<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34662.wais]
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING ALL IT CAN TO STEM THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-234
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-662 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRAIN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
CHRIS CANNON, Utah STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ed Schrock, Staff Director
Kristina Husar, Professional Staff Member
Benjamin Chance, Clerk
Krista Boyd, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 25, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of:
Gerry, Martin H., Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability
and Income Security Programs, Social Security
Administration; Alfred B. Robinson, Jr., Acting
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; Janis Sposato,
Associate Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Matthew C.
Allen, Acting Deputy Assistant Director, Smuggling and
Public Safety Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and K.
Steven Burgess, Director, Examinations, Small Business/Self
Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service................ 9
Allen, Matthew C......................................... 40
Burgess, K. Steven....................................... 54
Gerry, Martin H.......................................... 9
Robinson, Alfred B., Jr.................................. 24
Sposato, Janis........................................... 31
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Allen, Matthew C., Acting Deputy Assistant Director,
Smuggling and Public Safety Division, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
prepared statement of...................................... 43
Burgess, K. Steven, Director, Examinations, Small Business/
Self Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 56
Gerry, Martin H., Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability
and Income Security Programs, Social Security
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 13
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 4
Robinson, Alfred B., Jr., Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, prepared statement of................. 26
Sposato, Janis, Associate Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
prepared statement of...................................... 33
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING ALL IT CAN TO STEM THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION?
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Candice S.
Miller (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lynch, and Schmidt.
Also present: Representatives Bilbray and Foxx.
Staff present: Ed Schrock, staff director; Rosario
Palmieri, deputy staff director; Kristina Husar, professional
staff member; Benjamin Chance, clerk; Karen Lightfoot, minority
communications director/senior policy advisor; Krista Boyd,
minority counsel; and Cecelia Morton, minority clerk.
Mrs. Miller. Good morning. I would like to call the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs to order.
I certainly want to welcome everyone to our hearing today
on the Federal Government's ability to enforce current
immigration laws against employers who flout the law by
employing illegal workers with impunity, quite frankly.
If lawmakers are committed to stemming the tide of illegal
immigrants across our borders, it is certainly essential to
enforce the laws that we have against employing illegal aliens.
It is the promise of these jobs, of course, that entices so
many illegal aliens to leave their homeland, and to risk the
perils of a border crossing. However, through generations of
practice, they have learned that once in America, they are home
free, essentially. Many employers have also come to realize
that no one is checking up on them. And in some industries,
this makes the lure of cheap illegal labor almost irresistible.
These immigrants and employers long ago figured out the
very sorry fact that we have only recently become aware of,
that the 1986 immigration law was designed to fail. The current
system in place hampers the ability of the Federal Government
to enforce immigration laws and to crack down on employers who
openly disregard the law.
Let me briefly detail some of the problems that we think
are in the provisions that currently prevent the Federal
Government from being as proactive as one would like us to be.
No. 1, with respect to documentation, there is a very low
level of certainty that employee documents are valid, because
employers are forced to accept a diverse variety of
identification, sort of the breeder documents and work
authorization documentation. Unless a prospective employee's
i.d. is obviously fake, the employer must accept it. These
identification documents include school i.d. cards, Canadian
driver's licenses, school report cards and day care or nursery
school records as proof of identity.
Additionally, the 1986 immigration law set the penalties
for violating the law very low and the standard for proving the
violation very high. There is no requirement that employers
retain copies of the identification and work authorization
documents that they review or any subsequent documentation that
they might receive that pertains to the work authorization of
the individual. This of course not only makes the immigration
laws very difficult to enforce, it also provides a perverse
incentive for the proliferation of a fraudulent document and
identity theft.
No. 2, the current legal framework puts up firewalls
between the Social Security Administration and the Department
of Homeland Security that prohibit the Social Security
Administration from sharing actionable information about the
most egregious violators of immigration law with the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], the agency charged
with enforcing the 1986 immigration law and of course the 1996
reform legislation as well.
SSA has a data base called the Earning Suspense File that
could be used to crack down on employers who hire illegal
workers. However, SSA has no authority to take action against
the employer who submits wage reports that contain what they
call ``no matches.''
Additionally, SSA is interpreting the IRS Code to prevent
them from sharing information derived from wage reports with
any other agency, absent explicit statutory authorization. ICE
has indicated that access to some of this information would be
a very valuable tool to help focus their enforcement
activities.
Meanwhile, the IRS is the only agency with both the W-2
information and the enforcement capability, based on their
authority to target individuals who submit fraudulent tax
documents. Unfortunately, the IRS seems to have decided as a
matter of policy and priority to not pursue these violations. I
am sure we are going to get to that in today's questioning.
And then No. 3, finally and perhaps most disturbing, is
that no Government entity is really charged with inspections of
the I-9 forms, absent reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The
Department of Labor has authority to review the I-9 documents,
but I-9 inspections occur only as an inquiry of a directed fair
labor investigation. The Department of Homeland Security also
has authority to review I-9s, but they have to rely on tips.
And if they are denied access to the ESF, the Department of
Homeland Security has very limited ability to target private
sector employers who consistently violate our laws.
To use a tongue in cheek example, this would be like asking
all Americans to go ahead and file their taxes in good faith
with zero threat of IRS inspectors ever checking on our
submissions.
In summary, Congress has devised a system that asks
employers to be familiar with 30 plus obscure documents under
penalty of law, but with a wink and a nod declines to establish
a system to verify compliance of these laws. Quite frankly, it
is my personal observation that this pervasive attitude and our
very porous border situation has evolved over several decades.
It didn't just happen during this Congress or this
administration or the last Congress or the previous
administration. As I say, it has happened over a number of
decades.
And really again, my personal observation is it is only
recently that the American public, as is often the case, is
ahead of the politicians. Because the American public is losing
their sense of humor with the porous border situation and the
lax enforcement of our current immigration laws, Congress
finally is developing the political will to focus our attention
and resources on this problem.
And I think this is going to be a very, very interesting
hearing. Certainly every administration is bound by the laws
that we in the U.S. Congress pass. It is incumbent on us as
Members of Congress to understand the problem as it exists and
to offer some realistic solutions as well. With that, I would
like to recognize the distinguished member from Massachusetts,
Ranking Member Lynch, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.003
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
First of all, I want to thank the panelists who have come
before us to testify. We have great coverage, Madam Chair, with
this panel. I think we have every angle and every aspect of the
problem that is before us covered by the expertise of the
panelists, the IRS, the Department of Labor, Citizenship and
Immigration Services and also Customs Enforcement.
Just for a little bit of background, before coming to
Congress, I was an iron worker for about 18 years, strapped on
a pair of work boots, went out there and did my job. I worked
basically in the private sector, everything was by competitive
bid. And it was a continuing frustration for me as a worker, as
a manager on a construction project and also as a general
foreman, to prepare bids in a competitive environment only to
have our bids undercut by contractors who we knew, we knew were
using illegal labor and not paying them the full wages.
So this is a competitiveness issue. While I certainly am
understanding of our immigration problems in the United States,
I also think we owe it to our citizens to give them a fair
shake and have a full and fair opportunity to get good jobs and
not have to compete on illegal lines. I hope that is the
beginning of the job we are going to do here this morning.
As Congress continues to look at how our current
immigration system can be improved, it is important that we
keep in mind the need to protect the rights of workers who are
authorized to work in the United States. It is important to
create an atmosphere that encourages compliance with the law
while at the same time ensuring that all authorized workers
have a full and fair opportunity to work.
I am a firm believer that we have operated a system of open
borders in this country for a very long time. I don't believe,
as people say, that 10 million or 12 million people sneaked
into America, sneaked into the United States; 12 million people
don't sneak in anywhere. We operated with a system of open
borders in this country for many years. We shouldn't be
surprised that illegals came into this country. We also
operated a system that allowed them to come and go to work here
under, in many cases, very dubious circumstances.
Today's hearing will explore the current worker
verification system. Under current law, our employers are
required after hiring a worker to check the worker's Social
Security number or other approved documents to verify the
worker's identity and eligibility to work. Employers must then
fill out a form certifying that the worker's documents have
been reviewed and that they appear to be legitimate. Employees
can voluntarily participate in the Social Security number
verification system, which allows them to check employees'
names and Social Security numbers against the Social Security
Administration's numbers. This system allows employees to be
more proactive in complying with the law.
One of the issues that we need to hear about, however, is
whether it would be beneficial to increase the information
about employers and employees that could be shared between the
Social Security Administration, the IRS and the Department of
Homeland Security. I hope that as part of the discussion, the
witnesses here today who have joined us will address some of
the concerns that have been raised regarding these proposals.
For example, the impact that sharing tax information would have
on taxpayer privacy and how those concerns can be addressed.
