[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
USCIS FEE INCREASE RULE
=======================================================================
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
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-50
__________
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
37-846 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief 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. SANCHEZ, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Page
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services; accompanied by Mr. Rendell Jones, Chief
Financial Officer, and Mr. Michael Aytes, Associate Director
for Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, NALEO Educational Fund
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. William R. (Bill) Yates, Executive Consultant, Border
Management Strategies (BMS)
Oral Testimony................................................. 44
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Mr. Rhadmes Rivera, Vice President of 1199, SEIU United Health
Care Workers East
Oral Testimony................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 54
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 2
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 4
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter to David Walker, Comptroller General of the General
Accounting Office (GAO) dated September 12, 2007............... 62
Fee Increases Imposed by USCIS Fee Rulemaking for Selected
Immigration Applications, Effective July 30, 2007, Compiled by
NALEO Educational Fund......................................... 64
Letter to Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services dated February 20, 2007, from the American
Friends Service Committee...................................... 66
American Friends Service Committee Recommendations on DHS Docket
No. USCIS-2005-0056 of September 19, 2007...................... 68
Prepared Statement of Fred Tsao, Policy Director, Illinois
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights..................... 71
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Knowles, President, National
Citizenship and Immigration Council (AFGE/AFL-CIO)............. 82
``EXHIBIT A (text of petition by USCIS District Adjudications
Officers)'' by the National CIS Council 119.................... 85
Letter to Linda Swacina, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services District Director dated April 11, 2007, from
Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudications Officers.... 86
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Jonathan R. Scharfen,
Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services..... 93
USCIS FEE INCREASE RULE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
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 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Delahunt,
King, and Goodlatte.
Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake
Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and
Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. Since we have sufficient Members here to begin
our hearing, the Subcommittee will come to order.
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee
Members, our witnesses, and members of the public to the
Subcommittee's hearing on the immigration fee increase rule and
H.J. Res. 47, a resolution that would render the recent
immigration fee increase rule by the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services null and void and require the Agency to
issue a new rule to modify its fees.
Our Subcommittee held its first hearing on the 2007 fee
increase rule on February 14, when the rule was initially
proposed. At that time, I had many questions about the
methodology used to calculate the new fees, including how and
if actual costs were accurately calculated, whether those
actual costs included financial mistakes made by the Agency,
and whether USCIS had properly prepared a plan for technology
transformation, a cost that was used to justify the increase in
fees.
Every answer I received to questions I had at that time led
to even more questions and concerns about the rule. So, for the
last 7 months, my staff and I have engaged USCIS and outside
experts to understand the rule and its methodology, and I am
still concerned. As a result, I have introduced H.J. Res. 47 to
render the fee rule null and void and require the Agency to
issue a new rule to modify its fees.
The Subcommittee has sought detail on how the technology
transformation will work. We have asked the basic question of
how to define success and how to measure that success. After 7
months, we have not received information sufficient to ensure
that the money spent on technology will result in a system that
is sufficient, scalable, secure, and interoperable. I am
hopeful that today we will get some answers.
And I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking
minority Member, Steve King, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our
witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee's hearing on
the immigration fee increase rule and House Joint Resolution 47, a
resolution that would render the recent immigration fee increase rule
by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services null and void and
force the agency to issue a new rule to modify its fees.
Our Subcommittee held its first hearing on the 2007 fee increase
rule on February 14 when the rule was initially proposed. At that time,
I had many questions about the methodology used to calculate the new
fees, including how and if actual costs were accurately calculated,
whether those actual costs included financial mistakes made by the
agency, and whether USCIS has properly prepared a plan for technology
transformation, a cost that was used to justify the increase in fees.
Every answer I received to questions I had at that time led to even
more questions and concerns about the rule. So, for the last seven
months, my staff and I have engaged USCIS and outside experts to
understand the rule and its methodology. And I'm still concerned.
As a result, I have introduced H.J. Res. 47 to render the fee rule
null and void and force the agency issue a new rule to modify its fees.
The Subcommittee has sought detail on how the technology
transformation will work. We've asked the basic question of how they
define success and how they will measure that success. After seven
months, we have not received information sufficient to assure us that
the money spent on technology will result in a system that is
efficient, scalable, secure, and interoperable.
I am hopeful that today we will finally have some answers.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this hearing
today.
In February, this Committee held a hearing on the USCIS fee
increases, and I welcome back Chief Financial Officer Rendell
Jones, as well as Associate Director for Domestic Operations
Mr. Michael Aytes, who were also helpful in our last hearing in
explaining the rationale and need for the fee increases.
Holding a second hearing on the fee increases this session,
when the new fee schedule has been in effect for only 1 full
month, should certainly allay the concerns of some that fee-
reliant USCIS is not subject to sufficient congressional
oversight.
The rule we are reviewing today took effect on May 30 after
a 60-day public comment period. Thousands of comments were
received and fully evaluated prior to publishing the final rule
that resulted in several changes to the proposed rule. Those
changes included discounted fees for children who are filing
adjustments of status applications concurrently with their
parents and the expansion of the fee waiver rules for certain
applications.
On July 30, the day the new fee rule took effect,
Chairwoman Lofgren introduced H.J. Res. calling for the rule to
be given no force and effect. I am concerned that this was done
without the benefit of a GAO report on the latest USCIS fee
study or the resulting fee schedule, especially since the USCIS
fee study was conducted as a result of the GAO findings in
2004.
However, Chair Lofgren first requested such a hearing
report last week in a letter dated the day before this hearing
was noticed. I, therefore, must conclude that H.J. Res. is a
rush to judgment. We should wait for the GAO audit before
concluding that the fee calculations are flawed.
Federal law authorizes USCIS to collect fees to cover the
full costs of adjudicating all of the applications it receives,
including the cost of adjudicating applications for which it
does not, for humanitarian reasons, collect fees.
Full cost recovery includes more than the direct cost of
providing services. It covers overhead and support costs, such
as the cost of personnel, facilities and litigation. Most
importantly, it includes the cost of background checks and
fraud detection, both of which are critical to ensuring that
immigration benefits are granted to those who deserve them and
not to those who do us harm.
When the examinations fee account was created, it was
intended that USCIS become a predominantly fee-funded Agency.
Some disagree with this concept, but I believe that the
American taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for granting
a highly sought-after benefit to immigrants, and while I
certainly agree that our Nation is enriched by legal
immigration, given the competing needs for tax dollars, it only
makes sense that those who directly receive an individual
immigration benefit should pay for it.
The Office of Management and Budget has stated that when
the public benefits as a necessary consequence of an Agency's
provision of a benefit to an individual, the Agency should seek
to recover from the identifiable recipient either the full cost
of the Federal Government of providing the special benefit or
the market price, whichever applies.
There is no fair market price that can be assigned to the
privilege of living and working in this country. The ability to
naturalize is the greatest benefit a country can bestow.
Indeed, it is priceless. Therefore, USCIS should structure its
fees to recover its full costs.
The new fee schedule is based on a comprehensive fee study
that was conducted at the recommendation of the GAO in the 2004
report. That was the last report conducted on this issue.
Although the increases may be substantial in some categories,
they are not necessarily excessive.
Even the new $595 fee for naturalization applications only
requires that a prospective citizen save about $10 per month
toward the objective during the 5 years of permanent residence
needed to apply. The application fees for other benefits remain
a minor portion of the overall costs of bringing a relative, a
fiance, or an employee to the United States.
USCIS has structured the fee rule so that there will be
measurable near-term improvements that will benefit all
stakeholders. These include a 2-month decrease in processing
time for the four major kinds of applications by the end of
fiscal year 2008 and a 20 percent overall reduction for all
application types by the end of fiscal year 2009.
Unless GAO finds the fees excessive, the new fee schedule
should remain in place to allow USCIS to fund continued service
improvements while enhancing its security and fraud-detection
capability.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
As neither Chairman Conyers nor Ranking Member Smith are
present, we will invite them either to submit their statements
for the record or to deliver their statements if they arrive
later during the hearing. And mindful of our time constraints,
other Members are invited to submit their opening statements in
the record.
The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Today's hearing provides an opportunity for us to obtain answers to
some very serious questions regarding the substantial fees charged by
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to immigrants seeking
citizenship in the United States.
As many of you will recall, I expressed deep concern about the size
and fairness of these fees when we met last February about the agency's
proposed fee increases.
Here are just a few questions that I hope will be resolved today.
First, what is the justification for increasing naturalization
application fee by 80 percent? Congress has repeatedly appropriated
funds to USCIS so it can address processing backlogs and make long-
overdue infrastructure and technology improvements. Yet, the agency
apparently needs additional funding and we need to know that it is
justified.
Second, what effect do these increased fees have on legal
immigrants trying to express their patriotism and commitment to this
country by applying for citizenship. I am particularly concerned about
the equity of charging future applicants for the costs of the agency's
past failures.
Third, we need an explanation about why USCIS is using funds from
its Premium Processing Fees to fund operating costs beyond those
permitted by law. The law specifically states that Premium Processing
fees must be used solely to cover the costs of adjudicating Premium
Process Service cases and to make information technology infrastructure
improvements.
I want to commend Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership on this
issue and for introducing House Joint Resolution 47, which would
require the agency to reconsider its cost structure and substantiate
the fee increase it really needs.
I am pleased to introduce our first panel this morning. We
have two panels of witnesses, and seated on the first panel, I
am pleased to welcome back Deputy Director of U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Jonathan Scharfen. Prior to assuming
his post at USCIS, Mr. Scharfen served for 25 years in the U.S.
Marine Corps, retiring in 2003 at the rank of colonel. Mr.
Scharfen is no stranger to the House of Representatives,
however, where he served as both Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff
Director to the House International Relations Committee
following his military service. Mr. Scharfen received his B.A.
from the University of Virginia, his J.D. from the University
of Notre Dame, and his LL.M. from the University of San Diego.
Next, I am pleased to welcome back Rendell Jones, the chief
financial officer of USCIS. Responsible for the budget,
accounting and financial planning of the Agency, Mr. Jones
became USCIS's first CFO in March of 2006. Prior to his
appointment, he served as the Deputy Budget Director of the
Department of Homeland Security. His tenure with the Federal
Government, however, began at the Department of Justice in 1996
as a Presidential Management Intern. Mr. Jones later worked as
the management analyst in the Civil Rights Division and also
served as one of the Department's Congressional Appropriations
Officers. He earned a bachelor's in finance cum laude from
Virginia Commonwealth University and a master's in public
administration from North Carolina State University.
And finally, we would like to welcome Michael Aytes back to
the Subcommittee. Mr. Aytes is the associate director of
Domestic Operations at USCIS. Mr. Aytes began his career with
the Federal Government's immigration agencies in 1977, after
graduating with a bachelor's degree from the University of
Missouri. After then-INS hired him as an immigration inspector
in Chicago, he quickly rose through the ranks and, in 1990,
became the first Assistant Commissioner for Service Center
Operations charged with managing all the INS's service centers.
Mr. Aytes played a critical role in the information and
Customer Service Division as it transitioned into USCIS in
2003, and he has served as an Associate Director since October
of 2005.
As I think you all know, we have 5 minutes for opening
statements, and the lights will alert you with the yellow flash
when you have 1 minute to go. Your full statements will be
submitted as part of the record, and when your time is about to
expire, we do ask that you summarize.
And without objection, the Chair will recess the Committee
as necessary when we are interrupted by votes.
And we invite you, Mr. Scharfen, to begin.
TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN R. SCHARFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY MR.
RENDELL JONES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Mr. Scharfen. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lofgren,
Congressman King, Congressman Gutierrez. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss recent changes made to the USCIS fee
schedule.
