund this expanded mission of the Social Security Administration. In fact, the 

DHS has not even paid the SSA for their cost of E-Verify for two recent years of 

their efforts for that pilot program. The SSA is integral to employment verification 

and I will be working to ensure that it is not relegated to the status of an afterthought. 

Today, thousands of immigrants enter the country seeking the life a job in the 

country has to offer, but too many do so by breaking the law. And we cannot enforce 

the law with the broken enforcement system we currently have. After years of inaction by the Congress, the American people are fed up with broken laws and broken 

promises. It is time for a new direction. 

I am confident, after looking at this issue a great deal during my time in Congress, I and my bipartisan cosponsors, have created a workable solution to a critical 

component of immigration reform. The large and diverse group of employers who 

agree with us include: the National Association of Manufacturers; the Society for 

Human Resource Management; the National Association of Home Builders; and the 

National Federation of Independent Business. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman Johnson, for 

your testimony and your leadership. 

Now we will turn to our final panelist, Congresswoman Giffords. 

It is a pleasure to have you here. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Good morning, Chairwoman Lofgren. 

Good morning, Ranking Member King, and Chairman Conyers. It 

is an honor to be here testifying before your Committee today. 

I believe the reason why I was selected is that I come from Tucson, Arizona, the Eighth Congressional District, where we have 

about a 114-mile part of the 2,000 U.S.-Mexico border. 

To give you some context about how difficult illegal immigration 

is in my district, last year, the Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol 

apprehended 387,000 illegal immigrants in just 1 year. So, clearly, 

when you look at approximately 1,000 immigrants a day, we are 

shouldering the burden of this illegal immigration crisis. 

And in addition to knowing a lot about border security, my constituents have a broad understanding of the immigration crisis as 

a whole. They know, and I agree, that an enforcement-only approach to immigration will not fix our problem. This Congress has 

to improve our visa programs; upgrade and expand the Federal 

Government’s capacity to verify documents; give employers the 

tools they need to check the citizenship of employees; and take a 

thoughtful look at our economy and the real workforce need that 

our businesses have. 

As you know, the Arizona legislature in January chose to take 

action in response to the Federal Government’s inaction to fix our 

system, and we became the first State to mandate that all Arizonans use the E-Verify system. 

As the first State, I believe that the Arizona experience is of 

great interest here in Washington. I believe that the Arizona experience should inform the ongoing debate about employment 

verification and whether the current E-Verify program administered through DHS should be extended and/or mandated Nationwide. 

22 

Some of the businesses that have signed up have reported a variety of challenges and problems using E-Verify. They are finding it 

complicated, unreliable, and burdensome. They are having great 

difficulty getting answers from DHS to their problems about the 

system. 

I have heard from employers, employees, and privacy rights advocates who are very vocal that nationally mandating E-Verify as 

it is would be potentially disastrous for our Nation. They are all 

experiencing the downfalls of using an inaccurate database with inadequate privacy protections. 

Between October of 2006 and March 2007, roughly 3,000 foreignborn U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not work-authorized. 

These errors have specifically impacted Arizona workers who have 

their ability to work wrongfully impacted. The experience of Arizona employers and employees makes it clear that we can do better 

and that action is needed. 

And Madam Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 

document of the Immigration Policy Center about E-Verify for Arizona, because I think it would be important for Members to look 

at. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

23 


H-1.eps
24 


H-2.eps
25 


H-3.eps
26 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Having reflected on what is happening in my State of Arizona 

and the challenges that we have seen, I think that we need a system that incorporates three primary elements: one, explicit preemption of State laws such as the one in Arizona so that the business community has an even playing field across the country; two, 

real privacy protections for U.S. citizens and for legal workers; and, 

three, liability protections for employers who play by the rules. 

That is the reason why I have joined with Ranking Member 

Johnson with H.R. 5515, the New Employee Verification Act, or 

NEVA, because it provides a simplified, effective, and balanced alternative to the E-Verify system. NEVA is carefully crafted to ensure a legal workforce, safeguard workers’ identities, and protect 

Social Security. 

It is also realistic, Madam Chair. 

Under NEVA, U.S. Citizens would be verified through the Social 

Security database and not funneled through DHS, as currently occurs under E-Verify. Only noncitizens would be verified through 

DHS. 

This bill protects the Social Security Administration’s privacy 

mission and trust funds by authorizing employment verification 

only through funds appropriated in advance. And as we testified 

before in the Social Security Subcommittee, that is critical. By 

making Social Security the agency with primary responsibility, it 

acknowledges that the Social Security database is crucial to a functioning system. We do not take the risk that funds intended for Social Security get bottlenecked in another agency. 

NEVA fights identity theft by allowing the use of private-sector 

contractors certified by the Federal Government to authenticate 

the identity of employees. And this is a defining characteristic of 

the legislation that makes it functional and unique when compared 

to other employment verification legislation. 

NEVA has been widely well received in Arizona. The Chamber 

and CEO/president of the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber, the Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce, the Marana Chamber of 

Commerce, all the business chambers that actually have to deal 

currently with the E-verify system are turning to NEVA as a very 

good alternative. 

As this Subcommittee considers the current employee verification 

proposals, please take the Arizona experience to heart. Southern 

Arizonans, just like all Americans, expect their elected officials to 

find solid sensible solutions to the greatest challenges of our day, 

and we know that is our broken immigration system. The fact that 

this system has become polarized, radioactive, divisive, and ugly is 

evidence that our Congress has to act responsibility. 

Only by developing a realistic long-term solution for undocumented populations living in our United States with a targeted, effective enforcement of the realistic laws will we restore legality and 

legitimacy to our immigration system. 

Madam Chair, just in closing, if Congress does nothing or simply 

extends the E-Verify system without much needed reform, such as 

State preemption or employee protections, we will have failed. 

Thank you for this opportunity, allowing me to testify before all 

of you today. 

27 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and members of this Subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing me to testify today. It is an honor to be given this opportunity to talk an issue of deep concern to Southern Arizona—employee verification. 

I am from Tucson, a community that is directly impacted by the effects of illegal 

immigration. My district includes about a 114 mile section of the 2,000 mile U.S.- 

Mexico border. It includes the ‘‘Tucson Sector,’’ which is the most heavily trafficked 

sector of the border in the country. To give you some context, last year, 387 thousand illegal immigrants were apprehended in Arizona. That’s approximately 1,000 

illegal immigrants every single day. 

In addition to knowing a lot about border security, my constituents have a broad 

understanding of the immigration crisis as a whole. They know, and I agree, that 

an enforcement-only approach will not fix the problem. We must improve our visa 

programs, upgrade and expand the federal government’s capacity to verify documents, give employers the tools they need to check the citizenship of employees, and 

take a thoughtful look at our economy and workforce needs. 

As you know, the Arizona legislature has chosen to take action in response to the 

federal government’s failure to fix the system. As the members of this Committee 

know, Arizona was the first state to mandate that all Arizonan employers use of 

E-Verify. 

As the first state, our experience in Arizona is of great interest here in Washington, D.C. I believe the Arizona experience should inform the on-going debate 

about employment verification and whether the current E-Verify program administered through the Department of Homeland Security should be extended and/or 

mandated nationwide. 

Some of the businesses that have signed up have reported a variety of challenges 

with using E-Verify. They are finding it complicated, unreliable, and burdensome. 

They are also having difficulty getting answers from DHS to their questions about 

the system. 

I have heard from employers, employees and civil rights advocates who are very 

vocal that nationally mandating E-Verify AS-IS for ALL employees would be disastrous. 

They are all experiencing the downfalls of using an inaccurate database with inadequate privacy protections. Between October 2006 and March 2007, roughly 3,000 

foreign-born U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not-work-authorized. These errors 

have specifically impacted Arizona workers who have had their ability to work 

wrongly impacted. 

The experience of Arizona employers and employees makes it clear that we can 

do better and that action is needed. 

Having reflected on what is happening in Arizona and the challenges we have 

seen, I think we need a system that includes these three key elements: 

1. Explicitly pre-emption of state laws such as the one in Arizona; 

2. Privacy protections for U.S. citizens and legal workers; 

3. Liability protections for employers who play by the rules; and 

That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Ranking Member Sam 

Johnson. H.R. 5515, the New Employee Verification Act, or NEVA provides a simplified, effective and balanced alternative to E-Verify. 

NEVA is carefully crafted to ensure a legal workforce, safeguard workers’ identities, and protect social security. It is also realistic. 

Under NEVA, U.S. citizens would be verified through the Social Security database 

and not funneled through DHS as currently occurs under E-Verify. Only non-citizens would be verified through DHS. 

This bill protects the Social Security Administration’s primary mission and trust 

funds by authorizing employment verification only through funds appropriated in 

advance. By making SSA the agency with primary responsibility, it acknowledges 

that the social security database is crucial to a functioning system. We do not take 

the risk that funds intended for SSA get bottle-necked in another agency. 

NEVA also fights identity theft by allowing the use of private sector contractors, 

certified by the federal government, to authenticate the identity of employees. This 

is a defining characteristic of this legislation that makes it functional and unique 

compared to other employment verification legislation. 

NEVA has been received well-received in Arizona, largely because it takes a responsible approach. For example, the following local business organizations and 

28 

CEO’s have endorsed NEVA: the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the 

Greater Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce, the Marana Chamber of Commerce, Stanley P. Abrams, President of The Stanley Group, Mark Clark, President 

& CEO of CODAC Behavioral Health Services, Inc., and Dr. Peter Likins, Chair of 

the Southern Arizona Town Hall, and Retired President of the University of Arizona. 

As this Subcommittee considers the current employee verification proposals, 

please take the Arizona experience and lessons to heart. 

Southern Arizonans, like most Americans, expect their elected officials to tackle 

not just the easy issues—but the tough ones. The fact that immigration has become 

polarized, radioactive, divisive, and ugly is evidence, in fact, that Congress must responsibly confront it. 

Our broken immigration system is simply not an insurmountable problem. However, if Congress does nothing or simply extends E-Verify without much-needed reform, we will have failed. 

Only through a realistic, long-term solution for the undocumented population living in the U.S., and targeted, effective enforcement of realistic laws will we restore 

legality and legitimacy to our immigration system. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for considering NEVA as an 

important alternative to the current and burdensome employee verification system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Giffords. 

And thanks to all of you for your testimony. 

At this time, we will move to questions, if there are any, for the 

Members. 

I would turn first to Chairman Conyers for his questions. 

Chairman CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Well, Mr. Shuler, when the gentle lady takes a shot at your bill, 

I ought to let you say something in your own defense before the 

firing squad opens up on you. What would your last words be? 

We’ll remember them in your memoriam. 

Mr. SHULER. Absolutely. 

It is a proven system that has been in place for quite some time. 

And to put a new system into place that hasn’t been vetted and 

gone through the process—and as we have all stated, over the last 

14, 16 years, the system has continued to upgrade its system. And 

saying that, why recreate, why spend millions and millions of dollars to create something that is already working effectively? And if 

you look at some of the people who have problems with it, it’s the 

people who have been exploiting illegal immigrants for quite some 

time. 

Chairman CONYERS. And we are not going to let him get away 

with the notion that they have got an effective Social Security system. They have got a 4 percent error rate that translates into 17 

million errors. What about that? 

Mr. SHULER. Every week in my office I have people who become 

eligible for Social Security, and we have the problems. And so fixing it earlier in life is the solution. And we have to make sure that 

we do have the funding in Social Security in order to fix some of 

those problems. And using E-Verify will help fix some of those 

problems before they come of age for Social Security. 

Chairman CONYERS. Have you ever tried to call a Social Security 

office in your life? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, we have a back line now that we can actually 

get through that is working pretty well. 

Chairman CONYERS. You do? 

Mr. SHULER. I’ll let you know what that is, yeah. 

29 

Chairman CONYERS. Please. I will see you immediately after the 

hearing. Lawyers can’t even get through, much less poor citizen 

constituents. 

Mr. SHULER. The error rate on E-Verify is actually 0.5 percent. 

Chairman CONYERS. Well, Sam Johnson, we’ve been waiting to 

get you before this Committee for many years. What do you have 

to say? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think the error rate is misstated. 

But you know, the thing is, Social Security errors are caused by, 

in most cases, ladies getting married and forgetting to change their 

names. And, really, it is important that they fix that in the Social 

Security system for retirement purposes, and notwithstanding immigration. But I think that can happen regardless of what kind of 

system you have in place as soon as the people become aware of 

it. 

Addressing the Social Security office problem, you know, the 

problem exists in a lot of veins, not just immigration. We are working that problem and trying to get more law judges in place so we 

can address that part of the problem, and it seems to be working. 

And you know, I spoke with you earlier about a hearing on those 

administrative law judges so we could get to the bottom of it maybe 

a little quicker. It is a real problem, and that is stuffing up the Social Security offices. 

I’ll bet we could get you a private number, too. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think all Members want one. 

Chairman CONYERS. How can we protect Americans from—what 

happens when there is a wrongful denial of work authorization? 

You know, it averages out to 24,000 workers in my, in every district being denied because of false negatives. 

And then we come to our friendly Department of Justice, the 

Civil Rights Division. They have got maybe 24 lawyers trying to 

check a workforce of 163 million people. Why doesn’t your Judiciary 

Committee get on the ball and get a lot more lawyers here to handle this? They can’t police that kind of discrimination. 

And, finally, this is it for me. What about those exploitative employers that are going to misuse this system, submitting the names 

of union organizers, for example, or people who look foreign, whatever that might mean, which would be a tempting way to mess up 

what would otherwise be a good system? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, there is an appeals process in Social Security 

that works far better than the one that you are talking about in 

Justice. And I feel like that we need to address the Social Security 

part of the equation so that it is safe and secure for eternity. 

You know, we do have a problem with that fund. And, right now, 

the agreement with Homeland Security was to pay Social Security 

for the first 2 years, and they haven’t yet done that. I think funding is terribly important, and it needs to be focused on getting Social Security funds so they can make it work right. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, the database issues have the 

greatest problem with naturalized U.S. citizens, and there is a 

problem of about 10 percent that is being reported; people that are 

being told that they are not authorized to work, but they are legally authorized to work. According to the Census Bureau, in Arizona, there is about 274,000 naturalized citizens in my State, 

30 

which of course means that’s about 27,000 U.S. citizens that are 

initially flagged just, again, in the home State of Arizona that are 

not allowed to work. 

What we are seeing in Arizona is that this law, although it is 

framed as a purely employment-driven verification system, is now 

carrying into all virtually other aspects of life. Our media outlets 

are reporting increased racial profiling, discrimination against lawfully present immigrants. So this E-Verify system has taken on a 

life of its own, and that is why I have joined with Congressman 

Johnson for an alternative that goes with a database that we currently have that currently works, that would not subject U.S. citizens to the Department of Homeland Security. It would be faster. 

It would be more reliable, and it would be financially accountable 

as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And the I-9 system which we now use would be 

junked. And you know, people forget to check boxes, so they are 

stalled out at the start. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. And one other thing, too, Mr. Chairman. 

The E-Verify system requires everyone apply through the Internet. Well, in my district, rural Arizona, there are a lot of people 

that don’t have Internet access, that don’t have the ability to do 

that, so I really believe—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. We hope to change that. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes, and we are getting there. But currently, I 

mean, this is the reality of the employment climate in our State. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Conyers’ time has expired, but I see Mr. 

Shuler wants to add something, and then we’ll turn to the Ranking 

Member. 

Mr. SHULER. I just want to add that the error rate in the database is much different than the error rate on E-Verify. It is 0.5 percent on E-Verify, not 5 percent or 4 percent or some other number. 

It is 0.5 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. King, 

for his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I do want to thank the witnesses here. 

First, I would just go down through a list of things that came 

across my mind. The question of new hires versus current employees, and I do believe that it is inappropriate to ask an employer 

to comply with a law and discourage the hiring of illegals if you 

don’t allow them to use E-Verify on current employees. 

The only question back then was, did we have the ability with 

the database to process that many job applicants or that many 

workers? I think today it is clear that database will handle, as the 

testimony from Mr. Shuler said, 240,000 within that period of time, 

multiple times our workforce. So that I think is answered here 

today in the testimony, and I want to point that out. 

The second thing, the question the Chairman of the full Com- mittee asked at the beginning, would it cost $17 billion in lost tax 

revenue? I would submit that there are $60 billion in wages that 

are transferred into places outside the United States from workers 

in the United States, and that $60 billion that goes out of the country, a significant portion of it and no one really knows how much, 

is wages from illegal workers. So if it is only half, then we’ve got 

31 

$30 billion to work with there. If they are right on the $17 billion, 

we are going to have a net savings regardless that will hold this 

money in the United States, and it will go to legal workers. So I 

want to make that point. 