I am also interested in hearing from the witnesses how,
with the increased use of verification systems, we can protect
against unfair and unlawful terminations when employees
challenge ``no match'' results. In looking at employer
verification requirements, we can't ignore one of the biggest
problems with our current system: the administration's lax
enforcement. The Washington Post reported on June 19, 2006,
that between the years 1999 and 2003, worksite enforcement
operations, this used to kill me in the field, trying to get
somebody to go out there and inspect, you knew there were
foreign workers, they had Canadian plates and we knew these
workers who were coming over the border from Canada in New
England.
The Washington Post reported that between 1999 and 2003
worksite enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent. So
while verbally we say we want to enforce it, we are doing 95
percent fewer inspections and fewer enforcement operations by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now called U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing
unauthorized immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to 4, 4 in
2003. Fines collected went from $3.6 million to $212,000. We
just stopped doing it.
The Department of Homeland Security has increased
enforcement efforts in recent months, but overall, as GAO
reported last month, ``Worksite enforcement has been a
relatively low priority.''
I hope to hear from the witnesses who are with us today
from the Department of Homeland Security in terms of what is
happening with enforcement. I want to thank you all again for
coming here and for taking the time to help the committee with
its work.
Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.
Because we are an oversight committee with subpoena
authority, it is the custom of the committee to swear in all of
our witnesses. So if you will all please rise and raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
Our first panelist today is Martin Gerry. He was appointed
by President Bush as Deputy Commissioner of Social Security for
Disability and Income Support Programs in 2001. Prior to
assuming his current position, Mr. Gerry served as a research
professor and director of the Center for the Study of Family,
Neighborhood and Community Policy at the University of Kansas,
where he was also a faculty member within the University
schools of law and education.
Mr. Gerry, we appreciate your attendance here at the
subcommittee, and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF MARTIN H. GERRY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
DISABILITY AND INCOME SECURITY PROGRAMS, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; ALFRED B. ROBINSON, JR., ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JANIS SPOSATO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; MATTHEW C. ALLEN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, SMUGGLING AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; AND K. STEVEN BURGESS, DIRECTOR,
EXAMINATIONS, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF EMPLOYED DIVISION, INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE
STATEMENT OF MARTIN H. GERRY
Mr. Gerry. Madam Chair, Mr. Lynch and members of the
subcommittee.
The President has proposed a comprehensive approach to
immigration reform, one that works to better secure our
borders, enforce worksite employment requirements and address
the variety of economic issues related to immigration. This
comprehensive approach calls for the creation of a true
temporary worker program that allows individuals to achieve
legal status by paying their taxes, learning English and
gaining and sustaining employment in our society.
It is against that backdrop that I want to thank you for
inviting me here today to talk about the wage reporting and
Social Security number verification processes, the Earning
Suspense File and no match letters that we issue, and the Non
Work Alien File.
The Social Security Administration's role in the wage
reporting process is to ensure that all workers receive credit
for the work for which they and their employers paid Social
Security taxes. Each year, the Social Security Administration
processes approximately 235 million W-2s, from 6.6 million
employers that are sent to us either electronically or on
paper. Social Security records these earnings to each worker's
account so that they are considered in determining eligibility
for benefits, that would be retirement, disability benefits,
survivors benefits, and the amount of benefits to be paid. This
information is also passed on to the Internal Revenue Service
for income tax purposes.
Social Security number verification is a key to ensuring
that wage reports are properly matched to the right Social
Security number. Over the years, we have developed three
alternative methods for employers to verify Social Security
numbers. In 2005, through a combination of these methods, we
estimate that we provided a total of 67 million employer
verifications. The employee verification service is a free,
convenient way for employers to verify employee Social Security
numbers. It provides employers with several options, depending
on the number of Social Security numbers to be verified.
To further increase the ease and convenience of verifying
employee Social Security numbers, we developed the Social
Security Number Verification Service. After obtaining a PIN and
password, in a simple registration process, employers can use
the Internet to get immediate verification of the accuracy of
the employees' names and Social Security numbers.
Now, neither of these first two approaches deals with work
authorization. I just want to make that clear. They are really
ways for employers to be sure that they have a name and number
match. Any employer in all 50 States, however, may participate
in the Basic Pilot Program, an ongoing voluntary program in
which the Social Security Administration supports the
Department of Homeland Security in assisting employers who want
to confirm employment eligibility for newly hired employees.
The information the employer submits to the Department of
Homeland Security is sent to Social Security to verify that the
Social Security number, name and date of birth submitted
matches information in Social Security Administration records.
The Social Security Administration also confirms U.S.
citizenship, thereby confirming work authorization. The
Department of Homeland Security confirms current work
authorization for non-citizens. Then finally, the Department of
Homeland Security notifies the employer of the employee's
current work authorization status and whether the name and
Social Security number match SSA's records.
As of July 2006, the Department of Homeland Security and
Social Security have signed agreements with over 10,000
employers, and so far, for fiscal year 2006, the Social
Security Administration is receiving an average of 150,000
Basic Pilot requests per month.
The Earnings Suspense File is an electronic holding file
for wage items reported on forms W-2 that cannot be matched to
the earnings records of individual workers. A mismatch occurs
when Social Security cannot match the name and SSN on a W-2 to
information in our records. If the Social Security
Administration later resolves this mismatch, we can remove the
item from the suspense file and credit the wages to the proper
person's record.
While the Earnings Suspense File represents an accounting
of unassociated wage items, the taxes on these wages have been
paid and are credited to the trust funds. Each year,
approximately 10 percent of the W-2s we receive, about 23.5
million, have invalid name and Social Security number
combinations. Using computer routines, we subsequently are able
to post more than half of these W-2s. These routines are
basically computer tests which can tell whether there are some
numbers reversed or there is some minor error that creates the
initial problem.
By October 2005, if you looked at the 2003 data, so about a
year and a half later, less than half these wage items
initailly sent to the earnings suspense file are still there.
Each year, 10 percent have an invalid name and Social Security
number. The routines reduce that to less than 5 percent by
October of the year after the year in which we actually process
the data, so in 2005 we were down to 8.8 million or about 3.8
percent of all W-2's received. So we have gone from 10 percent,
we then resolved more than half and we reduced to 3.6 percent.
And subsequent processing reduces this still further. To
give you an example, for the 1995 year, today only 2.3 percent
of the original are unposted. So over time, we do resolve many
of these mismatches.
It has been widely reported that most of the wage items in
the Earnings Suspense File can be attributed to work by illegal
aliens. We cannot determine the specific number of wage items
that are attributable to earnings of individuals not authorized
to work in the United States. And while some percentage of name
and Social Security number mismatches are attributable to
unauthorized workers, mismatches occur for a variety of other
reasons, including typographical errors, unreported name
changes and incomplete or blank Social Security numbers.
It is important to note that wage items that remain in the
Earnings Suspense File include wages paid to individuals who
were not and may not currently be authorized to work in the
United States. These individuals have actually paid taxes into
the Social Security Trust Fund and are unable to receive
benefits.
In certain instances, when a Social Security number does
not match the worker's name, the Social Security Administration
notifies employers of this situation through what is commonly
called a ``no-match'' letter. We send these letters to
employers who submit more than 10 wage items when more than
one-half of 1 percent of the items that they submit consist of
a Social Security number and name combination that does not
match. I said half a percent, it is 5 percent.
In 2005, we sent ``no-match'' letters to approximately
127,000 employers. The only source of information that Social
Security receives about a taxpayer, employer and earnings is
from tax related information on a W-2. We receive and process
this information as an agent for the Internal Revenue Service.
Use and disclosure of tax return information is governed by
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. We currently have
the authority to use this information only for the purpose of
determining eligibility for and the amount of Social Security
benefits.
The administration supports legislative proposals that
would allow the disclosure of ``no-match'' data to the
Department of Homeland Security in the interest of national
security and for law enforcement purposes. Each year, Social
Security reports to Congress the number of SSNs assigned to
aliens who were not authorized to work in the United States
when the card was issued for whom earings were reported. The
most recent report that we submitted to Congress stated that
earnings were credited to 522,403 individuals with those Social
Security numbers.
It is important to know, however, that because the work
authorization status of a non-citizen may change, an earnings
report under a non-work Social Security number does not
necessarily mean that unauthorized work was performed.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Social Security
Administration strongly supports the President's comprehensive
immigration reform approach and remains committed to ensuring
that the American public's hard-earned wages are properly
credited, so that they will be able to receive all the benefits
to which they may be entitled.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.014
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. We appreciate that.
Our next witness is Alfred Robinson, Jr., who was named the
Acting Wage and Hour Administrator effective June 2004. The
Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards
Administration administers and enforces a variety of labor
standards and statutes that are national in scope and that
enhance the welfare and protect the rights of the Nation's
workers. Prior to joining the U.S. Department of Labor, Mr.
Robinson was a member of the South Carolina House of
Representatives. And prior to serving in the General Assembly,
he worked on the board of the South Carolina Jobs Economic
Development Authority, where he focused on job creation and
economic development.