I am accompanied by our Chief Financial Officer, Rendell
Jones, and our Associate Director of Domestic Operations,
Michael Aytes.
I welcome today's hearing as part of an ongoing dialogue
regarding how much we charge for the vital services we provide.
We welcome the Congress's constructive advice and critical
insight on this matter and look forward to continuing to work
closely with Members of the Committee.
As you know, USCIS recently completed a lengthy fee review
and rulemaking process culminating with the July 30
implementation of a comprehensive revised fee schedule.
The new fee schedule took into account more than 3,900
comments received after the publication of the proposed rule in
February. We received comments from Members of Congress,
community-based organizations, refugee and immigrant service
and advocacy organizations, public policy groups, State and
local government entities, educational institutions, and
private corporations, among others.
We held numerous briefings and discussions with the
Congress, and the Director testified before this Subcommittee
in February.
Based on this valuable input, the final fee schedule
incorporated a number of substantive changes to the proposed
fee structure to assist families with children applying for
immigration benefits and prospective parents trying to finalize
their adoptions. The new fee structure also expands the
availability of fee waivers and exemptions for individuals
seeking political asylum and special refugee status and
continues to provide benefits at no cost for victims of human
trafficking and violence.
USCIS made every effort possible to craft a rule and fee
schedule that is fair, equitable, and appropriate, given the
urgent need to dramatically improve immigration services to our
customers, enhance security and integrity, and build a modern
and efficient Agency for the long term. Revenue generated from
the new fees will be reinvested to improve customer service,
accelerate processing, enhance security, expand our offices,
hire additional personnel, train those personnel and create new
business processes to decrease the time it takes to process
applications.
Since the final rule became effective, I have been
convening on a monthly basis our Agency's top leadership to
monitor progress on the additional hiring, infrastructure
enhancements, and other improvements discussed in our
rulemaking to ensure the initiatives are on schedule and
appropriately coordinated across USCIS.
Continuing to meet our processing goals will be a challenge
due to a recent surge in workload. We are presently facing a
substantial influx of new workload which we believe was driven
by several different factors, including progression of the
employment-based visa bulletin and the desire of many
applicants to file before the new fee schedule went into
effect. We are also seeing an overall sustained increase in
filings, perhaps due to anticipation of comprehensive
immigration reform and outreach regarding naturalization.
While we are committed to meeting our processing goals, it
will take several months, if not more, to analyze the
operational impact of this influx of work on our goals. In the
meantime, we are developing and implementing operational
mitigation strategies to address this recent surge.
With these new challenges on our horizon, preparation is
key. So that we may quickly and efficiently tackle a future
caseload that is guaranteed to increase, our core challenge is
to build a 21st century business infrastructure. Achieving this
goal will take time. USCIS and DHS leadership have devoted
significant management attention over the last year to develop
our business transformation program.
By replacing our outdated paper-driven system, new
electronic filing procedures will allow individuals the ability
to create an electronic profile and online account with USCIS.
These revised processes will help the Agency to meet customer
expectations for on-demand information and immediate real-time
electronics service over the Internet.
Towards this goal, USCIS has incorporated productivity
measures into the fee model to ensure that productivity gains
resulting from automated business processes and better
technology will be factored into future fee reviews. USCIS
plans to review and update fees every 2 years. In comparison to
fee reviews conducted during previous Administrations, fee
reviews going forward will combine assumptions from recent
experiences, incorporate productivity gains resulting from the
modernization of operations, and take account of foreseeable
changes in national security measures and procedures.
With this flexible fee schedule, USCIS will obtain the
resources it needs to bring about the nature and extent of
operational improvements sought by the Members of this
Committee and Congress as a whole.
I am familiar with the view expressed that this Agency
should be supported to some extent through appropriations
instead of fees. In general, however, USCIS was given express
authority to cover the full costs of its operations through
customer fees. Law and policy have long provided that the costs
of providing immigration benefits are borne by those applying
for them.
In the past, USCIS has relied on temporary funding sources,
such as appropriations. With a more stable and reliable funding
source of fee revenue, this Agency can operate more effectively
and respond to changing operational needs better.
I want to thank you for your time today, and I look forward
to a continuing dialogue with you about the strategic direction
in operations of USCIS in achieving our common goals.
Thank you, ma'am.
[The prepared statement of the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services follows:]
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Scharfen.
I think I may have confused matters when I introduced both
Mr. Jones and Mr. Aytes and then addressed you in the plural as
to testimony, because Mr. Jones and Aytes are here as resources
to answer questions and have relied on Mr. Scharfen to make the
Agency's testimony.
So we will begin our questioning now, and I would first
like, without objection, to put in the record the letter sent
by myself and Chairman David Price to the General Accounting
Office requesting a review of the methodology that forms the
basis of the fee measure.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Ms. Lofgren. I have a number of questions. I guess I would
just like to note--and I think other Members may pursue this
more--that if you look at 1991, what the fee was for
citizenship, for example, and what the fee is today, there has
been a 750 percent increase in the fee, and I am hard-pressed
to think of anything else in America that has gone up 750
percent in that timeframe. Even health care I do not think has
gone up that much.
So, certainly, I do not object to having a fee system. I
think that that has served the system and our Nation of
immigrants well. The question is whether the magnitude of the
increase is justified and whether this generation of fiances is
paying for the accumulated neglect of technology for the last
several decades, which is really why we have asked the GAO to
take a look at this.
This is also an opportunity for us to take a look at what
you are doing with the money, and it is of great interest to
me, as I think you know. Recently, the General Accountability
Office did a report on your transformation program, and among
their many findings, there was concern expressed about the
enterprise architecture and whether there were sufficient
guides and constraints in the transformation plan with that
enterprise architecture and alignment process. I am wondering
where the Agency is in the development of its enterprise
architecture for transformation. How close are we to having
this component identified?
And I further have a concern that, you know, you need to
have your enterprise architecture in place or else you end up
with willy-nilly acquisition of technology that does not work
well, does not interoperate, does not serve the mission of the
Agency, and I have recently learned that CIS is working on a
whole new system, apparently a relatively new one, on fraud
detection. For national security, obviously, we want fraud
detection, but I am concerned that if that is disintegrated--I
do not mean disintegrating--but not an integrated computer
architecture plan, it is not going to be interoperable, it will
not work well, not only with CIS, but with the other agencies
that we must connect with.
So I am wondering, Mr. Scharfen, if you can address these
questions or your team?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much.
I will start in reverse order, if I may, please, regarding,
I believe, the data system that you are referring to, is the
FDNS-DS System.
Ms. Lofgren. That is correct.
Mr. Scharfen. I agree that the going forward the
transformation system should incorporate all of the different
systems--computer technology systems or business systems--that
we have in our organization, and that is our intention, to do
that.
In fact, we have met with this Subcommittee's staff and,
due in large part to some of that interaction with the
Committee staff and with you, ma'am, and some of the professors
out on the West Coast with whom we had the benefit of meeting,
we have increased our efforts to ensure that our transformation
program is all inclusive and does include the type of systems,
such as the FDNS-DS System.
Ms. Lofgren. Could I interrupt just briefly?
And I thank you for that report.
And just for the benefit of the other Members, Stanford
University, at my request, did volunteer their Computer Science
Department and School of Business as a free advisor to the
Agency and minority staff and majority staff and staff from the
Agency did go out and get the benefit of their thinking on the
computer issues particularly, and we do acknowledge and thank
Stanford for that donation.
If you could continue, Mr. Scharfen?
Mr. Scharfen. And part of that discussion did cover the
Federal enterprise architecture and where we were on that and
whether or not we were sufficiently along in identifying the
different models that make up that architecture. I guess there
are five all together. You have the performance reference model
and then the business service data and the technology pieces to
that.
We have a relatively new Chief Information Officer who is,
I think, expert just on these architecture-type issues. He is
also very good and experienced with large contracting issues.
And what we have done, in terms of trying to better identify
the performance reference models or the performance criteria,
is that the CIO has an effort, within the next 4 months,
roughly, to better identify some of those performance reference
metrics and then be able to feed those in to our ongoing
transformation contracting, and we will try to integrate that
going forward with that transformation contracting effort.
As to the GAO report, I would point out that we found the
report, in general, encouraging, especially on the part of our
improved planning that we had received. I guess they looked at
nine criteria.
Ms. Lofgren. I do not disagree, but we always look for
needs to improve. We do not need to spend our time patting
ourselves on the back.
Mr. Scharfen. Fair enough. The performance measures was one
of the ones that they said we are falling short on, and so that
is what we have done, to answer your question, ma'am. The CIO
is pursuing that portion of the performance reference models.
And also, on the human capital, we have incorporated the human
capital officer more in the transformation planning effort,
which is another shortcoming the GAO identified.
Ms. Lofgren. I can see that my time has expired. Perhaps
working with the minority, we can find a time where we can have
even a workshop type of meeting with the CIO and delve into
more on the computer plans, not limited by the 5-minute rule.
At this point, I would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
King, for his 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Scharfen, thank you for your testimony.
I look back on the February hearing and Mr. Aytes'
testimony from that, that 85 percent of the fee waiver
applications were granted, and my question on that is what
percentage of the adjudicants are not revenue producing? In
other words, of all the applicants that we have, what
percentage of them do not produce revenue and what does that do
to add to the cost of the fees of those that do produce
revenue?
Mr. Scharfen. All together--and I will let my CFO chime in
here if I do not have the percentages right--as to fee waiver
applications, only about 1 percent of applicants apply for a
fee waiver. In terms of both the waivers and those applicants
that do not have to pay the fee, it covers 6 percent of the
applicants. That is including people such as refugees that
would not be paying. So that is 6 percent, to answer your
question directly, sir.
In terms of the work that is involved, it represents 8
percent of the workload that is not covered by fees.
Mr. King. Thank you. That gives some clarity to it and a
sense of proportion, and I notice Mr. Jones nodding his head to
confirm that testimony.
And I also recognize you are working with the FBI on
background checks and, when you engage the FBI, does that incur
a fee on your part? Do you have to compensate them for their
work?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir. We have just been working with the
FBI on those, and going forward, we will be paying an increased
fee for the FBI name checks and fingerprint checks as well.
Mr. King. And that is calculated into your analysis when
you have these fee changes?
Mr. Scharfen. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. Then I wanted to express something else here that
is maybe a little bit broader question, and that is that the
debate that lingers yet--and I think we have come to some sense
of consensus on fee based and, of course, all Members of this
Committee do not agree on the fee based part--is that some
would like to see that borne by the taxpayer, and some would
like to see that entirely borne by the applicants, and I am in
that category of entirely borne by the applicants because they
are the ones that receive the benefit.
I just wanted to comment that it occurs to me that you are
in a situation where you are seeking to try to find a proposal
here that satisfies a consensus of us. In fact, if we could
come to unanimous consensus, that would be the ideal situation.
And what strikes me is the idea of the galleon dialectic where
you lay everything out on the spectrum, and you say, ``Well,
taxes are objectionable to this group, so they are off the
table. And these fees are objectionable to this group, so they
are off the table.'' That would be the fee waiver component of
it.
And so it narrows down those areas where we can find a
consensus that we believe fees are appropriate, and the
narrower that gets, the higher the fees have to be for those
who are paying them, and so, at some point, we need to take a
look at this and identify that maybe 6 to 8 percent of this
cost that is added to the balance of them is the fee waiver
component. So those folks that do not have the fees waived have
a price in that of 6 to 8 percent more.