Another point is that we have seem to have two choices here. 

One of them is to use E-Verify to verify new hires; and the other 

one is to make it mandatory under Mr. Johnson’s bill to use new 

hires. I’d submit we ought to let it be voluntary, and then let the 

IRS decide whether you get to deduct your wages and benefits or 

not if you are hiring illegals and give a safe harbor for the utilization of E-Verify. That is other the alternative. Let it be voluntary, 

and then let the incentive be in place when the IRS steps in. 

That’s a number of things that come across my mind, but it 

seems to me, as I listen to this testimony, that a lot of us are talking about the same thing. And I am looking at a pie chart here that 

shows 84 percent of E-Verify goes off to the Social Security database and another 9 percent goes to USCIS’s database and DHS 

within that. 

I would just ask the question of Representative Giffords, what is 

the distinction between an E-Verify query of Social Security Administration and, under the NEVA bill, a query that would go to 

the same database? Why do we care? If we are cleaning up the Social Security database by using E-Verify, as Mr. Shuler testified, 

why wouldn’t that be a good way to get that done early? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Ranking Member King, we have the bill’s sponsor 

here to answer any more detailed questions. But, there is a fundamental difference for U.S. citizens being driven through a securitytype database, Department of Homeland Security. 

Our system, the new Employee Verification Act, would require 

U.S. citizens to go through the current existing database that 95 

percent of all employers use, which are the States’ deadbeat dad 

database. The system is already in effect. It works. I think it is 

preferable to use that database for U.S. citizens rather than requiring all U.S. Citizens to go through the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Mr. KING. Yeah, but I understand we are going through the Social Security database regardless of whether it is E-Verify or 

whether it is under NEVA. 

Is that correct, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you for that. 

And I will make another quick point. And that is that, Social Security, I have had some frustration with them. There is no match. 

Letters don’t seem to come for people who are sending off, hiring 

people that have Social Security numbers that aren’t valid. When 

they do, they seem to be in the most egregious cases. We have at 

least 11,000 people in America that are working for Government 

using no-match Social Security numbers. 

I want to get the Department of Homeland Security working together with the IRS, working together with the Social Security Administration. Can we get our agencies to work together, to team up 

like a company would instead of the right hand doesn’t know what 

the left hand is doing, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would hope so, yes. 

32 

Could I ask to be excused for another meeting that I really—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. KING. It might just be the note that my time has expired, 

Madam Chairman. 

And I especially thank all the witnesses here today, and my good 

friends on the panel—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have an able representative right here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We understand, and we appreciate the time you 

were able to spend with us this morning. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will turn now to—— 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Chair, can I clarify something for the 

record? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The NEVA legislation would have U.S. Citizens 

go through the Social Security database first. Now, if they are 

flagged, at that point, they would kick to DHS. It wouldn’t be that 

everyone would start with the DHS database. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for that clarification. 

We will turn now to our colleague Luis Gutierrez for his questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

Well, let me say, so we are going to use the Social Security database. And the Social Security database, as referenced by Chairman 

Conyers, has a 4.1 percent error rate. Now, DHS—and only DHS 

says this about themselves, that they have virtually none. 

So if I understand this right—and since our bill is very similar, 

the STRIVE Act is very similar, in that we want verify people 

through Social Security, one says they don’t have any error rate. 

I don’t know of a governmental institution that doesn’t have an 

error rate. But we are soon to hear from Homeland Security that 

they virtually have no error rate in all of their files. 

Now, it takes them forever to verify a name to help someone become a permanent resident or citizen, including years to verify a 

simple name check with the FBI, but they have no error rate, and 

they can quickly tell us who all these employees are. 

I am just amazed to hear somebody that we know who is lawfully 

in the United States, paying and petitioning the Government, cannot get their name checked for years, and yet they can get an employment check as quickly as 5 seconds. I just find that a little incongruent, one thing with the other. 

But having said that, let’s just suppose it’s a 1 percent error 

rate—and a 4 percent. I just did some numbers here. I didn’t have 

a calculator, so I could be a little wrong. If there are 63 million 

queries a year, and 4 percent of that, right—and currently we have 

66,000 under the E-Verify. That is how many employers. And we 

are going to go to 7 million employers. So we are going to jump 

from one thing to the other in 4 years. Then they want us to look 

at this and to say that each of us, if I did this right—I missed a 

piece of paper here—so 4 million, 2.8, so that is 6.8 million people. 

If you took the total number, there are about 165 million employees in the United States, and at 4 percent, 4.1—and I am adding 

another percent for the people who don’t make mistakes, only going 

33 

to give them a 1 percent error rate—that means, as we go through 

the next 4 years, nearly 7 million people will have to visit, call, 

visit their Congressman to fix the 4 percent error rate, which Social Security—we asked Social Security, what is your error rate? 

They said 4.1. 

I mean, think about that one moment. Wouldn’t it be wiser to 

phase this in and take infrastructure 1 year and then verify it, 

come back, meet with Chairwoman Lofgren, and come back and 

have the Chairwoman have the information. Don’t you think it 

would be better to phase it in? 

Mr. SHULER. And the SAVE Act actually does that. And let me 

repeat my opening statement. In the first 2 months of this year, 

7.8 million people were newly hired at a new location, new job. One 

million of those went through E-Verify. And they went through a 

testing overload, and they were able to handle 240 million queries 

per year. 

So it is a phased-in program over 4 years, the first year being 

Government employees, which all of our staffers, all of us on the 

Hill, all of our Government employees—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand that. But just so that we understand, I know you do it in 4 years, but shouldn’t we have accuracy? 

Shouldn’t we come back and make sure that—I am just trying to 

share with you. Couldn’t we have accuracy? 

And that is, we roll it out to certain industries. We all know we 

are going to get to everybody, so we take on new hires, we bring 

them into the system. We come back and we verify that these industries and these employers have an accuracy level of—and then 

we roll it out to another piece of industry. 

I am with you, Shuler, on much of this. It is just that if you roll 

it out and you jam it, there is going to be a lot of people. It is now, 

in my office alone, after immigration, you know what we have got? 

Social Security. People are waiting years, American citizens are 

waiting years, for when they apply for Social Security benefits and 

disability benefits, for someone to make the adjustment, years. And 

now we are going to throw on the Social Security system 165 million people who are going to be queried over the next 4 years. That 

is a mammoth undertaking. 

And, secondly, let me just share, because we can work—if you 

look at the STRIVE Act, we talk about a biometric, readable Social 

Security card that is tamper-proof. So we are into making sure that 

our system is safe. It is just how we do it and how we roll it out 

and whether or not we shouldn’t do it a la Sensenbrenner, which 

you do, which is enforcement only, or do we do it in a comprehensive manner. That is really the debate we are going to have. 

And I look forward to working with my friend, Mr. Shuler, and 

my good friend, Congresswoman Giffords. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I think Representative Giffords wants to say just a quick thing before we go 

to Mr. Gallegly. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just wanted to let you know that our legislation, the NEVA bill, 

requires that Social Security and DHS certifies the accuracy of the 

system in advance of the full implementation. It also requires that 

34 

the GAO evaluate the accuracy, the efficiency, and the impact of 

electronic verification before it is rolled out. 

So that is incorporated into our bill, because we are concerned 

as well. I mean, we don’t talk a lot about it, but in Arizona we 

don’t have even the fuller number of employers that are on the system yet. So rolling this out on a large scale could be devastating 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

We turn now to Mr. Gallegly for his questions. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to take a step back just for a second, if we can. I 

know we are here on E-Verify, but I think we need to take a step 

back and really look at the magnitude of what the problem really 

is. 

Currently, we have all been reading the statistics in the last few 

days about what the unemployment rate is in the United States. 

We are really concerned. It is up to 5.5 percent. That translates, 

according to my math, somewhere around plus or minus 8 million 

people that are unemployed in the United States. Are we pretty 

much in agreement on that? 

Ms. Giffords, are you aware of how many people are working in 

the United States today with an invalid Social Security number? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Gallegly, I am not. I am not sure, no. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, I am not either, but I know that 3 years 

ago it probably wasn’t as bad then as it is today. That is a pretty 

safe guess, I think. Three years ago, it was 10.5 million people. 

Now, if we figure, from a simple math situation, if there is a 5 

percent error in the way Social Security deals with their numbers, 

if you take 5 percent off of the 10.5 million, we could say probably 

safely that there are 10 million people working in this country with 

an invalid Social Security number. 

And that is what we are dealing with here, is people—the purpose of E-Verify or your program is to see that the people that are 

working in this country have a legal right to be working in this 

country. 

So, I mean, with simple math, I would say with the people that 

are illegally working in this country, we have 2 million people 

working in this country above what it would take to wipe out all 

of the unemployment. Maybe that is not a perfect analogy, but it 

is a very serious issue when you have over 10 million people working in a country that have no right to work here. 

I would like to hear your response to that. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Gallegly, you weren’t here for my opening 

comments—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I apologize for that. 

Ms. GIFFORDS [continuing]. When I talked about southern Arizona being the most heavily impacted district. The Board Patrol 

Tucson sector apprehended 388,000 people last year. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Wasn’t enough. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. My district is the most heavily trafficked area 

along the 2,000 miles. So we understand that in southern Arizona. 

We deal directly with the impacts, through crime, through violence, 

through homicides. We are the most heavily trafficked corridor in 

terms of marijuana. So we understand it in southern Arizona. 

35 

But southern Arizona is also a microcosm for the country in 

terms our economy. My district has a very heavy agricultural component, over 9,000 square miles. Willcox, Benson, parts of that 

State have a real demand when it comes to finding people that are 

willing to go and work in the fields and pull in crops. Then we have 

a construction industry that is a little depressed right now, but Arizona is the second fastest growing in the State—booming construction industry. I used to run my family’s tire and automotive company. I know how difficult it is to find a tire tech that wants to 

work for $7 or $8 in 115-degree heat. 

So we have some real employment challenges of getting our folks 

to want to work. Kids these days don’t have that desire to get out 

there, like we used to do, frankly. 

We have a microcosm of a lot of things going on—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, I really respect and appreciate what the gentlelady is saying, but I might remind her that 

I have one of the largest agricultural districts in the United States. 

I have probably, on a dollar basis, certainly in the top four or five 

in the United States, as far as dollar volume. We rotate three crops 

a year in California, row crops. Strawberry capital of the world— 

Calavo, Sunkist. I can go on and on. So I am pretty familiar with 

how the agricultural business works. 

But I am also very familiar with how the rule of law should 

work, and that is what we are dealing with here. If we are going 

to talk about needs, unmet domestic needs for labor, that is a separate issue, and that should be addressed accordingly. If we have an 

unmet domestic need, that is what our immigration policies have 

been about since the beginning of time, certainly since the turn of 

the previous century. So let’s not mix apples and oranges. 

Mr. Shuler, I appreciate all the hard work that you have put into 

this issue. It is my understanding that we have currently over 

64,000 employers participating in E-Verify. Do you believe the system can handle the additional capacity now, the way we are set 

up? 

Mr. SHULER. Well, the Secretary obviously has come out to say 

that the system is prepared for a national rollout. We are seeing 

that from several States, Arizona being one, Mississippi actually 

implementing that. Legislation that just went into the State of 

North Carolina was just dropped. I think we are going to continue 

to see more and more States taking a front-line approach, and we 

have to make sure that the system is prepared. 

We are seeing that it is prepared, and we will hear testimony 

later in this hearing that talks about how prepared that they are. 

This has been a system that has been vetted well over a decade. 

And the error rate has certainly decreased. Being able to query the 

data quicker is obviously being invented. And the number of visits 

that will have to go to the Social Security Administration because 

of other databases that they are actually going to be pulling the information from is going to be less. 

So I feel very strong about it. I have spent a lot of time, as you 

and others have, of looking at how E-Verify has really, from its 

conception to now, how strong and accurate the system really is. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you for your leadership. 

I yield back. 

36 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

I recognize now the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me say to the witnesses, first, I appreciate your presence 

here today. And knowing the mindset of at least the two remaining 

Members on the panel, I agree that we have to do something as 

it relates to immigration reform, and I know that enforcement is 

very important. 

I have spoken to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. He knows of my interest in ensuring that those who are here 

undocumented have the ability, who are now working, paying 

taxes, to pay more money, either by way of fines, to legalize their 

status or to access legalization—that is a better terminology—but 

also to pay for benefits, whether it the utilization of the public hospital system, the utilization of an education system, the utilization 

of the highways and byways that we use. 

And I can assure you my constituents in Texas want to do that. 

They want to be in a system of legalization that allows them to become additionally contributing members of this society. 

So they always say, expose your cards. And my cards are that 

I believe in the comprehensive approach—albeit I would like to call 

upon another name, maybe the ‘‘Americanization’’ approach—for 

people who are here, who want to be part. 

And I must say to the Chairwoman, let me thank her for her consistent journey toward that, and the Chairman of the full Committee, as we worked together in the minority reaching the same 

point. 

But I do want to applaud you for finding some aspect that needs 

to be addressed, and I would like to approach it in that context. 

Before I do so, let me just quickly say, in the verification effort, 

the Westat report of 2007 made a number of points that I think 

is important to put on the record: that, in this E-verification, we 

have had employers who are not trained employees. We have had 

employers who have used the process for pre-assessing or pre-consideration of employees, so they have this used this for the—they 

have used this, if you will, for the idea of screening their employees. 

We have 22 percent of employees reported that they restricted 

work assignments while employers were contesting their particular 

predicament. And then there are employers didn’t fire these employees, and there were also those who didn’t explain to the employees. 

So we know we have some weaknesses in this process. 

Congresswoman Giffords, what I like about what you are proposing is the idea of separating U.S. citizens from those who are 

immigrants. They go under DHS, is that correct? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And citizens have another process. 

I heard my colleagues’ questions. So let me ask you, what are the 

privacy protections that we would have in the system that you are 

purporting in your legislation? 

37 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Well, there are quite a few privacy protections, 

and the legislation is quite a bit different, of course, from the EVerify system. 

First of all, it creates an alternate voluntary secure electronic 

verification system to identify employees’ identity and eligibility 

through a lock, basically, once it is verified. 

It also establishes a network of private-sector, Government-certified companies to authenticate new employees’ identities utilizing 

existing background check and document-screening tools. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So this is out sourcing, if I might? What protections in terms of those outsourced companies, what kind of vetting would they go through? And let me recall, of course, the loss 

of records by the Veterans Administration and others. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. They would be certified through a process, as 

well, so that these firms, if the employer chooses to go through 

them, would go through a certification. 

Now, in follow-up to Congressman Gutierrez’s, comments, there 

also would be an ability of a use of a biometric identifier if employers chose to present that information and go that route. But there 

is more protection under Social Security. There is a better 

ensurement under the workforce. Plus, it fundamentally shifts 

where U.S. citizens, where our databases should be held. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And would you support, if I might, with this 

system, working a comprehensive approach or an Americanization 

approach, however we want to address it, to have those who are 

here find a vehicle, a pathway into legalization status? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I am not sure I understand your question. Could 

you repeat it? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If this was to go forward, would you also see 

a complement to that a comprehensive approach to immigration? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I was a cosponsor 

of the STRIVE Act because I believe that the enforcement portion 

of illegal immigration is critical. I talked about the impacts illegal 

immigration has to southern Arizona. But we need to fix the system as a whole. 

And I am not happy that our Senate and this Congress has not 

moved forward faster. I know it is complicated. And I want to congratulate and compliment Chairwoman Lofgren for moving as 

much as we possibly can. But, yes, we need to have an overall fix, 

which requires a lot of different aspects. 

The illegal immigration system that we have, our system for immigration is broken in this country. But I believe that this portion, 

this small portion for employee verification is much better than we 

currently have in Arizona. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me congratulate both of you. And certainly I want to congratulate Mr. Shuler, who I think has done a 

very hard task. And we have had some legislation like that, Mr. 

Shuler, in the past, that even Democrats have supported. So let’s 

find our way to a compromise, and we can work through these 

issues of enforcement and work with some of the issues that you 

have raised. And let me thank you very much. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

I recognize now Mr. Goodlatte for his 5 minutes. 

38 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to thank both of our colleagues for their contribution 

today and ask them both if they would tell me if they think that— 

while I think we can acknowledge that the current system is not 

perfect, Mr. Shuler, do you believe that, in general, verification or 

E-Verify provides a useful tool for willing employers to identify 

whether employees are legal or illegal? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, it does. It goes through the screening process. 