Mr. Robinson, we appreciate your attendance here at the
subcommittee and look forward to your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED B. ROBINSON, JR.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Lynch
and members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
activities of the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department
of Labor's Employment Standards Administration in support of
the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement of the
Employee Eligibility Verification provisions of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. This enforcement is commonly called the I-
9 process, after the form that employers must complete to
document the verification of their workers' eligibility for
employment.
Wage Hour's mission is to promote and achieve compliance
with labor standards that protect and enhance the welfare of
the Nation's work force. We are responsible for administering
and enforcing some of the Nation's most comprehensive labor
laws, in particular the Fair Labor Standards Act. It requires
the payment of minimum wage and overtime.
The administration supports a comprehensive approach to
immigration reform that includes securing our borders, worksite
enforcement and a temporary worker program. We look forward to
working with Congress as it considers a comprehensive approach
to immigration reform that will enhance coordinated enforcement
of the INA and U.S. labor laws to better protect U.S. workers.
Employment Standards and Homeland Security have sought to
coordinate worksite enforcement activities and entered into a
memorandum of understanding on November 28, 1998. It clarifies
the enforcement roles and responsibilities of each agency. The
MOU also promotes more effective and efficient use of agency
resources, reduces duplication of effort and improves
communication and appropriate coordination between the
agencies.
Wage Hour and Office of Contract Compliance Programs are
covered by the MOU. Wage Hour recently began working with
Homeland Security to update the MOU. As Acting Administrator, I
will focus my testimony on our agency's role in helping
Homeland Security reduce the employment of unauthorized
workers.
The MOU obligates Wage Hour's investigative staff to
perform two activities to assist Homeland Security. First,
during an onsite visit to an employer's premises, Wage Hour
staff advises employers about their responsibilities to verify
the employment eligibility of potential employees, advises
employers about the anti-discrimination provisions and provides
employers with a copy of a Homeland Security publication on
completing the I-9, as well as information from the Office of
Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment
Practices.
Second, Wage Hour inspects the I-9 forms. Wage Hour
conducts such reviews of completed I-9 forms only in non-
complaint investigations, so as to not discourage workers,
regardless of their immigration status or that of their co-
workers, from reporting potential violations of employment
standards. In other words, these reviews are limited to
investigations initiated by Wage and Hour.
Wage Hour's I-9 review is designed to identify potential
violations for Homeland Security's enforcement action, based on
a review of the face of the form. If a Wage Hour review
discloses apparent serious violations, such as an employer's
unwillingness to allow Wage Hour to complete the I-9 review, an
employer's failure to maintain the I-9's or obvious fraud, such
as entering a person's Social Security number with the same
nine-digits, then the appropriate Homeland Security office is
immediately advised, usually by phone.
Wage Hour investigators have no authority to issue an
employer a warning notice or notice of intent to fine. Only
Homeland Security can take appropriate enforcement action for
an alleged violation of the employment eligibility verification
provisions.
Under the MOU, Wage Hour investigators record the results
of their review on an ESA 91 form, which is transmitted to
Homeland Security when potential violations are disclosed. Wage
and Hour refers suspected violations described above, as well
as then non-serious violations, such as minor paperwork errors,
to Homeland Security via the form. If there are no violations,
then Wage Hour returns the form in the file.
In conclusion, the administration looks forward to working
with Congress to enact a comprehensive immigration reform that
includes securing our borders, worksite enforcement and a
temporary worker program.
Thank you for inviting me, Madam Chair. This concludes my
statement, and I will be pleased to respond to any questions
from members of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.019
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. We appreciate that.
Our next panelist is Janis Sposato. She is the Associate
Director for the National Security and Records Verification
Directorate with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
for the Department of Homeland Security. She is a career Senior
Executive Service leader. She brings 31 years of Federal
Government experience in a very large, complex organization.
She is an attorney by profession and is highly focused on
national security issues impacting U.S. citizenship and
immigration service. She was a Deputy Associate Director,
Domestic Operations Directorate, since the inception of USCIS
in 2003, after assisting in the transition of several
components of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service
in 2002, to the Department of Homeland Security.
We appreciate your attendance at the subcommittee and look
forward to your testimony, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF JANIS SPOSATO
Ms. Sposato. Good morning. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to talk with the subcommittee about what my agency,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, can and is doing to
stem the tide of illegal immigration.
USCIS is the part of Homeland Security that adjudicates
applications for immigration benefits, and we maintain the
immigration records. I am the Associate Director of USCIS for
National Security and Records Verification. My office was
created in February of this year by our Director, Emilio
Gonzalez, for the express purpose of demonstrating the
expanding contribution that USCIS makes to the integrity of the
immigration system. Our employment verification program is an
important part of our contribution to immigration integrity and
it is the centerpiece of our efforts to discourage illegal
immigration.
We all recognize that employment in the robust American
economy is a strong magnet for illegal immigration. The USCIS
employment verification program is a simple and straightforward
way to make illegal employment in the United States
substantially more difficult to obtain. It works like this:
After hiring the new employee, the participating employer
submits a query on the Internet to the USCIS employment
verification Web site. The query provides the new employee's
name, date of birth, Social Security number and whether the
individual claims to be a U.S. citizen or a non-citizen who has
authorization to work in the United States. For non-citizens,
the employer also provides an immigration identifying number.
The employer receives a response online within seconds. In
most cases, the response confirms the individual's employment
eligibility and the verification process is complete. Behind
the scenes, the system transmits the new hires information to
the Social Security Administration NUMIDENT data base. In the
case of non-citizens, the information is sent to a USCIS data
base as well. That is all there is to the verification process
in the vast majority of cases.
When the initial verification is not successful, the system
issues a tentative non-confirmation to the employer and more
work must be done. The employer must notify the employee of the
tentative non-confirmation and give him or her an opportunity
to contest the finding within 8 business days.
While the process differs somewhat depending on whether the
failure to confirm employment eligibility emanated from the
Social Security or USCIS data base, in either case, a
representative of the Government will work with the individual
who contested the tentative non-confirmation to find and
correct the reason for the discrepancy. Problems may be as
simple as the failure of the Government data base to account
for a change of name at the time of the marriage or a divorce.
Once the contesting individual provides the clarifying
information, USCIS generally resolves its cases within 3 days.
The process at Social Security is very similar.
Today, use of the USCIS employment verification program by
employers is voluntary. The program began in 1997 as a tiny
pilot. Over time, it has expanded to support employers in all
50 States. In the past 6 months, the program has grown to
support an additional 200 employers per month. Yesterday, we
had the pleasure of announcing that we passed the 10,000 mark
with more than 10,000 employers enrolled in the program.
And we are not done. We have much more capacity and we are
actively seeking new employers to join the program.
I want to take a moment to discuss the problem of fraud. We
all know that no system is foolproof. On the other hand, when
electronic verification from Government data bases is added to
the presentation of documents at the work site, the use of
counterfeit cards and identities becomes much more difficult.
In order to be accepted, the counterfeits must now match the
data in the Government computer system.
Beyond that, USCIS is exploring new and innovative ways to
combat imposter fraud and if we receive our requested
appropriation in fiscal year 2007, we will add monitoring and
compliance activities to our program. Already, we work closely
with ICE worksite enforcement and we look ahead to being able
to make a larger and larger contribution to the
administration's ongoing interior enforcement strategy.
We in USCIS are in a unique position to understand the
importance of having a legal way for individuals to enter and
work in the United States. Enforcement alone is not enough.
That is why we and the President support comprehensive
immigration reform that includes interior and border
enforcement, in addition to a temporary worker program.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to briefly
describe our employment verification program, and I look
forward to hearing your questions and comments.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sposato follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.026
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
Our next witness is Mr. Matt Allen. Mr. Allen is currently
the Acting Deputy Assistant Director of the Smuggling and
Public Safety Investigations Division of the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Agency. In this position, he has
operational oversight of the contraband smuggling, human
smuggling and trafficking, identity and benefit fraud, worksite
enforcement, human rights violators and public safety, which is
gangs, programs within the Office of Investigations. Prior to
this assignment, Mr. Allen served as a unit chief for the
Contraband Smuggling Unit at ICE headquarters. In that
capacity, he had operational oversight of all of ICE's drug and
contraband smuggling investigation throughout the United
States.
We appreciate your attendance at the subcommittee, Mr.
Allen, and look forward to your testimony, sir. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW C. ALLEN
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman Miller and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for welcoming me here today to talk
about U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's efforts in
worksite enforcement and how we are investigating and
prosecuting employers that hire illegal aliens.
ICE's worksite enforcement strategy is part of a
comprehensive layered approach that focuses on how illegal
aliens get to our country, the ways in which they obtain
identity documents, allowing them to become employed, and the
employers who knowingly hire them. ICE's worksite enforcement
program is just one component of the Department's overall
interior enforcement strategy, and is a critical part of the
Secure Border Initiative.
