[Senate Hearing 114-884]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 114-884

                   OVERSIGHT OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
                 IMMIGRATION SERVICES: ENSURING AGENCY
                     PRIORITIES COMPLY WITH THE LAW

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND   
                          THE NATIONAL INTEREST

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             MARCH 3, 2015
                               __________

                           Serial No. J-114-4
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 
         
         
         
         
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
              
              


                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov 
                          
                                 ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE  

47-426                    WASHINGTON : 2024 
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                  CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking 
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama                 Member
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED CRUZ, Texas                      SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut

            Kolan L. Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director




         SUBCOMMITTEES ON IMMIGRATION AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST

                    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Deputy      CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, 
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina

                 Alvaro Bedoya, Majority Chief Counsel
                Elizabeth Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel 
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        MARCH 3, 2015, 2:44 P.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama....     1
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  York...........................................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Witness List.....................................................    47
Moore, Joseph, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Citizenship and 
  Immigration Services...........................................     6
    Written Testimoney...........................................    48
Neufeld, Donald, Associate Director, Service Center Operations 
  Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.........     8
    Written Testimoney...........................................    48
Renaud, Dan, Associate Director, Field Operations Directorate, 
  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services......................    10
    Written Testimoney...........................................    48

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Moore by:
    Senator Franken..............................................    63
    Majority.....................................................    64
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77
Questions submitted to Neufeld by:
    Senator Franken..............................................    63
    Majority.....................................................    64
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77
Questions submitted to Renaud by:
    Senator Franken..............................................    63
    Majority.....................................................    64
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Moore to questions submitted by:
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77
    Senator Franken..............................................   140
Responses of Neufeld to questions submitted by:
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77
    Senator Franken..............................................   140
Responses of Renaud to questions submitted by:
    Senator Sessions.............................................    77
    Senator Franken..............................................   140

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Prepared Statement by Senator Grassley of Iowa...............    60
    Letter from Leon Rodriguez to Chairman Sessions, February 26, 
      2015.......................................................   303

Submitted by Senator Session's Office:

    Interim Report of The President's Task Force on 21st Century 
      Policing, March 2015.......................................   195
    Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Jeh Johnson of the 
      Department of Homeland Security, February 27, 2015.........   184
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Letter, February 
      26, 2015...................................................   303
    USCIS Responses to Questions in the January 22, 2015 Letter 
      from Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson and Senator Sessions   185

Submitted by Senator Lee's Office:

    Application for Travel Document, Form I-131..................   163
    Congressional Research Service Parole Memorandum, December 5, 
      2014.......................................................   149
    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) letter, 
      February 13, 2015..........................................   147
    Department of Homeland Security Draft Memo, February, 26, 
      2010.......................................................   153
    Instructions for Application for Travel Document, Form I-131.   168
    The American Spectator--Immigration Doublespeak Article......   181

Submitted by Senator Cruz's Office:

    Chairman Cruz's Letter to Hon. Jeh Johnson, February 24, 2015   143
    Leon Rodriguez Letter to Chairman Cruz, February 26, 2015....   146

 
                   OVERSIGHT OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
                 IMMIGRATION SERVICES: ENSURING AGENCY
                     PRIORITIES COMPLY WITH THE LAW

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015

                              United States Senate,
    Subcommittees on Immigration and the National Interest
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                     Washington, DC
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., Room 
226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Perdue, Tillis, 
Schumer, Klobuchar, Franken, and Blumenthal.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

    Chairman Sessions. The meeting will come to order. I 
apologize. I came in the room there and saw there were three 
minutes left on the vote. I had forgotten there was a vote 
taken and that delayed me. I am very sorry.
    Thank you all for being here. I want everyone to be able to 
watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up or 
block the view of those behind them or speak out of turn, it is 
not fair or considerate to others and so officers will remove 
those individuals.
    Before we begin with opening statements, I want to explain 
how we are going to proceed today.
    Senator Schumer and I will give opening statements. Then we 
will turn to the witnesses for their opening statements. 
Following their statements, we will begin with the first round 
of questions, in which each Senator will have five minutes. 
After the first round, if any Senator wishes to continue with 
questions, we will have a second round of questions.
    With that, I will turn to my opening statement.
    This is our first Subcommittee hearing of this Congress and 
I intend that they will be fact-based. Congress and the 
American people need to know the truth and to understand what 
our laws say, how they are being carried out, why it is 
failing, and how it can be fixed.
    In this area, details are critical, to my mind. Talking 
points without will or proper mechanisms or adequate funding 
are mere vapors. They will not have any reality in the real 
world. We want to improve this system and make it work in a 
better way, work like the American people have a right to 
expect it to work.
    We have strong and able members of the committee. Our 
Ranking Member, Senator Schumer, is able, diligent, 
knowledgeable, and a strong advocate and an effective advocate. 
We have worked together on things and had some disagreements, 
immigration being one of them. I have always admired his skill 
and ability and I am confident we will go forward effectively.
    Senator Schumer, I would note that I do not expect any 
controversial things to happen today and I know you have got 
another something you have to do. If you wanted to do your 
opening statement before mine, I would yield to that if that 
would help you time-wise.
    Senator Schumer. I have to be at three.
    Chairman Sessions. I would like to thank the witnesses for 
testifying today, for their diligent preparation. I appreciate 
your taking the time to meet with me last week and answer some 
of my questions.
    On January 22, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, and Chairman of Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Johnson, and I wrote 
Mr. Moore requesting, among other things, details of the costs 
associated with implementing President Obama's November 2014 
Executive Action.
    Although the February 5th deadline came and went without 
receiving a response, we did get one finally, thank you.
    As the title of this hearing suggests, we are here to 
conduct oversight of the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Service, CIS, as it is called. This is particularly 
important because of the agency's unique funding structure 
which allows it to spend the fees it collects without any say 
from Congress, unless Congress explicitly legislates to that 
effect. Basically CIS has had fees to spend, in some degree, as 
they will, which has resulted in the latest little 
confrontation.
    If the executive branch followed the laws as enacted by 
Congress, such a structure would probably be not much cause for 
concern. However, President Obama has taken unilateral actions 
to eliminate our current immigration laws and replace them with 
his own executive amnesty. Contrary to law, the President's 
policy grants illegal immigrants work permits, photo IDs, 
access to trillions in Medicare and Social Security benefits 
over time, up to $35,000 in tax cash credits, tax payments, and 
ability to take any job in America.
    I understand that the witnesses today cannot speak to the 
policy questions behind the President's actions. That is beyond 
your control as professional employees of the U.S. Government.
    However, if these actions are permitted to stand, USCIS 
will be implementing many of those policy changes. It will be 
in your bailiwick, and will be spending money to do so.
    USCIS has been processing applications for the President's 
first Executive Amnesty in 2012. Deferred action for childhood 
arrivals, or DACA, as of December 31, 2014, USCIS had approved 
more than 95 percent of the people who applied. At one point, 
in May 2013, the approval rate was 99.5 percent.
    These extraordinarily high approval rates confirm the 
claims of USCIS personnel who say the agency has become a 
rubber stamp and case workers have no real discretion.
    Ken Palinkas, the president of the Services Council, the 
union representing 12,000 USCIS officers, said, quote, ``USCIS 
adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp 
applications instead of conducting diligent case review and 
investigation,'' closed quote, and that investigations into red 
flags, cases with problems, and denials are discouraged and 
that, quote, ``USCIS has been turned into an approval 
machine.''
    Mr. Palinkas further states, quote, ``DHS and USCIS 
leadership, political appointees, have intentionally 
established an application project for DACA applicants that 
bypasses traditional in-person investigative interviews with 
trained officers. These practices were put in place to stop 
proper screening and enforcement and guarantee that 
applications will be rubber stamped for approval, a practice 
that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public 
safety at risk,'' closed quote.
    This is a serious concern for us. After 9/11, Congress 
required in-person interviews for all visa applications, except 
those 14 and younger and older than 79, precisely because the 
9/11 Commission felt that national security risks that are 
associated with lack of in-person interviews.
    Mr. Palinkas was quoted in the Washington Times, stating, 
quote, ``I cannot see how you can grant anybody a benefit when 
you have not even seen them and they have already broken the 
law. It becomes almost comical that this is the way they are 
proceeding,'' closed quote.
    The President has instructed USCIS to implement far larger 
executive amnesty that he estimates will cover up to five 
million people.
    A February 10 Washington Times article this year says, 
quote, ``USCIS expects more than 800,000 applications in just 
the first two and a half months, a 70 percent surge compared to 
last year's total for the entire agency. Over the first 18 
months or so, the agency will process more than four million 
pieces of mail related to the larger part of the new amnesty, 
according to contracting documents.''
    Am I about finished here? Yes.
    Senator Schumer. Oh, good. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sessions. I am trying to wrap this up.
    Senator Schumer. I see a lot more pages over there.
    Chairman Sessions. I can just feel Senator Schumer's 
willingness to contribute to this discussion. [Laughter.]
    In a budget briefing for staff, USCIS projected 1.9 million 
filings in fiscal year 2015 and 1.2 million in 2016. Many 
questions remain about how this costly amnesty, which has great 
dangers, will be implemented. I hope we can get some of those 
answers today.
    I would like to emphasize my support for the officers, 
agents, personnel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 
They have been poorly led, unfortunately. They have the lowest 
morale of any group in America, any Federal agency.
    I have tried to defend their interests. I have repeatedly 
asked why their views have not been properly considered when we 
write new laws and the Administration executives amnesty 
proposals. They have not been listened to and that is a 
mistake.
    Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining 
us and appreciate your coming here and bringing the experience 
and knowledge you have.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Schumer.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Senator Schumer. Thank you. I really appreciate the 
courtesy.
    Jeff Sessions and I have disagreed repeatedly over 
immigration, but it has not stood in the way of him being, in 
the finest sense of the word, a southern gentleman. He always 
has been and I very much appreciate that. Now, and I want to 
congratulate him on the assumption of the chairmanship, as 
well.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We are 
lucky to have very seasoned veterans of the agency they serve 
before us today. Our witnesses are not policymakers, so we 
cannot expect and I hope will not be asked to opine on matters 
of policy. They can elucidate the intricate details of how an 
agency as large and complicated as USCIS works. I look forward 
to their testimony.
    I know it is not commonplace for you to be called to 
testify before a Congressional Subcommittee and you look at a 
little nervous. Do not be. He does not bite. Someone else 
here----
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Schumer does, but I do not. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Schumer. Anyway, but not them. In any case, the 
topic, the oversight of USCIS, is important and appropriate 
work for the subcommittee to take up.
    I apologize, I will not be able to stay here. Prime 
Minister Netanyahu is meeting with the House and Senate 
leadership and I feel I have to be there.
    Chairman Sessions and I may not agree about much when it 
comes to immigration, but I feel confident we both believe our 
immigration system is broken. There are no two ways about it. 
It is a chorus we have repeated for years now and yet still 
have been not able to address the major flaws in our system.
    We have not done enough to reverse the tide of illegal 
immigration and our legal immigration system is not calibrated 
in a way that befits our modern economy. We turn away too many 
hopeful immigrants who would create jobs in our country or fill 
necessary posts in our high tech sector or our agriculture or 
low-skilled labor market.
    In the last Congress, as everyone here knows, we put 
together a bipartisan bill that addresses both our illegal and 
legal immigration problems.
    As Chairman of the Subcommittee then, I was proud that the 
bill passed through this subcommittee, then the Judiciary 
Committee and then the full Senate with overwhelming bipartisan 
support. I was frustrated to see it fail to even get an 
opportunity for a vote in the House, where it surely would have 
passed with significant Republican support.
    Instead of passing the bipartisan compromise that would 
have fixed our immigration system, some of my friends across 
the aisle have preferred the status quo, a broken system, and 
have been eager to criticize the system at every turn.
    That is where we find ourselves today. Right now, as we 
speak, USCIS and other agencies in DHS are in the crosshairs. 
Perhaps today there is hope because it looks like we are 
jerking back from the precipice right before going over.
    The House is now voting on funding DHS, including USCIS, 
and maybe they will learn from their folly and not do this 
again.
    What we saw was truly incredible. After the Senate passed a 
full clean funding bill that would have finally ended this 
governing by crisis, all the House could do is put is right 
back where we were with a short stopgap measure. So hopefully 
that will end.
    The irony is that the very agency tasked with implementing 
the executive actions that my colleagues have so obsessed with 
would not have shut down anyway. That is the agency we are 
discussing today, 96 percent of USCIS workers funded by fees, 
not congressional appropriations.
    You might ask what about the four percent. The added 
twisted irony is that only one of the USCIS programs that would 
have shut down is something my colleague and I came to agree 
with, eVerify, which stops unscrupulous employers from hiring 
undocumented workers and cutting everyone's wages. Two other 
agencies that would have shut down are Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
    Essentially, to make a point about needing more immigration 
enforcement, Republicans were willing to shut down immigration 
enforcement.
    We have a more appropriate venue for this fight--the 
courts. That fight has already been taken up. And my friends 
who will find problems with the performance of this agency have 
an easy solution to that, as well. If you have problems with 
the agency and want to make it better, let me make a 
suggestion. Work with us on comprehensive immigration reform.
    The Senate-passed bill from Congress, in my opinion, would 
fix our broken immigration system. It is tough on our border, 
tougher than anything I have heard the other side propose. They 
say fix the border first. Our bill does that. It did not 
matter. It provided an enormous boost to our economy. The CBO 
said it would grow our GDP by over three percent. No Republican 
tax cut, no Democratic spending bill would grow the economy 
that much.
    The bill was great for our economy, good for the country, 
tough on the border, and certainly not amnesty, by any stretch. 
It is supported by an unprecedented coalition of groups across 
the entire political spectrum and it is what the American 
people demand. It would increase fee-based funding of USCIS and 
implement needed reforms to benefit our whole system, like 
eliminating employment and family visa backlogs.
    My view? The most the productive way we could use our time 
here is start to work again on comprehensive immigration 
reform. The best thing would be to pass the bipartisan bill, 
support from a lot of the Republicans in the last Congress, 
might even get more now.
    Sadly, the chairman has called this hearing and I know he 
will conduct it in a fair way, which I appreciate. I am sorry I 
cannot be here, once again.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you.
    Would the witnesses please stand and raise your right hand?
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you. You may be seated. First, we 
have Joseph Moore. Mr. Moore is the Chief Financial Officer of 
USCIS. This is the Customs and Immigration Service that is a 
sister agency to the Border Patrol at the border and the ICE 
offices who do interior enforcement, and they process the 
applications of so many.
    He has been with USCIS since the creation--present at the 
creation, you were. As have all of today's witnesses, he has 
been CFO since October 2012, but has been in immigration since 
1995. Prior to his current position, Mr. Moore served as Chief 
of the Office of Performance and Quality and Deputy Budget 
Chief. Before joining USCIS, he worked at Immigration and 
Naturalization Service at the Immigration Services Division.
    Next, we have Mr. Donald Neufeld. He is the Associate 
Director of Service Center Operations. He is responsible for 
overseeing all activities at the four service centers located 
in Texas, California, Nebraska, and Vermont. He served as 
Acting Associate Director of Domestic Operations at USCIS and 
has directed the California service center. He joined the 
service in 1991.
    Finally, we have Donald Renaud, Associate Director of the 
Field Operations Directorate. He overseas more than 80 field 
offices, four regional offices, the National Benefits Center, 
the immigration investor program, and served as an immigration 
professional since 1998.
    Thank you all for being here.
    Do you have an opening statement, do each of you? All 
right. Please, Mr. Moore, if you can begin.

                STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MOORE, CHIEF
                   FINANCIAL OFFICER, A U.S.
              CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    Mr. Moore. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Schumer and 
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Joseph Moore. I am the 
senior financial officer of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services and the principal advisor to Director Leon Rodriguez 
on all matters concerning the budget and financial management.
    USCIS occupies a unique position within the Federal 
Government's fiscal structure, as its operations are primarily 
dependent upon fee-based revenues collected under three 
specific fee accounts. These are the immigration examinations 
fee account, the H-1B non-immigration petitioner account, and 
the fraud prevention and detection account.
    These three fee accounts provided more than $3 billion in 
funding for USCIS and comprised approximately 96 percent of the 
agency's fiscal year 2014 budget. The balance of USCIS funding 
in fiscal year 2014 was provided by congressional 
appropriations in the amount of $116 million and was used to 
support the eVerify and Citizenship and Integration Grant 
programs.
    USCIS' three fee accounts were established under different 
legislative authorities. This is important to note because the 
H-1B and the fraud prevention and detection account fees were 
established in statute such that USCIS cannot change these 
fees.
    Conversely, the immigration examinations fee account was 
established by legislation, allowing USCIS to set and adjust 
these fees through a notice of public rulemaking. Given the 
unique fee-based funding structure supporting USCIS operations 
I would like to briefly describe the specific authorities of 
these three fee accounts.
    First, the primary fee account supporting USCIS operations 
is the immigration examinations fee account which Congress 
established in 1988 by amending the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to add Sections 286(m) and (n). These sections provide that 
all adjudication fees collected shall be deposited into the 
immigration examinations fee account and remain available until 
expended and that such fees may be set at a level that recover 
full operating costs, including those costs provided without 
charge to asylum and refugee applicants or certain other 
immigrants.
    The immigration examinations fee account is a no-year 
account possessing permanent indefinite appropriation 
authority.
    Second, the fraud prevention and detection account, 
established in 2004 by amending the INA to add Section 286(v), 
prescribes that a $500 fee be paid by an employer petitioning 
for a beneficiary's initial grant of H-1B or L non-immigrant 
classification and that a fee of $150 be paid by an employer 
filing a petition on behalf of an H-2B worker.
    All fee revenues deposited into the fee account remain 
available until expended. The fraud prevention and detection 
account is a no-year account possessing permanent indefinite 
appropriation authority.
    Third, the H-1B non-immigrant petitioner account, 
established in 1998 by amendment the INA to add Section 286(s), 
prescribes that certain employers who participate in the H-1B 
program pay a $1,500 fee or $750 for those petitioners who 
employ 25 or fewer full-time employees and that all fee 
revenues deposited into the fee account remain available until 
expended.
    The H-1B non-immigrant petitioner account is a no-year 
account possessing permanent indefinite appropriation 
authority.
    The decision to establish and charge fees for certain 
immigration services is deeply routed in U.S. fiscal policy 
dating back to at least the enactment of the INA in 1952. 
However, the creation of the immigration examinations fee 
account in 1988 most visibly and clearly signaled Congress 
intent that Immigration and Naturalization Services be funded 
by user fees rather than from annual appropriations.
    By mandating that immigration services provided by the 
Federal Government be administered through a system of specific 
user fees, it was explicitly recognized that the provision of 
these services were of a particular benefit to the individual 
seeking the service above and beyond what is normally provided 
to the general public.
    Moreover, it was recognized that such user fees would 
reduce the burden on the taxpayers by financing that portion of 
Federal activity through the collection of user fees.
    Since the creation of USCIS in 2003, the agency has relied 
upon these fees to finance the majority of its operations. The 
funding structure has proven to be a very effective mechanism 
for financing USCIS operations that are often subject to 
fluctuations in applicant demand. As these demands change, so 
too does the fee revenue collected to support agency 
operations.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look 
forward to receiving your questions.
    [The prepared testimony of Mr. Moore appears as a 
submission for the record]
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.

             STATEMENT OF DONALD NEUFELD, ASSOCIATE
              DIRECTOR, SERVICE CENTER OPERATIONS
               DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
                      IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    Mr. Neufeld. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Schumer and 
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Donald Neufeld and I am 
the Associate Director for the Service Center Operations 
Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
    Having served under every administration since President 
Ronald Reagan, I appreciate and value the role USCIS plays in 
protecting the homeland, supporting the economy--our economy 
and providing humanitarian relief, and ensuring the orderly and 
expeditious flow of legal immigration.
    I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 
today to testify regarding the important work of the Service 
Center Operations Directorate of USCIS. USCIS administers the 
world's largest immigration system that includes more than 100 
immigrant and non-immigrant visa classifications and more than 
200 different forms and applications.
    In fiscal year 2014, USCIS adjudicated nearly seven million 
petitions and requests, including applications for 
naturalization, applications for lawful permanent residence, 
immigrant and non-immigrant visas petitions, requests for 
humanitarian protection and parole, and requests for deferred 
action, among others.
    In order to administer the vast majority of benefits under 
this system, USCIS maintains 83 field offices and a national 
benefits center under its Field Operations Directorate and four 
major service centers under its Service Center Operations 
Directorate.
    USCIS distributes responsibility for processing various 
categories of applications and requests among its field offices 
and service centers in order to achieve maximum efficiency, 
reliability, consistency, and accuracy.
    I have been asked to provide an update on USCIS' Service 
Center Operations Directorate. The Service Center Operations 
Directorate is comprised of a headquarters component in 
Washington, DC and four service centers located in Dallas, 
Texas, Laguna Niguel, California, Lincoln, Nebraska, and St. 
Albans, Vermont.
    Our current authorized staffing total is approximately 
3,600 Federal employees, with contract support provided by 
approximately 1,500 contractors.
    The service centers are designed to adjudicate cases that 
do not require face-to-face interactions with the public. Our 
caseloads are generally high volume and include employment-
based non-immigrant visa petitions, such as H-1Bs, family and 
employment-based immigrant visa petitions, employment-based 
applications for adjustment of status, and multiple forms of 
humanitarian protection, including temporary protected status, 
protection under VAWA, and non-immigrant status for victims of 
crimes and trafficking.
    We also process requests for deferred action under the 2012 
policy guidance on deferred action for childhood arrivals and 
requests for deferred action related to the VAWA and U non-
immigrant programs.
    In fiscal year 2014, service center employees processed a 
total of nearly 4 million of these applications, petitions and 
requests. As a matter of routine business operations, USCIS 
continually monitors and projects workload and staffing levels 
and makes resource allocations and decisions that take into 
consideration statutory, regulatory and humanitarian factors.
    Whenever USCIS receives a sudden or unexpected increase in 
workload, we analyze the factors causing the surge and allocate 
resources to minimize delays in any program, especially those 
with statutory or urgent humanitarian requirements. By making 
ongoing resource allocation decisions based on the current 
landscape, all USCIS customers are given the attention and 
service they deserve.
    Recognizing the importance of providing immigration 
services that support humanitarian, family reunification and 
economic goals, we strive to do our work with the greatest 
integrity and efficiency. We rely on USCIS' Fraud Detection and 
National Security Directorate to assist us in closely 
monitoring fraud trends and to provide training and assistance 
to adjudicators in ferreting out fraud.
    To recognize and address national security and public 
safety threats, we conduct biographic and biometric background 
checks and closely coordinate with law enforcement agencies as 
appropriate.
    We are steadfastly committed to ensure that immigration 
benefits are not granted to individuals who pose a threat to 
national security or public safety or who seek to defraud the 
U.S. immigration system.
    In closing, on behalf of USCIS Director Rodriguez and my 
colleagues, I thank you, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member 
Schumer and members of the Subcommittee, for your interest in 
our service center operations programs and for the opportunity 
to share this information with you today.
    I will be happy to address any questions or concerns you 
may have.
    [The prepared testimony of Mr. Neufeld appears as a 
submission for the record]
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you.
    Mr. Renaud.

