>> i was -- it was member of the european council. it went into 2003. i raised the question, and it was in space, barcelona, the am bar dos, the spanish presidency, and i asked colleagues should discuss a possible invasion of the u.s. in iraq and what opposition.

that was the question, and iraq took the floor and said, i don't think it's interesting because we don't agree. is it not, yes, jack, we don't agree. it's not necessary so one minute it was a discussion on iraq in the european council. that is the foreign policy of the issue, and it's still a huge issue of the invasion in iraq so if you want to change that, you need, first of all, the instruments because if you have the common instruments, then you are obliged to do so, but then very much in favor to go in that -- in that direction. maybe they already show that where we do nothing at all, what is a shameful moment, that we are not capable of developing whatsoever, policy, and then deficit and democracy that's through. we have a whole system, vams, a

procedure how to tackle problems with a lack of democracy inside the union, that's inside the lisbon treaty. they are in my opinion, far too complicated with too high thresholds before the union, in fact, can act four-fifth majority before you can denounce a number of things on that issue, so i believe that we have to develop that faze fast as possible, and that we need to have the courage to tackle that because that's a problem. we have an intergovernmental system, and you know how it's working in an intergovernmental system. i explained it a little bit making a completely idiotic comparison with the 50-state governments coming together, but if you have 27 coming together, you know how it's working.

they never point the finger to another. maybe the media tomorrow to make a deal, a deal on the budget, for example, because although the budget is made by the 27 heads of states and government, and that is the main problem. you need a system based on a government and at the parliament, a senate representing the states, and they have to have the full power to not only govern europe, but also to sanction those countries who were not fulfilling their obligations under the treaty, and not to give this to heads of states and government. >> two questions here in the second row. these two gentlemen here. >> thank you very much, i'm with the institute of economics, very much welcome your strong advocacy before federal europe

and my question is how would you try today to beat a completely irrelevant group of people who postpone this? what ways forward to you see this? >> and the gentleman to the left. >> thank you very much. political economy and science from across the street, and the from the prime minister's home country of belgium. i was a college student in 1999, and it's great to have you in washington. i want to follow-up on the ambassador's question on legitimacy. if you look at the u.k. now, they are doing austerity, but it's their choice. they chose this policy. they continue it. they might not like it, but it seems to me who is only iran, one of the belgium native former ministers of the federal government asked, and now again, only iran says, well, no matter what italians do in the elections, they have to continue with the reforms europe asks

them to do. i wonder when it comes to legitimacy, isn't it still the case somehow that it remains mainly with the nation state that people see our government chose, and we can vote if we don't like it, but at least we follow what we chose rather than what europe tells us to do. thank you. >> yeah. that's mainly the problem. you cannot have a common currency and a loose coordination of economic policies. the other possibility is that you have a beg budget. if you have a big budget, and they are the basis for your currency. you don't have it because 1%, let's be honest is not 1%, because 99% of the 1% goes to the common agriculture policies, and if you look really to the amount available for common policies beyond the common agriculture policy, yeah, it's not with gdp. that's the reason we need full discipline and solidarity and go

in the same direction. that is the reason why, if you could have a big budget in europe, you don't need to have the stability package in the same -- in the same way as we have them now, so a loose coordination of economic policies doesn't work. that we have seen. it was ten years in the lisbon strategy, 2020 strategy, we saw them become the most competitive enriched economy of the world, that was the objective. printing paper, yeah, that was one. it was not on that best practice of peer review, benchmarks, forget it. that's not working at all. just one bad moment in the parliament, bad results, and then the next day you go -- you go further so that's the reason why we need what i call convergence policy. convergence policy is, in my opinion, thee step that we have to make in the coming two years inside the economics.

the policy is like deciding on a motorway, and on the motorway, not too narrow, but not too a real motorway where you have ten cars at the same time, but you have a left side and right side. the left side is social dumping. the right side is to guarantee social competitiveness. it's defining minimum and maximum values, and every new country, every economy inside europe has to follow that path. it's not -- they can choose what they want. they can take the left side, the right side, but they have all go the same direction. not what's happening now i should say, but that happen now, divergence of european economies. they have to convert the european economies, and if necessary, give them sticks for that, carrots for that, you -- you need to do that. what is under the responsibility

on the democratic level? the responsibility is still in the nation states for the implementation of the convergence policies, and what's the democratic accountability rt motorway as such? that's on the european level, and it exists. a european parliament is elected. i was elected. i got 600,000 votes in the last election in my -- in my conscription -- constituency, sorry, thank you, and in my constituency, and i'm -- but the problem is we have to develop this. iran a member of the commissions, yes, finishedded, a lot of humor, you don't think so, but he has a lot of humor. i know him personally, i can tell you. that said, we need to change the system so there's a real

democratic accountability, and you need transnational lists, and you have to have people, an elected president of the commission so that he is responsible before the public opinion. that's the case in any country like in the u.s.. if you go for senator, you have also a speedometer not to -- responsibility not to talk about the president directed by everybody. then, on the first issue, how to convince people because this is a trunk full. this is not little steps. i think there's two things. first of all, we need, again, european politicians who are developing a vision about this and going to the elections in 2014 # -- 2014 defending that decision. i always say that politicians can create public opinions. that is not so that, unfortunately, politicians have

always to follow public opinions. it's not true. people are looking to those who are listening to politicians, and if a politician can develop a system, i think he can create a public opinion for it. certainly, in this environment of today, because of of the eure crisis, because of the europe crisis, people again, a number of people say maybe more integration is what we need, otherwise, it's not possible to have a common currency, so i'm -- there are many people say, oh, let's hope that the crisis tomorrow over. i hope, also, tomorrow the crisis over, but this crisis helps to create a european public opinion. aware of the problem, saying we need -- you have the opposite also, skeptics, the nationalists, the popularrists, telling people we have to retrieve behind national borders, protect ourselves in a

globalized world, and i think there is a case to make in 2014 with success to say exactly the opposite. you need to regain your sovereignty on the european level. don't longer listen to those who say, oh, national sovereignty, we lose our national sovereignty. it no longer exists national sovereignty in europe. it no longer exists because of the euro. after the greeks want national sovereignty, the spanish want national sovereignty, we have to regain sovereignty on the european level, to defend our interests in a world changing completely every day, competing with what? china is not a nation, but a continent, a civilization. india is not a nation. india is a continent. 2,000 ethnics, 24 languages, four big religions, and then we still, thinking in terms of 19th century, that is our problem. i think you can make a case on

that. in the next election, and win with it. if you don't try, you can never win. [laughter] >> do you have time for one more question? >> yeah. >> clara donald at brookings and senior fellow in london. i had a question on britain's future ties with the e.u.. to what extent do they win this mangs other e.u. member states to allow the u.k. to renegotiate its current arrangement, and if it doesn't and leaves, how costly might it be for the e.u.? thanks. >> the membership is impossible. if you do that, you have 27 individual renegotiations and 27 different memberships in the union. that doesn't work. we have already that problem for the moment. we have the europe of the six, the nine, the 11, the 12, the 15, the 17, the 25, and the 27, and in a few days, we are with 28. you know the 25 is european

patent, the 17 is euro or the europe, and you have the europe of -- of nine to start an enhanced corporation in the european union. you have the europe of 12 to start with the fiscal compact and so on and so on, and i'm not speaking now this morning about the special regimes that exist. that cannot work. and individual worry in conversation should only worsen that problem. what shall happen is a collective renegotiation about the treaty, about the mental wellness of the union, when in 2015 aft next european elections, we shall start, again, with the convention like we launched it with the declaration from a decade ago, and why i hope that this negotiation can do is to discuss a fundamental low for the union,

and what the germans are calling cassettes for the union, and then every country can decide like it was the case, but the four states in the 1787, wrote island, the lost who said, yes to this. the same has to happen or so in europe to make things clear and to stop this europe who cannot work in the future. >> you forget the intensive renegotiation in 1861. [laughter] >> uh, yeah, well, yeah, that was not very successful. >> it was decisive, very. [laughter] would you all thank the prime minister for his time and candor. [applause] >> we had a simple war started the year before. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for this, thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> wrapping up remarks on the political and economic future of the european union. you can watch the full event on the c-span video library any time at c-span.org. coming up later,s senate returns to session at 2 p.m. easternment

on the agenda, a vote on the pair of district court nominations, and coming up this week, the senate intelligence committee vote on the nomination of john brennan to be the next cia director. also, possible debate on replacements for the sequester. no agreement reached in a meeting friday at the white house in automatic spending cuts went into place later in the day. this morning, secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano talked about the effects of sequesteration already underway. >> concerned about the sequester, landed as we chatted backstage. you said you are seeing effects at tsa in >> right, as i shared with congress when i testified, now that we are having to reduce or eliminate, basically, overtime, both for tsa and for customs, now that we have institutionalized a hiring freeze so we can't back fill for

vacancies, and we'll begin, today, sending out furlough notices. we are already seeing airports with long lines this weekend. >> specifically where? >> i want to say o'hare, lax, i want to say atlanta, but i have to check. the new york airports got through okay, but that's temporary. we'll see effects cascade over the next week. >> and what lines do you talk about? three times as long, ten times as long? >> 150 to 200% as long as we expect? >> twice as long. >> they are really long lines, and chai -- what, look, people, i don't mean to scare, but to inform.

if you're traveling, get to the airport as you otherwise would. there's so much we can do with personnel, and don't yell at the custom's officers or tsa officers, they are not responsible for sequester. >> has that been happening? >> i have not heard yet today how it went from a customer traveler interaction, but nobody likes to wait in line, and nobody likes to wait in long lines, and i will say as a matter of sequester, this is happening and will continue to happen. >> i was fascinated by her feminist view, you know? remember the ladies, you're going to be in trouble. i'm paraphrasing, obviously, but she warned her husband, you can't rule without including what women want and what women have to contribute, and, i mean, this is 17 00s, she's saying that. >> abigail adams tonight on c-span's new history series,