As part of our strategy, ICE is focused on bringing
criminal prosecutions and using asset forfeiture as tools
against employers of illegal aliens. An example of our worksite
efforts occurred in April 2006, when ICE conducted the large
worksite enforcement operation ever undertaken. This case
involved IFCO Systems, a Houston-based company. ICE agents
executed 9 Federal arrest warrants, 11 search warrants and 41
consent searches at IFCO worksite locations throughout the
United States. In addition, ICE agents apprehended 1,187
unauthorized workers at IFCO work sites.
This coordinated enforcement operation also involved
investigative agents and officers from the Department of Labor,
the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service
and the New York State Police. The criminal defendants have
been charged with conspiracy to transport and harbor unlawful
aliens for financial gain, as well as fraud and mis-use of
immigration documents.
Our worksite enforcement efforts also include critical
infrastructure protection. In June of this year, for example,
an ICE investigation resulted in the apprehension of 55 illegal
aliens working at a constructionsite at Dulles International
Airport, just outside Washington, DC.
By carefully coordinating our detention and removal
resources, and our investigative operations, ICE is able to not
only target the organizations unlawfully employing illegal
workers, but to detain and expeditiously remove the illegal
workers that we encounter. For example, in a recent case in
Buffalo, NY, 34 illegal workers were apprehended, detained and
voluntarily repatriated to Mexico within 24 hours. Such actions
send a strong message to illegal workers here and to foreign
nationals in their home countries that they will not be able to
move from job to job in the United States. Rather, they will be
detained and promptly deported.
What impact will this have? Criminally charging employers
who hire undocumented aliens and rapidly removing illegal
workers that are encountered will create the kind of deterrence
that previous enforcement efforts did not generate. We are also
identifying and seizing the assets that employers derive from
knowingly employing illegal workers in order to remove the
financial incentive to hire them and to pay them substandard
wages.
The magnet of employment is clearly fueling illegal
immigration, but the vast majority of employers do their best
to comply with the law. ICE has provided training and tools on
our Web site to help employers avoid violations. However, the
growing prevalence of counterfeit documents interferes with the
ability of legitimate employers to hire lawful workers. In
short, the employment process cannot continue to be tainted by
the widespread use and acceptance of fraudulent identification
documents.
Accordingly, in April 2006, Deputy Attorney General Paul
McNulty and Assistant Secretary Myers announced the creation of
ICE-led Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces in 11 major
metropolitan areas. The DBF task forces are built on strong
partnerships with USCIS, the Social Security Administration,
the Postal Inspection Service and the Departments of State,
Justice and Labor. The task forces identify, investigate and
dismantle organizations that supply identity documents that
enable illegal aliens, terrorists or other criminals to
integrate into our society undetected.
While ICE has made substantial improvements in the way that
we investigate and enforce worksite, DHS also supports several
of the additional tools contained in pending legislation. We
look forward to working with Congress as it considers
comprehensive immigration reform, including proposals to
enhance worksite enforcement. The administration has sought the
authority to have additional access to the Social Security
Administration ``no-match'' data to improve immigration
enforcement. Greater access to ``no-match'' data would provide
important direction to ICE investigators to target their
enforcement actions toward those employers who have a
disproportionate number of these no matches, who have reported
earnings from multiple employees on the same Social Security
number and are therefore more likely to be engaging in unlawful
behavior.
Additionally, provisions in current legislative proposals
regarding document retention by employers are crucial to
worksite enforcement criminal prosecutions. Asking employers to
retain documents for at least as long as the statute of
limitations for these crimes is simply common sense.
Although criminal prosecution of egregious violators is our
primary objective in worksite cases, a need also exists for a
new and improved process for issuing fines and penalties that
carry a significant deterrent effect and that are not regarded
as a mere cost of doing business. The United States can have an
effective worksite enforcement program only with a strong
compliance program combined with the issuance of meaningful
penalties. The administration has proposed a streamlined
administrative fines and penalties process that gives the
Secretary the authority to administer and adjudicate fines and
penalties.
As I have outlined in my testimony, ICE has greatly
advanced its worksite enforcement program and its efforts are
part of a comprehensive strategy that focuses on several
different layers of the problem simultaneously, including
illegal employment, document and benefit fraud, and the
smuggling that gets illegal aliens to the United States.
Our responsibility at ICE is to do everything that we can
to enforce our laws. But enforcement alone will not solve the
problem. Accordingly, the President has also called on Congress
to pass comprehensive immigration reform that accomplishes
three objectives: strengthening border security, ensuring a
comprehensive interior enforcement that includes worksite
enforcement, and establishing a temporary worker program.
Achieving these objectives will dramatically improve the
security of our infrastructure and reduce the employment magnet
that draws illegal workers across the border.
ICE is dedicated and committed to this mission, and we look
forward to working with this subcommittee in our efforts to
secure our national interests. Thank you for inviting me, and I
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.037
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. We appreciate that very much.
Our final witness today is Mr. Steve Burgess. He is the
Director of Examinations for the Small Business/Self Employed
Division of the Internal Revenue Service. As the Director of
Examinations, he oversees all compliance policy and audit
activities dealing with small business and self-employed
taxpayers in the Nation. Prior to this assignment, he served as
the Acting Director of Reporting Enforcement and was also
responsible for policy issues related to abusive tax avoidance
transactions, anti-money laundering and the fraud program.
Mr. Burgess, we welcome you to the subcommittee and look
forward to your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF K. STEVEN BURGESS
Mr. Burgess. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Miller, Ranking
Member Lynch and members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased this morning to discuss the Internal Revenue
Service's limited role in the immigration debate. Comprehensive
immigration reform, including enhanced border security, robust
interior enforcement and temporary worker program is top
administration priority. Perhaps the most difficult part of
this issue is framing it properly and understanding fully the
different yet sometimes complementary roles provided by the
Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and the Internal Revenue Service.
My written statement attempts to do that, as well as walk
through our role, both in identifying instances where
mismatches between employee names and Social Security numbers
occur, as well as our enforcement authority against employers.
The most critical point to keep in mind from an IRS perspective
is that our role is tax collection and administration. We want
to make sure that everyone who earns income within our borders
pays the proper amount of taxes, even if they may not be
working here legally.
If someone is working without authorization in this
country, he or she is not absolved of tax liability. Instead of
using a Social Security number to file a tax return, that
person frequently uses an individual taxpayer identification
number, or what we call an I-10. For tax year 2004, at least
2.5 million returns were filed by aliens using an I-10. These
2.5 million returns voluntarily reported taxes of over $5
billion. More than 2.3 million of them include income from
salaries and wages.
Under current law, the burden of preventing illegal aliens
from working in this country falls on employers. When they are
hired, an employee is charged with completing two documents
which demonstrate their ability to work in this country. The
first is an I-9, which is required by the Department of
Homeland Security. It is to be completed and kept on file by
the employer. The second is the W-4 form, an IRS form on which
the employee designates the number of deductions that should be
made from his or her salary.
Both forms request, among other things, the Social Security
number of the employee. However, there is no requirement that
the employer verify the information that the prospective
employees provide. If the employee provides an inaccurate
number, it will first be discovered when the employer submits
the W-2 form to the Social Security Administration at the end
of the year. The Social Security Administration will discover
that the numbers do not match any of the information in their
data base. After attempting to identify why the name and
numbers do not match, the Social Security Administration will
eventually send a letter to both the employee and the employer,
asking that the correct number be submitted.
Social Security Administration, however, has no enforcement
authority in this area. The IRS has enforcement power, but this
is not an area in which we would normally initiate an
examination. Rather, this is an issue that we would review as
party of a general employment tax audit.
There are several problems with this issue from an
enforcement perspective. The cases in this population tend to
have very low audit potential. The wages from mismatched W-2s
are generally very low. In 2004, the average wage reported for
mismatched W-2s was under $7,000.
We have also found that employers that have high W-2
mismatch rates generally do not always have corresponding
problems with fulfilling their employment tax obligations.
Perhaps the most significant is that employers can generally
demonstrate that they have requested a valid Social Security
number and had reasonable cause to believe that the Social
Security number that was given was accurate.
I will conclude by repeating the need for comprehensive
immigration reform, but I urge that any changes in the current
system encourage the type of behavior that is both desired from
both employees and employers. We recognize the positive
benefits of comprehensive reform for tax administration. For
example, the creation of a temporary worker program, will
likely result in additional taxpayers entering the system.
However, failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform
could have negative consequences for tax administrations if
procedures are imposed on employers and employees that have the
effect of driving certain economic activities underground.
Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. I will
be happy to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.041
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
Where to start, I guess, we certainly had a lot of very,
very interesting testimony.
I sit on the House Armed Services Committee as well. It was
interesting listening to the 9/11 Commission really identify
what a big problem that our Nation had and continues to have is
the inability of various agencies to share information. I think
a lot of what we heard here today points to a continuation of
that. So I am hoping that this hearing will allow us to
understand how we in the Congress can assist the various
agencies.
One of the acts that we have recently passed in an effort
to help us with illegal immigration, as well as homeland
security, is something called the Real I.D. Act. This of course
is a piece of legislation that will require all the States, as
they are using their breeder identification documents, to issue
either a driver's license or State identification card, to be
able to verify who these individuals are. We saw the horrific
attacks on our Nation of September 11th. Literally you had all
except one of the murderers who had valid driver's licenses.