               STATEMENT OF DAN RENAUD, ASSOCIATE
            DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE,
           U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    Mr. Renaud. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Schumer, 
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Daniel Renaud and I am 
the Associate Director for the Field Operations Directorate of 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
    I learned at an early age the importance of public service. 
My father retired after 30 years of Federal service and my 
mother after almost 20 years. I learned that doing the business 
of the government is an honorable profession and one that 
improves the lives of every citizen of this country.
    Those beliefs have been reinforced on a daily basis over 
the past 26 years during my own Federal career, working beside 
hundreds of immigration professionals, like the two with me 
here today.
    I am honored and privileged to lead the Field Operations 
Directorate and its team of over 5,000 Federal employees who 
are hard at work right now doing their job operating the 
largest immigration service in the world, while upholding the 
USCIS core values, integrity, respect, ingenuity, and 
vigilance.
    The dedicated employees in the Field Operations Directorate 
focus on two distinct immigration benefits: adjudicating 
requests for lawful permanent residence, commonly known as 
green cards, and determining who is eligible to become a United 
States citizen. The women and men of the Field Operations 
Directorate understand and appreciate the significance of the 
work we do and its impact on applicants and their families for 
generations to come.
    These are not benefits we grant lightly. Only after careful 
review of eligibility guidelines and completion of full 
security and public safety checks will a case be approved.
    In a typical year, field operations adjust the status of 
over half a million individuals to permanent residents on the 
basis of a family relationship to a U.S. citizen or to a 
permanent resident.
    USCIS officers in the field conduct in-person interviews 
with these applicants in 83 offices around the country.
    Similarly, individuals seeking citizenship through the 
naturalization process must appear in person before a USCIS 
officer who conducts an examination of the applicant's case and 
all available evidence and background security checks. All 
applicants must take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution 
and to the laws of the United States in order to obtain 
citizenship. Typically, USCIS naturalizes over 700,000 persons 
during the course of a year.
    In addition to the 26 district and 83 field offices, the 
Field Operations Directorate also includes components that 
perform specialty functions. The National Benefits Center 
located in Lee Summit, Missouri was established in the year 
2000 to process cases filed pursuant to the Legal Immigration 
Family Equity Act.
    Over time, the responsibilities of the NBC have evolved and 
the center now performs a number of operations that are 
critical to support field offices. Among these operations are 
scheduling cases for biometric collection and interview, 
preparing cases for interview by conducting and recording the 
results of required background checks, creating and 
consolidating immigration case files, and shipping files to the 
field offices for adjudication.
    In 2014, the investor program office was consolidated under 
the Field Operations Directorate and relocated from the 
California service center to Washington, DC.
    The IPO overseas adjudications of petitions for the EB-5 
immigrant investor visa. The transfer of this workload to 
Washington, DC allowed greater oversight of this important 
program, while also providing USCIS the opportunity to leverage 
expertise in the areas of financial transactions, economics, 
business planning, intelligence, and other subjects necessary 
for efficient and accurate adjudication.
    Equally important, the relocation of the IPO allowed USCIS 
to embed a team of experts from the Fraud Detection and 
National Security Directorate and to enhance the security and 
integrity of the program.
    Today I hope to leave you with a better understanding of 
the work done by the women and men of USCIS in fulfilling our 
agency's mission. I hope that after today you share the pride 
and appreciation that my colleagues and I have and the 18,000 
immigration professionals that comprise this agency and in the 
work they do each and every day.
    In closing, on behalf of USCIS Director Rodriguez and my 
colleagues, I thank you, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member 
Schumer and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to 
share this information concerning USCIS Field Operations 
Directorate with you today. I look forward to addressing any 
questions or concerns you may have.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you very much.
    Colleagues, if some of you have things you have to go to, I 
will yield my time at the beginning. I just would want to note 
that we have different perspectives around here.
    My perspective is that the House of Representative fully 
funded homeland security with their bill. They simply said you 
could not use some of the money to carry out an extralegal 
policy of executive amnesty that Congress had explicitly 
rejected.
    It was the Democratic Senators that blocked the Senate bill 
from even coming to he floor and even having a chance to be 
amended. They blocked funding for homeland security, number 
one.
    Number two, it has been repeatedly stated that this 
immigration flow is an improvement to the economy. The 
Congressional Budget Office studied that and what they found 
was that per capita GDP went down. Yes, there would be some 
increase in GDP to bring in 11 million more people, but per 
person in America, their wealth, their share of the pie would 
go down and go down for quite a long--two decades, I believe.
    They also concluded that wages would go down. For the 
average working American, wages would go down if the Gang of 
eight bill had passed, and I am referring to that, and would be 
down for over a decade. The last thing we need to be doing now 
is executing a policy that pulls down wages of struggling 
Americans, in my opinion.
    Excuse me. If any of you want to go out of turn? I would be 
glad to take my turn and then we will stay in sync.
    Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. I will defer.
    Chairman Sessions. All right. Very good. One of the things, 
Mr. Moore, that you do not attempt to estimate, I do not think, 
and have no numbers to estimate is the cost that might be 
applied throughout the economy, particularly state and local 
governments, for people who are provided legal status under 
executive amnesty, such as California providing their health 
benefit system to people who were declared legal under this 
process are given status under this process.
    You have made no attempt to consider those costs, have you?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, we did not specifically address that 
issue as part of our planning.
    Chairman Sessions. You look at the fees and what you have 
to do within your agency to process those applicants.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. As the senior financial official, my role 
is to look at programs and initiatives that are being proposed 
and to determine internally what we believe the cost will be 
and then establishing fees that will appropriate recover those 
costs so that we do not impact other fee-paying customers.
    We endeavor to establish fees that fully fund the various 
programs.
    Chairman Sessions. With regard to fees, I thought I 
understood you to say Congress set those fees.
    Mr. Moore. No. Congress gave us the original authorization 
to establish fees, but we do that internally.
    Chairman Sessions. The $85, I believe it is, for a--What?
    Mr. Moore. Biometric.
    Chairman Sessions. Biometric check. You get to set that, 
whether you could be $100 or $75, if you chose.
    Mr. Moore. Correct. We do cost accounting that allows us to 
identify the actual costs associated with providing that 
specific service.
    Chairman Sessions. That represents--and all your fees then 
represent accounting of the actual cost.
    Mr. Moore. Actual costs associated with providing that 
specific biometric service, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. It is my understanding that USCIS does 
not conduct in-person interviews of the DACA applicants, Mr. 
Renaud, and have not been doing that. Is that correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you for the question, Senator. Typically, 
we do not conduct in-person interviews. However, each DACA 
requester is required to appear at an application support 
center for their biometrics to be taken and their identity to 
be confirmed.
    Chairman Sessions. I'm aware of that, but many think that 
is not adequate. For the normal legal applicant, though, you 
do, you explained that your agents and your officers require 
them to come in, to be interviewed personally before they get 
legal status. Is that correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, in my statement, I think I mentioned 
that--I think Mr. Neufeld mentioned that we collectively in 
USCIS adjudicate approximately seven million applications a 
year.
    In field operations we adjudicate approximately 700,000 
requests for U.S. citizenship, naturalization, and 
approximately 500,000 adjustment of status applications to 
permanent resident.
    Chairman Sessions. Those are--they are done through person-
to-person interview, right?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, that is correct. Person-to-person 
interviews, we interview approximately 1.2 million or slightly 
fewer applications per year out of the seven million 
applications.
    Chairman Sessions. Experts have told me on that, a process 
that does not have the person-to-person interview is really a 
dangerous process and creates a lot of different dangers.
    Just to go back, the President's deferred action for 
childhood immigrants in 2012, you did not use person-to-person 
interviews for those.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, there were certain instances, albeit 
very few, that we did individual person-to-person interviews, 
because----
    Chairman Sessions. With regard to the new DACA, adults, you 
do not plan--the policy is going to be not to do in-person 
interviews of those; is it not?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, thank you for the question. Again, I 
want to be clear on this. Any activity toward implementing 
either expanded DACA or DAPA has ceased since the date of the 
injunction. Some of the policy issues were being under review. 
At the time of the injunction, there were not plans to 
interview in person every requester for that.
    Chairman Sessions. That is my understanding. There would 
not be a plan to do person-to-person interviews. Not your 
decision, somewhere else it has been made, which is contrary to 
the normal process that you would go through to admit a person 
lawfully and it creates, I think, a good deal of danger and 
risk, as Mr. Palinkas, the union head of the officers, says, 
that it would create great risk and undermine the ability to be 
effective.
    Senator Blumenthal, we are glad you are here. You get to 
walk right in and take the floor.
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chairman, I have been here and I, 
too, if any of our colleagues have other pressing issues, I 
have to go to the Armed Services Committee. I am going to take 
advantage of your calling on me. I was here earlier when you 
gave your analysis of the situation with the Department of 
Homeland Security funding.
    I am not going to dispute you on the record at length 
because I only have a limited amount of time, but I just do not 
want my silence to be taken as agreement or assent. I have 
great respect for the views of my friend and colleague and I am 
just going to go straight to my question.
    Let me ask you, all of you. What is the practical effect of 
the Texas court decision? Has it disrupted ongoing efforts to 
implement this program and, if so, how?
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you, Senator. The practical effect is 
that as of the date of the injunction, USCIS stopped any 
implementation activity toward expanded DACA and the DAPA, 
Deferred Action For Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent 
Residents.
    Senator Blumenthal. Has that created, so far as you know, 
confusion, anxiety, fear? I will just tell you, in my 
experience in the State of Connecticut, the reaction has been 
huge and it has caused panic, a lot of anxiety, fear, 
uncertainty. You must be hearing it, as well.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, my understanding is that the 
prospective requesters for deferred action are experiencing 
that, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Both parents, that is, potential 
eligible applicants for DAPA, as well as the dreamers who would 
be eligible under the extended DACA program; is that true?
    Mr. Renaud. Yes, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. What would you do if either a stay is 
granted or if the decision by the district court is overturned 
on appeal? How quickly would it--obviously, the May date for 
implementation of DAPA might be difficult unless a stay is 
granted.
    How quickly do you need to know so as to be able to proceed 
on schedule?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, that is a very good question. I think 
that we would look to general counsel to advise us on--to 
advise the agency on how to proceed in light of some additional 
court activity.
    We know that we were approximately 90 days into the 
implementation of deferred action for parents of Americans and 
permanent residents and this was certainly interruptive by 
virtue of the injunction, and we would need to reassess where 
exactly we were.
    Senator Blumenthal. Essentially, if applications are filed 
in the interim, they would be considered one by one after the 
program is reinstated, if, in fact, it is reinstated; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I would say that is a likely outcome, 
yes. But I apologize, I cannot foretell what may----