I do not know if that is the actual number. I know you have
given me a percentage analysis. Would you say that is accurate?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes. In terms of applicants, 6 percent of the
applicants are not paying fees either through a waiver or by
the policy decision that the other applicants would be paying
for them, such as the refugee or victims against violence
applicants.
Mr. King. And I want to go on record, I do not object to
that. I just point out that the narrower that lists get to the
people that are paying, the higher the rate gets for those that
pay.
Then, also, you have premium processing funds that are part
of this?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. Can you tell me how those premium processing
funds are applied across the balance of your costs?
Mr. Scharfen. Right. In the past, the purpose of those is
for transformation. In terms of into the new fee rule, those
funds will be going toward transformation. And one of the
reasons why we are so keen on getting a new fee rule is that,
in the past, those funds were not being spent entirely on
transformation costs. They were being spent on other
operational costs because there were not enough fees to cover
the ongoing operations of the Agency, and that is why there was
interest in that area.
But the fees were falling so short that we were having
backlogs developed because of those shortcomings. But with the
new fee, those premium processing fees will end up being spent
on transformation, so that there will be over $100 million
spent annually on the transformation program, so that we can
make some of the improvements that we need to improve the
delivery of services to applicants.
Mr. King. And closed technology infrastructure?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir. Improved services, business
processes. It involves infrastructure, it involves technology,
and it involves transforming all of those to improve the
services across the board.
Mr. King. And the fees that go to fingerprints and
background checks the FBI are doing, will that result in more
personnel being put on board at FBI to turn this around more
quickly?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir. We have been working with the FBI
and, just recently, we have also had a number of meetings
trying to work through this difficult problem of the FBI
backlog. Just in terms of cases that are in a backlog at the
FBI awaiting background checks, there are 150,000 in that
backlog. That is unsustainable, and so we are working with the
FBI on two fronts: one, to modify and improve or re-engineer
the search criteria, and two is to apply more of resources to
the name-check process. The FBI is hiring over 30 individuals
to work just on the USCIS's backlog.
Mr. King. Then if I could just quickly, in conclusion, pose
this question, is that once the infrastructure is up in place
and there are more FBI personnel, you have to have more to work
the backlog of 150,000 down than you will need to sustain the
applications after that backlog is worked down. So also into
this fee, are we building infrastructure that will be in excess
of our needs once the backlog is resolved?
Mr. Scharfen. I would answer that in two ways. First, we
would like to bring down the speed, the time it takes to do a
background investigation to much less than 6 months. I am
reluctant to set out a goal here now. I would like to just
first get rid of that FBI backlog. Some of those cases, over
50,000, are over 2 years old, and we would like to first get it
down where we get rid of that backlog entirely.
But then we want to work hard to get that below 6 months,
and that is what we are doing. In general, if we make
improvements and we have overcapacity, in retrospect, as we
move forward because of these increases in technology gains,
the idea is that every 2 years, you would have a new fee review
and you would do a new fee study, a cost analysis, so that you
could have adjustments to the fee so that you would not have
that overcapacity.
Mr. King. That is what I needed to know. Thank you, Mr.
Scharfen.
Madam Chair?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I recognize now Mr. Gutierrez for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you for calling the hearing, Madam
Chairwoman.
First of all, I would like to just speak to you so that you
understand that there are two differences of opinion on the
immigrant community that you serve.
I think it is a false dichotomy that is being made here
between permanent residence and the rest of the American
population. The fact remains that in order to get any means-
tested program in the United States, you have to be a permanent
resident for 5 years. So you do pay taxes for services you
cannot receive, because the last time I checked, there was not
a deduction for the first 5 years.
Everyone that is a permanent resident--and you correct me
if I am wrong--is required to register at Selective Service,
and, indeed, in the war in Iraq, the first fatality was Lance
Corporal Gutierrez, permanent resident, entered the country,
interestingly enough, undocumented to the United States and the
first casualty.
I mean, when I am on a road, permanent residents paid with
their taxes for that road that I traveled. When I get a book at
a library, they paid for that. When I call 911, they are
helping to pay for the police department and the fire
department which I benefit from. As a matter of fact, when I
travel to Iowa, which might not have as many people, but roads
are just as expensive where there is heavily populated
populations, they helped pay for that through their income
taxes and Federal taxes and taxes on gasoline.
So it is kind of a false dichotomy that we are making here.
Aren't there 80,000 permanent residents serving in the military
forces of the United States with much distinction today?
I just wanted to clear that up so that you might have
another point of view of how some people look at immigrant
community.
I want to ask you a specific question. The proposed fee
regulation, was sent by you to OMB on October 26 of 2006. That
is the proposed regulation, your request for fee increases,
first has to go to OMB. Is that correct?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. And that was done on October 26 for
these fee increases of last year. Is that correct?
Mr. Scharfen. I----
Mr. Gutierrez. You have no qualms with that?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. We are under the 5-minute rule. You can go
check and correct your testimony later on.
A few days later--that is on November the 3rd--you folks
sent to OMB for a regulatory change on the green card. Is that
not correct?
Mr. Scharfen. I assume it is. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. A week later?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. Then in February of this year,
February of 2007, you cleared the OMB hurdle for both the fee
increases and the green card changes. Is that not correct?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir. I assume it is.
Mr. Gutierrez. So, basically, you said, ``We want to send
this to OMB to follow the regulatory process for fee increases,
and we want to send a week later to change the green card.''
Everybody has to change their green card that has an unexpired
date. You did both those things basically simultaneously and,
indeed, OMB within weeks approved both of those for you. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. All right. Good. Now the final rule on the
fee increase was published on May 30, 2007, and took effect on
July 30, 2007. Is that not correct?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. Now what was the old fee for changing
a green card?
Mr. Scharfen. $190, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Plus $70 biometrics?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. And what is the new fee?
Mr. Scharfen. $80 for biometrics and $290 for the green
card.
Mr. Gutierrez. So, although you received from OMB the
authority to go ahead and change the green card selection back
in February, 7 months ago, you waited until the fee increase
went into effect, thereby charging the very people who you want
to have a new green card an additional 40 percent. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Why did you do that? Why did you do that? If
you had authority to do both of these things, if you started
the process at the same time, if OMB approved them virtually
simultaneously, why did you affect a community of people,
750,000 people, who had done nothing wrong?
You issued them a green card without an expiration date.
You wanted them to change that green card, but is it not true
that you waited until the fee increase went into effect in
order to tell them, ``We want you to change your green card''?
Why did you do that?
Mr. Scharfen. Well, I think, if I could answer in a general
fashion, that as a general matter, the whole purpose behind the
fee rule is that recover our actual costs of----
Mr. Gutierrez. That is not my question. My question is, you
asked for the green card regulation to be changed
simultaneously with the fee increases. You got approval for
both of them simultaneously, yet you went ahead with the fee
increases and then said, ``We want to change the rule on the
green card.'' Is that not true?
Mr. Scharfen. That is correct.
Mr. Gutierrez. Why did you do that? That is fundamentally
unfair to a community of people who have played by the rules,
but you want additional dollars. As a matter of fact, you knew
that, but you did not put it in your budget, that you were
going to get an additional $277 million from green card holders
here in the United States of America. Is that not true?
Mr. Scharfen. Well, I think one thing I would point out,
sir, is that the green card rule is a proposed rule at this
point and that----
Mr. Gutierrez. Can I just ask for 30 seconds to----
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection. We have to vote.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
I understand that, but, you see, that is why I tried to be
careful.
You went for the rule change to OMB in October. A week
later, you went for the green card. OMB approved both of them
for you in February of this year. You moved forward on the fee
increase, but waited until the green card change, although you
had authority at the same time. Why didn't you do it all
simultaneously? You suggested in your testimony, you said,
``Members of the panel, many people have gone and applied for
American citizenship because they saw the fee increase was
coming,'' right.
Why didn't you give the same opportunity to permanent
residents that have green cards to go ahead and take care of it
before the fee increase? It is fundamentally unfair for us, and
it demonstrates the inefficiency of your department and those--
and I will end with this--that say, ``Just give your
department, your Agency all the money it wants,'' because you
guys have some kind of super efficient model of Government.
You are not, and, in this case, I would suggest that you go
back, as you are looking at the rule, and say, ``You know
something? We made a mistake. It was not really fair. We should
charge the old fee, not the new fee,'' and give them the same
opportunity because, indeed, the Government worked for them
efficiently and in a timely manner.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired, and I know
Mr. Scharfen wants to answer, but we have a vote. We will
recess and come back, and Mr. Scharfen may want to add
something in answer to your question after he thinks about it
while we are voting.
So we are in recess until after this vote.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. Under the rules, we can proceed with two
Members, and, ordinarily, we would wait for the Ranking Member,
but because we took an hour to vote, I am going to--I am sure
Steve is on his way over--at least introduce the next panel and
invite Mr. Scharfen to see if there was anything further you
wanted to add.
Mr. Scharfen. No, ma'am, other than to say to Mr.
Gutierrez, I understand your points very well, and as the
Marines say, sir, I hear you loud and clear, and I will take
that back and put that into our deliberative process, sir.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
And I would hope we would have time for a second round, but
given how long it has taken, I think we will move to the second
panel in hopes that Steve is on his way.
And so thank you very much. We will reserve--Mr. King has
arrived--the right to have additional questions submitted in
the next 5 legislative days, and we ask if the Committee will
forward them to you if we receive them from Members and ask
that you respond as promptly as you can in that situation.
Mr. Scharfen. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Thank you.
We will now ask our second panel to come forward, and we
have coming forward Arturo Vargas, the executive director of
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials, or NALEO, and NALEO's Educational Fund. Before
joining NALEO, Mr. Vargas served as the Vice President for
community education and public policy at MALDEF, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Mr. Vargas also
worked as the Senior Education Policy analyst at the National
Council of La Raza prior to his work at MALDEF. He serves on
several community boards in his home of Los Angeles, including
those of the United Way and Community Technology Foundation of
California. He holds both his master's and bachelor's degrees
from my alma mater, Stanford University.
Next, I am pleased to welcome Bill Yates, an executive
consultant with Border Management Strategies, an immigration
and border security consulting firm. Mr. Yates began his career
as a special agent with the INS in Newark, New Jersey, and
after 31 years of service to the Federal Government's
immigration agencies, he retired from USCIS in 2005 as Chief of
Domestic Operations. The recipient of several awards from USCIS
for his distinguished service, Mr. Yates also received the
American Immigration Law Foundation's public service award last
year. He earned his bachelor's degree in Asian Studies from
Seton Hall University, and I would note that over these many
years, Bill was always a source of reliable information to me,
and I appreciate his being here today.
And finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to
Rhadames Rivera, the vice president of 1199, the Service
Employees International Union's United Health Care East. Mr.
Rivera has served as vice president of the union, based in New
York City, since 2000. Prior to working with SEIU, Mr. Rivera
coordinated housing and organizer networks for the Urban
Homesteading Assistance Board in New York; taught as a training
director and researcher in several schools in Santa Domingo,
Dominican Republic; and worked as a counselor and job
development specialist at the Cardinal Cushing Center in
Boston. He studied at Cornell University's School of Labor
Relations' Leadership Institute, as well as the Northeast
Broadcasting School in Boston, and earned his degree in social
work from the University of Puerto Rico.
Each of your full statements will be made part of the
official record of this hearing, but we would ask you to
summarize in 5 minutes your oral testimony, and when that
yellow light goes on on the table, it means there is only 1
minute to go, and then we will move on to questions.
And, once again, let me apologize for our lengthy
departure. The House took longer than we thought it would to
cast three votes, but sometimes that is the nature of the
House.