Mohamed Atta had a visa that had been expired for 6 or 7 months
and still had a valid driver's license. It is the foundation, I
think, to your identity.
I am also aware that the States, in addition to the
driver's licenses, and I will address this question to Mr.
Gerry, because of the Welfare Reform Act, trying to get
deadbeat parents as they go from State to State, when you get a
driver's license you have to verify now, I believe every
Secretary of State or DMV or whatever in the Nation has to
verify the Social Security number of that individual who is
applying for a driver's license or State identification card.
I am just wondering, because everything that we are talking
about today focuses on the veracity and integrity of your data
base and the verification for Social Security numbers, how is
that working amongst the States? I am assuming it is the same
process as is being utilized by the employers. Maybe you could
explain that to us.
Mr. Gerry. I am trying to figure out which question to
address first. We do in fact operate through a hub, which is
set up between the Social Security Administration and AAMVA,
which is the American Association of State Motor Vehicle
Administration. We do verify for driver license purposes.
What we actually do is match names and numbers. We go
through a procedure that is quite similar to what we would go
through with respect to, remember I mentioned three different
verification systems we use, well, really the two that don't
involve work authorization, where we are just looking at
whether the name and number match. And as far as I know, I
would be happy to supplement this for the record, that has been
working quite successfully. We have a longstanding working
relationship with AAMVA.
But that process does not ger involved with this whole
question of work authorization and immigration to the same
extent as the Basic Pilot process. So in that sense, it is
somewhat different.
Mrs. Miller. I was trying to take some notes when you were
speaking there, you were talking about the three methods. I
think you said there were 67 million verifications. Then you
explained a little bit about how the employers got the PIN and
the password to use the Internet.
But yet in the pilot program as well, I believe that the
percentage of employers who are actually participating in that
currently is less than one-tenth of 1 percent nationally.
Mr. Gerry. I think my testimony was there were 6.6 million
employers, and I think we just said we went over 10,000. I
can't do the math in my head, but that sounds like a reasonable
calculation. It is a small percentage of all employers that are
participating in the Basic Pilot.
Mrs. Miller. Less than small.
Mr. Gerry. It is a growing, but small percentage.
Mrs. Miller. Could you tell us a little bit about your
reasoning behind your determination that you are unable to
share the information in the ESF with the Department of
Homeland Security as well?
Mr. Gerry. Well, basically the question of what information
we can share, tax-related documents, is primarily a question,
of course, for the Secretary of the Treasury, for the Internal
Revenue Service. Because Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue
Code lays out the conditions under which this information can
be shared. We of course look to the Department of Treasury with
respect to what the meaning of that statute is and the
regulations that are issued.
The longstanding understanding that we have from the
Department of Treasury and that we have relied on is that, as I
testified earlier, we may only use the tax-related information
for purposes directly related to our programs, the operation of
our programs and the determination of benefit amounts. So in
that sense, any information that we have that is tax-related,
that would be right now the only purpose for which we could use
it.
The one very limited circumstance which is slightly outside
of that is certain circumstances where the Inspector General of
the Social Security Administration has initiated an
investigation, often in conjunction with the Department of
Homeland Security. At that point, we can in fact make that
information available. But that is far along in the
investigation and prosecution process.
So we do share in those very limited circumstances data
that would be covered by Section 6103. But otherwise, we are
under this general restriction on the use of that data.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. I see my counsel taking
some notes here for possible legislation I think to assist you
with that. Since we talked a little bit about the IRS, Mr.
Gerry put you on the seat there as well, let me direct a
question to our individual from the IRS. Have you been working
with the Social Security Administration as well as ICE in order
to promote the information sharing within the bounds of the law
with this ESF? And perhaps as a followup question as well, you
mentioned that the mission of the IRS is to collect taxes. I
was a former county treasurer, so I have that, right? Through
Biblical times, even, the tax collectors were always the most
hated people. Regardless that is our mission.
What about all of these employers who are using as a
corporate deduction the amount of compensation that they are
paying to illegal aliens? What about legislation that would
remove them, I don't know if this is something you want to
opine on, but I am sort of thinking out loud now, what about
removing that from their corporate deduction? We have to have
some penalties in order for people to comply with this. I think
that would be a way. I don't know if you have any opinion on
that.
Mr. Burgess. Actually, Madam Chair, that would be in terms
of consideration from Treasury, which would obviously require
legislation. I guess maybe to indirectly answer, but if I was
looking in terms of additional penalties and that sort of
thing, to drive, it still roots back to some of the basic
problems in terms of what information is provided to that
employer. Unless there is a significant change in legislation
as to what information is provided, as I testified right now,
if someone provides evidence of a Social Security number and
that is an accurate number, and signs that under penalties of
perjury, it absolves the employer of responsibility to exercise
reasonable care.
So even in terms of looking at additional legislation, that
is something we would have to be mindful of in terms of, it
wouldn't solve the problem.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Allen, I appreciate your testimony this
morning. I want to go over the enforcement end of this that you
are involved with. We just had a troubling incident up in the
Boston area where one of our employers, it was actually an
enforcement action that was conducted at an LNG facility in
Boston, which is right beside a very large oil and
petrochemical facility. So we have LNG, we have LNG tankers, we
have LNG liquified natural gas and we have a massive petroleum
product depot.
Inside the facility, we basically apprehended 16 illegal
aliens working for one of the contractors there. This is a
facility that is critical infrastructure with respect to
homeland security. Yet I also read the Washington Post from
last month where onsite inspections have been scaled back 95
percent between 1999 and 2003, this is after September 11th,
continued to drop. The number of employers prosecuted for
unlawfully employing unauthorized immigrants dropped from 182,
which isn't a lot, figuring, as Mr. Gerry said, we have 6.6
million employers, we actually prosecuted 182 of those in 1999.
Then that number has reduced to four. We actually prosecuted
four, four companies for illegal employment of unauthorized
immigrants.
It just doesn't read well with what your earlier testimony
was that we are trying to reduce duplication of services and
trying to work smarter and trying to get this job done. It
seems like not only have we reduced duplication of services, we
have reduced everything, down to basically zero. I know it is
not your fault, but I am just trying to figure out how are we
going to get our arms around this problem if we are not more
aggressive than what we are? This is basically, we are doing
nothing at this point, from what I can see.
Mr. Allen. Let me start with your last point first, and
that is, how do we get our arms around this problem. I think
the consistent theme that we have put forward this morning is
that the answer to this is comprehensive. As the chairwoman
pointed out in her opening remarks, this is a situation that we
have found ourselves in over the course of virtually two
decades. We are not going to arrest our way out of it. It is
virtually impossible, and none of the agencies sitting at this
table are resourced to go out and arrest 12 million people to
resolve the issue that way.
Mr. Lynch. Nor do we want you to. But we do have some
leverage with employers to help us police this whole process.
It is going to require a collaboration. I think there is a way
out of this, but it doesn't look like we are taking any
meaningful steps.
Mr. Allen. I hope that my testimony pointed out that there
has been a shift in strategy. I think the shift has been away
from administrative worksite enforcement, which I think also in
the last two decades has kind of illustrated that it hasn't
been the kind of deterrent that we would want, to a focus on
the two pillars that you pointed out and started with. And that
is critical infrastructure, in light of September 11th and in
light of the 9/11 Commission report, recognizing that access to
critical infrastructure is the key, and that our first pillar
has to be focused on removing that access and working with
employers to make sure that they self-police. Many of the
operations that we do at critical infrastructure sites are done
in collaboration with employers who want to make sure that
their work force is secure and that we remove access to people
who should not be in the United States, first of all, and
shouldn't be in critical infrastructure in the second place.
Then the second part of our strategy really does focus on
that criminality. Those employers, who as part of their
business model structure, work in such a way that they
virtually knowingly hire unauthorized workers. By focusing on
those two pillars, we take care of critical infrastructure on
the one hand and focus on criminality and those who really
build their business model on the other hand, and criminalize
that activity.
Mr. Lynch. OK, thank you.
Mr. Gerry, if I could just touch on a point that Madam
Chair was hitting on earlier, about the sharing of information
and the sensitivity of that. We heard that we have in many
instances illegal immigrants who are working here who are
actually filing these I-10's. So they are getting employer i.d.
numbers, they are paying taxes. But I think what might be
happening here is, we have no way of verifying if the number of
deductions that they are claiming is valid.
So while we are saying, yes, they paid X number of dollars
in taxes, it is probably very likely that they are claiming in
their W-4E, which is exempt, or W-4 with 25 deductions. So we
are getting very little of what we should be getting in terms
of the proper tax load. I am just wondering, how do we get at
that problem? Because without sharing that information, we
understand you are trying to be respectful of that division of
authority, we would have to have you go onto these jobs sites
under the guise of enforcing the proper tax load on those
individuals. Instead of asking Mr. Allen and his group to go in
with ICE and under a straight immigration protocol, we are
asking you to go in to enforce the tax laws.