"first ladies: influence and image" called mrs. president by detractors, outspoken on slavery and women's rights as one of the most prolific writers as any first lady, provides a unique window into colonial america and life with john adams. join in the conversation live tonight at nine eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> do you find that washington and silicon valley are on two different planets? >> ha-ha, i think that's fair to say. i think that the ties are probably getting closer. there's a lot more interaction these days than before, but i think in many ways and for a long time folks in silicon valley didn't care or want to know what was going on in washington, and likewise, folks in washington have sometimes been tone deaf to what's going on in silicon valley or with the technology industry. >> follow troy wolverton at the

mercury news touring this year's ces international consumer electronics show on the on "the communicators" tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> a hearing focusing on u.s. citizenship and e-verify program, an internet based tool to allow u.s. employers to determine the immigration status of newly hired workers. from capitol hill, this hearing is about an hour and a half. [background sounds] >> good afternoon. this is a hearing entitled how e-verify works and how it benefits american employers and workers. welcome to all of our witnesses. on behalf of all of us, we apologize for the fact you were waiting on us. we had votes, and it's

unavoidable, so the subcommittee on immigration border security will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses for the committee at any time, and, again, we welcome all of our witnesses in the interest of time and because ewe have been waiting on us. i am going to make my statement part of the record so we can get to your testimony quicker, and with that, i am going to recognize the ranking member, the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll also make my statement part of the record and simply note that e-verify only works if we reform the immigration system. otherwise, we're just finding out how dysfunctional is really is so that's one issue, and, also, i am concerned about the error rate. i know we're making great improvements, but if there's a massive expansion, we're talking potentially over a hundred thousand americans who might lose a job and need a remedy and i'm hoping the committee can

deal with that, and with that, i'll ask unanimous consent to put the -- put my statement in the record. >> without objection, and i am grateful to the gentle lady for helping expedite this. i'm going to introduce witnesses and briefly give a bio and recognize you, and from my left to right, your right to left, at some point after i do -- i knew it was a matter of time before i made a mistake. i want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, gentleman from virginia g. goodlatte for his opening statement. >> i'll put the statement in the record, but i want to say how important i think e-verify is as we work through the issue of immigration lay reform. we had a failure in 1986 with immigration that did grant a pathway to citizenship for

nearly 3 million people. we thought the people who passed it at the time thought they were taking care of the problem, but because they did not have a good enforcement mechanism and because the laws on book wrs not enforced, we have a much greater problem today. e-verify is not the entire solution, but it is a critical part of the enforcement solution making it easier for employers to be abigail to know whether those presenting credentials to them for a job are indeed the person they say they are with the authorization they claim to have, and it does so electronically, which i think we'll see a demonstration of here today. let's get on with the opportunity to do that, and i'll put the rest of the statement in the record. thank you. >> i thank the chairman. i'll introduce you, have the demonstration, and recognize you for opening statements. i'll apologize for pronunciations that are a

function of my inability to do things phonetically well. ms soraya correa. perfect it's not, but maybe close. associate director for the u.s. st'sship and immigration services, enterprise service director, and responsible for delivering immigration status and information in support of the uscis mission and oversees the biometrics division, records division, and verification division. she has an undergraduate certification in acquisitions management from the american university in washington, d.c. and a ba in management from national louis university. mr. chris gamvroulas, president of ivory homes in shake city, utah. he joined ivory homes in sphree and appointed president in 1996.

since then, overseen land acquisition planning, entitlement, and construction of 14,000 homesites and hundreds of acres of retail and industrial commercial properties totaling nearly already 1 billion in real estate assets. he attended the harvard business school advanced management program with a bachelor of science degree in political science from the university of utah. mr. randall k. johnson, senior vice president of the united states chamber of congress for immigration and issues pending before congress and federal agencies. before joining u.s. chamber, he was counselor to the u.s. house of representatives committee on education and the work force. mr. johnson is a graduate from dennisson university and school of law earning a master of laws and labor relations from georgetown. finally, ms. emily tuilly, expanding rights of low income immigration workerrings and

studies effects on immigrants in the workplace with a ph.d. from the college of william and mary in the chairman's home state. with that, i believe we have a demonstration of e-verify, and you're welcome to take it away. >> all right, we'll bring it up on the screen here. deputy speech at u.s. citizens and immigration services, and i'm going to run for you, this afternoon, two cases. one case that goes through automatically. i'm using test data today on the test system. this is what the log in looks like. i'll click "new case," than that asks what the individual attested to on the form, and it didn't ask what documents they presented on the form, and for this demonstration, i'm going to select list b and c documents.

it asks which documents did you present, so here i'm selecting driver's license and social security card. i'm going to go down to the next here. hit "continue." it's going to ask you what state the driver's license was issued. selecting kansas. it asks you to fill out the names of the individual. the date of birth, going to ask for the social security number. it also wants to make sure that the documents shown for the form is valid asking you for the date in which the document expires.

you have to put in the hire date which has to be within three days of the current date. you hit "continue." here you see the responses this individual's employment authorized. there's a summarize of the information submitted with the case, and up here at the top is a case verification number which the employer is asked to record on the form i-9. we have a kales where they are not automayically employment authorized, again, using the same profile, driver's license, social security. date in which the card was issued.

all this information is what the employer can find on the form i-9. expiration dates. date of hire. select "continue." here the system understands that it's about to issue a ten thattive nonconconfirmation sysm or a yellow light response in which the individual may need to follow-up with the government. ..

resource section. i will show you what the notice looks like.

so, the notice has information about the employee, the reason for the tentative nonconfirmation. it gives information on what they're supposed to today. reminds the employer information can be found in 17 other languages and asks the employee to sign the letter. employer must give it to the employee. there is there are special instructions for the employee on the next page telling them what they must do and what their rights are. the employer must confirm they have notified the employee of this tentative nonconfirmation. it does not have to happen on the spot. employer has the ability to safe the case and exit if the employee is not in their immediate view. this could happen over a day or so, click continue. as the individual decides to contest their tentative northern confirmation, then the employer has to refer it to the government so we know so expect that person to contact us.

if they choose not to contest, they may be terminated. i will click continue and here to, refer the case. that case will either go to the social security administration or the department of homeland security and we'll wait for the employee to contact them within eight days. that is the conclusion of this demonstration. thank you. >> thank you very much for doing that. i will now recognize our witnesses for their opening statements. we will begin with miss correa, and lights mean what they traditionally mean in life. red light means, do your best to wrap up that thought. with that, miss correa. >> thank you. chairman goodlatte, chairman dpoud did i and ranking member lofgren and members the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you our shared goal of effective employment eligibility through the e-verify program. we have made significant progress and improvements in the e-verify program since we last appeared before this

committee in february 2011. our focus remains on insuring the accuracy, efficiency and integrity of the system while increasing awareness, none and understanding of the program for both the employers and the employees. i am pleased to report that use of e-verify continues to grow and the system continues to score high marks in customer satisfaction. since 2007 the number of employees has grown from 24,000, to over 430,000. last fiscal year e-verify processed over 21 million queries, five-fold increase since fiscal year 2007. e-verify received a customer satisfaction score of 86 out of 100 on the 2012 american customer satisfaction index the vast majority of users surveyed were likely to recommend e-verify other employers, were confident in its accuracy and were likely to continue to using the system. improving the accuracy of the e-verify system remains our premarry goal. when examining e-verify

accuracy it is important to look at two rates, accuracy for authorized workers and accuracy for unauthorized workers. i want to first talk about accuracy for authorized workers. a common misperception of e-verify's accuracy rate that the underlying government data is wrong whenever a mismatch or tentative none confirmmation or tnc is returned. turf nnc is indication of discrepancy between the information provided to e-verify and the information in the government databases. for example, if an, the employee must notify the social security administration of a name change following marriage or other legal proceeding. the employer needs to insure it enters the name exactly as it appears on the form i-9 and the u.s. government needs to update its record in a timely fashion. the accuracy of e-verify requires the action of three parties, the employer, the employee and the u.s. government. independent evaluations of e-verify conducted by westa

it corporation found the tnc rate for authorized employees, those employees who had to resolve a tnc based on data discrepancy declined..7% to .3% resulting in an accuracy rate of 99.7%. with respect to unauthorized workers the accuracy rate is based on the system issuing a tnc that ultimately results in a final nonconfirmation or fnc because the unthorped worker is accurately identified as not being eligible to work. the study found that 94% of fncs were accurately issued by e-verify. we also were working to improve the identity verification aspect of e-verify. detecting identity fraud in employment verification requires a multilevel approach which i laid out in my written testimony. in november 2010 uscis expanded the e-verify's photographic matching tool to include u.s. passports and u.s. passport cards. in the customer satisfaction survey users rate the photo

tool very highly as a method for reducing fraud. u.s. cis is developing other methods for reducing fraud, monitoring repeated use of social security numbers and a system enhancement that allows employees to lock their social security numbers in e-verify. our monitoring and compliance match actively monitors e-verify to insure employers use the system properly. u.s. cis is working with the department of justices counsel to effectively stop discrimination used against employees. to guard against avoidable tnced and to protect employ erights they launched self-check a service of e-verify. it embowers individuals to verify the work authorization status online and protack i'vely resolve records mismatches before formally seeking employment. over 180,000 individuals nationwide have used self-check service. to inform the public about e-verify u.s. cis has a robust outreach initiatives

that include radio, print and online ads in english and spanish and public events and live web nars. uscis maintains the toll free customer employer hotline and line for e-verify users. a employee tool kit is variable online in english and spanish to help employers napped the program. uscis is committed to to the expansion of. e-verify program while assuring accuracy, efficiency and integrity of the system. we have committed to increasing compliance, knowledge and understanding of the program and how it benefits the america workforce. on behalf of all of my colleagues auscis we appreciate congress's continued strong support of the e-verify program. i look forward to testifying before the subcommittee and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, ma'am. mr. gam rule last. >> thank you, chairman gowdy,

ranking member lofgren and members the border security thanks for the opportunity to testify. i'm chris gam rule last, i'm president of ivory development in salt lake city. wer are more than 140,000 members of the national association of homebuilders. to insure ivory homes only employs individuals to work in the united states we use the e-verify employment verification system. in 2010 the state of utah imposed a requirement all employers with 15 or more employers use use e-verify. we worked closely with the utah legislature to craft a reasoned approach to balance compliance with the law and particularly with small businesses. once the state enacted law ivory homes came in compliance with e-verify. we trained your human resource staff to act in axe accordance to the law. we have found e-verify to be an efficient and effective system. the system is easy to use and has the potential for quick turnaround n 2010,