And also, to kind of follow up on Ms. Jackson Lee, it is not to be 

used for a prescreening process. You hire the person, and then you 

fill out the appropriate forms, whether it be online or call in and 

go through the E-Verify process. So, in doing that, it will actually— 

it is you are qualifying the person based on their skills, and then 

you follow that up with the E-Verify portion of it. 

And, in saying that, we are actually making sure everyone is actually on a level playing ground 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman Goodlatte, Arizona—and I don’t 

think you were here for my initial testimony—became the first 

State to roll out a mandatory requirement for employers to use EVerify. We have heard from our business community in not just 

southern Arizona but around the State—I had over a dozen Chambers of Commerce from the State of Arizona here last month to 

come and present their information—that it has been burdensome 

and unreliable and very difficult to maneuver through with their 

employees. A lot of documentation to talk about that. 

So I am urging Congress, before we move forward with a national requirement to use the E-Verify system, that we look at Arizona’s example. And there are some real issues. 

I have cosponsored legislation with Congressman Sam Johnson 

as an alternative to the E-Verify system, which would instead require U.S. citizens to use the Social Security database, the deadbeat database that 95 percent of all employers are currently using. 

Now, foreign-born workers would be required to go through the Department of Homeland Security, but—you know, there are significant differences with the bill. I think this approach is better 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In that regard—because I certainly favor 

verification technologies. Whether we agree on a particular one to 

use or not, I think it is worthy of further exploration. But, in general, do you believe that the use of these verification technologies 

has resulted in more or less hiring of illegal aliens by those employers that use them? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman Goodlatte, I support verification 

technology as well. I believe that all employers should be required 

to verify the status of the workforce. I think that is critical. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you think what has been done thus far has 

resulted in hiring fewer illegal aliens? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman, it is difficult to say, because in Arizona, for example, we have about 15 percent of our employers that 

are using the E-Verify system. We really don’t know yet, because 

we don’t have everyone currently using the same system. For those 

employers that are choosing to use it, I believe that they are complying with the law. 

39 

Now, whether or not the documentation that is being provided to 

them is legal documentation, the I-9 form, I am not sure. Again, 

NEVA takes away the I-9 form and uses better forms of documentation, more solid, three forms, instead of what the E-Verify 

system allows. I think, again, that is a better system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask Mr. Shuler. Obviously, our effort 

here is to protect U.S. workers and to make sure that employers 

have the workforce they need, but that they are workers that are 

legally in the United States. 

Do you believe that if we made it mandatory, the net result 

would be fewer illegal aliens getting hired in violation of the law? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes. I think so many companies now are using EVerify. They are actually seeing that they are not having to be document experts. The I-9 form is a perfect example. When they look 

at the information, if a potential employee comes in, they don’t 

have to be able to say, is this documentation that they are giving 

me, is this correct or is it false documentation? 

So utilizing this, the people who are abiding by the laws, the rule 

of the law, if they are abiding by it, they are seeing that in a thousand employees, 942 get instantaneous verification; 53 of them are 

nonconfirmation mismatch; and 5 percent, only 5 of those thousand 

are actually contesting it. 

So we are seeing that 53 out of a thousand are actually walking 

away because they are here illegally. So I think the proof is there 

with the companies who are abiding by the laws we presently have 

on the books. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, if I might just ask one more follow-up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So, in other words, when we utilize some form 

of a verification system—and I appreciate both of your efforts to 

come up with one. But even the E-Verify system, which clearly has 

some error rate, there—— 

Mr. SHULER. —0.5. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Is no doubt that some people are 

going to experience something there, that nonetheless gives the employer and our Government, our citizens, if you will, with regard 

to our policy of not hiring illegal aliens, a much more sophisticated 

additional check to the documents that are presented to the employer, which we know are often fraudulent and cannot be by themselves often verified on their face by the employer, who is not an 

expert in these documents. 

So, taking it to the next step, even if it does raise question with 

a certain percentage of those who are checked, the remainder of the 

people are either cleared through or are found to be illegally in the 

country, and those that are in the question-mark area, well, we 

need to take further steps beyond that to figure that out. But at 

least we have significantly improved upon the process of simply relying upon the paper that is in front of the employer. 

Mr. SHULER. Absolutely. And it takes the liability off of the employer once they verify and they download, they print out the copy 

of the E-Verify form. It will take the liability off the employer if 

there were to happen to be an error rate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

40 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

We do have two panels after this panel, so I am going to recognize my colleague from California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, again. 

Let me thank you for the tremendous work you are doing trying 

to deal with the serious problem that confronts this Congress, that 

we are having difficulty dealing with the comprehensive immigration reform. But you certainly are getting into all aspects of it 

through this Committee. 

I am just wondering, there are several articles in today’s newspapers about the FBI’s inability to do the screening and that you 

have a lot of legal immigrants who are waiting for years to get 

their citizenship. 

Now, as I understand it, if these legal immigrants are in the system and they cannot get, I guess, their visas and their citizenship, 

how are they treated in the E-Verify system? Mr. Shuler, do you 

know? 

Mr. SHULER. Through DHS. If they are here legally, they are 

confirmed through DHS. 

Ms. WATERS. What does that mean? 

Mr. SHULER. When we go through E-Verify and put the information in, you either come back confirmed, basically, they have the 

right to work in the United States, or a mismatch, nonconfirmation. And in those processes, DHS, obviously, you will have the confirmation that they have the right to work in the United States. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I question all of these systems. I question the 

fact that the FBI cannot do the verifications. They are backed up. 

You don’t have enough employees. The technology is outdated. 

I question whether or not we really know whether or not there 

is a .5 percent error or a 4 percent error in the E-Verify system. 

How can you be so sure that it is only a .5 percent error in the 

E-Verify system? What makes you so confident? 

Mr. SHULER. Well, first and foremost, it has been proven. It has 

been since 1996 when, actually, E-Verify was in place. It is not a 

system that we are having to rethink or revamp. It is actually a 

system that has been in process for quite some time. The statistics 

show—Westat, an independent audit of E-Verify, said it was a .5 

percent error rate that would happen. 

DHS also says there is not one person to have ever been denied 

employment, of their knowledge, based upon an error, to their 

knowledge, not one. And every one of our staffers, everyone that 

works on the Hill goes through E-Verify. That is all of the employees here. I don’t know if they E-verified us as Members, but certainly the staff who works with us. 

Ms. WATERS. I think that the inspector general would disagree 

with you because of the audit that it did. They are the ones who 

came up with the 4 percent error. 

Mr. SHULER. Well, that is just on the Social Security database. 

You have to separate the Social Security database and the E-Verify 

system, because it goes through two systems, and it is in the process of going through multiple systems. 

And, remember, E-Verify is similar to, like, Googling. When you 

type in the information, you get the verification back. Actually, in 

my office, I did myself, and it came back confirmed for eligibility 

41 

of employment. And it was less than 5 seconds. You know, it was 

very similar to Googling. You type in a search word or something, 

and it comes back in less than 1 second. That is how the confirmation came back in our office. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, Congresswoman, if it is that good, what are 

you complaining about? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congresswoman, we have numerous examples, including the GAO, including the inspector general, that said that 

the basic pilot of the E-Verify system has significant weaknesses, 

which includes reliance on these Government databases that have 

an unacceptably high rate of error. 

My colleague, who I applaud for his hard work, continues to talk 

about how every Member here in the Congress is able to just fly 

through the system. Yet, we have one of our important staff members, Traci Hong, who is with us, who herself had an issue when 

she went to go apply through the system. There is an article here 

in the USA Today that talks specifically about the problem that 

Traci had. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is a good picture of her, too. 

Mr. SHULER. But I think it was fixed. I think it was—obviously 

it was fixed, a couple of times, because of the name change. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. And, Congresswoman, as well, if the E-Verify system relies on the Social Security database, you can’t talk about one 

and not the other. You can’t pull out part of the database. It’s fuzzy 

math to say that the E-Verify only has a .5 percent reliability rate 

if it requires the use of a Social Security database. 

I think what we all want is the same system. Again, what I am 

saying is that, you know, I have a case model in my State where 

the system is not working as well as it needs to be. And there are 

some philosophical differences with the system as well, as far as 

protections for U.S. citizens. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. If I may—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes? 

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. Thirty more seconds? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just say this, that there has been a lot of 

talk about the Social Security system here. And, of course, in our 

office we do get Social Security complaints, and we work on them. 

But I am a big supporter of the Social Security system, and I think 

it does a good job for the millions of Americans here. And I would 

just disagree with those who think that somehow the Social Security system is so flawed that it could not do a good job with this. 

So I just want to speak up for Social Security here today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Well-noted. 

We will turn now to Congressman Lungren for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

As one of the key authors of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill in 1986, 

I am one of those responsible for making it illegal for employers to 

hire illegal aliens. We put that in as a balance to the other side 

of the bill, which was the legalization program, the most successful 

and largest-scale legalization program in the history of the country. 

The legalization part worked; the enforcement part never did. 

42 

I hope my friend, Mr. Shuler, understands what the term ‘‘slowwalking’’ means. We can postpone this, and we can find every problem, and we can understand that every pebble is a boulder, and we 

can make sure that we don’t put something in until the system is 

perfect, and we will be right in the situation 20 years from now 

that we are in right now. We never enforced it. We never enforced 

it. If we wait until the Social Security system is perfect, we will 

never put this in. 

There are imperfections involved, but, as the gentleman from 

Virginia suggested, the purpose of this is to make sure that American workers who are here legally, whether they are native-born or 

whether they have been legalized or whether they have a permanent resident alien card, have the right to get a job and the people 

here illegally do not have the right to get a job. I mean, that is 

what we are talking about. And we are talking about millions of 

jobs that are taken by those who are here illegally. So I hear, well, 

we might have a couple thousand people that will be, on initial 

check, turned down. But, as you suggest, on secondary check, almost all of those are taken care of. So I hope we put it in the proper context. 

As I sit here, I am reminded this is the week of D-Day and the 

follow-on that my dad was involved in. And had Eisenhower faced 

D-Day the way we seem to be looking at this problem, we never 

would have left England, because we would have waited for absolutely perfect weather, we would have made sure everybody had 

their assignment, we would have made sure no one was dropped 

in the wrong place, we would have made sure that the Germans 

absolutely were asleep in every single situation, and we never 

would have succeeded. 

Sometimes Government has to rise to the challenge. And it 

seems to me, Mr. Shuler, you suggested to us that the time is now 

for us to rise to the challenge. Would you have any problem in your 

proposal to have one element of the other bill put on—that is, that 

we move toward biometric as we move along with this system, biometric identification in the Social Security system? 

Mr. SHULER. I couldn’t agree more with you about moving along. 

One of the things that we have to do, it can’t be a voluntary basis 

like the other piece of legislation. It has to be a mandatory. If not, 

no one is going to use the system, and we are going to be just like 

we are today 20 years from now. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It has kind of been a voluntary system for the last 

20 years. 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, it has been that way, so why go through a voluntary system like the other piece of legislation? It has to be mandatory. 

But we have that process. It is complete. The Secretary says it 

is ready for a national rollout. So I feel very comfortable, very confident in the system proceeding forward. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And, Congresswoman Giffords, you suggested that 

there was an error rate or a decline of 3,000 per 100,000 or whatever it was. Is that correct? But that was on initial check, was it 

not? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman, I am talking specifically about the 

problems we have with non-U.S. workers. 

43 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, no, but I am asking, you gave a figure of 

3,000, but that was on the initial review, right? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Ten percent. But not authorized—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am just trying to ask you whether that is the 

initial check. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So then what is the decline rate after the secondary check? If you are starting with 3,000, what do we go down 

to? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. We don’t know. It is actually closer to 30,000 for 

the State of Arizona. And we don’t know because—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, then what is it on the secondary? 

Ms. GIFFORDS [continuing]. There are 8 days then to be able to 

follow up and clear up your paperwork. And if you don’t resolve the 

error within 8 days, you may be fired. So whether or not that resolution happens, we don’t know, because—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So we don’t know what that number is. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. We don’t know. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, I was also interested in your comment about 

agriculture. I happen to believe that the case for agriculture is 

proven. I mean, we have had it in your State, in my State of California for well over 100 years. We rely heavily on foreign workers. 

We ought to have a program that allows them to come in legally 

when we establish that. 

But then you went on to talk about it is tough to get people making $7, $8 an hour working in 115-degree temperature, working— 

I forget in what situation it was. Do you really think we can’t get 

American workers to work in construction and these other areas? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman, I was making a point about how 

challenging it is in southern Arizona for our—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I understand, but my question is: Do you 

think we can’t get American workers in construction or these other 

areas where you say it is difficult to get someone making $7 an 

hour working in 100-and-whatever-it-is-degree temperature? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Congressman, we have a lot of U.S. citizens that 

are not working that should be working, and the construction industry is a good place for them to be. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I absolutely agree—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, unless he 

wants an additional few minutes? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I would like the same indulgence others 

have had, if you don’t mind. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will give you an additional minute. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I mean, I have been here back and forth over a 

30-year period of time, and one of things that has absolutely bedeviled me is how we don’t do something affirmatively to increase job 

opportunities for our inner-city youth, for African American males 

between 18 and 30. And it just seems to me that the construction 

trade is a tremendous opportunity for them. And I have seen over 

the last 20 years the presence of illegal aliens in the construction 

industry grow and grow and grow and grow. And now I hear arguments that somehow we need to legalize people who came here illegally for the construction trade. 

44 

And while I am very sympathetic to the fact that American employers need to have an available workforce, and that ought to be 

proven, I just look at what has happened over the last 25 years and 

I have to throw up my hands and say, ‘‘Don’t we have an obligation 

to take care of Americans first?’’ 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As generous as we are to the rest of the world, 

and when we have high unemployment rates, particularly among 

African American males age 18 to 35, don’t we have some obligation to think about them first before we start thinking about others? 

And maybe that is an unconventional thought, but I think that 

ought to be wrapped into the process of why we want to have Everification, and then move on perhaps to a biometric which allows 

us to bring those mistakes down. But we have to get started somewhere. 

I thank both of you for testifying, and I thank the Chairwoman 

for her indulgence. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I will just make a couple of statements, and I have just one question for Ms. Giffords. 

I think this has been a useful morning. We do appreciate the 

time you have spent with us. I know how busy everyone’s schedule 

is. 

I think that, to some extent, really in defense of what we are 

doing, there was no examination of this subject by my predecessor 

as Chair. I think we had more hearings in the first month of my 

Chairmanship than we had in the prior Congress. But we do need 

to examine where we are going before we leap, it seems to me. 

And I think there are some things that need to be pointed out. 

I mean, the fact that someone walks away from a mismatch doesn’t 

mean that they are illegal. Right now this is a voluntary system, 

and if you are going to be a bus boy at one restaurant that is using 

E-Verify, and it is a problem, instead of going to the Social Security 

system five times, you can just be a bus boy at the restaurant next 

door that doesn’t use E-Verify. So we can’t make assumptions 

based on that. We need data. It is hard to get. 

I would note also that we don’t know exactly what the percentage 

of mistakes are in the database at Social Security. But if we have 

5 percent unemployment and we have got, let’s say, 4 percent of 

the U.S. citizens get wrong information, we could have unemployment go to 9 percent of American citizens, if some of the information we are being told is correct. So we want to make sure that we 

know what we are doing before we move forward. 

And I will just mention, Ms. Giffords, as you did, that we have 

a Texas lawyer here sitting to my right, Traci Hong. She is a naturalized American citizen, has been an American citizen for several 

decades. And the House of Representatives uses E-Verify, and so 

when I hired Ms. Hong, she went down and she got a report that 

she wasn’t authorized, which came as quite a surprise to her. I 

mean, she gets, like all of us do, her Social Security sent to her 

once a year, how much you can expect in your benefits and the like, 

but Social Security Administration just had it wrong. I mean, it 

took her six separate trips to try and straighten this out. And she 

45 

is an immigration lawyer working for the Chair of the Immigration 

Subcommittee. 

So we need to make sure that the rights of Americans are protected in whatever system we do. I give both of you loads of credit 

for the time and effort that you have put into this subject. It is an 

important one. I think we all agree that we need to have a system 

in place, and your contribution is going to be very material as we 

move forward in this effort. 

So I said I just had one question, and it is for you, Congresswoman Giffords. As you described the outsourcing, for lack of a better word, I was reminded—I am a Clear Pass member. I have a little biometric card. Whenever I go to the airport, I put it in, and 

I put my index finger—are you thinking something along those 

lines? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Chair, yes, a biometric identifier is an option that employers can choose to take, if they go that route. We 

have a lot of flexibility. It is a mandatory requirement that you go 

through the verification system, but that would be an additional 

step of protection that employers could have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So the Government wouldn’t necessarily have all 

of that, and there would be that level of protection, is what you are 

proposing. 

