Hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the House Appropriations Committee - Priorities Enforcing Immigration Law

Hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the House Appropriations Committee - Priorities Enforcing Immigration Law

HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: PRIORITIES ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW
CHAIRED BY: REP. DAVID E. PRICE (D-NC)
WITNESSES: MICHAEL AYTES, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID VENTURELLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECURE COMMUNITIES, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCY FORMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. PRICE: Subcommittee will come to order. Our hearing today focuses on the Department of Homeland Security's priorities for enforcing immigration laws. We have delayed the beginning this morning in anticipation of floor votes. Those floor votes obviously have not yet occurred. So we will go ahead and begin. Unfortunately though, it's quite likely that we will have to take a recess at some point to cast a series of votes. So let's proceed.

Let me cite some figures that suggest that DHS' immigration agencies have set several new records in Fiscal Year 2008. But then I want to cite an additional list which raises some questions that I hope we can explore today about some of the details beneath the surface of these numbers.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, deported 369,049 people, the most in any year in U.S. history. ICE held an average of 30,429 people in immigration detention per day in Fiscal 2008, more than any prior year on record. ICE initiated 1,191 worksite enforcement investigations and arrested 6,287 people, the largest number since the formation of DHS.

And U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or CIS, enrolled 63,592 companies in the E-Verify Program, more than tripling the number of participants in a computer-based system that verifies the work eligibility of new hires. These are remarkable figures and they result from the significant investment the subcommittee has made in ICE and CIS budgets since 2003, as well as the good efforts of other players.

The figures also reflect how hard employees at DHS have worked to meet the goals set by the department leadership. But rather than simply trumpeting new records set by DHS, this hearing also lets us review the broader implications of our investments in these programs. This subcommittee has made billions of dollars available for ICE and CIS since 2003.

The question we must all ask -- the questions we must all ask are, have these huge investments produced what our country needs and expects from the agencies enforcing our immigration laws. Is DHS prioritizing its resources most appropriately? A closer examination of the data may give some pause.

Since 2002, ICE has increased the deportation of non-criminals by 400 percent. Our criminal deportations have only gone up 60 percent. Of the nearly 370,000 people deported by ICE, less than a third or 114,358 had ever been convicted of criminal offence. This despite the fact that up to 450,000 criminals eligible for deportation are in penal custody in any given year, according to ICE's figures.

Less than one-quarter of those interdicted by ICE's Fugitive Operation Teams, last year, had actually been convicted of criminal offenses. Over three quarters of those arrested in ICE worksite enforcement rates last year were not charged with any crimes, save of course illegal presence in this country.

And while CIS had worked to improve the accuracy of E-Verify, the most current system audit, found troubling inaccuracies that prevent people from working including the fact that 1 in 10 naturalized citizens are told erroneously that they cannot be employed in the U.S. Since becoming chairman of this subcommittee, I've emphasized that ICE should have no higher priority than deporting those who have proven their intent and their ability to do harm and have been convicted of serious crimes.

In 2008, we gave ICE $200 million to identify incarcerated criminal aliens and remove them once judged deportable. Last year, we directed ICE to use $1 billion of its resources to identify and remove aliens convicted of crimes whether in custody or at large, and mandated that this be ICE's number one mission.

I continue to believe in the wisdom of this course, and want to know how ICE plans to make more progress in identifying criminal aliens and deporting them once their sentences are complete. Since her confirmation, I've been encouraged by Secretary Napolitano's public statements that she shares this perspective.

We must make sure the department is setting the right priorities for immigration enforcement. Similarly, this subcommittee has provided generous appropriations to CIS for improving the accuracy and usefulness of E-Verify. However, more than a $120 million or three- quarters of the funds appropriated over the last two years remain unspent.

So what we have at present is a government database that sometimes falsely tells citizens and other residents they cannot work, while a fair amount of money to fix the problem gathers dust. I want to know what's being done to address this issue.

Another area of concern to this subcommittee is the role of local authorities enforcing immigration law. Well, I think local law enforcements should support and cooperate with ICE, the terms of that relationships have -- that relationship have to be defined very carefully. To that end, we mandated in the 2009 appropriations act that the department better oversee local immigration enforcement agreements and make certain that their terms were being honored.

Finally, I want to address recent reports that ICE released immigrants arrested in a worksite enforcement raid in Washington State. Yesterday, after comments on this issue from our ranking member, I met personally with ICE to get the full story. While ICE's ongoing investigations limit what we can discuss in an open hearing, press reports that this represents a new policy, amnesty or otherwise, are simply not accurate.

As part of its investigation, ICE has employed a longstanding law enforcement tactic by granting temporary immigration status to certain individuals, which does not permanently change the status of these immigrants. It is a tactic utilized in many past investigations, does not represent, as far as we can tell, any change in worksite enforcement policy.

We're expecting that one of our ICE witnesses, Director Marcy Forman will address these issues further in her testimony.

However, I do want to make it clear that we must be careful not to compromise an ongoing investigation by drawing unnecessary attention to an authorized and routine DHS law enforcement tactic.

Today's three witnesses will help us understand DHS priorities enforcing immigration law. Marcy Forman is director of ICE investigations, and as such, oversees all ICE worksite enforcement actions.

David Venturella is executive director of the ICE Secure Communities program, which is supposed to ensure the agency's first priority is and remains the identification and removal of people convicted of serious crimes who are eligible for deportation. Mike Aytes is the acting deputy director of CIS, which administers E-Verify and, of course, many, many other programs.

Our witnesses will help us better understand how the department prioritizes its immigration enforcement missions. Even with the generous resources DHS receives from Congress, there is a limit to what its agencies can do. It only makes sense for law enforcement officers to address the most dangerous or threatening situations rather than simply perusing the most convenient targets.

We want to ask each of you to provide a five-minute summary of your written testimony, which will, of course, be entered in the record in full. We'll ask Ms. Forman to speak first, followed by Mr. Venturella, and then finally Mr. Aytes.

Before you begin, however, let me turn to Ranking Member Rogers for his comments.

REP. HAROLD ROGERS (R-KY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our distinguished guests. Yesterday, we all woke up to some alarming news reports from Seattle indicating that ICE had not only released from custody, without bond, 28 known, confirmed, illegal immigrants using false documents, and also had given 24 of them work permits after having been released, allowing the group to go out and get jobs.

This policy affects every law-abiding American citizen, a slap in the face for those who are struggling everyday to find a job in this economic downturn. Questionable enforcement practices such as these send a decidedly mixed message and effectively put illegal immigrants at the front of the employment line, in front of American citizens seeking a job in these hard times.

Now, I'm cognizant of the sensitivities surrounding an ongoing criminal investigation of an employer, make no mistake. But I do intend to get some answers today on the consequences of these apparent new guidelines and its effect on the immigration enforcement missions of the department that is the law.

Having said that, I want to speak to the underlying issue of the day; over the past few years, there has been a concerted effort to prioritize ICE's enforcement resources towards the identification and removal of criminal aliens. There has also been a concerted push to improve the accuracy of E-Verify and the process for employment verification.

We were told for so many years employers could not be prosecuted for employing illegal aliens, because they have no way to verify whether or not they were illegal. Well, now we've cured that with E- Verify. I support those efforts including the notable initiatives spearheaded by Chairman Price towards prosecuting -- toward removal of criminal aliens with the following caveats. One, that the emphasis upon criminal aliens is not at the expense of other critical ICE missions, and two, the push to improve and perfect E-Verify doesn't undermine the system's usage.

Unfortunately, what I've also seen taking shape over the last two years is an effort to use prioritization toward removal of criminal aliens as a poorly-veiled proxy for immigration reform. To those who see the '10 (ph) bill as a vehicle for such reform, or are simply trying to deprive other vital immigration enforcement missions of already scarce resources, enough is enough.

I say that is exactly the wrong approach. Let's be serious about this debate. Every one of us supports robust efforts to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit crimes. And every one of us supports an accurate workable E-Verify system.

Nevertheless, recent calls from the administration and others to, quote, "reprioritize," apply greater, quote, "scrutiny," unquote, and quote, "redirect," unquote, valuable ICE resources towards criminal alien investigations come at the detriment of other critical functions and missions of the department; that's in the law.

Let's be clear, ICE is a multi-mission agency with many priorities including disrupting drug smuggling and human trafficking, stopping bulk cash shipments, cross-border child pornography, illegal export of weapons and ammunitions, and illicit trade practices; protecting export of our national security secrets, conducting worksite enforcement and document fraud prevention, combating organized criminal games and terrorist travel, and of course, apprehending, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants. Which one of these missions is not a priority? I believe it's abundantly clear that ICE's efforts in all of these areas are as vital to law enforcement as they are to Homeland Security. After all, everyone of the 9/11 hijackers exploited the legal immigration system. None of them could have been classified as so-called criminal aliens.

And in the midst of a turbulent economic downturn, perhaps now is the absolute worse time to relax any effort that protects American workers from fraud, be it illegal imports, or a job unlawfully filled by an illegal alien. So as we discuss the priorities of immigration enforcement and employment verification here today, we must remember that it is the Congress that writes the law.

ICE and CIS are charged with carrying out the law to tell the dedicated men and women of these frontline agencies to pick and choose which laws to actually enforce. It's unacceptable to the Congress and some of us will point that out as time goes back, be aware.

ICE and CIS must have all available tools at their disposal to combat the wide range of threats currently confronting our country and I for one want to see them succeed. And I wish you well in your work.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

We will need to recess for a series of votes. And it's likely to be an extensive series I'm told. We'll be back just as quick as we possibly can.

(Recess)

REP. PRICE: Subcommittee will reconvene. We regret the delay, although it was unavoidable, given the institution we're working in. So here we are back with a delay, but we do want to go forward.

And we'll first turn to you, Ms. Forman.

MS. FORMAN: Chairman Rice -- Price, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Acting Assistant Secretary Torres, thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE's enforcement priorities.

ICE protects national security and upholds public safety by targeting transnational terrorist and other criminal networks that seek to exploit vulnerabilities at our borders. Indeed, the recent escalation of violence along our Southwest border, by drug cartels and other criminal organizations, demonstrates this point in very stark terms.

Just last week, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative that commits additional personnel to the Southwest border, increased intelligence capabilities and better coordination with state, local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. Also last week, ICE with our law enforcement partners established two new border enforcement security taskforces in New Mexico.

After personally meeting with my counterparts at ATF, we have agreed to better integrate our combined border efforts by exchanging dedicated resources between the ATF's gunrunner taskforces and our best located on the Southwest border.