    Senator Blumenthal. If the court returns the situation to 
what it was before the decision, you would implement the 
program.
    Mr. Renaud. That is my understanding, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. You would consider those applications 
one by one and you would see whether they met the criteria for 
the program that the President has established.
    Mr. Renaud. Again, speculating, I think that would be the 
case. We would be----
    Senator Blumenthal. Some of those applications might well 
be rejected.
    Mr. Renaud. That is correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. Some would be accepted under the 
existing criteria and standards, which involve an exercise of 
discretion; am I correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, yes. If the question is does deferred 
action represent an exercise of discretion, you are absolutely 
correct, and that each application, were the program to be move 
forward at some time, each application would be reviewed 
individually based on the evidence in the file, based on 
rigorous background checks, based on national security and 
security checks--I am sorry--national security and public 
safety checks, and then discretion would be administered to 
determine whether we chose to offer deferred action or not.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thanks very much to all of 
you for your testimony here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sessions. It will be Senators Perdue, Cruz, and 
Tillis.
    Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you guys for being here today. I just have a 
practical question based on the volume of increased demand that 
is coming at you.
    As I understand, you have about 13,000 adjudicators right 
now, 5,000 government contractors, and then I think you are in 
the process of hiring 1,000 new employees for your new Crystal 
City facility, if I understand that correctly.
    According to recent press reports, the Administration 
estimates that perhaps as many as 800,000 applicants will 
arrive at your agency the first two and a half--a 70 percent 
increase, as I understand.
    I have a practical question about how you are going to 
handle that volume. A report issued by your agency's Office of 
Inspector General in 2007 stated that the USCIS workload system 
was geared toward approval as opposed to denial of applications 
and that adjudicators' performance reviews were based on the 
number of applications processed. This means that the volume of 
applications processed correlated with high performance rating.
    The inspector general's report also noted how USCIS was 
``drastically failing,'' quote-unquote, this is his term, not 
mine, to comprehend how time pressure affected the case 
officer's ability to make appropriate adjudicator decisions.
    More recently, in 2014, Ken Palinkas, the president of the 
National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council that 
represents USCIS adjudicators, said that USCIS still maintains 
a quota system that prioritizes speed over quality and 
approvals over investigation.
    I have a question about how you incent people, how you 
manage the workload. I want to make sure that we do not have a 
rubber stamp mentality based on the sheer amount of volume that 
is coming at you, and I will throw that open to the panel.
    I would like to hear--get your response to that.
    Mr. Neufeld. I will jump in. Can you hear me? I guess I do 
not need to push the button.
    We are aware of that report and partly as a result of that 
report, but also partly from our own assessment of the 
situation, we initiated a quality workplace initiative--that is 
what we call it--internally and among many things, the 
principal focus of it was to focus on quality as the 
incentivizer for our staff and to work that into the 
performance work plans as opposed to the past emphasis, which 
may have been an overemphasis on production, on counting cases 
that folks produced.
    I can tell you that for the last--I think it is going on 
two years now, production metrics have been taken out of all of 
our performance work plans, both for the officers in service 
center operations and also for the Field Operations 
Directorate.
    Senator Perdue. The 1,000 new employees coming, how long 
does it take to train adjudicators in that process? Are these 
experienced people in the process?
    Mr. Neufeld. I would defer to my colleague.
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
    The 1,000 people you are referring to was the original 
stated staffing for the center in Crystal City that, again, was 
put on hold due to the injunction. At the time, we were 
planning on hiring between 700 and 800 Federal employees. About 
400 of those would have been adjudicators, would have been 
decisionmakers on applications.
    Typically, the--an adjudicator goes through a five-week 
training course, basic training, where they are taught by 
seasoned instructors, immigration law procedure, immigration 
history, to get a good core, a good foundation from which they 
can build a career.
    After that is completed, they then go on to whatever 
specific caseload that they will be working. There are 
generally between two and four weeks of training, mentoring and 
coaching that go on and then they are considered fully trained 
or certified, and that was the plan that we would have 
implemented in the center in Crystal City.
    Senator Perdue. Right. I understand it is on hold. To put 
that in perspective, in past years, how many people in an 
average year would be trained in that process, USCIS?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I apologize. I do not have that--I do 
not have that number.
    Senator Perdue. The point is this is an incrementally large 
number compared to the average that you normally train in an 
average year; is that correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, that would have been a--that would 
have represented a surge in our training demand, yes.
    Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you for being here for this hearing. Mr. 
Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on this 
exceptionally important topic.
    I want to start by focusing on the question of DHS's 
compliance with the ongoing court injunction. Following the 
court order declaring executive amnesty, illegal, President 
Obama told reporters that DHS would, quote, ``be prepared to 
implement DAPA.'' He went on to say that, quote, ``preparatory 
work for DAPA would continue,'' quote, ``because this is a big 
piece of business,'' end quote.
    Mr. Renaud, you said earlier that USCIS has stopped any 
implementation of DAPA. That seems in conflict with what the 
President told reporters. Was the President being accurate when 
he said that preparatory work is continuing on DAPA to this 
day?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, thank you for the question. I--You are 
correct in your assessment of my testimony and I can testify 
without any pause that USCIS is in full compliance with the 
injunction and that at this time, all work toward the 
implementation of DAPA is on hold.
    Senator Cruz. Is preparatory work ongoing for DAPA?
    Mr. Renaud. There is no work--to the best of my knowledge, 
sir, there is no work going on toward the implementation of 
DAPA.
    Senator Cruz. With respect, I want to make sure that we are 
not parsing words of work toward the implementation versus 
preparatory work. The words that the President used were 
preparatory work. If there is, indeed, something being done 
that is called preparatory work, I would like to know what it 
is.
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am not 
aware of any preparatory work being done with respect to DAPA, 
and I do not mean to mince words. I apologize for that.
    Senator Cruz. You mentioned that the plan was, I believe 
you said, to hire 700 to 800 people to implement the DAPA 
program. How many of those to date have been hired?
    Mr. Renaud. As of the date of the injunction, we had, I 
believe, one individual--one or two individuals who were onsite 
who had been hired to serve permanently, effectively, in that 
center. I believe that the paperwork to make--to essentially, 
effectively, officially enter them onto duty had not been 
completed. At this point, there are no permanent employees 
assigned to the Crystal City facility and the one individual 
who was effectively on detail there awaiting an enter-onto-duty 
date has been reassigned.
    There are no employees that were hired to work DAPA that 
have come on board since the injunction that are still toward--
that are still--that are assigned to the Crystal City center. 
Effectively, the answer to your question is zero.
    Senator Cruz. You said no full-time employees. Is that 
equally true for part-time employees?
    Mr. Renaud. Yes. I am sorry. Why I make the distinction, 
sir, is that we do have--we had a small number of individuals 
who were detailed. I think we have three Federal employees who 
were detailed to that center and their regular permanent jobs 
are elsewhere.
    Senator Cruz. Is hiring ongoing to fill those positions?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, thank you for the question. All hiring 
activity has ceased. We had made tentative job offers to 
approximately 360 individuals, about half of whom were veterans 
of the military service, and all of those individuals are 
awaiting final clearance and that final clearance has been put 
on hold.
    Senator Cruz. How much has been expended to date on the 
Crystal City amnesty processing center?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, we have spent very little preparing the 
program. We have spent less than $11 million in total. That 
includes the lease for the Crystal City facility, which was 
around $7 million.
    Senator Cruz. Are those payments ongoing?
    Mr. Moore. The rent payments, the monthly rent payments are 
ongoing because of the terms of the lease agreement.
    Senator Cruz. Is that facility just empty right now or what 
use is it being----
    Mr. Moore. Yes. That facility is basically empty, not being 
used.
    Senator Cruz. What square footage are we talking about here 
that is empty?
    Mr. Moore. I cannot recall. I think it was a couple hundred 
thousand square feet. It was a good-sized facility.
    Senator Cruz. That space is not being used to carry out 
USCIS' statutory mandates of processing legal immigrants who 
are following the rules; is that correct?
    Mr. Moore. Take that, Dan? No.
    Mr. Neufeld. If I may, Senator. USCIS is assessing, given 
that we spent 90 days trying to--working very diligently to 
build that--the capacity in that center to process deferred 
action for parents of Americans and LPR requests and we are 
only two weeks or so into an injunction, we are at a point 
where we are reassessing whether--the extent to which that 
center will relieve some of the pressures that we see from both 
a facility standpoint and a workload standpoint at our other 
centers, and that decision is ongoing.
    At this point, your supposition is correct. That center 
remains empty the way we found it.
    Senator Cruz. I would certainly encourage that assessment. 
I would note that last week I sent a letter to Secretary 
Johnson asking specifically any preparatory work or any 
expenditures that were being made in violation of the 
injunction. I received a letter back from Mr. Leon Rodriguez, 
the Director.
    With the Chairman's agreement, I would like to enter both 
letters into the record.
    Chairman Sessions. Without objection, they will be part of 
the record.
    Senator Cruz. Both Director Rodriguez's letter and your 
testimony today indicate that no preparatory work is ongoing. I 
just want to remind each of the three of you of the terms of 
the injunction, because the injunction prohibits--enjoins the 
United States from implementing, quote, ``any and all aspects 
or phases of the DAPA program,'' which is exceptionally broad 
language for an injunction, and that, by its express terms, 
applies to all officers, agents and employees of the Federal 
Government, meaning that each of the three of you are bound 
individually by the terms of this injunction.
    I am pleased by the testimony the committee is receiving 
today, but I want to remind the witnesses that violating the 
terms of the injunction could potentially subject any officer, 
agent or employee to contempt of court.
    That I hope--I hope the implementation or, rather, lack of 
implementation continues consistent with the court order. I 
will have additional questions on a second round, but I thank 
each of you.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
    I would offer for the record an answer that you provided to 
us, Mr. Moore, I believe it is from you, that estimates the 
Crystal City facility total cost to stand up facility, 
$26,231,000. I would offer that into the record.
    Chairman Sessions. I know you have not spent all that yet, 
but that is what you estimate the costs to be.
    Mr. Renaud, you talked about conducting rigorous background 
checks, but the problem is that we don't--that is apparently 
not going to be happening.
    I think you meant for people who are currently applying to 
be lawful residents and being processed under normal 
procedures. I do not think that we could come close to saying 
that that is going to be the status for those who are processed 
under DAPA or DACA, for that matter.
    People that apply for visas in foreign embassies, they have 
to go to the embassy, do they not, Mr. Neufeld, and be 
personally interviewed unless they have an unusual age or lower 
age or something?
    Mr. Neufeld. I believe that to be accurate, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. We have got lawful immigrants that come 
to Mr. Renaud and his staff, lawful immigrants that apply for a 
visa in various countries around the world, they have to be 
personally interviewed. Those who violated the law, entered the 
country unlawfully, who now want to be rewarded for that action 
by being given a legal status that ultimately most people think 
the President would want to make permanent, and they would not 
have to--they will be processed with less standards. Is that 
not correct?
    Mr. Renaud.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I think what is important to 
distinguish here is the difference between a status granting 
