IMMIGRATION RAIDS: POSTVILLE AND BEYOND HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 24, 2008 Serial No. 110–198 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 43–682 PDF : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MAXINE WATERS, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa BETTY SUTTON, Ohio TOM FEENEY, Florida LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TRENT FRANKS, Arizona BRAD SHERMAN, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JIM JORDAN, Ohio ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 CONTENTS JULY 24, 2008 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 1 3 4 5 WITNESSES The Honorable Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the State of California Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. The Prepared Statement of the Honorable David Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. Ms. Deborah Rhodes, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. Ms. Marcy Forman, Director of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. Mr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, Professor of Modern Languages, Florida International University Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. Mr. David Leopold, David Wolfe Leopold and Associates, on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. Mr. Robert R. Rigg, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Defense Program, Drake University Law School Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 10 14 16 19 20 21 22 39 42 54 56 77 80 100 102 115 117 (III) VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 IV Page Mrs. Lora Costner Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 123 124 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 143 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 IMMIGRATION RAIDS: POSTVILLE AND BEYOND THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Sánchez, Gutierrez, Ellison, Smith, King, Gallegly, and Lungren. Staff present: J. Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; Andrés Jimenez, Professional Staff Member; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel. Ms. LOFGREN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will come to order. The Chair, by unanimous consent, may adjourn this hearing at any time. Before making my opening statement, I would like to make a couple of administrative comments. First, I think there are more people in this room than I have every seen before, and so we are opening up an overflow room for those of you who would like to sit down—and I think, really, we have got too many people in here in terms of fire safety—and that overflow room is 2226 over in the Rayburn Building, and the hearing will be broadcast there. So if some people who are standing in the back could consider moving there, that would be quite terrific. And also this hearing will be broadcast on Channel 2 of the House Television Network so people can also, if you are here on staff, will be able to watch it from your offices, and that might be more convenient as well. I will just note that this is a serious hearing based on accounts that we have now received about the largest ICE raid in the history of the United States. It seems to me one of the hallmarks of our great country is that we do not treat people like livestock. Justice is not a commodity in America; it is personal. And over 4 days in May at the Waterloo National Cattle Congress, each case was listed individually—the United States vs. a single person—and yet the information suggests that the people charged were rounded up, herded into a cattle arena, prodded down a cattle chute, coerced into guilty pleas and then to Federal prison. (1) VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 2 This looks and feels like a cattle auction, not a criminal prosecution in the United States of America. Our country was founded in opposition to the brutal practices of English tyrants. Our Western legal system is grounded on the firm belief that people in America have rights to due process. The crushing power of the states is constrained by the Constitution, which guarantees those rights. So what happened at Waterloo? Seventeen defendants to one lawyer, group hearing, script telling lawyers what to say in court, limited time for lawyers to meet defendants even without the language barriers the lawyers faced. Kind of like a cattle auction. The goal seems to have been that government would look tough on illegal immigration. But did our government follow the law, follow the Constitution and give meaningful due process? We should also be concerned by the following: The raid and prosecutions may have interfered with ongoing investigations into serious labor-law violations, including allegations of child labor and abuse. The workers prosecuted by the government may have been able to assist in that investigation or may have been victims of the violations themselves. Many of the workers apparently had no idea what a Social Security number or card even was. It may have been the employer tagging them with the number so it could hire them. The Federal Government spent at least $4 million to put people through all of this. What was accomplished? Well, it didn’t help people like the person Representative Davis mentions in his testimony or the witness on one of our panels, who had her identity stolen. And why do I say that? No effort was made to punish the persons who truly meant to steal identities and use them to harm honest, hard-working Americans. The American system of justice is designed to ensure that only those who commit crimes are convicted and to identify the truly egregious, intentional, harmful acts by criminals and punish them accordingly. Those who intend to steal identities don’t walk away with just 5 months of prison time. We spent more than $4 million interfering with a legitimate labor-violation investigation, violating the principle of individualized justice and locking up impoverished, uneducated workers trying to provide for their families without allowing them a chance to talk to a lawyer who has the time and skill to explain a complicated process to them. This is a magnificent country we have. In this country our Constitution guarantees that a poor person of any race, of any ethnicity, whether here legally or not, has a right to due process and to be represented by a lawyer when the government tries to prosecute and put her in jail. And that representation is not a formality. It is a meaningful right that includes the appropriate amount of time and space for the tools needed to conduct substantive and qualitative representation. Only through individualized processes can we be sure that, at the end of every trial, justice has indeed been served. I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member Steven King for his opening statement. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 3 Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank in advance the witnesses for agreeing to come here and testify, especially when it is Members, because you have busy schedules, and we also know that you go on the record on both sides of the microphone in this place, which is quite an interesting dynamic to be on the other side. I wasn’t present at the Agriprocessors Incorporated plant in Postville, on May 12, when 389 illegal immigrant workers were arrested and detained by ICE. Nor was I present during the prosecution of those workers a short while later. But what I have heard from parties who were present is that the workers were in this country illegally. They used false identification documents and stolen Social Security numbers to get their job. They were provided competent criminal defense attorneys and interpreters during the prosecution process and were given a choice of pleading guilty or going to trial. If this is the case, I see no reason for this hearing other than to try to lend credence to the arguments of those who want amnesty and believe that working illegally in the United States is a victimless crime. When an illegal immigrant gets a job in this country using the identification documents or Social Security number of another person, it is a crime, and the other person is the victim of that crime. The FTC estimates that 8.3 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in the year 2005, and that number is on the rise. We will hear today from Mrs. Lora Costner. Both she and her husband had their identify stolen by illegal immigrants, and she will tell us how it ruined their lives. With respect to Agriprocessors—the enforcement action—the allegations are that the illegal immigrant defendants somehow did not receive due process. But each defendant was provided a criminal defense attorney, and it was up to those defense attorneys to ensure due process. They were also provided interpreters. According to one of the defense attorneys present, the client did get due process. According to a July 11, 2008, New York Times article, attorney Sarah Smith stated, ‘‘I think they understood what their options were. I tried to make it very clear.’’ And according to the article, Mrs. Smith said she was convinced, after examining the prosecutor’s evidence, that it was not in her client’s best interest to go to trial. So a defense attorney, who was an advocate for her client, believed her clients made the right choice by accepting the plea agreements offered by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. For far too many years, employers have gotten the message that they can hire illegal immigrant workers with few or no consequences. ICE worksite enforcement actions, like the ones in the Postville, put these employers and the illegal workers themselves on notice that, if they chose to violate the law, they are subject to prosecution. And listening to the gentlelady from California’s opening statement about the defendants being coerced into guilty pleas, I think that is a presumption that I would—if we can hear that confirmed here today, I would be quite interested. But if you have an attorney—if you come into the United States illegally, and you go to get a job, and you are breaking the law, and VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 4 then you are rounded up in an ICE raid, and this country and the taxpayers fund to the tune of $4 million your attorney and your interpreter, and then you plead guilty because it is in your best interest—and by the way, in a plea bargain agreement, as well—I mean, that is the equivalent of—this is on a far-higher scale for those of you who will choose to misinterpret my intent here. But let us just say that law enforcement arrests someone on suspicion of murder, and they say, ‘‘Tell us where the body is, we will plea agreement that down, and we won’t go for the death penalty.’’ If that defendant tells where the body is, they get a plea agreement for a life sentence rather than a death penalty. That is not in proportion, obviously, but that illustrates for you what a plea agreement really is. And if they have to hand them a piece of paper so that they can answer in English in America, that is not what I call confusion. So in group hearings, by the way, we are looking at 12 to 20 or more million people in the United States unlawfully, and I don’t know how we process 12 to 20 million in an individual fashion. If you do it in group, they consent to that, I believe their rights were protected. I am willing to listen to the arguments to the contrary here today. And I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman’s time has expired. I would now invite the Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee for an opening statement if he wishes to give one. Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased that we are holding this hearing because it gives us a chance to revisit a very important subject. We have the Ranking Member of the full Committee here, and we have Steve King, the personification of what we ought to do in sort of a get-tough mode with immigration policy, full-bore enforcement. And we have a way of trying to figure out where we go from the Immigration Reform Act that we started out. It was supposed to be a big advancement forward, something happened in the Senate, and here we are. So for me, I am looking for a way back to how we can get to the middle, Steve, if there is a middle way in this. What is it that we can do to enforce the law—first of all, recreate the law, and we want to look at that. And, secondly, how do we enforce it? And these raids where in a way they were brutal, they were payback, they are gotcha and it seemed like there was something else going on besides being the biggest raid in history so far. And so I am looking for this way that we can begin to examine what we can do besides deport 12 million or more people. I think we can figure that out. But there is a lot of emotional attachment to this subject matter that brings us here today with this Committee. First of all, in a downward-spiraling economy, we have a lot of people looking for somebody to blame, and there is nobody more eligible for blame than people who aren’t qualified or legal citizens and that factors into this. I want to try to separate some of that out. Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 5 Mr. CONYERS. Of course. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments. I would like to say that I don’t think that we should be blaming legal, law-abiding citizens. And when we talk about having to deport 12 million or 20 million or whatever the magic number is, you were here in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, better known as Amnesty or IRCA—Immigration Reform Act—and where we made between 4 and 5 million people that were illegal legal under the premise that this will never happen again because we have a safety valve called employer sanctions. The only problem is that we never enforce those employer sanctions. I contend that we could solve a tremendous number of the problems with illegal immigration today without one border patrol agent. I think all we have to do—we don’t have to deport anyone. If we enforce the laws under IRCA and subsequent laws in the 1995 act, as it relates to benefits, jobs and the overwhelming reason why people came here to start with, if we deny them access to the things that they are illegally entitled to, I think a large number will self-deport. Then when we find that we have unmet domestic needs for certain things—the whole premise of our immigration policy is based on assimilation and bringing people here from countries all over the world to fill jobs and make America a greater and strong place. But we do it under the rule of not—under the rule of law, not under the cover of darkness. And I yield back. Mr. CONYERS. Well, now that I have given you half of my opening statement time just—— Mr. GALLEGLY. [Off mike.] Mr. CONYERS. No, but I want payback, though, even though it doesn’t happen often. [Laughter.] Now, Elton, here is—may I get an additional minute if I—— Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the Chairman is allocated an additional minute without objection. Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Well, here is the problem, Elton. It was under the Administration that you advocated far more forcibly for than me and under a 12-year of Republican leadership in the House of Representatives that all these complaints arise from that you are telling me what we should have done. Now I will yield you the rest of my 1 minute left. Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate that. During that same period of time, we also had 8 years as a president—and really enforcing the laws of the land is not the legislative branch, it is the executive branch. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we will now ask the Ranking Member of the full Committee—— Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. If he would like to make a brief opening statement so that we can get to our witnesses. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I always appreciate the graciousness of the full Committee Chairman and his yielding to Members, as he just did. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 6 Madam Chair, it seems to me that the more the Administration tries to do its job investigating companies who employ illegal immigrants and prosecuting employers and illegal immigrants who violate the laws against working in the U.S. illegally, the more they are criticized for enforcing the law. If Members of this Committee believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to work, the appropriate response should be to repeal employer sanctions. Of course, Americans expect that any law enforcement investigation and prosecution be conducted properly. As long as that goal is met, the prosecutions should continue unless the law is changed. Today’s hearing was prompted by allegations of a court interpreter, who is here to testify, that illegal immigrant defendants prosecuted in connection with the worksite enforcement action were not treated fairly. However, from the beginning, these detained workers, most of whom were charged with crimes related to identify theft, apparently were, in fact, treated fairly. Sixty-two of them were almost immediately released from custody on humanitarian grounds. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice provided the illegal workers with a clean and safe detention environment, and they had criminal defense counsel appointed to represent them—and interpreters—all at taxpayers’ expense. Today we will hear from DOJ and ICE, who will describe the procedures followed during the investigation and persecution— prosecution of 297 of the 389 people detained by ICE officials. Just because someone does not agree with the prosecution or does not like the fact that illegal workers are detained and placed and deportation procedures doesn’t mean that such prosecutions are inhumane. Instead of focusing on the rights of illegal immigrants who take jobs from American workers, we should focus on ways to protect the jobs of American workers. A report by the Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants are displacing Americans in the job market or depressing their wages significantly. Black workers are disproportionately displaced by illegal workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in June nearly a third of all young Black adults were unemployed and many others are so discouraged that they have left the labor force. Unfortunately, if employers can hire an illegal employee at less cost than a legal employee without the risk of prosecution, they will hire the illegal immigrant, who will cost them less. Enforcement is working. When illegal immigrants know they can no longer get jobs, they often leave the area, and most return home. After states like Arizona and Oklahoma enacted laws to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, newspapers were filled with stories detailing how illegal immigrants were leaving the country. This is happening in communities across the U.S. And communities benefit from ICE worksite enforcement actions. Last year, Georgia’s Crider, Inc. lost over 600 illegal workers during an ICE worksite enforcement action, but the company increased wages $1.00 an hour and continues to fill positions with legal workers. And after ICE arrested nearly 1,300 of its illegal workers, Swift & Company, a national meat-packing business, also raised wages VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 7 and found U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to hire from the surrounding areas. And they were disproportionately minorities. Madam Chair, I expect today’s hearing to show that procedures were in place to ensure proper treatment of illegal workers, then maybe we can start holding hearings that highlight the harmful impact of illegal immigrants on American workers. And I will yield back. Thank you. Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman yields back. In the interest of time, other Members are invited to submit opening statements for the record. Today we will hear from three panels of witnesses to help us consider the important issues before us. The two panels following this first will focus in on the Postville issue and—but we have had ICE enforcement raids throughout the country, and Members have had an interest to talk about this general enforcement issue as it has affected their constituencies. And so we are quite honored to have four of our colleagues here today to offer their testimony and their perspectives on this phenomena in our Nation. First, it is my pleasure to introduce Congressman Bruce Braley, who represents Iowa’s 1st District. Congressman Braley attended Iowa State University and graduated from the University of Iowa School of Law in 1983. He has represented employees challenging dangerous company safety standards and has fought for people who lost their jobs due to corporate downsizing. Congressman Braley serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Small Business Committee. He is also the chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology and the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Congressman Braley is married to Carolyn Kalb, who lives with her and their children—Lisa, David and Paul—in Waterloo, Iowa. So, Congressman Braley, we appreciate your being here today. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King and Members of the Committee, for holding this important hearing today and for inviting me to testify. I am very pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing to examine what happened in the investigation, arrest, detention, conviction, incarceration and deportation of hundreds of undocumented workers at the Agriprocessors Inc. meat-packing plant in Postville, Iowa. As the Chairwoman noted, I live in Waterloo, IA, which is the site of the National Cattle Congress—which we are very proud of— and I also happen to represent a portion of the town of Postville, although the plant itself is located in Congressman Latham’s district. I have been pressing for accountability and looking for answers into what happened before and during the raid at Agriprocessors, which is the world’s largest kosher meat processor, since the May VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 8 12, 2008, raid of the plant. Even before the raid, in fact, in November of 2007, I have been questioning the conditions at the Agriprocessors plant. Unfortunately, I have received few good answers to my inquiries and just last week received conflicting information from the Department of Labor and ICE on their coordination before the raid. The raid at Agriprocessors, in which they detained nearly 400 workers on immigration and criminal charges, has been touted as the largest enforcement action of its kind in U.S. history. There is no doubt that workers who violate the law need to be held accountable. Identity theft and fraudulent use of Social Security information are crimes, and crimes should be prosecuted. However, while ICE has been effective in finding and detaining undocumented employees who may have broken the law, I am equally concerned that the employer, Agriprocessors, be fully investigated and prosecuted for any violations of the law on its part. The sheer number of arrests made by ICE during the May 12 raid raises serious questions about the company’s knowledge of what was going on in its facility. Almost half of the entire workforce was detained by ICE officials, including a dozen minors, who are prohibited by Iowa labor law from working in a slaughterhouse in the first place. The affidavit filed by Federal officials in support of this raid cited numerous allegations of questionable behavior by company officials, including under-the-table cash payments to undocumented employees and physical abuse. The Des Moines Register has reported that Agriprocessors has ‘‘a history of noncompliance with state and Federal regulations related to food safety, pollution and workplace safety at its Postville facility.’’ These allegations are serious and disturbing. I am pleased that the Department of Labor has confirmed that the Wage and Hour Division district office in Des Moines had begun an investigation of Agriprocessors earlier this year for possible violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the department is working in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney and the State of Iowa to protect the rights of workers and properly enforce the law. However, I am also concerned that this ICE raid may have had an impact on the ability of the Department of Labor to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the workplace itself. A letter I received from ICE last week said that, prior to the May 12 operation at the Agriprocessors facility, ICE fully coordinated its activities with other Federal agencies, including the Department of Labor. This statement directly contradicts a letter I received from the Department of Labor on July 3, which said that, ‘‘The raid occurred without the prior knowledge or participation of the Wage and Hour Division’’ and that, ‘‘No advance notice was given to WHD or any other Department of Labor agency prior to the raid.’’ In addition, the DOL letter states that the May 12 enforcement action ‘‘changes the complexion of WHD’s investigation of Agriprocessors.’’ I am very concerned that there is conflicting information from these Federal agencies on whether ICE communicated with the DOL prior to the raid, and I intend to continue pushing for an- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 9 swers about any communications between the agencies prior to the raid. While upholding immigration law is important, so is ensuring workplace safety, and one should not come at the expense of the other. I sincerely hope that the lack of communication between ICE and DOL did not and does not lead to decreased safety for workers at the plant, although the evidence seems to indicate that that is precisely what is happening in Postville. The situation at Agriprocessors is further evidence that our immigration system is broken. I believe that Congress needs to think boldly and act confidently for a change in order to fix it. As I learned this year on my trip to the border in Mexico, we need to invest in technology, infrastructure and personnel to secure our border. We need to debate the feasibility of an effective and affordable employment-verification system, and we need to agree on what to do with undocumented immigrants who are already here. We also need to ensure that the appropriate agencies are fully coordinating with each other and that employers like Agriprocessors, who break our immigration laws, are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, under current Administration, the prosecution of employers who violated immigration law has plummeted. In 2004, only 4 employers faced sanction for hiring undocumented workers out of more than 9 million employers in the United States, and that record has only improved slightly in recent years. The Federal Government must demonstrate a commitment to enforcing the law against corporations who profit by looking the other way when immigration, workplace safety, child labor, environmental and food-safety laws are being broken. Unless we enforce our laws equally against both employees and employers who break the law, we will continue to have a serious immigration problem here in this country. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Braley follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 10 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 REPRESENTATIVE H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 IN HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Braley-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Braley-2.eps 11 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Braley-3.eps 12 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Braley-4.eps 13 14 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman. Next, I would like to introduce our colleague Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents the 18th District of Texas. Congresswoman Jackson Lee chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation, Security and Infrastructure Protection and serves on the Judiciary and the Foreign Affairs Committee and, in fact, is a Member of our Subcommittee. She is a leader in the immigration debate and is also the author of H.R. 750, the ‘‘Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.’’ Congresswoman Jackson Lee received her bachelor’s degree with honors from Yale University and her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia. Before her election to Congress in 1994, she served on the Houston City Council and was an associate municipal court judge. Congresswoman Jackson Lee is married to Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, and they have two children: Erica, a graduate of the University of North Carolina and Duke University, and Jason, a 3rd-year student at Harvard University. Welcome, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for your statement. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and to the Ranking Member. And my son will not let me rest without saying he has graduated, and I want to—— Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, I was misadvised. Congratulations to you and your proud family. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Only because you have to deal with young children. But let me thank you very much and thank the Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Member of the Committee as well. I do want to acknowledge, Madam Chairwoman, that the basis of this Committee is that we adhere to the law, and I thank you for your leadership on this. We recognize that this is a Nation of laws, but we also recognize that it is a Nation of immigrants as well. The Committee memorandum notes that we started with 15 ICE teams in 2005 and we now are looking to 104 in 2008. Committee memorandum also indicates that we had a deportation rate in 2002 by these ICE raids of 485 and now we are up to 4,000. And I think what it says is that—the question is whether or not these are the appropriate methods that can really get us to the question of law enforcement and the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. It seems that it cannot. And so I raise the points regarding the issues that have occurred in Houston, Texas, in particular Shipley Do-Nuts, which is a family-owned chain that has been catapulted into a highly controversial debate when Federal agents raided the company’s Houston headquarters and arrested 20 suspected undocumented immigrants employed at the facility. On Wednesday, April 17, 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in a caravan of 50 vehicles, detention vans and an ambulance, swarmed Shipley’s office and warehouse complex on VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 15 North Main Street at 5 a.m. A government helicopter circled overhead as the Shipley workers were led away in handcuffs to face civil charges of being in the country illegally. The Houston raid took place at the same time ICE raids conducted—ICE agents conducted raids of chicken-processing plants in Texas, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia and Tennessee. Apparently, the Administration believes that this is the method toward comprehensive immigration reform. I believe that these raids are the pathway to potential violence, the arresting of minors and pregnant women, and their wrongheaded and misdirected approach to go forward on the idea of ensuring border security and the security of all Americans. In essence, we are shutting down small businesses, restaurants, construction sites, not because we believe that the workers that are there are the only workers. We are very much supportive of the working of American people. But if you listen to the small businesses and construction companies and restaurants across America—and processing plants—this is, as I indicated, wrong-headed. Shipley Do-Nuts had its share of problems. Its own employee filed a discrimination lawsuit. It was a place that was well known. Individuals could have been arrested in a far different manner, but the ICE agents chose to use a cowboy-style ICE raid. After the raid in the Shipley Do-Nuts in Houston, Action Rags USA was raided. Approximately 70 percent of the 166 detained workers—about 116 workers—were women, including 8 pregnant women, in the Action Rags USA plant raid on June 25, 2008. Many of those workers were detained by ICE, though at least 73 have been released for humanitarian reasons, and some were documented individuals. The vast majority of these women were caring for children and had families. It is shocking to imagine that, on that fateful day, many children returned home to empty homes and apartments wondering where their mothers would be. Equally appalling, the pregnant workers were subject to stress and anxiety of arrest and detention when their own health and well-being is critical to the health and development of their baby. The chaos and fear of the aftermath of the raid caused injuries. Four women sustained injuries that required immediate medical attention, including one women that required an immediate life flight by helicopter to a nearby hospital, as she was so fearful of the raid and the ensuing chaos that she climbed on a stack of wooden pallets and fell 20 feet to the ground. The detainees in both raids were of Mexican and Central American decent. The raid on Action Rags USA resulted in detention of 138 Mexican, 12 Honduran, 8 Guatemalan and 8 Salvadoran. The Shipley Do-Nuts raid resulted in the detention of men from Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. In both raids, youth were detained. The Shipley Do-Nuts raid resulted in detention of one youth, who was placed in the care of Catholic charities and allowed to attend school until ICE could secure deportation papers. Two youths were detained in the raid on Action Rags USA. One of the youths, a rising high school senior, worked at Action Rags USA as a summer job and had only been employed from 1 week VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 16 prior to the raid and was also under the Dream Act legislation. He is now awaiting deportation and will be deported before he is able to achieve his high dream of a high school degree. Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Davis said the fact that 85 percent of company workers of the plant were undocumented was suspicion to show a conspiracy fraud. U.S. Magistrate Frances Stacy ruled there was evidence to support Federal conspiracy charges against the owner and three managers, saying that they knew undocumented workers were hired, but it has been proven that the owner had been at the plant only 1 hour and 57 minutes. Valerie Rodriguez, 34 years old, was described by government officials as a company resource manager; however, it was reported that Ms. Rodriguez was nothing more than a secretary. In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, let me simply say that this gives a litany of false starts, raid-like activities that create the potential for violence. It does not speak to the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, which my legislation speaks to, which provides for additional detention space, increased border patrol agents, enhancing border patrol training, establish immigration, customs and agriculture inspector occupations, reestablish the border patrol antismuggling unit and establish criminal investigator occupations within the Department of Homeland Security, increase border patrol agent investigator and other types of aspects that can bring about real comprehensive immigration reform. This is a dangerous approach, it is a sad approach, it is an unworkable, and I hope that we will ask the president of the United States to take the bully pulpit and lead us toward comprehensive immigration reform. I thank the gentlewoman. [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE I would like to thank Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren from California and Ranking Member Steve King from Iowa for holding this very important hearing on the recent immigration raids in Houston, Texas and across this great nation. Chairwoman Lofgren has continued to bring relevant and timely hearings and continues to work for comprehensive immigration reform. For this she should be applauded. As a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee and the former Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, it is of the utmost importance that we thoroughly investigate the raids that took place at Shipley Do-Nuts and Action Rags USA by ICE officials. Both of these raids occurred in my district of Houston, Texas. I. SHIPLEY DO-NUTS Shipley Do-Nuts is a family-owned chain that has been catapulted into a highly controversial debate when federal agents raided the company’s Houston headquarters and arrested 20 suspected illegal immigrants employed at the facility. On Wednesday, April 17, 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents—in a caravan of 50 vehicles, detention vans and an ambulance—swarmed Shipley’s office and warehouse complex on North Main Street at 5 a.m. A government helicopter circled overhead as the Shipley workers were led away in handcuffs to face civil charges of being in the country illegally. The Houston raid took place at the same time ICE agents conducted raids of chicken processing plants in East Texas, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, and Tennessee. In all, 290 workers were arrested during raids at Texas-based Pilgrims Pride plants on suspicion of identify theft, document fraud and immigration violations, the agency said. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 17 ICE officials have released few details of the Shipley investigation, saying only that it would continue. The undocumented workers arrested Wednesday face deportation. The Shipley raid centered on its 140,000-square-foot warehouse, processing plants and office complex. It is part of a four-block compound the company operates at 5200 North Main, where doughnut mix and other fillings are made for many of the 86 Houston-area locations. The site includes at least five trailers and 14 small homes. The neatly maintained properties sit behind cyclone and barbed-wire fencing used by some Shipley employees. The people caught in this raid were hard working people. ICE should make certain that minors were not caught in this raid. And, if minors were caught, ICE should ensure that these minors are returned safely to their families. Shipley Do-Nuts has been the subject of recent discrimination lawsuits. Recently, in 2006, 15 workers filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company, seeking damages for allegedly enduring daily slurs, such as ‘‘wetback’’ and ‘‘mojado’’ while working at the company’s warehouse. Most of the allegations were filed against a former plant manager, Jimmy Rivera, and two supervisors. The company settled the lawsuit with the workers in February. The settlement terms are confidential. If Shipley Do-Nuts was hiring illegal immigrants it has a duty to abide by the immigration laws. If Shipley is to blame, then we must work to ensure that Shipley adheres to the law or faces stiff penalties. II. ACTION RAGS USA Within weeks of the Shipley Do-Nuts raid, on June 25, 2008, ICE agents raided the Action Rags USA plant in Houston. In all, 166 of the 192 workers at the plant were undocumented. Approximately 70 percent of the 166 detained workers, about 116 workers, were women including eight pregnant women. Many of those workers were detained by ICE, though at least 73 have been released for humanitarian reasons. The vast majority of these women were caring for children and had families. It is shocking to imagine that on that fateful day, many children returned home to empty homes and apartments wondering when their mothers would return. Equally appalling, the pregnant workers were subject to the stress and anxiety of arrest and detention when their own health and well being is critical to the health and development of their baby. The chaos and fear in the aftermath of raids did cause injuries. Four women sustained injuries that required immediate medical attention, including one woman that required an immediate ‘‘life flight’’ by helicopter to a nearby hospital as she was so fearful of the raid and the ensuing chaos that she climbed on a stack of wooden pallets and fell 20 feet to the ground. The detainees in both raids were of Mexican and Central-American descent. The raid on Action Rags USA resulted in the detention of 138 Mexican, 12 Honduran, 8 Guatemalan, and 8 El Salvadoran workers. The Shipley Donuts raid resulted in the detention of men from Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. In both raids, youths were detained. The Shipley Donuts Raid resulted in the detention of one youth who was placed in the care of Catholic Charities and allowed to attend school until ICE could secure deportation papers. He was subsequently deported before finishing the school year. Two youths were detained in the raid on Action Rags USA. One of the youths, a rising senior in high school, worked at Action Rags USA as a summer job and had only been employed for one week prior to the Raid. He is now awaiting deportation and will be deported before he is able to achieve his dream of a high school degree. Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Davis said the fact that 85 percent of company workers at the plant were undocumented was sufficient to show a conspiracy existed. U.S. Magistrate Frances Stacy ruled there was evidence to support federal conspiracy charges that Mabarik Kahlon, 45, owner of Action Rags USA, and three managers knew undocumented workers were hired and they had presented false work documents. Four government informants, three who were paid a total of $13,200 along with immigration benefits will be a key part of the case. The three paid informants were illegal immigrants planted at Action Rags USA by ICE agents. Because the paid informants were given cash money and documents allowing them to legally stay and work in the country, there is a strong incentive for anybody to say what the agents want them to say. The ICE surveillance reports documented only one hour and 57 minutes in which Mr. Kahlon was at the plant. Mr. Kahlon is the owner of several vitamin supple- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 18 ment companies, and may not have been actively managing daily operations at Action Rags USA. Among the persons arrested at Action Rags USA was 34 year old, Valerie Rodriguez, described by government officials as the company’s resource manager. It was reported that Ms. Rodriguez was nothing more than a secretary. Both Mr. Kahlon and Ms. Rodriguez were released last week from custody after posting bond. The judge denied bail for Cirila Barron, 38, one of two illegal immigrants ICE documents describe as company managers at the plant. Another undocumented worker, Mayra Herrera-Gutierrez, 32, was denied bail. She was arrested for allegedly being an illegal alien and working as a warehouse supervisor. There is evidence, however, that she did not have the authority to hire and fire workers. As members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, we exercise oversight of ICE’s actions. Shipley Do-Nuts is a family-owned and operated business with a 72-year history in the Houston area, and 190 stores in several states. I am concerned for the well-being of the employees that are being detained and their families. I am concerned that the detainees be treated fairly and are not denied counsel or their basic human and civil rights. Lastly, I am concerned that these raids have disproportionately focused upon the undocumented employees and the employers largely have been left unharmed from these raids. I believe that it is an injustice in the immigration system that the ‘‘crackdown’’ has been directed at the ‘‘undocumented’’ workers who are working to support themselves and their families. These raids demonstrate that Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform. I have long advocated for comprehensive immigration reform. Indeed, in December 2007, I introduced, HR 750, Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007. This bill would provide for comprehensive immigration reform. Importantly, the bill authorizes DHS to adjust the status of aliens who would otherwise be inadmissible (due to unlawful presence, document fraud, or other specified grounds of inadmissibility) if such aliens have been in the United States for at least five years and meet other requirements. Additionally, it authorizes the emergency deployment of Border Patrol agents to a requesting border state. The bill also directs DHS to: (1) provide for additional detention space for illegal aliens; (2) increase Border Patrol agents, airport and land border immigration inspectors, immigration enforcement officers, and fraud and document fraud investigators; (3) enhance Border Patrol training and operational facilities; (4) establish immigration, customs, and agriculture inspector occupations within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; (5) reestablish the Border Patrol anti-smuggling unit; (6) establish criminal investigator occupations within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (7) increase Border Patrol agent and investigator pay; (8) require foreign language training for appropriate DHS employees; and (9) establish the Fraudulent Documents Task Force. This bill also sets forth unfair immigration-related employment practices. Additionally the bill requires petitioners for nonimmigrant labor to describe their efforts to recruit lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens. As these investigations move forward I will make sure that all issues are addressed surrounding this raid. This raid demonstrates the importance of immigration reform. As members of Congress, let us work together to resolve this matter and ensure that everyone’s rights are protected! Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Congresswoman. Next, I am pleased to introduce my colleague from California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. Congresswoman Woolsey is currently serving her eighth term as the representative of California’s beautiful 6th District, which includes all of Marin and most of Sonoma County. As the Chairwoman of the Education and Labor’s Workforce Protection Subcommittee, she held a hearing earlier this year on how immigration raids at workplaces impact children, families and communities. Congresswoman Woolsey is also co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are pleased to hear her testimony today. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 19 TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. Congress has to play and does play a very important role in ensuring that Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE—raids are conducted humanely and consistent with protecting the human needs of families and children, and I commend the Subcommittee for this hearing and for your continued oversight. The manner in which ICE raids are carried out can be as important as when and where they take place. Unfortunately, ICE’s practice in my district have been neither humane nor protective. Agents arrested parents right in front of their children, creating widespread panic and resulting in 50 to 60 students leaving school for weeks at a time. Despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of children with undocumented parents are U.S. citizens, ICE has not developed a consistent and comprehensive policy for dealing with children. In fact, ICE’s increasing reliance on home raids, which are not covered by ICE’s guidelines for humanely conducting workplace raids, means that children are often left unprotected. During home raids in my district conducted in March of 2007, some parents sent their children to school because they believed they weren’t safe at home. One little girl was told by her mother to pack some essentials in her backpack and leave it by the door. Then, if, when the girl returned from school, she found that ICE had taken her mother, the little girl was instructed to take the backpack and to go to her aunt’s home. Imagine—imagine what this child was thinking as she left for school. Imagine what she felt when she was sitting in the classroom. Try to imagine that little girl. There is more, Madam Chair. Earlier this year, ICE agents stopped a father in my district walking his daughter to school at Bahia Vista Elementary School in San Rafael, California. The father did not speak English. So ICE agents asked the young girl, who was not 8 years old, to translate for him as ICE questioned her dad about his immigration status. ICE later took this girl’s father away. Imagine how that child felt. On May 20, as Chairwoman Lofgren told you, as the Chair of the House Workforce Protection Subcommittee, I held a hearing on how ICE workplace raids have impacted children and local communities. At this hearing, a constituent of mine, Kathryn Gibney, principal at the San Pedro Elementary School in San Rafael, testified about how school officials cared for frightened students during last year’s raid and rode the buses to make sure students didn’t return home to empty houses. Two days after the recent Subcommittee hearing, ICE agents launched another raid in San Rafael. They say it was not retribution. Ms. Gibney’s school was again one of the schools most impacted by the raid. ICE vans parked near school bus stops, terrifying children as they left their parents and boarded the school buses. That day, absentee rates at the schools increased dramati- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 20 cally. One of the schools canceled its open house plan for that evening out of fear for the safety of parents and students. Madam Chairwoman, Members of this wonderful Committee, there are no more effective and humane ways to enforce our immigration—are there are no effective and humane ways to enforce our immigration laws other than through the raids that terrify children and communities? Senator Ted Kennedy and I have each sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security discussing the need for a more comprehensive policy to address the needs of children impacted by ICE raids. I ask to submit these letters to the Committee. Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, they will be made part of the record. [See Appendix.] Ms. WOOLSEY. And I need to tell you that neither of us has received a response from ICE. We can no longer, Committee, wait to address the impacts these raids are having on families and children, many of whom are in the U.S. legally, many of whom are U.S. citizens. It is unacceptable that home raids for children are more likely to be impacted do not have a strong protection for children nor are they covered by the guidelines for humanely conducting ICE raids. Who, if not children, deserve humane treatment? Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN Chairwoman Lofgren, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. Congress has a necessary role in making sure that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids are conducted humanely and consistent with protecting the needs of families and children, and I commend the Subcommittee for its continued oversight. The manner in which ICE raids are carried out can be as important as when and where they take place. Unfortunately, ICE’s practices in my District have been neither humane nor protective. Agents arrested parents right in front of their children, creating widespread panic and resulting in 50 to 60 students leaving school for weeks at a time. Despite the fact that nearly two thirds of children with undocumented parents are U.S. citizens, ICE has not developed a consistent and comprehensive policy for dealing with children. In fact, ICE’s increasingly reliance on home raids, which are not covered by ICE’s guidelines for humanely conducting workplace raids, means that children are often left unprotected. During home raids conducted in March 2007, some parents sent their children to school because they believed they weren’t safe at home. One little girl was told by her mother to pack some essentials in her backpack and leave it by the door. If she found ICE had taken her mother when she returned from school, the little girl was to take the backpack and go to her aunt’s house. Imagine what this child was thinking as she left for school. Earlier this year, ICE agents stopped a father walking his daughter to school at Bahia Vista Elementary School in San Rafael, California. Her father did not speak English, and ICE agents asked the young girl, not more than eight years old, to translate for him ICE’s questions about his immigration status. ICE later took this girl’s father away. On May 20, 2008, I chaired a hearing in the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee on how ICE workplace raids have impacted children and local communities. At this hearing, a constituent of mine, Katherine Gibney, the Principal at the San Pedro Elementary School in San Rafael, testified about how school officials cared for frightened students during last year’s raids and rode the buses to make sure students didn’t return to empty homes. Two days after the Subcommittee hearing, ICE agents launched another raid in San Rafael. Ms. Gibney’s school was, again, one of the schools most impacted by the VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 21 raids. ICE vans parked near school bus stops terrified children as they left their parents and boarded their school buses. Absentee rates at the schools increased dramatically. One of the schools canceled its Open House planned for that night out of fear for the safety of parents and students. Madame Chairwoman, there are more effective and humane ways to enforce our immigration laws than through raids that terrify communities. Chairman Edward Kennedy and I have each sent letters to the Department of Homeland Security discussing the need for a comprehensive policy to address the needs of children impacted by ICE raids, and I ask to submit these letters for the record. Both of the letters are awaiting a response. We can no longer wait to address the impact these raids are having on families and children, many of whom are in the U.S. legally and many of whom are U.S. citizens. It’s unacceptable that home raids, where children are most likely to be impacted, do not have strong protections for children. Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Finally, I would like to introduce Congressman David Davis. Congressman Davis represents the 1st Congressional District of Tennessee that includes the 12 upper east Tennessee counties. He serves on the House Committee on Education and Labor. He is the Ranking Member on the Small Business Committee’s Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, and he and I serve together on the House Homeland Security Committee. And we are very pleased to have you here to give us your testimony, Congressman Davis. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the effects illegal immigration has on communities in Northeast Tennessee. Also, thank you for your interest in the story of Lora Costner, a constituent of the 1st Congressional District of Tennessee and a resident of Cocke County, who will testify here today. Illegal immigration places a heavy burden on our country and on our taxpayers. No more a problem limited to the counties along our borders, even Appalachia must face the threat to our economy. Families in Cocke County directly suffer from the effects of illegal immigration and our government’s inability to enforce our laws. I encourage this Committee to take Ms. Costner’s story of identify theft by an illegal immigrant as an indication of just one of the many damaging effects of lack of immigration enforcement. Many immigrants come to Hamblen County to work in the poultry-processing industry. Much like the raid in Iowa generated this hearing, the parent company of Hamblen County’s plant operation in Cincinnati, Ohio, and their Chicago headquarters were subject to ICE raids. The illegal immigrant who stole Ms. Costner’s identity used the information to gain employment at the Morristown poultry plant. This hearing asks how we move forward with our immigration policy in light of these raids and the poultry industry. One of the best tools the Department of Homeland Security has to enforce our immigration laws is the 287(g) program. This program allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with ICE on illegal immigration matters. ICE trains local law enforcement in VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 22 immigration law, and the local agency is given the authority to enforce those laws. Metro Nashville Davidson County, Tennessee, has been operating under a 287(g) agreement for some time now. The Nashville community has seen the benefits of the local law partner shift through improvement in enforcement of our immigration laws. You would be hard pressed to find a community who would benefit more from such a partnership than Hamblen County and Morristown, Tennessee. According to the University of Tennessee study, Hamblen County has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the Nation. Hamblen County schools, hospitals, roads and housing agencies are unable to keep up with the trend. The Hamblen County jail is overrun with citizens of other countries with no U.S. immigration status. These individuals are in Hamblen County illegally. If our immigration laws were enforced, these individuals would be removed to their country of origin and barred from reentry into the United States. Unfortunately, the Hamblen County Sheriff lacks the authority to enforce these laws. Hamblen County approached ICE to participate in the 287(g) program. Citing lack of resources and manpower, ICE could not agree to the partnership. It is imperative that this Congress expand the 287(g) program to allow any willing community to participate. I am privileged to serve on the House Committee on Homeland Security with oversight of the department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. In 2007, the Committee took up legislation reauthorizing the DHS. I offered an amendment in the Committee expanding this program that fell for a lack of a majority on a 15-15 tie. The House Rules Committee, by a vote of 8 to 4, refused to make this same amendment and order when the bill moved to the House floor. I have introduced this bipartisan amendment as a stand-along legislation that has been referred to this Committee. Also referred to this Committee is Congressman Shuler’s SAVE Act. This legislation would authorize increases to all programs related to enforcement of our immigration law. One-hundred-andninety Members of Congress have signed the discharge petition to bring Congressman Shuler’s legislation to the floor. I would encourage action on this bill. Finally, this Congress must again take up legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security, giving guidance to ICE on immigration policy and law enforcement. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, and I will look forward to the testimony of Ms. Costner as well. I yield back. [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE IN I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the effects illegal immigration has on communities in East Tennessee. I also thank you for your interest in the story of Lora Costner, a constituent of the First Congressional District of Tennessee and resident of Cocke County who will also testify here today. Illegal immigration places a heavy burden on our country and our taxpayers. No more a problem limited to those counties along our borders; even Appalachia must face this threat to our economy. Families in Cocke County directly suffer from the VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 23 effects of illegal immigration and our government’s inability to enforce our laws. I encourage this Committee to take Ms. Costner’s story of identity theft by an illegal immigrant as a indication of just one of the many damaging effects of lack of immigration enforcement. Many immigrants come to Hamblen County to work in the poultry processing industry. Much like the raid in Iowa generating this hearing, the parent company of the Hamblen County plant’s operation in Cincinnati, Ohio and their Chicago headquarters were subject to ICE raids. The illegal immigrant who stole Ms. Costner’s identity used that information to gain employment at the Morristown poultry plant. This hearing asks how we move forward with our immigration policy in light of these raids on the poultry industry. One of the best tools the Department of Homeland Security has to enforce our immigration laws is the 287(g) program. This program allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with ICE on illegal immigration matters. ICE trains local law enforcement in immigration law and the local agency is given authority to enforce those laws. Metro Nashville/Davidson county Tennessee has been operating under a 287(g) agreement for some time now. The Nashville community has seen the benefits of the federal/local partnership through improved enforcement of our immigration laws. You would be hard pressed to find a community who would benefit more from such a partnership than Hamblen County and Morristown, Tennessee. According to a University of Tennessee study, Hamblen County has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the nation, Hamblen County’s schools, hospitals, roads, and housing agencies are unable to keep up with the trend. The Hamblen County jail is overrun with citizens of other countries with no U.S. immigration status. These individuals are in Hamblen County illegally. If our immigration laws were enforced these individuals would be removed to their country of origin and barred from re-entry into the United States. Unfortunately the Hamblen County Sherriff lacks the authority to enforce these laws. Hamblen County approached ICE to participate in the 287(g) program. Citing lack of resources and manpower, ICE could not agree to the partnership. It is imperative this Congress expand the 287(g) program to allow any willing community to participate. I am privileged to serve on the House Committee on Homeland Security with oversight of the Department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. In 2007 the Committee took up legislation reauthorizing DHS. I offered an amendment in Committee expanding this program that failed for lack of majority on a 15–15 tie. The House Rules Committee by a vote of 8–4 refused to make this same amendment in order when the bill moved to the House floor. I have introduced the amendment as standalone legislation that has been referred to this Committee. Also referred to this Committee is Congressman Shuler’s SAVE Act. This legislation would authorize increases to all programs related to enforcement of our immigration laws. 190 Members of Congress have signed the discharge petition to bring Congressman Shuler’s legislation to the floor. I would encourage action on this bill. Finally, this Congress must again take up legislation reauthorizing the Department of Homeland Security giving guidance to ICE on immigration policy and law enforcement. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today and I look forward to the testimony of Ms. Costner. Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. And thanks to all four of our colleagues. We do understand that Members have multiple hearings and markups going on. We hope to ask you questions, but if you are called to another hearing, we understand because we have all been in that spot, and just let us know if that happens to you. We will begin our questioning at this point, and I will lead off. Congressman Braley, this is basically your hometown where all of this happened, and I am interested in—in the case of the Postville raid, it is—well, I have got the letters, I mean, from ICE and Department of Labor, and they just say diametrically different things. ICE says that the DOL knew about the raid, and DOL says no they didn’t. And so it appears—and as a matter of fact we have that reaffirmed verbally by DOL today that they knew nothing about this. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 24 So what happens to the DOL investigation into the labor violations that may have been present at the Agriprocessors plant? It seems to me that, if we have prosecuted the individuals—the workers—who were there, they are in jail or in prison, and then they are going to be deported, how can they be witnesses to—on—I assume—the case that was to be brought against the employer? Are you concerned that this action has jeopardized the DOL investigation and possible prosecution of the labor-law violations that have been alleged? Mr. BRALEY. Well, yes, I am. That is one the reasons I have been asking for these answers. And just for the record, while the hearing has been proceeding, I just received word from my office that we have been informed that a fax was received from the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, which confirmed they were given verbal notice— the OIG of the Department of Labor—prior to the May 12 raid and encouraged to be present—just the OIG, not the Wage and Hour Division—and they were specifically instructed not to inform the Wage and Hour Division that the raid was pending. And the reason I am concerned is because, given the short amount of incarceration periods under the plea agreement, given the fact the deportations are scheduled to occur as soon as those short sentence are completed, and given the language barrier for many of the key witnesses to these workplace safety violations, it seems to me it is going to be very difficult for the Department of Labor investigation to get the best evidence possible. And when you look at the history of workplace safety violations at this company and the fact that after certain agreements have been entered into, there have been repeat violations discovered by the Iowa Department of Labor of the very conditions that were supposed to be mitigated, I have very strong concerns about the impact of the ongoing investigation. And when you add that to the childlabor issues, then it is a very serious concern. Ms. LOFGREN. We will find out later from other witnesses perhaps, but we don’t know how many of the employees have been deported so far and whether there has been an effort to maintain their presence in the United States as material witnesses to this other investigation. I know that you have been trying to do the best thing for your constituents. Have you been advised about that? Mr. BRALEY. Well, most of the information I get, quite frankly, comes from news reports. Senator Grassley and I both were aware of what was going on at the Cattle Congress before the raid was carried out. We were informed that there was a training exercise involving ICE and other Federal agencies and received no prior notice of what was going on. But one of the things we do know is that there has been a report that nine people have been deported under contract with a private plane service, and we know that there are many people being housed or incarcerated right now in county jails and in Federal detention facilities in Iowa and other Midwestern states. So the very nature of how the incarceration is being carried out makes it difficult to find witnesses in a central location as they would be if they were in the workplace. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 25 Ms. LOFGREN. I will just—before turning this over to the Ranking Member—note that it is disturbing to hear that ICE notified the IG of the Department of Labor. That tells me they knew that there was an ongoing Department of Labor investigation about violations, including child labor, at this plant. But to tell the IG and not the Wage and Hour Division insured that there would not be a presence there, and it is almost as if ICE intended to disrupt the investigation—and potentially prosecution—of this company for violations of the law. You know, when we enforce the law as a government, we are also required to live by the law. And I wonder in this case whether that is really what occurred here or whether there was an active involvement to really cover up and prevent the enforcement of the labor laws on the part of the Department of the Homeland Security. It is a very disturbing piece of information. My time has expired. I would now turn to the Ranking Member for whatever questions he may have. Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank all the witnesses. And, you know, Iowa’s not used to being in the spotlight, not for natural disasters and not for immigration issues, but those things have emerged in the last few years. And so I would just turn to my colleague, who is a member, of course, of the Iowa delegation, and say, first off, I agree with you on the principle that you emphasized here that we need to enforce the law against employers as well. And I am curious about how we will get there and get that done. I would point out that the point was made earlier today that we do pass the laws here, as the Chairman of the full Committee said, and we review them, but in the end, it is the executive branch that enforces the law, and I have been in the business over the last 51⁄2 years of seeking to encourage them to do so. I don’t know that this hearing encourages enforcement of the law. I think it actually works in a counterproductive fashion because the tone has to be intimidating to the ICE workers. But I take this point is that one of the thing that ICE was concerned about, I believe, and—is that their communications with the Department of Labor might have provided a leak that could have warned the plant that there was a raid. And so I would suggest we have two things going on. One is we are concerned that this kind of information will leak out to perhaps local officials who would then tip off the plant or maybe another department of the government. We have another problem. The Social Security Administration doesn’t know what the Department of Homeland Security is doing and neither do other departments of government, like a company that has divisions that don’t communicate with each other. So I would ask you if—I mean, I have proposed a piece of policy, Mr. Braley, that recognizes this: That I think, when an employer knowingly and willfully hires illegals, that they should not be able to deduct the wages that they pay or the benefits they pay from their income tax. And I believe we can allow them to protect themselves and give them safe harbor if we let them use E-Verify. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 26 And then we should allow the IRS to come in, when their normal audit, run the Social Security numbers of those employees through the E-Verify. If the employer knew or should have known that they were illegal, they should then be denied deductibility of those expenses. And I would ask you if you agree if that would be a way that we could add to a way we could enforce the law? Mr. BRALEY. Well, I think we certainly need to have much stricter enforcement sanctions against employers who knowingly violate the law. And this employer is a perfect example of that because—— Mr. KING. Would you allow them to deduct the wages that they paid to illegals? Mr. BRALEY. It is one of those issues that we have to be looking and talking about because, in this case, many of the workers were denied checks that they had earned because they had been deported and weren’t available, and that is one of the things the Wage and Hour Division had to get involved in. And in this particular case, this employer was involved in a labor dispute in 2000 in its Brooklyn, New York, facility and tried—— Ms. LOFGREN. Let our colleague answer, if you would—— Mr. KING. I just think he misunderstood my question. He is on the other side of my question, and I want to make sure our time is used in a fashion here that is prudent. But I yield the gentleman. I can restate the question if I need. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman will proceed. Mr. BRALEY. I think that there are a host of different enforcement actions, including the one you are proposing, that need to be considered as a way of getting the point across to employers who are exploiting workers for their profit, yes. Mr. KING. I thank you very much for that response. And it is a direct one, and that is the way we talk in the Midwest, just nice and directly. So in another direct fashion here, as I review your testimony and you reference undocumented workers, and I would ask you directly, those who have pled guilty and—of which, by the way, of those who were rounded up in that raid, 62 were released for humanitarian reasons so they had children to take care of, and so I wanted to make that point. But of those who have pled guilty then—do they then transition from undocumented workers into illegal aliens or criminal aliens? Mr. BRALEY. Well, once they have pled guilty to a charge after due process, they become identified however the law classifies them, yes. Mr. KING. Which would be illegal aliens or criminal aliens depending on the case of the conviction? Mr. BRALEY. Well, to me a criminal is a criminal no matter what their naturalization status is. If you plead guilty to a criminal offense in this country, then you are deemed to have been convicted of a criminal offense. Mr. KING. And then they are criminals? Mr. BRALEY. Yes. Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Braley. And I turn to Mr. Davis, and I know that, coming in out of this from Tennessee you advocated strongly for a 287(g) program. You have been blunted at every effort to do that. I encourage you to VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 27 keep trying and I—the resources—local law enforcement and their cooperation are in short supply. What is your sense when you promote 287(g)? Is there pushback? Mr. DAVIS. There is not pushback at the local level. There is not pushback at the state level. There is pushback at the Federal level, most of my colleagues, unfortunately. I can tell you, though, this is a bipartisan approach. When I introduced legislation to bring the amendment to the floor, the first thing I did is reached across the aisle, had one of my fellow Members who is a Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee introduce the legislation with me. So I am trying to not make this a partisan issue. Trying to make this an American issue. I can tell you—this is coming directly from the sheriff of Hamblen County and from the chief of police in the city of Morristown—they want some help. The odds of finding a Federal agent on street corners across America are very slim. The odds of finding a member of a sheriff’s department or a police department in local communities are there, they are high, they know what is going on in their local communities, and I would encourage us to use our local law enforcement. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And we have been notified that we will have a series of votes sometime in the next half hour so we will lose this panel, no doubt, at that vote time. I am going to ask people to be as brief as they can. And Mr. Conyers, the Chair of the full Committee, is invited to ask any questions he may have of our colleagues. Mr. CONYERS. Well, one thing is clear, that we don’t have much cooperation between the organizations in the government, between Homeland Security, between the Department of Labor and others. And I guess that works to everybody’s detriment. There was in 1982 a memorandum of understanding between the Immigration and the Wage and Hour Division that was signed to mandate cooperation and notification. And so that apparently isn’t working too well, and we need to do a little bit more about it. But over and above that, there is a spirit of meanness that seems to underheard this massive raid that went on in the congressman’s area, and I am trying to figure out if there are ways that we and Judiciary can, first of all, get more cooperation and understand what the process is. I mean, this was a fantastically expensive undertaking, and it may have blown the Wage and Hour issue that the Labor Department may be taking up if you have deported these folks out of the country. Is that the case? Do I understand this right? I will ask our distinguished witnesses here. Mr. BRALEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, that remains to be seen, and that is why I am continuing to push for further clarification from Department of Labor, from the Justice Department and from ICE. And one of the concerns that I raised, based upon the history of labor violations and workplace safety violations at this employer, is because we know that building a case against employers according to the Department of Justice takes time, and that is why they apparently have not issued any indictments against the owners of this company and others in key management positions. That is the response we are getting, that the investigation is billed. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 28 And the same thing is true in a workplace safety investigation. And if you remove key witnesses who may have information about violations, it could definitely compromise the outcome. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, if I might, the question you asked, whether this is an effective manner of immigration reform of enforcement, we see that we have gotten only 4,000 of those deported out of the ICE raids that have occurred and now with 114—and they are particularly mean. The two individuals in Texas who were citizens were surrounded at their homes in the early morning. They were taken to a detention center. Their families were told that they could be bonded out. They are grounded in the community. They are not flight risks. They never got bonded out, and they were brought the next morning with cameras, with leg irons, with waist irons and cameras and a great display. This is, I believe, ineffective and pricey as it relates to ICE duties, and what happens is criminal undocumented aliens who wind up creating tragedy, are going uncaptured, and I think that is where our efforts should be along with comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am not enamored by my friend Steve King telling me how many people took a plea. Those of us with experience in the criminal justice system, you can end up taking a plea, when you are faced with either 6 months or you get the maximum, buddy, take your choice, and you have got a language problem, maybe, to boot, you have appointed counsel, interpreters—we don’t know where they are. Some of the language problems even go beyond Hispanic. There were some people with Indian and Hispanic backgrounds. So I don’t feel that that is some determination of guilt at all under those circumstances. Do you agree with that, Steve? Mr. KING. No, I don’t, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CONYERS. I didn’t think you would. [Laughter.] Ms. LOFGREN. The Chairman’s time has expired. We would now turn to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for any questions he may have for our colleagues. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really have just three very brief questions that I hope can be answered yes or no. And, Congressman Davis, let me start with you and work across the panel. The first is do you think employers should check to see whether new employees can legally work in the U.S. or not? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. That is the only way we can deal with this is internally and on the borders. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Congressman Woolsey? Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, yes. Except I think it is up to us to make sure that the information they gather is accurate. I mean, we have a system that can’t even get people through Immigration and get two people in one family so how—— Mr. SMITH. I agree—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 29 Ms. WOOLSEY. It does no good to give false information to the employer. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Congresswoman Jackson Lee? Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member. But I also want you to know that the owners of, in particular, Rags USA, checked the documents that they were given, used the system that was in place and got no pushback on the documentation. We need to fix a broken system. Mr. SMITH. Congressman Braley? Mr. BRALEY. I would agree with the remarks of my colleagues. Mr. SMITH. All three? Mr. BRALEY. Yes. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Next question is this: Do you think illegal immigrants—start again with Congressman Davis. Do you think illegal immigrants take jobs away from American workers or depress their wages because of competition? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I do. Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman Woolsey? Ms. WOOLSEY. I don’t believe they take jobs away because in my district, for example, they take jobs that other people will not do. But I think wages become depressed when we don’t have labor laws that cover our low-paying workers. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Congresswoman? Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think if you ask the construction industry and the restaurant industry and a lot of other industries, they are in essence being shut down because of their lack of work to the agricultural industry. I think we have a commitment—an obligation—to hire America first, but at the same time, I think we have a commitment to provide an employment stream, if you will, legally with comprehensive immigration reform for all those industries that have come to the Congress and say they are suffering. Mr. SMITH. Congressman Braley? Mr. BRALEY. I think I would give a qualified yes in that, as a general principle, it is true, but that you also have differences in growth populations among states and differences in job opportunities. You have a state like Iowa, which Mr. King and I represent, there were four casts that were going to have a labor shortage in the future because of the baby boomers retiring and so we are looking at workplace needs, and that is why a state like Iowa historically has depended upon immigrant populations to meet its labor needs. We have to look at comprehensive reform so that we can make sure we are bringing the workers in we need to fill those. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Congresswoman Jackson Lee actually anticipated my next question, which is this—and I will start on the right again—do you think American employers should hire American workers before they hire foreign workers? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, no doubt. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Congresswoman Woolsey? VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 30 Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, if there is available American workers. Mr. SMITH. I understand and I assume that they would be available. Yes. Congresswoman? Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Ranking Member, as you well know, we worked on this issue absolutely, and we should reach out to populations here in the United States and at the same time, however, provide the comprehensive immigration reform to provide the streams of labor that we need in this country. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Congressman? Mr. BRALEY. I would agree with those remarks. Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, because I think we are getting ready for a vote. Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Jackson Lee, later today we are going to hear from a person who is trying to get her life back together after her identity was stolen by an illegal immigrant. What would you say to our own citizens who have been rightfully prosecuted for identity theft and given strong prison sentences if we were to give amnesty to illegal immigrations for the same act? Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I don’t think anyone who has perpetrated a crime should be relieved of the responsibility. So I believe, in fact, with you, Mr. Gallegly, that I would much prefer ICE enforcement agents going after direct criminal action—— Mr. GALLEGLY. So you believe that illegals should be prosecuted—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Direct criminal actions by undocumented, not mistaken. On the other hand, I think they are wasting time by raids that generate no relief. I would like to have the individual who created the tragedy in San Francisco arrested. The individual who, unfortunately, killed an officer in Houston arrested. I don’t think we are getting to that direction by these raids. Mr. GALLEGLY. One last question to you, Ms. Jackson Lee. You stated very appropriately—and I think articulately—that you believe we are a Nation of laws and we should continue to focus on being a Nation of laws, and your concerns towards—and I don’t mean to be paraphrasing—some of the means of deportation has been done in an inhumane way and subjecting children and innocent people to harm; is that not correct? It is something—yes or no—it is something to that effect? Ms. JACKSON LEE. They have been roughshod raids, yes, sir. Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Okay. Let me ask you this: Would a more humane way be—we currently have a database of over 10.5 million people that are working in this country with an illegal Social Security card. Would it not be more humane to send a notice to the employer—by the way, the employer has the name, address, phone number and shoe size of the employee, as does the Social Security service of the employer and the employee. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 31 Should we not be sending a notice to the employer to either clarify that they have the right number or terminate that person immediately without an officer going out there to do it, if they don’t, $1,000 a day fine until they do, and then at the same time the employer that has been terminated must do E-Verify before he could get a job somewhere else? That being the case, we would probably have 90 percent of the illegal immigration problem solved except for those that are working underground. And then we could go to work and find out what the unmet domestic need is and find a legal way to do it. But would you agree that that would be a very humane way to do it, send letters out and enforce the law under the employer-sanction provision of the 1986 IRCA law? Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think most employers, Mr. Gallegly, would agree with you, a consistency in documentation. In fact, when I spoke to these owners, they said they thought they were following E-Verify, they though there was a process. At the same time, we have a pending comprehensive immigration bill, and I do think we need to find a way to address this question in that manner as well. Mr. GALLEGLY. With all due respect, I have to respectfully disagree that most employers do not believe that, or they would be using an E-Verify program that is 10 times simpler to use, if not 100 times simpler, than the I-9 form that takes a 21-page booklet to fill out. It is an ‘‘I don’t know and I don’t want to know because, if I know, I am going to lose 90 percent of my employees.’’ I yield back. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Employers that I spoke to said they would like to use it. Ms. LOFGREN. Just FYI, through misunderstanding, the gentleman was given 5 minutes by the clerk, when you yielded, so if you want to take the remainder of your time, you should do so. You are through. Okay. Mr. GALLEGLY. [Off mike.] Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Very good. I will turn now to our colleague, Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. GUTIERREZ. First of all, I want to thank the gentlelady Chairwoman for conducting this hearing. As she knows, we have been working closely together. We will be visiting Postville this Saturday with other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus because we think it is important to go and examine all of the different aspects of this raid, including the human tragedy, which has befallen Postville. So I would like to thank everyone for their testimony and all of my colleagues for coming this morning. And I would like to say that, as we have this debate, for those of you who aren’t on the Judiciary Committee, you can see part of the debate that we have here. I find it interesting that my colleague Mr. Braley was asked whether or not there should be an IRS sanction against an employer who has wages. It is interesting when the other side says—one side’s ‘‘Criminal. Send them to jail,’’ and other side, ‘‘Let us do an accounting procedure. An IRS thing. Don’t let them deduct it from the taxes.’’ Other people get ripped asunder from their children, from their spouses. The employer, give them an IRS thing that they can’t VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 32 make a deduction. That is pretty simple, but it doesn’t surprise me because it is very clear to me that the undocumented workers don’t have the kind of power and influence. They obviously don’t have political action committee. They don’t make campaign contributions. They are not in a position of power, as many great Agriprocessors are in a position of power, to influence the debate that we have here in Congress. So it really doesn’t surprise me. But I think that we have to have a real discussion. Mr. Braley, do you know anything about the cost of this? Have you looked into the cost of this raid at Postville? Mr. BRALEY. Absolutely. One of the biggest issues in immigration reform is what it is going to cost to carry out the planned deportation that was under consideration of anyone in this country illegally. And because this Postville raid has been represented as the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history, I have requested from all related Federal agencies to provide me with a complete accounting of the cost of the investigation, the apprehension, the detention, the prosecution, and the incarceration associated with this one single raid of 400 employees in the workplace. I have received nothing in response to that. But I have also asked for similar information about the Swift raids that were carried out in Marshalltown, Iowa, just a year and a half ago. I think it will give us all some insight into what we are talking about when we are looking at the problem that everyone has been talking about on the panel. Mr. GUTIERREZ. There have been estimates given of upwards of $40 billion to begin this process, not to totally complete the process but to begin the process. But if the congressman were ever to receive that information and—I am sure the Members of this Committee would be very, very appreciative to him for getting us that information because I think it goes kind of to the crux of the matter here. We have—Homeland Security and I—and I know that the Chairwoman sat across the street from Mr. Chertoff, and he negotiated with us because he said to us, ‘‘Our immigration system is broken.’’ That is what he said to me. That is what he said to Members of Congress, as he, the secretary of Homeland Security came down here to negotiate with us a comprehensive immigration reform. He said it is broken; it is bad. His boss, the president of the United States, said publicly the system is broken and people are being denied basic human rights, they are being exploited, we need to bring them out of the shadows, we need to bring them into the light of day. This is the president of the United States, who, through his ambassador, Secretary Chertoff, came to me and other Members of this Committee and Members of Congress and spent nearly 6 months negotiating—or attempting to negotiate—a comprehensive—— So what I find so astonishing about this is they say one thing and then they do the other. They take most of their capacity of Homeland Security, which I thought was to protect us against terrorists, smugglers, drug dealers, people who are going to do harm to me, my family and my community, and you know what they do? They hoodwink us. Because now, as the minority so clearly stated VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 33 as they asked you ‘‘Are they criminals?’’ Yeah, technically they are criminals now because here is the plea agreement—I want to follow up with the Chairman—here is the plea agreement. This is what they had to plead to because of criminals. They said, ‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly using a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the heavier charge of aggravated identity theft, and you will serve 5 months in jail, be deported without a hearing, and placed on a supervised release for 3 years.’’ Okay. But what if you don’t? ‘‘If you plead not guilty, you could wait 6 to 8 months’’—that is 3 months more than we are offering you— ‘‘without right to bail’’—because you are immigration detained. ‘‘If you win at trial, you will still be deported—waiting longer in jail than if you plead guilty, and you would also risk receiving at trial the 2-year minimum sentence.’’ I mean, this is what this is really about. What our government did in Postville to people who were working is that they charged them with aggravated identity theft, which means they must have knowingly, with premeditation taken that identity to do what? Commit a serious crime. Ms. LOFGREN. The—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. What crime did they commit? They applied for a job. That, the last time I checked, is not an aggravated felony. And so I think—and I am—I think that that is really the crux of the matter here is are we safer today Ms. LOFGREN. The—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Because they locked up 300 people—— Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. In Postville? I think not. I don’t feel safer. As a matter of fact—— Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. I feel ashamed of the Nation. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we have just gotten, I think, our—is it the 10-minute notice? All right. Then we will take 5 minutes for Mr. Lungren, and I think we probably will not be able to get to our remaining two Members, but we will return after the vote. Mr. Lungren? Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a most interesting hearing. Having been here in 1986 as the Ranking Republican on immigration and having obtained the Republican votes to have the largest single legalization in the history of this Nation, I also recall we coupled it with, for the first time, employer sanctions, of which I was one of the authors. And the complaint has been since that time that neither Republican nor Democratic administration had enforced it nor did they do anything about going to worksites to check on it. And so now this Administration, finally, in the last couple years of their Administration, is beginning to do that, and it seems to me the tenor of many of the comments is that they should not have done that. Mr. Braley, it has been stated—or you said that you have worked on the problem of corporate downsizing resulting in loss of jobs for employees—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 34 Mr. BRALEY. Yes. Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. For which I congratulate you. One of the things, it seems to me, it is important for us to do— and I ask if you would agree—is to deal with the issue of illegal immigration because in some cases it results in the loss of jobs to Americans. Do you agree with that? Mr. BRALEY. In some cases I believe it does. Mr. LUNGREN. And, Ms. Jackson Lee, one of the things I was surprised at hearing you say is that in the construction—I believe that you said it—or maybe Ms. Woolsey said—in the construction trade we have the need for foreign workers. When we passed the bill in 1986, the presence of illegal immigrants in the construction trade was virtually nil. And now it is more than that, some would say substantial. And at that time I expressed a concern about the high rate of unemployment with African-American males age 17 to 35. And it seemed to me that we as a country could not use as an excuse that we couldn’t find Americans, particularly African-American males age 17 to—to 35, to work in the construction industry, and yet we have a worse situation now. It is not like agriculture, where it is distant from where people live. And do you disbelieve that there is any negative impact on the African-American male community for the presence of illegal immigrants in the workforce in construction around our country? Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me clarify my point. I did not say that they were needed, what I said was those industries are being shut down because of the census in the population in those industries, including restaurants and the construction industry. I will use as my reference your Ranking Member Mr. Smith. We have been leading on the issue in years past on ensuring the reach to the African-American community on a number of issues, including technology. But as we speak, in the city of Houston, I am leading on an effort to hire African-American young men on construction sites. Of course, I am an equal-opportunity person, who believes that all people should have the opportunity to work, but we are doing it to reach out to them. My point is is that these industries, as my good friend Mr. Braley said, are suffering from demographics and census, and, therefore, their work is being stopped. We need to find a comprehensive reform system, Mr. Lungren, so that we can hire Americans first, we can outreach to American workers and at the same time we can provide a pathway to citizenship. Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Do I understand it correctly that you object to the raids, per se, or you object to raids that are in the spirit of meanness, that are cowboy style, that are roughshod raids, that are dangerous, unworkable and sad? Ms. JACKSON LEE. First of all, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the enforcement officers across America. They are working very hard. They have my support. But, yes, I believe that we get little value out of these raids. I think we get more drama. We don’t get comprehensive immigration reform, we don’t get the illegal, violent—— Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I am not suggesting what do you get. Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Off of the street and—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 35 Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting—— Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. An effective approach. Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting you get comprehensive immigration reform from raids, but the raids are aimed at going after illegal immigrants who have jobs to which they are not entitled or are using false identification, which then impacts other people in this country. And wouldn’t you—well, let me ask you this: Would you suggest we stop doing the raids? Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me say this: In speaking to employers who have had experience of today and then 5 years out, ICE agents used to come to the site—you can’t move a big factory—they used to go through the individuals and be able to both enforce against the employer—— Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Were illegal. All I would say is that it is an ineffective approach of doing what we want to do. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will be in recess for this set of votes. Mr. Braley, do you have something you need to—— Mr. BRALEY. Before the record is closed, I do have a copy of the fax that I mentioned earlier, and I would just offer—— Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be made part of the record. [The material referred to follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 K-1.eps 36 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 K-2.eps 37 38 Ms. LOFGREN. We have four votes so we will not be back probably before 1 o’clock. We will begin with our second panel at 1 o’clock. I think there is a cafeteria in the basement of this building if someone wants to get a bite or a cup of coffee. [Recess.] Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee will be coming to order in a minute. As we reassemble here, I did want to mention something I neglected to say this morning, which is how appreciative we are to the House Administration Committee and their staff. The room that we ordinarily use is taken for another hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and the House Administration Committee was kind enough to make this hearing room available to us, and they have really gone the extra mile with our Judiciary staff to accommodate us, and we are very appreciative of that. And I am on the House Administration Committee, so this is not a new room to me, but it is an ornate room, and luckily we don’t have all the standers here for our second panel, who I would like to introduce now. I am pleased to welcome two witnesses. The first is Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Deborah Rhodes. Ms. Rhodes assists the deputy attorney general on a variety of criminal and other issues. She is also the United States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, where she oversees all Federal criminal and civil litigation in an office of approximately 50 professional staff. Ms. Rhodes was formerly counselor to the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice. She also supervised the Office of Policy and Legislation and was the department’s liaison to the American Bar Association Criminal Justice section. She graduated with honors from Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey, where she was editor-in-chief of the Rutgers Law Journal, and she graduated with high honors from Wheaton College Illinois, and I found out this morning, when we said hello, that she is also a—originally a fellow Californian. So we welcome you today. I am also pleased to introduce Marcy Forman. Ms. Forman is director of the Office of Investigations for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Service, otherwise known as ICE. As director, Ms. Forman oversees the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security with more than 7,000 employees and 178 other field offices throughout the United States. Ms. Forman is responsible for the policy, planning, management and operations conducted under five major investigative program divisions within the Office of Investigations. Ms. Forman holds a Masters of Science degree in management from National-Louis University, a Bachelor of Science degree from American University and has completed the Senior Executive Fellowship Program at Harvard University. She is a 2007 recipient of the Secretary of Homeland Security Silver Medal for her leadership and dedication in leading ICE’s enforcement efforts. Your full written statements will be made part of the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in 5 minutes. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 39 And this morning—it is very difficult to keep one’s colleagues within 5 minutes, but we are going to ask the witnesses, as much as possible, to stay within the 5 minutes’ time because we have another panel after you. And the little machine on the table, when it turns orange, that means you have got 1 minute left, and when it turns red, it means—and it always comes a surprise—your 5 minutes are up so we would ask that you please conclude at that point. And we will begin, Ms. Rhodes, with your testimony. TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH RHODES, SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ms. RHODES. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Justice Department’s role at Agriprocessors in Iowa. Worksite enforcement is an important part of our immigration strategy, and I can assure you that the department and our U.S. attorneys in the field are fully committed to ensuring that we pursue it in a manner that protects every defendant’s constitutional rights. The integrity of a nation’s borders and its immigration laws are fundamental to any nation’s security. For this reason, the attorney general has identified immigration enforcement as one of the department’s priorities. Immigration policy is comprehensive. We enforce many statutes in a variety of contexts, including the borders, interior space and worksites. In my written comments, I have mentioned recent cases against violent organizations, smuggling and trafficking humans, employers and corporations who knowingly hire illegal workers and those who provide false identity documents to others, like the charges that are currently pending against two supervisors at Agriprocessors, where the investigation is ongoing. We also prosecute those who use false immigration or Social Security documents, identities that are often stolen from real people to circumvent immigration laws. In fact, these prosecutions often help investigators to work up the chain and obtain evidence from the witnesses who can testify directly against the document vendors, employers and corporations. Our efforts have been successful. During the first 8 months of this fiscal year, immigration prosecutions along the Southwest border increased by 19 percent. At the same time, apprehensions along the Southwest border decreased by 21 percent. This is a remarkable change in both directions in a short period of time. And apprehensions aren’t down in just isolated areas. They are down in each one of the Southwest border districts. We believe that this is further evidence that our success is due to a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy, which builds upon itself and incorporates each of the efforts described above. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE work closely together to ensure that worksite enforcement actions are conducted in a manner that carefully safeguards constitutional rights and treats each person fairly and with respect. This was also true in Iowa, where ex- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 40 traordinary precautions were taken. My written statement describes those efforts in detail, but I will mention a few key points here. Every defendant was appointed experienced and capable criminal defense counsel to advise them concerning their case. Defense counsel, assisted by a court-certified interpreter, typically had the opportunity to meet with the defendant both before the first court appearance and immediately afterwards. This is earlier than happens in the ordinary case since counsel is usually not appointed until the first court appearance. Consulate officers from the defendants’ countries were also present to advise their citizens. Defense counsel could, of course, continue to meet defendants after they were transferred to other facilities. Defendants who were charged with the same offense were assigned to the same counsel and housed together to the greatest extent possible in order to facilitate meetings with defense counsel. Defense counsel were free to meet with their clients as they saw best. Defendants represented by immigration counsel also had the benefit of their advice prior to any plea. The immigration counsel consulted with the criminal defense counsel, and defense counsel, in fact, raised immigration concerns in several cases based upon specific facts. Defense was provided with all of the necessary and appropriate discovery material at the earliest time. In most cases this was prior to the first court appearance. Again, this is earlier than the normal procedures. The discovery package included the charges, a copy of the evidence supporting the charges and other relevant materials. The package also included a proposed written plea agreement and the relevant court documents for entering that plea. The plea and court documents were translated into Spanish. All of the files were based upon the evidence, the law and the sound discretion of career prosecutors in the U.S Attorney’s Office. Because the defendants, most of them, had stolen real identities, they were charged with aggravated identity theft. The plea offer gave them the opportunity to plead only to the lesser charge. In exchange, they agreed to stipulate to the removal, which ordinarily follows a felony conviction, and exceptions were made in this—on case-by-case basis based upon individualized facts. They also agreed to cooperate with the government, which was a key part of the agreement. The defendants pled guilty before a Federal judge on the record in open court with the public present and with the advice and consent of counsel. They went through a long plea policy, the same one that is used in ordinary cases, where each defendant was questioned at length, as was defense counsel. They admitted that they understood everything about the charges, penalties, plea agreements and sentence, in addition to many other things detailed in my written statement. The court asked counsel if there was any reason the plea should not be accepted, and no one objected. Defense counsel and the court both had an obligation to object if the plea was unsound. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 41 No constitutional corners were cut. While the scope of the criminal activity in this case presented unusual challenges, the defendants’ constitutional rights were carefully protected and exercised throughout. Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Rhodes, your time has expired. If you could wrap up, that would be helpful. Ms. RHODES. There is no reason to conclude that either the Federal judges or the defense counsel, who had an independent role in these proceedings, abdicated their role, much less than both of them did. [The prepared statement of Ms. Rhodes follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 42 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 OF DEBORAH J. RHODES Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-2.eps 43 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-3.eps 44 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-4.eps 45 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-5.eps 46 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-6.eps 47 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-7.eps 48 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-8.eps 49 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-9.eps 50 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-10.eps 51 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-11.eps 52 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rhodes-12.eps 53 54 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Ms. Forman, we would welcome your 5 minutes of testimony. TESTIMONY OF MARCY FORMAN, DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Ms. FORMAN. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss ICE’s law enforcement operation, in particular our worksite enforcement operation. ICE is first and foremost a Federal law enforcement agency with the mandate of protecting national security and public safety by enforcing the Nation’s immigration and customs laws. Our agents and officers perform the mission lawfully, professionally and compassionately. We take extraordinary steps to identify, document and appropriately address humanitarian concerns of all those we encounter during law enforcement operations and, in particular, during our worksite enforcement operations. While I am here today to specifically address many of the steps that ICE agents take when planning a large enforcement operation, it is important to note that the enforcement operations are just a small part of the overall investigation. ICE worksite enforcement investigations target employers who adopt a business model of employing and exploiting undocumented workers. Our investigations identify employers who hire large numbers of undocumented aliens, often representing a substantial percentage of the employers’ workforce. Our responsibility is to enforce the immigration laws, and that means arresting undocumented aliens, the employers, the document vendors, and any other individuals revealed by our investigation who have engaged in criminal activity. ICE has worked with Members of Congress and their staffs to develop worksite enforcement guidelines. The office is used when developing their operational plan. These guidelines were developed to ensure that parents who have been arrested and who have unattended minors or family members with disabilities or health concerns are identified at the earliest point possible. Within the law enforcement community, the consideration ICE gives to identifying and resolving personal family issues is unparalleled and unique. For example, during a large worksite enforcement operation, ICE coordinates with the Division of Immigration Health Services—DIHS—to provide a sufficient number of healthcare providers to assess the medical and humanitarian needs of arrestees. DIHS personnel are given prompt access to all arrestees under safe and humane conditions on the day of the action. When appropriate, ICE coordinates with state and local socialservice agencies to assist with humanitarian screening. Operational security concerns sometimes dictate that this coordination cannot occur in advance of an operation. Even then, however, ICE will actively contact the local social-service agencies and local nongovernmental organizations to advise them of the operation once it was underway to request their assistance in identifying and sharing information on any humanitarian issues that come to their attention. ICE evaluates these issues against other standard considerations, VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 55 and detention decisions, such as the arrestee’s criminal record, immigration history and other relevant factors. During our May 12 operation at Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, ICE agents executed criminal and civil search warrants at the company, resulting in the seizure of boxes of evidence and the arrest of 389 undocumented alien workers. Extraordinary care was taken to determine if any of the arrestees were sole caregivers or raised other humanitarian concerns. This process involved the direct questioning of all arrestees on the day of the enforcement operation by ICE personnel, as well as interviews with DIHS representatives. Detainees were questioned no less than three times about humanitarian issues, such as child custody or serious medical concerns. ICE arranged to have DIHS professionals at the arrest site to immediately determine the need and status of any children affected by the operation. Through this comprehensive effort, 62 of those arrested were placed into removal proceedings and then released for humanitarian purposes while their removal proceedings continued. Most were released from the arrest site in the course of the operation. Worksite enforcement operations are not poorly planned, haphazard incidents. They are professional law enforcement operations conducted by a professional law enforcement agency, whose primary mission is the enforcement of the laws of the United States and the protection of the American people. While planning for the operation in Postville, I spent several months coordinating the investigation and operation with our Federal partners, such as the United States Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Marshal Service, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and others. ICE will continue to faithfully enforce the Nation’s immigration laws using all the tools and assets at our disposal. By utilizing all our authorities to pursue aggressive enforcement and the training offered with the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers—or IMAGE—program, ICE is establishing a culture of immigration compliance in America and reducing the magnet of illegal employment. On behalf of the men and women of ICE, who serve this Nation by enforcing the Nation’s immigration and customs laws, I would like to thank you for your continued support. These men and women have a difficult and oftentimes controversial job to do in often dangerous circumstances, but they strive always to do their essential work as consummate professionals. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Forman follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 56 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 OF MARCY M. FORMAN Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-2.eps 57 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-3.eps 58 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-4.eps 59 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-5.eps 60 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Forman-6.eps 61 62 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for that testimony. Now we will begin our questions. Would you like to proceed? Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, and I think perhaps where I would start with this would be—if I direct my first question to Ms. Rhodes—with regard to what the rights might be. Is a judge—when a judge is presented with a plea agreement, is a judge free to reject the plea agreement if he believes due process has not been followed? Ms. RHODES. Yes, they are. In fact, judges are required to do so if they find that the defendant is not competent, doesn’t understand the charges, the penalties, understand the terms of the plea agreement. The judge specifically asks the defendant if he is satisfied with the representation of counsel, if he understands his constitutional rights, if he wants to waive them, if he wants to plead guilty. The defendant is explicitly asked under oath whether or not the factual basis supporting the guilty plea is true and correct. The defendant is asked whether he is under any coercion or whether the plea is voluntarily. That is just part of the list. There is a lengthy colloquy, and the judges, in my experience—I am a career prosecutor. Judges, in my experience, take their roles very seriously, as do defense counsel. It is an adversary system. Defendants represent their clients zealously. And defendants are also asked questions all through the colloquy—defense counsel—excuse me—are also asked questions all through the colloquy to ensure that they also believe that the plea is appropriate. Mr. KING. And if I could follow up on that a little bit and ask how has that colloquy been compiled? Is it a history of case law that is given more and more questions to make sure that the alleged criminal has been—have received their justice, or is it some scholar that sat back and wrote up the colloquy? Ms. RHODES. The requirements are set forth in Rule 11 of the Criminal Rules of Procedure, which govern what must be covered in order to have a valid guilty plea. In addition, it is my experience that most judges have a form or a script on their desk, which they use as a checklist, and they go through all of the questions, they are very detailed, and in that way they make sure that they don’t miss a single one. Sometimes it is also the case that judges give that script to counsel so that both the government counsel and defendant—the defense counsel can follow along the script and ensure that each and every question is asked and that satisfactory answers are given—— Mr. KING. Well, then would highly intelligent and very skilled immigration lawyers, like the Chair of this Committee, be looking for those omissions? Ms. RHODES. I can’t speak for the Chair of this Committee, but I am sure that lawyers would be looking for omissions. Mr. KING. And are you aware that they have discovered omissions in that colloquy? Ms. RHODES. I am not aware of that. Mr. KING. And I don’t know that this Committee is going to hear any testimony that would allege such a thing. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 63 But there has been an allegation made in the—by the previous— I will say implications—in the previous series of witnesses about the Department of Labor not being informed of the ICE raids, and I would just ask if you are comfortable speaking to that issue? Ms. RHODES. I can speak to it initially, and then I would suggest that ICE is in a position to address that. But my understanding is that ICE did coordinate—and the U.S. Attorney’s Office always coordinates with the investigating agencies as well—but they did coordinate with the Department of Labor, both through OIG, who was present at the site, and through both state and Federal labor departments that were located in Iowa. And I will give—— Mr. KING. I will be happy to hear from Ms—— I am going to come back to you on that answer to that question, Ms. Forman, because I have just one more follow up—— Ms. RHODES. Okay. Mr. KING [continuing]. For Ms. Rhodes. And that is do you have numbers that can give us—this Committee—some sense of how many victims of identity theft were associated with the workers arrested at Agriprocessors? Ms. RHODES. Yes, I do. There were—of those who were criminally prosecuted to this point, there is approximately 306. The vast majority of those—hundreds—had the identities of real people. So there were hundreds and hundreds of real victims in this case. The investigation actually showed about twice as many as that, but not all of those people were apprehended. But approximately— well, more than 70 percent of the workers who were both illegal and had Social Security numbers that didn’t match. There were hundreds that real people, and there were hundreds of victims. Mr. KING. And, quickly, why are not company officials—senior company officials—charged immediately? Ms. RHODES. The investigation is ongoing. I can assure you it is being pursued. Two supervisors were indicted last week and will continue. Mr. KING. Thank you. And I realize, Madam Chair I am out of time. I wonder if I might—— Ms. LOFGREN. We may have a second—we may have a second round. Mr. KING. Just for the opportunity to allow to Ms. Forman to respond to the question? Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, all right. Mr. KING. The lingering question? Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Mr. KING. I thank you. And if I need to restate that, was the Department of Labor informed? Ms. FORMAN. Yes, they were in April of 2008. Mr. KING. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman’s time has expired. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 64 I would note that the Committee asked the U.S. attorney in Iowa Mr. Dummermuth to attend this hearing, and the Department of Justice sent you instead, and it is nice to see you here. But were you at—did you participate in these trials? Ms. RHODES. No, I didn’t. Ms. LOFGREN. You weren’t there? Ms. RHODES. No. But I have spent hours on the phone with—— Ms. LOFGREN. No. I just have a simple question. You weren’t there—— Ms. RHODES. No, I wasn’t. Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And I don’t blame you, but I think it is disappointing that the department wouldn’t send the U.S. attorney who was there, who we asked to attend, and I will just note that for the record. I would like—and it may be that you don’t know this information. If so, I would like you to get it. But I would like to know what information was provided by the Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security—any or all of them—to the Federal court in Iowa. This was planned for a long time. When was the connection made with the court, and what measures were taken to ensure that the court’s view of the cases would not be affected and that judicial neutrality would not be compromised? Ms. RHODES. My understanding—primarily for logistical reasons. That is not unusual. If there is going to be an enforcement operation that is going to bring a large number of cases to the court, it is not uncommon to give the court a head’s up on that. Ms. LOFGREN. So Judge Reade would have been contacted in advance? I am not making a value judgment, I am just trying to find out what happened. Ms. RHODES. That is correct. Ms. LOFGREN. Now, we were—there have been accounts—and I don’t know if they are accurate—that the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Iowa—Judge Reade—personally called defense lawyers asking them for favors and warning them not to tell anyone and then inviting them to attend a meeting in Cedar Rapids with other defense lawyers to take on the representation. Did anyone at DOJ ask Judge Reade to do this? Do you know if that report is accurate? Ms. RHODES. I know that defense counsel were contacted somewhat in advance, at least some of them were. Ms. LOFGREN. By Judge Reade? Ms. RHODES. That is my understanding. I don’t have all the details. Ms. LOFGREN. Given the number of individuals apprehended in this raid, I am curious of who picked the ratio of the number of defendants to lawyer? You know, ordinarily, one has—you know, you are charged with a crime, you have your lawyer to represent you. But these were bunches of defendants with a single lawyer. What guided you on the ratio? Do you know what the—— Ms. RHODES. I don’t know who selected that ratio—— Ms. LOFGREN. Was it the judge, do you think? Ms. RHODES. I don’t know. I do know that she contacted the lawyers to keep the date available. I don’t—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 65 Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry. Ms. RHODES. It is not uncommon in immigration cases—— Ms. LOFGREN. Well, these were prosecution of crime, though. These were not immigration cases. Ms. RHODES. Excuse me. It is not uncommon in immigration— criminal immigration cases to have a defense lawyer represent most—— Ms. LOFGREN. But this was not a prosecution for a criminal immigration matter. It was an identity theft prosecution. Ms. RHODES. The pleas that were actually conducted were not on identity theft. They were on other documents so it was a violation—— Ms. LOFGREN. Right. That was the plea, but the—— Ms. RHODES. That is correct. My point is simply this, not to quibble over the charges but to simply say in these kinds of cases it is not uncommon to have defense lawyers represent multiple clients. Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, in terms of the—during the raid, it has been reported—I don’t know if it is true—that the ICE officers arrested and interviewed each of the arrested workers before they had access to criminal defense counsel. Were they Mirandized, and, also, was any of the information obtained in those interviews used in the prosecution—the later criminal prosecution? Ms. RHODES. They were Mirandized. Ms. LOFGREN. By the ICE interviewers? Ms. RHODES. Yes. Ms. LOFGREN. Did the decision to threaten the workers with aggravated identity theft charges that would require prison time of mandatory minimum of 2 years come from main Department of Justice, or was the final decision made in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and is this a new policy at DOJ? Ms. RHODES. You know, all of the charging decisions were made by the career prosecutors in the local office. Ms. LOFGREN. So DOJ didn’t have anything to do with it? The main office? Ms. RHODES. DOJ was consulted because of the size of the operation and to ensure that all constitutional protections would be afforded. It was also consulted because it was a fast-track operation and—— Ms. LOFGREN. Well, let me be more precise on my question. The decision to charge them with a criminal offense, as opposed to what has often been the case to administratively process and deport these individuals, was that a DOJ—— Ms. RHODES. That was—— Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Main—— Ms. RHODES [continuing]. Made by the career prosecutors in Iowa, and it was made primarily for two reasons: in order to obtain cooperation and also because there was a case that they were—— Ms. LOFGREN. Cooperation in what? Ms. RHODES. Because a part of every one of the plea agreements was that they would continue to cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation. Ms. LOFGREN. But aren’t they going to be deported? They are not going to be here to cooperate with you. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 66 Ms. RHODES. They are here for the next 5 months, and there is a case where—a case in the district of Nebraska, which is the same circuit, which dismissed a case against a corporation precisely because the workers were no longer available—— Ms. LOFGREN. So it may be the government’s intention that I am to keep these individuals here past their sentence as material witnesses to the ongoing—is that what you are telling me? Ms. RHODES. I can’t speak to that, but I can say that the investigation is ongoing and that cooperation was a key component to the criminal plea agreements. Ms. LOFGREN. But let me ask a final question because my time is expiring. But were any of the defendants notified of their right to contact their consular officers, as required under the Vienna Treaty? Ms. RHODES. Members of the consulate from all of the countries were present on location. Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. So they were all there. I am going to turn now to Mr. Gutierrez for his 5 minutes, and as I mentioned earlier, we may have a second round of questions since there aren’t that many Members here and we have lots of issues and material that we would like to learn about. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. I would like to ask Ms. Rhodes, is this—I am going to read something, and tell me whether it is true or not. ‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly using a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the heavier charge of aggravated identity theft, and you will receive a term of 5 months in jail, be deported without a hearing, and placed on supervised release for 3 years. If you plead not guilty, you could wait 6 to 8 months for a trial without right to bail since you are an immigration detainer. If you win at trial, you will still be deported and could wind up waiting longer in jail than if you plead guilty. You would also risk losing at trial and receiving a 2-year minimum sentence before being deported.’’ Is this is a copy of the interpretation of what was asked to be interpreted to the 300-and-some-odd detainees. Is that an accurate interpretation? Ms. RHODES. Well, I understand that that was the interpreter’s rendition of what the choices were. What I would say is—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Could you give—I am the detainee. Ms. RHODES. Right. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Tell me. Give me the plea agreement. Ms. RHODES. That they could—that they were charged with two offenses originally. They were charged with the underlying document offense because they had a false document. They were also charged with aggravated identity theft because the documents belonged to real people, and each one of the people who pled guilty admitted to that. And so, yes, those were the two choices that they faced. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And if I go to—so but I was offered a lesser of two charges? Ms. RHODES. Right. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And if I didn’t accept the lesser of two charges, then I would be—wait in jail 6 to 8 months, possibly for VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 67 a trial, and then the minimum, if I am convicted, is 2 years under the aggravated identity theft? Ms. RHODES. They can go to trial, and they can fight the offense and take whatever verdict the jury gave them. Mr. GUTIERREZ. But you did tell them they would be deported nonetheless whether they win or lose? Ms. RHODES. Well, that wasn’t—as I understand that, that wasn’t a conversation the government—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, you know what, then, you see, there is a big flaw here because if the interpreter—who hired the interpreter? Ms. RHODES. The interpreter was arranged by the court. There were—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. By the court. So this is an officer of the court. Ms. RHODES. That is correct. But they are interpreting what the defense counsel is saying to the client. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So then we have—okay. So we still have a problem. We still have a problem with this proceeding because, if I am the detainee and the interpreter is there—and the interpreter is pretty knowledgeable because these interpreters, this isn’t their first trial. Many of these interpreters have gone through hundreds of trials; isn’t that true? Ms. RHODES. And so have the defense counsel. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And so have the defense attorneys. Good. So we have defense attorneys who know what they are doing—according to you, your testimony—and interpreters who know what they are doing. So if the interpreter is telling us that this is what he was asked to interpret, we have a problem here because that is not your—that is not what you are offering; right? You are contesting that this interpretation—right—is what was the offer to the detainee. Ms. RHODES. No. I think it was consistent. They would have—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. It was consistent. So basically what you have done—now, did you make the decision to charge them—the Department of Justice—or did Homeland Security make the decision to charge them with aggravated identity theft? Ms. RHODES. The charging decisions were made by the career prosecutors in the office in Iowa. Mr. GUTIERREZ. From the Department of Justice? Ms. RHODES. Yes. Mr. GUTIERREZ. They are the ones that made the decision. Was there any information given from Homeland Security that well over 100 of the Social Security numbers really didn’t match to anyone. Ms. RHODES. No. For everybody who pled guilty, Social Security confirmed that the Social Security number did in fact belong to a real person. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Did in fact belong to a real person. Ms. RHODES. That is correct. Mr. GUTIERREZ. So were there any in the underlying indictment or charges that you made to the 400—were there any Social Security numbers that didn’t belong to anybody? That really weren’t useful Social Security numbers? Ms. RHODES. There were some that—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 68 Mr. GUTIERREZ. There were some? Ms. RHODES. Yes. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So what you did is you carefully went back—now, when—you said there were two charges; right? Could you explain the two charges? There was aggravated identity theft, and what was the other one? Ms. RHODES. Whatever they were charged with as an underlying crime. For some it was submitting a false document to obtain employment. For some it was having a false immigration document. There were a few underlying charges that were used. And let me correct if I misspoke. It wasn’t 100 percent of the 306 people that had a real person’s identity. It was the vast majority. There were a few that—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Okay. So it wasn’t 100—so then these people basically lied to the court when they admitted to knowingly— right?—having a false identity since I cannot knowingly have a false identity to an identity that I created myself. Ms. RHODES. Well, no. Then they would have—they would not have pled to that. Mr. GUTIERREZ. But you said that some of them didn’t have a—— Ms. RHODES. Right. But—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Social security number. I mean, I would ask the court reporter to repeat what you said, but you just stated that some of them did not have a Social Security number which indeed was being used by someone. Ms. RHODES. Right. It was a Social Security number not being used by somebody, but the charges would have been—they would not—those people would not have been asked to admit something false. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, you know, we have—my 5 minutes are up, but what I gathered was—from your testimony—that there were some people. First, you corrected yourself twice. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will have one more round of questions so that we can get any additional pieces of information that we wish to get. And I will turn now to Mr. King. Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. To start this off, I was actually waiting for Mr. Gutierrez to come back so he could hear from me directly and understand my position. My position was represented to this panel inaccurately. It has been consistently for enforcement of immigration laws, against those who cross the border illegally, against those who willfully overstay their visas, against those who hire people who are unlawful, where it is proven unlawful to work in the United States, and I don’t believe that the gentleman from Illinois can come up with a logical enforcement bill, and I am not a co-sponsor of. It isn’t fining employers that I am after. I am after bringing the departments of the Federal Government together and working in cooperation so that we can effectively assist ICE and the other agencies in enforcing immigration law. That is my stand, and that is my position, and it is unusual—and I apologize to the people that are here to testify today who do not always see the activities VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 69 of this Committee. It is unusual to see a Member of Congress misrepresent a position of another Member of Congress, especially on the same panel, especially when we are working together on a dayby-day basis and there should be no misunderstanding. In fact, I don’t believe there was one. So I turn to Ms. Rhodes, and I would ask you the question that why is the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa not here to testify today? Ms. RHODES. It was decided that I would be here to testify and that I was involved in reviewing the fast-track program itself. I have reviewed all of the underlying documents relating to these charges and I do have an understanding of not only this case but some others. Mr. KING. I am fully convinced of that. But isn’t it also true that he is conducting further investigations and it is policy not to—for a U.S. attorney not to come testify before Congress if there is an ongoing investigation that he is heading up and that—I don’t know of exceptions, and do you know of any exceptions? Ms. RHODES. That is right. Mr. KING. No exceptions. Then I think that clarifies why Mr. Dummermuth isn’t here today. Then I would turn to Ms. Forman. And can you first—can you tell us why Agriprocessors was targeted for worksite enforcement? What were the original indicators? Ms. FORMAN. ICE received information from very reliable sources that Agriprocessors was—had hired a number of illegal aliens and had built their workforce, they were an egregious violator in terms of hiring large numbers of illegal aliens. Mr. KING. And, you know, you are going—you probably have reviewed the testimony of one of the interpreters, Mr. CamaydFreixas. And I first ask you, have you reviewed his written testimony? Ms. FORMAN. Yes, I have. Mr. KING. And so, as an opportunity to answer the charges that we are—this Committee is going to hear, how would you compare your holding area? He compared it to a concentration camp. How would you describe it? Ms. FORMAN. Well, first, personally and professionally, I find that quite offensive. Being of Jewish faith, I equate concentration camps to the murder of over 6 million Jews and other individuals. ICE is a professional law enforcement agency. Our detention centers have to meet certain standards, and the one that was put together in—in Iowa was one that I would—that was first rate. It had pods, it was full of beds, there were foods, there were meals, there was television, there was recreation centers. Most concentration camps that I have become aware of don’t possess those items. Mr. KING. Would it be possible to—to bring enforcement against employers without identifying illegal employees whom they had hired? Is it possible to bring a prosecution—a successful prosecution and conviction? I will go first to Ms. Forman—if I have time, back to Ms. Rhodes—but would it be possible to do so without— without first identifying illegal workers and prosecuting them so you have got those facts to work with? VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 70 Ms. FORMAN. Certainly, illegal aliens are a key component of any illegal worksite operation. However, I mean, there are different methodologies to work these types of cases, and oftentimes you can’t start from the top down. You have to work your way up in investigations—— Mr. KING. If I could quickly then—excuse me—go to Ms. Rhodes. Do you know of any circumstances by which we could successfully get convictions on employers if we didn’t have the—if we didn’t have the evidence of the illegal employees. Ms. RHODES. Certainly we have to have evidence that illegals were hired. Mr. KING. Thank you. I think that makes my point, and I thank the witnesses. And I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. I am curious, do you know whether any of the people who were— who pled guilty have been deported yet, or are they all—they are currently in the United States? Ms. RHODES. I think ICE could probably speak more accurately to that. Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know? Ms. FORMAN. There are over 200 individuals who currently are in still Federal custody. There have been approximately 30 that have been deported thus far. Ten are still in detention. Ms. LOFGREN. So 30 of them have been deported already? Ms. FORMAN. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Ms. LOFGREN. So I guess that makes me question how we are going to proceed on the prosecution of the potential labor violations without the witnesses. It is pretty clear that ICE is—you know, and that is provided for in law. I don’t quarrel with that. But once a person has finished serving their criminal sentence, they are deportable and we are deporting our witnesses. So I think the concerns about destroying this case in terms of the employer’s misconduct are well founded. I am interested, Ms Rhodes, on the approach in this case. A common practice—well, let me just ask this. Well, oftentimes defendants—or in this case criminals—will be offered a sentence reduction for producing substantial assistance in the prosecution of others. Is that envisioned in these cases? Ms. RHODES. Yes. In fact, that was the whole reason for having that term in the plea agreement, so that the government could then find out who would be the best witnesses. And there are a number of ways of preserving their testimony in any criminal proceedings should one be necessary. Ms. LOFGREN. But the plea agreement itself—item 6, last sentence—says, ‘‘Due to the government’s agreement to a substantially reduced sentence, defendants shall have no expectation of any additional sentence reductions or substantial assistance.’’ So wouldn’t—really, you have lost your leverage once you have got the person, they have pled guilty—this is really backwards from the way these things are usually done, isn’t it? Ms. RHODES. It is not the way it is usually done, but that is the way it was done here, and there will be no additional benefit. The benefit was given upfront. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 71 Ms. LOFGREN. So the opportunity used—5(k) in the sentencing guidelines—is really out the window? Ms. RHODES. Well, it wasn’t 5(k), it was charge bargaining in this case. Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Ms. RHODES. Charges reduced. Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask, in terms of access to immigration lawyers, was there an effort made, when the defense counsel were secured, to find people who knew anything about immigration law so they could understand the interplay between the two bodies of law, the criminal law defense and the immigration law? Ms. RHODES. Well, in fact, several immigration lawyers showed up at the site and were given access, actually, before criminal charges were brought in many cases. They were given access even during the booking process. Ms. LOFGREN. So there were several immigration lawyers and how many individuals? Ms. RHODES. Well, there were 300, but there were joint meetings held between the immigration lawyers and the defense counsel, and as a result of those meetings and information that was exchanged, some of the defense lawyers did bring immigration issues to the attention of the prosecutors. Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask in terms of, again, the immigration benefits. I understand most of these individuals, at least from the press reports, were from Guatemala, which has a very checkered human rights record. Was there screening by the department to identify whether any of these individuals had been victims of torture or might have a claim to asylum based on the situation in Guatemala? Ms. RHODES. I think—I can answer—— Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know the answer, Ms. Forman? Ms. FORMAN. I am not aware of that coming up, no. Ms. RHODES. No one did claim asylum. I do know that. Ms. LOFGREN. Well, they ordinarily—you know, not well educated, Guatemalan meat cutters might not really be aware of the law of political asylum. Ms. RHODES. Right. But they had lawyers who were consulting with immigration lawyers. Ms. LOFGREN. Well, that is—we received reports that immigration lawyers who came forward were actually turned away. But I will explore that with the immigration lawyers that are on the next panel. Let me ask you this: How did you know in advance who to give a charge reduction to in exchange for their cooperation? Ms. RHODES. It was given to everybody upfront so that we would have the opportunity to later find out who would be the best witnesses. Ms. LOFGREN. That is kind of a pig in a poke, isn’t it? Ms. RHODES. Well, it was a risk we took. Ms. LOFGREN. You know, I want to get on to the next panel so I am not going to go any further, but I think certainly there are a number of issues that are posed here for me. I would just also note that the—in terms of the prosecution of low-level misdemeanor immigration violations—you mentioned the VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 72 Southwest border—we had testimony in the Administrative Law Subcommittee just a few weeks ago that, although there has been substantial increases, that came at a cost of a 40 percent reduction in organized-crime prosecutions in the same area. So, you know, we are prosecuting the busboys and the nannies, but the drug cartels are no longer having to worry. My time has expired. Let me turn to Mr. Gutierrez to see if he has additional questions. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Sure. Thank you very much. Yes, you said in order to obtain the cooperation of the detainees you did what, Ms. Rhodes? Ms. RHODES. They were offered—part of the plea agreement was that every detainee was offered a cooperation term, which means that they would cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask you, so you say that the lawyers there made the decision at that moment to pursue the indictment for aggravated identity theft, that these were lawyers in Iowa. Ms. RHODES. That is correct. Mr. GUTIERREZ. They made the decision. Is that usually the way it works? I thought there was like a chain of command? Ms. RHODES. No. Individual decisions on charging are left to the district. In this particular case, what was approved by the department was the fast-track program itself, which meant that they presented to us that they were planning on doing a large-scale operation and that they wanted to do it under the fast-track. The point—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Who wanted to do it under the fast-track, the lawyers from ICE, or the lawyers from DOJ? Ms. RHODES. It is the career DOJ lawyers—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. The career DOJ lawyers. Ms. RHODES [continuing]. Who present this. The benefit is it allows—it benefits the community because it allows for a large law enforcement operation to take out a large number of criminal defendants all at once. It does it in a way that doesn’t flood the courts. It does it more efficiently, and the defendants receive the benefit of that by getting a drastically reduced sentence. Mr. GUTIERREZ. They get a reduction to—— Ms. RHODES. Those programs exist permanently in many districts, and they also can be done on a case-by-case basis—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me ask you something. If this is the first time this was ever done, Postville’s precedent setting? Ms. RHODES. Pardon me? Mr. GUTIERREZ. This had never been done before, this fast-tracking? Ms. RHODES. No. Fast-tracks in worksite enforcements have been done before. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And at this scale? Ms. RHODES. I am not aware of anything at this precise scale, nor am I aware—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Would you—I don’t expect that you have the information. Could you give to the Committee when this was first done? Because it is new to me, and it is new to many Members of VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 73 this Committee and I know some of the Members of Congress, which are the ones, in the end, that establish the immigration policies for this Nation. I mean, there should be some coordination between what we do here and the laws we enact and what you carry out at the executive branch of the government, especially the judicial branch of government. So could you please afford the Committee at some point in the very near future when you first began this fast-tracking, what the first case was, so that we could have some history of when this began? Because it is kind of new to me in terms of what gets done. Because, when you charged the people, you charged them with not knowingly using a false Social Security number, but you really charge them with aggravated identity theft—right?—and then you let them cop a plea for the lesser of the two charges? Ms. RHODES. Right. I believe the charges were with both, and then the greater charge was dismissed. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And then the greater charge was dismissed. So let me ask you, if I am a detainee, do I have a right to bail? Any one of the 300 detainees, was there a right to bail? Could I have a reasonable right to bail in getting out of jail while my—— Ms. RHODES. On—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. If I say no? Ms. RHODES. Well, there is a—you might have a criminal right to bail, but the fact of the matter is you are going to be detained by ICE for being here illegally. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Very good. So there is no right to bail. I mean, they are basically in jail regardless. I can’t get out of jail. So if I have children I have to attend to and a spouse I have to attend to—things that I am sure your prosecutors were knowledgeable of—that these people had—I mean, the attorneys must have communicated the guy has a—if he didn’t, then the attorney did a terrible job. The guy has a wife, the woman has children, spouse, people who rely on them. I mean, these are immigrants that are coming to the United States. Ms. RHODES. Yes. That was the basis of the humanitarian relief used. Mr. GUTIERREZ. That was the basis for the humanitarian. But yet you did have someone who might have had relief who didn’t take relief because his wife is an American citizen and he has American citizen children, and yet he took the plea agreement also. So—— Ms. RHODES. Some of those were also allowed relief on some of the terms. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, some of them but not all of them. Not all of them. Ms. RHODES. It was made on a case-by-case—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because the way you paint the picture is, ‘‘Oh, we did this for the good of the detainees. We offered them an opportunity to kind of walk away.’’ When indeed, most of the time that is not what happened. Most of the time what happens is they are detained and they are deported. Those are the statistics that we get from ICE. They detain people; they deport them. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 74 This was a very different situation and the manner in which it was conducted at Postville because the statistics don’t lie. You basically said to them—and I know you want to tell us that you were offering them a deal of a lifetime, but it really wasn’t much of a deal. You charged them with a felony that had a 2-year minimum. You thereby tied the hands of the judge. He had to sentence them to 2 years if they were found guilty. They had to stay in jail. They were afforded an opportunity to stay in jail for 6 to 8 months, wait for a trial, when indeed you said to them, ‘‘Well, we will give you 5 months.’’ Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because from my point of view—and I will wrap it up—it is just—if you are going to charge somebody with something, charge them knowingly and with the intent. You did not have one complaint of identity theft against any of the people at this Agriprocessors plant, not one complaint of identity theft. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to again thank you and the Ranking Member for, I think, what is a very important hearing. Let me thank Ms. Rhodes and Ms. Forman for their service as well, and allow me to again reemphasize the respect I have for law enforcement and ICE agents, in particular the station in Houston, that has made as best an effort as they could to be as communicative and as sensitive to our concerns—our humanitarian concerns and also the concerns our office has expressed what we think are ineffective approaches to our situation. To that end, I would like to ask Ms. Forman to bring this back in writing—my colleague mentioned it for Postville, but I want a report on the Shipley Do-Nuts arrests and U.S. Rags—or Rags USA as relates to the number of people arrested, the number of people released, the number of people in detention as we speak, the status of the investigation and the status of the prosecution and the cost. And I also want to know the—any efforts to increase the staffing in the Houston office for ICE agents. Ms. Rhodes, let me—and I know you might not have that at your fingertips so if I can have that in writing. If you have it, you might want to comment. But let me—Ms. Rhodes, are you aware of the pending legislation—have you had a chance to at least have summaries of the kinds of legislative initiatives, like comprehensive immigration reform or some aspects of the legislation that has to do with felonies? Ms. RHODES. I am sorry. I am not familiar with the details of the legislation that is pending. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have a sense that the thrust of the legislation is that people who are convicted of felon are deported, in essence, permanently? Are you familiar with that approach that someone who is a convicted felon would not be able to access what has been called access to citizenship? Ms. RHODES. I know that typically those convicted of felonies are deported. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 75 Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. So what we have here in Postville, for example, what is typically a civil or a pathway for someone to be deported and possibly stay out of the country for 10 years, the psychic may have been by those lawyers on the ground that, if these individuals are convicted of felony charges, then whatever approach we may take in moving forward on immigration reform, they would be forever barred from coming back to the United Sates? Ms. RHODES. I don’t know whether or not they would be forever barred. Ms. JACKSON LEE. But they certainly would have a far more difficult time. I think they would be forever barred. I don’t think there is a pathway for felons to come back in the United States. Ms. RHODES. They are permanently barred. Ms. JACKSON LEE. They are permanently barred. So do you have any indication that that was the approach that these lawyers were taking? Ms. RHODES. No, I don’t. I know that felonies are graded. Some you can apply for readmission after 10 years, some after 15 years, some are—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. But if you have a young child and a spouse here, certainly it would be a far more difficult hurdle to overcome; is that not correct? Ms. RHODES. That is correct. Ms. JACKSON LEE. And to your knowledge—I know that they were charged with identity theft—and I abhor identity theft—but to your knowledge, short of that creative thinking at that time— to your knowledge—or at least these individuals were at first approached by the law because they were undocumented? Ms. RHODES. No, that is not correct. It is because of the widespread identity theft. What had happened was Agriprocessors is the largest employer in this town. Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you looked—— Ms. RHODES. They had over 70 percent that were illegal, and as the investigation progressed, it became clear that they were also over 70 percent having Social Security numbers belonging to somebody else. Ms. JACKSON LEE. And was that contributed to by the employers? Were they part—was the allegation that they were part of the conspiracy? Ms. RHODES. I would say this: It was a large percentage of the—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So, therefore, the culprits were involved were also the employers as well, and these individuals received, in essence, a benefit, but they were there to work. Is that my understanding? Ms. RHODES. They were there to work, and two of the supervisors who helped them get the false documents have been indicted. Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Let me move quickly to Ms. Forman. The scene for Houston was this: 200 people surrounding U.S. Air Rags—I will get the name—Air Rags USA, guns drawn, doors kicked in, a little 4-foot, 5-foot female bammed against the wall who happens to be a citizen, the woman falling from 20 feet, the VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 76 original then an arrest that went forward—and I am going to finish in just a moment Ms. Chairwoman if you would indulge me—then the arrest was in the morning at their residence, surrounded by ICE officers. They arrested, and it was a commitment that they would be released on bond by 12 noon of that day. They didn’t accede to that. They were then taken from the detention center with cameras blasting, neck chains, leg chains and all kinds of chains—— Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Could she just answer and say was that purposeful? Does that help you to intimidate by performing in that manner? Ms. FORMAN. In all due respect, I have spoken to the special agent in charge, and that did not occur. Ms. JACKSON LEE. With all due respect, it did occur, and I would like a full report from that special agent in charge as to what occurred because it did occur. Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the Committee will ask for a written report on the subject. Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. Ms. LOFGREN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. I would just like to note that the Committee hearing will remain open for 5 days. We may have additional questions, which we will submit to you in writing. We would ask that you promptly respond if that occurs. And I would say, to the extent that the questions are specifically about what happened in Waterloo, we would ask that you have Mr. Dummermuth submit the information he has personal knowledge of because we want direct information. And as part of the question to be answered in writing, the warrant request mentions methamphetamine at the plant, which is inconsistent with the testimony you have just given, and I would just like an explanation. I mean, I realize you probably didn’t prepare this affidavit, and if you could explain that in writing, that would be very helpful. And we thank you both for your testimony. We will now call the third and final panel to the table. As the panel is coming forward, I will begin by introducing them. I am pleased to welcome Erik Camayd-Freixas. Dr. Camayd holds master’s and doctoral degrees in language and literature from Harvard University and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Tufts University. He is professor of legal interpreting and director of translation studies at Florida International University and the former director of training for the State of Florida Interpreter Services program. Dr. Camayd is the author of numerous books and articles and has lectured widely around the world on linguistic and cultural studies. Dr. Camayd has been a federally certified interpreter since 1985, and he frequently serves in Federal and state courts as an expert witness in semantic and linguistic analysis. The next witness is David Leopold. Mr. Leopold is the principal in the David Wolfe Leopold & Associates in Cleveland, Ohio. He has practiced immigration and criminal law for nearly 20 years. For nearly 10 years, Mr. Leopold has also served as a criminal justice—CJA—plan defense attorney for the U.S. District Court for VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 77 the Northern District of Ohio, representing criminal defendants in Federal criminal matters upon court appointment. In addition to his practice, he directs the immigration law curriculum and teaches immigration law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and serves as an adjunct professor of immigration law at the Cleveland-Marshall School of Law at Cleveland State University. Mr. Leopold is also a frequent speaker on immigration consequences of criminal convictions at Federal, State and local bar continuing legal education seminars. He is testifying today on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He currently serves as AILA’s first vice president. I am also pleased to welcome Professor Robert Rigg. Mr. Rigg is an associate professor of law at Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa. He is the president and founding member of the Iowa Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and currently sits on the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bar. He previously sat on the Iowa Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Rules of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure. He has been published in the Boston University Public Interest Journal, the American Journal of Criminal Law, the T. M. Cooley J. Practice in Criminal Law and West Law’s Iowa Practice of Criminal Law. He has been quoted on NPR by the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Newsday, USA Today, and, finally and not unimportantly, the Des Moines Register. Our final witness is Ms. Lora Costner. Mrs. Costner is a resident of Newport, Tennessee. She is married and the mother of two children, Molly and Mason. She and her husband were victims of identity theft, and her congressman was here this morning to stick up for her, and we appreciate your willingness to be here as well. So if we may begin with Dr. Camayd. We have five—your full written testimony—and that of all of you—will be made part of the official record and—but we do ask that your testimony consume about 5 minutes. And we will begin with you, Doctor. TESTIMONY OF ERIK CAMAYD-FREIXAS, PROFESSOR OF MODERN LANGUAGES, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren. Ms. LOFGREN. We need the microphone on, though. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, honorable Members of the Subcommittee. I was 1 of 16 interpreters who served both weeks of the Postville hearing. Unlike judges, prosecutors or attorney, I was present at every step of the process. It is my duty as an impartial expert witness, an officer of the court, to ensure that the court is not misled and to bring to its attention any impediments to due process. I have done so in the best interest of the Federal court I am proud to serve and with the conviction that, if our honorable judges had known how this judicial experiment would turn out, they would have never allowed it. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 78 In my statement submitted for congressional record, I document the flaws. Detainees’ quarters were not certified. The court failed to maintain physical and operational independence from ICE prosecution and a level playing field for the defense. There was inadequate access to counsel, no meaningful presumption of innocence. Defendants appear not to understand their rights and charges. Bail hearings and other due process rights were denied. The charge of identity theft used to force a plea lacked foundation and was never tested for probable cause. Defendant did not know what a Social Security number was and were not guilty of intent crime. Guilty pleas were obtained under duress. Judges had no sentencing discretion pursuant to a binding plea agreement. Sole providers whose families are in jeopardy now endure a cruel and unusual psychological punishment, the foreseeable effect of a prison time on common—— Abridgement of process produced wholesaling justice at the other end. Parents begging to be deported put in jail at public expense. Proud working mothers branded like cattle with the scarlet letter of an ankle monitor dehumanized and reduced to begging at the doors of the church as they were released on humanitarian grounds. The town of Postville devastated. The kinship ties are noble people are quick to forge with all newcomers painfully severed. Families and friends separated. I saw the Bill of Rights denied and democratic values threatened by the breakdown of checks and balances, and it all appeared to be within the framework of the law pursuant to a broken immigration system. Postville lays bare a grave distortion in the legal structure of government. Post 9-11, ICE was granted power to wage the war on terror, but since 2006, it has diverted resources even from disaster relief to an escalating and unauthorized war on immigration. Yet the men and women of ICE are not to be faulted for doing their duty. It is unrealistic in our adversarial system to ask prosecutors to exercise restraint and not use all legal mean to win convictions. The fact is our laws have not kept up with this growth in enforcement. Congress failed to pass immigration reform, and ICE has filled the legal void with its own version of it. Now we have a serious contradiction, the growth of authoritarian rule inside a democratic government. This entity can simultaneously wield immigration and criminal codes plus issue administrative rules, leaving no room for constitutional guarantees. It co-ops other branches of government—Social Security, U.S. Attorney, Federal court—and uses appropriations to recruit local police for immigration enforcement, setting neighbor against neighbor and dangerously dividing the Nation. With the help of local sheriffs, Postville repeats itself daily while the harshness of border enforcement is reenacted in the American Heartland with great collateral damage to our citizens and community. It is a rush to raid as much as possible before Congress regains the vision and courage to restore the law of the land. Part of immigration reform is redefining jurisdiction over—ICE jurisdiction over immigration and criminal matters without impair- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 79 ing the agency’s ability to defend us from terrorist threats. Since 2006, families have been separated on a scale unseen in the Americas since the Spanish Conquest, when it led to the extinction of Ameri-Indian nations. In Postville, we have the added moral burden posed by the presence of ethnic Mayan, testimonial people who constitute and endanger patrimony of humanity. I bring to this forum three requests from the people of Postville. First, our government has left a humanitarian crisis for Sister Mary McCauley and her good neighbors to cure. I call on all to contribute to St. Bridget’s Church and on the Federal Government to respond with aid that guarantees survival for their schools, businesses and institutions. It is time for America to adopt Postville. Second, with regard to the imprisoned aliens, government says they have 300 criminals. The people say, ‘‘Show us one victim of their crime or send them home.’’ Third, our national unity requires that Congress pass not only comprehensive but compassionate immigration reform as would befit the dignity of this great country built upon the shoulders of immigrants by their children. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Camayd-Freixas follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 80 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 OF ERIK CAMAYD-FREIXAS Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-2.eps 81 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-3.eps 82 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-4.eps 83 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-5.eps 84 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-6.eps 85 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-7.eps 86 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-8.eps 87 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-9.eps 88 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-10.eps 89 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-11.eps 90 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-12.eps 91 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-13.eps 92 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-14.eps 93 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-15.eps 94 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-16.eps 95 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-17.eps 96 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-18.eps 97 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-19.eps 98 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Camayd-20.eps 99 100 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Mr. Leopold, we would be pleased to hear from you. TESTIMONY OF DAVID LEOPOLD, DAVID WOLFE LEOPOLD AND ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Mr. LEOPOLD. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King—— Ms. LOFGREN. I think the microphone went off again. There you go. Mr. LEOPOLD. My name is David Leopold, and I am the national vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I am honored to testify this afternoon before you about the conviction and prosecution of nearly 400 undocumented workers in Postville, Iowa. A prosecutor’s duty is to do justice, not merely to convict. This cardinal principle was ignored by the government in its deal to criminalized undocumented workers in Postville, Iowa. The workers were denied access to counsel familiar with both immigration and criminal law. The defense counsel were put in at the untenable position of advising on plea deals without ability to assess the immigration consequences of the plea and the possibility that the clients might have full relief from deportation. The workers impacted by the raid were essentially coerced into giving up their rights under the immigration law, such as the right to a hearing before an immigration judge and a chance to apply for relief from deportation. The fast-tracking system concocted by the government amounted to a conviction and deportation assembly line, which exulted efficiency over fundamental rights. These poor, uneducated Guatemalan farmers were treated like the livestock prepared for slaughter at Agriprocessors. Shackled in groups of 10, they were efficiently packaged, convicted and ordered deported and sentenced to jail time. This scheme was predicated on overcharging the workers and threatening them with 2-year mandatory minimum sentences. Faced with the choice of 5 months in prison and deportation or 6 months in prison waiting for a trial which could lead to a mandatory minimum 2 years in prison and then deportation, these workers faced an impossible choice. In most cases, the defendants faced this choice without the advice of immigration counsel. This was a travesty of justice. Effective assistance of counsel to an immigrant in a criminal matter, including advice about whether or not to accept the terms of a plea agreement necessarily includes a thorough analysis of whether a defendant has acclaimed his citizenship, the immigration consequence of a plea or conviction at trial and the availability of relief from removal. Under the immigration law, a noncitizen may be eligible for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal and, of course, asylum. Dr. Camayd’s essay recounts the compelling the story of a man from Mexico who worked at Agriprocessors for 10 years. He had two young U.S. citizen daughters, a 2-year-old and a newborn. On the facts, this man was clearly eligible to apply for cancellation of VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 101 removal and legal permanent resident status because he was the sole support for these two young U.S. citizen girls. But the plea agreement deprived him of any opportunity for a life in the U.S. with his girls. He faced the impossible choice of— between fighting his case or succumbing to the plea deal, which forced him to waive his rights to a hearing. And he faced this lifealtering dilemma without the advice of an immigration attorney. His case underscores the fundamental injustice that occurs where defendants don’t have access to immigration counsel when evaluating a plea. To guarantee due process, Congress should do the following: Congress should enact legislation to protect the right to protect the right to immigration counsel in ICE enforcement actions. Most importantly, ICE should direct its enforcement resources for an investigations of high-level threats to national security and employers that deliberately violate the law, not workers who are merely trying to feed their families and to contribute to the U.S. economy and to our social fabric. The chilling spectacle that unfolded at the Cattle Congress is a stain on our judicial system and an affront to the core principles for which so many Americans have made and are making the ultimate sacrifice. Congress should act now to ensure that the Administration enforcement actions respect the core American ideals of due process and fairness. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Leopold follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 102 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 OF Fmt 6633 DAVID WOLFE LEOPOLD Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-2.eps 103 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-3.eps 104 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-4.eps 105 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-5.eps 106 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-6.eps 107 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-7.eps 108 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-8.eps 109 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-9.eps 110 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-10.eps 111 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-11.eps 112 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-12.eps 113 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Leopold-13.eps 114 115 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Leopold. Mr. Rigg, we would be pleased to hear from you. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT R. RIGG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM, DRAKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL Mr. RIGG. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I intend to address a specific concern of mine—and I think of the Criminal Defense Bar—in the process that was used at the Postville raids and, subsequent to those raids, implemented in Waterloo. The biggest problem that I have identified—or at least I feel this Committee should address—is the compression of time that was imposed on defense counsel in this particular case. That caused a cascade of other errors that could have occurred and may have affected these guilty pleas. Whether or not they will down the road, we don’t know, and that is subject to judicial scrutiny, and that is subject to review by the courts, obviously. When the process was designed, this compression factor essentially put lawyers—competent lawyers—in a situation where they had very limited time to make very difficult decisions with very limited resources. They simply didn’t have the time or the resources to do what they probably needed to do. What that does is you can take the most competent lawyer in this country, and if you put them in a timeframe like that and you aggravate it by appointing them to 10 clients at a time and say, ‘‘You have got a week to make these decisions,’’ that process is inviting those lawyers to make mistakes, not intentionally, not purposely, but you have created a situation where essentially giving somebody a lawyer but you have tied their hands behind their back. That is not consistent with due process, in my view. The other issues that tend to come up would be the individual representation by attorneys. Who came up with the number 10? Why 10? Why not 2? How come more lawyers weren’t contacted prior to this raid by either the judge, evidently, or by someone with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and brought into this so you would have more lawyers available? So you have a number of questions posed initially that I don’t believe have been answered. I am not sure that they can be answered. The one thing I am sure of, the people that don’t know the answers is the Criminal Defense Bar. Prior to the adoption of these proceedings, to my knowledge, no one from the Criminal Defense Association—the national or otherwise—was consulted prior to the enactment of these fast-track rules. The normal course that we would use on the Committees I have served on with the Iowa Supreme Court is that you would bring in opposing counsel and try to address pertinent issues prior to their occurrence so you can avoid situations where you are having 10 clients being represented by one lawyer, who also maybe not have immigration experience. The other problem, I guess, I have is the transparency of this process. This was an ambush essentially. There seems to be some security concerns by the folks from ICE about the Department of Labor being brought in on this. Well, obviously, you know, if there VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 116 is concerns about that, you are not going to talk to anybody about this regarding the criminal defense side of it. And lawyers, from my understanding, were told not to discuss the invitation they received to the Federal courthouse in the Northern District of Iowa. That request was honored by those lawyers, they did not know, from what I understand, why they were being asked in, they didn’t know until after the raids occurred and were essentially brought in and given a ‘‘ how to practice law in Federal court’’ manual. Those—those lawyers who refused to participate, that manual was taken away from them. I don’t understand that. I don’t see why that manual would not be public record and should be made available to the Members of this Committee and to other Members for its critique and criticism. It may be the best manual in—on the world, but unless somebody critiques it and looks at it and reviews it from the other side, well, we don’t know. The other thing that troubled me about this is the access to immigration attorneys. The reports that I received—and just as soon as 2 days ago—from a lawyer who actually went up to Postville who was contacted by family to go in and interview a client was essentially turned away by the ICE officials. So you have a series of issues, but they all start to cascade with the compression of the time, the number of clients that were being asked to handle, and eventually I would criticize the lack of input by the Criminal Defense Bar. Thank you. That is all. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rigg follows:] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 117 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 OF ROBERT R. RIGG Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-1.eps PREPARED STATEMENT VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-2.eps 118 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-3.eps 119 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-4.eps 120 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-5.eps 121 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 Rigg-6.eps 122 123 Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. All those bells and whistles mean we have votes. I am hoping we can get your testimony, Mrs. Costner, and then we will come back for our questions. So if you could give your 5 minutes of testimony, and then we will recess till about 3:15. TESTIMONY OF LORA COSTNER Mrs. COSTNER. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my experience with you. In April of 2004, my husband and I acquired custody of my biological niece, and her biological mother—my now estranged sister— was in a relationship with an illegal immigrant. It is our understanding that our personal identification was stolen from the adoption paperwork. In April of 2005, we received a letter stating that my husband’s driver’s license would be suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. At 3:30 a.m. in February of 2005, in a nearby town an impersonator—excuse me—who had no proof of insurance and a fake Social Security card with my husband’s name on it got a speeding ticket. He signed his name—he printed actually—Jamey Dee Costner. He could not speak English. When the ticket wasn’t paid, they obviously sent us a letter stating we had 7 days. We had to hire an attorney, who explained to the Department of Transportation that we were victims of identity theft. After that, they did not catch the gentleman that had done it. The detective who handled the case called us and advised that this same gentleman had worked at least two jobs in my husband’s name, but the company that he worked for told us they would handle it with IRS. So later in that year, we thought everything was okay, and the immigrant was located, and despite being charged, we took time off from work and went to the court date, the D.A. told us it was the gentleman’s third charge of taking the identity of American citizens and he would be deported back to Mexico and would not be allowed back into our country. Less than 30 days later, we received a phone call at 3 a.m., and it was the same illegal immigrant. He was laughing, and in broken English he said, ‘‘They do nothing to me.’’ He went on to describe the make and model of the vehicles my husband and I drove and what time I left work, and then he mentioned the name of our daughter. He just laughed and—I was also pregnant at the time. And I called the police, and they told us that we need to get our phone number changed and there was nothing else they could do. So we just went on—you know, we had to. Then in 2007—and I had been off work due to an injury. In February of 2007, I called the Tennessee Department of Labor, and they told me that I should not—that I had two workers’ compensation claims out—I had gotten hurt at work—and they said that, on January 22, 2007, that I had fell off a line deboning chicken and that they—I knew that it was another identity theft. They told me the name of the hospital that I allegedly went to. I went to Cook Foods, which is chicken-processing plant, and they argued with me and told me they had no way to believe I was VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 124 who I said I was. So I took my marriage certificate because she was working in my maiden name. They arrested her that afternoon after the H.R. manager had told me that they didn’t want the police involved, but I went to the police. The next month we went to a court date, and the lady couldn’t speak English. She admitted through an interpreter that she worked there using my name and Social Security number for almost 2 years. She was charged with a misdemeanor and let go the same day. Two weeks after that, I received a letter from the IRS, and for the year of 2005 alone we owe $7,854 in back taxes. We have sent letters, statements. Finally, David Davis got involved and they—we had to pay for an appeal so they wouldn’t garnish our wages even though we had proof that these people admitted they did it, and we had to end up paying another $100, but they have released us from 2005, but they said that we would have 2006 and 2007. She took FMLA leave in my name. She had a baby at—not in my name, but she signed in the doctor’s office in my name, but she went to the hospital in her Hispanic name. And I guess to sum up very quickly, I had the life that I always wanted, and now, because of this, I believe there is an argument that illegal immigrants have a right to come here, make a living, have a better life, but at what expense? I mean, I have worked hard my whole life to have what I wanted, and by adopting a little girl and trying to do the right thing, my husband and I have had to seek counseling, and, I mean, we are the—we are not who we were. I have to fight every day to prove who I am. I wonder how many of you are willing to give up all you have worked for. That option was not given to us. Our identity was taken. After extensive research, we now know we can never fully regain who we rightfully are. Every day is a constant fight for the rest of our lives to defend who we are. This is a fight that should never have begun, a tedious, day-to-day worry that has taken many joys, happy times and life, a life that we did all the correct things and we earned that is no longer ours. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Costner follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORA COSTNER Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my experience with you. In April of 2004 I had the life I always wanted. My husband and I, by no means wealthy, were comfortable. In one afternoon this was taken. Not at once, but a slow beginning to what is now a life filled with a day to day struggle trying to get back what we had. On April 12, 2004 we acquired custody of my biological niece. My now estranged sister was in a relationship with an illegal immigrant. It is our understanding that our personal identification was stolen from the adoption paperwork. After a family vacation in April of 2005 we received a letter stating that my husband’s drivers license would be suspended, and there was a warrant for his arrest. We assumed there was an error. After investigating we found that someone was stopped at 3:30 AM in a nearby town speeding in Feb. 05’. The impersonator had no proof of insurance, and only a fake Social Security card with my husband’s name and SS# on it. The speeding ticket had Jamey Dee Costner printed by the imposter. We were also told he could not speak English. Despite this he was allowed to go. When no one paid the ticket or appeared for the court date a letter was sent to inform us of the punishment we would face. The car he was driving was registered VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 125 to my sister. However we had to pay an attorney to write the TN Department of Transportation advising we were the victims of identity theft. The Detective handling the case, Mr. Bob Ellis, contacted us and advised that the same illegal immigrant had worked at least two jobs in my husband’s name. We were in shock, but foolishly believed these companies when they stated that they would inform the IRS. Despite our anger we managed to move on. Things were quiet for a while. Later in 2005 the illegal immigrant was jailed on a completely different charge. He had broken the window of my sisters car. My Mother informed me and I contacted the county he was arrested in. Taking more time off work my husband and I went to his court date to provide the info of the ID theft for the jobs and speeding ticket. The DA assured us this man would be deported and also we saw where he had been previously charged two separate times using the identity of other American Citizens. The entire process was unimaginable to me, how could this happen? If I am caught without proof of insurance my car would be towed, and the thought of using another persons identity for my own personal gain, well the thought alone baffles me. Yet we left finally feeling vindicated. Less than 30 days later we received a phone call around 3 AM. It was the illegal immigrant, Douglas Valdez. Laughing and in broken English he said ‘‘They do nothing to me.’’ He went on to tell my husband the make and model of our vehicles, named where we worked and our departure time. He then mentioned the name of Molly, our little girl. He rotated from Spanish to broken English, yet the threats were clear. We had told on him, and the Government had set him free. We would hang up, he would call back. I called the local police department and was advised to have our phone # changed. Never have I felt so betrayed. If only the phone # was the issue, we were being threatened, yet he was able to live by a different standard of rules than us. We kept our #. Periodically for the next few months he would call and we would take our phone off the hook. Every contact we made at any level of authority had seemed to feel compassion, but had no answers or help. We had to live our life and do the best to protect our family, the stress was the last thing needed, I was pregnant expecting in April of 2006. March 29, 2006 we had Mason. I took maternity leave and for a while everything was back on track. A couple of months after I returned to my job I began to clean up some of the reports that had piled up. I worked in sales in the lumber division of a wholesale hardware company. I’d been bitten on my head by a Brown Recluse spider. I was hospitalized for 10 days with encephalitis and a severe MRSA infection. This was in October of 2006. I was released to return to work in February of 2007. On Valentine’s Day I made a call to the TN Department of Labor I had some questions before I returned to work. The lady I spoke with took my SS# and from the beginning of our conversation it was obvious we were not on the same page. She finally asked me why I was receiving benefits from Worker’s Compensation when she had a record of me filing another claim on Jan. 22, 2007. At first I thought the system had transposed some #’s. However someone had filed a claim using my maiden name Lora Elizabeth Hale on Jan. 22, 2007. The customer service rep asked me if I had quote, ‘‘Fell off the line and hurt my elbow de-boning chickens at Koch Foods’’—my heart sank, I knew what we had believed was taken care of a year before had just grown. I imagine the distress in my voice made the lady believe me. She gave me the workers comp claim #, date, and the ER info where ‘‘I’d’’ gone to be treated. Still being naive I immediately called Koch Foods. I thought they would be as outraged as I was, however that is not what I received. After being transferred to several different people I spoke with Tim Steffin, the HR Director. He told me that he had no way of knowing if I was Lora Hale or if the person working there was Lora Hale. He did advise that she could not speak English and suggested I meet there and she and I could come in the office at the same time and try to get this straightened out. To say I was irate would take away from my anger. Realizing all of my identification had the name Lora Costner, I took my marriage certificate off the wall in the frame and went to Koch Foods. The HR Manager advised me that the lady using my identity would be there at 4 PM and he would discuss this with her then. He also advised that he did not usually get the police involved in these matters. I realized this was not normal, however I told him, that was fine and left. I went straight to the police and filled out a report. A court date was set for the next month. My husband and I took more time off work, went to the court date. The lady, Elizabeth Bautista Velasco, could speak no English. Through an interpreter she admitted working there using the name Lora Elizabeth Hale for almost two years. She was charged with a misdemeanor, the DA told us he could try for more, but could not guarantee she would receive any more time. Our faith in the system was already depleted, and we were tired. So we agreed with the recommendation. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 126 Less than two weeks later we received a letter from the IRS. For the tax year of 2005 alone we owed $7,854.00. I sent letters to the IRS with copies of court records, letters from our place of employment (we had worked for the same company, I had been there for 12 years and Jamey for 8 years, both full time) Detective Bob Ellis from the Hamblen County Police Department wrote a letter on our behalf. For the IRS this was not enough. Everything we sent only made them ask for more. The taxes were also adding to the owed amount. In late September of 2007 we received a letter stating that we needed to send a money order to stop our wages from being garnished. We had fifteen days to send this money to place the garnishment on hold while an independent counsel would decide if we would be granted an appeal. During this time I faxed a letter to State Rep. Mr. Eddie Yokley and State Senator Bob Corker. Mr. Yokley called and spoke with my husband and said he had never dealt with a situation like this and would be glad to help but did not know what to do. Mr. Corker’s office sent us a letter with a brochure on legal aide. I contacted legal aide and was advised we made too much money for assistance. We sent the money and were planning to hire an attorney when the IRS advised if our appeal request was granted. While waiting on the response to our appeal a local newspaper wrote an article in December of 2007. The article stated that a lady who lived in Maine was about to lose her disability due to wages she had not earned, yet the IRS claimed she had. The place of employment was Koch Foods in Morristown, TN. She had traveled thru the area two years prior and had her wallet stolen. I decided to call the reporter. I truly just wanted to advise this had happened to us. Mr. Robert Moore wrote an article about our situation. He also told me that Rep. David Davis was known for helping in this battle. The same day Mr. Davis’ office faxed me a release form giving permission for him to speak to the IRS on our behalf. Mr. Davis’ office was in contact with us, however we were still receiving letters from the IRS. Finally in March of 2008 we had to send $99.00 and received a release for the 2005 tax year. The IRS rep that I spoke with said that we should expect delinquent notices for 2006 & 2007. To date we have not, but it was 2 years before we received the notice for 2005. A local station did a report on our situation that appeared on the 5PM channel 6 news. A reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel then picked up the story and wrote an article. I have found that people are in shock that this can happen. Since the articles we have had calls with offers to help, but no one knows what to do. One of the most disturbing options was for us to change our names and SS#’s. The workers comp claim the illegal immigrant had in my name was paid by the insurance carrier for Koch Foods, however there is no record of anyone using my name or SS# at the local hospitals. I also have faxes from a local physicians office where a Hispanic lady checked into the office using the name Lora Hale and my DOB and SS#, yet the next day when she checked in the hospital for a procedure she had no SS# and used her Hispanic name. This was in March of 2006. The physician was on OBGYN, his office provided me with a fax that was sent to the HR department of Koch Foods stating the discrepancies. However she continued working there until I caught her. It is my belief she filed my name at the OBGYN to receive FMLA leave, and her Hispanic name at the hospital for free medical. And the same with the Comp claim. It will forever be on my record, but how did the insurance carrier pay a claim that was reported in one name and treated in another? I understand there is an argument that illegal immigrants are here only to make a living, a better life for their families. But I question at what expense? We have always worked hard. We were doing the right thing and taking in a little girl. The guilt I have since this was my biological sister has been devastating. My husband and I have sought counseling yet the damage has been done. We are a shell of the happy couple we once were. I will close by telling you that I think anyone who goes thru the proper channels to achieve the ‘‘American Dream’’ should be allowed. No matter what your dream is this Country has always given the opportunity to work hard and achieve it. I know this because at one time I was living my dream, however ‘‘small,’’ it was all I’d wished for. Now I have to fight every day to prove I am who I say. I wonder how many of you are willing to give up all you have worked for? That option was not given to us, our identity was taken. After extensive research we now know we can never fully regain who we rightfully are. Every day is a constant fight for the rest of our lives to defend who we are. This is a fight that should have never begun. A tedious day to day worry that has taken VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 127 many joys, happy times, and life. A life that we did all the correct things, and we earned. But is no longer ours. Ms. LOFGREN. Mrs. Costner, thank you for your testimony. We are going to recess this hearing now. We have a series of votes, and we will not be back before 3:15. So go get a cup of coffee, and we will ask some questions when we return. [Recess.] Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee will reconvene. Hopefully, the Ranking Member will be here shortly. First, apologies. We thought that we would be back at—by 3:15, but we had more votes than we had anticipated, and we appreciate your patience and your willingness to stick with us on this. We have just a couple of questions that we will be able to pose to all of you. But before I do, let me just say to you, Mrs. Costner, what happened to you was really terrible and outrageous, and I don’t think there is a person in the Congress who would defend what happened to you, and I appreciate that you were willing to come here and share your story. The individual that did that to you should have been prosecuted, and I think it is—you know, I don’t see U.S. Attorneys are here now. I don’t understand why they didn’t do their job to protect you and your family, and I just wanted to say that before getting into the legal questions for the others. Let me ask you, Dr. Camayd, you have been a translator for a long time, and I read the statement that you made that was available publicly after this raid, and I was struck by, in your statement, how shocked you seemed to be by the procedures that you encountered here and that it was your judgment that these individuals had no idea what was going on. And you are, of course, the interpreter so you were in kind of the catbird seat to understand what people knew perhaps even better the lawyers because they couldn’t actually talk directly to the defendants. Have you ever seen anything like this before in your 23 years as a interpreter? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Never. Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is quite revealing. In your judgment, did these defendants understand the nature of these proceedings and the pleas that were—there was a lot of representation that the defense counsel had advised them and they knew all the immigration issues. Did you observe that? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, there were almost 300 individuals, and the level of understanding was different from one to the other. My determination is that the majority of them did not understand the charges or the rights that they were waiving. And I base that on several factors. First, it is unclear to what extent the numerous ethnic Mayans understood Spanish as a second language. Then there are vast cultural differences between Mexicans and Guatemalan rural cultures on the one hand and American legal culture on the other. And the most important factor is that, in my expert opinion as an educator, due to their lack of schooling and low rate of literacy, most of the defendants had a level of conceptual or abstract understanding equivalent to that of a third grader or less. So they clearly VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 128 needed a lot more time, a lot more educating on a one-to-one basis on the part of the defense attorney to even come closer to understand what these things meant. In addition to that, they really were tuning it all out because the only thing—particularly the parents—the only thing that they cared about is how to get back to their families to look after their families so they were just listening to the time factor. ‘‘Okay. If I do this, do I get home quicker,’’ or ‘‘If I do that.’’ Particularly troubling was the waiver of the right to be indicted by a grand jury on felony charges. These were all felony charges. They basically at that point had no knowledge of the plea agreement or the plea offer that the government was going to make so they basically were given false hopes that, if they waived the right to a grand jury indictment, they would go home faster. So they did. Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. We had testimony that there were—the defense lawyers had been completely schooled on immigration law—and that there were immigration lawyers in the facility. Did you observe that? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I am sorry. I didn’t—— Ms. LOFGREN. That the defense counsel had been instructed in immigration law and that there were immigration lawyers there at every stage helping the defendants understand. Did you see that? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. No. I didn’t see any immigration attorneys there. There were actually very few attorneys each day because, even though 18 defense attorneys participated, they would come in 3, 4, 5 each day. And I didn’t see any immigration attorney. I also understood that the official policy was that these were criminal cases, not immigration cases.. Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. Therefore—— Ms. LOFGREN. But they had implications once you plead guilty to this crime. Even if you had another benefit available to you under existing immigration law, that would then be foreclosed. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, I did observe that some attorneys were able to call on immigration law colleagues—— Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. But the issues were so complicated that sometimes they had to consult with two and three—— Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. Different lawyers, and they would get different indications. Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask the two law professors, and I am going to read from the affidavit that was filed in support of the application for the search warrant, and it is point 85. I will summarize. The first part isn’t really that material. ‘‘A search was conducted by ICE agents in the Accurate Database’’—which, as we know, is the private-sector database—it is highly accurate—‘‘for the individuals’ Social Security numbers listed in second quarter 2007 payroll reports. This search revealed that approximately 878 out of 1,116, or 78.6 percent, of the Social Security numbers input into Accurate either did not appear to be associated with the person assigned to that Social Security number, or the number did not reveal any person associated with the number.’’ VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 129 What were hearing here from the government’s own affidavit is that 78—well, let us say almost 79 percent of the individuals didn’t have somebody else’s Social Security number, they had a made-up number. How is that consistent, in your judgment, with the necessity to base a prosecution on evidence that the prosecutor’s burden to have the elements of the crime known and present before proceeding with a prosecution. Could you comment briefly on that? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, that statistic, Madam Chairwoman, is very troubling. Eighty percent of these people apparently did not have— the Social Security number didn’t correspond to a real person. That draws into the real question, the whole use of the identity theft as a charge and really brings into question the Social Security charges. I tell you, I have sat on the CJA panel Northern District of Ohio now for 10 years that handles criminal cases in addition to my immigration practice. I would love an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant here about that because what he seems to say in this paragraph at the end is, ‘‘Well, this evidence didn’t really add up, but so what. I am an expert. Believe me.’’ So it is very troubling. Mr. RIGG. I concur with Mr. Leopold’s analysis there. The two parts of that paragraph seem to be inconsistent, but, again, that is something that would have been submitted to a judge. But that is the type of information you would want a preliminary hearing on. Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may time is running out, but it just seems to me that the prosecutor’s obligation is first to do justice, not to just to get convictions. It is to, as an officer of the court, to make sure that justice is done. That is the whole system. And if the elements of the crime, by the government’s own attestation under oath, aren’t there, how can the prosecutors, consistent with their ethical obligations, proceed? I just—I have a concern about that. My time has expired so I am going to turn to the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes of questions. Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to turn first to Dr. Camayd, and I don’t see it in your written testimony, but what I think I heard you say was that the subjects of this raid endured cruel and unusual punishment. Did I hear that correctly? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Yes, sir. Mr. KING. And I just can’t help but reflect that the Supreme Court has conferred habeas rights on enemy combatants and also conferred Geneva Convention status to enemy combatants, and I have—I am looking at this as being precisely language from the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment. Were you advocating that those defendants then would bring a case to have their constitutional rights protected? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. No, sir. I don’t have an opinion about that. As an interpreter, part of my job is to interpret the meaning of what people are saying, not just the words. In order to do that, I have to put myself in the position of the individuals I am interpreting for, whether they are attorneys or witnesses or defendants. And when—I did that for 14 hours during the jail interviews on a VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 130 Friday and Sunday, and I was able to put myself in each individual situation, and I was talking specifically about the parents who were worried sick about their children—— Mr. KING. Okay. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS [continuing]. And their families and having to basically spend the next 5 months at every moment of their waking hours just consumed with this worry. Mr. KING. And—and I understand that was part of your earlier testimony, and I agree with you that a good interpreter interprets not just the words, but voice inflection, words unsaid, body language—all those things together. And I read the words in your testimony too and some of them are—they are inflammatory to me. And so I will just leave that there rather than belabor that point. And I would turn then—first, I wanted to make a little comment about Mr. Rigg’s testimony. First, I think it is the most reasonable of the majority’s witnesses here. And you made two points: One, that the compression of time imposed limits on attorneys that may have put the defendants’ rights at risk. I think that is a valid point, and I don’t know if it is—I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it. I just think it is a good point to have raised. Then the—you referred to as an ambush—I think a surprise—to the attorneys who were drawn into this process. That is how I interpreted it. I just wanted to say to you that, being on the Iowa Supreme Court Advisory Committee, I have a certain amount of envy that I am not on that advisory committee. So instead of asking you a question, I would just take a little license here, and in the time that is remaining, I really want to turn to Mrs. Costner and say I recognize how difficult this was for you to be here today. I appreciate the Chairman’s cooperation in that, and I know that you had to overcome a fair amount of intimidation just from the very fact of this being Congress to come here and testify, and I think the way that you went through your testimony and got to the end of it and actually compressed it within the 5 minutes, I want to thank you. And I know there are Members on both sides—the Democrats and Republicans—that know how difficult this was. And that is the way citizens serve this country. You have done that. But I would ask you, are you finished? Do you know that the identity theft is over, and how would you know if it was? Mrs. COSTNER. I was told that we would never know, that, unless we changed our names and Social Security numbers, that they would always be out there. And the IRS told me that we would get tax notices for 2006 and 2007. I just don’t know when they will be here. Mr. KING. Do you know the initial perpetrator—do you know where he is now in the—in the legal process? Mrs. COSTNER. They let him go. They said that it was not illegal to use someone’s name to obtain employment. Mr. KING. But he was he never ordered deported from the United States? Mrs. COSTNER. That is what the D.A. told us was going to happen when we left court, but then they—— VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 131 Mr. KING. But it didn’t happen. And we are very—we are very familiar with those circumstances by which we are short of law enforcement personnel in a lot of ways, and I just say as a matter of—statistically—two of my staff people have been hit by drivers who were illegal, and in each case law enforcement took the information, took the Matricular Consular card number, they knew very well it wouldn’t hit a positive hit on the database, turned them loose. And even though, when I send my chief of staff to town to try to get enforcement, we can’t get it even in my own staff. So I just—I thank all the witnesses—I know we have strong emotional feelings, and as emotions come out in your testimony, Dr. Camayd, and I actually think some of that was plenty. And I appreciate the professionalism that comes here when it arrives, and I know how it was most difficult for Mrs. Costner, and, again, I thank you for your testimony especially. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would turn now to the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. Let me share with Mrs. Costner thank you for coming and bringing your testimony before this Committee. I think it is very valuable information and testimony for us. We need to do more about identity theft, and I thank you for your testimony. I think it will help us here. At least I am very hopeful it will help us here. Let me go to Mr. Camayd. We heard Ms. Costner’s testimony about identity theft. It sounds to me like the gentleman who stole her identity committed aggravated identity theft. Would that be your opinion? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Absolutely. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I just want to see how that relates to your experience in being an interpreter and what the people were charged. Was there any evidence of this kind of critical criminal intent—as using someone’s identity, Social Security number—and causing the kind of harm that was caused to Mrs. Costner and her husband? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, I expressed to Mrs. Costner how sorry I was for what happened to her during the break. And I want her to know, for her peace of mind, that the individuals that I saw in this case in Iowa were just hard-working people and, in fact, only 5 out of 389—had any kind of criminal record. One of the issues that bothered me about the case in Iowa is that individual circumstances of each case were not considered. And I think that, when we look at the very unfortunate case of Mrs. Costner, as well as issues as to whether illegal workers are good or bad for the country, I think it—I keep going back to that situation and saying, ‘‘Well, how can we apply these broad issues to the individual cases if we don’t know the facts of each case?’’ Mr. GUTIERREZ. And so of the people that you helped interpret for, there was no evidence—in your testimony you seem to really stress the difference between the aggravated identity theft and the use—the improper use of a Social Security card. Would you—what is the difference? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Well, aggravated identity theft was a charge created by an act of Congress in 1998. For almost 10 years, it had been used for its proper purpose and meaning. And it was VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 132 only until the middle of 2007 that it began to be used in immigration cases, basically in presenting false documents to obtain employment. So it seemed like it was a way of testing the waters until in Postville it was applied on a large scale. But the Department of Justice Web site has a very good page on identity theft. It explains what it is. It gives several examples. The examples it gives pertain to people who have stolen identity to charge sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars under somebody else’s name, that type of—— Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. That is to use somebody’s identity to commit a crime? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. That is correct. And also it remits you to the actual statute, and the language of the statute is that identity theft is using somebody else’s identity to commit a crime under the false pretense of being another person. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me just follow up because I would like to ask Mr. Leopold. So when I read, ‘‘If you plead guilty to the charge of knowingly using a false Social Security number, the government will withdraw the heavier charge of aggravated identity theft’’—and this is from the interpreted—this was the plea agreement, which the assistant general attorney had a little bit of problem but not much problem with. I mean, this is basically what the interpreters are saying, that the defense counsel was giving to their client. What is wrong with that? What in essence is there anything wrong with an attorney—with a U.S. attorney or the Federal Government accusing somebody of something and then offering them a lesser plea? What is wrong in this case? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, what is wrong with it is is apparently there was very little evidence to convict them even on the lesser plea. And what they did was they compressed this whole situation by use of what is otherwise known as an exploding plea agreement, which was 7 days long or it ended. So that compressed timeframe, coupled with the fact that most of these people—or all of them— their real intent was really to get out and work and feed their families again, and their real—this whole situation banked on the fact that the workers really didn’t understand the nature of the charges against them. What was wrong was to use that kind of leverage in this particular case and to try to criminalize—successfully criminalize as many undocumented workers as they did when, in fact, all they were trying to do was feed their families. Mr. GUTIERREZ. And one last question. If it is an immigration case, would you take any lawyer for a—is there a particular reason you want an immigration lawyer to deal with an immigration case? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, look, absolutely, Congressman. The travesty here is that these pleas that were given could not possibly have been given knowingly because there was not adequate advice of immigration counsel. And in a criminal case involving a noncitizen, part and parcel of the defense is an analysis of the immigration consequences. In Dr. Camayd’s essay, there was a discussion of a man from Guatemala, and as the Chairwoman mentioned, Guatemala has a VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 133 rather checkered history with human rights violations. Many of these farmers were from Guatemala. There were probably asylum claims in there. There were probably people that needed protection. All they needed to do—all the U.S. Attorney’s Office needed to do and should have done and failed to do was ensure that immigration advice—competent, thorough immigration advice was available to all of these detainees. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized. Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I am sorry I missed a good portion of this while I was tending to other things, but I guess I have been here long enough to see what the hearing is all about. ICE screwed up. Labor Department screwed up. U.S. Attorney’s screwed up. Court screwed up. There is no criminality here. People like Mrs. Costner, who have their identity stolen and suffer the consequences, we apologize to you, but, you know, no one really did anything wrong here. They just took your identity. I have been in this place 14 out of the last 30 years working on immigration issues. I thought that we solved this problem in 1986 when we had the largest, most generous legalization in the history of this country, which, by the way, was not very particularized. There wasn’t much you had to prove to them and we managed to legalize millions of people, but we did not enforce the law. And people think the comments here about the Federal employees who worked on this are not going to deter them from doing their job, I think they are sadly mistaken. We have been told that they were cowboys, that they were rogues, that they had no consideration for the rights of anybody. Now, maybe that is true. Maybe this was wholesale. Maybe every single ICE officer disrespected the rights of everybody else. Maybe the U.S. Attorney’s Office did it completely. Maybe the Labor Department was involved in some sort of grand conspiracy with Department of Homeland Security. But, frankly, I find that a whole lot hard to swallow. Ms. Costner, when your identity was lost and taken by somebody else, were you concerned whether the person was doing it for a reason they considered to be good? Would that have made a difference in terms of the implications with you, the impact on you? Mrs. COSTNER. No. When I went to court with the lady, I actually was in a position to where I felt sorry for her, but I still owed $8,000 and had lost a big part of my life. Mr. LUNGREN. This upside—— Mrs. COSTNER. I mean, I am still—— Mr. LUNGREN. Did this turn your life upside down? Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. And—— Mr. LUNGREN. So it is not a victimless crime? I mean, you were a victim in this? Mrs. COSTNER. And will be the rest of my life. Mr. LUNGREN. But what we hear in Congress mostly is to blame the Social Security system because they didn’t do a good enough job in it and because we don’t check well enough. I mean, at some point in time, I hope people understand folks have to take responsibilities for their action. And it is illegal to come into this country when you don’t have a basis for coming to this country. It is illegal to take a job when you don’t have a right to have a job. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 134 And I will continue to talk about this until something is changed. We have an unbelievable crisis in this country, a scandal in this country with the unemployment among young African-Americans age 17 to 35. I dealt with it when I was attorney general. We were dealing with the high rate of incarceration of that group, and one of the concerns was where are the jobs? And I hope we will not forget about that. But I hear very little about that. And, you know, when you are trying to balance the scales of justice, we ought to treat people fairly, they ought to have the right to have a fair hearing, they ought to have the right to have lawyers, but let us also remember the other side of the balance here. There is people like Ms. Costner who—— Mrs. COSTNER. Had to pay for my lawyers. Mr. LUNGREN. And your life has been turned upside down. Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. I mean, it is—— Mr. LUNGREN. Now, maybe no one intended that, but that is what happens when people steal identity here, and it is almost as if we are saying—— Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. It is not that big a deal. I will be happy to yield, but, I mean, I have sat here and heard questions while I was here. Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t think you had arrived yet when all of us expressed concern about—— Mrs. COSTNER. Correct. Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Mrs. Costner’s—— Mr. LUNGREN. Oh, I understand that. Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Situation and also expressed the view that the perpetrator should have been prosecuted and deported. But here is—and I thank the gentleman for yielding—the affidavit filed by the government based on their search says that 80 percent of the individuals didn’t take somebody’s Social Security— it was a number that—it wasn’t somebody’s Social Security number. It was a made-up number not attached to any real person. And I think that is one of the issues that at least is of concern here is there was no victim because there was nobody who had the number. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. You know, we have a schizophrenic country. On the one hand, we want to deal with illegal immigration and enforce the law. On the other hand, we want to have people here to take jobs that ‘‘Americans won’t take.’’ And I think there is an area in which that applies, and that is why I have been working for 30 years to get a temporary worker program and to get some legal means to do it. It is my observation the American people will not allow us to do that until they believe we have the enforcement side in control. And when they see the impact of phony Social Security cards or stolen identity, that does not give them great confidence that we have this under control. And my fear is that we will never get to the point of having that temporary worker program, having those means by which we can determine how many people should come here, take them out of the shadows of illegality so they have the protections of the law unless we take enforcement seriously. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 135 And my bottom-line concern is that the hearing seemed to be directed at an agency that screwed up. And I suppose we might find a raid where they actually did things right. And maybe we—— Ms. LOFGREN. We will keep looking. Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I know. We will keep looking, but that is very encouraging to the people at ICE as we have been told that we have great respect for them and the work they do and then we just constantly tell them they have done a terrible job. If I sound frustrated, I am frustrated because I have worked for 30 years to try and get a solution here, and one of the results of not having a solution is Ms. Costner, is what you had to go through, and unless we get a grip on this, many others are going to go through that. And we are all going to invite you here, and we are all going to apologize to you, say we are sorry it happened to you—— Mrs. COSTNER. Pass around the hat. Mr. LUNGREN. Yes, we will pass around the hat. But we won’t do anything about it. So I will add my apology too, but the best apology we could make to you is when we actually pass a law that deals with this and puts it on the right track. Thank you very much. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, again. I associate myself with the latter words of my good friend from California. We do have to pass a law, Ms. Costner, and I would start with you simply to say that I am outraged about what happened to you. As I looked over your very eloquent statement, this is, I think, the thrust of my comments. I want the bad guys, the ones who are stalking you, who are criminally calling you up on the phone and ridiculing you. I want the guy who speeded and got a speeding ticket to be deported. And the outrage is where was—why was there a disconnect? The local law enforcement could have taken the gentleman in and called the Federal law enforcement right there. That is the kind of criminal bad guy that you want to be gone. Obviously, we would like a lot of these incidences to not occur. So my question, I know that you are not an expert in Federal law—and I see this other individual who you felt sympathy for— but there was a purposeful use of your identification, and I don’t want to stereotype a profile, but I would think your name is slightly different. Maybe they perceived you to be—this individual to certainly have the ability to have maybe a name as yours. But it might have been an indicator to ask a few more questions. And so I think obviously and conspicuously on the face of your facts we could have helped you. And I apologize for the lack of coordination. We have advocated that there should be coordination. We don’t think local law enforcement or Federal law enforcement. But if this person was poised to be deported for conspicuous, reckless criminal actions—I am talking about the first individual, who seemingly began to stalk you—that should have occurred. And I just simply ask you the question would you like to see, as we look to try to fix this immigration system, that our law enforcement goes after those who are poised or are already in the act of VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 136 criminal acts that already violate the criminal laws? If you were doing this, that would be against the law. Should we be putting resources there to get those kind of people? Mrs. COSTNER. Yes. But I would like to see them here going through the channels to be here legally so it is not a question and they don’t have to steal an identity to work to feed their families. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, you are very gracious, and I just want to apologize to you and thank you for your testimony—— Mrs. COSTNER. Thank you. Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. And for being here, and we will certainly look at some of the fractures in the system that caused this individual—the first individual that took your husband’s ID, of course—to treat you in that manner, and I thank you for your testimony. Let me go to Mr. Leopold. I went down this line of reasoning with the representative for the DOJ and the ICE, which is to suggest that there may have been some thinking as relates to putting forward these criminal charges knowing that criminal charges placed on individuals who, as you had indicated, come from places like Guatemala may have been simply farmers who were trying to come here for economic opportunity, albeit that they were undocumented, that placing them in this criminal predicament—in this criminal charge predicament would have then cast them as felons and made their journey back home more difficult or their journey and their ability to return more difficult. What do you think about that kind of thinking? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, the criminalization of undocumented farmers really goes nowhere. Yes, it does brand them as felons. And you are correct, once somebody is branded as a felon, it creates all kinds of problems later on with respect to admissibility to the United States. Not everybody who is deportable who is a felon, but many are. Many people who are felons, it is impossible to be admitted. There is no 10-year bar. I think I heard the representative from the Department of Justice talk about a 10-year limit. I don’t know of any 10-year limit. It is a lifetime limit. Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is a lifetime. Mr. LEOPOLD. It is a lifetime limit. Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is right. Mr. LEOPOLD. You are correct. And absent a waiver—and even then, you have to show a qualifying relative—it becomes extremely, extremely complicated. Ms. JACKSON LEE. I don’t want to cut you off, but my time, and I would like the other three gentlemen. I don’t want us to get tainted as unpatriotic because we are arguing for a sense of balance, but I need some help. I know that you have been engaged in this. The use of resources used like this raid, help me find a more effective pathway. I have looked at the numbers: 104 raid teams and we look to get 4,000 in 2008, immigration lawyers being utilized, other resources. Is this an effective tool for enforcing immigration laws or putting the system right-side up? You want to start Mr. Rigg? Mr. RIGG. Thank you. I don’t think it is the most effective tool. You can make an argument that, yes, we achieved what we set out to do if you are ICE if we removed individuals who were undocu- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 137 mented, we are getting them out of the country, we have now prosecuted them, and you can claim some success with that. Was the overall process a fair one? That is where I have real problems. And the purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that we get at the truth and that justice is in fact done. And critical resources have to be devoted, not only to ICE and to the Department of Justice, and they also have to be devoted to the Judiciary and the Criminal Defense Bar, and everybody seems to overlook the Criminal Defense Bar and give them, I think, the opportunity to have some input into this and maybe make suggestions that might actually serve ICE’s purpose better. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Leopold, could you quickly just answer the effective use of resources? Mr. LEOPOLD. The most effective use of resources, Congresswoman, would be to fix the broken immigration system. As Congressman Lungren pointed out, it is broken, and it does need to be fixed. And this is a symptom, the terrible story that we hear from Mrs. Costner, other stories. This is the symptom of a broken— badly broken immigration system. And, frankly, Congress needs to roll up its sleeves, get down to the nitty gritty of fixing the system. It is not going to happen overnight, and it is going to take a lot of hard work. And, frankly, I implore Congress to do this about it. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairwoman, and I will just say, Chairwoman, in closing my sentence, I think we need to ask the president of the United States, which has to be a partner in signing a bill, and I personally ask him if he would take in these waning months leadership on helping turn this system rightside up. I yield back. Thank you. Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentlelady from California Ms. Sánchez is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Thank you to the Chairwoman for holding this hearing because I think, although it has been a long day, it highlights several issues that I think speak to the fundamental nature of what are we as a democracy. And while I don’t want to diminish the terrible circumstances that Ms. Costner’s gone through, in listening to—in reading through some of the testimony, it is clear that the workers who were using Social Security numbers that were not assigned to another individual, their intent was not to wipe out somebody’s bank account, charge up thousands of dollars on their credit cards or steal their pension, it was simply to work. And I think in all the panels we have heard at some point or another people say we need to fix a broken immigration system; otherwise, these types of things are going to continue to occur. And there will be criminals, like the criminal who stole Ms. Costner’s identification, who will go unpunished. But there will also be hardworking people who are just trying to feed their families or trying to make a better life for themselves or escape repressive regimes in their home countries of origin who are also going to get caught VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 138 up in unfortunate circumstances because I consider some of their circumstances very unfortunate as well. What particularly concerns me about this raid is the question of due process rights, and much has been made about the fact that the taxpayers pay for it. Well, you now what? It is a constitutional guarantee that, if you cannot afford an attorney and you are being charged with a crime in this country, one is provided for you. And yet, you know, people seem to make light of the fact that, hey, as long as you are given an attorney, what are you complaining about? Well, if you don’t have a reasonable way to participate in your own defense, if you don’t have a understanding, a basic grasp of what you are being charged with, how can you really make informed decisions in a criminal process? And the compressed timeframe, I think, only underscores the egregiousness of the due process that was not afforded to many of these—many of these workers. In my Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, we have heard testimony under Operation Streamline and in Postville defense lawyers were being assigned up to a dozen clients at once and given less 30 minutes to, number one, meet and educate the client themselves; number two, decide whether the client was competent to stand trial; number three, determine whether there is a defense of citizenship or duress, a lack of intent or a need for pretrial motions to suppress evidence or statements due to constitutional violations; and, number four, learn personal information which might mitigate a sentence and a whole host of other things. Thirty minutes was granted to each of these people. I want to ask Mr. Leopold and Mr. Rigg, in your professional opinion, can any defense attorney adequately and ethically execute their duties in less than 30 minutes to a client, and especially in a case where they have to interpret with somebody who doesn’t speak the language? Does 30 minutes seem like a sufficient amount of time? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, you know, I can speak from experience as a CJA panel attorney myself that 30 minutes is enough time to shake the client’s hand and get to know their name. Of course, not, Congresswoman. Of course, not. You know, and couple that with this compressed plea agreement—and by the way, I don’t know—nobody has ever explained the representative from the Department of Justice or the U.S. attorney—nobody has ever explained why did they have to impose this 7-day deadline on the plea agreement? Why? There was absolutely no reason to do that other than to pressurize, not only the panel attorneys—the CJA panel attorneys— who, by the way, did a valiant job out there in Iowa—but to pressurize the clients into taking these pleas. I know of no situation in my experience—and I have asked other attorneys—where this type of plea agreement was used. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Mr. Rigg? Mr. RIGG. I am also the director of the Criminal Defense Program, and one of the things I do is I supervise students in criminal cases. I would fail any student who took 30 minutes to advise a client on a misdemeanor charge to plead or not to plead, much less do the analysis that you have described. Essentially what you have VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 139 described is a violation of every standard of the ABA standards of a prosecution function and defense function. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your honest answers to that. Mr. Camayd—did I pronounce that correctly? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Camayd. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Camayd. To the best of your knowledge, did any individual who you interpreted for refuse to answer questions during ICE’s processing? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I was not present during that questioning session so I wouldn’t be able to answer that. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Okay. So you don’t know if any during processing asked for an attorney at that point either? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I am sorry? Ms. SÁNCHEZ. If any individual during the processing asked for an attorney? Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. I do not know that. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Okay. I just want to ask one final question, and I would beg the Chair’s indulgence as I did not get a chance to question any of the previous panels. Clearly, there seems to be a problem with this particular instance in terms of whether people had a knowing and a full understanding of what they were doing before they entered their plea agreements. I want to know from our panelists—Mr. Leopold and Mr. Rigg— what is the potential harm to the American system of justice when we allow criminal prosecutions to go forward in this manner? I mean, if it can happen here, can there not be other instances in which it can happen? And then what does that do fundamentally to the American system of justice? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, Congresswoman Sánchez, if you could imagine for a second how we would react if we heard of a group of Americans overseas in a foreign country being rounded up into a cattle pen and prosecuted in 7 days. I mean, the whole spectacle itself demeans our system of justice and stands as a stain upon this system which we all—we all cherish. These types of precedents in terms of the type of prosecution as it was done out there is a terrible precedent, a terrible way to handle justice, and I would respectfully submit that it shouldn’t ever happen again. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Thank you. Mr. Rigg? Mr. RIGG. I think anytime you value high turnover and economy of justice, that is exactly what you get, that you don’t get justice, and you probably are going to violate due process in doing so. And anytime the American system—and every day the American system is put on trial, and are we getting it right, and it is rightfully tested by the careful arguments between defense counsel and prosecutors with a neutral and detached judge. And when you take any part of that component away, you are guaranteeing at some level you are going to create a problem. VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 140 Ms. SÁNCHEZ. All right. One final question, and I can’t resist asking this because Mr. Leopold said, ‘‘If you could imagine this happening to Americans overseas.’’ What if U.S. citizens here in the United States—here in the United States were rounded up and arraigned 10 at a time and processed and given plea agreements? What can you imagine would happen here if American citizens were treated like that under our system of justice? Mr. LEOPOLD. Well—— Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Because it seems to me that there is an inherent bias if they say, ‘‘Well, it is fine because, you know what? These people don’t matter anyway. They don’t really count.’’ Mr. LEOPOLD. Well, I think that is an astute point. I think that we wouldn’t see that kind of roundup of U.S. citizens. You know, in the panel cases that I have done in the Northern District of Ohio involving big cases with a lot of defendants, it is always one lawyer to one client. I have never seen 17 clients to one lawyer, 15 minutes or 30 minutes to speak to the client. You know, in this case—this is the immigration law, this huge book. I don’t know how you can explain this in 30 minutes to somebody, let alone the enormous consequences of taking a plea. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Any further comment from any other panelists on that? Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady is granted one additional minute for an answer—— Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Thank you. Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And then we will be—— Ms. SÁNCHEZ. I will yield—— Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Adjourning the hearing. Mr. CAMAYD-FREIXAS. Yes. I want to make clear that I believe everybody here is in favor of enforcement but done the right way. The consequences of not doing it the right way, we don’t have to look too far to find them, and Mrs. Costner’s case is a case in point. Related to this case, I heard of situations in which the authorities were called about an individual similar to in the case of Ms. Costner’s, and they are response was, ‘‘You have only one guy?’’ They said, ‘‘No. We can’t take care of it.’’ In this case, obviously, there were 700 warrants so this is what attracted the attention of law enforcement. I also wanted to point out that I want to dispel the myth that the target was the employer. As a matter of fact, one of the three charges, which was very much related to the Social Security fraud charge, was use or possession of false identity document with intent to deceive. Now, that phrase ‘‘with intent to deceive’’ isn’t really with intent to deceive the employer. So that held the employer harmless. Not only that, but that made it a crime of moral turpitude, which renders the convict ineligible to even apply for immigration relief. Ms. SÁNCHEZ. Thank you. I will just—before I yield back my time—will make one last comment, and that is I find it interesting that, when we talk tough about getting tough on illegal immigration, we always talk about criminalizing the immigrant. We never talk about criminalizing the employer. And I think that, if we made it a criminal penalty to VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 141 knowingly hire somebody who was undocumented, I think a large part of our immigration problem might be solved. But the employers are typically only let off with a slap on the wrist or a fine, if that. And with that I will yield back the balance of my time. Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Ranking Member has asked to be recognized for a brief comment. Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. This Committee is poised to adjourn with a misconception hanging in the air, and I would direct the attention to page 10 of Ms. Rhodes’s testimony—the U.S. attorney from Alabama—who in her testimony says, ‘‘Nearly all of the defendants sentenced to time served had admitted using identification information that belonged to other people.’’ And the specific of it are this: 233 are false use of identification after admitting the use of an actual person’s identity, 30 for false use of Social Security number after admitting the use of an actual person’s identity and 2 for false identification to obtain employment after admitting an actual person’s identity. So the idea that it was a minority, rather than majority, almost all—nearly all defendants used somebody else’s identity, somebody like Mrs. Costner. Thank you, and I yield back. Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman yields back. I will just note that this—the Ranking Member’s comment really proved the point of the lack of due process because there was an admission to something that was not true. The evidence, which is found on page—on point 85 of the application for the search warrant, shows that the evidence is that 80 percent of these people had a number that didn’t belong to anybody, and so really it does got to the due process question of whether these individuals were— pled guilty to something that there was no factual basis for. Mr. LUNGREN. Would the Chairlady yield on that? Ms. LOFGREN. I certainly would. Mr. LUNGREN. I believe that affidavit deals with the over 700 people that they were talking about in the first instance, about half of which, I believe, were not at the site at the time that the exercise by ICE took place, and the number that the Ranking Member was talking about was the number that actually pled, which is a much smaller number than the overall 700. Ms. LOFGREN. I concede the gentleman’s point. The further point being that, since there was no trial, there was no facts gathering, the only evidence we had was this, and there was no way to sort the individuals who, in ignorance, pled guilty from those who—the 80 percent that did not have a number. I am not going to belabor this point because we have been here all day. I do want to thank all of the witnesses. People don’t realize that the witnesses are volunteers for our country come here of their own free will to share information, to inform the Congress, hopefully, to improve our country. I will say that I personally find the processes used in the criminal proceedings to be unusual and provocative and do have ques- VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 142 tions about whether they meet the requirements of due process that is guaranteed in our constitution. Looking at you, Mrs. Costner, I am so disappointed. I mean, the law, really, required ICE to do something they didn’t do. They were busy doing things with people who weren’t doing people harm, and they wouldn’t take the time to deal with your situation when harm was done, and that is really just so maddening to me and, I think, to all of us. So we will be adjourning now. Our hearing is open for 5 days. We may have additional questions in writing for you, and if so, we would ask that you respond as promptly as you can. And, again, many, many thanks to all of you for being here and for helping to shed some light on this situation. Before adjourning, I will just note that Mr. Gutierrez will be— and several other Members of Congress—will be going to Postville—at their own expense, not as a part of—official part of this Committee—to investigate matters further this weekend, and we look forward to getting their feedback after that trip is concluded. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED PREPARED STATEMENT FOR THE HEARING RECORD OF THE HONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA U.S. SENATOR FROM I would like to applaud Chairwoman Lofgren and the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration for holding this hearing about the detrimental impact of immigration raids. Since 2006, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has engaged in unprecedented workplace raids. The Bush Administration and its allies have chosen an enforcement only immigration strategy. These punitive enforcement initiatives ignore the hardworking contributions of immigrants and are affecting the well-being of immigrant communities. From the Swift raids in 2006 to the raid in Postville, Iowa, ICE’s actions have left children and other vulnerable populations without proper care and supervision and limited legal representation. Nearly 400 immigrants were arrested at the workplace raid on the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa. This ICE raid was the largest workplace raid conducted by the Bush administration on a single site. The day following the raid approximately half of the school system’s 600 students were absent, including 90 percent of Latino children, because their parents were arrested or in hiding. Today, the families in Postville continue to struggle to cope with the aftermath of the raid with family members awaiting deportations or living under house arrest. A recent New York Times article highlighted the detrimental impacts of the Postville raid, the largest in the nation, on the lives in the local community. The raid has been described as ripping ‘‘the heart out of the community.’’ As a nation built on family values, these enforcement only tactics are not only damaging children, families and communities, but ripping at the fabric upon which our nation was built. Separating families puts children at risk of economic hardship and psychological trauma. We must ensure that as immigration laws are being enforced that our nation’s children are not at risk. That is why I have introduced the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act (H.R. 3908), which would ensure that immigrant raids are humane and children are protected. This legislation would protect immigrant detainees and their families from mistreatment and unnecessary separation from minor children, and encourages the release of detainees on humanitarian grounds. We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices that workplace raids are having on our children and families. As the sponsor of the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act (H.R. 3980), I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and across the country to find a solution on how immigration enforcement could be improved to protect the children and families involved. f (143) VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 B-1.eps 144 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 B-2.eps 145 146 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 B-3.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-1.eps 147 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-2.eps 148 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-3.eps 149 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-4.eps 150 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-5.eps 151 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-6.eps 152 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-7.eps 153 154 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 C-8.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-1.eps 155 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-2.eps 156 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-3.eps 157 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-4.eps 158 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-5.eps 159 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-6.eps 160 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-7.eps 161 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-8.eps 162 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-9.eps 163 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-10.eps 164 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-11.eps 165 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-12.eps 166 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-13.eps 167 168 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 D-14.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 E-1.eps 169 170 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 E-2.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 F-1.eps 171 172 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 F-2.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-1.eps 173 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-2.eps 174 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-3.eps 175 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-4.eps 176 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-5.eps 177 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-6.eps 178 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-7.eps 179 180 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 G-8.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 H-1.eps 181 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 H-2.eps 182 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 H-3.eps 183 184 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 H-4.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 I-1.eps 185 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 I-2.eps 186 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 I-3.eps 187 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 I-4.eps 188 189 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 I-5.eps f VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-1.eps 190 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-2.eps 191 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-3.eps 192 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-4.eps 193 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-5.eps 194 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-6.eps 195 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-7.eps 196 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-8.eps 197 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-9.eps 198 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-10.eps 199 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-11.eps 200 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-12.eps 201 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-13.eps 202 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-14.eps 203 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-15.eps 204 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-16.eps 205 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-18.eps 206 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-19.eps 207 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-20.eps 208 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-21.eps 209 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-22.eps 210 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-23.eps 211 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-24.eps 212 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-25.eps 213 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-26.eps 214 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-27.eps 215 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-28.eps 216 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-29.eps 217 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-30.eps 218 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-31.eps 219 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-32.eps 220 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-33.eps 221 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-34.eps 222 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-35.eps 223 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-36.eps 224 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-37.eps 225 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-38.eps 226 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-39.eps 227 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-40.eps 228 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-41.eps 229 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-42.eps 230 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-43.eps 231 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-44.eps 232 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-45.eps 233 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-46.eps 234 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-47.eps 235 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-48.eps 236 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-49.eps 237 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-50.eps 238 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-51.eps 239 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-52.eps 240 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-53.eps 241 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-54.eps 242 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-55.eps 243 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-56.eps 244 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-57.eps 245 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-58.eps 246 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-59.eps 247 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-60.eps 248 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-61.eps 249 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-62.eps 250 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-63.eps 251 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-64.eps 252 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-66.eps 253 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-65.eps 254 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-67.eps 255 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-68.eps 256 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-69.eps 257 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-70.eps 258 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-71.eps 259 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-72.eps 260 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-73.eps 261 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-74.eps 262 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-76.eps 263 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-77.eps 264 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-78.eps 265 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-79.eps 266 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-80.eps 267 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-81.eps 268 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-82.eps 269 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-83.eps 270 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-84.eps 271 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-85.eps 272 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-86.eps 273 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-87.eps 274 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-88.eps 275 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-89.eps 276 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-90.eps 277 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-91.eps 278 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-92.eps 279 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-93.eps 280 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-94.eps 281 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-95.eps 282 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-96.eps 283 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-97.eps 284 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-98.eps 285 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-99.eps 286 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-100.eps 287 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-101.eps 288 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-102.eps 289 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-103.eps 290 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-104.eps 291 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-105.eps 292 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-106.eps 293 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-107.eps 294 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-108.eps 295 296 VerDate Aug 31 2005 14:53 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6011 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072408\43682.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43682 J-109.eps Æ