Now, I would like to highlight ICE's immigration enforcement programs and initiatives that address many of the vulnerabilities at our borders and within our nation's interior.

These programs help prevent the exploitation of our immigration system and combat criminal activities associated with terrorists, human smuggling, and trafficking, documented and benefit fraud, transnational gangs, status violators, unauthorized employment, human rights violators, and money laundering.

To support these enforcement programs ICE uses all our tools to bring our investigations to a successful conclusion. Our ability to issue temporary immigration benefits to victims and cooperating witnesses, such as continued presence, parole, deferred action, and stays of removal benefits not only ICE investigations, but law enforcement as a whole.

Criminal smuggling and trafficking organizations provide services that begin in countries of origin, pass through transit countries, and finally reach into the United States. Organizations often charge thousands of dollars to smuggle aliens including those individuals who could pose a threat to this country.

ICE proactively investigates international alien smuggling through a joined effort with the Department of Justice. The Extraterritorial Criminal Travel Strike Force also known as ECT formed in June 2006 combines our collective investigative, prosecutorial, and intelligence resources to target, disrupt, and dismantle foreign-based criminal travel networks.

ICE recognizes that combating transnational alien smuggling networks does not stop with the arrest and conviction of the alien smugglers. ICE also focuses on criminal organizations and individuals who commit identity and benefit fraud.

To combat the vulnerabilities exploited by identity and document fraud organizations, ICE created Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces in April 2006. There are currently 17 DBTFs located in major U.S. cities and serve as models for multi-agency cooperation. This cooperative effort leverages multiple law enforcement tools and authorities to investigate criminal organizations involved in immigration benefit fraud and the manufacturing and distribution of fraudulent identity documents.

Within these taskforces, ICE works with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, and state and local law enforcement agencies. Opportunities for employment remain a primary motivation for aliens seeking illegal entry into the United States.

As noted recently by Secretary Napolitano, ICE's worksite enforcement program targets unscrupulous employers who subject unauthorized workers to poor or unsafe working conditions, pay sub- standard wages, or employ them in industries that could compromise our nation's critical infrastructure. ICE's multi-faceted worksite enforcement strategy targets employers whose business model is based upon exploiting an unauthorized workforce and employers who place our national security at risk.

ICE has restructured the worksite administrative fine process. And we expect that the increased use of administrative fines will result in meaningful penalties for those who engage in employment of unauthorized workers.

ICE has implemented a debarment policy that prevents employers from receiving federal contracts when they are in violation of worksite laws. Since July 2008, 11 companies and 9 individuals have been debarred.

I would like to highlight three of our national security programs, our participation on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, our Compliance Enforcement Program, and the human rights violator program. ICE is the second largest federal participant on the JTTFs.

Our broad immigration and customs authorities are critical in the conduct of successful terrorism investigations. Last year, ICE agents initiated more than 1,300 investigations in concert with the JTTF, resulting in 433 civil immigration arrests, and 215 criminal arrests, the majority for immigration-related offenses.

ICE's Compliance Enforcement Unit focuses on preventing terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the nation's immigration system. The CEU develops cases from national registration systems that allow ICE to identify people who violate their immigration status. Since 2003, more than 6,000 civil immigration arrests have been made as a result of CEU investigations.

In April 2008, ICE established the human rights violators and war crimes program, which targets those individuals who have entered the United States under false or fraudulent pretenses, who have been linked or associated to regimes or countries engaged in war crimes, torture, or genocide.

Our most notable success was the recent prosecution of Charles Emmanuel Taylor, who was sentenced to 97 years for committing acts of torture in Liberia. This case was first -- was the first successful prosecution under the criminal torture statute.

As you heard from Secretary Napolitano during her hearing in February, DHS places great value on our relationships with state and local governments, ICE's gang initiative, Operation Community Shield, was established in February 2005. Through this program, ICE shares intelligence and information on transnational gang members with our federal, state, and local partners.

The initiative focuses on the disruption, dismantling, and prosecution of transnational gangs who use violence and threats of violence to control territory and instill fear in American communities. To date, ICE agents, in collaboration with our law- enforcement partners, have arrested more than 12,000 known gang members and associates. The majority of those arrests were based on violations of immigration law.

On behalf of the men and women of ICE, I thank the subcommittee for its continued support. And I'm pleased to respond to any questions. Thank you.

REP. PRICE: Before we turn to Mr. Venturella, I would appreciate, Ms. Forman, if you could give me whatever response you feel you can to the matter I raised in my opening statement about the incidence in Washington State and whatever you can say without compromising the ongoing investigation. I think we need to have that at the front end of the hearing. And my questions will focus on other matters, but I do want to give you a chance to say what we should know about that.

MS. FORMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to respond. This case we are talking about is in Washington State. It's an ongoing criminal investigation, so my ability to talk about the specifics are very limited.

What I can tell you is that as we currently speak and meet here, there is a criminal search warrant being executed by ICE agents in Washington State to further the criminal investigation of this company for the employment of illegal aliens.

This is being done in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the western district of Washington. In regards to the tools used and the release of the illegal workforce, deferred action is the legal term given in terms of what these employees will authorize. And what this tool allows is for the U.S. government and the defense, the opportunity to work with these illegal aliens and elicit statements from these illegal aliens in pursuit of the criminal case.

This is done in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's Office in terms of their prosecutorial strategy to further the investigation. They were released with conditions, they were all processed, all their identifying data was obtained, and there are conditions to this deferred action. First of all, there is a temporary form of release of immigration benefits.

They could be taken at any time and the conditions are very limiting. These individuals must report in weekly to an ICE agent and they must meet at least twice a month with an ICE agent. And these conditions could be increased as needed based on the needs. Each one of these individuals were vetted for national security and threat analysis and were then provided with this benefit.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

Mr. Venturella.

MR. VENTURELLA: Thank you, Chairman Price, and ranking member Rogers, for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee.

On March 28, 2008, ICE submitted a strategic plan entitled Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens also know as CIRCA.

On behalf of Secretary Janet Napolitano and Acting Assistant Secretary John Torres, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE's efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens. I want to express my gratitude to the committee for the resources it has provided over the past two fiscal years and in particular, Chairman Price, for your strong support of our efforts to identify and track criminal aliens.

Secretary Napolitano has made the identification and removal of criminal aliens a top priority for ICE. Pursuant to her action directive to examine the broad range of the department's authorities and efforts on immigration and border security, ICE is examining how it might accelerate the deployment of the Secure Communities/CIRCA programs I'm discussing with you today.

The focus of Secured Communities/CIRCA is the identification in removal of criminal aliens. We are focusing on improved information sharing at all levels of government, but especially with our state and local partners to more quickly and accurately identify criminal aliens in custody and at large, to prioritize our enforcement actions focusing first on the most dangerous criminal aliens and to transform the processes and assistance used to detain and transport criminal aliens.

ICE is using biometric technology in a new and effective way to alert us on potential criminal aliens as they enter the criminal justice process, especially those who are released without being incarcerated. Let me illustrate the importance of this enhancement.

Recently in Mesa, Arizona, an individual was booked for a minor crime and subsequently released on bail. Because the biometric identification feature had been deployed to that booking facility, the person's fingerprints were automatically sent to DHS.

The search revealed that the individual, though now released on bail, was an associate of a violent criminal gang. He had previous convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, endangerment, gang-related threats, and intimidation. He had also been deported three years ago after serving more than seven years in an Arizona Department of Corrections prison and he was in the United States illegally.

This information was automatically sent to our local Detention and Removal office, who located him and took him into immigration custody within hours. Our goal is to make available the biometric identification capability to more than 3,100 sites in the United States.

As of today, we have deployed this capability to 48 sites in seven states serving 2,100 booking locations. From the initial deployment this past October, ICE has already used its biometric identification capability to identify over 19,000 criminal aliens including 1,436 that have been identified as dangerous criminal aliens. All 1,436 aliens have either been removed or are in the removal process.

As this capacity to identify criminal aliens expands with the deployment of this technology, the number of known criminal aliens will rapidly increase. To accommodate this increased volume, we must change the way we prioritize our enforcement actions. We have adopted a risk-based strategy that focuses first on criminal aliens who pose the greatest threat to our communities.

To manage this increased workload and prudently scale the system capabilities, we're classifying all criminal aliens based on the severity of the crimes they have been convicted off. For example, the highest risk category includes those individuals who've been convicted of violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, kidnapping, or major drug offenses.

Identifying and removing these dangerous criminal aliens are the program's highest priorities, and remain the focus of our efforts. This risk-based strategy also gives us greater flexibility.

For instance, we have now made it a top priority to first deploy this capability to areas along the Southwest border based on the emerging risk from increased drug-related violence there. This will directly impact on enforcement efforts at or near the border but will also have an indirect impact and benefit for communities far from the border.

As we deploy these new capabilities we are using models to analyze the impact of an increased number of identified dangerous criminal aliens. With this analysis, we will identify resource and system improvements required in the detention and removal processes.

For example, we will automate how we manage bed space and transportation. And we will track criminal aliens from the time we take them into custody until they are removed from the United States.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe we are taking the necessary steps to improve and modernize the way we identify criminal aliens and remove them from the United States as soon as practicable. By working with immigration enforcement partners inside and outside of ICE, we are looking to leverage the new capabilities of this program for maximum impact. And we are proceeding with this deployment in a way that we believe is prudent, fiscally sound, and protects individual rights and liberties.

We appreciate both your personal support, Mr. Chairman, and the support of Congress in our efforts to secure our nation's communities. I would ask that my complete written testimony be accepted into the record and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions at this time.

REP. PRICE: Thank you. Your statement will be on the record. All the statements will be on the record. And we appreciate your summarizing it in a way that you did.

Mr. Aytes.

MR. AYTES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Rogers, as you've noted, our principal contribution with respect to this issue is our employer verification program. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss our shared goals in this respect. And let me start by thanking the subcommittee for the $100 million appropriation for E-Verify for this year.

As you've noted, Mr. Chairman, E-Verify has grown exponentially in the past few years. Over 117,000 employers are now enrolled, representing over a 456,000 locations. More notably, today over 14 percent of all non-agricultural new hires in the U.S. are run though E-Verify.

E-Verify is sometimes described as a tool to enforce the immigration laws of this country. Others refer to it as a tool for employers committed to maintaining a legal workforce. But we also recognize that the system must also effectively serve workers by giving accurate and quick verification of their employment authorization.

Our goal is to continue to improve E-Verify's ability to instantly verify new hires, strengthen employer training, monitoring, and compliance functions. At the same time, we want to work to protect worker's rights. Complaints about E-Verify largely fall into three categories.