since 2010, ivory homes processed approximately 320 employees through e-verify in all that time we have only had four hires receive a tentative nonconfirmation. none of whom have to date have protested the mismatch. anecdotally we suspect nonemployable applicants refrain from pursuing jobs once they learn their identification will be processed through e-verify. we believe e-verify srg woulding as intended its possible potential hires who might be undocumented are might be self-policing. implementation of the civil has not been without its problems however none of them proved to be impossible to overcome. there is no note anication what the system is updated and new training requirements has to be passed that caused confusion and delays within the human resource staff. there must be a pros ses to inform and educate business about the requirements and changes to the program beyond what is in the federal register. these are simple improvements would enhance the system and make the more

user-friendly for all businesses large and small. as an employer it would be preferable for our company to begin the e-verify process when a worker accept as position rather than be required to wait until after the workers start date. this can not be understated. if a newly hired employee eventually receives a final northern confirmation confirming that they were ineligible to work we lose time and resources dedicated to training that individual only to have to start the hiring process all over again. allowing us to verify workers status the day they accept the job offer will give us more lead time to tentative nonconfirmations. congress and hp which ivory homes is proud member supported legal workforce act introduced by former chairman lamar smith. this legislation was an important first step in creating a system that is workable and we hope to see similar elements in any new legislation you consider. the legal workforce act provide ad strong safe harbor to insure that those of us who used system in

good faith will not be held liable by the government or by the employers workers for errors in the system. the legislation also maintained current law with regard to the verification of an employer's direct employees. under current law ivory homes like all employers are responsible for verification of the identity and work authorization status of their direct employees only. while we do not verify the employees of subcontractors we are precluded knowingly using unauthorized subcontracted workers as a means of circumventing the law. e-verify can only confirm work authorization based on those documents presented. it can not confirm whether the person presenting those documents is in fact the same person represented in those documents. the government also must be able to improve the e-verify system by seeking ways to limit or eliminate identity fraud. this is also another reason why it is vital to have an effective safe harbor in any legislation and until

e-verify can detect cases of fraud employers who use e-verify should not be held accountable for unauthorized workers who cleared the system because of identity theft. if e-verify is federally mandated it must work for the smallest employer as well as the largest. the reality many small businesses can not access the internet from a job site, providing a telefonic option for employers is thus important. finally, if employers are going to be required to use a federal e-verify program, they must be assured there are only one set of rules needed for compliance. a strong federal preemption clause is critical. in conclusion my experience with e-verify in utah has been positive. the system is proven to be is to use, protect employee's privacy and rights and we generally find it to be an efficient and effective system. i and my association support comprehensive immigration reform. last congress nhb supported legal workforce ability. we look to work with you on this key element of

immigration reform. thank you begin. >> thank you, sir. mr. johnson. >> chairman goodlatte, chairman gowdy and ranking member lofgren. i was going to say good evening but i mod up to good afternoon. i welcome the chance to talk about chamber of come her's views on e-verify. our view as the program as mr. smith will remember, we used to call it basic pilot. we took the view really it was not ripe for prime time and should not be imposed upon employers for a variety of reasons and however times and circumstances do change and sometimes it becomes necessary to reevaluate one's assumption and position. obviously we at the chamber move very slowly and carefully before we consider whether or not to imsupport a new mandate on our members. to this end and i do value my job we create ad task force for the chamber comprisedded of a broad section of our membership in january 2011 to assess whether e-verify should be expanded and made, changed into a mandate on employers

for verification obligation. that task force comprised of a good section of our members small and large. trade associations and companies. and ultimately after a lot of analysis we concluded that the chamber should support a mandatory e-verify system provided certain critical conditions are met. my written testimony goes through these but let me summarize. first i think the government testimony already indicated there has been a lot of numerous technical improvements to the system. is any wrong tentative nonconfirmation acceptable? well, no. no, no it's a problem if any u.s. citizen gets denied a job but it is reassuring to know that the correction process is now a lot easier and now look, i think this is one situation wherewer can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. secondly, with regard to cost, i know there is some information in the record with regard to various numbers ranging from 2.7 billion. all i can say our economist

looked at the studies. he believes those studies have overestimated the impact on certainly chamber members. i think bottom the line though and where the rubber meets the road, mr. chairman, our members report they have adapted to system well and i hear very, very little in terms of ad veries impact and costs on their operations. third, i think most importantly and our prior witness already talked about, we need a strong preemption clause with regard to state and local e-verify laws. there are very, there is various policy, various kinds of balance haves to be struck when you talk about preemption and we're well aware of that but certainly our members view that we need one law across the country, setting one standard for employment verification. fourth and i want to emphasize this, we can not support an e verification law that requires reverification of entire workforce. i won't beat a dead horse on this except except to the

state the obvious, if you have a 100,000 employees in a company it is extremely burdensome to run everybody through reverification process particularly when you've done that under the i-9 process. furthermore i think quite clear eventually giving turnover in the workforce most workers are run through e-verify eventually in any case. we're past the days when it an employee stayed with one company forever, let's face it. fifth, with regard to safe harbors i just want to make ear clear if an employer is going to comply with the system he or she should have a safe harbor from litigation, enforcement procedures by the federal government or employee may be wronged because of adverse information provided to the system. sixth and kind of a more technical basis, but very important to our members is, trying to change the statute such that the i-9 process which is largely now a written document can be changed so that an employer can populate the information on the i-9 to get into

e-verify, skipping this sort of paperwork step. and 7th and mrs. lofgren talked about this, i think any new mandate needs to be rolled out relatively slowly. perhaps we could relate it to border security some other criteria that seems to be popular these days but we're bringing a lot more people into the system so it should be rolled out slowly and hopefully tested as it was rolled out so we see some kind of, we get the kinks out of the system before it applies to new highs. lastly i think it is quite clear we all know about the problems with agriculture. it is sort of 800-pound elephant in the room we used not talk about but we do. they have a lot of unauthorized workers in their workforce. our country deends on that industry. we need to recognize a new e-verify system simply imposed on that system would be a disaster. i certainly don't have a solution but we need to try to find one with regard to the application of e-verify to agriculture. and lastly i just want to note we do support unlike

the president's bill, the avocation of e-verify to the entire workforce. his bill in fact exempted something like 60% of all employers. lastly my six seconds i want to note that we have strongly supported e-verify as part of comprehensive immigration reform. we'll continue to do so. our four planks have been border security, more visas for the high-skilled, lesser-skilled agriculture, reliable employment verification system and means to bring undocumented out of the shadows and give them some kind of legal stat sfus in this country and not blocking a pathway to citizenship. thank you for your consideration, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. miss tulli. >> chairman gowdy, ranking member lofgren and members of the subcommittee. chairman gowdy, ranking member lofgren and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share the national immigration law center's perspective on e-verify. the national immigration law center's advocated for

changes to e-verify since the program's inception and continues to have grave concerns about the program. e-verify making all workersers citizens and immigrants alike more vulnerable in the workplace. across the country labor law violations are rampant and workers are regularly denied their basic rights like minimum wage and overtime. too often when they try to assert these rights they face retaliation. e-verify actually makes this problem worse because it encourages bad behavior by employers. either e-verify encourages employers to misclassify workers as independent contractors and move them off the books. it also gives employers one more tool to retaliate against workers f a worker complains about mistreatment the employer can decide to use e-verify against the worker. employers can easily abuse some workers all american work places suffer. e-verify employers routinely violate the program rules and that hurts workers.

the only way a work knows he has an e-verify error is if an employer tells him. e-verify is a program based on the agreement between the employer and the government and workers i'll give you two pam kpaels of -- examples of e-verify.

a person in tennessee received and error notice from her employer. she went to the social security administration office to fix it. she thinks she fixed it at social security but e-verify generates another error and she gets fired. another example. a u.s. citizen experienced an error because a employer made a simple mistake typing the employee's social security number into the system. again, that worker went to a social security office, couldn't resolve the error there, e-verify generated an fnc, a final nonconfirmation and the worker got fired. the most disturbing piece for all of this, for workers who lose their job because of an e-verify error there is no formal process in place to get their jobs back. that's a problem for thousands of workers who experience these errors. as you can imagine these problems are only going to grow exponentially if we mandate the program. given these concerns, we have recommendations about how to move forward. first congress needs to pass

immigration reform legislation that protects employee rights and has a road to citizenship for millions of unauthorized workers in our communities. protecting workers is the best way to put unscrupulous employers out of business and raise standards at the workplace. second we've got to make sure e-verify isn't misused. employers shouldn't be able to use e-verify to avoid their obl equations. -- obligations. if they participate in the program they should follow rules and violation of the rules should come with penalties there are no meaningful penalties for employers that don't follow the rules. thousands of citizens and legally authorized immigrants experience errors avoid errors and keep their jobs. government errors should not stand between citizens and their jobs. last, if mandatory e-verify is part of an immigration reform proposal you need to phase it in. like mr. johnson was referring to, you need to phase in in gradually with benchmarks for performance.

after each phase-in we need to evaluate what is happening during the face-in. number of american workers losing their job, number of employers misusing the program and program's accuracy rate before moving forward. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. i thank all of the witnesses at this point. i would recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. miss correa, i want to start with you, i appreciated the demonstration of how the program works well in most instances and i wanted to ask you to step back in time a couple of years. your predecessor testified in this subcommittee on the same issue two years ago in her written testimony indicated that the uscis was exploring way to lock identities for social security numbers. your testimony today says essentially the same thing,

that you're developing that capability and so i'm wondering what progress you have made on the ssn look ability since 2011 and when do we expect to see that capability implemented? >> thank you for your question, chairman. excuse me. we have been working on the features to lock the social security. we're working with the social security administration and of course the department of homeland security office of civil rights and civil liberties as well as the privacy officers to make sure that we develop a locking capability in the system that protects the rights of the employees, ensures that the social security numbers are properly locked in the system and that works. we expect the enhancement to be completed later this year and we would be able to come back and brief you a little bit more on exactly how that would work or still exploring how to do that. >> thank you.