benefit and a benefit that does not grant----
    Chairman Sessions. I understand that there will be some 
difference in status. You are right. But just on the question 
of who gets the most scrutiny, the lawful requstor for legal 
status, permanent residency, and those kinds of things, H-1B or 
whatever, they would be undergoing more scrutiny than these 
individuals. I think you could answer that yes.
    Mr. Renaud. I do not--sir, I do not think I can 
conclusively. I think that----
    Chairman Sessions. How about most of them?
    Mr. Renaud [continuing]. H-1Bs go through a different 
process than would an applicant for permanent residence or an 
applicant for citizenship.
    We utilize a layered--layered approach to security checks 
based on the status, right or privilege that one is applying 
for and then we execute that in the proper amount based on the 
status that they are, the status, right or approval that they 
are applying for.
    Chairman Sessions. I think it is fair to say that people 
who enter into a process to get lawful status in the country, 
lawful permanent residence, green cards or otherwise, at some 
point are interviewed personally, and these individuals are 
going to be given what I would say is certainly an indefinite 
legal status, the right to work, and the right to participate 
in Social Security, Medicare, the right to have tax credits, 
checks from the U.S. Government, even for back years.
    I think Mr. Palinkas is correct. He represents your 
officers. He says that yes, we have an assembly line 
adjudication process. I would like to ask you about that. He 
says that instead of having one officer review the entire file 
and be responsible for making an evaluation of whether this 
person is admissible or not or approved under the program, that 
there is an assembly line adjudication process that is going to 
be implemented.
    One person evaluating each section on the application and 
the last person doing the actual final adjudication and 
certification, that there are no errors in the process and the 
person has complied.
    This is dangerous. One section of an application cannot be 
evaluated effectively, it seems to me and to Mr. Palinkas, in 
isolation. You need to read the whole file and see what 
happens, and this mentality also tends to remove individual 
responsibility of the certifying officer because he can just 
say somebody else did not pick up something in the file.
    Do you agree with Mr. Palinkas that that is a less 
effective process? Mr. Renaud.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I absolutely appreciate the question 
and I am very glad you asked it. I think there are a couple of 
things that Mr. Palinkas and I disagree with.
    One, I think that with respect to accountability--and what 
you are describing is the would be process under DAPA--we 
looked at--again, my role in this organization is to stand up 
an operation in the most secure and effective way that I can 
given the timeframes allocated.
    Chairman Sessions. The money allocated.
    Mr. Renaud. We looked at--that is correct, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. You are to do the best job you can.
    Mr. Renaud. Absolutely.
    Chairman Sessions. I am not accusing you personally. I am 
saying under the procedures that we have here, the pressure you 
are under, you are not going to be able to do as good a job of 
background evaluations and personal interviews as I think and I 
think most Americans believe will happen. Right?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I would respectfully disagree with Mr. 
Palinkas. I believe that given that we were hiring 
predominantly new adjudicators off the street, training them in 
what under DAPA were largely mutually exclusive eligibility 
grounds, using a system that would assign individual 
accountability for each individual's part of the application 
process that they were responsible for, and then having a 
higher level adjudicator at the end of the process review that 
and decide, on a discretionary basis, on an individual case-by-
case basis, we believe that we would do a better job of 
ferreting out fraud.
    We believe that we would do a better job of ensuring a 
quality adjudication and we would do a better job of 
eliminating a single point of failure.
    Chairman Sessions. It is your testimony that on the normal 
process of one person fully evaluating the entire record and 
file, if there is sufficient money around, that is, this new 
process of having less experienced people process individual 
portions of the file and one person adjudicating at the end, 
you believe that is a better process or just one you have to 
use to accomplish the directions you have been given? That is 
what it seems to me the truth is.
    Mr. Renaud. I think that we looked at--we looked at this as 
an opportunity to provide the most secure and effective and 
complete and accurate adjudication process of these cases.
    Chairman Sessions. Under the circumstances that you have.
    Mr. Renaud. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sessions. It would not be as good as the process 
you normally seek to use for processing cases apart from DACA 
and DAPA.
    Mr. Renaud. We--Senator, we certainly would have been in a 
better place if we--we would be in a better place were we able 
to use seasoned, experienced adjudicators. That much is 
correct.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Cruz or Senator Lee? Senator 
Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to all of you for joining us and for all that you 
do.
    Mr. Renaud, I would like to start with you. Does your 
directorate process applications for adjustment of status?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, my directorate processes primarily 
family based adjustment of status applications, yes.
    Senator Lee. Adjustment to status allows an alien who is 
unlawfully present to officially get a green card, right? If 
you adjust status, if you are unlawfully present in the United 
States, you want to get a green card, you would have to have 
your status adjusted before doing that.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, the term--adjustment of status for us 
is a term of art. It represents--it describes someone who has 
gone from other than an unlawful permanent resident to the 
status of a permanent resident.
    Senator Lee. Okay and one of he ways that you can--one of 
the requirements for adjustment of status is that the person be 
either admitted into the United States or paroled into the 
United States. Is that accurate? Those are two ways that you 
can adjust status.
    Mr. Renaud. That is a requirement, yes.
    Senator Lee. Typically, a person who crosses into our 
border, who enters the United States without inspection does 
not qualify for--does not satisfy that requirement, would that 
be correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, typically, someone who is unlawfully 
present in the United States in most cases would not be able to 
adjust their status in the United States based on the equity, 
the underlying equity that would afford them permanent 
residence. They would need to go abroad and be consular 
processed for permanent residence.
    Senator Lee. Okay, if they went abroad and got consular 
processed for permanent residence, that is one way of doing it.
    Another way of doing it might be if they could somehow 
secure advanced parole; is that right? If they were granted 
advanced parole, that could allow them to change their status.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, if they were granted advanced parole, 
departed the country and came back in parole status, that would 
cure the inspected and admitted or inspected and paroled 
criteria. They would still need the underlying basis for the 
permanent resident status, such as an employment relationship--
I mean, employment offer, typically, or a family relationship.
    Senator Lee. Okay, but assuming they have got the other 
thing satisfied, the condition in which they find themselves 
relative to their status by virtue of having entered without 
inspection, that could that be cured by advanced parole.
    Mr. Renaud. That is correct. Someone who has equity in the 
United States that is a status granting equity of permanent 
residence, they would be able to adjust status in the United 
States if they were here on parole.
    Senator Lee. USCIS, if I am not mistaken, treats advanced 
parole as parole for purposes relevant to adjustment of status. 
In other words, if you are granted advanced parole, that is 
just as good as being granted parole upon entering.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I think that is incorrect. I think 
that we only treat it as parole if you actually do, in fact, 
depart and then return and be paroled into the United States.
    Senator Lee. Right. That is the whole concept of advanced 
parole, at least what I am talking about, is being told prior 
to your departure you leave, you come back, you will be treated 
as parole. That gets us here. If you are granted advanced 
parole, that takes care of that requirement.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, yes. If you are granted advanced 
parole and then use that advanced parole, then you are paroled 
in the United States and you are considered a person who has 
been inspected and paroled into the United States. That is 
correct.
    Senator Lee. The government does not have unlimited power 
under the immigration code to grant parole, does it? In fact, 
its power is limited by Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, which says that the Department of Homeland 
Security may grant parole to an alien, quote, ``temporarily 
under such conditions as he may prescribe, only on a case-by-
case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant 
public benefit.'' Those are two statutory terms of art found in 
Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
Urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
    Your agency has issued a form, I have got a copy of it 
right here and you have got a copy of it in front of you. This 
is Form I-131. It seems to me to depart from that statutory 
standard. It seems to me to violate that standard.
    Mr. Chairman, I am offering that form and the accompanying 
instructions for the record.
    Chairman Sessions. We will make it part of the record, 
without objection.
    Senator Lee. I have distributed copies of those 
instructions, along with the form for the witness' benefit, and 
I call your attention to the highlighted language on pages four 
and five of the I-131 instructions.
    Here is what it says. ``USCIS or U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement has deferred action in your case as a 
childhood arrival based on the guidelines described by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security's memorandum issued on June 15, 
2012. USCIS may, in its discretion, grant you advanced parole 
if you are traveling outside the United States for educational 
purposes, employment purposes, or humanitarian purposes.''
    It goes on to say that educational purposes include, but 
are not limited to, semester abroad programs or academic 
research. Employment purposes include, but are not limited to, 
overseas assignments, interviews, conferences or meetings with 
clients.
    I will ask you, Mr. Renaud, and I will extend the same 
invitation to our other witnesses. Do any of you--does any one 
of you see here educational purposes or employment purposes 
anywhere in the statute, anywhere in Section 212(d)(5)(A) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the Federal 
statute that governs when parole can be granted to an 
inadmissible alien?
    Do you see any of those words anywhere in the statute?
    Mr. Moore. No.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Neufeld is shaking his head. Mr. Renaud.
    Mr. Renaud. I do not see the words on the piece of paper 
you handed us.
    Senator Lee. Do either of you believe that a meeting with a 
client in a foreign country presents an urgent humanitarian 
reason or a significant benefit to the American public?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I think that these are--what is 
important to know is that when we create forms and form 
instructions, there is a review for legal sufficiency that both 
Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Moore--well, all three, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. 
Moore and I are--that is not our area of expertise. I am not 
sure that I can answer your question.
    Senator Lee. Okay, let us take a different approach, 
because as I look it, I do not see anything in INA Section 
212(d)(5)(A) that does that, nothing, nothing at all.
    Let me just ask you--ask this in the form of a 
hypothetical. Imagine an alien, a foreign national approaches a 
border, a U.S. border. Imagine further that he is from a 
country whose citizens need a visa to enter the United States. 
The border guards ask him if he has a visa. He says, ``No, I do 
not have a visa, but I have a business meeting in Houston. Can 
I come in? I have got a business meeting. It is important to 
me, that business meeting. Can I come in even though I do not 
have a visa?''
    Is there any chance that your agency or any part of the 
Department of Homeland Security would accept that as a reason 
to just parole him into the country?
    Mr. Neufeld. I will jump in here. That determination would 
not be made by any of the three of us. That would be made by 
Customs and Border Protection.
    Senator Lee. Okay and based on your understanding of the 
law, based on your understanding of how those agencies operate, 
those people within the appropriate agency operate, do you see 
any likelihood that they would be granted advanced parole? I am 
sorry. That they would be granted parole under the statutory 
language that we are talking about.
    Mr. Neufeld. I can say that I have not seen that in my 
career with USCIS.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Lee, you are over.
    Senator Klobuchar--I do not know if she wants to go right 
now. If so, I will let you and you can have some of my time 
next.
    Senator Lee. Understood. Thank you.
    Chairman Sessions. This is an important issue that Senator 
Lee has spent a good deal of time researching and it relates to 
the promise the President made that nobody would get 
citizenship under this program, and it appears that they will.
    Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have 
some specific questions I am going to start out with about a 
Minnesota issues. I know, Mr. Renaud, I do not know if you are 
aware of what went on with the immigration office in 
Bloomington, Minnesota.
    Mr. Renaud. Yes, Senator, I am.
    Senator Klobuchar. Good. The agency was incredibly helpful. 
I think you heard that a number of us were working on this 
because the space that was picked for the new location was not 
actually--it had no bus route, nothing, and a number of the 
people that go there take buses.
    It was--now, you were willing to--your agency was willing 
to say this is a problem and reopen it for bids on where it 
would be; is that correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Yes, Senator. My understanding is that mistakes 
were made by GSA.
    Senator Klobuchar. Yes. There is now a second search 
underway to find a space that is appropriate. Do you know what 
the status of that search is?
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you for the question, Senator. My 
understanding is that the General Services Administration has 
briefed your staff in Minnesota and I believe here in D.C. that 
we--the initial solicitation for bids in the central business 
districts of St. Paul and Minneapolis did not yield sufficient 
competition. My understanding is that in February, they 
expanded the search area to, I believe, these city limits of 
Minneapolis and St. Paul and they awaiting that process to move 
forward.
    Senator Klobuchar. As you know, it is now in Bloomington 
and the office has about 28,000 visitors, processed 13,000 
applications just in 2013. It is a pretty big place and I just 
want to thank your agency for being willing to look at where it 
could be relocated.
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you, Senator. That staff does a wonderful 
job. I appreciate your interest.
    Senator Klobuchar. Then there is also another Minnesota 
issue with the Form 19 address requirement. Are you aware of 
this? This is Minnesota has an address confidentiality program 
called Safe at Home and it is designed to help survivors of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or others who fear 
their safety, maintain a confidential address, which is pretty 
commonplace. We did that a lot when I was a prosecutor.
    Part of the program allows participants to use a PO box 
address assigned to them. However, changes to the Form 19, 
which is the employment eligibility verification form, no 
longer allows the individuals to use a valid PO Box address. I 
think it affects several other states with these kinds of 
programs, including Arizona, Virginia, Minnesota.
    I was hoping that you could commit to reviewing this issue. 
Is this in your department?
    Mr. Renaud. I will certainly take the question, Senator. 
Thank you for the question. I was not familiar with that. I 
apologize for not being prepared for that question today and we 
will certainly take it back and get back to you.
    Senator Klobuchar. Right. I did not expect you to. I just 
think it sounds like something we would normally do to protect 
domestic violence victims. It must be a new reformed form. I am 
hearing one of my colleagues mention another form. I am sure 
you have a lot of forms and that is why I thought I would just 
throw one out to see if you knew.
    I think that it sounds like something maybe we can work on 
so those states that have these confidentiality programs, maybe 
they could get some kind of a waiver for the forms.
    We will be in contact with you afterward.
    Mr. Neufeld, there you are. In your previous positions with 
USCIS, you have served as the director or the acting director 
for service centers in California and Nebraska and Florida. In 
your current position, you also oversee employees in border 
states like Minnesota. You do not think of us, but we are 
border State with Canada. Right? California and Texas, as well 
as the inland locations of Nebraska and Vermont.
    Could you talk about the different immigration needs in 
those states? I know a little bit about it. I do not know if 
you know, we have a part of Minnesota that is accessible only 
through Canada, and there are 200 Minnesotans that live there.
    In the winter, they can take snowmobiles over the ice but 
in the summer they usually tend to drive through Canada to get 
to Minnesota. It was a mapping error and so they are out there 
on their own. But do you want to talk a little bit about some 
of the Canadian border issues that you see emerging?
    Mr. Neufeld. I will tell you, in my role as the center 
director for those--for the California service center and 
acting director for the Nebraska service center, first of all, 
I was very happy to get to spend some time in the Midwest, 
being a native Californian.
    We--in our centers, we do not deal with the folks coming 
into our offices. In other words, our jurisdiction, the 
Nebraska service center may service folks from Florida or any 
other part of the country, and the same thing with the other 
centers. They typically do not divide up their jurisdictions.
    Senator Klobuchar. You are saying that the California 
people get as many Canadians as we do?
    Mr. Neufeld. The California service center might get as 
many folks from----
    Senator Klobuchar. Because they are just moving there. 
There are not any regional differences.
    Mr. Neufeld. No. I think we are getting into an area--the 
service centers will take applications from all over the 
country.
    Senator Klobuchar. I understand.
    Mr. Neufeld. Migration patterns, folks are moving all over 
the country and would imagine that in Minnesota, you are 
probably seeing man more Canadians than we did when I lived in 
California.
    Senator Klobuchar. We will leave that for later. We just 
always have issues on the northern border.
    I will ask you about one more thing and that is that in 
your testimony, you referred to the changes being made in 
oversight of application reviews shifting away from a more 
rigid production model toward a flexible system.
    Of course, completing the review of applications in a 
timely fashion is a primary concern. How has the shift in the 
way you process the application improve the quality of the 
reviewed being performed?
    Mr. Neufeld. We are still assessing the outcome of this 
change. What we have a lot of right now is anecdotal 
information from our employees who say that they feel that they 
have--they are relieved from the prior sense that they might 
have had pressure to do a certain amount of work in a certain 
amount of time.
    We emphasize at every level that they should take the time 
that they need to give a proper adjudication without any fear 
for how that might translate into their performance.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    I guess, Mr Renaud, to follow-up on Senator Lee's 
questions--he had to go to another meeting. Your form explains 
the advanced parole program and would seem to allow an alien 
unlawfully in the United States to get parole so long as he has 
a client meeting of some kind outside the United States, say, 
in Toronto or Mexico City and then wants to come back into the 
country.
    Under that process, does it not allow that an individual 
would be able to then apply, having been lawfully admitted, 
that applied for a green card?
    Mr. Neufeld.
    Mr. Neufeld. I will take that. Yes. Generally, to apply for 
adjustment of status, to be eligible for adjustment of status, 
you have to have been inspected and admitted or paroled. 
Someone who had received advance parol, departed, was paroled 
back, then they would satisfy that requirement and be eligible 
if they had a basis for adjustment in the first place.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you. Of course, if you have a 
green card, permanent status, then if you do not commit a 
serious crime or a few other matters, you are on a guaranteed 
path to apply for citizenship if you choose.
    Mr. Neufeld. Once you have a green card, typically, if you 
have five years of residence, then you are eligible to apply 
for citizenship.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Cruz, if you would like to go 
next?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    A couple of issues I want to address. One, I mentioned 
before the letter from Director Rodriguez of February 26, 2015 
that we have already entered into the Committee hearing record.
    In that letter, Director Rodriguez stated that Secretary 
Johnson reiterated his instruction in a memorandum to the heads 
of the relevant DHS components in terms of how to comply with 
the district court's order and I would like to ask the 
witnesses here to provide that memorandum to the Committee to 
be entered into the record so that the Committee can see the 
written instruction that the component heads have been given.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
    I want to shift topics to the question of fees and a couple 
of different aspects of it. Number one, Mr. Moore, as I 
understand it, USCIS's position is that various immigration 
fees can be allocated. Let us set aside the district court 
injunction for a moment.
    Prior to the injunction, it was USCIS's position that 
certain fees could be allocated to implement DACA and DAPA, 
absent congressional authorization, and there are a variety of 
fees, including the immigration examination fee account, the 
immigration user fee account, the H-1B non-immigrant petitioner 
account, the land border inspection fee account, the fraud 
prevention and detection account, the premium processing fees, 
and all of these are enumerated in Title 8 of the United States 
Code, Section 1356.
    The first question I would ask of you, Mr. Moore, is 
roughly how much money does USCIS have at its disposal via the 
immigration examination fee account and these other accounts 
and fees?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you for the question. Managing a fee-based 
operation the size of USCIS is complex, with many different 
fees. We have set as a condition of protection for us to retain 
at least $600 million annually as our cash reserves. The one 
thing that we recognize is that USCIS and in many ways operates 
very much like a commercial enterprise.
    We get money as it comes in and we have to manage our 
expenses related to that. At the beginning of a year, when we 
are anticipating spending up to $3 billion, much of that is 
what we call anticipated collections.
    As we are spending, we are taking in new fee revenue. Our 
permanent indefinite appropriation allows us the authority to 
immediately access those fee revenues. We still do work with 
Treasury to get money warranted and with OMB to have 
apportioned to us, but all of that happens quite seamlessly in 
the immigration examinations fee account.
    We have a very detailed operating plan that we use to 
identify our agency spending. That operating plan ensures that 
we are maintaining that reserve.
    I want to just mention that the fee account, as I mentioned 
in my opening statement, is subject to fluctuations, normal 
course of business, and the fee structure allows for those 
surges in workload to bring in fee revenue that allows us to 
promptly address that.
    Senator Cruz. How much money are we talking about?
    Mr. Moore. In our reserves? As I said, we had last year, in 
total, in our examinations fee account, about a $1 billion 
carry over balance, and that was between premium processing, 
about $734 million, and the balance--excuse me--non-premium 
processing of $734,000 and about $460 million in premium.
    Senator Cruz. You stated in a letter to the Chairman that 
those funds can be used for the purpose of processing DAPA and 
DACA. Do you see any statutory language whatsoever in Title 8 
United States Code Section 1356 that allows those funds to be 
used for those purposes?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, thank you for that question. I defer to 
our legal counsel to guide us on the lawfulness or the 
appropriateness of programs and initiatives as far as expending 
our immigration examinations fee account. And so I rely on 
that----
    Senator Cruz. You cannot point to any statutory language 
here today; is that correct?
    Mr. Moore. I am not qualified to make that kind of 
determination. Again, I work with our legal counsel who gives 
me advice and assures us that, in their view, it is legal.
    If I am moving forward with authorizing spending within our 
agency, I am doing so with the confidence that it is legal 
action based on counsel that I am receiving.
    Senator Cruz. I would note your legal counsel is apparently 
authorizing you to spend money that is not authorized by 
statute.
    I would also note the position of USCIS that there is over 
$1 billion in unregulated funds that is not subject to 
Congress' authority and can be spent independent of the 
appropriations process is something, it seems to me, Congress 
should correct in this upcoming appropriations cycle so that 
USCIS operates like any other agency of this government, 
pursuant to appropriated funds and not with your own bank 
account.
    Let me shift to a different topic, with the Chairman's 
indulgence.
    One of my many concerns with the President's executive 
amnesty, my first concern is that it is contrary to Federal law 
and unconstitutional. As I noted earlier, a Federal district 
court has agreed that it is contrary to law and has accordingly 
enjoined it.
    Another major concern is the question of fairness, that 
executive amnesty benefits and, in fact, gives preferences to 
those who are here illegally and it does so to the detriment of 
legal immigrants, of those who have followed the law and come 
here legally.
    I am the son of a legal immigrant who, 58 years ago, came 
here, applied to come here legally and ultimately received U.S. 
citizenship.
    It was reported in the Los Angeles Times that the DAPA 
program was expected to cost between $324 million and $484 
million over the next three years. Is that an accurate 
projection?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. That is based on internal cost 
estimates.
    Senator Cruz. That means somewhere between $324 million and 
$484 million that would otherwise be spent to aid the 
processing of legal immigrants is not being spent for legal 
immigrants. Their wait times are going up, the bureaucracy is 