One, that the system is inaccurate, and results in erroneous mismatches. Second, that it doesn't effectively combat identity theft and document fraud. Third, that it can result in discrimination if there is an initial mismatch of a worker, who is actually work authorized and they don't know about the redress opportunities available to them. I'd like to discuss each briefly in turn.

Today over 96 percent of queries result in an automatic confirmation that the worker is employment authorized. Of the remaining less than 4 percent, about one worker in 10 contests the preliminary finding. And after research, we ultimately find they are employment authorized.

We've worked hard to reduce the initial non-confirmation rate for workers who are actually work authorized. For example, a simple change significantly reduced typographical errors that employers made as they keyed data into the system. We've added several new databases to our automated checks. This includes real-time arrival and departure data for non-citizens, which has effectively eliminated initial mismatches for newly arriving workers.

A partnership with the Department of State to share passport data is today significantly reducing the initial mismatches for naturalized and derivative citizens.

Although we've had significant success in this area, we continue to work hard on this problem. We recognize the effect it can have on both employers and workers.

But we also recognize that not every mismatch can be prevented simply by adding data. For example, if someone changes their name through a marriage or divorce, updates their driver's license, but not their social security account information, it can result in a mismatch.

E-Verify was not initially designed to combat identity theft. Since under the pre-existing I-9 process, the worker must present an identity document, such as a driver's license, green card, or passport. But we recognize that identity theft and document fraud are growing issues.

Last year, we added a new photo screening tool for all DHS documents in order to combat document and identity fraud. In the future we plan to add U.S. passport photos and would like to be able to verify individual driver's license information.

All of this streamlined the process, and let an employer quickly verify that the document presented by a worker matches what was actually issued. We are also working to create an initial capability to let individuals who had been victims of identity theft lock and unlock their social security number for the purpose of E-Verify.

About 9 in 10 initial confirmation -- non-confirmations becomes final, most without the worker contesting the initial finding. Some people have highlighted the potential for discrimination, suggesting some of these workers may actually be work authorized, but simply don't know they can contest the initial finding.

Admittedly, any system can be used incorrectly. However, there are an estimated 12 million people illegally in the United States. Some study suggests that about 5 percent of the workforce in the United States currently, are not authorized to work in this country. So the current E-Verify final non-confirmation rate of 3.5 percent does not seem inconsistent with that broader data.

But we agree that E-Verify must protect the rights of workers. Any discrimination reduces the effectiveness of the program. Thus we have expanded our information for workers and a growing, a new monitoring and compliance branch to ensure that employers use the system correctly and to ensure that workers have access to information about redress procedures.

We've also established a new process that lets employees call a U.S. toll free number to address citizenship mismatches as an alternative to visiting SSA. And we are also working to refer instances of fraud, discrimination misuse, and any illegal or unauthorized use of the system to appropriate law enforcement authorities.

In summary, E-Verify has made great strides in becoming a fast, easy, and accurate tool to help employers and workers who are work authorized go through the process of employment verification quickly and efficiently. The administration is dedicated to continuing to work to improve this system in process.

Again, thank you, for the opportunity to testify and again, we appreciate the subcommittee's continued support for the E-Verify program.

REP. PRICE: Thank you very much. Well let's turn to questions, and I'll first attack one of the topics that stands out. Ms. Forman and Mr. Venturella in the testimony of both of you, that is, the enforcement priority that you give to aliens who have committed serious crimes, that's a focus that you've brought to us this morning for a very good reason. Because you have -- you have concentrated your efforts on improving our enforcement in this area. And it's been a hallmark of this committee's leadership, if I may say so, that we want you to move in that direction. And we've put, not just a mandate out there, but also the money to underwrite the mandate.

In the 2008 Appropriations Bill, this subcommittee provided $200 million to identify and deport criminal aliens. Last year, we allocated $1 billion for that purpose, some new money and -- some money that we made quite clear was to be channeled in this direction.

It should be clear that Congress's top priority for ICE is finding criminals who have no right to be in the country and making certain that they don't stay here. There are some signs that ICE has been moving in the right direction. But I do want to ask you about the progress that we are making and what next steps you anticipate.

I've quoted some figures that are unsettling; to me anyway, in my opening statement. And I'd like to have you react to them. I also have your most recent quarterly report -- a report which is, of course, was mandated by this committee. This one is dated February 17, 2009.

I guess, with reports of this sort, you always can see the glass is half-full or half-empty. But I do think that the evidence here is mixed. And that's why I would like an oral update and perhaps additional elaboration for the record. You, for example, talk in this report about developing a 100 percent screening at -- now what amounts to 14.2 percent of state and local prisons.

That's up from a lower percent, but it still leaves us wondering about 85.8 percent of the state and local jails who don't have this level of screening. And what's happening to the people who are incarcerated there and then are out on the streets?

We are told that at any given point in time, there are 450,000 approximately illegal aliens incarcerated in our federal, state, and local prison systems. By the way, you do have the 100 percent screening with regard to the federal prison system and I should acknowledge that. The concern is with these other -- these other prisons.

At any point in time, 450,000 people are incarcerated. I think the figure last year for criminal alien deportation was something like 115,000. That does leave us wondering, of course, not all those, not -- the release rate per year. We need to know what that is to know exactly what the denominator is in terms of how significant that 150,000 number is.

But what kind of figures do you have on that? And what are your current estimates of the number of incarcerated illegal aliens who are getting turned back out on the street without us knowing their status, let alone, moving to deport them, as opposed to the 115,000 that, one way or another, you did deport last year?

There is also the question of priorities within the department. And let me say, a priority is just what we say it is. Having something as a priority doesn't mean you're ignoring everything else. But it does mean you're giving this priority. As far as I know, nobody seriously disagrees that criminal aliens should be at the very top of that list.

Now, the figures I have for deportations since 2002, is that the deportation of non-criminals since 2002 has increased by 400 percent, while criminal deportations have only gone up 60 percent. So I'll stop with that. You may have other figures to offer, but you can -- you get my direction here.

I'm encouraged by some of the specific actions that are reflected in this most recent report. On the other hand, I'm not sure these overall figures indicate that we are making the kind of progress, getting the kind of closure on this problem that we need to get.

So I would like to know how you would account for the continuing lag and -- that these figures indicate in our ability to get the capacity out there that we want? And how long do you think it's going to take for us to see this figures to sizably turn around?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, thank you for the question, Chairman Price. In regards to the 14 percent screening, as it relates to local jails, I think everyone is aware that that's the greatest challenge for ICE, because of the speed by which individuals are processed through the local jail system.

While we have 14 percent coverage of those facilities, we do have the law enforcement support center available 24/7, for local law enforcement officers to initiate immigration queries to that center, as well as protocols, local protocols in place by which the ICE offices can respond to local law enforcement referrals when there is an officer or an agent present at those facilities. So while we have the 14 percent physical coverage, we do have other ways of responding to these law enforcement referrals.

Regarding criminal alien removals and -- versus non-criminal alien removals, I think, each year, we've shown that those numbers continue to go up. Again, based on the resources that you've provided to ICE and those numbers will continue to go up. I believe we will be able to accelerate those numbers based on the strategy that we submitted in March of 2008.

We are looking again to modernize and transform the way we do business. The biometric capability that we talked about in the written testimony is really a game changer for us. It does allow us to be present in facilities; it does allow us to change our model going from an agent-centric, officer-centric model to a technology- centric model.

And we believe that the resources you've provided, the plan that we've put forth, will allow us to accelerate the coverage, allow us to accelerate the identification of these individuals, and therefore put more people through this process.

Regarding the non-criminal removals, I think you're aware that the increased border patrol agents that had been deployed to the Southwest border, generate non-criminal arrests and activities. And ICE does have a responsibility to support the activities of the border patrol and the CBP.

The catching and return policy was implemented. And that required the detention of more non-criminal aliens along the Southwest border. So that attributes or contributes to those -- to those figures.

REP. PRICE: Well, one more statistic. The figures in the most recent year that we have in 2007 and 2008, the figures for criminal removals went from the 102,000 to the 115,000 number. That is a 12 percent increase; no doubt reflects some of these efforts.

That same year the non-criminal removals went up 35 percent. So the pattern is a continuum, but it isn't quite as stark as it was in those earlier years. Well, we expect these efforts to continue and intensify, and we expect that the detailed budget submission for 2010 will reflect that.

So we will be scrutinizing that carefully and working with you to make certain that we continue and accelerate progress in this direction. We think it's important.

Mr. Rogers.

Excuse me, Mr. Rogers, before you -- I did want to just quickly. I didn't get the figure for the denominator, 115,000 over what number of estimated criminal aliens who are being released each year who are not being deported? Do you have that figure?

MR. VENTURELLA: We do not.

REP. PRICE: Can you get that figure?

MR. VENTURELLA: We are going to be able to provide you that figure very shortly. We are -- we have developed a model, which looks at a number of criminal data sources from the federal, state, and local level. And we will be able to tell you in a given year, how many people ICE expects to encounter at these facilities versus how many are actually at those facilities.

So we will be able to refine that number. The number that you referred to earlier, the 350,000 - 400,000, again was a different statistic, a different snapshot of -- if you looked at all the prison populations, federal, state, and local level, that's how many individuals you would encounter. It didn't speak to how many would be released.

REP. PRICE: No, that's why I asked the question.

MR. VENTURELLA: Right.

REP. PRICE: How significant? So that 115,000 number depends entirely on what the number released is.

MR. VENTURELLA: Absolutely.

REP. PRICE: It's not just the total prison population of illegal aliens.

I'm sorry, Mr. Rogers, go ahead.

REP. ROGERS: Tell me whether or not you're work on catching and deporting criminal aliens is interfering in any way or diminishing your efforts in catch and return of non-criminal illegal aliens?

MR. VENTURELLA: I don't believe it is. With the additional resources that Congress has provided us, we've had -- have been able to add additional detention space to support this particular activity. So -- and we've added additional officers and agents to focus on implementing this strategy as it relates to criminal aliens.

So I do not believe it has diminished our efforts to continue to support CBP and the border patrol.

REP. ROGERS: So the catching and returning of illegal aliens who are not criminals continues unabated?

MR. VENTURELLA: Yes. At -- along the Southwest border, those activities continue forward.

REP. ROGERS: And does that equally apply to the in-land investigations -- workforce investigations?

MR. VENTURELLA: I defer that to Director Forman.

MS. FORMAN: We are still using -- utilizing the resources and the funding that Congress generously provided to go after egregious employers of worksite violations.