mr. gamvroulsa you mentioned in your testimony that you were skeptical of utah's e-verify requirement when it was first enacted in 2012. what concerns did you have prior to actually using e-verify? after you began using it, did those concerns become a reality or have your concerns been allayed? >> thank you for the question, mr. chair. we were concerned about the accuracy and the timeliness because we had not, been using it previously. once we were able to train our human resources people we found it to be as you saw in the demonstration, fairly easy to use. although it did take some time initially to train our human resources people. we were concerned, candidly more about the impact on utah businesses because we were concerned, one of the reasons we were acceptable al about it because --

skeptical about it because utah would be one of only few states that would have enacted a mandatory e verification system. we're concerned what it would do to employers and employees and business culture climate in utah. we have found that has not happened. most of the, for the most part those that use the system that the we're aware of have also had similar experiences as we have. that it is an efficient and effective system. >> do you and your hr staff prefer using the i-9 or e-verify? >> we prefer to use the e-verify and the reason is it gives, as i mentioned in my testimony, the idea of safe harbor. that is not just for the company but for the individual. if you are the human resources person for a company and you are checking off the boxes that the information, you've been given, that you can, that you verified that that document, that those documents are real, the i-9

process you're simply taking the documents, stapling them to an application. they're going in a file and you're, you might be audited, you might not be audited. and in this case the case of the e-verify, we can print out the confirmation letter, we can put it in the file with the information and if we're ever audited or if we're ever investigated we can demonstrate we've gone through the process and verified the information and is our human resources people have told me unequivocally they prefer the e-verify system. >> let me give mr. johnson an opportunity to tell us what he is hearing from his members who currently use e-verify as to whether or not the system is easy to use or too burdensome and too costly. >> no. it's, they found quite easy to use and, well, obviously anytime you have new technology there is a little

ramp up cost at the beginning but once you get used to it is working very well. ironically, congressman, one comment i've got enis sometimes the concern that it doesn't catch, it does not catch everyone who is undocumented and then sometimes when the government shows up for a raid, that results in, even though the employer has not knowingly hired anyone undocumented results in a raid and a destabilization of the workforce. >> if they have acted in good faith we need a find a better way to handle that. if there is evidence that they have not, let me give miss tulli an opportunity to respond and ask you a particular question. you make a valid point in your written testimony when you note even in states that have e-verify mandates for all employers, not every employer signed up for the program. so what kind of enforcement mechanism do you support in order to help insure employers sign up for the program? >> thank you for the question. exactly to your point, mr. goodlatte.

what we note in my written testimony there is widespread employer noncompliance. in alabama, eight out of ten employers are not using the program. in arizona, five years after enactment, one out of three aren't. we think the best enforcement measure is broad, robust legalization plan. that plan should include comprehensive immigration reform with employee protections. and a road to citizenship for the unauthorized workers who are currently in our country. >> okay. but, to get back to this piece of that entire process, do you have specific suggestions that would encourage employers to use it more than they do? other than mandating it which we certainly obviously are considering because i think any, any type of immigration reform that you have just outlined, would have to include a piece that assured us that we wean going to have a repeat of the 1986 experience where we did not have enforcement and employer sanctions were not,

pursued aggressively and quite frankly employers have had legitimate complaints about forged documents. e-verify is at least a partial answer to that, and so we think it's a partial answer to the big puzzle of where you would like to get in terms of some kind of legalization. we don't want, this hearing today is not about all those aspects of the matter but, we would welcome any input you want to give us later on about ways you could make this system work better. thank you, mr. chairman. . .

civil rights and immigrant rights organizations. >> without objection. >> thank you. as i mentioned in my statement at the beginning of the hearing, i think it's obvious that any e-verify system is going to be mandated for all employers has to be -- you can't proceed reform of the immigration system i think for obvious reasons. the most glaring example has been referenced we know that the agriculture is heavily dependent on undocumented migrant workers coming and we could do e-verify and approve that's true but we

already know it's true and the net result would just be damaged to the economy and to the farmers and the workers so i just think any e-verify system we are going to consider would have to become current with reform of the system. but even with that, i do -- i've not supported this program in the past, but i am trying to keep an open mind that if we were to reform the immigration system and this for part of it what we deal with the issues we've looked at over the years, and the statistics bloomberg did a study and i think that you mentioned estimating a very high cost for small businesses to implement that. i don't know if this figure of 2.6 billion for small businesses

is correct or not, but we do understand that in the december, 2010 survey of employers who currently don't use e-verify, 25% of the small employers said they were not enrolled because i don't have a computer, they are not online. this is going to be problematic for them. the last thing we want to do in a tough economy is put more cost, especially on the small business sector. so i'm asking -- i don't know, ms. correa come if you have any ideas how we might accommodate the small businesses that are not in the position to utilize the system that i couldn't really see it because of the lights, but they just -- it's not accessible to them in the same way it is to people who are online. further, a question about -- and it has been referenced by

ms. tulli, we have had situations where people who are authorized to work some of the statistics we are making improvements, which is great. but if you scale it up to the entire work force, its hundreds of thousands of people potentially if you just extrapolate out the rate who would be american citizens who would be told you are not legal, and i was just telling the chairman when i chaired the committee, i have a lawyer who worked for me, tracie, who was an immigration lawyer and i was chair of the immigration subcommittee and she was an american citizen and went down to the house office employment center. she got dinged and has not authorized to work and she was an american citizen. it took her a long time, even though she was a really good

immigration lawyer and i was chair of the committee to actually straighten it out. so i know firsthand it can be of hayne for people. so i'm looking for ways how do we put something in place to prevent trauma to people who are legally here even if it's not -- i'm not going to say it's every case but it's 150,000 americans, that's a big deal and we need to think through how to protect those people. so, those are two questions among many others, but i only have a short period of time. ms. correa or ms tulli, can you address those issues? >> i can, congresswoman lofgren. first i will talk about the accessibility by the small companies, the companies that do not always have web access. we certainly recognize that issue. we understand it. and so some of the things we've been doing recently here, we've upgraded all of our web browser is so that companies and

employees can actually access e-verify and self check, which is a service of e-verify for the employees, they can actually access using their smartphone. we are also working on developing an actual downloadable application for smart phones. because what we are finding is that community out there, many in the community out there do have that capability coming and we recognize there are a lot of -- >> that would be a big help. >> there are companies out there that are on site to hire temporary workers, as we want to make it as accessible as possible. we also continue outreach efforts going out and talking to these communities and gaining a better understanding of their needs, their concerns so that we can build that into the enhancements that we are working on for the [inaudible] last but not least, self check. i think it is important to recognize that self check is out there as a tool so that individuals can go in and validate in other words go in,

enter their data, if they literally are going into e-verify come and gives them information in advance as to whether or not they might encounter a mismatch or confirmation when their employer runs it and that gives them the ability to address that potential mismatch before they actually seek employment so those are three of the things, the outreach of course the accessibility by smart phones, and then also the self check service. but certainly, we continue talking to the community, we continue our outreach efforts because we want to understand and address the needs of all the businesses out there. i would also like to point out that in looking at the statistics in e-verify, 81% of the companies in the system today are actually companies with 100 or less employees. as of the small-business community is actively registered in the system, and we continue to monitor the progress to make sure that they are not encountered any problems. >> if i can have an opportunity

to respond to something. >> certainly, if you would to the extent you can. >> representative, to your question what can be done in the context of the legalization that makes the program i outlined in that we need to get that error rate as much as possible with american jobs on the line we need to make sure it is accurate as possible. we need a formal process particularly on the non-confirmations and an easy way to do that so they don't stand between you and your job. third, we need to create penalties for employers that misuse the program. it's a problem the employer has to tell you if there's an error and if they don't tell you then you have no way to contest it or know about it and lastly, like mr. johnson mentioned, i think we need a gradual phase where after each we check back at the bench marks and see how many workers have lost their jobs and check the accuracy rates.

>> yes, ma'am come thank you. before i recognize the gentleman from texas five to ask unanimous consent to enter the associated builders and contractors this is the the general contractor is the leading builders of america and the contractors association of america, the national moving contractors as a season, the national electrical contractors association, supporting the nationwide mandatory electronic employment and verification system containing certain provisions such as federal preemption clause and certain provisions. without objection i would now recognize the immediate past chairman of the four judiciary committee's from texas mr. smith. >> thank you mr. churn and i would like to make a statement and a couple points and ask a few questions. 23 million americans are unemployed or underemployed. meanwhile, 7 million people are working in the united states illegally. these jobs should go to legal workers. we could open up millions of jobs for unemployed americans by

requiring all employers to use e-verify. e-verify immediately confirms 99.7 percent of work eligible and flees to i don't know of any government agency that has that kind of efficiency, and quite frankly that's probably as close to perfection as we are going to get on this human earth. now over 400,000 employers across the united states voluntarily use e-verify to check the verify employees and 1700 new businesses voluntarily sign up every week. in 2008 the house passed a stand-alone five-year extension by a vote of 407-to and in 2009 the senate passed a permanent e-verify extension by voice vote so it has overwhelming congressional support and the public also supports e-verify. feb 2012 research poll found that 78% of likely voters

favored mandating all employers electronically verify the immigration status of their workers that included 81% of the democrats come 81% of black americans and 76% of other minorities primarily to read the study has been mentioned a couple times i don't want to spend much time on it because it is old and frankly out of date and at this point it's been discredited. but its estimate when it came to the rate or the cost was based entirely on speculation, and the study actually says it is important to recognize that without direct evidence of the true employment authorization status of their workers the case is submitted to e-verify any estimate of the level of identity theft that was their concern about the rate would be very in precise, and in fact of the legal work for sat that i introduced last year contains a number of provisions aimed at preventing the use of this will then identities and e-verify so we have addressed that in a number of ways.

often regarding the cost wanting to point out that another study reveals three-quarters of the employer stated that the cost of using e-verify was zero and i think you mentioned a while ago that we can now access e-verify on smart phones. this is something that has become a lot easier to process. let me address a couple of comments and questions to and actually can doubt a lot of thank you's. ms. correa and i would like to say i don't think i've ever enjoyed an administration official testimony more than i enjoy yours today. i want to think the administration for being a strong advocate for e-verify and for looking for ways to build expanded and improved it and actually we are 99 figure to the approving the work eligible employees is actually an increase from a few months ago when i was 99.5%, since even getting better as we go along.