going up, their burdens are going up; is that accurate?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, not quite. The fee associated with a 
DACA expansion DACA applicant, $380 for the employment 
authorization document, $85 for the biometrics, would--was part 
of the filing requirement and we estimated that through those 
requests with the associated fee that it would yield the kind 
of revenue that you quoted. That we believe that the 
individuals applying for deferred action would, in fact, pay 
the cost of the program without us having to borrow from 
others.
    Senator Cruz. I am glad you brought that up because you 
describe the $380 I-765 fee and the $85 biometric fee as 
somehow a fee for DAPA, but is it correct that those apply to 
everyone, not specially DACA or DAPA?
    Mr. Moore. Those are the fees that are associated with the 
DACA original----
    Senator Cruz. They are not specifically DACA and DAPA, are 
they? Are there non-DAPA or DACA applicants who pay those fees?
    Mr. Moore. No, sir. Not in the combination--well, when I--
let me rephrase that. We package the Form IA-21D and the I-765 
together as a filing requirement. Only DACA/DAPA applicants are 
filing those documents as a package.
    Senator Cruz. The I-765 is not paid by anyone who is not a 
DAPA or DACA recipient.
    Mr. Moore. No. The work authorizations are issued according 
to other adjudicative actions, but they would pay that fee, 
correct.
    Senator Cruz. It goes back to what I said. Everyone is 
paying that fee. That is not a special DACA/DAPA. And let me 
just underscore this. For example, the I-140, the immigrant 
petition for alien worker, is $580. That is someone coming here 
legally to work. A DAPA or DACA person pays zero dollars.
    They both pay the $360 and the $85, but in terms of the fee 
for the application, someone following the law is penalized and 
is paying, in that instance, $585 versus zero dollars. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, I think the--the DAPA and DACA 
applicants, we are charging $365 or----
    Senator Cruz. Everyone.
    Mr. Moore. Excuse me--$380 to cover the cost of processing 
their request. The individuals filing the I-140 are applying 
for a separate benefit and they are paying an associated fee 
for that. There is not an overlap.
    Senator Cruz. Let us give another example, which is the----
    Chairman Sessions. It is the same amount of money. It is 
the same amount of money, right?
    Mr. Moore. The same fee, I-765 fee is--correct. That is the 
same fee across the board.
    Senator Cruz. The I-526, the immigrant petition by an alien 
entrepreneur, costs $1,500. If someone wants to come here, 
start a business and create jobs, we say thank you very much, 
write a check for $1,500. Someone who came here illegally, 
broke our laws and is applying for DAPA or DACA, we charge them 
zero dollars; is that correct?
    Mr. Moore. We--Senator, we calculate our fees based upon 
the level of effort that is required to review and process each 
form type. We use activity-based costing to do so. If the cost 
is much higher for that----
    Senator Cruz. Let us give one more example, which is the I-
924, the application for regional center under the immigrant 
investor pilot program.
    The immigrant investor putting capital to work to create 
jobs at a time when the lowest labor force participation since 
1978, we charge that person $6,230 for the privilege of hiring 
Americans and creating jobs.
    Those who come here legally are being penalized and yet 
those who come here illegally are facing a fee of zero dollars 
to be allowed legal status.
    Does that strike anyone on this panel as remotely fair?
    Mr. Moore. Senator, we do charge a fee for the DACA/DAPA 
program. It is not free. There is the----
    Senator Cruz. The $380----
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. And the $85 are paid uniformly 
by everyone. That is not a special fee for DACA and DAPA.
    Mr. Moore. No, but it is a fee that they are paying. 
Senator Cruz. They are paying one of the fees, but everyone 
else coming legally pays an additional fee, except those here 
illegally. I have to say I cannot think of any other fee 
program, any rational fee program that allows those who break 
the law to be exempt from paying a fee, but if someone is 
foolish enough to actually try comply with our immigration 
laws, to wait at home, to wait in line for years, sometimes 
decades, we smack them with a fee of $1,500 or $6,200, but 
those who are here illegally pay nothing.
    That strikes me as a program that is indefensible to the 
American people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you. Even the Gang of Eight bill 
had a $1,000 fine or penalty before they could apply, in 
addition to these same fees.
    Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an advocate for 
legal immigration and also the rule of law, those are not 
inconsistent, I might add, it is a real shame we are here today 
to investigate the department's attempts to circumvent our 
Nation's immigration laws.
    If we are going to fix our broken immigration system, we 
first have to regain the trust of the American people and that 
is a casualty I believe of what we have seen in the last year 
or so.
    They must believe that the Federal Government is actually 
doing its job to secure the border. They must trust our 
immigration laws will be fully enforced and that dangerous 
criminal aliens will not be released from detention, and they 
must trust that we will have an immigration system that is fair 
and respectful to the millions of legal immigrants who wish to 
enter the United States and pursue the American dream.
    It bears noting, we are the most generous country in the 
world when it comes to legal immigration. Sadly, the Obama 
administration has violated this trust by attempting to 
unconstitutionally grant legal status and work authorization to 
millions of illegal immigrants in the United States without any 
engagement with Congress.
    The Obama administration's executive actions I believe are 
illegal and we must and will continue to fight them at every 
step. Fortunately, a majority of the states and at least one 
Federal Judge agree.
    As you know, Judge Andrew Hanen, on February 16, issued a 
temporary injunction preventing USCIS from implementing the 
President's illegal attempt to unilaterally grant legal status 
and work authorization to more than four million immigrants.
    I just want to refer to a couple of portions of Judge 
Hanen's opinion. He said, quote, ``This court finds that DAPA 
does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement, it is an 
announced program of non-enforcement of the laws that 
contradicts Congress' statutory goals.''
    He went on to say, ``The Department of Homeland Security 
does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to 
fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, 
enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of 
Congress, but actively acts to thwart them.''
    Continuing with Judge Hanen's opinion, he says, ``The 
Department of Homeland Security does not seek compliance with 
Federal law in any form, but instead establishes a pathway for 
noncompliance and completely abandons entire sections of this 
Nation's immigration laws.''
    It is against this backdrop of illegality that we are here 
today to conduct this important oversight hearing and talk 
about the potential impact of President Obama's immigration 
executive actions. In that connection, I wanted to ask--
perhaps, Mr. Renaud, you may be the person that could best 
respond to these questions.
    Under President Obama's executive actions, many criminals 
who would have been considered--who have been convicted of 
serious offenses would be allowed to receive deferred action 
and employment authorization.
    Based on my reading of the Department of Homeland 
Security's directives, some illegal immigrants convicted of the 
following crimes would be eligible for the program; for 
example, child pornography possession, a state misdemeanor; 
child abuse; assault; abduction; false imprisonment; voter 
fraud; larceny; robbery; harassment; theft; reckless driving; 
and distribution of alcohol to minors.
    There are numerous other categories of criminal aliens who 
would be eligible for President Obama's illegal deferred action 
program because the department has announced that they will not 
automatically consider them as removal priorities.
    This is shocking and outrageous. Individuals that come to 
the United States without authorization and who thereafter 
commit serious crimes should not be rewarded with a legal 
status and a work authorization, but they should be removed 
immediately.
    Will you commit today that USCIS will never grant deferred 
action and work authorization to an individual who has been 
convicted of one of the crimes I have listed?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, thank you for the question. What I 
will commit to is that we will and faithfully do our jobs to 
administer the immigration laws and policies of this country; 
that we take our job seriously; and, that in the proposed 
deferred action for parents of Americans and lawful permanent 
residents, there were, in fact, more stringent eligibility 
requirements than for permanent residents and they were 
delineated, I believe, to include an ineligibility for a felony 
conviction, for three or more misdemeanors, for a significant 
misdemeanor.
    Then on top of that you had a discretionary determination 
based on a case-by-case review of whether that individual would 
receive deferred action.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Renaud, I know you are in a difficult 
position working, as you do, for the field operations for U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, but you did not answer my 
question.
    I asked you whether the people who committed the crimes 
that I have listed would be eligible for deferred action and 
work authorization.
    Mr. Renaud. I have not reviewed--Senator, I have not 
reviewed those crimes or evaluated whether they would or would 
not qualify----
    Senator Cornyn. You acknowledge that--whether you have 
reviewed or not those specific crimes, are you aware that 
people who previously would have been remove because of 
criminal offenses would be eligible under deferred action 
granted ostensibly by the President and given--made eligible 
for work authorization?
    Are you aware that there has been a change in policy in 
terms of removal for some class or category of people who 
commit crimes?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, you are outside my field of expertise. 
I am not----
    Senator Cornyn. I am asking you whether you are aware. If 
you are telling me that you are not aware, that is a fair 
answer, if you are not.
    Mr. Renaud. I am aware of the enforcement memorandum that 
was issued by the Secretary.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Renaud, as part of the current deferred 
action program, has USCIS ever granted deferred action and work 
authorization to an individual that was convicted of one of 
these crimes?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I do not know the answer to that 
question. I apologize.
    Senator Cornyn. If evidence of fraud, criminal activity or 
terrorism was revealed during the adjudication of a deferred 
action application, will USCIS commit to turn over this 
information to relevant law enforcement and national security 
authorities?
    Mr. Renaud. I can speak for the program which we have 
ceased implementation of and I believe the answer is--I believe 
the answer is yes, were there fraud or national security 
concerns, we would cooperate with our colleagues at ICE.
    Senator Cornyn. With evidence of fraud, criminal activity 
or terrorism is revealed during the adjudication of a deferred 
action application, you will commit to turning that information 
over to law enforcement and national security authorities.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I believe that is correct, yes.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you. I personally believe in zero 
tolerance for criminal aliens convicted of domestic violence or 
sexual abuse. However, under the President's executive action, 
USCIS would be allowed to award these individuals with legal 
status and work authorization if, quote, ``there are factors 
indicating the alien is not a threat to national security or to 
security or public safety and should not be, therefore, taken 
as an enforcement priority.''
    Can you explain why we should not, as a matter of national 
policy, embrace a policy of zero tolerance to domestic violence 
offenders and sexual predators?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, again, I apologize. I am not a 
policymaker. I am not--I am not--I am not prepared nor am I 
qualified to respond to that.
    Senator Cornyn. Let me just ask, in conclusion, is there 
any member of the panel who believes that people who commit 
domestic violence or sexual abuse should be permitted to stay 
in the country and is an eligible person for deferred action 
and given a work authorization? Does anybody believe that that 
should be the case as a matter of national policy?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, again, that is not within my official 
purview. I just wanted to say, though----
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Neufeld, do you have an answer to that 
question?
    Mr. Neufeld. I would rather not express my personal policy 
perspective.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Moore, how about you?
    Mr. Moore. This is a complex area that I am not qualified 
to speak to.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this 
hearing, but I hope that as part of our additional oversight 
responsibilities, we will continue to delve in more deeply to 
the consequences of the President's executive action, because I 
think it was sold on the basis of being some sort of benign 
gesture when, in fact, part of he consequences are that people 
who have committed relatively serious criminal offenses have 
been bumped ahead of the line from people who have been playing 
by the rules and do not have similar criminal records, and I 
think that is a matter that we need to look in further.
    Chairman Sessions. I thank you, Senator Cornyn. Justice 