So, if we can begin with you, Mr. Vargas, welcome and thank
you.
TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NALEO
EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member King,
and Congressman Gutierrez who has left the room. Thank you for
the invitation to appear before you today.
The NALEO Educational Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization that facilitates the full participation of Latinos
in the American political process. In fact, our founder is a
past Member of the House of Representatives, the late
Congressman Edward Roybal, who served in this chamber for over
30 years.
In January of this year, we launched our ``ya es hora
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Yates?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. (Bill) YATES, EXECUTIVE CONSULTANT,
BORDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Mr. Yates. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member King,
Representative Gutierrez, good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Bill Yates. I am an executive consultant of
Border Management Strategies and a former INS and USCIS
employee with over 31 years in immigration service and
enforcement operations. It is a privilege to share with this
Subcommittee my professional experience with an insight into
the USCIS fee schedule.
No one wants to see fees that are so high that it
discourages individuals from filing for naturalization or other
benefits. However, we all want and expect USCIS to operate
efficiently, serving its customers with timely and accurate
information and benefit decisions, while, at the same time,
protecting all Americans by ensuring that benefits only go to
eligible applicants.
The fee schedule change that went into effect recently is
extremely significant because it supports customer service and
national security goals while providing USCIS with an
opportunity to invest in badly needed business and IT
improvements.
USCIS inherited an enormous financial liability from the
INS because of the asylum adjustment of status naturalization
and immigrant visa petition backlogs. During fiscal year 2001,
INS estimated that the value of the backlogs in deferred
revenue represented a shortfall in the examinations fee account
of $700 million to $800 million.
Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we believe that a
combination of President Bush's commitment to fund the $500
million backlog elimination effort plus savings that could be
achieved through business re-engineering efforts could
eliminate that deferred revenue funding gap. The plan was to
fund the re-engineering efforts through the premium processing
fees and use appropriations to help eliminate the backlogs.
Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 environment, those premium
processing funds had to be diverted to pay for additional
background checks and increased security for Government
buildings and employees. During fiscal year 2002, new
background checks alone necessitated the re-assignment of 800
adjudicator work years resulting in an even larger backlog.
Exacerbating the situation was a decision by the Department of
Justice mandating the reassignment of hundreds of INS
adjudications officers to conduct National Security Entry Exit
Registration System, or NSEERS, interviews.
Then during November 2002, INS learned that it had
naturalized an individual who was under investigation for
suspicion of being a terrorist. This occurred despite INS
having received two negative responses to background checks. As
a result, INS returned to the FBI approximately 2.6 million
naturalization and adjustment of status name checks to be
redone. While that work was underway, those applications were
ordered held in abeyance.
The immigration services division of the INS that became
USCIS faced huge backlogs and enormous challenges as it became
an Agency under the Department of Homeland Security on March 1
of 2003. However, by March 2004, production increased and
backlogs stopped growing. By September 2004, steady progress
was being made each and every month at reducing wait times, and
by September 30, 2006, USCIS had met most of its backlog
reduction targets.
There are limited options for reducing fees for USCIS
customers, and most options entail placing additional burdens
on taxpayers. I think that there are good arguments for
taxpayer funding for military naturalization and for refugee
and asylum processing, but I acknowledge that there are also
good arguments for continuing the current funding requirements.
I think that the more significant issue is the
vulnerability of the current funding system to fluctuations in
receipts. A significant portion of the current fees relate to a
surcharge that is required to support infrastructure as well as
the non-revenue-generating applications.
And, by the way, I just spoke to Rendell Jones, and I
believe that surcharge is approximately 50 percent of the
entire fee.
For example, a drop in asylum filings would be deemed a
financial blessing for CIS, but a significant decrease in
naturalization applications could cause serious budget issues
given that large surcharge that helps to pay for
infrastructure.
If Congress decides to maintain the current funding rules,
then lower fees can only come through transformed business
practices. I do believe that there are opportunities to succeed
in this, but it requires a dramatic change in how USCIS
conducts business. Fortunately, I believe it is possible to
improve efficiency in operations while also increasing process
integrity.
In my written testimony, I offer specific recommendations,
and I will be pleased to discuss any of those points.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yates follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. (Bill) Yates
introduction
Madam Chairwoman, members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Bill
Yates and I am an Executive Consultant of Border Management Strategies,
a company that provides immigration and border security expertise to
both the public and private sectors. Prior to my involvement with
Border Management Strategies I spent over 31 years with the Immigration
and Naturalization Service and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, serving in a variety of officer and management positions in
both enforcement and service disciplines. I began my career as a
special agent at Newark, NJ in 1974, and at the time of my retirement,
September 29, 2005, I was the senior career official at USCIS. It is a
privilege to share with this subcommittee my professional experience
with, and insight into, the fee funding process, the reasons for the
steep fee increases, the challenges USCIS faces in breaking the backlog
cycle, and the need to transform core business practices.
growth in application fees
The fee schedule change that went into effect last month is
extremely significant for USCIS because it is the first time that that
the fee schedule will actually recapture the full costs of USCIS
operations. I am familiar with the previous fee schedule changes
beginning with 1998 and each of those prior fee increases failed to
fully recapture the full cost of doing business. In each instance from
1998 through the 2005, the amended fee schedule reflected the results
of compromises, not calculations Since FY 2002 USCIS has relied upon
its premium processing fee revenue to meet its base financial
obligations. Those funds were intended to be used for business process
improvements, but were necessarily diverted to pay for new background
checks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At one
point during the third quarter of FY 2002 we calculated that the new
background checks required the redeployment of over 800 adjudication
officer work-years, and increased expenditures by over $10 million
dollars per month. The fee schedule change in 2004 did include funds
needed to pay for background checks, but premium processing revenues
continued to be used to pay for other underfunded programs, including a
portion of the backlog reduction efforts, and for the infrastructure
requirements needed for USCIS to become a stand-alone agency as
intended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Certainly, the fee increases beginning with 1998, when fees
increased by an average of 76%, have been high, and high fees represent
a significant burden to many USCIS customers. The reasons for these
steep increases above the standard inflation costs are due
predominately to;
Growth in non-fee and restricted fee application
processing costs requiring significant surcharges being placed
on fee paying customers to cover those costs.
Creation of new programs and components, such as the
National Records Center (NRC), the National Customer Service
Center (NCSC), the Missouri Service Center (MSC), and the Fraud
Detection and National Security Office (FDNS)
Implementation of the Application Support Center
contract for fingerprint and more recently biometrics capture
Implementation of new background checks following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Increases in building and personnel security costs
due to the threat of terrorism.
Creation of USCIS as a stand-alone agency within the
Department of Homeland Security
Increased emphasis on eliminating application and
petition backlogs
Operational inefficiencies and maintenance costs for
archaic legacy information systems
application and petition backlogs
Backlogs at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have
developed for a number of reasons, some predictable, and some resulting
from unpredictable events. Massive surges in application receipts, poor
computer systems, paper-based labor-intensive processes, a flawed
funding system, unfunded mandates, inefficient business processes, post
September 11, 2001 security check processes, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) background check delays, lack of a scalable
workforce, dissolution of the INS, and an immature Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) that has struggled with immigration regulatory
processes, have either contributed to backlogs or impeded efforts to
eliminate them.
Despite the aforementioned USCIS has made dramatic gains in
reducing backlogs and wait times for applicants for benefits over the
past three fiscal years, and many of the agencies identified above have
contributed substantially to that success. Unfortunately, while these
achievements are both significant and welcome, the gains are not the
result of strategies that will prevent the growth of future backlogs.
That is because eliminating the backlog cycles at USCIS requires
identification of the chain of responsibility among the USCIS, DHS,
Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, OMB, Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), and the United States Congress. As with any chain, ignore any of
the links and failure is the likely result.
what harm is caused by backlogs
The consequences of backlogs are varied and often severe; prolonged
family separations, lost opportunities for families to migrate to the
United States; companies being unable to get the permanent or temporary
workers they need when they need them; permanent residents being denied
employment opportunities reserved for citizens; and the lives of
unattended minors and relatives of refugees and asylees being placed at
risk. Academicians and immigration statisticians are hindered in their
attempts to provide meaningful analysis of migration trends because
backlogs can lead to incorrect conclusions. The backlog cycle \1\ can
decrease or increase the numbers of individuals who immigrate, or who
become citizens during specific periods of time. Because of this it
becomes extremely difficult to draw conclusions or prepare long-term
forecasts critical to inform a variety of public policy matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Backlog cycle refers to a repeating pattern of growing volumes
of pending applications with receipts far exceeding completions
followed by a period of backlog elimination efforts during which time
completions far exceed incoming receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlogs are self generating. Applicants awaiting decisions on
adjustment of status applications may need to file several applications
for extensions on temporary stay or for interim benefits including,
work authorization or foreign travel authorization. Backlogs also cause
severe stress among USCIS employees and their families as employees are
routinely required to work overtime during the workweek and often on
weekends, as well. Because of a succession of workload surges during
the past 10 years forced overtime has become a fact of life for many
USCIS employees.
The DHS Ombudsman argues that backlogs create national security
vulnerabilities. He notes that significant numbers of applicants for
adjustment of status will ultimately be deemed ineligible to adjust
their status, but because of backlogs applicants may remain in the
United States for long periods of time before a final determination is
made. Although USCIS background check procedures ameliorate the risk
identified by the Ombudsman, it is true that backlogs create
opportunities for ineligible aliens to remain in the United States for
extended periods of time. It is also true that permitting ineligible
applicants to abuse the system to extend their residence in the United
States is not an acceptable condition.
why hasn't uscis been able to eliminate all backlogs
Backlogs are generally event-driven. The current backlog cycle has
its roots in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
That Act generated waves of application surges that overwhelmed the
adjudicative capacity of the INS/USCIS. Ironically, it was not the
initial legalization wave that overwhelmed INS records and adjudicative
processes, as well as FBI fingerprint clearance processes. Instead, it
was secondary wave consisting of lawful permanent residents who began
filing for naturalization during the mid to late 1990s in record
numbers that exceeded the infrastructure capabilities of the INS.
Between 1981 and 1990 INS received 2.4 million applications for
naturalization. During the 1991 to 2000 period INS received 7.4 million
applications, a 208% increase.\2
\\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 31,
Petitions for Naturalization Filed . . . Fiscal Years 1907 to 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to suffering from its own processing system failures
the INS was further hampered by the inability of the FBI to timely
process fingerprint check and name check background requests. From the
mid 1990s forward immigration application processing would increasingly
be negatively impacted by processing delays associated with background
checks. The fingerprint check process with the FBI, however, would
evolve to become a model process that is better, faster, and more
secure. The extremely efficient live scan fingerprint system featuring
electronic capture and transmission between USCIS and the FBI achieves
response times in minutes or hours as opposed to months for the old
paper and ink process it replaced. Unfortunately, name check processes
have become even more problematic than during the 1990s because the
vulnerabilities are now better understood, but the solutions remain
complex and labor intensive.
INS made substantial progress on backlogs during FY 2001, but
following the terrorist attacks the FY 2002 focus shifted from backlog
reduction to enhanced identity verification efforts. Adjudicators were
fearful of approving applications because no one knew which application
could contain the next potential terrorist. The Attorney General
ordered mandatory Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) checks on
all applicants for benefits. DOJ also decided to use INS adjudication
officers to conduct the National Security Entry-Exit Registration
System (NSEERS) interviews. In addition to the hundreds of adjudicators
reassigned to conduct background checks, hundreds more were reassigned
to conduct NSEERS interviews. Then, in November 2002, INS learned that
it naturalized an individual suspected of being a terrorist. Subsequent
reviews revealed that INS had received two negative responses from the
FBI in response to routine background check inquiries despite the
existence of FBI investigative records. INS ordered field offices to
halt work on a large volume of adjustment of status and naturalization
applications, reviewed the incident with the FBI then returned
approximately 2.6 million name checks to the FBI for rework.