mr. johnson, wanting to thank you for the evaluation of the verify come and may i ask you to comment briefly on the cost rate that some people say are disadvantages? you mentioned it briefly in your statement he went into more detail and i wondered if you would reemphasize that. >> the $2.7 billion cost study that is an alarming figure. we had our economists look at it and i think there's a couple points so the cost compliance goes down. second, more technically it relies on the so-called julca study to estimate how many new hires there are going to be and therefore how many people get e-verify, but the study includes

also people who transfer between within companies and aren't as a surly new hires and includes people who aren't going from e-verify. i think the big part of it though it is the initial cost and then after that the cost initiatives. the fact is the small business per employee i don't care if you talk about this law or the labor law, the unit cost per employee under the regulation as part of a small business. but it's not particularized in this program that is just to generally. >> just wanted to thank you for your comments about the work force act from last year, and also i think in your written testimony you may not have mentioned it in your oral testimony but let me make a statement you checked 320 employees. you have to red flags that are not confirmed and both of them

decided not to contest it so it sounded like you were at about 100% effectiveness for the e-verified program. thank you for talking to us about the practical impact and that works so well. thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from puerto rico mr. pierluisi. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think the witnesses. the first thing i would like to call on, i believe all of you support the concept of comprehensive immigration reform, and i commend you for that. if i see an expanded e-verify system should be part of the new immigration system as we all realize that having the undocumented immigrants are

bound makes no sense that just shows the system hasn't been working. having said that, i have a couple of questions for ms. tulli, but any of you could comment further. the first thing is how can we ensure that any expansion of e-verify addresses the concerns you raised in your testimony such as the data base errors and employee compliance. >> there are a couple of things that need to have been. e-verify should only be considered in the context of the broad immigration reform that has a road to citizenship currently living in the community. a couple quick things. first get the rate down as much as possible. we want it as perfect as possible when american jobs are

at risk. we want to create penalties for misuse because against the employer who has to tell the employee about the comprehension so if the employee doesn't know they don't know how to contested and they are powerless. we also need to think about the phase in its better to do it correctly than it is to do it quickly so after each phase we need to step back and look and see how the performance is happening in the field and evaluate from there and last, we need to make sure that there is a process for the folks that receive the final confirmation is in error to correct those effectively. >> i believe you stated that 42% of workers were informed by their employer of the tentative non-confirmation in 2009; is that right? >> that's correct. stopguard employers not required to do so? why don't they? >> under e-verify rules, employers are required to tell

the employees about them on confirmation of problems there are no penalties if they don't do that. so we need to create penalties so employees will comply in the program rules. >> am i right in interpreting something that you said that it sounds like employers are selectively using e-verify is that right? >> based on the same study, 33% of employers prescreened workers and that is problematic because again if you are a u.s. citizen who has an error in the system and the employer prescreens you, you have no way to know that and you'll continue not to get hired particularly in the mandatory system you'll go from job to job not being hired or not aware of the ever. >> ms. correa, i say this because my spanish gets in the way but i see that you want to come and --

>> if i could comment, first of all on the misuse of the system as i indicated in my testimony we have a robust monitoring compliance section that is monitoring the use of the system. we actually look at the non-confirmation notices and other employees are printing those out because they are supposed to print them out and talk to employees. if it does not appear that an employer is using the system properly we do make immediate contact with the employer. if there is any follow-up instance where we see that the behavior hasn't been corrected, we take further action and we conducted the visits, we provide training, and if all of that feels we refer the cases to the office of special counsel at the department of justice as we believe there is discrimination or even to i.c.e. if we see misuse of improper use of the system. i would like to comment on the fact that e-verify employers are told specifically in all the guide lines in the memorandum of

understanding and all the materials they are not to prescreen employees and if we become aware of any such behavior we immediately refer those cases. last but not least i wanted to comment on the review process. when the trademark sea comes through, they can contest the tnc. if the contest eight days for whatever information because i want to point out that what generates the tnc is a mismatch between the data that was entered and e-verify and the data that we are checking against other databases, city of eight days to come to the agency to the dhs or social security depending what the case is to correct the to data. if it takes longer to make that correction we hold that case and notify the employer. the other thing i would like to add is why we don't have a formal process with the final on confirmation review, we do

review the final on confirmation if an employee contact us. the fiscal year 2012 we reviewed a little over 1400 donilon confirmations and an interesting statistic that came out of that was in 83% of the final on confirmation that we've reviewed, the employee he had actually abandoned the tnc. in other words they didn't follow up or contest or if the indicated they were going to contest committee didn't follow through so why do want to point that out and mention that we are going to formalize the final notification process to make it a more formal process for a formal review of any final on confirmation. >> thank you. >> thank you the gentleman from puerto rico we would recognize the gentleman from iowa. >> i will start with you and ask you if we are going to try to improve upon this 99.7% number, and i'd ask for everything i heard mr. smith say and

complementary working so intensively on the increasing e-verify, but to the remaining three tenths of 1% most of that i understood you to say has to do with married names that didn't get changed and if we are going to get a better if it could be better is that what is required is to use e-verify? >> let me clarify the name change was an example of a potential mismatch, but the answer is to get those down that we have to make sure the long confirmation is properly being returned for a mismatch and that the employee reaches out to us or the social security administration whatever agency is to make sure that the data gets fixed in the system but we certainly continue to try to find ways to get that rate down to make sure we are getting to the employees and making them aware of what they can do to fix that information. islamic this is a much better than was predicted to be just a few years ago in the business

that you are in you would use the language with the job offer rather than having to hire someone and find out what they are unlawfully working in the united states. >> in my comments the point i was trying to make is, and this runs counter to the other testimony we can't run e-verify until we hired the the person as accepted and they are on the payroll and that is when we are able to import them into the e-verified system and so that is problematic.

>> you hired some of that cannot work in the united states and the violation of a lot. >> it might be something that they can go to the social security administration and get cleared up and that's great but in the meantime they are on the payroll and until that is cleared up we are investing time -- >> he would like to be able to offer here is a conditional offer to run you through its nuclear that you can go to work for the company. that's what i wanted to clarify and that's an important piece and mr. johnson agrees with that piece but i want to come back to you in a moment on the current employees you have contractors that would like to use it to make sure they can clean up their work force on their current legacy employees? >> the subcontractor base that we use, the vast majority of them are small businesses and in the state of utah currently the

vast majority of them are not required to use e-verify because they get fewer than 15 employees. >> would you support the employer to do so at their discretion of the current employees? >> we would not support that. we would take the same position as the chamber the legacy employees should not be post screened. >> i've read the chamber on this and i know from you if you can tell me the concern that then of waste is that an employer might step into some kind of liability if they utilize the current employees. why would one object to allowing an employer to use their discretion on using e-verify? >> i can only speak for my company and why we would be concerned about that. we would be concerned, and we would not do that because we believe it would open us up to

complaints of discrimination. >> would you object to other companies utilizing it at their discretion? >> i think we would maintain our position and concur with the chamber. >> and the safe harbor for those that use e-verify for the current employees that would also resolve the concern, what did not? >> if we were in a bill in a safe harbor for employers to utilize e-verify on current employees, within that result yorkton's vv to -- your concern? >> i would be concerned as an employer that would open as out. >> for all of the roles i've met a payroll and as a great many of them i wanted to make my own decisions but i didn't want the government to tell me that i

couldn't and i didn't like when the government said it to me that i couldn't use e-verify unless i put the person on my payroll so this is the same principle that an employer wants to claim that his work force we have a tool to do that that's 99.7% accurate if some people are concerned about that liability why would we not want them to make that decision themselves the irresponsible people in this country, too. >> i would be concerned about this being used as a tool to do that if somebody wants to clean up their work force there are many other ways that they can do that. >> thank you. i regret the clock has run down and i appreciate chairman and yelled back. the chair will recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. >> thank you, chairman for calling this hearing. i would like to ask me is tulli what is the rate for the naturalized u.s. citizens, what is it according to your naturalized u.s. citizen on the

e-verify system what is the error rate? >> there are a lot of facts and figures and you can see more in my testimony. what we know was naturalized u.s. citizens are 30 times more likely to experience an ever. and we estimate based on the statistical model included that if this were to go to the scale 1.2 million mckenrick americans and legally authorized workers are going to experience an ever. >> why you think it's so, that's pretty high. >> it's a lot of workers. cynical lot of people. >> we are suggesting it needs to be as close to perfect as possible. when a government error can stand between an american citizen and their devotee to work that is a problem ticket so as we consider taking this program mandatory as part of immigration reform, we need to make sure that the of protections in place for exactly this sort of situation to be i elaborated earlier on creating a formal process for these

non-confirmations. workers' jobs shouldn't be on the line and again we are talking about citizens and legally authorized immigrants. those jobs shouldn't be on the line because there is a government database. >> it's 30 times higher for naturalized citizens, interesting. i was shocked by the example in your written testimony about a veteran, a former captain in the u.s. navy for 34 years of service flagged by e-verify as not eligible. it took the attorney two months to resolve the problem. why would it take two months to resolve for a fee or authority year veteran of the needy? >> exactly this is precisely the problem. when the people experience errors, u.s. citizens experience the errors, particularly the non-confirmation i can be difficult to correct those errors. when a worker receives be attended on confirmation the of eight federal working days to correct that on confirmation that they have to take time off work and go to the social security office, so if you're in

a large state where there is a social security office you might be driving 100 miles to get there and then you have to stand in line and pay for gas and pay for babysitting. but the final on confirmation there is no formal process in place to contest these and again we are thinking about taking the program to scale based on that statistical model we estimate 770,000 people could be in a similar position in the example that you reference to the u.s. navy captain and that is a problem as we think about making this program mandatory with immigration reform. >> do you support e-verify as a part of the comprehensive immigration reform or independent? >> we think that first step is immigration reform, to bring people out of the shadows, and to make them part of our democracy. >> do you see e-verify as and the essential part of the comprehensive immigration? >> i see it as part of the package. you have to see what the legalization program looks like and how many workers are going to qualify to be on the road to

citizenship. if it's a part of the package that we have outlined specific changes that need to be made to the program. >> but he would support this as a part of the comprehensive immigration reform? >> as part of comprehensive immigration reform we have to know what the package looks like so i am happy to talk about that with your office on the legalization peace because for us if you legalize a small portion of the work force, that doesn't get it done. we need an entirely legal work force. as we've heard earlier today -- >> i get it. you think -- you've heard -- you have read some excerpts that might be a small group of people. >> i'm not making any assumptions. >> let me ask why is the error rate so high what do you think? why is the error rate so high? 30%, white you think it is so high, a naturalized citizens?