So we have to sort of collaborate here. I think we have the
right group here. We just have to figure out who is going to do
what.
Mr. Gerry. I think amongst us you have the right group. I
think our problem in the I-10 situation is we might well have
no information whatsoever. This is a person who is not
enumerated by us. It is possible that they could have
dependents who are enumerated by us, but it would be total
speculation at this point.
The restriction on sharing of tax-related information of
course doesn't apply to the Internal Revenue Service. It is in
fact their role. So any information that we have that is tax-
related, of course they have complete access to.
So I understand the problem that you are posing is probably
really a better problem for the IRS to talk about. I think
right now, I don't see any immediate barriers to our working
with the Treasury on this. It would depend on whether we had
data whether it was not tax-related and whether there are
regulatory projibitions on sharing it. One question is to the
privacy of that data. But I don't know that comes up in this
case.
Mr. Lynch. Madam Chair, I asked the wrong person. Could I
have Mr. Burgess----
Mrs. Miller. The time has expired, and we do have a couple
of Members who do have to leave. There will be a second round
of questioning.
Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
I am going to direct two questions to Mr. Allen. The first
one is regarding ICE and the training of locals. In the
surrounding district, Sheriff Jones in Butler County has really
come to the scene in the greater Cincinnati market, saying that
he would like to be able to go in and collect illegals and put
them in jail; but he lacks the authority. His complaint is that
ICE can't train his folks to do it in a timely manner. He has
been told that it is anywhere from 6 to 18 months to train his
officials to do that.
Is that a valid statement or not?
Mr. Allen. I will answer briefly, and then we can talk
offline or I can take one for the record if you want. ICE has a
very robust 287(g) program, which you are talking about, which
is the mechanism that we have under the INA to train State and
locals to perform immigration functions. We have been working
aggressively to try and identify State and local agencies to
work with us cooperatively. I would say that our focus right
now is on the southwest border. Six to 18 months sounds like
something that I am going to have to check on and find out if
that is a real time line. I don't have oversight of that
division of the Office of Investigations. So I will have to get
back to you whether or not that is an accurate time line for
training in your area.
Mrs. Schmidt. OK, thank you. Second, and I wasn't going to
bring this up, but you have it in your testimony on page 7, and
it is regarding the Fischer Homes issue. I don't know how to
delicately talk about this. In the United States, we are
innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Fischer does not live in my
district, he lives in Kentucky. I represent Ohio.
But a few weeks ago, he came to my office with tears in his
eyes over the heavy-handedness that the Federal Government is
applying to him regarding Richard Pratt. He shared with me all
of the documents that the Federal Government had laid on his
table. He was there with his attorney.
What I saw in it was a statement by the Federal Government
saying that if he admitted to culpability and paid $1 million,
things would go away. But if he didn't, they were threatening
to seize all of his assets until such time it would be
demonstrated whether he had culpability or not.
That was troubling to me, because I don't know whether Mr.
Fischer is innocent or guilty. But what worries me is, if the
Federal Government comes in to someone that is innocent and
puts liens on all of his homes that he can't sell, in essence,
that individual is going to go broke. And if he is innocent,
then the blame is on us.
I am sure you may not know all of the issue here today. But
I did read those documents and I read them very, very
carefully. And they were from the Federal Government. And it
indeed troubled me.
I also want to add, Mr. Fisher asked me to do nothing on
his behalf, which is why I never contacted your agency or any
other agency. All he wanted to show me was the heavy-handedness
of the Federal Government, so that I could be aware for the
future. So again, Mr. Fischer asked me to say nothing or to do
nothing. And I wouldn't have said anything today except on page
7 you talk about this issue. So I am bringing it to your
attention that whether he is guilty or not, from what I saw
from the documents that he gave to me, the Federal Government
is assuming guilt, which I don't think we do in our
Constitution.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. At the risk of appearing to dodge it,
I will defer perhaps to the Department of Justice who, based on
your description, probably is the author of those documents.
That case is ongoing and I believe there are negotiations
between the Federal Government and the defendants in the case.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would
like to thank you for allowing me to participate on the panel.
Ladies and gentlemen, before you really is the answer to
illegal immigration. Mr. Allen, in all fairness, it is not
border patrolmen at the border. Interior enforcement is
obviously where we have the missing line.
Mr. Gerry, I appreciate that you bring up the fact that you
have laws that don't allow you to share information. I think
all of us have read the September 11th report. The 9/11
Commission specifically said, September 11th happened because
we had so many firewalls that were developed after the
Watergate period that agencies couldn't communicate.
I think, Madam Chair, our goal should be right now in
Government Reform to destroy these firewalls and allow the
communication so the American people can be protected.
Mr. Allen, I have to apologize to you right off, because
you are, to a large degree, going to be the focus of my wrath
today. How old were you in 1986?
Mr. Allen. I was 21 years old.
Mr. Bilbray. Twenty-one. Well, let me remind you that in
1986 we did pass what was called comprehensive. And part of
that comprehensive plan that was implemented was the amnesty
program.
What wasn't implemented, obviously, from the records, was
workplace enforcement. 1986 caused the greatest influx of
illegal immigration that we have ever seen in this republic. In
fact, as somebody who grew up and lives down south along the
border, you can set your watch by every time somebody in the
administration talks about comprehensive, because the flow of
illegal immigration pours across the border, because they hear
amnesty.
Now, my concern is that when we talk about what to do about
the 12 million that are here is that we don't cause another 30
million to come because they see that they were fools to wait
to immigrate legally. There is one gaping hole that we have in
the system, and I need you to give us the answer. That is, we
haven't been doing interior enforcement. I want to ask you, why
can't my border patrol agents, who have checkpoints north of my
district, south of my district, east of my district, cannot
leave my district, leave my county without going through border
patrol agents.
But the same border patrol agents are specifically told
they cannot go to my Home Depot and check illegal aliens. Why
is there a gag rule on my uniformed officers in San Diego
County?
Mr. Allen. Speaking on behalf of ICE, and not being the
organization that CBP border patrol agents work for, I will
have to defer to CBP on that policy question. But obviously,
focus on worksite is what we are here to do. I can't answer on
behalf of CBP.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. In all fairness, I think that I would just
ask that we look at the fact that any time someone, Madam
Chair, talks about sending more agents to the border, as
somebody at the border, I would say, send them to Tennessee,
send them to Kentucky, send them to the interior, send them to
Alexandria, so that we can start doing enforcement.
Mr. Gerry, in 1937, is that when our Social Security card
was developed?
Mr. Gerry. Approximately, yes.
Mr. Bilbray. Every driver's license in America was a name
and a number on a piece of paper, right?
Mr. Gerry. I think so.
Mr. Bilbray. How many States have that kind of i.d. for
their driver's license today?
Mr. Gerry. A piece of paper--I don't know the answer. I
have a license, I have had licenses in Texas, Kansas and
Maryland in the last 15, 20 years, and I haven't seen anything
on paper.
Mr. Bilbray. It is a pretty good guess that all the States
have left that system? Is there any possibility we may be able
to work between the administration and this legislature to
upgrade our Social Security card to reflect the real i.d.
standards that we have set on driver's licenses?
Mr. Gerry. Actually, Congress passed requirements which
asked the agency to develop, with respect to the bank note
paper requirements, a new approach to try to secure the card.
The Commissioner has recently forwarded to the Congress a
report that outlines several different things that could be
done to dramatically improve security of the bank note card.
That is what the statute that governs us right now requires.
And we haven't really gone beyond that because the SSN card
is not an identification document. However, the President
talking about the whole question of immigration has talked
about a biometric card for foreign job applicants, which I
think by its very definition would have to be something other
than a paper, bank note card.
Mr. Bilbray. That is where it gets down to your work and
Mr. Burgess' work. An employer right now is required to get a
Social Security number from an employee?
Mr. Burgess. Yes, Congressman. They are required to ask for
an accurate Social Security number provided by the employee.
Mr. Bilbray. But we really don't have a true tamper-
resistant document, so that the employer could see that the
number actually, have justifiable cause that the number applies
to the person that is standing before them, asking for a job?
Either one of you guys.
Mr. Gerry. That is correct.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Bilbray. So what we have is that the Federal Government
has never done with its Social Security card what we are
requiring States under the Real I.D. bill to do with all
driver's licenses and all i.ds? Is that fair to say?
Mr. Gerry. I think it is fair to say.
Mr. Bilbray. I would ask, Mr. Burgess, when we were talking
about the tax issue, how many taxpayers, do we know how much
money is paid out without using Social Security numbers, using
the tax i.d. number?
Mr. Burgess. In terms of the mis-match fund, Congressman?
Mr. Bilbray. No, I am talking about the use of those tax,
not just mis-match, but also those who are using the tax i.d.
number in lieu of the Social Security number.
Mr. Burgess. The I-10, the taxpayer identification number?