Unfortunately, the rework resulted in processing delays for hundreds of
thousands of customers.
As INS' Immigration Services Division was preparing to become a
stand-alone agency in DHS on March 1, 2003, it was still growing
backlogs, still dealing with a workforce that feared making a wrong
decision, still underfunded, and now lacked an administrative support
infrastructure since DHS had assigned all INS administration and IT
support programs to ICE. However, by the end of its first year as an
agency within DHS, USCIS stopped the growth of backlogs. Within the
next six months it was reducing backlogs. By the end of FY 2006 it had
met a majority of its goals to reduce processing times to six months or
less. During the same period that USCIS reduced backlogs it improved
the integrity of its processes. These gains were made possible only
through Congressional appropriations as well as premium processing fee
funds.
building integrity into the adjudicative processes
One new construct that initially caused a fair amount of
disagreement within and DHS was the creation of the Fraud Detection and
National Security (FDNS) office. Some argued that it represented a
USCIS effort to establish its own investigative force in direct
competition with ICE, and that it did not belong in a service
organization. I strongly disagree. FDNS was established to assist
adjudicators make the correct case decisions through evidentiary
verification activities. If fraud is identified FDNS will review the
record to determine whether the suspected fraudulent application is
part of a broader conspiracy or a single party fraud case. Fraud cases
are referred to ICE for criminal investigation and prosecution. FDNS
may continue to offer support during the investigation and prosecution
stages. FDNS enhances ICE's capabilities by eliminating referrals for
investigation based upon mere suspicion and by offering expertise in
adjudications requirements and case support activities.
FDNS also fills the gap between USCIS responsibilities and ICE
responsibilities. When ICE initiates a conspiracy investigation its
goals are to stop the criminal enterprise, prosecute the principals,
seize assets, and initiate removal proceedings where appropriate. It is
not an ICE responsibility to adjudicate the hundreds or thousands of
applications that may individually be suspect. That responsibility
rests with USCIS and each and every decision to deny must stand on its
own review of case facts. It is FDNS' responsibility to bridge that gap
by assisting adjudicators to obtain the evidence needed to render the
correct decision on each and every application or petition filed. FDNS
also assists in resolution of background check hits, and conducts
sampling surveys of the various benefit processes to identify high risk
processes.
In addition to the obvious benefits described above, the work of
FDNS sends a clear message to USCIS employees--that agency leadership
cares about the integrity of the adjudicative processes. This is
invaluable for the long-term health of USCIS.
how can the backlog cycle be broken
USCIS defines a backlog as the volume of pending application work
that exceeds the cycle time (stipulated processing time) for that
particular adjudication. Since different benefit applications have
different evidentiary and processing requirements cycle times
necessarily vary by form type.
Backlogs develop when the load represented by the volume of
applications and petitions (converted to labor hours) filed with the
agency exceed its adjudicative capacity.
Because application volumes or loads can be converted into hours of
required adjudicative effort, and because the capacity of the USCIS
workforce can also be converted into hours of available adjudicative
effort, the solution to backlogs is to ensure that the adjudicative
capacity meets or exceeds the load at all times.
Since both the load and capacity can be accurately calculated the
only remaining variable in eliminating backlogs is utilization. USCIS
must manage or utilize its adjudicative capacity such that it directs
sufficient hours within its overall capacity against each and every
form type so that it effectively meets the load. For example, if the
total load represented by all of the FY 2007 applications and petitions
is 12 million hours of adjudications work, USCIS must possess the
capacity and must manage the dedication of 12 million hours to timely
complete all FY 2007 filings.
Workload calculations do not present challenges to USCIS. IT
possesses the expertise to accurately determine the load that any
application surge will create. It also possesses the expertise to
determine its adjudicative capacity. The principal challenges for USCIS
include; forecasting surges, creating a scalable workforce to meet
increased and decreased load demands, managing its capacity so that it
operates as efficiently and as effectively as possible, gaining access
to the funding authorization before a surge hits, eliminating the
current practice of paper-based adjudication plus electronic-based
adjudication of the same application in favor of a single electronic-
based adjudication.\3
\\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The dual adjudication process adopted by the INS and maintained
by USCIS is inefficient. When INS introduced the CLAIMS 4
Naturalization electronic processing system agency leadership was
promised efficiency gains of 25% or more. Unfortunately, processing
times actually increased by approximately that amount because the
system efficiencies were more than cancelled out by the requirement
that the adjudicating officer continue the full paper adjudication and
then adjudicate the case in the system as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS' backlog elimination efforts to date have been made more
difficult because backlogs, employee attrition rates, and filing surges
do not occur uniformly throughout its 250+ offices. It may have a
capacity surplus in one office and a capacity deficit in another.
Statutes, government rules, customer concerns, and paper intensive
processes combine to limit its ability to move work from one office to
another. Details of employees from offices with greater capacity to
ones with less capacity, as well as mandatory overtime, have become
routine management tools, however, details are very costly, disruptive
to employees' lives, limited by available office space, and may result
in lower quality adjudications. Agency managers have reported that
overtime and employee details to backlogged offices frequently result
in diminishing returns as employee burnout leads to increases in
errors. Adjudicative costs can rise steeply due to overtime payments
and due to the amount of rework needed on partially-completed cases.\4
\\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Partially-completed casework typically involves continuing a
case without decision due to an eligibility issue that has been
discovered during the interview or case review process. When a detailed
officer returns to her home office it is a common occurrence that these
partially completed cases will require reassignment to another officer
who will then review the entire record again to become familiar with
the case facts and to be certain that the first reviewer did not miss
any key issues or evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most significant issues confronting USCIS in effectively
managing load, capacity, and utilization is application surges.\5\
Surges are a fact of life for USCIS, and any plan to prevent backlogs
must have an effective surge response plan. To deal with surges USCIS
must have certain elements of its infrastructure scalable \6\ as well
as a scalable workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Application surges result from a variety of factors including
new legislation, statutory numerical limitations, grants of temporary
protected status, reactions to proposed fee changes, modified
processing requirements or changes in public policy. The annual
commencement of the H-1B filing period on April 1st, is an example of a
predictable surge in petitions. A new grant of temporary protected
status may be unpredictable.
\6\ Creating a scalable infrastructure is particularly difficult
for a government entity. However, USCIS developed its Application
Support Centers (ASC) as scalable fingerprint and biometric
identification centers. The ASCs are contract facilities with contract
staff, but each such facility has on-site government oversight. The
performance record of these facilities is excellent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
identifying the chain of responsibility
Even if USCIS accurately forecasts the timing and increased
workload of a surge, it still may not be able to timely process the new
workload without help from its partners.
DHS, OMB, and Congress must provide the funding
authority to expand USCIS' adjudicative capacity,\7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The mere fact that USCIS collects application fees and deposits
them in its Examinations Fee Account does not mean that it can access
those funds. DHS, OMB and then Congress must approve any effort by
USCIS to increase its funding--a process that may be blocked, delayed,
or simply ignored at any step.
DHS and OMB must facilitate the timely publication of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessary rules and notices in the Federal Register, and
FBI must have the capacity to process greater volumes
of biometric and biographic background checks,\8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The FBI conducts both fingerprint checks (biometric) and name
checks (biographic) for the USCIS. Fingerprints provide criminal
history information. Name checks ascertain whether ineligibility
information exists in FBI records or whether the applicant is the
subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI.
USCIS' operating plan must include scalable contracts
for mail processing, file creation, data entry, biometric
capture, records storage, IT services, and facilities
expansion. USCIS must review plans with its contractors to
ensure viability and must develop its own plans for a scalable
workforce and scalable facilities or develop a virtual office
\9\ that can obviate the need for space expansion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A virtual office can be created by developing the capability to
move an application electronically to an adjudications officer
regardless of their physical location. Work-at-home programs and
relocating certain applications from offices that lack sufficient
capacity to others that possess excess capacity will be enhanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the current funding system is flawed and can lead to backlogs
Fees have long been charged to petitioners and applicants for
immigration benefits, but the decision to require that USCIS be totally
dependent on fees is relatively new. There isn't anything conceptually
wrong with requiring that USCIS recapture the costs of administering
the adjudications program, however, USCIS and its customers are
vulnerable to the current bureaucratic processes and appropriation
policies.
Although USCIS is a fee funded agency it does not have access to
fees except through the annual appropriation process, or through the
very inefficient and unpredictable reprogramming process. Workload
surges because of legislation or special programs such as TPS may
generate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees, but USCIS
may not receive Congressional authority to access those funds. This
scenario occurred in 2000 when Congress passed the Legal Immigration
Family Equity Act (LIFE Act). That Act generated over one million
additional applications with fees, but because the legislation did not
authorize INS to access the revenue, and because a subsequent
reprogramming request was denied by Congress, INS had to hold the
applications until such time as it received funds needed to adjudicate
the additional caseload. Access to LIFE Act fees deposited in the
Examinations Fee Account was not authorized by Congress until the
following fiscal year.
the current fee system creates vulnerabilities for uscis
The non-fee, and Congressionally-restricted fee application work of
the USCIS now amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in costs
annually. The non-fee applications include all asylum applications,
refugee applications, military naturalization applications, and fee-
waiver applications. Congress has limited by statute the fee paid by
applicants for temporary protected status to $50, covering only a small
fraction of the true cost of that adjudication. The financial liability
that these non-revenue generating applications create for the USCIS
makes it very vulnerable to increases in non-fee applications and/or
decreases in fee applications given the significant surcharge placed on
each fee application. As USCIS reduced its adjustment of status
backlogs during FY 2005 and FY 2006 it realized that it would receive
substantially fewer requests for employment authorization. I recall
that we estimated a reduction in fee revenue of between $50 to $60
million dollars. The financial ramifications were significant because
each of those employment authorization application fees carried a large
surcharge that was needed to fund asylum, refugee, military
naturalization and other non-revenue generating workloads.
Transforming USCIS business processes and IT systems
The future success of USCIS requires that it transform its business
practices so that it ends the current dual-adjudication process (paper
and electronic), creates a central view or account that contains
complete immigration history information, offers customers multiple
channels for accessing information and filing, and develops a robust
inventory and case management system.
Although it is frustrating that these capabilities do not exist
today we should also recognize the progress that USCIS has made during
a very difficult time with severe funding constraints.
Business process improvements that have been initiated include;
Development of the lock-box initiative with the
Treasury Department to deposit fees quickly and to enter
application data into a national tracking system
Case tracking on-line
Electronic forms distribution
A web site that provides outstanding information and
research capabilities
Transparency of its operations by providing on-line
access to the Adjudicator's Field Manual
Transformation of the Application Support Centers
from fingerprint centers to biometric data capture and identity
verification centers.
Improved processes for permanent residents who need
to replace a lost or expired permanent resident card (green
card)
Development of the Fraud Detection and National
Security (FDNS) program to assist adjudicators in evidentiary
verification efforts, and to assist ICE by identifying,
criminal fraud conspiracies, and individuals who pose public
safety and/or national security risks
Digitization of immigration records supporting both
long-term storage needs and simultaneous availability of
records to all three immigration agencies
Development of analytical tools to accurately measure
workloads in each and every office for staffing purposes, and
zip code analysis of application receipts to ensure that
offices are located where customers actually reside.