>> let me talk about error rate i would apologize because it is very confusing. there is a lot of numbers flying around. when we talk about the 99.7% accuracy rate, that's the accuracy rate where the system is properly returning a response back that unauthorized worker is authorized to work. in other words, that the system recognizes when we check out the databases that this individual is properly authorized to work. that's the accuracy represents. the second accuracy rate that i talk about in my testimony is the 94% accuracy rate for unauthorized workers. that means the system accurately returned and ultimately became a final long confirmation or individuals that were not authorized. so an unauthorized worker was probably identified as not being authorized to work.

>> you are welcome to finish your answer as far as i am concerned. >> thank you so much. i am not used to people limiting themselves. that is what took me off guard. but you are welcome to answer. >> thank you. so, the 40%, there are many reasons that can happen that have to do with how the name was then put into the system, issues before because these are old statistics that we are talking about when we talk about the 30% how people hyphenated name, species, those kind of things. we've actually -- and you may have seen this in the demo, we get to the added features in the system to provide for quality assurance to remind employers to double check how they entered the names in the system, to guide them on how to enter the dates and those kind of information. so we are working at addressing that kind of issue. we believe that a lot of what

you saw in that 30% figure, which i believe came from the study from 2009 were based on this kind of issues and those were corrections that we have made to the system then. i do not have the figures in front of me now but i can certainly check to see if we have an updated number in that area. >> thank you. we need a comprehensive immigration reform. we cannot do it without e-verify. thank you. >> thank you the gentleman from illinois. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from idaho to this dak thank you mr. chairman and for holding this important hearing. ms. tulli, i am confused by your testimony. you give the example of a u.s. navy captain coming and i understand how frustrating that can be. but i was an immigration attorney and i had the experience of helping people that have a false hits on the

e-verify and its symbol you go to the social sector of the office, you sure that you are the person coming you said you were going to do your survey, and most of the time the mistakes are because you transpose to the number or something like that. so, i know that you are using the extreme example, but isn't it true that the majority is just a simple case that i am referring to, the great majority of them? >> you are correct that for gowdy's typically to get the social security office and try to correct the error, but that really varies from worker to worker. and as i mentioned before, how easy it is to get to a social security office particularly through working on the low wage jobs to correct the error can be incredibly difficult step they are trying to work. i am having a hard time with your testimony because we want to get something done here in congress. we want to get immigration reform done. i want to have a bipartisan solution and all that you are throwing out is reasons why we

shouldn't have e-verify comer reasons we have a problem with e-verify. you are saying that it has to be -- you are not even sure that it should be a part of a comprehensive immigration reform. and i think if advocates for immigration reform keep coming here and having problems with the enforcement mechanisms that we need to have in order to have a viable immigration system i think you're going to spoil any chance we have right now to have comprehensive immigration reform and i am really concerned about that. >> you are working towards a solution, a comprehensive solution on immigration -- >> i've been interested for 15 years to the estimate that's great to hear. in terms of the enforcement measures that outlined in my written testimony about 12 pages that we outlined the exact tweaks in the program that we see are problematic now. estimate that somebody just asked you specifically if he believed that e-verify is part

of a solution, part of a comprehensive need that we have in congress to solve this problem and you couldn't answer that question. summit as i answer that we have the legalization -- >> no, the question is do you think e-verify is part of a comprehensive solution? >> and my answer is we know that there are problems with e-verify now. some of you are not going to answer the question. mr. johnson do you think that e-verify is a necessary part of a comprehensive solution? >> yes, we do. >> ms. correa, do you think e-verify helps us in having a comprehensive solution? >> sir, i believe e-verify is an effective tool in enabling employers that verify the employment eligibility of the individual that they are hiring.

>> when you said we needed to create penalties for people who misuse. >> we are discussing right now there is absolutely no meaningful penalty. >> can you give me an example would be a meaningful penalty? >> there are no penalties so any step in that direction is a good step, but i don't have the specific suggestions on what the laws should look like. >> you used the example of the screening and said 30% of employers are prescreening using e-verify. where do you get that data? there's been some problems with that story, isn't that true? >> what problems are you referring to? >> it says that it was done in 2009 and that number is based on the studies from 2,009 it is an

independent evaluation of the program. >> one of the questions i have is how are people using e-verify for prescreening when they didn't have people's social security numbers? >> they are using it for -- >> prescreening presumably on the job application process employers are asking for the relevant data. estimate is that a violation of the law? >> it likely is. as a mix of they are already violating in the law and if they are already violating the law, there should be something already in place putting it if i use -- if i require somebody's social security number when i am employing them, before on the employee then in the prescreening process, i have violated the law isn't that correct? backend what are you referring to? >> you can't ask for the social security number when you are applying -- when you are asking for an application. >> i don't know what -- i don't know if you are referring to a label or which one you are referring to.

it's not a violation of the fair standard act or any law that i'm familiar with. what we do know is the independent evaluation of the program function and 33% of employers are running workers through the program before they were ever hired. >> i am not as good on this and i really bad with numbers on the liberal arts but i will try a number, 42% apparently it's been alleged today 42% of punitive employees who receive a tnc are not notified have you heard that statistic today how would they know that? >> today the way the process works is an employer is notified

by the employee and -- >> where would the 42% comes from it strikes me that would come from people's self reporting that they didn't receive something and that isn't historical the really valid way of determining things. >> i believe that 42% is possibly coming from the study. i'm not sure. and that was important to point out it's based on statistical modelling so it isn't an accurate look or shouldn't say inaccurate but it isn't looking at the data contained in a system. what i can share with you is first of all, we are not seeing that pattern. we are not seeing that kind of member to read on the monitoring compliance branch is watching the system watching how employers use the system and one of the indicators we have out there is how the employer prance the tnc because they are required to print the tnc to discuss it with the employee and the other indicator is the

referral that is generated by the system. so i don't believe that 42% -- >> me either. that was kind of my point. is that people do not always at least in my previous job people do not have always solve identified correctly hence we have the hirsi rules people can't say certain things because it isn't inherently reliable so let's do away with the 42% to the extent it does happen what tools can we give you to make sure it happens less whether it is 42 or 14 how can we help you make sure that it happens less frequently? >> thank you for that question, sir. i want to clarify something. in our monitoring and compliance activities, what you're seeing is that the first step in monitoring and compliance if we see any behavior that is inappropriate we send an e-mail to the employer. we contact them. typically within 90 days, we will follow up if we see that the tear again we are not seeing

that. we are seeing that the employers are taking corrective action that the employee doesn't take action that we follow up with a site visit because we want to make sure people are properly using the system. i also want to talk if i may address the issue of penalties because they don't want folks to think that we are not monitoring the system and we are not referring cases. that isn't true. in fiscal year 2012, we referred 24 cases to i.c.e. for further investigation and 51 cases to the office of the special counsel for unfair employment practices. so we knew if we could see beavers we are referring to the cases. the tools we use monitoring the system we have a very robust path to follow through we want to make sure that we continue to train people, that we provide the right tools and inform the employees. one of the things that we are working on some enhancement for the citizen where the employee

as they provide their e-mail address and the system will e-mail the employees of a are aware to minimize the likelihood that an employee wouldn't know about a tnc and i also would like to ask one more fact an employee and addressing the issue of getting to the social security offices, etc., and employees has eight days to address the issue but if the need more than eight days and the contact us and put the case in the pending status and notify the employer because our goal is to make sure that we address the mismatch because there is a mismatch in the system we want to make sure that problem is corrected and our goal is to make sure people are properly authorized. >> i will just say this, kind of a conclusion before i ask mr. johnson a question. if anyone who wants a job and is eligible and qualified to have one we have a 0% error rate, and

i know you do, too we have a hearing this morning in this very same room on drones and i am not minimizing the consequences of the .03 error rate. i just think that is pretty good. like i say, another one of your sister agencies doesn't get it at 100% right when it comes to drones. 76% of the employers say there is no cost to implementing e-verify; is there might? >> 76% that's not my figure. i would say that i have a labor relations committee and subcommittee and special task force on this issue and the feedback from our employers

across the entire country the system works quite well. >> i was talking about the startup cost. i saw a statistic somewhere that said 76% say zero in terms of startup cost. >> the study has understand we had our economist look at this and it was extrapolated from that 24% of businesses that reported some cost and then made a national calculation but ignored the fact that 76% of the business as reported zero cost. so when you have some number of businesses reporting and other ones reporting zero, congressman, there is something odd going on in the reporting i can't really identify what exactly it was in the study. all light can tell you is when the rubber meets meets the road they see this as a very sustainable burden and part of what i think their deal in trying to move the country forward on immigration reform. >> to use e-verify you need a

smartphone or computer and internet access and i think your organization is what? is that confidential? would you be willing to give a voucher exchange? >> for small businesses they get a great deal. >> i'm kidding with you. you don't have to answer that. but its free and it's accessible with internet access i'm curious where that 2 billion-dollar figure came from but with that, my time has expired on behalf of the chairman and everyone thank you pure we apologize again for the delay with votes. but you've been very helpful, very informative and we appreciate your collegiality both with the subcommittee and with each other. with that, we are adjourned. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible conversations]

earlier today president obama announced the post in the second term that include a blank mac

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by gene mccarthy and sylvia matthews. >> this is a serious group. >> everybody have a seat. >> good morning everybody.