REP. ROGERS: Well, that brings us to the Bellingham, Washington case and what I think it portends. And what I'm afraid it portends. And that is a diversion of attention from prosecuting employers in the U.S. who employee illegal aliens knowingly, and providing that magnet to draw people from Mexico and other places towards across the border and into the U.S. illegally and for the purpose of work.

I'm nervous that the Department is making a big change of policy here. I hope you can prove me wrong. And I pray that I'm wrong. But I perceive too many symbols that I think are portending a change of policy in that regard. I don't want to interfere in that Bellingham, Washington case. That's an ongoing case, and far be it from me to want to interfere in that.

Suffice it to say that I want to see stronger enforcement, a stronger prosecution of American employers who employ illegal aliens knowingly. Why? Because our whole effort on the Southwest border. The billions of dollars we are appropriating for building the fence and the virtual fence, the drug war that's now raging across that border, all of the efforts that we spend on customs and border protection at the check points, ports of entry, and all of the border patrol expenses between those posts, and all of the efforts that we doing to try to keep illegal aliens out, will never succeed so long as the magnet that draws those people to the U.S., to find work. So long as that magnet exists.

And the magnet of course is the hope of a job at an American employer's place. And if we are not going to prosecute those people, if we are not going to catch and return people -- illegals who are caught in the process of raiding that plant, then we may as well give up on the border. We can save a ton of money, not having to spend it on all the things we've got to do on that border.

And what the Bellingham case signals to me is that that's the way we are going, and it is backed up by a number of other things. The Washington Post ran a story on March 29, Sunday. Headline is, "Delay in immigration raids may signal policy change." And it says, it -- it says it better than I can say it.

In effect saying the secretary has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S. work places in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply more scrutiny, the selection and investigation of targets as well as the timing of raids. Senior department official, not named, said these delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. immigration and customs enforcement choose to prosecute.

There will be a change in policy. The senior DHS official says. Her moves, the story goes on to say, have led a lot of people to question the administration's commitment to worksite raids, period. She has highlighted other priorities, drug cartels, dangerous criminals, and so on. But the fact remains, the pressure is on this administration not to raid these plants and arrest the illegals working there, out of humanitarian concerns, and we all have those concerns. But we've got to think about enforcing the law and protecting our border and having a border.

I sort of agree with what Senator Byrd in the Senate from West Virginia said recently. He says it makes no sense to take funds from one priority worksite enforcement, to address a new priority, the border violence.

I know that the administration is talking about moving as many as 450 to 500 ICE agents out of internal workplace enforcement investigations and move them to the border along with their equipment to counter the drug cartels.

I have tried to signal to the secretary that, that would be a giant mistake to take those ICE agents who have to work on trying to shut down the magnet here from drawing people across the border, and diverting money to the border to prevent them from coming across. I just think that's counterproductive and contradictive.

So let me ask you. Are we in the midst of a change of policy on the workplace enforcement? Madame.

MS. FORMAN: The answer is, no. The secretary is committed to going after the employers who engage in criminal activity and build their model on hiring illegal aliens. Secretary Napolitano has repeated that mandate and we are going to pursue that mandate and going after the employers who again knowingly hire illegal aliens in addition to those who hire in our national critical infrastructure locations.

Let me assure you that the worksite funds that Congress so generously provided to us will not be used to fund the Southwest border movement of agents.

REP. ROGERS: Well, I'm glad to hear the effort to prosecute employers is going to proceed posthaste. What about the illegal aliens that are apprehended in that process?

MS. FORMAN: ICE intends to fully utilize their investigative resources, tools, and authorities to develop cases and prove cases against the employer using all the tools available to them.

REP. ROGERS: What about the people that are caught-- the illegals that are caught in the process of a raid? Will they be released or returned to their place of origin?

MS. FORMAN: Certainly, each case is evaluated on its own merit, but utilizing the tools that are available, such as, temporary immigration relief, in order to prove the criminal case. Many of these individuals may be offered that type of relief temporarily in order to help ICE pursue -- ICE in conjunction with the Department of Justice to pursue these criminal cases against the employer.

REP. ROGERS: Well, I mean that's the Bellingham case. But what about all the others, where you don't have that involved, where you don't have to have the testimony of an illegal alien to testify in that case? What happens to them? Will they be returned back to their home?

MS. FORMAN: Certainly they will be appropriately dealt with, according to the immigration laws and the immigration judges; yes, they will.

REP. ROGERS: Well, is it true that the secretary has in effect barred any further raids, until she personally intervenes in that matter?

MS. FORMAN: That is absolutely not true. We have not received any policy shift in regards to our approach on immigration, on worksite enforcement. We have taken, and which we often do, a review of the cases in our inventory to ensure that the targets of these investigations are the employers who are the ones responsible for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. And we are using a third -- a comprehensive approach to immigration enforcement.

In addition to the criminal process, we have many other tools at our disposal as well. We have recently, thanks to Congress, hired approximately 60 auditors. We are hoping to have at the end of the year, a total of almost 100 auditors conduct I-9 inspections.

We have implemented a debarment policy. We have refined our fine process to make the fines more meaningful and consistent when they are issued. And certainly, we are using our administrative and criminal authorities when appropriate.

REP. ROGERS: So is this reporter for the Washington Post wrong, when he says in his opening paragraph that the secretary has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids at workplaces?

MS. FORMAN: I certainly can't comment on the reporter himself. I'm not sure of the validity of that statement. All I can tell you is that we have not been asked to delay any raids.

REP. ROGERS: We being who?

MS. FORMAN: ICE, ICE office of investigations.

REP. ROGERS: I don't have further questions, Mr. Chairman.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

Mr. Farr.

REP. SAM FARR (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I was late.

I'm reading the quote here, and as I read it, your highest responsibility is to remove the criminal -- criminal offenders. Isn't that correct?

MR. VENTURELLA: That is a top priority for ICE. And Secretary Napolitano has made that very clear that that will be the top priority at ICE.

REP. FARR: So on the priority issues, I mean, removing known criminals who are undocumented, or who are aliens who committed crimes is a higher priority than -- for us to do well, because they are obviously more of a threat than conducting raids.

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, I think, ICE has a number of responsibilities, criminal aliens being one, as Director Forman mentioned worksite enforcement. And there are other activities that --

REP. FARR: But the law puts the criminal aliens as a really high priority. And you said, for example, the highest risk category includes those individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, kidnapping or other major drug offences.

This category is our highest priority and the main focus of our efforts. That's on page nine of your testimony. And I just want to find out -- so what we were asking last year is, does ICE have a list of all the undocumented people that are in federal prison?

MR. VENTURELLA: In federal prison?

REP. FARR: Uh-huh.

MR. VENTURELLA: Yes, we have a 100 percent screening of those in federal custody.

REP. FARR: Congratulations, because last year you didn't have it. How about in state prisons?

MR. VENTURELLA: In state prisons, again, I believe we have a 100 percent --

REP. FARR: Hundred percent?

MR. VENTURELLA: -- coverage of the state facilities which ICE overseas.

REP. FARR: And that would take care of your felonies because in your local jails are misdemeanor census, is that correct?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, the majority are, but some felonies also originate from the local setting.

REP. FARR: They originate, but may not necessarily spending -- do they do time in jail? I thought the time was always for felonies, was in the state prison.

MR. VENTURELLA: Well they move through -- they can move through a county system; they can do their time there or they can migrate to the state system as well.

REP. FARR: And how many booking sites are there in the United States?

MR. VENTURELLA: Over 30,000.

REP. FARR: And your intention is to try to have every one of those booking sites to have the same fingerprinting process, so that we could run those fingerprints up against our national data bank, right?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, we want to make available the capability of them being able to receive a response back, both on the criminal side and the immigration side, once the fingerprints are transmitted through the system.

REP. FARR: Well, it seems to me that the priority is -- of this -- of the responsibility, because we were very critical of the fact that ICE was not doing jail checks. And in fact my local law enforcement were very upset with ICE, didn't want to cooperate with ICE. Felt that they would rather go do these raids, than -- where they got more press, and more -- and really shook up the community. In fact I don't have many law enforcement leaders that are respectful of -- and I hope they are gaining respect, but I don't think they've been very respectful, because of the way ICE has conducted itself, particularly, because they wouldn't come in and do these jail checks.

So what I didn't understand exactly from the program as I read it, you're relying awfully -- a lot on the local communities to have to tell you whether the person they booked is documented or not.

MR. VENTURELLA: Under the old model, that is correct. The new model does not rely on them making judgment on the individual's immigration --

REP. FARR: No, that's not their responsibility.

MR. VENTURELLA: Absolutely, it is not. And so with this change of approach, in deploying this biometric technology, just by sharing that fingerprint with us, we will be able to make that identification and then provide them the information back about that individual.

REP. FARR: Well, what I don't understand --

MR. VENTURELLA: Just take them out of the --

REP. FARR: What I didn't understand in this process is that you're talking about this individual who was detained, and sort of, by circumstance, was a bad -- really bad hombre in Arizona. And, but for the fact that he got busted on a minor incident. And in that we are able to run a check and finally grab him. Why wasn't he grabbed the minute he was booked?

MR. VENTURELLA: Again, the information was not shared. Now, in the old model that would have required the local police department, the local law enforcement officers to make that determination, have reasonable suspicion that this person had violated, or was in the United States unlawfully. Manually --

REP. FARR: But --

MR. VENTURELLA: -- initiated checks to the law enforcement support center.

REP. FARR: What -- you mean, that isn't done? You book somebody and you have a fingerprint, you don't find out if there's any outstanding warrants for that person or any other things? I mean, my God, when, you know, I get stopped at this -- on a traffic violation, they run my driver's license to see if I have any -- all kinds of stuff. So why can't we do -- you've got people that are being booked in jails and we don't have that information about?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, that's what we're changing. We're --

REP. FARR: But why is it taking so long? I mean, this has been the law for a long, long time. It isn't new.

MR. VENTURELLA: The -- again, local law enforcement has always had the ability to initiate an immigration query through a telecommunication system. What we are doing now is we're integrating to two databases and part of the booking process, they get back that information. So they don't have to do a second query. They don't have to initiate a second search.

REP. FARR: So --

MR. VENTURELLA: It's all part of the booking process. And that's really what changes the way we're identifying and the way we are sharing information back with the local law enforcement.

REP. FARR: So you are having a projection that round up 440,000 people next year. How many of those will be people that are incarcerated now either without papers or incarcerated as green card holders?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, once we deploy the capability to those jurisdictions, yes, we do expect to be able to identify all of those individuals and take the appropriate --

REP. FARR: So you meet him at the -- when they get out of prison, you'll be there at the gate to receive them?