We have two panels following. I am going to thank you both for 

coming, for your hard work on this, and for the information you 

have given us here today. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

We will now ask our next witness to come forward. 

I am pleased to welcome Jonathan Scharfen, who is the acting 

director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. 

Mr. Scharfen retired from the United States Marine Corps in August 2003, after 25 years of active-duty service. He then served as 

chief counsel and deputy staff director of the House International 

Relations Committee until July 2006. 

Mr. Scharfen received his bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Virginia, his juris doctorate degree from the University of Notre 

Dame, and his LLM from the University of San Diego. He also attended the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where 

he studied national security strategy. 

He is married and has three children. 

As you know, Mr. Scharfen, your full statement will be made 

part of the official record of this hearing. We would ask that you 

give your testimony in about 5 minutes, if you would, please. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN ‘‘JOCK’’ SCHARFEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICE 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lofgren, 

Ranking Member King, Members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here before Congress to discuss our 

shared goal of effective employment eligibility verification. 

At DHS, USCIS is responsible for administering the E-Verify 

program in partnership with the Social Security Administration. 

46 

Any participating company can access E-Verify through a userfriendly Government Web site that verifies information submitted 

by employees with more than 449 million records in the Social Security Administration database and more than 60 million records 

in DHS immigration databases. 

E-Verify is the only available tool for employers to gain quick 

and easy verification information for their new hires. Over 69,000 

employers, representing over 269,000 work sites, use the E-Verify 

program. And the number of registered employers is growing, on 

average, over 1,000 per week. The number of employers enrolled 

this fiscal year has already more than doubled since November. 

Since 2004, E-Verify has been available to employers in all 50 

States and in most U.S. territories. 

Last August, the Administration pledged to commence a rulemaking process to require all Federal contractors and vendors to 

use E-Verify. And this proposed rule has been submitted to the 

Federal Register for imminent publication. Yesterday, Secretary 

Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system Federal contractors 

shall use. 

In partnership with the Social Security Administration, we have 

made significant improvements to decrease mismatch rates and ensure data accuracy, ensure that the program is user-friendly, and 

protect employees’ rights. 

Over the past year, E-Verify automated its registration process, 

instituted a system change to reduce the incidence of typographical 

errors, incorporated a photo screening tool for DHS documents to 

combat document fraud, established monitoring and compliance 

units and privacy functions to maintain system integrity, added 

new databases that are automatically checked by the system, and 

established a new process for employees to call USCIS’s toll-free 

number to address citizenship mismatches as an alternative to visiting the Social Security Administration, all in an effort to establish 

efficient and effective verification. 

The most recent statistics appear to show that the share of legal 

workers who are not automatically confirmed by E-Verify as workauthorized is decreasing. Furthermore, USCIS plans to add the 

ability to query by passport number to E-Verify this fall, which will 

further reduce error rates, and is also working to add visa and 

passport photos to the photo tool function. Additional improvements seek to ensure that the data relied upon by E-Verify is as 

up-to-date as possible. 

Independent studies show that E-Verify is an accurate and effective tool. Currently, 99.5 percent of all work-authorized employees 

queried through E-Verify were verified without complication or 

having to take any type of corrective action. Overall, the Westat 

evaluation found that over 94 percent of all cases are automatically 

found to be employment-authorized. 

The E-Verify program has substantially increased its customer 

service and program staff over the past 2 years in an effort to work 

with employers and ensure that every question or difficulty that 

arises is addressed. The E-Verify program outreach staff has conducted numerous training programs and workshops across the 

country to inform employers about the system and the benefits of 

using E-Verify to verify the work authorization of their employees. 

47 

An effective electronic work authorization verification program is 

critical to reducing the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration, but the program also must include robust tools to detect 

and deter employer and employee fraud and misuse. We are aware 

that some aliens without work authorization use identity fraud to 

obtain employment in this country. To help prevent this problem, 

the E-Verify program introduced the photo screening capability 

into the verification process last September. This tool allows employers to determine if the DHS document presented by the employee has been photo-substituted. Through use of the photo tool, 

several cases of document and identity fraud have been identified, 

and unauthorized workers have been prevented from illegally obtaining employment. 

When Congress created what is now the E-Verify program in 

1996, it initially set a 5-year time limit on the program. Recognizing the importance of electronic worker eligibility verification, 

Congress has twice chosen to continue the program since its initial 

authorization. The current language of the statute directs DHS to 

terminate the program at the end of November of this year. I respectfully urge the Committee to act immediately to extend EVerify permanently. 

Efforts to improve agency systems and policies related to EVerify that have been on going since 2003 continue to show positive 

and tangible results. DHS will continue to work with the Social Security Administration to operate and enhance the E-Verify program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testimony today. I am grateful 

for the support of the Members of this Subcommittee, and ask for 

your continued commitment to the program. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scharfen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHNATHAN ‘‘JOCK’’ SCHARFEN

INTRODUCTION

The E-Verify program (formerly known as Basic Pilot) is a Web-based system that 

electronically verifies the employment eligibility of newly hired employees. This initiative is a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

the Social Security Administration (SSA). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency in DHS responsible for immigration services, administers 

the program. 

E-Verify is an essential tool for employers committed to maintaining a legal workforce. Any participating company in the United States can access E-Verify through 

a user-friendly government Web site that compares employee information taken 

from the Form I-9 with more than 449 million records in the SSA database, and 

more than 60 million records in DHS immigration databases. Currently, 99.5 percent of all work-authorized employees verified through E-Verify are verified without 

receiving a Tentative Non-confirmation (TNC) or having to take any type of corrective action. Those employees whose work authorization cannot be instantly verified 

are given the opportunity to work with SSA or USCIS, as appropriate, to confirm 

their work authorization. USCIS estimates one percent of all queried employees 

choose to contest an initial, tentative result from E-Verify showing that their work 

authorization could not be verified, and only half of those who contest that result 

are ultimately found to be authorized. The most recent statistics appear to show 

that the share of legal workers who are not instantly confirmed by E-Verify as work 

authorized is decreasing further, but those numbers need more study. Furthermore, 

USCIS plans to add the ability to query using passport information this fall, which 

will reduce the rate of TNCs for U.S. citizens further, and is also working to add 

visa and passport photos to the photo tool function. 

Over 69,000 employers, representing over 269,000 worksites, currently are signed 

up to use the E-Verify program, and the number of registered employers is growing 

48 

on average over 1,000 per week. E-Verify is the best available tool for employers 

to gain quick and easy verification information for their new hires, and we are committed to working with your Committee and other members of Congress to achieve 

our shared goal of effective employment eligibility verification. 

HISTORY OF THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM

Congress established the Basic Pilot, now E-Verify, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 to verify the employment eligibility of both U.S. citizens and noncitizens at no charge to the employer. The program was first made available on a voluntary basis in 1997 to employers in the five states with the largest immigrant populations: California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas. Originally set to expire in 2001, E-Verify has 

been extended twice, and is due for reauthorization by Congress by November 2008. 

Since 2004, it has been available to employers in all 50 states and in the U.S. territories where U.S. immigration laws apply. 

Since 2006, the number of employers registered has doubled in size each year. We 

have seen a substantial increase in the number of states with legislation or Executive Orders that require E-Verify use for some or all employers under their jurisdiction. Arizona and Mississippi have laws requiring all employers in the state to use 

E-Verify; and Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Utah require some employers to use E-Verify. A directive 

issued last year from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required 

all Federal government agencies to sign up to use E-Verify by October 1, 2007. Last 

August, the Administration pledged to commence a rulemaking process to require 

all Federal contractors and vendors to use E-Verify and OMB recently concluded its 

review on this proposed rule. On June 6, the President signed Executive Order 

12989 directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate an electronic employment eligibility verification system for Federal contractors to use. Yesterday, the 

Secretary designated E-Verify as the system Federal contractors shall use. 

Additionally, in the past few months a number of DHS regulations were published 

that require employers to register with E-Verify before obtaining certain benefits. 

These include (1) a regulation enabling certain F-1 students in Optional Practical 

Training to apply for a 17-month extension of their employment authorization if 

they are employed by an E-Verify registered employer and (2) the proposed rule reforming the H-2A agricultural worker program, would allow H-2A workers who are 

changing employers to begin work with the new employer before the change is approved only if the new employer participates in E-Verify. Participation and usage 

of E-Verify is expected to grow significantly over the next few years. 

HOW E-VERIFY WORKS

Within three days of hiring an employee, the participating employer is required 

to enter information from the Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification form), 

including the employee’s name, date of birth, Social Security number (SSN) and citizenship status, into E-Verify and submit a query. Within seconds, the employer receives a response. 

SSA Verification 

For all workers, the system transmits, in a secure manner, the new hire’s SSN, 

name, and date of birth to SSA to verify that data against the information recorded 

in its NUMIDENT database. For those employees whose work authorization status 

can be verified automatically (i.e. whose SSA record matched and confirms U.S. citizenship), the process ends here with a confirmation response returned to the employer through the system within seconds. In the remaining small minority of cases 

where the SSA record does not match what the employer has put into the system, 

the system issues an SSA TNC to the employer. The form is available in English 

or Spanish. 

When a TNC is issued, the employer must notify the employee and give the employee the opportunity to contest that finding. If the employee chooses to contest the 

SSA TNC, he or she has eight business days to visit an SSA office with the required 

documents to initiate the process to prove identity and support the correction of the 

SSA record. Until the TNC is resolved, the employee must be allowed to keep working and cannot be fired or have any other employment-related action taken against 

him or her because of the TNC. If the employee fails to contact SSA within the 

eight-day period, the employee is considered a no-show and a final non-confirmation 

is issued by E-Verify. At this point, the employer should terminate employment. A 

recent electronic business process enhancement, EV-STAR, allows SSA to use the 

49 

E-Verify system to automatically inform the employer of the case resolution once the 

employee visits SSA and resolves the issue. 

Correcting SSA records is a useful byproduct of the E-Verify process since it helps 

individuals identify and resolve problems with their Social Security records. The 

work done to update records in order to resolve an E-Verify mismatch may need to 

be done at a later time when the individual applies for Social Security benefits. 

DHS Verification 

If the query involves a noncitizen worker, the employee’s name, date of birth and 

SSN are matched with SSA records as they are in U.S. citizen cases. If the information matches SSA records, then the DHS identification number and work authorization information are also matched against DHS databases. If the information cannot 

be verified electronically, the case is forwarded to a USCIS Immigration Status 

Verifier (ISV), who researches the case and provides an electronic response within 

one business day, either verifying work authorization or issuing a DHS TNC. 

As with the SSA process described above, if the employer receives a TNC, the employer must notify the employee and provide him or her with an opportunity to contest that finding. An employee has eight business days to call a toll-free number 

(which provides support in ten different languages) to initiate the process to contest 

the finding. Until the TNC is resolved, the employee must be allowed to keep working and cannot be fired or have any other employment-related action taken against 

them because of the TNC. Once the necessary information from the employee has 

been received by phone or fax, a USCIS Immigration Status Verifier resolves the 

case, typically within three business days, by issuing either a verification of the employee’s work authorization status or a DHS final non-confirmation. If the employee 

fails to contact DHS or SSA within the eight-day period, the employee is considered 

a no-show and a final non-confirmation is issued by E-Verify. At this point, the employer should terminate employment. 

THE CURRENT E-VERIFY SYSTEM

Under USCIS management and in cooperation with SSA, the program is continuously improving its processes to decrease mismatch rates and ensure that E-Verify 

is fast, easy to use, and protects employees’ rights. Over the past year, E-Verify has 

automated its registration process, instituted a system change to reduce the incidence of typographical errors, incorporated a photo screening tool for DHS documents to combat more sophisticated forms of document and identity fraud, established Monitoring and Compliance staff to maintain system integrity, and added 

new databases that are automatically checked by the system. In addition, it has established a new process for employees to call USCIS’ toll-free number to address 

citizenship mismatches as an alternative to visiting SSA, all in an effort to establish 

efficient and effective verification. 

E-Verify is the most accurate and efficient way to verify employment authorization. 

E-Verify generates ‘‘mismatches’’ (or TNCs) when the information supplied by the 

employee or employer does not match the information that either SSA or DHS has 

on file. In almost every case, a mismatch will occur either because the employee is 

actually not authorized to work (five percent of all queries based on the September 

2007 Westat Evaluation); because the employee has not yet updated his or her 

records with SSA (for example, to reflect name or citizenship status changes); or because the employer made an error inputting information into the system. Where 

there is a TNC, E-Verify gives the employee the opportunity to take further action 

and correct his/her record with the appropriate agency if they believe the mismatch 

is an error. Once a record is corrected, it remains corrected. That employee will likely not face another TNC if he or she takes a different job with another employer 

unless the employee has a subsequent change in his or her information. As noted 

above, correcting these records is important for individuals to receive credit for their 

full work history when they file for Social Security benefits. Moreover, correcting 

these records reduces the chance that they or their employers will receive no-match 

letter from the SSA pointing out a discrepancy between the employees’ personal information and the social security number reported for them. 

The opportunity to contest an E-Verify finding is an important step that seeks to 

ensure that no employee who is in fact work authorized is prevented from working. 

All employers are required to ensure that employees who receive a TNC are given 

the opportunity to contest that finding and correct their records. Legal workers who 

contest will be found employment authorized after resolution of the initial mismatch 

and suffer no permanent adverse consequences. 

Recent studies show that E-Verify is an accurate and effective tool for verifying 

the work authorization status of employees. For the past few years, E-Verify has 

50 

been independently evaluated by Westat, a social science research firm, which has 

monitored the effect of various changes made to the E-Verify system. Currently, 

99.5 percent of all work-authorized employees verified through E-Verify were 

verified without receiving a TNC or having to take any type of corrective action. 

Though the 0.5 percent of all work-authorized employees who receive TNC is very 

small, our goal is to reduce it even further. Overall, Westat most recently found that 

over 94 percent of all cases queried through E-Verify are automatically found to be 

employment authorized 

A large portion of the employees who successfully contest an SSA TNC are those 

who have recently naturalized. As of May 5, 2008, some of these mismatches no 

longer occur, as the system now automatically checks USCIS naturalization records 

before issuing a citizenship status mismatch. In addition, naturalized citizens who 

receive a mismatch are now able to contact DHS by phone to address the discrepancy. USCIS and SSA are also exploring enhancements, including a direct data 

share initiative that would update SSA’s database with naturalized citizen information. 

E-Verify also added the Integrated Border Inspection System (IBIS) real time arrival information for non-citizens to its databases as of May 5, 2008, which reduced 

E-Verify mismatches that resulted from noncitizen arrival information that had not 

yet been entered into the databases E-Verify previously verified against. The addition of this data to the E-Verify system is expected to reduce the number of 

mismatches that occur for newly arriving workers who entered the country legally 

and sought work immediately after having entered the country. 

E-Verify plans to incorporate U.S. passport information into the employment 

verification process. The use of U.S. passport information will help instantly verify 

those employees who present U.S. passports as proof of employment authorization 

and identity and may have previously received TNCs since they derived citizenship 

as children when their parents naturalized or they were born abroad to U.S. citizen 

parents; both populations which currently receive a disproportionate numbers of 

TNC. We are grateful for the hard work of the Department of State in working towards this important data sharing initiative. 

These improvements all seek to ensure that the data relied upon by E-Verify is 

as up-to-date as possible. In some cases, however, the only way for a person’s 

records to be kept accurate is for that person to report name changes and the like 

to SSA. Because not everyone in the U.S. workforce is unfailingly diligent in this 

area, there will always be a small number of legal workers who will have to go 

through the TNC process. Nevertheless, we continue to work on the system to ensure that every error that can be prevented through government data processes will 

be avoided. 

E-Verify is an efficient and easy system for employers to use. 

Participating employers are largely satisfied with the E-Verify program. Last 

year, the Westat evaluation reported that ‘‘[m]ost employers found the Web Basic 

Pilot (E-Verify) to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification’’ and 

96 percent did not believe that it overburdened their staffs. 

The E-Verify program has substantially increased its customer service and program staff over the past two years in an effort to work with employers and ensure 

that every question or difficulty that arises is addressed. The E-Verify program outreach staff has conducted numerous training programs and workshops across the 

country to inform employers about the system and the benefits of using E-Verify to 

verify the work-authorization of their employees. 

E-Verify program staff is committed to maintaining the integrity of the system and 

effectively preventing discrimination and misuse. 