Actually, the $5 billion that I referred to was the net in
terms of, obviously those individuals, some individuals may
have received refunds. Obviously even someone that is here
illegally that is filing a return would be entitled to
deductions. However, they would not be entitled to earned
income tax credit.
Mr. Bilbray. Why would they not be?
Mr. Burgess. They specifically by statute do not qualify.
You would need to be a citizen. But as far as the other
deductions in terms of deductions for exemptions other items,
they would qualify for and have claimed on returns.
Mrs. Miller. The gentleman's time has expired, if I could
interrupt. There will be a second round of questioning.
At this time I would like to call on Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I too am bothered by this constant use of the term failure
to enact comprehensive immigration reform. That seems to be the
answer that all of you have.
I would like to ask Mr. Allen a question. Tell me exactly
what you mean in using that phrase, ``by establishing a
temporary worker program as part of a comprehensive immigration
reform.'' What is that program going to look like?
Mr. Allen. Well, ICE in all likelihood would not administer
the program. It would be administered by CIS and other parts of
the Department.
Our vision for a temporary worker program is an opportunity
to do something that is very important. I think it has been
pointed out a couple of times during the discussion this
morning. And that is to bring in people from the shadows, and
identify people who are in the United States, get them
identified and have an ability to know who is actually in our
country. Once they are identified, allow them to work in jobs
that are available and that are not currently being worked by
U.S. citizens. In other words, fill jobs that are currently not
filled by our citizens.
Ms. Foxx. How is that different from the temporary worker
programs that we already have? Don't we already have a lot of
temporary worker programs? Tell me what is new about what you
are talking about. You are talking about establishing a
temporary worker program for illegals. I want to know, what is
that, what do you mean by a temporary worker program?
Ms. Sposato. Congresswoman, if it is all right, I will try
to take that, because it is my part of the Department of
Homeland Security that would administer such a program. I would
like to go back to your slightly earlier question about how
would the temporary worker program differ from the employment
based programs that we administer today. And I think the answer
to that is, not necessarily in substantial ways, but when the
administration expresses its desire and openness for a
temporary worker program, it is looking to manage the 12
million or so people who we believe to be in the United States
in the shadows, and to give them an opportunity to come forward
and be employed in positions that are not occupied by U.S.
workers.
Ms. Foxx. So are you saying then you would simply expand
the existing temporary worker programs that we have by 12
million, if that is what it needs to be? And do you assume that
all 12 million of those people are currently working?
Ms. Sposato. I can't say that the number of qualifying
individuals would be 12 million. But I believe the
administration has expressed an openness to various kinds of
programs that the Congress might propose, and the Senate has
proposed a program. The administration is willing to work with
the Congress to develop the best program that can be put in
place.
Ms. Foxx. I have one more question. I would like to get a
copy of the training manual that you use for local people,
local law enforcement people, to come up to the standards that
ICE has set. I want to see all of the manuals or the outlines,
the syllabus, whatever you have that you use that you say
people have to adhere to in order to be qualified to do what
ICE says they have to do.
Then I want to see the comparable material that you use for
your own officers to say that they meet the standards to be
enforcement officers. I would like to see those. And I would
like to see them fairly soon. I don't want to wait 6 or 8
months to get them. I am assuming that they exist and that it
shouldn't be any problem to get a copy of them. I would like to
see them right away, because I would like to review them.
Mr. Allen. I will certainly take that for the record. The
only thing I would point out right up front is that the
training course, the 287(g) training course is about a 5-week
course that we teach to State and local officers. I believe our
special agent training right now is in the range of 27 weeks at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. And they are
different courses, they teach completely different skill sets;
immigration authority being one subset of the skills that we
teach our investigators.
Ms. Foxx. What does the length of the program have to do
with my request?
Mr. Allen. I don't think it did.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I am one of these who really does
believe that we have to have a comprehensive approach to
immigration reform and to assisting all the agencies to enforce
our current laws, etc. I will tell you I just came back from a
very eye-opening trip for me, over the weekend, to our southern
border.
We were in Yuma watching the Kentucky National Guard
actually there build a wall. We were down in Nogales with some
of the ICE agents and the Customs and Border Protection,
looking at the processing centers there with hundreds and
hundreds of illegals that they had just picked up that night,
as well as the drugs. There was marijuana about to the ceiling
of this room. It was unbelievable, the amount of drug
interdiction that is happening as the National Guard is now
able to supplement the work for the Customs and Border as well.
And in El Paso, looking at some of the different things that
are happening there.
I do think we need a comprehensive. I mean, you have to
have a wall, perhaps, you need to be able to utilize
technology. You need to have additional resources. You need to
have judges and attorneys that can adjudicate the system so
that we can stop this catch and release, etc. A big part of why
we are having this hearing here today is so we can understand
again what tools we need to give the various agencies in the
Federal Government to dis-incentivize employers from hiring
known illegal aliens. I just want to read off the Social
Security Administration's Web site under Employer Reporting
Instructions and Information, I just thought this was
interesting.
``Do not use any of this information, essentially, to take
punitive action against an employee whose name and Social
Security number do not match Social Security's records. A
mismatch does not make any statement about an employee's
immigration status, is not a basis in and of itself for taking
adverse action against the employee.'' Here is the kicker.
``Doing so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor
law sanctions.''
In other words, don't do anything with this information or
you are going to really be in trouble. So again, the purpose of
this hearing is, how can we assist all of you. I want to focus
my final question here, on the I-9 form, the employment
eligibility verification form. Ms. Sposato, I think you were
mentioning in your testimony, you said it was a very simple and
straightforward process that we are attempting to do with
employers to make sure that they can understand the process.
But so far, as we understand it, you have not issued a
final rule which would align the I-9 verification documents
with the 1996 amendments. I am wondering, what is the plan of
your agency to do so, and does it require legislation or can
you promulgate a rule? What is the delay and is that a dis-
incentive to employers who are trying to understand the
bureaucratic maze of paperwork?
Ms. Sposato. Madam Chair, that is a great question. As I
mentioned in my oral statement, my organization came to being
in February. So I really can't speak to why something hasn't
happened previously. But I can tell you that I agree with you
completely that the I-9 form and process needs to be
simplified. I do have staff working on it and I have a pledge
from my colleague here in ICE that they will work with us to
simplify the form, reducing the number of documents that may be
presented to employers.
Combined with mandatory employment verification through
data bases, I think that will be a tremendous advance in
stemming illegal immigration.
Mrs. Miller. Even though you are not able to answer my
question here today, obviously, about promulgating a rule, or
passing a final rule, the committee is interested in knowing
what the time line is from your agency on that. If you could
get back to us on that, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Sposato. I will do that.
Mrs. Miller. If I could, to the Department of Labor, Mr.
Robinson, again on this I-9 form, and I think you testified, I
was trying to take some notes during your testimony, that the
Department of Labor has no authority to issue employers a
violation, even after you might have determined that a
violation of immigration laws has occurred. Are your field
officers trained to detect fraud? How are they determining that
a violation has occurred? Are they trained to detect fraud, for
instance, on these I-9 forms? Do they know it when they see it?
Mr. Robinson. Madam Chair, the review that our field
officers and investigators do is a review of the face of the
form. So they look for irregularities, refusals, numbers that
might be the same, things of that nature. That is what they
report. As part of what we do train our employers, our
investigators, they do those through training, but we try to
be, if you will, eyes, and then we use that to report to
Homeland Security.
Mrs. Miller. So you don't have the authority to issue a
violation. Would it be helpful, would it assist you if you did
have such authority, rather than transferring that information
to another agency? And when you do so, do you even followup to
see what has happened with that?
Mr. Robinson. Well, Madam Chair, I think our No. 1 priority
is to make sure that, for example, the Fair Labor Standards Act
is enforced correctly. I think that is something that Congress
should evaluate and debate. As we noted earlier, we report
these types of violations to Homeland Security, which has been
the enforcer, if you will, under the INA. But I think that is
something that the administration would enter into debate as
well as discussions with Congress, to determine what would be
the best appropriate program.
Mrs. Miller. OK. It is interesting, every one of you
obviously has a mission. Yours is the Fair Labor Standards,
yours is to collect taxes, etc. But before we do all these
things, we are still Americans and we need to enforce the law.
And we need to give you the tools to assist to break down these
silos. I think that is something that is really becoming very
clear to the committee today.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me just join the chorus here in calling for a
comprehensive immigration bill. I personally think that we have
so inflated that political football that I don't hold much hope
for it. Maybe after elections are over, maybe cooler heads
prevail and common sense comes to pass on a lot of people, and
we can do something. I really recognize the need for
immigration. This country's demand for engineers and scientists
and our future is tied directly to our immigration policy, not
to mention that it says a lot about what our country has become
and who we will be in the future.
I think we need an immigration bill that is not Mexico-
centric. I think it needs to recognize the global need for
immigration to this country. And I think we need to have a
deliberate, cogent, and workable system that doesn't frustrate
people who would genuinely love to be U.S. citizens and who
abide by the law and want to come here and work hard and take
part in the American dream. Like I say, how we solve those
problems says a lot about who we will be in the future.