MR. VENTURELLA: Again, once -- yeah, once we deploy this capability we make the identification. The goal is to be able to take these people out of those institutions and remove them from the United States as quickly as possible.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

Mr. Calvert.

REP. KEN CALVERT (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the original author of E-Verify, I obviously have watched this program evolve over the years, and now I see we have 117,000 employers on the system. Several states have now made E-Verify mandatory within their own states.

And just to go over these numbers, Mr. Aytes, as you mentioned, 96.1 percent of people are instantly verified. And of the 3.9 percent that are not instantly verified, four-tenths of 1 percent are successfully contested. Is that an accurate number, sir?

MR. AYTES: Yes, sir. Accounting for rounding --

REP. CALVERT: Which --

MR. AYTES: -- it's actually 0.37 of one --

REP. CALVERT: Okay. Which means about 3.5 percent of that number either walked away or were not authorized to work? So that means that program is approximately 99.6 percent accurate.

Is that a reasonably correct number?

MR. AYTES: When you add all of those numbers together, yes, sir.

REP. CALVERT: That's not bad for government work. You know, I've heard a lot of criticism from some on E-Verify, as a matter of fact I checked with some of my local employers who use E-Verify. One employer in my district, Carlos with A-Check America provides background check for employers said, "My colleagues and I have a very favorable impression of E-Verify.

"We find the employers want to do the right thing, requirements put upon the employer to confirm the applicant is legal to work within the U.S. This program serves that need. The program is very affordable, fast, and we feel very accurate. We have had not any applicants contest the finding of the results."

In fact, Mr. Aytes, as far as you know, people that are authorized to work in United States are being supposedly, are denied jobs by some folks, say. Has anyone ever sued the department for losing a job over E-Verify?

MR. AYTES: Not that we are aware of, sir.

REP. CALVERT: Thank you.

Ms. Forman, I was listening to you on this issue of releasing temporarily individuals who are not legally here to work in the United States in this issue, in Washington. Without giving the details of this case, this -- releasing these individuals, the so called "catch- and-release," what's the percentage of these individuals that just disappear and never report?

You said, there was weekly reporting periods and they are supposed to show up from a certain point. What percentage of them just disappear?

MS. FORMAN: I do not have that figure for you. But I will assure you there is great oversight over these individuals.

REP. CALVERT: If they just disappear and they show -- go some place else and apply for work and under a different name, there's not very much you can do about that, isn't it? Isn't that the case?

MS. FORMAN: We certainly -- we do our best to seek them out and find them.

REP. CALVERT: And in the real world that happens often. I just want to make that point because that is the case. As a matter of fact, another thing on this worksite enforcement issue, you've mentioned that you're targeting unscrupulous employers, poor, unsafe working conditions, pain, substandard wages.

Does that mean you don't target employers that are paying fair wages or working in good conditions and that are --- but at the same time knowingly hire people who are working here illegally?

MS. FORMAN: No, that's not true. We target all unscrupulous employers. We just highlighted some of the areas in which we've uncovered during our investigations.

REP. CALVERT: So employers that are paying fair wages, and paying -- and working in good conditions are targeted just as aggressively as any -- everyone else. Is that what you are saying?

MS. FORMAN: That is correct. We certainly -- we've certainly prioritized, if we receive information with those employers who have these unsafe, lower paying, they may take precedent. But we target them all, those companies and employers who build their model on hiring illegal aliens are never --

REP. : Would the gentleman yield briefly?

REP. CALVERT: Be happy to yield to the gentleman.

REP. : I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we might be able to get the department to give us a list of the employers who have been charged or raided, and the results of those raids, however many illegals were detained and what happened to them. I wonder if we get a report so that we could judge them.

REP. PRICE: Certainly.

Could that -- we would appreciate your making available information in whatever form you can assemble it.

MS. FORMAN: Certainly.

REP. CALVERT: If you submit that for the record I would appreciate that.

E-Verify in itself, Mr. Aytes, is your experience, as this program expands, that you have sufficient resources and manpower to enforce this program properly?

MR. AYTES: Based on our forecast of growth, yes, sir, we've -- I had actually done some load testing of our infrastructure of the system. And we can handle 40 million queries. There is about 60 million, if you went -- mandatory but this system can grow. It's scalable that it could deal with the entire volume.

REP. CALVERT: In fact, as you took on states that made it mandatory, such as the State of Arizona, which in fact, Ms. Napolitano signed the law in effect making E-Verify mandatory in the State of Arizona. And there are other states, as I understand, moving in that direction also.

Could you, for the record tell which states are moving toward a mandatory system within their states?

MR. AYTES: Well, yes, sir, Mississippi and South Carolina have already adopted mandatory verification. There are several other states, Missouri, for example, that have adopted some aspect of it, applying it to particular types of employers or to state government agencies.

REP. CALVERT: And lastly, what is E-Verify doing about identity theft? That was one of the criticisms that was also pointed to E- Verify. What are you doing to prevent identity theft?

MR. AYTES: What we're doing is we're trying to post all of our documents online, so that an employer can look. Now, if I'm sitting there and I'm applying for a job, the employer is looking at me and looking at my driver's license. Well, they don't necessarily know if that driver's license is genuine or if it's been altered to some degree.

So to the extent to which we can actually show the employer that source document they can verify that the document itself is genuine and hasn't been altered. That goes quite a way for fighting, not just document fraud, but identity theft.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

Ms. Roybal-Allard.

REP. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Forman, the increased use of raids has resulted in a great number of individuals being placed into detention costing billions of dollars. Yet, many of these detainees pose no threat to our communities, such as pregnant women, the elderly, and people with medical needs.

And I recently introduced the Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act in part, to expand the use of alternatives to detention for groups that do not pose a threat to their communities or constitute a flight risk, recognizing the fact that there are, in fact, other options to the high cost of detaining of these vulnerable groups. And this is money that could be better used to go after criminal aliens.

What is DHS doing to use these expanded alternative measures for these -- this particular group of people?

MS. FORMAN: Thank you very much for the question. When ICE conducts some of these enforcement actions, we have guidelines in place. And those guidelines include humanitarian guidelines. So utilizing your example of a pregnant female, we work with our detention and removal agents and we offer -- we process the individual and we release them on humanitarian guidelines.

And detention and removal has used these alternatives to detention to include bracelets and phone-ins, and so forth. We do that routinely on these enforcement actions.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Okay. But I'm getting reports that there are still a great many of these vulnerable people that are still being detained rather than being held under these alternative measures. So is this --

MS. FORMAN: These --

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: I don't know where the disconnect here is, because I'm hearing that there are still many that fall into this category that are still being detained.

MS. FORMAN: I can tell you this based on my oversight of the worksite investigations, I am not aware of any cases and I'm certainly more than glad to go look into any particular circumstance. But these guidelines are applied across the board on all our worksite enforcement operations.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Okay, we'll work on that. Also the rapid repatriation is an initiative designed to quickly deport immigrants with low-level offences by offering them a reduced sentence in exchange for waiving the right to a deportation proceeding.

And for those with no chance to obtain immigrant status, it's probably a pretty good offer. However, again, I've been informed that the rapid repatriation may not provide immigrants with sufficient legal information to make in an informed decision about whether to accept this offer or not to accept it.

Could you tell me what resources do you provide through the -- this program to inform immigrants of their rights and how does this legal information compare with what is available to immigrants held in the ICE detention centers?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, I don't --

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Probably that's better for Mr. Venturella.

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, I'm not familiar with all of the particulars around that program. My understanding is that individuals are given their right to a hearing. Some of these individuals may have already been processed, gone through immigration proceedings, and had a removal order, but are serving long sentences or sentences in state custody.

I don't know if all of them are then issued a charging document, and go through formal removal proceedings. Again, I'm just not quite familiar with that, so I'll have to get back to you on that process.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: I would appreciate, because the question really is if they're offered this, you know, immediately, are they getting enough information to make an informed decision, particularly, if they have some basis for being able, you know, to stay here. So I would appreciate it if you would.

MR. VENTURELLA: Yes.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: And one last thing, on April 3rd, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will implement a change to its employment eligibility verification form, I guess, its I-9 process. And under the new rules, employers will no longer be able to accept expired documents for purposes of hiring. This -- the concern that I have is that; it's two-fold.

First of all, this revised policy could possibly disproportionately impact poor and elderly Americans who statistically are less likely to renew their state IDs or their driver's license, which could prevent them from gainful employment. And unfortunately USCIS has not made alerting the public a priority, and as a result has done very little, if any, outreach.

Now, why has this rule change not been more highly publicized, so that people would be aware of it, and since we're, what, 2 days -- 1, 2 days away from this deadline, is there any possibility of extending it so that members of Congress and others can get that word out to our constituents that this is happening?

MR. AYTES: Well, Madame, this is a fine rule. We went through a very elaborate process with the proposed rule with comments, getting information and feedback from folks. We're certainly not hiding the changes that have been made. These -- many of these changes have been long discussed.

This is one of the first revisions, although, a very minor revision of the I-9 since the employer sanctions law first took effect back in the 1980s. We have made this change, because we didn't feel the employer should be in the position of having to assess the legitimacy of documents that are long expired.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Mr. Aytes, I -- my time is up. I am not taking a position against what you're trying to do.

MR. AYTES: I understand.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: I am simply saying that being the impact that it's going to have on a lot of folks I'm concerned that the information has not gotten out to those who are going to be most impacted by this. That's all I'm saying, and I, you know, for myself, I'd like a little more time to let my seniors and my constituents know that this is happening.

MR. AYTES: Well, we certainly share your concern to the extent to which it might adversely impact someone unnecessarily. I think it would be extraordinarily problematic a day before implementation to delay a final rule of this nature. I will promise you we'll take a look, but I can't hold out much hope that we'll be able to implement some form of delay.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

Mr. Rodriguez.

REP. CIRO RODRIGUEZ (D-TX): Thank you very much. And let me first of all -- I know there's been a lot of dialogue on the E-Verify back and forth, and I do want to, I guess, congratulate you to get into that 96 percent. The key is how do we get the next 4 or less than 4 percent?

And I know you made some comments at the beginning. So please let us know in terms of what we might need to do or what you might need to do in terms of, you know, that might entail us taking some actions that allow us to get hopefully that 99.9 (percent) in the process, okay?

And let me also just indicate, I know the minority leader, Mr. Rogers is correct in saying that the jobs is one of the main magnates of, you know, illegal immigration. And although we do have another main magnate, which is drugs, and I think we're going to have to look at prioritizing how we're going to deal with that from one administration to the other as to the, you know.