In addition, USCIS is currently engaged in a number of active pilot
projects to test establishment of customer accounts, enumeration and
tracking options, records digitization, and revised adjudication
procedures.
the information technology (it) myth--it can eliminate or prevent the
growth of backlogs
USCIS business processes cannot be transformed into efficient,
effective, and fraud resistant approaches without dramatic improvements
in its IT capabilities. Conversely, building new relational databases
and system interfaces will accrue only very modest gains unless
business practices are transformed.
USCIS processes remain primarily paper-based, and even its
electronic application filing opportunities require the customer to
mail supporting evidentiary materials in paper format. Agency rules
require business petitioners to file extensive paperwork with each and
every petition to prove that it is a legitimate business capable of
paying the proffered wages. This wastes the customer's time, increases
the customer's preparation costs, increases the length of time the
adjudicator spends reviewing evidence, and increases file storage costs
as the same corporate reports and financial documents may be stored in
thousands of separate petition files.
As the DHS agency responsible for immigration records USCIS also
has the responsibility to make those records available to ICE and CBP
when needed. This requires not just digitizing records but also
creating the business rules and governance rules with respect to
maintenance and updating of record information.
USCIS faces a complex set of tasks in its efforts to transform both
its business processes as well as its IT systems. Fortunately, it is
well-positioned to move forward with that effort now that backlogs have
been reduced and the premium processing funds can be reserved to fund
transformation efforts.
recommendations
My first recommendation is that the new fee schedule remain in
place. The revenue implications for USCIS would assuredly curtail
business transformation efforts with long-term negative implications
for all USCIS customers. I do believe that by transforming business and
IT processes USCIS can reduce its overall operating costs, and this may
support lower fees in the future or at least curtail the rate of fee
increases beyond the normal inflation-based increases. USCIS faces a
complex set of tasks in its efforts to transform both its business
processes as well as its IT systems. Fortunately, it is well-positioned
to move forward with that effort now that backlogs have been reduced
and the premium processing funds are available to fund long-term
improvements.
With the new fee schedule in place USCIS can use the resources
generated by the premium processing fees to fund its transformation
efforts. Those funds should be protected or reserved for that purpose.
To ensure success of its efforts to break the backlog cycle and to
transform its business practices I also recommend that;
USCIS develop a surge capacity plan and require the
same from its contractors
USCIS continue efforts to eliminate paper, eliminate
redundant evidentiary requests, and establish processes for
electronic verification of application and petition data
USCIS implement its transformation efforts in concert
with CBP and ICE as all three immigration agencies rely upon
USCIS application and petition data, and records systems
USCIS in concert with the DHS CIO develop IT systems
that provide inventory control, case management, case status,
and address information, including a capability to populate or
flag multiple DHS systems with change of address data
Congress should consider funding new mandates until
such time as new fees can be implemented, or in the
alternative, develop a process where funds will be appropriated
up front, but must be repaid as the revenue is generated
through fees
DHS develop the capability to efficiently review and
publish regulations and regulatory notices and this capability
should be sufficiently robust that it not break down during
leadership changes at the Department
OPM assist USCIS in developing a more flexible
workforce (position classification for temporary or part-time
workers) that can expand and contract to deal with workload
shifts
USCIS improve its officer training to achieve its
objective of timely and consistently accurate adjudications
Background check process delays need to be eliminated
A decision needs to be made concerning how long an
application may be held in abeyance for suspicion of
ineligibility, and procedures should be published identifying
who has authority to suspend an adjudication and for what
period of time
Background check wrap-back functionality needs to be
incorporated into the background check systems so that USCIS is
automatically notified if potentially disqualifying information
is obtained by intelligence or law enforcement agencies
subsequent to a USCIS background check request
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this subcommittee. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Yates.
And finally, Mr. Rivera. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF RHADMES RIVERA, VICE PRESIDENT OF 1199, SEIU
UNITED HEALTH CARE WORKERS EAST
Mr. Rivera. Good morning, Chairwoman. Good morning, Mr.
Gutierrez. Good morning, Mr. King.
On behalf of 1199 SEIU Citizenship Program, we thank you
for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee and other
distinguished guests that are here today. I will be able to
talk about the fee increase and the impact on the health-care
workers that we serve.
The 1199 Citizenship Program began in January 2001. The
program is administered by our benefit fund and pension fund
and training and education fund and provides an array of
innovative and comprehensive benefits, including educational
and training programs that are designed to accommodate the
needs of more than 300,000 union members.
We are the largest health-care workers union in the Nation,
representing workers in homecare settings, hospitals, nursing
homes, pharmacies, clinics, and other health-care agencies. Our
membership reflects the diversity of immigrants to this Nation,
particularly in New York City. Our members include health-care
workers from continents and countries from around the world,
including the Caribbean, South America, Central America,
Canada, Africa and Europe, with the majority of members who
utilize the program coming from the Caribbean.
The top countries of the top percent are Jamaica, Trinidad,
Dominican Republic, and Guyana. We are proud that our
membership embodies such rich diversity, and are reminded that
our Nation indeed is a land of immigrants.
Our program overview: The benefits of U.S. citizenship are
numerous. Citizenship provides our immigrant members with more
opportunities and a greater feeling of belonging and a sense of
security. They are able to fully integrate themselves into our
country. More importantly, through our citizenship, our members
gain the right to vote and participate more fully in the
democratic process.
We are committed to designing programs that expand the
rights and empower our members, who are the health-care workers
who keep our hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and other
health-care agencies running.
The Citizenship Program has served more than 7,000 in the
process of naturalization and benefits. Yearly, our program
averages more than 1,000 member participants. Through the
efforts of a dedicated and competent group of professionals,
applicants are offered free legal assistance and educational
support, including application preparation, review and filing
of the form N-400, N-600, I-90, N-565, N-648, AR-11 and others.
The program offers a different class choice for applicants
to study U.S. Government and civics while reviewing interview
techniques. We have developed an academic curriculum, video,
and book highlight program stories that we provide to you.
To date, our office has submitted over 6,178 N-400
applications. We proudly brought up almost 4,677 persons that
are naturalized U.S. citizens through the help of our program.
Yet hundreds of our applicants are at an advanced stage of
naturalization, awaiting interview or having the oath.
We note more than 500 applications that are in backlog
waiting adjudication. Some of these applications have not
received any information through the form G-28 Notice of
Appearance as Attorney or Representative submitted along with
the application.
The 1199 SEIU Citizenship Program is accredited and
recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The fee impact: Recently, the fee increased effectively
July 30, 2007, is the biggest immigration application fee
increase recorded in the history of immigration. The USCIS
reported that overall applications and petitions were increased
an average of nearly 86 percent. Most agree that the new fees
are unprecedented. The fees for naturalization applications
have increased five times since 1999, from $225 in 1999, to now
the new fee of $675.
Our program is currently experiencing a drop in
participation during the weeks since the new fees took effect.
The scheduled appointments dropped by 50 percent during the
month of August. Many of our members are voicing concerns of
the struggle of saving money for the application.
In contrast, during the months leading up to the increase,
we serviced double our normal capacity. Our members
participated in record high numbers in an effort to get their
applications processed before the scheduled increase.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Rivera, your 5 minutes has expired a
little bit. I wonder if we could ask you to summarize, and then
we can get to our questions. We do appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Rivera. Okay. Essentially, our main concern is that
normal family, normal union members will not be able to pay the
increase, knowing that regular workers probably get paid $650 a
week, and the fee for a whole family will be rising over
$2,000-something. It is our concern that we need to change this
approach and be able to provide working people with the right
to become a citizen in this country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rhadames Rivera
introduction
Good morning Chairwoman, on behalf of the 1199SEIU Citizenship
Program, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and
other distinguished guests on the important topic of USCIS fee
increases and the impact on the healthcare workers we serve.
The 1199SEIU Citizenship Program began in January 2001. The program
is administrated by our Benefit and Pension and Training and Education
Funds. The funds provide an array of innovative and comprehensive
benefits including educational and training programs that are designed
to accommodate the needs of the more than 300,000 union members of
1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East. We are the largest healthcare
workers union in the nation, representing workers in homecare settings,
hospitals, nursing homes,, pharmacies, clinics and other healthcare
agencies.
Our membership reflects the diversity of immigrants to this
nation--particularly to New York City. Our members include healthcare
workers from continents and countries from around the world, including
the Caribbean, South America, Central America, Canada, Africa and
Europe, with the majority of members who utilize the program coming
from the Caribbean. The countries in the top percentile are Jamaica,
Trinidad, Dominican Republic and Guyana. We are proud that our
membership embodies such rich diversity and are reminded that our
nation is indeed a land of immigrants.
program overview
The benefits of U.S. citizenship are numerous. Citizenship provides
our immigrant members with more opportunities and a greater feeling of
belonging and a sense of security--fully integrating them into our
country. Most importantly, through citizenship our members gain the
right to vote and participate more fully in the democratic process. We
are committed to designing programs that expand rights and empower our
members, who are the healthcare workers who keep our hospitals, nursing
homes, clinics and other healthcare agencies running.
The Citizenship Program has served more than 7,000 people in the
process of naturalization and related benefits. Yearly our program
averages more than 1,000 member participants. Through the efforts of a
dedicated and competent group of professionals, applicants are offered
free legal assistance and educational support. Assistance includes
application preparation, reviewing and filing of the forms N-400, N-
600, I-90, N-565, N-648, AR-11 and FOIA's.
The Program offers an array of different class choices for
applicants to study U.S. Government and Civics while reviewing
interview techniques. We have developed an academic curriculum, video
and book highlighting immigrant stories.
To date our office has submitted over 6, 178 [N-400] applications.
We proudly boast 4,677 persons that are naturalized U.S. citizens
through the help of the program. Yet hundreds of our applicants are at
advanced stages of naturalization (awaiting interviews and oaths). We
note more than 500 applications that are in backlog and waiting
adjudication past USCIS established average processing time frames.
Some of these applicants have not received any information although the
form G-28 Notice of Appearance as Attorney or Representative was
submitted along with the applications. The 1199SEIU Citizenship Program
is accredited and recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
fee increase impact
The recently imposed USCIS fee increase, effective July 30, 2007,
is the biggest immigration benefit application fee increase recorded in
the history of immigration fee changes. USCIS reported that the overall
application and petition fees were increased an average of nearly 86%.
[USCIS Press Release January 31, 2007] Most agree that the new fees are
unprecedented. The fees for naturalization applications have increased
five times since 1999 from ($225 in 1999 to now $675 including the
biometrics).
Our program is currently experiencing a drop in participation
during the weeks since the new fees took effect. Scehduled appointments
dropped by 50 percent, during the month of August. Many members are
voicing concerns as they struggle to save money for the application. In
contrast, during the months leading up to the increase, we serviced
double our normal capacity. Our members participated in record high
numbers, in an effort to get their applications processed before the
scheduled increase. We had such high numbers that we partnered with
other community service providers to accommodate the increased
participation in our program.
Our union members have good jobs with fair contracts negotiated
that include comparable pay and comprehensive benefits. However, they
voice that the new fee is a lot of money for working class people to be
able to afford. Some are saving up or borrowing money so they can
afford to file for citizenship. Still others--even before the latest
increase--expressed that they were having difficulties raising the
money when the fee was $400.00. We often learn of workers using
vacation pay or even tax refunds to pay for naturalization application
fees.
Citizenship is a benefit that typically families often want to do
together. Husbands and wives often naturalize together with their
children over the age of 18. The increase makes it difficult for a
working class family to simultaneously apply for citizenship.
A family of three would need $2,025 to file for U.S. citizenship
together.