An effective electronic work authorization verification program is critical to reducing the job magnets that encourages illegal immigration, but the program also must 

include robust tools to detect and deter employer and employee fraud and misuse. 

A recent independent evaluation of the E-Verify program found that employer compliance with program procedures is improving, but identified the methods by which 

some E-Verify employers may be using the program incorrectly. Failure to follow EVerify procedures can result in discrimination and reduce the effectiveness of the 

program in decreasing unauthorized employment. We are dedicated to reducing EVerify misuse through employer training, educational outreach, print and electronic 

resources, and our monitoring and compliance program. 

USCIS has been conducting extensive outreach across the country to inform both 

employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities within E-Verify. The 

goal is to reinforce understanding of how to use the program correctly. Materials 

about employer and employee rights and responsibilities are currently available in 

51 

both English and Spanish, and will be available later this year in additional languages. Outreach efforts have included radio, print and billboard public awareness 

campaigns in Arizona, Georgia, DC, Maryland, Virginia, and soon Mississippi, as 

well as nationally available internet advertisements. 

USCIS has also been working to further inform employers and employees on the 

proper E-Verify procedures through system materials. Information on employee 

rights and responsibilities is now included in the referral letters given to employees 

during the TNC process. We are also working to refine the training materials and 

online resources for users of the program to more clearly outline the methods for 

proper system use. 

USCIS has begun preliminary monitoring and compliance of employer program 

usage to detect and deter potential misuse and abuse of the program. Among the 

behaviors we are looking out for are SSNs or alien numbers fraudulently being 

used, whether the employer is properly referring workers who receive TNCs, and 

or taking adverse actions against such workers, and whether an employer is improperly attempting to verify all existing employees. USCIS works closely with the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) for Unfair Immigration Related Employment Practices to 

help ensure that employment authorized employees are not adversely impacted by 

the program. 

The Monitoring and Compliance unit also works to safeguard personal privacy information; prevent the fraudulent use of counterfeit documents; and refer instances 

of fraud, discrimination, and illegal or unauthorized use of the system to enforcement authorities. Once fully staffed, the E-Verify Monitoring and Compliance unit 

will carry out its mission by educating employers on compliance procedures and 

guidelines and providing assistance through compliance assistance calls. The unit 

will also conduct follow-up with desk audits and/or site visits to unresponsive employers if necessary, and refer cases of fraud, discrimination and illegal use to OSC 

or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as appropriate. 

E-Verify prevents certain types of document fraud. 

We are aware that some aliens without work-authorization use identity fraud to 

obtain employment in this country. To help prevent this problem, the E-Verify program introduced a photo screening capability into the verification process last September. This tool allows employers to determine if the DHS document presented by 

the employee has been photo-substituted. Through use of the photo-tool, several 

cases of document and identity fraud have been identified, and unauthorized workers have been prevented from illegally obtaining employment. The tool allows a participating employer to check the photos on Employment Authorization Documents 

(EAD) or Permanent Resident Cards (green card) against images stored in USCIS 

databases. The goal of the photo tool is to help employers determine whether the 

document presented reasonably relates to the individual and contains a valid photo. 

All employers registered to use E-Verify, with the exception of those who use designated agents or a web services application, are now using the photo screening 

process when the worker presents one of the documents currently available in the 

photo tool database. USCIS is currently working to change the business processes 

for designated agents and web services users of E-Verify to enable them to use this 

photo screening capability 

We are also working to expand the types of documents for which the E-Verify system will allow photo confirmation. Currently, only DHS-issued identity documents 

are displayed in the photo tool. To this end, USCIS is working with the Department 

of State to add visa and passport photos to the photo tool database. The strength 

of this tool is directly dependent on the range of documents for which it can be used, 

and our long-term goal is for the E-Verify photo screening process be able to verify 

the photos on all identity documents that an employee may present as acceptable 

Form I-9 documentation. 

USCIS is aware of the prevalence of identity fraud in this country, and is especially concerned with how this practice affects E-Verify. While we do not currently 

have any way to identify, upon initial verification, identity fraud by an employee 

who has stolen a valid SSN and identity information or has been supplied the information by their employer, we are examining ways to do so. What we are able to 

do with our Monitoring and Compliance unit is to identify indications that SSN 

fraud has taken place, and work with ICE, in cooperation with the SSA Inspector 

General, to deal with these cases. USCIS and ICE are currently finalizing a memorandum of understanding to identify instances where data sharing would be appropriate and we are currently identifying ways to assist each others’ work. 

52 

The E-Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries 

that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification 

system. 

In September of 2007, DHS and SSA conducted cooperative end-to-end load testing between SSA’s NUMIDENT database and the Verification Information System 

(VIS), which is the database that supports E-Verify. The results of the testing 

showed that E-Verify has the capacity to handle up to 60 million queries per year. 

This capacity is in line with the projected 60 million new hire queries per year that 

would result from mandatory E-Verify legislation applicable to all U.S. employers. 

DHS will continue to work with SSA to update the current pilot architecture to ensure that DHS and SSA can provide the most stable environment possible to the 

employer community and to create an independent environment for E-Verify queries, separate from SSA’s other processing needs. 

CONCLUSION—THE FUTURE OF E-VERIFY

We will continue to work with SSA to operate and enhance the E-Verify program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee and we appreciate this subcommittee’s continued support of the E-Verify program as it goes 

through the reauthorization process in the fall. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Scharfen. 

Now is the time when we can pose some questions. I will begin. 

One of the things that I had really not thought about before the 

Westat report is this question: We have thought a lot about the employees being screened, but if they are correct, there is not really 

any screening of the employers. We have an agreement. And the 

issue of whether a miscreant could pose as an employer, sign a contract with DHS, and obtain personal information about Americans 

that then would be used for identity theft or crime, can you address 

that issue? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, ma’am. First of all, the employer who would 

want to do such a scam would have to have an employment identification number that they have to first get from the Social Security 

Administration. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is not too hard to get. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I agree, it probably would not be that hard to get. 

But the system itself is designed in such a way that the employer 

isn’t reaching up and grabbing personal information from the system and pulling into his possession. What he is doing is he is 

uploading names, Social Security numbers, date of birth, and that 

information that he has collected off of the I-9 program, which is 

already collected—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. So he is getting a yes-no. He isn’t getting your 

data. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that answer. 

Let me ask you about data security. It seems like every day we 

open the paper and there is some story about—you know, I never 

had the idea that Government employees would have entire databases of, you know, VA and everything on laptops that then go 

missing. 

What steps are you taking to secure the integrity of the data that 

you have? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I am going to make two points on that, ma’am. 

First of all, the E-Verify system is using an enterprise system 

service bus, which is a more modern approach to managing computer systems. And that enterprise service bus has more robust security features, computer security features, than earlier versions of 

53 

the computer systems. And so the enterprise service bus has more 

firewalls and other protections that a modern computer system 

has. That is number one. 

Number two is that we have been doing routine privacy impact 

assessment studies. We have also been complying with the DHS 

computer security requirements and have been having reviews of 

the system consistently and periodically. 

And then, finally, we have a management—clearly, this is of concern to DHS and CIS, and we have made it a focus of management 

to ensure that the E-Verify data that has been provided by different employers during their queries is given all the protections 

and safeguards it deserves, both under the law and as a prudential 

matter of what we can do as managers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. It is sort of a philosophical 

question. I think the point made by Congressman Johnson and 

Congresswoman Giffords is that USCIS’s job is to deal with immigrants; you don’t have jurisdiction over Americans. I mean, and 

that there may be an issue here of whether we really want to turn 

over to the immigration part of our Government the whole function 

of clearing hundreds of millions of American citizens. 

Do you have a thought on that? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I do, ma’am. The E-Verify, as I said in my oral 

statement, ma’am, the E-Verify system is a partnership between 

the Social Security Administration and DHS, and so we are not 

doing this alone. We already are working with the Social Security 

Administration in partnership. 

And the system that we have now, if we were to redo that and 

somehow put the focus over to another agency, you would end up 

having to just reinvent that partnership again between the two 

agencies. 

And I think that the answer to those concerns, your previous 

question, is how we work with the Social Security Administration 

and what safeguards we have in place to ensure that that information is given the protections it deserves and must have under the 

law. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

And my time is about to expire, so I will turn to Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

In response to the remark that actually, Madam Chair, you made 

with regard to we don’t know whether they are legal or not if they 

walk away from following up on clarifying their records, for myself 

I reflect back to when I was 16 years old and just started paying 

taxes and there was a mistake by Social Security in transposing 

two numbers in my Social Security number. I was livid and determined, and I cleaned up those records, and it took me several 

years. But it is a lot easier today, I would think, than it was then, 

because at least we have some electronics record and we can get 

some more immediate response rather than waiting for long answers from letter. But I would think that it is a duty and a responsibility of someone who is lawfully present in the United States 

and can legally work here to clean up their records. 

Is it true that either E-Verify is identifying people who are unlawfully seeking work in the United States, or, if there is a rejection, it identifies a record that needs to be corrected? 

54 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think, as a basic proposition, that is generally 

accurate, yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you for that. 

And then, as I look at these records, I know that we have had 

a conversation about linking your query to the database of naturalized citizens. And that brings another level of efficiency here that 

I don’t think is reflected in this accuracy data that has been testified to today. 

And I don’t want to ask you to go on record for the results of 

that, but I would just ask you, what do you anticipate will be— 

what do you think is going to happen once that data is brought into 

this, the efficiencies that you will give back to us when that is credible? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir, I think the two improvements that you 

are talking about are the ones that we made May 5th of this year. 

One is that we are including in the system a check of the CIS naturalization databases, as well as the real-time arrivals information 

from the port of entries. And so, the combination of those two new 

data sources that are now being included in the E-Verify system, 

we believe that that is going to reduce the .5 percent mismatch 

rate for eligible or authorized employees, that it will reduce it by 

half. So you will be going from one-half of 1 percent to one-quarter 

of 1 percent. 

Mr. KING. If I might interject—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. If I could just add one—those are just all kind 

of percentages, but if I could just give you a real number there. Our 

data shows that, since May 5th, we have identified 3,500 employees 

who were naturalized, in other words, are naturalized citizens. And 

they were identified through this new check. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Scharfen. 

And then with the discussion about Social Security being, by 

some opinions, more efficient than USCIS with regard to this—and 

I asked the question of Ms. Giffords, and I don’t know that—I just 

want to ask you this. 

What is the distinction between E-Verify’s database setting up a 

query—I mean, you don’t house Social Security Administration 

data. That is not your database. So you send a query out to SSA, 

and it comes back and says verified or not. Then you send a query 

out to your records, and it says verified or not. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. So what would be the distinction between the proposal 

made by Mr. Johnson and Ms. Giffords about setting up a Social 

Security system, that under the Social Security, to send a query to 

their database and then a query to your database, how would that 

function differently than it does today? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think that is a point, obviously, I agree with, 

is that if you are going to do away with E-Verify and come up with 

a new system, you are just going to have to reinvent E-Verify. You 

are going to have to have a partnership between the Social Security Administration and DHS/CIS to run this program. And I really 

think that the Congress was correct in initially authorizing this 

program. It was correct in its two instances of reauthorizing it. And 

it is the best available tool today to do employment eligibility 

55 

verification, and it is one that we are dedicated and committed to 

making it better as we go forward. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Scharfen, I think, in Mr. Shuler’s testimony, he 

stated that DHS knows of not one case where a U.S. citizen was 

denied employment because of an error with the Basic Pilot Program. I want to know if you can verify that or if you can comment 

on that particular statement. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Right. I think what Mr. Shuler was saying was 

that those individuals who have gone through to clarify, perhaps, 

a tentative nonconfirmation as a citizen, we have no reports that 

none of them were able to resolve that and be able to establish 

their eligibility. 

One point that I think you know well, sir, is that while that is 

ongoing, that person gets to continue in employment and that they 

are employed, and there is no right to fire that person until it has 

been resolved. 

Mr. KING. And just briefly, just to conclude, the statement that 

there has been no one denied employment who was a U.S. citizen, 

doesn’t it come back to the basis that, actually, in the final analysis, you are the measure itself against whether this—against 

which everything else is weighed, in that you make that 

verification and you run that out against Social Security Administration, your own database, and then you clean up the records? So 

if there is going to be a measure in this, you would have corrected 

that in the process of cleaning up the records. So, by definition 

then, zero would be the number. Is that correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That is correct. We are dedicated to getting the 

right answer. And in fact, as you know, we’ve created a new call 

line where people can call directly to CIS to resolve these issues. 

And we are increasing that staff, and we are dedicated to doing 

this as quickly and as easily as we can. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I turn now to Mr. Conyers. 

Chairman CONYERS. Thank you. 

You have been on the job a couple years. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir, I have. 

Chairman CONYERS. And you have got 21 people trying to cover 

how many? What is this 250,000 or 66,000—66,000 employers who 

have 250,000 work sites but maybe millions of employees. Am I 

missing something here? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. If I could just run through the numbers. 

Chairman CONYERS. No, I am running through the numbers. Am 

I missing something here? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. In all respect, yes, sir, I believe you are. If I could 

run through the numbers really quickly. 

Chairman CONYERS. No, that is not going to be necessary. 

How can you with a staff of 21 people even get to the front door 

of your own office, much less handle the challenge that you have 

been in for less than 2 years? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. The numbers that we have that are working on 

this program, for the program staff, sir, this is E-Verify and SAVE, 

there is 360 employees. For just the outreach staff alone, we have 

16 employees. For the privacy staff alone, we have eight employees; 

56 

five full time employees, three contractors. For the monitoring and 

compliance unit, sir, we have 28 located at headquarters alone. In 

the field, we have 30 monitoring compliance in the regional office. 

That is going to grow in the next year to 135. 

So if you add all that up, it ends up being close to 500, sir. 

Chairman CONYERS. Well, that takes care of everything. Then we 

can sleep more comfortably in our beds at night, now that I know 

that some day soon under a new Administration, there is going to 

be 500. 

Some employers use E-Verify to screen job applicants reported by 

16 percent of long-term users, and then presumably either deny applicants an opportunity to work or postpone their starting date. In 

other words, they pre-screen them. And what about other employers who get prohibited adverse action—look, this is all set up to get 

the employers off the hook, and we are not getting them off the 

hook. We keep looking at some poor desperate guy that wants a job 

here, and we are worried about him and where he came from, but 

the employers have got the upper hand in here. And, guess what? 

Do you know how many people you ever refer over to the Department of Justice for prosecution, employers? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. We were just discussing that before the hearing, 

sir. And in fiscal year 2008, the cases referred to DOJ so far has 

been one case. In previous—— 

Chairman CONYERS. One case. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. Excuse me. Then you have to also include though cases referred to ICE. There have been over 40 cases 

referred to ICE at their request. Two cases have been identified by 

our new monitoring compliance team. The others were requested 

by ICE. And so if you add those up—— 

Chairman CONYERS. I can add. Those are single digits. I can add 

them up. You don’t have to add them up for me. 

In other words, the employers are walking away from this huge 

system, and anybody that they consider an organizer or troublemaker or finds there’s a title 7 violation or anything else, they are 

dead meat under this system. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. The system is based on automating an INI program that was already in existence. And I think that if you are 

going to have abusive employers who are going to violate the law, 

I think that they can probably do that even without E-Verify. 

In fact, I think that the E-Verify adds us—gives us additional enforcement tools to deter and also to prosecute, in some cases, examples of unlawful conduct by employers, because you now have a 

database that you can analyze for employer misconduct. In fact, the 

monitoring and compliance—— 

Chairman CONYERS. You know what, if this wasn’t so serious, I 

would think you are kidding me. You give me those puny numbers 

and tell me that this is strengthening you, that it would be—there 

would be even fewer employers prosecuted if you didn’t have this 

system, and I am supposed to feel better about that. And then, 

next year, we are going to get—we may get up to 500. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think that the monitoring compliance units that 

we are creating, sir, we are looking forward to creating an analysis 

system that would end up looking for patterns that would indicate 

57 

discrimination. And I think that is going to be a tool that is going 

to be useful to fight discrimination by employers. 

Chairman CONYERS. Have you ever worked in a foreign affairs 

field? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I used to be the chief counsel of the House International Relations Committee. 

Chairman CONYERS. I know. And I think you ought to begin looking at that position again. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Chairman CONYERS. You are more than welcome. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Chairman’s time has expired. 

And all time has expired for this witness. 

And we do thank you for your appearance here today, Mr. 

Scharfen. If we have additional questions, we will forward them to 

you and ask that you respond promptly. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will now ask our third panel and final panel 

of distinguished witnesses to come forward. 