And we do have some major drugs coming in, and I would hope, at least from my perspective, that all of them are important. But there's no doubt that we have to come down on those criminals that are already here and doing what we need to do to correct that as well as dealing with those individuals that are coming across with drugs.

And I know from previous experiences that in dealing with companies that we've always -- we've also had Mr. Rogers reverse where the illegals -- and it's true that a lot of times the ones that are, at least in my perception, that are raided or those that are being treated real poorly, because that's where you'll hear the complaints and that's where you identify them.

And sometimes they are sent back and then we don't have the individuals that can prosecute the employers for doing the wrong thing also. So it's a balance there that probably we have to strike. I don't know if you want to make some comments on the existing one, because I know we've had problems in Iowa and other places where they have done some real terrible things. And the illegals are sent back and then we couldn't prosecute in some cases in the past.

I don't know if you want to make any comments, Ms. Forman.

MS. FORMAN: I can't comment on the ongoing investigation, but we certainly have worksite enforcement actions that the employer has, you know, low standard of wages, poor treatment of the employee, and certainly and that's why the focus is always and will continue to be on the employer, going after that employer.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: Now, on those good -- and I know we've had cases on good employers, because I know we had -- there was a major case, was it -- a major company that was in, that had buses loads and were brought up here with them. And I don't want to mention the company.

And that case lasted a long time, at the end, the people, I think, that got nailed were the bus drivers on that case. And so that was a major company that was involved with some of that -- I think it was poultry (ph) and others. I won't mention the name of that company, but I know that we need to continue to do that on both sides, making sure we get the -- those two magnates, both the job related, you know, workforce as well as the drugs.

Let me ask you one other question, since I'm on the border, section 287(g), that's extremely important for us in terms of making a distinction there. GAO reports indicates that the agencies participating in 287 programs often did not know the extent of the legal authority whether, you know, we like the program or not.

What steps have we taken to ensure participating agencies know exactly what they can and cannot do?

MS. FORMAN: The 287(g) program doesn't fall under the office investigations, but based on my knowledge of the 287(g) program there are several weeks of training provided to these law -- state and local enforcement agencies and they receive the immigration training on what they can and cannot do and what the law requires. So there is training before they are able to apply their 287(g) authority.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: And if I can just follow-up one other question on that. We -- how do facility for families, and I think we have two of them, one in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, and we -- and my understanding is we have a facility now for little ones under 18, I guess, kids.

MS. FORMAN: Juvenile detention?

MR. VENTURELLA: I'm not aware of ICE having juvenile facilities.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

MR. VENTURELLA: The responsibility for custody of juveniles is with the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

MR. VENTURELLA: -- which is in HHS.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: So -- okay, and so that would not -- now, have we come up with any other alternatives to -- I know it's a difficult situation every time you hear that you're putting in prison a whole family with the kiddos, little kids. That always comes across, well, it is kind of, you know, difficult. Do we have any other alternatives there?

MS. FORMAN: Our detention and removal, such -- I can certainly take these questions back to them and provide you a written answer.

REP. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much.

REP. PRICE: Thank you.

We welcome Mr. Culberson. I understand he'll defer for a couple of time slots here and then we'll get right to him. Meanwhile we'll start the second round.

I have a very brief question to you Mr. Aytes, following up on Mr. Calvert's line of questioning. Then, I'd like to get back to this question of workforce enforcement. I do think we need to ask you to elaborate a bit on the rather encouraging statistics you gave us about the error rates.

As you know, sometimes you need to look at the subsets within on overall statistic of that sort. And the figures we had heard indicated that there were some problematic subsets led by naturalized citizens that had been a problem that the audit, the Westat audit of E-Verify showed that 1 in 10 naturalized citizens get told they can't be employed in the United States.

I wonder if you could just briefly tell me what kind of progress you've made in, first of all, in confirming that that's -- that is true and also what kind of progress you've made in improving on that? And then just briefly tell if there are any other problematic subsets and maybe follow up for the record with more detailed information.

MR. AYTES: Certainly, sir. It's true not every individual worker is going to go through exactly the same experience depending on their background. We did have an issue with naturalized citizens and derivative citizens, for example. So we pay attention to the type of individuals who contest and successfully are able to convince us after we do some research that they are employment authorized.

What can we do to improve the system so the next time they or someone like them are going to get an automatic verification? That's what's been able to drive this verification rate up. So, for example, when we noticed that problem, we started loading naturalization data more extensively into the system and we started loading passport data, so that derivative citizens, who typically will obtain a passport before they enter the United States, so that information is now resident in our system. That's driving those numbers down.

And I will tell you that the numbers that I have cited and that you all have cited, we publicly talk about validated data. Westat is a company that comes in and does an audit for us. We use that data. That data is actually almost a year old. I'm very confident that based on the results we've seen in terms of the number of calls we're getting and the types of mismatches that we've been able to avoid that the numbers are somewhat better today than even those numbers.

REP. PRICE: I'd appreciate your confirming that for the record, if you might, with any hard data that you have, as well as any information about other problematic subsets.

MR. AYTES: Yes, sir.

REP. PRICE: Ms. Forman, I get back to this question of worksite enforcement; as is evident, I think, from the discussion here today this is a contentious and controversial issue. And one of the reasons that some people, many people have criticized ICE worksite enforcement raids is because they perceive that employers are generally not punished to the same degree as the workers that they may be exploiting.

Over the weekend, I was pleased to read that Secretary Napolitano has ordered a review of ICE's worksite enforcement policies and practices. I for one, welcome this review, since I believe ICE's worksite enforcement investigations need to be considered in light of the -- in the context of the department's other priorities and needs, and that more focus needs to be placed on the employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

And I'm not asking you to comment on this policy review. I know you're not in a position to do that. But I do think it would be helpful for us to understand more about how ICE has traditionally approached worksite enforcement investigations. So let me ask you just a few related questions.

Under the previous administration what was ICE's policy for building cases against employers in worksite enforcement cases? Of the worksite enforcement cases you closed last year, how many resulted in criminal charges against employers? And generally speaking, what percentage of worksite enforcement cases result in the prosecution of an employer?

MS. FORMAN: Mr. Chairman, in terms of our priorities in worksite enforcement, our number one priority is going after employers who hire within our national critical infrastructures, such as military installations, airports, and seaports. Our second rein, if there is a second rein is going after those egregious employers, those employers who have built their business and used the business model knowingly hiring illegal aliens.

And then, if there's a prong, it is not per se, criminal in nature. It is working in partnership with the private sector to educate and to bring companies into compliance, those who want a pure and clean workforce. And that's why we still continue to address worksite enforcement in those priority areas.

REP. PRICE: Can more specific -- can you more specifically address my question about the cases that you build against employers and the percentage of cases that have resulted in criminal charges against employers?

MS. FORMAN: The way we build our criminal investigation in the worksite area as well as all the other areas in which we investigate we use various methods. Oftentimes we use investigative tools where we can bring in a, either a law enforcement officer or a cooperating witness who will go in and help us develop information against the employer.

Sometimes we get information based on our audits, on our I-9 audits, where there is a propensity that the company may have fraudulently made up some of these I-9 audits or unknowingly accepted fraudulent documentation. Our intent is to build enough probable cause to get -- working with the U.S. attorney's office, to get a search warrant to search the premises. This is usually our number one tool and vehicle in terms of trying to build a case against the employer.

REP. PRICE: I gather you don't have the overall figures about the number of worksite enforcement cases you closed in LA that resulted in criminal charges against employers? If you could --

MS. FORMAN: No. But I can get that for you.

REP. PRICE: If you could furnish that for the record and any further information you might want to give about previous years or trends in this regard, we very much need that information actually. So please do get back to us.

MS. FORMAN: I will.

REP. PRICE: Mr. Rogers.

REP. ROGERS: We're sitting on the same topic. I think if there's anything on this subcommittee we can agree upon and there are a number of things, but I think certainly one thing I'm sure of is, we all want you to prosecute the employers who are exploiting illegal aliens or anyone else.

And the reason that I would want you to do that is I want you to -- I think that you have to shut down the magnet that draws illegals across the border, not to mention the humanitarian question, which is, of course, important. So that has got me concerned, these news accounts insinuating or implying that the administration is going to let up on worksite enforcement in the U.S. because of the humanitarian impact on the illegal aliens.

And that has me worried. The secretary now is saying that she's going to issue a new protocol, apparently shortly to outline what the new policy will be toward worksite enforcement. Do you know anything about what that protocol will be?

MS. FORMAN: Not the protocols, per se. The secretary has stated, in public forums that our focus will still continue to be on the employer, on the egregious employer.

REP. ROGERS: Yeah. Well, she, according to the newspaper, in the Post story, apparently has delayed a series of immigration raids in recent weeks. Is that true?

MS. FORMAN: There have been reviews of the worksite cases that ICE Office of investigations have conducted to ensure that we are utilizing all the resources and tools at our disposal to go after the employer. So we have conducted a review internally, but I'm not aware of delaying cases for the sake of delaying cases. No, sir.

REP. ROGERS: Why have you reviewed those cases?

MS. FORMAN: Because we are trying to make sure that the target, the ultimate target of these investigations, these worksite investigations, are the employer. These cases, because there are less, I mean, the percentages of employers -- they are complex investigations.

Some of these investigations take months, some of them can take years to put together in terms of collecting and putting -- and establishing probable cause against an employer. And that's why the numbers are lower in terms of the employers themselves, because it takes a lot of evidence to show culpability.

REP. ROGERS: Well, there is a raid that was supposed to have taken place in a military-related facility in Chicago last week in which they had arranged to temporarily detain as many as 100 illegal immigrants according to one official. A second official said that the secretary had thought the investigative work was inadequate. Do you know -- can you comment on that?

MS. FORMAN: Sir, I cannot comment on that. I'm not sure whether -- I can't verify the validity of the sources that got that information, and I cannot comment on ongoing investigations.

REP. ROGERS: Well, apparently there's no investigation. It's called off.

MS. FORMAN: I'm not aware of any investigation being called off, sir.

REP. ROGERS: Period or in Chicago?

MS. FORMAN: Period.

REP. ROGERS: Well, aren't you head of the investigations?

MS. FORMAN: Yes, I am.

REP. ROGERS: You don't know if any of this has been called off?

MS. FORMAN: Not to the best of my knowledge, no.

REP. ROGERS: Well, if anybody should know, you should, you're the director, right?

MS. FORMAN: Yes, sir.

REP. ROGERS: Has any investigation been delayed or called off?