this afternoon i will hold my first cabinet meeting of my second term and there will be some new faces and there will be some familiar faces and new jobs. but there will also be some seats waiting to be filled on a permanent basis. today i am announcing my plan to nominate three outstanding individuals to help us tackle some of our most important challenges. one of those challenges is building on the work that we've done to control our own energy future while reducing pollution that contributes to climate change, and few people have played more of a role in addressing these issues than the current secretary of energy, secretary steven chu. he's helped us to speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. he is given more of our brightest young scientists the opportunity to pursue the ideas that will shape our future, so why couldn't be more grateful to

steve for the incredible contribution that he has made to this company. and now that he's decided to leave washington for the senate in california i'm proud to nominate another brilliant scientist to take his place, mr. ernest moniz. there is ernie right there. [applause] the good news is ernie already knows his way around the department of energy. she is a physicist by training, but he also served as undersecretary of energy under president clinton. since then, he is directed mit energy initiative which brings together prominent thinkers and companies to develop the technologies that can lead us to more energy independence and also to new jobs. most importantly, ernie knows we

can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, water and climate. so, i could not be more pleased to have ernie join us and he will be joined in that effort by my nominee to lead the environmental protection agency. over the last four years, lisa jackson and her team at the epa have helped us reduce the emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that causes climate change, put in place the toughest new pollution standards in two decades. lisa is now ready for a well-deserved break coming and i want to very much thank bob who has been a great secretary and acting as the acting administrator so please come everybody give bob a big round of applause. [applause]

as we move forward, i think there is nobody who can do a better job of filling of lisa's shoes permanently than my nominee who is standing beside me here, gina mccarthy. [applause] you wouldn't know from talking to her, but gina is from boston. [laughter] one of her proudest moments was yelling play ball before the game. gina has plenty more to be proud of. as top environmental official in massachusetts and connecticut, she helped design programs to expand energy efficiency and promote renewable energy. as assistant epa administrator, gina focused on practical,

cost-effective ways to keep the air clean and our economy growing. she has earned a reputation as a straight shooter. she welcomes different points of view. i am confident that she is going to do an outstanding job leading the epa. so, these two over here are going to be making sure that we are investing in american energy, that we are doing everything that we can to combat the threat of climate change, that we are going to be creating jobs and economic opportunity in the first place. they are going to be a great team and these are some of my top priorities going forward. but as president, one of the things you learn very quickly is that it's not enough just to talk a big game but where your priorities are reflected in the budget, and that's where the rubber hits the road. that's where life third nominee comes in. since i took office, just served as america's first chief

performance officer and the deputy director of the management after from management of the office of management and budget. he has made our government more efficient, she saved taxpayers a lot of money. he stepped in as acting director of omb not once but twice including leading up to the fiscal clef. so there is no question that jeff's skill and versatility has served the american people very well. i suspect it will continue to serve us well in the future. in the meantime, i am confident that my nominee for omb director, sylvia mathews burwell, is the right person to continue jeff's great work. [applause]

in the 1990's when she was 19 -- [laughter] sylvia served under jack lew and as the deputy director of omb part of the team that presided over three budget surpluses in a row. later she helped the gates foundation grow into a global force for good. and then she helped the wal-mart foundation expand its charitable work. so, sylvia knows her way arrau of the budget. but as the granddaughter of greek and address she understands it's not just to make the numbers add up, it's also to reignite the true engine of economic growth in this country and that is a strong and growing middle class. ladders of opportunity for anybody that is willing to claim them. sylvia's mom is here and sylvia loves to talk about her parents, growing up in west virginia and the values that they instilled

in her as educators, and i think that reflects everything that sylvia now does. so i am absolutely confident that she's going to do great job at omb. those values are especially important to remember now as we continue to try to find a way forward in light of the budget cuts that are already starting to cost us jobs and our economy. as i said before, the american people are resilient, and i know that jeff and silvio will do everything in their power to blunt these cuts on the middle class families, but eventually a lot of people are going to feel some pain. that's why we've got to keep on working to reduce our deficit in a balanced way. an approach that's supported by the majority of the american people and putting a majority of republicans. and i confident that we can get there if people of good will come together. so i want to thank steve vanocur alisa and jeff once more for their outstanding service, for all of the great work that

they've done in this administration over the last several years. i want to thank ernie and gina and sylvia for they are taking on these roles and i hope the senate will confirm them as soon as possible because we have a lot of work to do, and we cannot afford to wait but i can promise you that as soon as the senate gives them the go ahead they will hit the ground running and they will help make america stronger and more prosperous country. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] we will now take you live to the floor of the u.s. senate as the gavel in for a period of minn morning business.

the senate will consider new york district nominations followed by a vote. of the four senators continue to work on a replacement for the automatic spending cuts that went into place friday. this is live senate coverage here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. dr. black. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, sovereign of our nation and lord of our lives, thank you for infusing us with

the confidence that you order our steps each day. give our lawmakers courage and a strong resolve to glorify your name, as they trust the unfolding of your loving providence. lord, as they remember what you have already done to bless this nation, inspire them to march confidently toward tomorrow's difficulties with a total dependence on you. may they recommit themselves each day to faithfully fulfilling the awesome responsibility you have entrusted to them. we pray in your mighty name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the president pro tempore: majority leader. mr. reid: follow leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business today. million ting that, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the chen and failla nominations to be united states district judges, both from the state of new york.

at 5:30 there will be two roll call votes on confirmation of these nominations. mr. president, this week the senate will consider a number of nominations. tonight we'll vote, as i've just indicated, on pamela chen to be a judge for the eastern district of new york, and katherine failla to serve as district judge for the southern district of new york. later this week we're going to consider the nomination of caitlin joan halligan for a circuit that now has four vacancies. ms. halligan's colleagues say she has abiding respect for the law. despite strong support from across the political spectrum, republicans filibustered her confirmation last congress.

president obama is the only president in the 65-year history of this court to not have a single judge confirmed to that court during his first term. remember, there are now four vacancies. since she was nominated, two additional vacancies have owed on the d.c. circuit. the court desperately needs more judges. this week the united states senate will consider the nomination of john ben in ae inn brennan to lead the central intelligence agency. it is to be reported out of the committee tomorrow. he served four years in the white house's national security staff. he played a role in finding osama bin laden and decimating al qaeda. es a very well-qualified, a wonderful public servant and should be confirmed quickly. this week will be a test of republicans' good will.

my republican colleagues say they respect the senate's responsibility to advise and consent. my republican colleagues say they don't moon to obstruct the confirmation process for the sake of obstruction. but they filibustered president obama's nominee for secretary of defense, the first time in the history of the country, and he, being a former republican senator, delayed senator hagel's confirmation for at least two weeks. republicans say they will not filibuster, but their actions say otherwise. republicans say they're just requiring 60-vote thresholds. you but the difference between a filibuster and requiring 60-vote thresholds is a distinction with no difference much the nation founded on a principle of justice for all. a 60-vote threshold for nominations is unfair. it's unfair for it's extremely important -- take, eric the courts, that we adequately staff our federal courts. and we have not done that now.

at a time when america faces so many threats abrawrksd it is crucial we have a talented and dedicated individual like john brennan leadings our nation's most prominent intelligence agency sms yet republicans again and again inject politics into the confirmation process. both when considering judicial nominees and most recently when considering cabinet nominees. there was once a time when republicans were the ones defending the right of the president to choose the players on his team. but back then there was a republican in the white house. in 2001 the senator from utah, the senior senator, touted that "long-standing tradition in the senate to afford the president a significant degree of -- he is to shape his cab in the as he sees filth." four years later we find after president bush was elected, the senior senator from arizona pointed out that elections have consequences and sashed "the president has a right to put

into place the team he believes will serve him best." as we consider key nominations this week and into in the future, i hope my republican colleagues honor the longstanding traditions of the senate. consider if the senate fails to proper staff the national security agencies or the nation's judicial system, our inaction will also have consequences. would the chair announcing the business of the day, mr. president. the presiding officer: gored, the leadership time reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the senator fromempt have. mr. leahy: mr. president, i am -- i thank the majority leader for what he said on these nominations. as he knows, we have an awful lot of them that have come out and every time when he has tried

to move them quickly on the floor, he's had opposition from the other side. it's been frustrating when we've actually had nominations that have waited months. we'll have a cloture vote and then they will get 5e votes for confirmation. it is a game, and unfair to others. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator from vermont yield for a question? mr. leahy: of course. mr. reid: i ask the chairman of the judiciary committee to explain to everyone within the sound of your voice how important the d.c. circuit is to our country. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, it would be hard to state any better than the senator from vernevada has. but so many of the issues that we grapple with every single day on this floor -- policy issues, issues that affect the various departments of government -- when there are appeals of those issues, when there are questions of what the departments do, they invariably go to the d.c.

circuit. they don't go to the u.s. supreme court. the u.s. supreme court is, as the distinguished presiding officer knows and the distinguished majority leader knows, takes only a tiny, tiny percentage of cases that are appealed. but every one of these major policy issues that are appealed are heard by the d.c. circuit. and it is frustrating to know that there is a concerted effort on the other side to try to stop having a balance in the d.c. circuit. every one of us as lawyers would hope we could come into a courtroom and know that we have a good case, we win it. if we have a bad case we lose. but that the cards aren't stacked against us because we have a republican or a democrat. because of the makeup of the d.c. circuit, people are getting the view -- rightly or wrongly

-- more and more it is stacked and the efforts of the republican party to block anybody else from going on there except for people they hav have vetted increases that impression that the court is stacked. ththat doesn't help the system f justice. it destroys the idea of the impartiality of the courts. mr. reid: mr. president, permission to ask wo one more question of the distinguished senator from vermont. the presiding officer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. leahy: of course. mr. reid: legal scholars have said that they believe the d.c. circuit is just a little bit below the supreme court that the cases of such significance that that's why it was established some 65 years ago to take care of issues that the circuit courts couldn't handle. is that true?