First, I am pleased to welcome Dr. Carolyn Shettle, who is the 

senior study director at Westat, with over 30 years of experience 

in research design, survey methodology, data analysis, report writing, sampling, and research management. During the past 10 

years, she has led evaluations of the E-Verify program and its precursor programs. Prior to her work at Westat, she worked at Temple University, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She has a Ph.D. In sociology with a major in research methods and statistics from the 

University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Our next witness is Tim Sparapani—if I mispronounced your 

name, pardon me—senior legislative counsel for the Washington 

Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. 

Sparapani focuses on protecting the right to privacy, defending the 

rights of immigrants, and shielding civil liberties in national security matters. His effort focuses on preventing violations and unnecessary intrusions into Americans’ privacy by both Government and 

private organizations and individuals. Mr. Sparapani also monitors 

the effect of Federal, State, and local national security policy on 

civil liberties to ensure that Americans remain both safe and free. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome, Chris Williams, a Chicago attorney who is currently the executive director of the Working Hands 

Legal Clinic and has extensive experience in the areas of labor and 

employment law. Prior to practicing law, he worked for over a decade as director of organizing for Chicago area labor unions. He also 

served as director of the Chicago Workers Collaborative. Mr. Williams has worked extensively with worker centers on issues related 

to the abuse of Employment Eligibility Verification Systems and 

no-match letters. 

And, finally, our the last witness is Glenda Wooten-Ingram, who 

has worked in the hospitality field for over 20 years, the vast majority of which she has spent as a human resources director in the 

Washington, D.C., area. Ms. Ingram has been with Embassy Suites 

for the last 4 years as its director of human resources. She has 

58 

been certified by the Society of Human Resource Management for 

over 9 years. 

As with our other panel, your full written statements will be 

made part of our record. We would ask that your testimony be 

about 5 minutes, so that we will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

And, Dr. Shettle, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF CAROLYN F. SHETTLE, Ph.D., 

SENIOR STUDY DIRECTOR, WESTAT 

Ms. SHETTLE. Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me here today to talk 

about Westat’s September 2007 evaluation report of E-Verify that 

we’ve conducted under contract to USCIS, though I have heard so 

much today about our report. I am not sure I have a lot to add. 

Anyway, the focus of my remarks today are on the particular emphasis that this panel has, and I am going to talk about noncompliance, discrimination, and privacy. I will talk first about what we 

found at the time of this evaluation, which is some time ago, and 

then I will talk about observed and future trends. 

As far as employer noncompliance goes, we did find substantial 

noncompliance, and the findings for the most part were based on 

employer self-reports which we have evidence to believe are underreported noncompliance. There is substantial noncompliance. In 

terms of a particular example, I think you already mentioned, 22 

percent of the employees suffer some kind of adverse action to job 

restriction, and we have other examples of pre-screening and reduction in pay, and so on. 

As far as discrimination goes, that is a complex issue that has 

been hotly debated since the beginning of employment verification. 

We did find evidence on both sides, and I think some of this has 

been quoted today. 

As far as the good news in terms of reducing discrimination, we 

found that 19 percent of the employers we asked said they were 

more willing now than they were prior to the program and 4 percent said that they were less willing to hire immigrants. And this 

leads to the conclusion that there is a net decrease in discrimination at the hiring stage because of the program. 

The bad news, though, which I think we’ve also been hearing, is 

that foreign born workers that are more likely to receive a tentative nonconfirmation prior to being work authorized. And this 

particular error rate has been quoted a lot today. 

For those who were work-authorized, and only for them, what 

percentage go through a tentative nonconfirmation process before 

receiving a final confirmation as work-authorized; the error rates 

for all work-authorized employees would be higher. We know it spirals downward. 

It is very difficult to estimate that, though, because for the ones 

that don’t finish up the system, we don’t know what percent are 

work-authorized and what percent are not. As you have heard, the 

rate is particularly high among naturalized citizens at around 10 

percent compared to U.S. born folks where it is one-tenth of a percent, or one out of 1,000, and noncitizens are in between. 

59 

Even if employers were completely compliant, these discrepancies 

and error rates would be, de facto discrimination, maybe not by 

employer intent, but because employees have to go through additional hurdles to get their authorization verified. 

We have seen over time a number of improvements in noncompliance and in terms of the error rate. 

I skipped over the privacy issue, which we don’t have so much 

of in terms of results. We did question the lack of security in the 

registration process, as you noted. And we also mentioned that employers do not consistently convey information in a private setting. 

And one example of that was employees who noted that their employer just posted a list of people who they said were not work-authorized. 

As I said, there have been improvements. Some of the improvements can be attributable to changes in worker and employer characteristics as we go from a small program in five States with high 

immigration populations to the full volunteer program we have 

today. But there are also improvements that we believe are attributable to program changes, and we just heard from DHS about 

those. 

In the future, we expect that there will be some more changes 

due to programmatic improvements. What we don’t know is what 

will be the impact if we go to a mandatory program on the whole 

system, in particular employer compliance, since it is reasonable to 

believe that pulling in people involuntarily will create a worse 

problem than we have now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If you could wrap up, please. 

Ms. SHETTLE. Yes, in sum, we do see problems that U.S. citizens 

and noncitizens with work authorizations are affected negatively. 

We’ve seen improvements over time, in part because of program 

changes that are ongoing. And the biggest question is the question 

of mandatory. Things may change. We can’t predict what is going 

to happen there. 

And, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee for listening to me. And if people want more information 

about this report or prior reports, I refer you to the USCIS Web 

site that has the report. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shettle follows:] 

60 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN F. SHETTLE


Shettle-1.eps
61 


Shettle-2.eps
62 


Shettle-3.eps
63 


Shettle-4.eps
64 


Shettle-5.eps
65 


Shettle-6.eps
66 


Shettle-7.eps
67 


Shettle-8.eps
68 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sparapani. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY SPARAPANI, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE 

COUNSEL, WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE, AMERICAN 

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

Mr. SPARAPANI. Imagine the horror of a constituent who is unable to start any new job due to Government bungling and bureaucracy. This horror show would surely confront thousands of 

workers upon implementation of an E-Verify type system. Denied 

their right to work lawfully, these workers would quickly fall into 

economic distress. 

Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, and Ranking Member 

King, the ACLU urges Congress to refuse to mandate a system 

that would create a new ‘‘no work list’’ like the infamous ‘‘no fly 

list’’ populated by thousands of Americans wrongly blocked from 

working by their own Government. The costs associated with mandatory electronic screening cannot be overstated, and any benefits 

are speculative at best. 

Proponents tout electronic screening as a technological cure all 

for beleaguered American workers who fear for their jobs and 

wages. However, mandatory electronic screening would impose unacceptable burdens on America’s workers and businesses without 

resolving the immigration dilemma, because it cannot prevent the 

hiring of undocumented workers. 

I will focus on two reasons to oppose electronic screening. One, 

mandatory screening will invade American workers’ privacy, vastly 

increasing, not decreasing, the incidents of identity theft and document fraud by turning identities into black market commodities. 

And, two, mandatory screening will entangle American workers in 

a massive knot of Government red tape, both to get hired and resolve data errors. And that is all because of the poor data quality 

we’ve heard so much about this morning and the problems with administrative judicial redress, which we haven’t yet talked about. 

Mandating electronic screening will endanger law-abiding Americans’ privacy because it makes a work-eligible identity a highly valuable commodity and creates a black market for those identities. 

Requiring Government permission to work will leave some desperate undocumented immigrants and those smuggling and illegally employing them to steal work-eligible American identities. In 

short, E-Verify will increase, not decrease, identity theft. 

Similarly, Government databases will be targeted by identity 

thieves because they contain workers’ identity data. No database 

can be entirely secure from hackers. And the Government’s information security track record is poor at best. This privacy threat is 

wholly unnecessary, because E-Verify and similar systems are so 

easily evaded by ineligible workers presenting fake documents. 

Neither employers nor Government databases would detect this 

fraud. 

Congress should ask, why endanger Americans’ privacy if it will 

not prevent the hiring of undocumented immigrants? 

The ACLU also opposes electronic screening unless the Government is forced to rapidly correct data errors and compensate workers its errors injure. The ACLU again foresees a new ‘‘no work list’’ 

69 

consisting of those eligible employees who cannot work because of 

data errors and Government bureaucracy. 

Congress should not mandate pre-screening, but it should require 

SSA and DHS to systematically review files to eliminate errors. 

Only after systematically improving data should Congress consider 

mandating pre-screening eligibility. 

Workers injured by data errors will need quick, permanent resolutions so they do not become presumptively unemployable. 

Any legislation must allow workers to easily access and correct 

erroneous Government data. SSA and DHS must hire sufficient 

staff to handle the millions of additional worker inquiries they will 

surely receive. 

Congress must also provide fair administrative and judicial procedures to resolve errors promptly to get workers back to work. 

None of the pending proposals, unfortunately, promise real relief. 

Any worker challenging erroneous Government data deserves a 

presumption of work eligibility. The Government should bear the 

legal burden to demonstrate a worker’s ineligibility rather than 

forcing the worker to prove his or her eligibility. After all, no undocumented worker would fight two Federal agencies through administrative and judicial procedures for fear of being caught and 

deported. It is just simply illogical to imagine that kind of scenario. 

Therefore, administrative law judges should be empowered to order 

records correction and reimbursement of workers costs plus lost 

wages and interests. The Government should bear costs to minimize workers’ injury. We recommend a strict liability standard for 

Government errors to encourage the Government to improve its 

data quality. 

Finally, if the administrative process fails, then workers need 

court access. Because suing is expensive, the Government must 

bear costs for any judicial process, and workers should be reimbursed for lost wages and opportunities plus interest. 

In conclusion, failure to mandate real administrative and judicial 

redress will surely result in a list of employees who are lawfully 

eligible to work but whom employers are unable lawfully to employ. 

This black list will truly be a ‘‘no work list’’ that will endanger 

American workers’ privacy and their right to work. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sparapani follows:] 

70 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SPARAPANI


TS-1.eps
71 


TS-2.eps
72 


TS-3.eps
73 


TS-4.eps
74 


TS-5.eps
75 


TS-6.eps
76 


TS-7.eps
77 


TS-8.eps
78 


TS-9.eps
79 


TS-10.eps
80 


TS-11.eps
81 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Williams. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE, 

DIRECTOR, WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good morning. I want to thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman, and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak 

today. 

As mentioned, I am an attorney in Chicago. I work with a nonprofit organization that assists low-wage workers predominantly in 

the temporary staffing industry. And I think the perspective I can 

bring today is how the E-Verify program and other employment eligibility verification systems are affecting people on the ground. And 

I submitted written testimony, so I won’t repeat that here. 

But we’ve heard a lot of numbers thrown around about accuracy 

rates and so forth, but I think there is something that has been 

given a little bit short shrift, which is the role of employers in this 

system. Because employers are a very important part of the 

verification system. They play a role, and then those numbers have 

to be counted in. You heard a claim that there was a 0.5 percent 

error rate. You heard a claim that not one person has been denied 

employment because of the E-Verify system, and that is just not accurate. 

First of all, the system is based on the Social Security Administration database which, by all accounts, has 17 million or more errors. And I personally have a little history with that. I just received 

my newborn daughter’s Social Security card, and my last name is 

her middle name, and it was spelled with three Ls, and my name 

is spelled Williams with two Ls. So it is very common to have an 

error in the Social Security database. 

You couple that with employers not—being resistant to participating in these employment verification system programs. Right 

now it is voluntary. With all of the errors and problems we’ve 

heard about, these are employers who are voluntarily participating 

in this program. You mix that—you roll this out to be mandatory, 

you mix that with employers, small employers who do not want to 

participate, small employers who do not want to play this role, who 

do not have the resources to access the proper legal advice, you are 

going to have a disaster. 

And I do know somebody who has been denied employment. His 

name was Fernando Tinoco. He was a client of mine. He went, and 

he applied for a job at a Chicago poultry plant. And he came back 

a tentative nonconfirmation. He was given the information. He 

went to Social Security Administration. He got the necessary documents to show he was eligible to work. The company didn’t want 

to take him; it was too risky. 

Then I know another person, Abel Pacheco. He lost his job, went 

out and applied at eight different locations. Finally, he applied at 

the eighth location, was told he got a tentative nonconfirmation. He 

never heard back from the first seven. Now, did they all check his 

status? Did they all check E-Verify, and did they determine that 

he was not eligible to work? Did they pre-screen him? This is a 

problem that is not to be reported. With all the problems we heard 

about in the Westat report, this is a problem we are not going to 

82 

hear about in any report. This is a serious problem where employers have the ability to check and pre-screen. We know this is happening, even from self-reporting, that the rate is high. Without selfreporting, we don’t know how high the rate is. But employers who 

are resistant to participating in a mandatory program anyway and 

who are risk-averse are just going to make the decision, why bother? Just don’t hire the person. And that is a problem. 

Somebody mentioned earlier the Social Security no-match letters. 

And I realize that is a different thing. E-Verify is something done 

at the time of hire. Social Security no-match letters come out and 

when somebody is employed and working. But they both depend on 

the same flawed database. And I have dealt with literally thousands of workers who have been wrongfully terminated by employers, sometimes quite honestly innocently by employers who receive 

a no-match letter. And there are safeguards in place with the nomatch letter. The no-match letter itself says, ‘‘this is not an indication of someone’s immigration status.’’ The employer just makes a 

determination. They see on the news. They read in the paper, employers are getting arrested. It is easier just to get rid of the employees than to deal with the mess. 

Some of them find their way to me or other organizations like 

ours, and they get assistance, but most of them do not. Some employers, I have sat with them, and one employer fired 30 workers, 

all Hispanic. He told me, well, I got one of those no-match letters. 

So under Illinois law, we requested a copy of the no-match letter. 

Well, you know, we don’t really have them. But there are other 

ways to check people’s Social Security numbers. 

Well, what are those other ways of checking those Social Security 

numbers? Did he use the E-Verify program? What is USCIS doing 

to make sure that he did not pre-screen, he did not check current 

employees? What are they doing to make sure that these employees 

are not being victimized by employers who are abusing the system? 

Do they even know? Is there a way to know? And I think the answer to that question is, no, there is really not a way to know. 

The system should not be rolled out. It should not be made mandatory until the databases that it depends on are accurate. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS

Good morning. My name is Chris Williams. I am the Executive Director of the 

Working Hands Legal Clinic in Chicago. Our Legal Clinic assists vulnerable, low 

wage workers confronting the most abusive and exploitative practices in the workplace, everything from stolen wages to discrimination. First, let me thank you for 

your invitation to speak before this distinguished committee. 

I am here today to express our organizations concern about proposals to expand 

the use of Electronic Employment Verification Systems (EEVS), such as the E-Verify 

program. The E-Verify program, currently a voluntary program, requires participating employers to verify whether newly-hired employees are eligible to work in 

the United States through the use of an internet-based program. When a participating employer enters a worker’s basic identifying data into the E-Verify system, 

the data is checked against databases maintained by the Social Security Administration (‘‘SSA’’) and the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’). The SSA database is supposed to tell whether a particular worker is a U.S. citizen or work-authorized immigrant. If a worker is not a citizen and does not appear on the SSA 

database, the DHS database is supposed to tell whether the worker is authorized 

to work in the United States. The E-Verify program is being touted as an effective 

means of eliminating employment by undocumented immigrants but too little attenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061008\42826.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
83 

1 CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE REPORT: ACCURACY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S NUMIDENT FILE (Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration, Dec. 2006). 2FINDINGS OF THE WEB-BASED BASIC PILOT EVALUATION (Westat, Sept. 2007). 

3 Id. at note 3, at xxi. 4 Id. at 71–77. 5 Id. at 71. 

tion is being paid to the negative impact the program is having on U.S. citizens and 

work-authorized non-citizens, a problem that will only be exacerbated by expansion 

of this or other EEVS programs. 

The E-Verify program, formerly called ‘‘Basic Pilot’’, has been plagued by serious 

problems since it was first introduced in 1997. First, this EEVS program relies on 

government databases that have unacceptably high error rates, misidentifying workauthorized workers as not employment-eligible. Specifically, a December 2006 report 

by the Office of the Inspector General for the SSA estimated that 17.8 million of 

records contained in the SSA database, the primary source of information for the 

E-Verify program, contain discrepancies related to name, date of birth, or citizenship status.1 Such discrepancies result in a ‘‘tentative non-confirmation’’ of eligibility 

for employment under the E-Verify program. According to testimony from the GAO 

to a 2008 subcommittee of the House Ways & Means Committee, the E-Verify program was not able to automatically verify the work authorization of approximately 

8 percent of workers whose information is submitted to E-Verify. This is the same 

error rate that was found in the Westat report commissioned by the Department 

of Homeland Security and released in September 2007.2 The worker then becomes 

responsible for resolving the issue with Social Security or with DHS. If the worker 

does not resolve the problem quickly, he or she faces termination. When the EVerify program’s databases fail, U.S. citizens and work-eligible immigrants pay the 

price as they are put on what essentially amounts to a ‘‘no-work list.’’ 