MS. FORMAN: There have been investigations that have been reviewed, but none have been called off, no.

REP. ROGERS: What do you mean reviewed?

MS. FORMAN: Reviewed to ensure that there's legal sufficiency in terms of going after the employer.

REP. ROGERS: And has a determination been made in some of those that there's not proper information available to you, to go forward?

MS. FORMAN: I don't -- do not have that information offhand.

REP. ROGERS: I'm sorry?

MS. FORMAN: The review is still taking place on some of these investigations. I do not have that information readily available.

REP. ROGERS: Well, has there been any of those investigations that you have reviewed where you have said, no, we don't have a good case.

MS. FORMAN: None of which we say we don't have a good case. We have had some where we've asked for stronger evidence to go after the employer.

REP. ROGERS: So there has been some that's been delayed or put off because of insufficient evidence?

MS. FORMAN: Possibly some for insufficient evidence in terms of going after the employer or asking or requesting for a stronger evidence to go after --

REP. ROGERS: But in those cases maybe, the employer was not an unscrupulous exploiter of illegals, but also you knew that there were illegals working at that place. Surely there is cases like that, right?

MS. FORMAN: I'm sure there may be cases like that.

REP. ROGERS: So that you know whether -- you know in some places where illegals are illegally working, right?

MS. FORMAN: We have received information, yes.

REP. ROGERS: Yes, and yet, you have not moved on them. And American citizens, tax paying American citizens out of a job, looking for work are being displaced by an illegal that you know is illegal, right or wrong?

MS. FORMAN: That we have received information that may be illegal, yes.

REP. ROGERS: And you are depriving an American taxpayer out of a job trying to support his family, her family from making a living, being displaced by an illegal alien in the country illegally, gaining the job illegally, that you know, the government knows, is there illegally. Now, is that your policy or not?

MS. FORMAN: I can't address policy. I can tell, as an enforcement officer, in order to make a greater impact, you want to go after the employer, the one who is knowingly hiring the illegal alien.

REP. ROGERS: What about the illegal alien that's being employed, illegally?

MS. FORMAN: Once again, it's a comprehensive approach with the target being the employer, him or herself.

REP. ROGERS: What about the illegal employee; are they not a target to you?

MS. FORMAN: They are targets, but the primary target is the employer.

REP. ROGERS: Well, you won't leave that, that's fine. Okay.

REP. PRICE: Mr. Farr.

REP. FARR: Well, I think the good news is that Mr. Rogers invites you to do the raids in Kentucky, but don't do them in the Spring Valley, because we won't get any food harvested. And -- but I wanted to go back to the questions on the jail checks.

And Mr. Venturella, you said you have a 100 percent inventory of the people in the federal prisons that are undocumented, that are serving time in state prisons?

MR. VENTURELLA: We have a 100 percent coverage and screening of those, so --

REP. FARR: And how many are there?

MR. VENTURELLA: How many currently detained in those facilities?

REP. FARR: Yeah.

MR. VENTURELLA: I'll have to get you that exact figure.

REP. FARR: And when you -- when they go out and they leave, you never answered the question, we ran out of time, will you be there at the gate to deport them?

MR. VENTURELLA: At the federal and state institutions where we have the coverage, yes. These individuals are identified while there are in federal custody or state custody, they go through removal proceedings when they are in custody, and when they are being released, that release is coordinated with ICE authorities in those locations. So those individuals are not released back into the street and then ICE will have to go after them or take an action on them. They are all processed within the confines of that system.

REP. FARR: So you have a 100 percent inventory, but you don't know how many are going to be -- you are going to have to work to detain -- deport this year?

MR. VENTURELLA: No, you asked me a question if I had that number right now, I don't have it right now, but we can provide it to you. In -- and again, based on the coverage of the federal and state systems, yes, we can provide that at the local. We're developing a model to forecast the numbers that we believe we will encounter that are in the local systems and state --

REP. FARR: Well, really actually may be the numbers of the criminals that you are going to deport, the numbers of the wards that you are going to go out and try to, a rough guesstimate, because you don't have them all at a time but what you think your warrant work load is. And then I would like that compared to what I call the "by catch," to the people that were just undocumented, but at the wrong site at the wrong time, so they were caught.

MR. VENTURELLA: Okay, we will collect that and provide that to you.

REP. FARR: I think that would help put some perspective in this debate.

What I would also like to know is what is the requirement that you are expecting because of we had this sort of difficulties you've had at getting local law enforcement and ICE. How much of what this new program that you are implementing requires them to have to do something they -- and they have to do something different or what -- how much of it depends on their end of the -- they are going to booking people and you are trying to standardize that process, right, for the fingerprint?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, I believe the process is standardized. It's a common process that local law enforcement at all levels use. They arrest individuals, they book them into their facility, they charge them, they take fingerprints, they take photographs, and as a routine, they transmit those photographs through their state AFIS system --

REP. SAM FARR: Whose?

MR. VENTURELLA: -- which then is connected to the federal IAFIS system. So there is really no change in the routine; it's more of an awareness, of now that if they share that information what they get back in return. And in return is an immigration response that includes immigration history as well as the availability of ICE resources to take that individual under custody or to take some appropriate action against them.

But there's really no change, there is no additional training, but there's certainly an awareness that needs to occur before the technology and capability is deployed. Also, that the local enforcement officials as well as the local governments can opt out of participating in this type of program. So it's not a mandatory program, it's certainly voluntary.

REP. FARR: But you are dependent on them -- I mean, let's say, if they send in those fingerprints, which they are going to do anyway through that AFIS, then the responsibility is yours to tell them that this person is undocumented?

MR. VENTURELLA: That is correct.

REP. FARR: And yet, we don't know what that whole workload is going to be at this year?

MR. VENTURELLA: We are getting very close and when I say close within months of being able to tell you what we think that population is in the United States.

REP. FARR: It seems like that the dialogue here with Mr. Calvert is that in many ways we know more about how to find out whether an innocent dishwasher who has been doing the job, but is detained, and running off by E-Verify we can find out more about an undocumented dishwasher than a person who has committed a crime?

MR. VENTURELLA: Well, as I stated, I think very shortly we will be able to provide this committee with that information that you are seeking. Where these people are located, when they are going to be released, and when did they come into ICE custody. This is -- the very core of this approach, relying on biometrics is going to provide us a complete set of data on criminal aliens in the United States that nobody has, and so we see through where we have deployed.

All fingerprint transactions they go through that particular jurisdiction. We are able to then classify those individuals based on the severity of the crimes and we are also able to determine which are foreign born and which aren't. We never had that ability before. We've relied on local law enforcements to make the referrals or to have ICE officers in those facilities to encounter those individuals.

Now, by relying on biometrics and focusing at the very initial or early stage of the booking process at the local facility, we will be able to capture that data and then provide that analysis. And with that, we should be able to forecast where our resources should be, and what our resources needs are in those locations, where we expect these individuals to be encountered.

REP. FARR: Well, I appreciate that. It's also been the highest priority in the law for a long time, and it seems that again that we have to prioritize -- rather prioritize there than doing the raids.

MR. VENTURELLA: Understood.

REP. PRICE: Mr. Culberson.

REP. JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON (R-TX): Thank you Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would like to yield for such time as it may consume to my Ranking Member Mr. Rogers --

REP. ROGERS: I thank personally --

REP. CULBERSON: -- in follow up.

REP. ROGERS: I know, I'm taking only 30 seconds or so, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen history here today. We know the new policy of the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Forman, the director of Investigations for the Department now says that that we will not raid, nor prosecute a plant where illegals are employed knowingly by the Department, knowingly by the employer, so long as the employer does not exploit the illegals. That's a new policy and it is in fact de facto amnesty.

We are saying to people around the world, come in here, we're a nation without borders; come on in get a job, if you are treated fairly, we are not going to bother you. That's the new policy and Mr. Chairman, I am disgusted.

REP. CULBERSON: And certainly -- I want to also point out for the record. I believe I saw this morning in the papers that U.S. jobless claims have just reached, unemployment claims, a record 26 -- here it is, rise, U.S. jobless claims rise to a 26-year high last week. U.S. workers, U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment unexpectedly rose to the highest level in 26 years, a record high in March.

So Mr. Rogers is exactly right that people who are here illegally and holding a job that could be held by an American, it's just not acceptable. Now, I will tell something else. It's -- I really am deeply concerned about that, and I apologize we had -- my other commitments and committee meetings ran on top of this, that delayed me. That the people of Houston are particularly concerned about as we have had two police officers -- a number of police officer over the years, but two in particular, in recent months killed by illegal aliens who were previously arrested for other crimes that ICE did not do their job in deporting them.

The Houston Chronicle did an extensive and very well -- they did a very good job in a three-part series of investigation of the number of people here illegally from other countries, who had committed other crimes who had not been deported by ICE. And ICE is aware of these people, the rape, assault, children that have been raped, it's appalling.

And I could not agree more with my Chairman, the good man from North Carolina has quoted in this article, November 16th, 2008, Mr. Chairman you are absolutely right. Rep -- Congressman David Price, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Committee said to the Houston Chronicle, quote, "The present situation is unacceptable."

Quoting Chairman Price, "The highest priority for ICE should be deporting people who have proven their ability and their willingness to do us harm." I could not agree more Mr. Chairman, you are exactly right. It's been a concern of each and every one of us I know in this committee and in Congress.

And Ms. Forman, the Committee gave ICE was -- the chairman was extraordinarily generous. Our ranking member Mr. Rogers, we all made this a priority; I think almost a billion dollars Mr. Chairman, for this specific purpose to fully fund, what you told us was necessary to identify and deport criminal -- violent, dangerous criminals who had been -- who were arrested by U.S. law enforcement authorities.

And you have had that money since September. And this Chronicle analysis, just looking at the Harris County jail, the Chronicle discovered that 3 out of 4 of the inmates in the Harris County jail who admitted freely that they were here illegally. And had been arrested for some other crime, 3 out of 4 of those inmates and this is as of November had never even had the paper work filed on by ICE. And many of these are just appalling cases where you have got multiple crimes.

And I wanted to ask a couple of questions. You may not be able to answer them immediately today, but I really want something in writing that would tell us -- tell the committee what you have done with the nearly $1 billion that the chairman and the committee have been so generous to give you in these tight times, to identify and deport criminal aliens people who are not only here illegally but have committed violent crimes, number one.

And particularly the problem we have in Houston, which is the Harris County jail is the largest jail in Texas and we have a particularly terrible problem in Houston. And I would need -- like, if you could to address what you have done with the money that you had since September number one. And number two, to point out Mr. Chairman, because my time is brief and I am going to have to -- you are going to -- your answer -- your question is undoubtedly going to fill up the remainder of my time.