And Home Care and Nursing Home workers--who provide care to some of
the most vulnerable members of our society--still earn low wages and
are fighting for more equitable earnings. The high naturalization fees
are especially hard for these workers.
For too many of the healthcare workers we represent, the cost for
naturalization application fees is a grave economic burden and they
sometimes must sacrifice basic needs in exchange for a chance to live
the American dream.
conclusion
Individuals eligible to naturalize are lawful permanent residents
working and paying taxes. They already contribute to the United States
economy. Lawful permanent residents share the same tax responsibilities
as Untied States citizens. Consequently, they already pay their share
for the operation of government services.
We predict that the newly imposed fees will reduce the number of
working-class immigrants who can obtain citizenship because they will
not be able to afford it. American citizenship is a privilege and
financial cost should not deter hard working, lawful, permanent
residents from fully participating in this great nation.
The forms N-400, I-90, and N-600 should not be increased by the
same percentage as other applications, since these forms are used to
provide immigration benefits to the population of immigrants that are
already permanent residents. And all of us should work together to
support hard-working immigrants, like the healthcare workers who are
1199SEIU members, so that they can live the American dream just like
the many generations of immigrants who came before them.
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofren for the opportunity to testify today.
Ms. Lofgren. We thank you for your testimony, as well as
your tremendous service to our country.
I know that Mr. Gutierrez has a competing hearing in
Financial Services, so rather than begin the questioning, I am
going to start with him and then go to Mr. King.
Mr. Gutierrez. I thank you so much. Thank you so much,
Madam Chairwoman. I really appreciate it.
Sorry. My glasses broke. I will do the best I can. I am
blind here.
But I want to thank Mr. Vargas and Mr. Yates and Mr. Rivera
for taking the time to be here this morning and for their
wonderful testimony--it is going to be very, very helpful to
us--and especially to SEIU in New York City and the NALEO
National League for all their endeavors and their citizenship
and in defense of immigrants. I want to thank you for that.
I want to just take a moment as we re-examine this just to
go back to the immigration examination fee account. This is in
the Immigration Nationality Act, page 309, and it says that
``fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services
may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full
cost of providing all such services, including the cost of
similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants
and other immigrants.''
So, you know, we are very careful here about ``must,''
``may,'' and what kinds of words we use, and, indeed, we have
appropriated funds, at least since I have been in the Congress.
I arrived here in 1993, and I can remember on several occasions
voting for additional funds. So this notion that the
immigration naturalization, the citizenship brings to us from
the Federal Government that they must is really not true
because I just read it from page 309. It says, ``may.''
Now, of course, I might have a little difficulty because
you know English is not my first language, but I had good nuns,
and they taught me the use of verbs, and it seems to me that
``may'' is ``may'' and ``must'' is ``must,'' and when they told
me I may do something, I might not do it, and, indeed, they do
not need to do it.
Would anybody disagree on the panel with that assertion
from the Immigration Nationality Act? No. Good.
Ms. Lofgren. The record will note that all the Members
shook their heads no.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. Because I think it is fundamentally
important.
The other thing is it seems to me when Government does
infrastructure improvement, for the most part, what it does is
it sells bonds. There is a bond issue.
This is rather expensive endeavor, and the citizens
affected, whether it is a municipality or a State or whatever
locality, just those taxpayers at that particular moment, are
not going to benefit from it, so, therefore, you know, future
people are going to benefit from that road, that bridge, that
school, that infrastructure, whether it is the sewer or water.
I mean, there are huge infrastructure improvements that are
being shouldered by one particular group of immigrants, the
group of immigrants today that wish to become citizens of the
United States, and so I think it would be fair and incumbent
upon us to see how the payment of this infrastructure is paid
by all of us.
The other thing is we just heard testimony on 6 percent.
Mr. Yates, do you know what 6 percent would be of the total? Do
you know what the total increase is in terms of dollars?
Mr. Yates. Not off the top of my head, I do not.
Mr. Gutierrez. Approximately? Is it $5 billion more? What
amount are they looking for?
Mr. Yates. Oh, I believe the figure is closer to $600
million.
Mr. Gutierrez. $600 million.
Mr. Yates. Right.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. So, as we look at this additional $600
million that we are looking for, let me just ask the members of
the panel if any of them would object to their tax dollars
being used for the citizenship processing fee of a soldier in
the armed forces of the United States at this particular time
of war.
Mr. Vargas?
Mr. Vargas. Not only would I not object, I think it would
be an honor to be able to help finance that.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Yates?
Mr. Yates. I agree. I do not object to that.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. I agree.
Mr. Gutierrez. I think most Americans would say that those
are the armed forces, we should all contribute, and it would
be, as Mr. Vargas said, not only the right thing to do, it
would be an honor and a privilege to pay for them. And yet we
have the immigrant community shouldering and bearing the brunt
for those that are on the front lines in defense of this Nation
today.
The fact remains that there 35,000 permanent residents of
the United States serving in the armed forces. There are an
additional 45,000 to 50,000 members of the armed forces that
were once permanent residents, today who are naturalized
citizens, a huge body of people that are serving in our armed
forces, and statistically we see time and time again about
their heroics.
I know my time has expired, so I would just simply say, in
conclusion, I think we need to look at this in a different way,
and I thank Mr. Rivera and Mr. Yates and Mr. Vargas for coming
before the Committee and helping us with this dilemma, and I
thank the gentlelady so much.
I am going to go see Mr. Bernanke with the prime market and
what is going on with their----
Ms. Lofgren. Help us out there.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, I listen to this dialogue that has taken place
here, the gentleman from Illinois, a couple of times on these
panels, and I trust each of the witnesses were here to hear the
previous testimony in the room, you know, the question of who
is shouldering the burden. Now we have a lot more people than
that in the military, and then there will be all of those that
are shouldering the burden. They all deserve to be equally
recognized and honored and revered for that, as well as those
who are immigrants.
Something that emerges, as I listen to this testimony, is
the constant blending of the term ``immigrant,'' and I want to
draw that distinction, and I would ask Mr. Vargas, in our
dialogue, ``immigrant'' is used interchangeably between legal
and illegal, and could you draw a distinction between the two
for us and tell us when you use the word ``immigrant?'' Does it
mean both legal and illegal, or are you referring and implying
that they be legal in your testimony here?
Mr. Vargas. Mr. King, in my testimony today, my comments
have been exclusively limited to legal permanent residents.
These are individuals who have entered our country legally,
have played by the rules, are taxpayers, and want to be full
participants in American society.
Mr. King. Thank you. I appreciate that answer.
And do you say the same, Mr. Rivera, or do you have a
different view?
Mr. Rivera. No, that is our view.
Mr. King. Okay. It is just important because of this
national dialogue we have had for the last several years. It
gets blended and merged between the two.
And then I would go to Mr. Yates, and I would ask you, Mr.
Yates, the issue was raised by the gentleman from Illinois in
previous testimony, the number that I see is that had the fees
for green cards not been increased when the update was
requested, that would have made a difference of $82.5 million.
Can you tell me what would have been the alternative if those
fees had not been increased before the renewal of the green
cards?
Mr. Yates. Based upon the Agency's testimony, they would
have basically had a deficit. They would have operated at a
deficit in adjudicating those applications. So they would have
been faced at some point in time with putting a body of work
aside that could not adjudicated because they would not have
been able to pay their contractors and others to process that
work.
Mr. King. Or could they have, as Mr. Vargas has
recommended, come to Congress and asked for an $82.5 million
appropriation, or could they have calculated in the rest of the
fee structure an increase on the balance of everyone else's
fees to make up for that $82.5 million?
Mr. Yates. Those are options. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. And I understand that it would not necessarily be
valid to ask you to speculate on what they are, but I did want
those options in the record for the consideration of the
Committee and also the public, and I thank you for that
analysis.
I want to make sure also that people do not guess where I
am, and I believe that U.S. citizenship is precious, and I am
hearing discussion here that puts a value on citizenship, and I
look at the dollars that are required to go down the path of
lawful permanent residence and then naturalization application,
and I would ask Mr. Vargas--and you are the one that has
advocated that this be a taxpayer-funded endeavor, at least in
a significant degree--could you tell me how you come to that
conclusion? And do you put a dollar value on citizenship, and
if you do not, how do you come to the conclusion that taxpayers
should fund it?
Mr. Vargas. Mr. King, I put a tremendous value on
citizenship. I think this country benefits when legal permanent
residents become citizens. I think our country is stronger for
that. I think you and I benefit when a legal permanent resident
becomes a naturalized citizen.
What we are advocating is partnership between the newcomer,
the legal permanent resident, and this country. People should
pay a fee for a reasonable service, but what we are doing is
asking people to pay a fee for a service plus. They are being
asked to pay surcharges. They are being asked to pay for one-
time modernization improvements that benefit the whole country.
So----
Mr. King. I apologize. But I see your testimony says
according to data from the 2000 Census, 43 percent of
noncitizen households pay at least $700 in rent each month, and
you have numbers at 36 percent that have annual incomes of less
than $25,000.
Have you seen the Robert Rector study from the Heritage
Foundation that shows that low-skilled households, regardless
of their immigration status, are a net burden, high school
dropout-headed households are a net burden on our taxpayers to
the net cost of $22,449 a year. This is an economic
recommendation you make. Have you evaluated that study, and do
you have a response?
Mr. Vargas. I have not evaluated that study. I would be
happy to look at the study, but I do also know that naturalized
citizens also over the course of their life in the United
States end up having higher incomes, meaning they pay more in
taxes.
Mr. King. You also know they draw down more in services as
well at the same time, and so I think we have some clarity on
that, and I appreciate your testimony, everyone's, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Given the time, I am going to be very brief, and I think
perhaps I will submit some of my questions in writing.
I would just note that I have been complaining about the
lack of technology in this Agency for several decades, and Mr.
Yates knows that because he has heard me complain, and actually
I complained about it before I was ever a Member of Congress.
It has been a tremendous frustration to me. We are still
creating paper files in the Agency. It is absurd.
On the other hand, I cannot help but note that over the
years we have done a variety of things. We have allocated tax
funds to improve the technology, and we never got it. We did a
premium processing fee for well-heeled applicants. I mean, they
were happy to pay the additional fee, and yet they did not get
what they paid for, and I actually think that is illegal.
I mean, you are not allowed to make a profit off of the
applicants, and those fees were diverted. I mean, we took their
money, and they did not get what they paid for.
And I note on the fee structure, for example, the FBI fee
structure right now, the FBI, as I understand it, is charging
the Agency an average of $10. For the most extreme case, the
cost is $22. But the Agency is charging the applicants $80. So
that is a little profit center for the Agency, and I question
even the legality of that.
And it is not so much for the well-heeled applicant. I do
not have a concern. I mean, if you are earning a good salary
and you can pay, you should pay this fee, and the companies
certainly that are filing for, you know, scientists and
engineers are happy. They are not complaining about it. They
are happy to pay the fees.
But for your average working family, this is a very high
amount, and we have had hearings in this room where every
Member of this Committee has said we want people to become
Americans. We have differed sometimes in our approaches on how
best to help the immigrant community become thoroughly part of
the fabric of the United States, but really there is no
disagreement that we want immigrants to become completely part
of the fabric of American society, and an important element of
that is to help people become American citizens.
We want immigrants to become American citizens, and it just
seems to me counterproductive, since we all believe that, to
then put a financial barrier for people who are working and not
getting a lot of money. And so I guess one question I will ask
before we close, maybe to Mr. Rivera and Mr. Vargas, in
particular, because you are doing hands-on work with people in
that category and helping them.