Employer misuse or non-compliance with the E-Verify program rules is a second 

and, in my view, more insidious problem. The 2007 Westat evaluation of Basic Pilot/ 

E-Verify found that the rate of employer noncompliance with the program rules is 

‘‘substantial’’ and ‘‘diminishes the effectiveness of safeguards designed to protect the 

rights of work-authorized employees who obtain erroneous tentative non-confirmations.’’ 3 The report found that ‘‘the rate of employer noncompliance [with the program rules] is still substantial.’’ Specifically, employers engaged in prohibited employment practices, including: (1) pre-employment screening; (2) adverse employment action based on tentative non-confirmation notices; and (3) failure to inform 

workers of their rights under the program. And the effect is particular hard on 

work-authorized foreign-born workers, since, as the Westat report points out, these 

workers are 30 times more likely than U.S.-born to receive erroneous tentative nonconfirmations (nearly 1 in 10) initially receive tentative non-confirmations).4

I believe the case of Mr. Fernando Tinoco, one of my clients, is illustrative of this 

problem. Mr. Tinoco is an immigrant from Mexico and became a citizen of the 

United States in 1989. He applied for a job with an employer in Chicago that used 

the E-Verify program. After submitting his information through the EEVS program, 

the employer received a tentative non-confirmation notice. Mr. Tinoco challenged 

the tentative non-confirmation and was required to go to the SSA himself to clear 

the matter up. But even after SSA acknowledged the error and provided Mr. Tinoco 

with the necessary documentation, the employer refused to employ Mr. Tinoco. 

In Mr. Tinoco’s case, we were eventually able to resolve the issue because his employer had informed him of the tentative non-confirmation from the E-Verify program and he was able to successfully challenge the determination. But, according 

to the Westat report, 47 percent of employers, nearly half, had pre-screened workers 

through E-Verify system and, unfortunately, there is no way to account for how 

many employers, when faced with a tentative non-confirmation, simply choose not 

to hire the person.5 There is simply no way for a potential employee to know this 

and no effective safeguards to prevent this practice. 

My experience with employers’ reaction to ‘‘No-Match’’ letters from the SSA tells 

me that this type of problem is already underreported and will only be exacerbated 

by expansion of the E-Verify or other EEVS program. While SSA No-Match letters 

are different than the E-Verify program, both rely on the same flawed SSA database. (A No-Match letter is generated by SSA when a worker’s identifying information remitted to the Social Security Administration does not match the information 

contained in the SSA database and, if not deliverable to the individual, is sent to 

the employer.) 

Our legal clinic has had to respond to firings of literally thousands of workers in 

and around Chicago over the past two years based on misapplication or misunderVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061008\42826.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
84 

standing of the E-Verify program and/or SSA No-Match letters. One employer who 

fired 30 Hispanic employees initially told me that the terminations were based on 

receipt of a SSA No-Match letter, but later, after the employees had requested copies of the letters under Illinois law, admitted there were no such letters, stating instead that there were other ways to check the social security numbers of his employees. None of the affected employees was told the basis of the termination, much less 

given the opportunity to challenge any tentative non-confirmation. Another small 

employer of 50 homecare health workers fired fully half of her employees. When 

challenged on the basis of the terminations, she told me ‘‘Well, I’ve been reading 

the newspaper and I thought that is what I was supposed to do. I thought I had 

to get rid of anybody who might be working illegally.’’ 

There are over six million employers in the U.S., many of which are small, have 

no human resource staff and limited resources to get access to legally accurate information and even less time to become compliant with a mandatory EEV system. 

Many employers will be ill-equipped to be the frontline of immigration enforcement 

and by expanding the use of an EEVS system, the law will be applied in an uneven 

and, too often, unfair way. Coupled with the inaccuracies in the databases underlying the EEV system, the inevitable result will be that an unacceptably high number of legally authorized workers will lose their livelihoods. Simply put, employers 

should not be charged with the responsibility of enforcing immigration law through 

these EEV systems. Most do not want to expend the time and resources to do so, 

and have neither the expertise nor tools to do so correctly or legally. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And now we turn to our final witness. 

Ms. Ingram, we would like to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF GLENDA WOOTEN-INGRAM, DIRECTOR OF 

HUMAN RESOURCES, EMBASSY SUITES CONVENTION CENTER 

Ms. INGRAM. Well, it is afternoon. 

I have been in the human resources department for almost 20 

years, and I have also been using this system since it first came 

out. And for me, as an employer, it helped me because I am not 

an expert in looking at the documents. And we all look at the documents, and we can say they are legal or whether they are not, and 

this system it does help. 

But the one thing that, from the employer and for the company 

that I have worked for, we have a system in place that you can’t 

pre-screen. You can’t tell someone, show me your documents before 

you interview them; show me your documents before I make an 

offer to you. That process is not done until after we sit down, we’ve 

interviewed the candidate, we verified their employment, they have 

gone through our background drug test, et cetera, and we make an 

offer. 

And once they come in, they get their new hire paper, and that 

is part of their new hire paperwork. The new hire paperwork has 

the I-9 form attached, and it asks them—we don’t tell them what 

document to choose, they have their choice from A, B, C, whichever 

document they choose. And then, once they fill the form out, then 

we put it into our Basic Pilot, or now known as E-Verify, system, 

and we wait for whether there is going to be a confirmation or a 

nonconfirmation. Those documents are kept in a file, confidentially, 

where no one can get access to them unless they are in the human 

resource department. 

If we get a nonconfirmation for a—we call them team members 

instead of employees—we basically bring that individual into the 

office, into the privacy of our office, and we sit down with them, 

and we explain it to them: This is what we received. Here’s what 

you need to do. You have a choice, you can make a phone call, or 

85 

you can go down. We read it to them. We tell them they have 8 

days. They can still continue to work. This does not affect—they 

don’t have to be suspended pending further investigation or anything. They continue to work. Once they get the document, we go 

back into the system and confirm, and then that is fine. 

We have had some team members that have chose not to contest 

it, and so they leave. But we still encourage them, you know, if you 

feel that your documents are correct, please make the phone call. 

If it comes back that we still can’t get a confirmation and we have 

to do a termination, we don’t say, you can’t come back here. We 

say, once you get your files together, your documents together, you 

are more than welcome to come back and reapply for the job. And 

that happens to every single person that comes in, after they fill 

out—they go through that process with us. 

. So I am confident for the company that I work for and my colleagues that we do follow those procedures. And every year, we are 

audited by our own company to go into our I-9 files to make sure. 

And when you are printing that data off, it has a date. So you are 

going to look at the date to say that you couldn’t have pre-screened 

because you have the date that the person actually hired; you have 

your PAF that shows the date that you hired the person; and you 

have the date the confirmation was done. But we are audited by 

our company as well to make sure that we are in compliance. 

I think it is a great system to work with. And it is great, and 

I think that that is another tool to help you to ensure that you are 

in compliance. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ingram follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENDA WOOTEN-INGRAM

Dear Distinguished Members of Congress, I am Glenda Ingram, Director of 

Human Resources for the Embassy Suites Convention Center. Thank you for this 

opportunity to come before you today to speak of my experiences with the E-Verify 

program. As a Hotel Director of Human Resources in the Washington, DC area for 

more than twenty years with the last four years at the Embassy Suites Convention 

Center I have seen the benefits and the need for this program. 

Since the late 1990’s I have been working with E-Verify, then a pilot program, 

it is very easy to use and relieves many Human Resources Departments and Companies of the burden of proving a potential new hire’s eligibility to work in the 

United States. In fact, during the interview process we can not ask for proof of eligibility to work in the United States. Using E-Verify helps the employer to verify that 

a new hire’s documents are in order and keeps the employer in compliance with the 

laws. 

E-Verify provides documents to the employer to be used when an employer receives a non-confirmation notice regarding a new hire. The new hires document is 

stored in the system ready for the employer to print and present to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security upon request. We review 

this document with the new hire for them to make a decision to contest or not to 

contest the validity of the information. 

In August 2005 when we were opening the Embassy Suites we hired 175 new employees using the E-Verify program. During the hiring process we posted notice and 

verbally told each potential new hire that we utilized the E-Verify program. I firmly 

believe that this helped us to eliminate hiring applicants who did not have the legal 

paperwork required to work for the hotel. 

Currently this notice is posted in the Human Resources Department for all employees and applicants to read and ask questions. This deteriorates applicants from 

applying for positions knowing their paperwork is not legal. Using this procedure 

has saved our company a lot of money in time verifying information on the application, verifying past employment (which can sometimes take days), on drug tests, 

training and when found out, re-advertising the position. 

86 

Illegal paperwork is usually not found out until after they have been hired and 

completed the I-9 form. The E-Verify process takes less than 5 minutes to input and 

receive a confirmation or non-confirmation. If a non-confirmation is returned we 

bring the new employee into the private office, inform them of the results, explain 

the procedures, give them the opportunity to contact the authorities and rectify the 

paperwork. We ensure them that they are not being terminated and they can continue to work while working on the solution. 

Once they return with the proper paperwork, we re-enter it into the system and 

in most cases they are confirmed. Many of the problems we encounter are data 

entry errors such as misspelled names, incorrect date of birth or social security 

numbers. This system does not discriminate against anyone since every new hire 

must provide proof they can work in the United States, complete an I-9 form and 

entered into E-Verifying. 

In closing, I believe that in my 10 or more years of using E-Verify that it is an 

invaluable business tool; the cost is free; is easy to teach (including President Bush); 

is very user friendly and the support system is very helpful. 

Beyond the most obvious reasons mentioned above I firmly believe that E-Verify 

has prevented us from hiring illegal’s and staying in compliance with the law. This 

is a program all Companies should use. 

Thank you for your time and this opportunity. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Now is the time we will have a chance to ask a few questions 

before we conclude, and I will begin. 

One of the things that struck me, we are all trying to get our 

heads around this subject and making sure it is right. But if you 

are an immigrant or a naturalized citizen, there’s going to be 

records with pictures in DHS. But if you come in and you say you 

are Jane Smith and an American citizen, and you have got the Social Security number, and you stole that I D from the real Jane 

Smith, I don’t see how the bills before us really uncover that fact. 

Can you comment on it? 

Mr. SPARAPANI. They don’t, and they can’t. And that is part of 

the problem with not only E-Verify but all the other pending legislative proposals. Despite the fact that this program concept has 

been around for 30 years, really since 1978, we really haven’t been 

able to resolve this underlying problem of document fraud. And it 

is going to bedevil this program. 

Ms. LOFGREN. There is no database of every American with a picture or biometrics. 

Mr. SPARAPANI. And I say thank God for that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am not arguing yea or nay. I am just noting that 

fact. 

Mr. SPARAPANI. And that is exactly right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask, in terms of the one suggestion I think 

that Mr. Johnson and Gifford’s bill is suggesting as a potential 

remedy for that is to use something like the Clear Path System 

that does collect biometrics but also has an ID fraud component to 

it. Do you think that would advance that effort? Whoever wants to 

answer. 

Mr. SPARAPANI. I don’t. And there are lots of reasons for that. 

One, every time we put private information into even private hands 

in this case, we run the risk that that data is going to be compromised. And, again, there is no database which has been proven 

to be secure. The hackers are always at least one step, usually 

many steps, ahead of the best information-security protocols, and 

that is because they have an economic incentive to breach them. 

Therefore, we can always expect that data is going to be comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\061008\42826.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
87 

promised, that people’s identities are going to be stolen. So we 

think that this is sort of a misdirection to go down, to try to focus 

on identity as the key to doing immigration enforcement. I think 

it leads you down a series of paths which sound promising but 

when they actually get to implementation are very difficult to actually pull off, and actually provide a weakness that has never been 

overcome conceptually. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Shettle, do you want to comment? 

Ms. SHETTLE. I don’t really have a lot to comment on. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay, that is fine. 

It seems to me that we want to have a system that is enforceable, that works, where only those who are legally permitted to 

work are working. But we don’t want to have the adverse consequences. We don’t want Americans to be denied jobs or other people who are legally permitted to work to be denied jobs. We certainly don’t want whatever system that we create to be used for 

improper purposes such as discriminatory purposes or the like. 

I just was remembering, if the stakes are very high for an employer, they are going to fire people to protect themselves. I remember, we had Swift in here last year, and they sort of had the worst 

of both worlds. They were first charged with discrimination because they were looking at Latino employees, which they shouldn’t 

have done. So they stopped doing that. And then they had employees that weren’t lawfully permitted to work, and they lost $40 million after the enforcement action. So which way do you do? 

We want to have a system that works well. Do you see any of 

these bills before us—I don’t know if you have had a chance to 

study all of them—that might avoid the adverse consequences of either use for labor or discrimination, but also allow employers to 

have confidence that they are doing the right thing? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The one thing I would say, and this point was 

made earlier, is I think that there is a flaw in the idea that you 

can just deal with one aspect. There has to be comprehensive reform. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I agree with that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And so you are going to end up in these problems, 

because there is a lot of pressure on employers and employees in 

terms of getting work. 

What I see, one of the things we see in Illinois is the increasing 

use of temporary staffing agencies as a way of kind of laundering 

people through. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So the liability isn’t to the employer. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Moving liability away, along with all other sorts 

of labor rights and standards that go along with it. 

Just as my colleague said, the hackers are always one step 

ahead. There is always going to be a way to get around the system, 

and they are going to move around the system. 

And so I think what we are trying to do is we are trying to fix 

one aspect of this without fixing the overall problem. You know, 

employers need the workers, and they are going to find a way to 

find them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before turning to Mr. King, I will just note that 

I think, Mr. Sparapani, the burden-of-proof idea I find intriguing 

because I think you are right, Americans should have a right—I 

88 

mean, we have a right to go support our families. And I think your 

observation is probably correct. If there is a contested thing, I 

mean, people who are here without their documents tend to want 

to go underground. They don’t want to be found. It is unlikely, I 

would guess, that they are going to walk into court and contest the 

finding. Instead, they are going to high tail it and try to find some 

other job. So that is an intriguing idea. 

I turn now to Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

You know, as I sit here and listen, a few thoughts cross my mind. 

And one of them is that for every single illegal person working in 

the United States of America, there is a corresponding 

disenfranchised American somewhere either looking for a job or 

earning less wages and benefits than they would otherwise, because the law of supply and demand certainly directs the value of 

labor and benefits. 

And so we are here wallowing around and looking for some kind 

of guilt about maybe disenfranchising a single person when we 

know that for every illegal that slips through the system, there is 

at least one corresponding disenfranchised America or legal worker 

in the United States who is here lawfully and can work here lawfully. 

Another point that I would give is that this self-imposed guilt 

about profiling is national idiocy. It has always been an important 

part of law enforcement. And if you put out the identification of a 

person who has committed a crime in the neighborhood and you 

can’t use those characteristics to identify that person, we’ve opened 

ourselves up for those crimes to be committed over and over again. 

No, I don’t think we should go out and discriminate against people based upon their race or their ethnicity or those outward appearances. I think you ought to have a right to work in this country if you are legal. But we can’t say to the American people, you 

can’t be prudent. You cannot profile, you cannot stereotype someone. That is something that has been—that message gets sent constantly, and I think we need to be smart about what we do. 

And with regard to the concern about the previous testimony, the 

Chairman’s remarks about, well, the 40 prosecutions referred 

through ICE last year of employers that abuse E-Verify, one so far 

this year, that is 41. I think I can fix just about all of those, and 

I would say this: Let’s legalize the use of E-Verify for employers so 

that if a job applicant presents their INI and information, it is implicit that they are asking you and giving you consent to go out and 

use E-Verify. If they are willing to give you the data on I-9, why 

aren’t they willing to accept the data that comes back on E-Verify? 

We can solve a lot of these problems that way. It would be face to 

face up front. When I hire employees, I look them in their eye. I 

look at their drivers license. I look at their data, and I ask them 

questions, because they are the people that I am going to entrust 

the profitability of my company in. 

And so I think that is the responsible thing. I presume the employer is responsible, not unethical, and I think we can operate 

with that presumption. 

So then, Dr. Shettle, I wanted to ask this question to you. What 

percent of illegals are erroneously approved by E-Verify? That is a 

89 

subject that I don’t think has been addressed today. Do we know 

the answer to that? 