mr. leahy:man, the senator from nevada is absolutely correct. i would even argue that some areas it is more importanten this the supreme court because so many. issues that go there, they will have the final word. the supreme court will never hear all of the requests for appeals from the d.c. circuit. they become the final word. so on the issues that involve average americans based on what their government does, they'll be decided in that circuit, not in the supreme court. so it is extraordinarily important that we have a balanced court there. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrasso: i rise today to talk about the policy choices made in bashir. there's been a great deal of

talk recently about how we can get our out-of-control washington spending under control. how can we curb this spending. we also need to keep in mind some of the policies of the obama administration have impacted this spending and how they have created economic conditions that have forced many of these hard choices to be made by american families. our weak economic recovery is the result of bad policy choices i believe that have cost americans their jobs and cost them dollars, money that they cannot spare. the list of the administration's bad policy choices is long, and in my opinion right at the top of that list is the president's health care law. just last week, we learned from a g.a.o. study that was requested by senator sessions, and what we learned from that study is that the president's health care law will add $6.2 trillion to washington's debt. and, of course, that's the debt

on the -- on the backs of every young person in america, of future generations. it's a debt upon the entire nation. it's also adding to the financial burden in this country. recently, the obama administration has now released more rules for how this health care law will be implemented. the new regulations that have just come outlay out something called essential benefits. these are the government mandated items that health care policies will now have to offer. along with other parts of the health care law, these new rules will raise the premiums that american families pay for their health coverage. that's not what the american people wanted. that's not what they were promised by the president. and it's not what they need during this difficult economic time. remember, president obama promised that under his health care plan that insurance premiums, he said, would go down $2,500 for an average family he said by the end of his first term. well, that's come and gone. but what the president promised

the american people hasn't happened. instead, premiums have gone up by an average of $3,000 per family. as more provisions of the law kick in, i can tell you it's going to get worse. as the obama administration puts out more regulations, premiums are going to continue to go up and up. the american people are in for a serious case of premium sticker shock. this is especially true for young people, people in their 20's, people in their 30's. and that's not just my prediction, mr. president, it's the warning that we're getting from state officials who actually supported the president's health care law. of course, they supported it before they knew what was in it. the state insurance commissioner in oregon has said that the new regulations could push up premiums for young consumers by as much as 30% next year. according to a recent piece in the "los angeles times," that was not an accident. it was an intentional effect of

trying to lower prices for older americans by raising the prices for younger people. in fact, the cost-shifting was a top priority of the aarp during the debate. now, of course, i believe the administration wasn't honest about it. they didn't come out and tell young people, "hey, you're going to have to pay a higher premium so someone else pays less." no, democrats in congress and the white house tried to say that young people were going to pay lower prices, but now we're seeing it was never true. the premium increases are also going to be worse if you don't get insurance through your employer. that's because you may end up in the individual market. a recent gallup poll found that fewer people are getting their insurance through work. just since 2008, the number has dropped significantly. and among people between the ages of 18 and 25 years, only 32% now get their health insurance through work. healthier people, people who

take the time to focus on staying healthy, they're actually going to pay more, too. so if you eat a good diet, you exercise, you do the things that, you know, people would be encouraged to do so they don't get sick? well, you're going to pay more under the president's health care law. according to a new survey of insurance companies, younger and healthier customers can expect premium increases of 169% on average in 2014. now, that's in the individual market, that more people will find themselves forced into as their employers drop coverage. the congressional budget office says that even when you take into account that the subsidies some of these people will get under the law, premiums will still go up as an average of 10% to 13%, even after the subsidies are applied. well, if that happens, a family buying coverage on its own may end up paying $2,100 a year more because of the health care law. or you might ask yourself, why are the premiums going up so

fast? well, it's because of the law's new requirements. for one thing, there's something called the essential health benefits. we just got new rules on these from the administration. those are the specific mandates that require insurance plans to cover a wide range of services. for most consumers, it's going to mean a more extensive and a longer list of benefits. now, that might sound like a good thing, but they may be for things that the consumers don't want. doesn't matter. under the law, the consumers have to pay for them at still higher costs, much higher costs. people can't just get the insurance that they and their family want, that's right for them and that they can afford. no, mr. president. that's not enough. they must buy obama administration approved health insurance. that's what they have to buy. that's what the law says. and it's going to be much more expensive than what they might wanted, they might need or that they can afford and think is good for them. families are going to have to pay for insurance that covers

the whole laundry list of benefits whether they want them or not. why should the government, washington, tell a single 33-year-old man that he has to play for ovarian cancer screening? why should someone without children have to pay for a plan that covers pediatric eye exams? you know, even the american academy of ophthalmology says that requirement goes too far. they're worried that once insurance has to cover it, there will will be overuse of comprehensive eye exams on children who don't even need them. well, of course that may happen. if it's covered by insurance, people are going to want more of it. that drives up health care costs and health insurance costs go up even more. to make matters worse, the law requires the secretary of health and human services to update the list of these benefits every year. these are the benefits that you still may not want, certainly don't want to be forced to pay for, but you're stuck with them now. we all know that this list isn't going to get any shorter.

it's going to grow longer and the costs are going to continue to go up. that's what's happened at the state level. health insurance mandates in some states now include everything from circumcisions to breast implant removal and mandates add anywhere from 10% to 50% to the cost of insurance. it's no way to run a health care program. consumers should decide what benefits they want, what benefits they think they may need, not washington bureaucrats. finally, i'll give just one more example of how the new rules will drive up premiums. this has to do with the new age rating rules in the law. the age rating limits the amount that premiums can vary between healthy, younger individuals and unhealthy, older consumers. this is the most direct way democrats are taxing the young to pay for everyone else. under the president's health care law, the premium charged for a sicker, older person can't be more than three times what a healthy 21-year-old has to pay.

so those younger people are going to end up paying more. rather than pay the higher cost, many younger people will just not purchase insurance at all. they'll just pay the law's tax penalty instead. that's because it's still cheaper than the insurance premiums that have been driven up due to the president's health care law. that means that premiums will go up even faster for the people left in the insurance pool and the whole thing will keep spiraling out of control. now, the white house says that it won't budge on these age ratings rules, so people in their 20's and 30's and early 40's should just prepare themselves now for the premium hikes that they're going to see under the president's health care law. those are just a few of the new rules and just a few of the ways that the health care law tons raise costs, raise premiums for hardworking americans. you know, it seems to me that the president is still in his campaign mode, so, you know, he won't admit it but he's not fooling anybody. i recently completed a statewide

tour of wyoming, visited a dozen towns across the state, met with hundreds of people. i can tell you, mr. president, in those meetings, people still say the health care law is unworkable, it is unaffordable and it remains very unpopular. the people of wyoming, like people across the country, knew what they wanted from health care reform. they wanted the care that they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. what they've gotten were higher premiums, higher taxes, more government control over their personal health care decisions. when the new rules were released a week ago, h.h.s. secretary kathleen sebelius said -- quote -- "being sick will no longer keep you and your family and your employees from being able to get affordable health coverage." what she should have added was that now the president's own health care law will be the thing that keeps people from getting affordable coverage. the law that was passed was the wrong solution and the wrong way

to reform our health care in this country. hardworking american families can't afford it, and, mr. president, they deserve better. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. there nelson: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i, like many of our colleagues, have just flown on our nation's airways going through a fairly crowded airport in florida, coming into a crowded airport here in washington. and in 30 days, those t.s.a. lines are going to get longer. for the international flights that i and others have worked very hard to get additional customs agents to cut the time. having to process our international visitors, and in airports like miami, orlando, where there's quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional customs folks has meant a great deal because

we even had some -- some airlines that would come in, for example, to orlando and they'd have to keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room with the people, personnel available. you see where i'm going. because all of that's going to change. unless, as the good book says, come, let us reason together. unless our sharply divided politics, be it partisan, be it ideological, unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop this

ridiculous thing that went into effect last friday, ridiculous, called the sequester, which was never intended to go into effect but because of the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in effect and it is cutting in an indiscriminate way like a meat cleaver across the board, and in certain agencies it even gets exacerbated like the department of transportation because the cuts can only occur in certain accounts, and thus the civilian employees that are going to be furloughed. now, it's happening also in the department of defense. in my state, in the state of florida alone, there's going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees that are going to be

furloughed. now, what does a furlough mean? it means that after the 30-day notice -- so about 30 days from now -- that number of employees, in this example, in the defense department, is going to be laid off one day a week under the law for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. now, is that in the interest of national security? of course, not. why is it exacerbated in the department of defense? because the existing appropriations law, which -- remember, we're not operating on a current law. we're operating on last year's appropriations law, that has so constrained the managers -- in other words, the secretary, the deputy secretary -- such that they can't move the money

around, and what they're having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems of programs. the worst possible place. out of operations and maintenance. now, mr. president, i'm an optimist. i couldn't be in this business if i were not an optimist, and i have ultimate faith in the american people, and i know every one of these senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme right, air thawl good people -- they're all good people and there can be consensus found if everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater good. but senator claire mccaskill and i want to help them.

so what we're doing is filing a bill today that will say, since this was never intended and all these civilian federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say the members of congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay. now, the question, will this pass? well, i hope it doesn't pass, because i hope that it's not necessary to pass. we have 30 days of notice before the furloughs take place.

i'm certainly hopeful that by the end of this month, clearly by the time of the 27th of march when the existing appropriations bill, which is last year's appropriation, when it ceases to exist and the government will come to a screeching halt unless we continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year so i'm hopeful that our legislation won't pass. but somebody needs to understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. conservatives want to cut spending. well, you can do it this in a more intelligent and rational way. and if we're to get serious about $4 trillion -- $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the decade and we've

already enacted policies that will take us down about $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction, so we've got about a trillion and a half dollars to go in enacting policies over that decade. we ought to be able to do that in a nanosecond. so senator mccaskill and i want to try to nudge the process along. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. if you're going to dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth and so on, are you going to dock them their pay? because of the inability of the members of congress to do what

should have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing was enacted. the meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so ridiculous, surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the super committee of six from the house, six from the senate, half and half of each party, surely it was going to encourage them to come together in agreement. all it needed was one vote. instead of a 6-6 deadlock, it would have been 7-5. it didn't happen. and here we are a year and a half later. so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. if you're going to dock federal workers a pay because you're going to force them into a furlough, which was never intended, is not rational poli policy, is not good administration, then you're going to be docked your own pay. this is not pontificating.

again, i say, i hope this never passes because i hope it's moot. but it's trying to bring into focus just how ridiculous things are going on here right now. and so i'm very hopeful. and i say, i love the members of the senate, every one of these members of the senate. i have a great relationship with almost every one of these senators. and they're all good people. and we need to come together, give a strong statement of consensus building and then send it down there to the house and tell them they've got to get off the dime. thank you for letting me share this, mr. president. and i yield the floor, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

you quorum call: stphao* quorum cal:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations. pamela chen of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district. katherine polk failla of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district. the presiding officer: there will be 35 minutes of debate dried tkwao*euded in -- dividedn the usual form. mr. leahy: i ask consent to use a portion