But putting that aside for a moment, I want to go back to
Mr. Burgess if I could. Let me summarize what I had asked
before of Mr. Gerry. Do you think it is possible to increase
the flow of information from the Social Security
Administration, from the IRS as well, to the Department of
Homeland Security, but at the same time respecting taxpayers'
privacy. Is there a way to enhance what we are doing right now
without going over the line that apparently has been drawn?
Mr. Burgess. Congressman, the problem I see right now in
reference to Code Section 6103 is that, in my opinion, it would
actually take an amendment of that section to provide an
exception. It does govern, it is obviously there to protect
taxpayer privacy of their tax-related data. It is a fundamental
foundation of our tax system.
So I believe that it would actually take an amendment of
that particular Code section.
Mr. Lynch. All right. Thank you, Mr. Burgess.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Burgess, that whole privacy thing sort of struck me
hard, because I was required, the State of California demanded
that I show my tax return to be able to get in-State tuition
for my children. I just wonder where the privacy issue is
there, when you have to give that kind of document to be able
to justify basically a taxpayer's right.
I would like an answer from the two ends on one issue. I
think from the hearings that we have had, let me just first off
really congratulate the ranking member. I appreciate his
attitude about this whole issue. But one of the things that has
really come down from the hearings is this lack of not
crackingdown on illegal immigration, but the lack of real,
substantial crackdown on illegal employment. One of the basic
issues that keeps being raised by the business community is the
1986 law. When it came to enforcement, it had things like the
civil rights issues and the discrimination issues, almost to
the point where you don't do it.
H.R. 98, which really needs work, I think Democrats and
Republicans can meet and agree on something, and that is, let's
make it so simple for an employer to know who is qualified to
work here and who is not that there is no excuse to hire
somebody who isn't. And H.R. 98 is a bill by Chairman Dreier
and Silvestre Reyes of Texas that basically says, let's upgrade
the Social Security card to a tamper-resistant document like
our driver's license. That and only that would be the document
that you would check to get the Social Security number you
require.
Has the Social Security Administration taken a position on
H.R. 98 yet?
Mr. Gerry. No, Mr. Bilbray, we haven't. Obviously the
focus, and we have been working on this with IRS and DHS, has
been the immigration issue. Of course, H.R. 98, as you are
describing it, would go well beyond that. I testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee where we had members who were
interested in a question of estimates of cost if we were to
have a hard or tamper-resistant card. So we have provided some
testimony with respect to what we think it would cost for the
agency to do that. But we have not looked at the question as a
policy matter or provided any kind of an answer.
Mr. Bilbray. Although, you are aware that their bill only
requires new hirees to get the document.
Mr. Burgess, one of the things I saw when I was a tax
consultant, my family still runs the business, and we don't
talk about this now, is the stealing of identification by
illegals by using Social Security numbers. When an auditor
tells you, Mr. Jones, you have three jobs that you haven't
disclosed, and you have to prove that somehow an illegal got
there, wouldn't the fact that if we simplify it to where, when
an employer gets a number they get it off a tamper-resistant
card, rather than just taking the word of somebody? Has your
department taken a look at that at all, or do you have a
position on H.R. 98? Or do you personally have an opinion about
that kind of approach?
Mr. Burgess. Congressman, I would defer that to Treasury. I
can speak to the fact in terms of, as I have indicated in my
testimony, one of the problems that we have had in terms of
enforcing penalties for inaccurate numbers is the fact that the
employer relies on information that is furnished by the
employee.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Mr. Allen, I want to ask you a question
about your guest worker program. Your guest worker program is
being supported by the administration. Who would qualify to get
into that guest worker program?
Mr. Allen. I think as I testified before, it is not ICE's
program, we would not administer it. I will defer to CIS on
what the criteria would be.
Mr. Bilbray. Anybody from the administration, anybody from
the administration, who qualifies under this guest worker
program?
Ms. Sposato. I believe that the administration has asked
the Congress to propose a guest worker program. The only
proposal that I am aware of is the Senate bill. That proposal,
at the risk of summarizing it incompletely or inaccurately, I
believe it allows people who have been in the United States for
a certain amount of time to apply for and be granted guest
worker status if they pass security checks.
Mr. Bilbray. When you said then, are you talking about
legal or are you talking about illegally in the country for a
certain amount of time?
Ms. Sposato. I believe that the Senate proposal covers
people regardless of whether their status in the United States
today is legal or illegal.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Would somebody who is not in the United
States, who has never entered the United States, would they be
allowed to participate in that program?
Ms. Sposato. I believe that is also a part of the Senate
bill.
Mr. Bilbray. And who would have priority over, what would
you do with the illegals who are here now? Where do they stand
in this program?
Ms. Sposato. Again, I am a little bit reluctant to be
precise, because I am not that familiar with the ins and outs
of the bill. But I believe that if the person who is in the
United States today illegally has been here for a specified
amount of time they are allowed to a qualify for the----
Mr. Bilbray. My question is, if you have never been here
legally, how do you qualify for the 2-years to 5 years of being
here?
Ms. Sposato. Under that bill, as I understand it, it is
physical presence, not legal presence, that matters.
Mr. Bilbray. So what you are telling me is that those who
are waiting in other countries with applications to emigrate,
or to try to get a work card, they would not qualify under this
guest worker program, but somebody who has violated our
immigration laws for 5 years would qualify under the program?
Mr. Gerry. Let me just clarify. What we are talking about
is a Senate bill. I am looking at a document issued by the
White House Office of Communications on June 1st in which the
President outlines his principles for what a guest worker
program would be. And they are inconsistent with what we are
now talking about.
Mr. Bilbray. Right. And that is what I want to clarify.
Because the President supported the House bill strongly before
it was passed. And now the Senate is proposing a bill that
would allow somebody who is illegally in the country to have
access to a guest worker program that those who have never
violated our immigration laws would not qualify for, which
really violates the original context that we never allow, the
administration said we do not allow those who are illegally
here to move ahead of those who have applied.
We have almost 100 million people that would one way or the
other love to emigrate here. Then we end up with this conflict.
So I just wanted to clarify that, because it is a very
important message, not only to those who are illegally in this
country, but those who are outside the country, listening to
this debate. Because right now what they are saying down in
Guahaca is, my cousin who broke the law is going to qualify for
a program that I am not going to qualify for, because I didn't
break the law. That is a very strong message.
Mr. Gerry. If you would like, I can read from this.
Mr. Bilbray. Go ahead.
Mr. Gerry. I am just reading from the President. This is
the White House Office of Communications, June 1st. ``A
temporary worker program would create a legal path for foreign
workers to enter our country in an orderly way for a limited
period of time.'' That is the first statement. Then below that,
``The President believes illegal immigrants who have roots in
our country and want to stay,'' so that is the second group of
people, ``should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking
the law, pay their taxes, learn English and work in a job a
number of years. People who meet these conditions should
eventually be permitted to apply for citizenship like other
foreign workers, but approval would not be automatic and they
will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules
and followed the law.''
Mr. Bilbray. OK, that is the catch word, Mr. Gerry.
Madam Chair, we have to clarify. This country takes almost
a million legal immigrants a year, more than the rest of the
world combined. And the fact is, Mr. Gerry, in reality, if you
put them behind everyone who is playing by the rules, they will
never enter this country, because we never take everyone who is
applying.
So that word about putting them behind, if it is truly the
intent of the legislation, then you have to say that in
reality, we are never going to process them, because we have
those who are playing by the rules who will never get through
the system themselves.
Mr. Gerry. I just want to clarify, I am not speculating on
the intent of the legislation. I am just talking about what the
President has laid out as the administration's view of what the
legislation should include.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that, and I am going to say that
the gentleman's time has expired. And I am going to conclude
the hearing as well, because we have another subcommittee that
wants to use this room here shortly. But we certainly, on
behalf of the entire committee, appreciate all of the witnesses
coming here today.
Obviously the issue of illegal immigration is a very
emotional one for every American. It is a very complicated
issue as well. When you see the House and the Senate at
loggerheads over various aspects of their individual bills, in
all the different nuances within that, it is a very difficult
issue as the Congress is reflective, I think, of what is
happening nationally with the electorate. And it is not going
to go away after the election, no matter what happens.
So that again was the purpose of this hearing today. I
think the committee got a lot of good information about
possible opportunities that we have again to assist the various
agencies to enforce current laws, regardless of what happens,
whether or not we pass any further immigration legislation.
What we have currently on the books, I think we have a huge
amount of opportunity to do the right thing for our Nation as
well.
With that, again, we appreciate all of the witnesses'
attendance today.
Mr. Bilbray. Madam Chair.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. I would just like to thank you again for
allowing me to participate, and I would like to compliment Mr.
Allen. He looks much younger than he really is. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
With that, the committee will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4662.042
<all>