Ms. SHETTLE. We don’t have a good estimate of that. The problem is that there is no way for us easily to say who is and who 

isn’t work-authorized beyond what the system comes out with, 

which is why we are using this error rate based just on those found 

work-authorized. We are hoping to look a little more closely at this 

in our next evaluation where we are doing many more interviews 

with employees who received tentative nonconfirmations regardless 

of whether or not they were resolved. 

Mr. KING. Let me ask, Would they fit in two categories, those approved erroneously by E-Verify? And one category we know about 

would be those who presented false documents that belonged to a 

person who was legally working in the United States. We know 

that that exists out there. We don’t know that number, but it could 

be huge, and we think it is. And then another category perhaps we 

haven’t talked about, could that be those who have—who would not 

be lawful to work in the United States who have somehow created 

a database that identifies them? Do we know anything about that 

particular category? 

Ms. SHETTLE. That—— 

Mr. KING. Let’s just say, are you aware of any creation of data 

that would support someone’s employment who was illegal that 

might be unique to them? For example, a digital photograph on a 

green card of someone who has circumvented the system and gotten into the database that could then 1 day become a citizen, get 

a passport, because they have created the foundation for their false 

identity. 

Ms. SHETTLE. I don’t have an estimate of how frequently that 

happens. But we definitely know that some people not in the country legally do go get a drivers license using false breeder documents, which are documents that are much less reliable, like a 

birth certificate where you don’t have a picture and so on. So, yes, 

definitely that can happen. How often it happens, I couldn’t tell 

you. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. Ingram, I want to especially thank you for your testimony. 

I know when you took this job on, you surely didn’t expect to be 

sitting before Congress testifying, and I understand that, and I appreciate that. 

But the question that I have to ask you is, you mentioned that 

your company audits your attempts to use E-Verify. And is there 

a corresponding verification that records each of your attempts on 

the database of E-Verify that can be used to validate your company’s audit to make sure that you are not using E-Verify until 

there is a legitimate job offer? 

Ms. INGRAM. Yes, we have our own forms, and then the form that 

is printed from E-Verify to confirm or nonconfirm. We keep all the 

documents that we have attached to the I-9 form with any notes 

that we may have that we contacted this person, we talked to 

them, they came back, or whatever information we’ve had with the 

team member. 

Mr. KING. And E-Verify has that data, too? 

Ms. INGRAM. Yes. 

90 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We have been called to the floor for votes, but before we do, we 

want to turn to Chairman Conyers for any questions. 

And also, I don’t know if, Mr. Conyers, you weren’t here when 

we did opening statements. If you wanted to do an opening statement, you are welcome to do that as well. 

Chairman CONYERS. Well, thank you very much. I think this has 

been a very important hearing. 

Let me ask you about verification. Should we make it mandatory, 

do you think, Ms. Ingram? Or are you ready to leave it optional? 

Ms. INGRAM. I think it is a good option for me. In our company, 

everyone uses, all our properties use E-Verify. So, yeah, I do. That 

is my belief. I am not speaking on behalf of my company, but I believe that it is a good system to use. 

Chairman CONYERS. Mr. Williams, what do you think? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I applaud Ms. Ingram’s company for having 

so many safety checks in place. I know that is not the standard, 

and I know if you roll it out past the voluntary use right now, you 

will have employers even more resistant. 

And one little side note. I apologize if I wasn’t clear. The people 

I was talking about, Mr. Tinoco, Mr. Pacheco, are legally authorized to work, are as American as Ms. Hong and my daughter is. 

Chairman CONYERS. Dr. Shettle, where do you come down on the 

mandatory part of this discussion? 

Ms. SHETTLE. As an evaluator, I feel that this is not something 

that I should be giving an opinion. As documented in our report, 

there are advantages and disadvantages. And I think that the 

trade-off decision is yours. 

Chairman CONYERS. Mr. ACLU. 

Mr. SPARAPANI. The consequences of doing mandatory screening 

are going to be extraordinary. And when we design big Government 

databases and systems that are going to apply to every worker in 

America, we have to write the law in such a way as to think about 

that odd case. We have to think about those extraordinary individuals whose data doesn’t work, because those are the weaknesses 

that will be exposed. 

When you take a system like this nationwide for every worker, 

it’s going to be a huge set of problems, and Congress has to have 

that squarely in mind before it does anything at all. 

Chairman CONYERS. Especially if you include everybody that 

works in America. I don’t need a calculator to add 163 million and 

12 million. 

And so I am working on the Steve King theory. Well, he has got 

two theories here that he has left us to concern ourselves with. One 

is that every one of the 12 million people who have taken somebody 

else’s job, or one for one, now, that presumes that there are a lot 

of people looking for stoop labor, that want to be seasonal employees, that want to work below minimum wage, without a union. And 

I am going to be learning more about that as the immigration theories continue. 

Then he has the most challenging theory of all, the presumption 

of employers’ good intentions in terms of hiring these people that 

91 

are the 12 million. I presume that most of these employers are trying to do what people in a capitalist system always like to accomplish. But we have found that where there are immigration circumstances involving employment, there are a lot of rascals that 

are employers. I hate to say this on the record, but these are— 

some of these folks, the things that they are pulling are shocking. 

And I used up all my shock quotients; my shock allotments for the 

month have all long gone. But we cannot—I don’t know if we are 

ready to presume this theory of the presumption of good intentions 

of employers. That is going to have to be scrutinized by the Immigration Committee very carefully. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. At this time, all of our time has expired, and we 

are required to go to the floor to vote. 

Let me just thank each of the witnesses here for sticking with 

us. I know it has been a long day, but your information is very 

helpful. And a lot of people watching don’t realize, you are volunteers. You are just here to help the Congress get this right, and we 

do appreciate your contribution. 

If we have additional questions, we will forward them to you. 

And if that happens, we would request that you answer those questions as promptly as you can. 

Chairman CONYERS. Madam Chair, and none of them required 

any subpoenas, either. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

And the record of the hearing will be opened for 5 legislative 

days for Members to submit additional questions, and that is without objection. 

Now we will adjourn this hearing with thanks to all of the witnesses. 

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members 

of the public to the Subcommittee’s hearing on electronic employment verification 

systems, otherwise known as EEVS, systems which if made mandatory as some 

have proposed, would affect all 163 million U.S. workers and 7 million employers 

in the United States. 

In this hearing, I look forward to examining how U.S. workers may be impacted 

by a mandatory EEVS and explore ways to protect U.S. workers from unintended 

consequences of EEVS errors and/or misuse. 

Last year, the Immigration Subcommittee held two hearings on employment eligibility verification systems in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. The 

first hearing on April 24, 2007, examined the problems with the current paper-based 

and electronic employment verification systems. The second hearing, on April 26, 

2007, explored proposals to improve employment eligibility verification, with emphasis on EEVS. At the time, four bills mandating the use of an EEVS had been introduced in the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress. There are now eleven 

bills pending before this Congress that would mandate the use of EEVS. 

Currently, the only functioning EEVS is known as Basic Pilot or E-Verify, and 

it is a voluntary program. Only less than 1 percent of all the employers in the 

United States are currently enrolled to use E-Verify. In addition, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) says that only half the registered employers are ‘‘active’’ 

users who have used the system at least once. 

At the current level of use, according to DHS in August last year, E-Verify received approximately 2 million queries a year. In contrast, if E-Verify is made mandatory for all employers, there would 63 million queries a year just for new employees. There are many proposals that would go beyond verification of new employees 

to also include existing employees despite the fact that there are 163 million workers in the U.S. at this time. 

Therefore, before we move forward on any mandatory EEVS to include all employers, we must be careful to ensure all the problems in the existing EEVS are addressed before we end up with the same problems, but on a much larger scale. 

Some of the problems we hope to consider today stem from reports produced by 

our own government, a non-governmental research corporation, and universities. 

These reports raise serious concerns of U.S. workers being wrongfully denied work 

authorization under E-Verify. 

In April 2007, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) testified before 

this Subcommittee that ‘‘[u]nless database errors are cured, 24,000 of the 300,000 

estimated workers in each congressional district’’ would be erroneously denied the 

eligibility to work by E-Verify. 

The reports have also documented employer abuse and misuse of E-Verify. A 2007 

Westat report states that sixteen percent of employers reported that they had failed 

to train all of their relevant staff on the system. 

In addition, Although the E-Verify prohibits registered employers from using EVerify for pre-employment screening of job applicants, this practice is common 

among employers. Almost one-third, 31 percent, reported using E-Verify to verify 

employment eligibility before the employee’s first day of paid work, including many 

who used pre-screening at the time of the employee’s application. 

Employers also reported significant difficulty meeting the requirement of verifying 

new employees’ information within three days of the employee’s first day of work. 

94 

According to Westat, GAO, and other outside experts, anyone who claims to be 

an employer can sign up to use E-Verify by signing an MOU with DHS and SSA, 

thereby obtaining the ability to access very private information. 

These are just some of the concerns raised about the existing E-Verify employment verification system. Before this Congress moves forward on any effort to expand this system, we must ensure that these problems are appropriately addressed. 

I hope this hearing will provide us with a thorough understanding of these problems 

and the opportunity to identify ways to tackle the concerns. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

A nationwide Electronic Employment Verification System seems so simple. 

In fact, it sounds like an elegant solution to the problem of illegal immigration: 

all new hires must be checked against the Social Security and Homeland Security 

databases to see if they are legally entitled to work in the United States. 

• But what does this System really do? Let me just cite a few issues: 

• It will essentially become a giant government database on all Americans. 

• It will require American workers—not foreign workers—to be registered and 

checked for hiring. 

• It will impose a burden on small businesses, whether their workforce is 100% 

American or includes immigrants. 

• And, it will constitute a significant step toward a national identification card. 

There are several legislative proposals that mandate a national electronic 

verification system. These bills are well-intentioned, and represent a good-faith effort to address the problem of our dysfunctional immigration system. 

But as we consider proposals to expand the verification program from 66,000 employers to 7 million, we must keep several important goals in mind. 

First, American workers must be protected from wrongful denial of work authorization. The Social Security database is so error-prone that it results in the wrongful 

denial of more than 20,000 claims by Social Security claimants each year. 

Second, all workers must be protected from discrimination. We are concerned that 

for many employers, it will be easier to just not hire employees with ‘‘unusual’’ 

names or who appear foreign. 

There is a risk that discrimination on the basis of race or national origin will be 

covered up through claims that the employer was simply doing electronic 

verification screening, and there was a ‘‘problem.’’ 

Third, the system must not be misused. Even though pre-screening applicants is 

illegal under the current pilot program, nearly one-third of employers reported using 

the system in this manner. 

And the temptation will be great to submit the names of workers who try to speak 

out about labor exploitation or abuse, so as to let the immigration service inadvertently do the unscrupulous employer’s dirty work. 

While I am skeptical of stand-alone EEVS bills, I am not opposed to an employment verification system that is part of a comprehensive solution to reforming our 

immigration system. But we are not going to enforce our way out of the current 

problem, no matter how well-designed an electronic monitoring system may be. 

Forcing Americans to drive to the Social Security office and spend days trying to 

clear their name will not fix the policy or political pressures that immigration creates. Those pressures will only be resolved by ensuring legal and sustainable migrant flows that address the needs of workers, employers, and families. 

Accordingly, I very much look forward to today’s hearing, and I thank the witnesses for being with us. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, and ranking member King, for convening today’s very important oversight hearing on electronic employment verification systems (EEVS) and the necessary safeguards to protect privacy and to prevent misuse. 

95 

With so many bills before this Congress, this hearing could not be more timely. I 

welcome the testimony of today’s witnesses. 

The subject of today’s hearing is how U.S. workers may become impacted by a 

mandatory EEVS and explore ways to protect U.S. workers from the unintended 

consequences of EEVS errors or misuse. The Subcommittee will also hear from 

Members who have introduced EEVS bills and will hear how their bills would protect U.S. workers from such misuse or errors. 

Last year, the Immigration Subcommittee held two hearings on employment eligibility verification systems in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. The 

first hearing was held on April 24, 2007. It examined the problems with the current 

paper-based and electronic employment verification systems. The second hearing 

was held on April 26, 2007, and explored the proposals to improve employment eligibility verification. Last year, there were four bills mandating the use of an EEVS 

had been introduced in the 110th Congress. Now, there are eleven bills pending before Congress. 

Before 1986, the law allowed employers to hire undocumented workers. Employers 

were not required to verify the immigration or citizenship status of workers who 

they hired. However, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 

made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, or continue to employ undocumented workers. IRCA required employers to examine documents to verify their 

employees’ identity and citizen or immigration status and to attest to the 

verification on Form I-9. 

In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act created a voluntary EEVS called the Basic Pilot Program, which operated in five states 

in November 1997. The program was extended to the fifty states in 2003. The reauthorization was extended until November 2008. The Department of Homeland Security renamed the expanded program ‘‘E-Verify’’ in 2007. In the same year, the Office 

of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to use E-Verify for all new 

employees and encouraged all federal contractors and vendors to enroll in the program. States have now extended the program to private employers. 

An employer wishing to use E-Verify must enter a Memorandum of Understanding with DHS and Social Security Administration. The MOU prevents an employer from pre-screening or using the E-Verify to check the citizenship or immigration status of workers before they are hired, selective screening of certain workers, 

or re-verifying the citizenship or immigration status of existing workers. 

Under current law, all employers must complete a Form I-9 for each new employee within three business days of the start of employment. The employer must 

enter the new worker’s name, social security number, date of birth, immigration status, and the type of documents that worker used to demonstrate the status. This 

information is then checked against the SSA and DHS databases. If the information 

does not match, the employers inform the worker of the mismatch and issue a ‘‘Notice to Employee of Tentative Nonconfirmation.’’ If the worker chooses to contest the 

document, the worker has eight federal workdays to contact SSA or DHS to resolve 

the mismatch. SSA or DHS has ten federal workdays to address the notice. If it 

takes longer, the government will issue a ‘‘case in continuance’’ notice. Unless the 

employer receives a ‘‘case in continuance’’ notice, it must run the employee’s information through E-Verify after ten federal days to receive a confirmation of the 

worker’s authorization to work or a final nonconfirmation. 

If the worker chooses not to contest the Notice to Employee of Tentative Nonconfirmation, the TNC will become final and the employer will be required to fire the 

worker. This system is fraught with problems. EEVS currently only affects a small 

portion of the 163 million workers and 7 million employers in the U.S. Approximately 66,000 employers or less than 1 percent of all employers in the U.S. are enrolled to use E-Verify. And, registered users do not use it. 

The focus of this hearing is the abuse and use of the E-Verify system on U.S. 

workers who have been erroneously denied work authorization because of E-Verify 

or EEVS—12.7 million errors were found in the records of U.S. Citizens. Moreover, 

there is evidence as cited in a recent GAO report that employers have abused or 

misused EEVS. Misuse has included failure to train staff on the use of the system, 

prescreening, reduction in work and pay for employees that received tentative nonconfirmations, failure to fire an employee that received a final nonconfirmation 

which resulted in discriminatory treatment, failure to explain the EEVS system to 

employees, reverification of existing employees, and failure to comply with paperwork requirements. 

The problems with E-Verify is that anyone can sign up to use it. In addition, employers have failed to maintain employee confidences, and there’s a threat of increased identity theft. 

96 

Today’s hearing will discuss the use, misuse, and abuse of the E-Verify and EEVS 

systems. I welcome the witnesses’ insightful testimony. 

Thank you, I yield the balance of my time. 

f 

97 


D-1.eps
98 


D-2.eps
99 


D-3.eps
100 


D-4.eps
101 


D-5.eps
102 


D-6.eps
103 


D-7.eps
104 


D-8.eps
105 

f 


D-9.eps
106 


E-1.eps
107 


E-2.eps
108 


E-3.eps
109 


E-4.eps
110 


E-5.eps
111 


E-6.eps
112 


E-7.eps
113 


E-8.eps
114 


E-9.eps
115 


E-10.eps
116 


E-11.eps
117 


E-12.eps
118 


E-13.eps
119 


E-14.eps
120 


E-15.eps
121 


E-16.eps
122 


E-17.eps
123 


E-18.eps
124 


E-19.eps
125 


E-20.eps
126 


E-21.eps
127 


E-22.eps
128 


E-23.eps
129 

f 


E-24.eps
130 


F-1.eps
131 


F-2.eps
132 


F-3.eps
133 


F-4.eps
134 


F-5.eps
135 


F-6.eps
136 


F-7.eps
137 


F-8.eps
138 


F-9.eps
139 


F-10.eps
140 


F-11.eps
141 


F-12.eps
142 

Æ 


F-13.eps