We have a fee waiver in place that the Agency expanded a
bit after our hearing and further discussions. Is that going to
help at all or help enough with the group of people that you
are working with filing for citizenship and, if not, what
adjustments should be made on that waiver provision so that the
person working in the nursing home helping the baby boomer's
parent can actually afford to become an American with us? Can I
ask you that, of if you do not know now, you could get back to
me?
Mr. Rivera. That is funny. I mean, placing the entire
burden on the fee is very difficult----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Rivera [continuing]. To sustain the Agency. We think
that essentially Congress needs to allocate some money to fund
this process.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Rivera. And there are a significant amount of services
that are provided that are sustained by the fees paid by
immigrant workers that should be allocated to something else,
the cost of the administration of this Agency to be allocated
in something else. There are a tremendous amount of ways that
you can be moved out of the fee pay to somebody else.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Vargas?
Mr. Vargas. If I can reply, I would certainly answer more
detail in writing, Chairwoman, but we do know that the
applicants largely are unaware of the availability of the fee
waiver.
But I would also like to advise you that my organization
actually runs a loan fund where we make interest-free loans to
individuals so they could help pay for----
Ms. Lofgren. That is really admirable. That is terrific.
Mr. Vargas. And our default rate is less than 5 percent.
Ms. Lofgren. That makes me very proud to be sitting here
talking to you.
My time has expired, and all the time has expired. I do
thank you for your patience, for you willingness to be here to
share your expertise. We will have 5 legislative days to ask
additional questions in writing, and if we do that, we would
ask that you answer as promptly as you are able to.
And, again, we thank you very much for your participation.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter to David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office (GAO) dated September 12, 2007
Fee Increases Imposed by USCIS Fee Rulemaking for Selected Immigration
Applications, Effective July 30, 2007, Compiled by NALEO Educational
Fund
Letter to Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services dated February 20, 2007, from the American Friends
Service Committee
American Friends Service Committee Recommendations on
DHS Docket No. USCIS-2005-0056 of September 19, 2007
Prepared Statement of Fred Tsao, Policy Director, Illinois Coalition
for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Knowles, President, National
Citizenship and Immigration Council (AFGE/AFL-CIO)
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services
Council (AFGE/AFL-CIO), we are submitting this testimony for the record
of the hearing on September 20, 2007 concerning H. Res. 47, Rep. Zoe
Lofgren's legislation to prevent the immigration fee increase from
going into effect. The NCISC is the American Federation of Government
Employee's Council representing some 7500 employees working at U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Our members at USCIS
include: Immigration Information Officers, Contact Representatives,
Immigration Officers, Adjudications Officers, Asylum Officers, Refugee
Officers, Status Verifiers, Information Technology Specialists,
Language Specialists, Community Liaison Officers, Training Officers,
Program and Management Analysts, Clerks, and Supply Technicians.
Madame Chairman, along with the Consular Officers of the State
Department these dedicated civil servants are America's gatekeepers--
deciding who can enter our country and who can remain here. To say that
these workers are critical to our nation's homeland security efforts
would be a gross understatement. Our members work tirelessly to review
every application for any immigration benefit to ensure its legitimacy
and determine the eligibility of the applicant. But when these
obligations come up against long-standing, severe financial problems,
outdated technology, inadequate infrastructure and other resource
limitations at our Agency, something has to give.
Despite Agency assurances to the Congress that all is well, it is
not. In recent years, we the employees have faced multiple unrealistic
challenges due to unrealistic assumptions about what USCIS can do and
how much it costs to do it. So let's collectively stop fooling the
American people into believing that our gates are opening and closing
as they should.
USCIS, and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), have been chronically underfunded and therefore ill-
equipped to provide its employees with the tools and resources they
need to perform the complex mission of the Service. We have a legacy of
antiquated computer technology, dilapidated, crowded and in some cases
unsafe facilities; poor and inadequate training; little funding for
professional development and continuing education; insufficient staff
and an over-reliance on temporary or ``term'' employees and private
contractors. This has resulted in backlogs, shoddy work product,
enforcement vulnerabilities and an unrelenting push for numbers of
applications processed over quality. The result is an increase in
undetected fraud, the increased possibility of terrorists entering the
country and poor customer service for people seeking legal and
legitimate immigration benefits. It also results in a demoralized and
stressed-out work force subject to unacceptably high turnover rates and
an inability of our Agency to recruit, promote and retain the best
qualified and most highly motivated workforce.
We should not discount the contribution this situation has towards
the growing problem of illegal immigration. Many who might have
preferred to come to the United States of America through an orderly
process in a legal status have become frustrated by the inevitable log-
jams and turned to unlawful means to realize their dreams.
The deep and abiding frustration felt by USCIS employees can be
seen in the attached letter to Director Gonzales and petition that has
so far been signed by over 300 Adjudications Officers from District
Offices around the country. These men and women are so concerned about
the current situation, they have taken the unusual step of signing
their names to a petition which states:
``Sir, with due respect, there is a quiet consensus amongst many
(District) Adjudications Officers that we are not performing our duties
in a way that truly serves our country, the American people and you.
There is a clear, and we respectfully believe unreasonable, ``push''
for reaching quotas for case/interview completions, for ``numbers'',
and for quantity over quality.''
Virtually every employee we have spoken with--regardless of their
job series--complains of the same problem: too much work to do in too
little time, by too few workers. Many feel pressured by productivity
requirements to complete their work without compensation, during lunch
and break periods and during off-duty hours. Many feel pressured to
``cut corners'' in the adjudications process in order to make
productivity and timeliness requirements. Many complain that they are
often unsure of whether a benefit has been properly granted or denied,
because of these constraints.
The frustration felt by many USCIS employees is illustrated by the
situation at the Dallas District Office, where some of our members
describe a program called the Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment (DORA).
The program was designed to ensure that the process of seeking to
adjust immigration status as husband and wife was accomplished in as
little as 15 minutes. According to one employee in that office,
attorneys for immigrants were thanking adjudications officers profusely
for the program and readily admitted there was no way to effectively
detect marriage fraud under the program.
And the frustration is felt in virtually every District office and
Service Center when workers trying desperately to resolve long standing
backlogs of applications are suddenly forced to deal with a new
phenomena known as ``front logs''--a sudden surge in benefits
applications (numbering now in the hundreds of thousands) having been
submitted to USCIS just prior to the new fee increase going into
effect. The surge could have and should have been anticipated, but it
was not and now employees are being asked to speed up the assembly
line.
To make up for inadequate staffing in the locations that are
handling the ``front log,'' the Agency has had to detail employees from
other locations and make use of more overtime. The Agency has
rightfully commended these employees for their hard work, but we remain
concerned that our workforce is operating at a level beyond its current
capacity to produce the work that the American public expects us to
perform. As a result, quality and accuracy are sacrificed, and our
ability to detect fraud and potential terrorist threats is diminished.
why we need the fee increase:
First, it needs to be said that our support for the USCIS fee
increase is based on our understanding of where this money is to be
allocated: more employees, improved infrastructure, better training and
technology and a generally enhanced ability to perform our jobs
effectively. The Agency has assured us that it intends to re-classify
position descriptions and consider upgrades for many of our employees.
We are pleased to hear that, but have yet to see that plan implemented.
At the same time, we have witnessed the increase in numbers of Senior
Executive Service positions and an increase in management and
supervisory positions at the GS-13, 14 and 15 levels. Absent upgrades
for our main work force--the men and women who do the ``heavy lifting''
of providing the Agency's services--the Union questions whether some of
the spending made possible by fee increases is entirely justified.
Adjudications Officers and other related occupations have received no
grade increase in many years, and recognition of their contribution to
the Agency must be equally considered before senior management again
rewards themselves for work we have performed.
But the new fee-rule, for all of the problems raised by critics,
represents the only viable plan that is presently available to provide
the Agency with the revenue it needs to adequately equip and staff its
work force to carry out the mission. We wish to recognize and commend
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzales for the leadership and vision he has
shown by devising this important plan for resourcing our chronically-
underfunded organization. He has demonstrated a genuine concern for the
morale and effectiveness of our workforce by implementing a number of
important new initiatives (all made possible by the fee increase) to
upgrade our facilities and build new ones, expand training and career
development opportunities, upgrade and integrate our information
technology infrastructure and move our business process from a paper to
an electronic environment. But the tasks and expectations we have been
handed--the lawful and efficient adjudication of millions of benefits,
visas and naturalization applications--remain daunting; we are still
not sufficiently staffed and equipped to do the job. We believe
important progress is being made in that direction, but the Agency's
efforts to achieve these improvements--and the Herculean efforts by its
employees to do the job--will be seriously jeopardized if HR 47
prevents the fee rule from being fully implemented.
That said, the Union believes that the Agency cannot, in the long
run, be adequately and sustainably funded and resourced by fees alone--
no matter what the scale of fees. There needs to be a balance between
fee-generated resources for operational costs and appropriations to pay
for our homeland security responsibilities and special programs,
investment in infrastructure, capital costs and work force training,
pay and benefits.
Because UCSIS is a fee-funded agency, there is presently no other
legal means for the agency to raise the funds it needs to operate. We
believe this funding formula must be revisited by Congress as soon as
possible. USCIS is a critical federal agency that plays an integral
role in the Department of Homeland Security's critical mission of
preventing potential terrorists from entering and operating in the
United States. Because our role is vitally important to all Americans,
all Americans should contribute to the effective performance of that
mission. USCIS is not an insular, essentially invisible agency
exclusively serving the needs of immigrants. In a post 9/11 world,
USCIS must hold up its end of the homeland security safety net. To do
so will require more money, perhaps a great deal more money--should a
comprehensive immigration reform bill pass--in the future. Fees for
immigration benefits cannot and will not pay for it all.
longer term funding of cis:
The NCIS Council strongly supports the inclusion of appropriated
funds for specific activities of this agency. While we do not oppose
the funding of immigration benefits from fees, we believe that many
other activities should come from appropriated funds. While we are not
prepared to recommend specific funding methods for each USCIS-provided
service, we would welcome the opportunity to work with you on such a
project.
Finally, we are deeply concerned about the apparent inability of
the Agency to provide you with the information Congress clearly needs
to assess the reasonableness of the fee increase. As a union, we have
no direct access to this information and can only promise to work in
concert with the Committee to pressure the Agency to be more
responsive.
We, the employees of UCIS, are fully committed to the
accomplishment of our assigned mission: to provide for the security of
our Homeland by ensuring that those who immigrate meet all eligibility
requirements to be accepted as members of our society. We provide a
critical service to the people of the United States of America. Like
any good or service, there is a cost involved. It is in the public
interest to ensure that our immigration policy establishes a system
that is reasonable, safe, and lawful that provides for the security of
our homeland and the welfare of the people of the United States of
America. Whether this cost is to borne solely by those who are seeking
the benefits of our immigration laws, or by the taxpayers, or a
combination of the two, is a decision to be made by Congress. But
without adequate resources, we, the civil servants who administer and
enforce our immigration laws, cannot be expected to accomplish our very
important mission.
However, in the end, until such time Congress decides to change the
way USCIS is funded, we do believe this fee increase is necessary and
should be allowed to go into effect. We ask that you support the
Agency's efforts--and in particular the efforts of the working men and
women who help keep our country safe--by ensuring that USCIS has the
resources it needs to do the job. Thank you.
``EXHIBIT A (text of petition by USCIS District Adjudications
Officers)'' by the National CIS Council 119
Letter to Linda Swacina, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
District Director dated April 11, 2007, from Citizenship and
Immigration Services Adjudications Officers
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services