I am a lawyer by training, and was a civil defense attorney before I came to Congress, and I have always done my best to support, to reform, I don't believe in expanding liability. I've done my best to make sure that the litigation -- court house is there as the last resort. Trial lawyers and I don't always see eye to eye.

But I have to tell you, when I look at this, and I'm reminded Mr. Chairman, of the -- in New York City for example, you can't prove knowledge on the government, city government unless they know about it. For example, the Pothole, and that was a group of lawyers that actually drove around town and took photographs and documented all the potholes in New York City. And then sent them into city government in order to prove to -- and if somebody hit that pothole, and damaged their car, they could then sue the city, and say, hey you knew about this.

I think about the case of a psychiatrist, we had one case in my office where a psychiatrist -- guy comes into the office and says, "I am going to go out and hurt somebody." The psychiatrist knew the guy is a risk and lets the guy walk free, the psychiatrist is liable. There are many instances like that in the law. And the negligence is so severe, Ms. Forman, I have tell you, I am at the point of taking a round with my colleagues, finding a way to hold ICE agents, if you've got the money, you've got the ability to identify and deport these criminal aliens. When they hurt a child, and you let them go, they ought to really come after the agents, and you, Madame, individually, and hold you liable.

I have to tell you, I am fed up with it, unacceptable, it's unacceptable. What have you done with the money, and what you are going to do to solve this problem?

MS. FORMAN: Sir, I oversee the office of investigations. So, I'm going to turn this over, sir, to my colleague --

REP. CULBERSON: Okay, well, who is it I'm sorry, if you are investigations -- who do I need to bore in on?

MR. VENTURELLA: That would be me, sir.

REP. CULBERSON: Okay. You drew the black bean as we say in Texas.

MR. VENTURELLA: What we've done in particular, in Harris County, in the city of Houston, with the funding that was provided, the $200 million in fiscal year 2008. We've deployed this biometric capability in Harris County, where every individual who is arrested and booked in at that facility, their fingerprints are shared not only with DOJ, FBI, but also with ICE. And so based on that we are making more identifications of individuals who had been previously encountered by --

REP. CULBERSON: Right.

MR. VENTURELLA: -- by ICE enforcement. In addition to that, we have had CAP resources, Criminal Alien Program officers to Harris County, 24/7, and we have also provided 287(g) training to the deputies there in Harris County. But as we turn a county on with this biometric capability, we also turn on these other booking locations.

Now, I don't have the exact number for all of the booking locations that contribute to Harris County, but for example, Houston Police Department also has that capability where fingerprints are transmitted electronically, because they have the capability of doing that, and in return, information is exchanged back on these individuals. The most serious individuals do end up in Harris County in most cases. So we are made aware of their arrest and booking in at the Houston Police Department, and then we catch up to them and --

REP. CULBERSON: But what you are doing to deport them? And I thank you for the time --

MR. VENTURELLA: I'm sorry?

REP. CULBERSON: My time is up, but what have done to deport them? I will follow up on this individually, but could they give us a report, Mr. Chairman, on what they've done with the money the committee gave them and over -- nationwide. And in particular, I want to know about Harris County, and I am going to pursue this individually. It's the deportations that matter.

REP. PRICE: We have actually already requested an accounting of progress made with these appropriated funds, and of course we expect this to be reflected in the 2010 detailed request as well.

Mr. Calvert.

REP. CALVERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Aytes, I think, this question is probably directed to you. As you know, all federal agencies are required to use E-Verify. Are your aware of any agencies right now that are not using it?

MR. AYTES: No, sir, I'm not.

REP. CALVERT: Just for the record, could you check into that and verify that all U.S. agencies are in fact using E-Verify?

MR. AYTES: Yes, sir.

REP. CALVERT: Is that, that is in the law today. Secondly, as you are also aware, all U.S. government contractors, as I understand, are required to go on the E-Verify system as of May 20th. Is that correct?

MR. AYTES: That's the current schedule, yes, sir.

REP. CALVERT: It's been delayed a couple of times as you know. Do you see any reason for this program to be delayed? Are you able to take on that additional workload?

MR. AYTES: I think the folks in the new administration simply want an opportunity to be able to understand the ramifications and the implications of this. That was the cause of the initial delay.

It wasn't only this regulation that was delayed; there were a whole series that they wanted the opportunity to understand before they were implemented. But you are correct, the current schedule is, that it will be implemented in late May.

REP. CALVERT: How many additional employers do you think that -- you have done any analysis to determine how many additional employers this will bring under the system?

MR. AYTES: I imagine the staff have, sir. I will have to get you that information. I don't have it in front of me.

REP. CALVERT: I understand it's a significant number. Would it more than double the amount of employers you have on the system presently?

MR. AYTES: It may double the number of employers, I don't know if they would double the number of queries.

REP. CALVERT: Okay. Just for the record, tell us what the process for individuals who receive a tentative non-confirmation, as they call it, go through the process of E-verify?

MR. AYTES: The employers are required to notify the worker at the time of the non-confirmation and the worker indicates whether or not they plan to contest. Then they are given information to proceed to either the Social Security Administration, or to be able to contact USCIS toll-free, and they have an eight-day window, eight business days in which to contact us and to resolve the issue if they believe the initial tentative non-confirmation was erroneous.

REP. CALVERT: Okay. And again that is approximately 3.9 percent of all employees of the total universe. Is that correct?

MR. AYTES: That are given their initial tentative non- confirmation.

REP. CALVERT: And about 0.4 percent, point -- four tenths of one percent are successfully contested. Of the balance of those, the 3.5 percent that either walk away or are not authorized to work, the assumption, I assume is that the 3.5 percent are not part -- of the legal work force, but they would have not walked away from the process.

MR. AYTES: That is our assumption, sir.

REP. CALVERT: So again I want to make this point, Mr. Chairman, using those numbers if the system is 99.6 percent accurate, that's a pretty remarkable number. And we look forward to you continuing to use the system and so expand E-Verify throughout the United States. Thank you.

REP. PRICE: Thank you. Mr. Serrano.

REP. JOSE SERRANO (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing and I apologize for being late. I was attending a couple of other hearings, as you well can imagine.

I think the subject that I would like to discuss had been touched and perhaps they have been touched with great emotion today. So rather, I'd simply like to share with you my thoughts on how one could do what the law says you have to do, and still uphold the behavior of a country known to welcome people when they come here.

Yes, it's true that folks that are here undocumented are considered law breakers. There's a big difference between a person who crosses a border desperately looking for any job that's available, and a person that comes here or lives here and assaults another person.

So for the record, I want to be clear criminal aliens, as they are called, are no friends of any of us, and therefore what the law mandates is what has to be dealt with.

But when we talk about who we go after, I think it serves no purpose to continuously go after dishwashers or voluntary caretakers, or folks working in places where only they can work, or where only they are capable of doing certain jobs, not out of any talent or preparation necessarily, but out of the need the country has.

I think that the whole issue of these raids that were conducted for so long and continued to be conducted, I am not sure they serve any purpose other than scare people and create a worse reputation for us. For you see, notwithstanding the fact that we have an immigration issue, and I don't call it a problem.

A country made up of immigrants, and others forced to be here against their will, is not a country that can turn on its own by knocking immigrants of any kind. But having an immigration issue or a problem, as some would think it is, does not get resolved by meanness or lack of understanding of what the greater issue is.

You know it bores on me as I hear today on the floor, that we spend a lot of time, and we all do it, I do it too, reminding the world that we are the greatest country on earth; that we are the greatest democracy, in fact we tried to impose our democracy on other people sometimes by force. Then we get upset when people want to come here.

In the free market, when you advertise, you advertise because you want people to buy your product, a byproduct, the side effect of us telling the world we are the greatest, and we are the greatest, in trying to impose our way on others, is that some people would like to come here.

But they don't cross those borders, they don't come on an airplane, they don't come on a ship with the intent of hurting us. No one leaves where they are from, to come to another country with -- 99 percent of people with the intent of hurting anyone. You don't do that.

I mean I migrated from Puerto Rico; it's different than immigrating you know. I migrated, yet to this day, March 28th, which was last week, stands out in my mind, March 28, 1950, because I left a warm climate, arrived in New York in freezing weather. My father had bought us temperature -- clothing for leaving Puerto Rico. And later I reminded him that he should have bought us clothing for arriving in New York, but so I arrived in short pants and short sleeves, the whole scene, I don't think I have recovered from.

And even though that was simply going from one -- from a territory to a state, it's still in my head, you know, 59 years later, it is something so dramatic. And so no one leaves what they have or what little they have to come to this country to be a problem. And all I'm trying to say to you is that I suspect that this administration, at the minimum is going to say, "Let's be more humane about what we do."

I am not suggesting, you don't follow the law. I'm not suggesting that we will avoid following the law, but I'm suggesting that these are not criminals. These are people who broke our immigration law, but they are not criminals. They came here to work, they came here to start a new life.

And the fact of life is, that if they were all to leave, all 12 million of them were to leave tomorrow, we would be sitting around here trying to figure out what kind of special visas we could be issuing to get the same people back here to do the work that needs to be done. Some of it sometimes gets funny.

I recommend to all of you an independent movie called "A Day Without a Mexican," and it's about California waking up one day and not finding Mexicans, and people having to mow their own lawn, and things that, you know, that they never did before. Without belaboring the point, I would just hope that as you continue to do your work, you know that you have the support of this member, and you certainly have the support of the committee, in resources and in the idea and the understanding to follow the law.

How you follow the law, what makes a good cop from a bad cop in a neighborhood like I grew up, was which cop would talk to you, would deal with you in a humane face, and a humane way, versus the only who was only imposing the law. So I have no questions for you other than simply to say, remember we are dealing with people here, we are dealing with people.

We are not dealing with animals, we are not dealing with objects, we are dealing with people, people who will become a part of this country one way or another. People who have the history in many ways of having been part of this country, because you know a lot of Mexicans woke up one day in the case of Mexicans and find out they were in the U.S. when the day before that they were living in Mexico. And that is still an issue for all of us to remember.

And so let's just try to put a human behavior on it, and we will continue to support you when this is problem -- this issue is not going to go away. How we handle it, is how we will be judged, as we go down in history. Thank you.

REP. PRICE: Thank you. And let me add my thanks for the work you do in a very difficult and contentious area, and for your straightforward testimony here this morning. We look forward to hearing further from your agencies, as we prepare the bill for 2010.

With that, with our gratitude, the subcommittee is adjourned.

END.

Source