Cornyn is very familiar with the law and has high ideals for 
it. I think we should seek to meet those ideals.
    I am going to offer for the record, relevant to what you 
just said, a February 27 letter by Senator Grassley, the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to Secretary Johnson, your 
boss, in which he inquires about the murder of four individuals 
in Charlotte, North Carolina, including a former contestant for 
America's Next Top Model, by Mr. Rangel Hernandez, I believe. 
He has been charged with those, first degree murder, and he 
allegedly applied for and received--I am quoting from the 
letter--``deferred action under the DACA.''
    There was some indication that the file noted gang 
affiliation possibly. Senator Grassley is asking about that. We 
expect your boss to respond to that. A perfectly legitimate 
question for the representatives of the United States.
    This individual was approved for legal status in the United 
States, even though he may have had gang affiliation, and now 
has murdered--Senator Tillis, I should--four individuals.
    I would offer that for the record. Without objection.
    Chairman Sessions. Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Senator Sessions, you actually helped me 
set the context for the first question that I was going to ask. 
It was about Mr. Hernandez, who has allegedly murdered four 
people down in North Carolina, actually in my hometown.
    The question I had is are the individuals being vetted and 
getting to their background checks before we would provide any 
type of status, including people deferred for deportation?
    I am just trying to understand how something that, on its 
face, seemed like it was obviously an area of concern, what 
sort of vetting did he go through and what do others go through 
when they are going through these processes?
    Mr. Neufeld. I cannot speak to that case in particular, but 
in general, the vetting process for DACA requesters consists of 
biographic and biometric checks against the TECS system and 
also with the FBI regarding the criminal history.
    Senator Tillis. The--the checks you are going through 
national data bases or State data bases.
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Senator Tillis. For whatever reason, that would not have 
been identified with this particular person. I think we will 
find out the specifics of that case. I also had a question and 
it related to capacity.
    Mr. Chairman, I understand, I had to go back to another 
meeting, but I understand some of my questions were asked.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you for returning.
    Senator Tillis. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sessions. We are glad you could come back.
    Senator Tillis. It is an important subject.
    With the actions that have been taken, which has increased 
your caseload--and I know I understand that you are adding some 
resources that are largely funded through the fees that you 
collect, but what sort of impact do we have?
    I think that the Center for Immigration Studies indicated 
that USCIS issued 7.4 million permits to non-citizens. About a 
third of those were individuals that were identified as 
illegal, unqualified or ineligible aliens.
    My question is if we have taken the department's capacity 
to grant--grant that to some third that were considered 
illegal, unqualified or ineligible, is that at the expense of 
other people who would have been in the other two-thirds? In 
other words, is the capacity being sapped to a certain extent 
and was a backlog growing in other areas before these actions 
were actually ordered?
    Mr. Neufeld. I will take this, if that is all right. We 
deal with surges in volumes all the time and so that is one of 
the things that associate directors for both operational 
directorates, we look at that all the time and we are 
constantly looking at filing volumes that, receipt trends, what 
our available resources are to deploy to deal with backlogs as 
they arise.
    With the DACA program, we had a ramp-up period of 60 days 
to stand up this program to begin taking in applications and 
requests and making decisions. The initial standup of that 
program we took on with the existing workforce that we had. It 
takes longer than 60 days typically to bring--hire new staff.
    Yes, there is an initial impact when there is a surge that 
you have not had a chance to really prepare for.
    We did then begin the hiring process to acquire the 
additional resources that we needed to not only deal with the 
surge that we had experienced, but also with the backlogs that 
had developed by redirecting some resources.
    Senator Tillis. I know Senator Blumenthal mentioned that 
maybe there is some concern and worries about those who are 
affected by the court decision. Is there also a positive impact 
that you have those resources freed up to draw down backlog of 
other existing cases?
    Mr. Neufeld. The resources that we have have not increased 
yet for that program.
    Senator Tillis. Presumably, since you are not processing 
this population right now, it frees up capacity for what I 
assume is some sort of a backlog.
    Mr. Neufeld. We continue--in service center operations, we 
do adjudicate the DACA requests that are based on the 2012 
directive and those continue. We are not redirecting any 
resources from there.
    The DAPA program has not stood up yet. The expanded DACA, 
we were preparing to hire to fill vacancies those additional 
positions that we would need, but had not acquired those 
additional positions. So they will not be redirected.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. I have another question here. I 
guess the Administration claims using its powers of 
prosecutorial discretion in order to grant blanket deferral 
from deportation to undocumented individuals on a case-by-case 
basis.
    If that is the case, have there been any instances in which 
an individual applying for deferred deportation status has met 
the requirements for such deferral as outlined in the 
President's 2012 action, but was not given deferral status?
    Mr. Neufeld. The 2012 guidelines are just that. They are 
guidelines for how to exercise the discretion for requests for 
a deferred action. There are a number of criteria and some of 
them are very straightforward. You have to be under the age of 
31. You had to have been under the age of 16 when you first 
arrived in the United States. Those are pretty clear-cut.
    There are others, such as you cannot be a threat to 
national security or public safety, those involve much more an 
act of judgment and discretion on the part of the adjudicator.
    Yes, we have denied requests for deferred action based on 
an adjudicator's assessment about their potential threat on 
public safety, as well as some cases that have come to our 
attention in reviewing the requests where they meet all of 
those--the guideline that are enumerated in the 2012 guidance.
    Nonetheless, if, for example, we have cases where they had 
committed fraud and requesting other immigration benefits and I 
know that those cases have been denied as a matter of 
discretion in reviewing the totality of the circumstances of 
the applicant who is making the request.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I really do, 
in the incident that has hit literally close to home here, I do 
expect an answer back and join Mr. Grassley in his call for 
getting more details, and appreciate him doing that.
    Chairman Sessions. I know you are interested in it and I 
did not realize or was not paying attention to your return. I 
would have made reference to it.
    This is the way I see it. You have asked to do more than is 
physically possible for your agency to do. You are not going to 
be able to process these cases in any effective way.
    Mr. Palinkas is exactly right. I have been a Federal 
prosecutor for 12 years--15 years. I know how the system works. 
You just do not have the ability to do that. The Senator is 
asking this question because it is true.
    You say, well, in your minds, as good public servants, you 
are going to do the best you can under the orders you have been 
given, and I understand that. What I would say is, from the 
perspective of this side of the desk, is that the President 
should never have asked for that.
    No President should demand amnesty, legal status, for 
millions of people unlawfully in this country when there is no 
sufficient staff to do the kind of background we have been 
doing for people who apply lawfully.
    I have just got to tell you, the President made a big 
mistake here. That's where--this is just part of the 
controversy. It is just part of it. Congress has no duty and no 
responsibility to fund it and, indeed, we should block funding 
and stop it.
    Our colleagues have filibustered any bill that funded a 
program that would have stopped this kind of funding. That is 
how we got to this sad end where I guess we will go forward 
with funding for the program, and now the court has stopped it. 
It is a complicated mess.
    I want to ask about, because my understanding--I guess, Mr. 
Renaud or Mr. Neufeld, I will let you choose who to answer. My 
understanding is that CIS collects biometrics, fingerprints, 
the bread-and-butter of American law enforcement, fingerprints 
from DACA applicants and runs an FBI fingerprint check through 
the integrated automatic fingerprint identification system; is 
that correct?
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Chairman Sessions. You do the fingerprint check. Among 
other things and the time it takes to process somebody, that is 
part of the $85; is that right?
    Mr. Neufeld. That is correct.
    Chairman Sessions. They have to be fingerprinted. Somebody 
takes them in. They have some sort of question asked and that 
is processed and sent off and then you get a report back and 
somebody reads it and studies it. That is kind of the way it 
works, right?
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Chairman Sessions. Is it not true that, as your standard 
operating procedures on DACA notes, that participation by State 
and local agencies in the FBI fingerprint system is not 
mandatory. That those fingerprint checks do not contain records 
from every jurisdiction.
    Mr. Neufeld. I believe that is correct.
    Chairman Sessions. This is on page 37 of your standard 
operating procedure for DACA. I have got to tell you, this 
Administration's actions at times take my breath away.
    We got a report back yesterday or today from the President. 
If he chooses this commission, task force on 21st century 
policing, and they are supposed to tell us how to improve 
policing in America.
    One of the things they say in that report is the U.S. 
Department of Justice should remove civil immigration 
information from the FBI's National Information Center data 
base.
    Do you have any idea why that information should be removed 
and cease to be collected as it has in the past from the FBI 
data base?
    Mr. Neufeld. I do not.
    Chairman Sessions. Would it not be helpful when you are 
prosecuting or investigating a case, Mr. Renaud, to know that 
they have been arrested previously for entering the country, 
somebody has?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, thank you for the question. I think a 
couple of things I just want to make sure we are clear on.
    One is we use the same IAFIS process for vetting of 
fingerprints for a DACA recipient that we do for any other 
individual that we fingerprint. Chairman Sessions. I understand 
that.
    Mr. Renaud. We use IAFIS, which is the FBI criminal 
history, and we put them through IDENT, which is the Department 
of Homeland Security history.
    I do not know--I am not familiar with the paper you are 
holding, but certainly----
    Chairman Sessions. I am not happy with this report. I am 
going to offer it for the record. It just came out yesterday, I 
think, or today.
    President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, an 
executive branch of this country's group is asking that we 
remove immigration information. I think that is unthinkable. It 
is just an example of a commitment to making sure law becomes 
unenforceable.
    The question. Regardless of that, isn't it helpful when you 
run an NCIC check that you know whether or not a person has 
been arrested one, two, three, four, five times previously for 
immigration violations?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I think irrespective of where we get 
that information, that it is important information to have in 
adjudication.
    Chairman Sessions. I do not think there is any doubt about 
it. The review also says, ``In the view of this task force, 
whenever possible, State and local law enforcement should not 
be involved in immigration enforcement,'' closed quote.
    It is absolutely clear that a law officer can detain 
somebody and turn them over to the Federal Government if they 
have entered this country unlawfully, crossing our borders. 
They can be detained a reasonable time to be turned over and we 
have a 287G program designed to facilitate that that states 
acted on. Alabama had their people trained. I think most states 
did.
    This President has abandoned it. President Bush was 
reluctant at first, I think, but then they used it and liked 
it. It makes sure that people are treated fairly and the 
officers understand what the rights of this person are and how 
to process it in a proper way.
    They cannot deport somebody. They cannot prosecute 
somebody. They can arrest somebody for a robbery on a military 
base and hold them until the Federal people come and prosecute 
them, even though they cannot prosecute them themselves.
    I just want to tell you there are a lot of problems out 
here that we are concerned about. What about name checks? That 
is a different thing than the fingerprint checks and sometimes 
it provides additional information. I understand that DACA 
applicants are not being--that the FBI data system is not being 
queried for name checks; is that right?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, 
we do have a layered approach to security checks. Some of 
that--the information that would be in a name check result 
would show up in either an IDENT or a TECS check.
    The answer to your question is much like many of our other 
applicants, deferred action requesters, do not undergo 
typically an FBI name check.
    Chairman Sessions. All right. Look, we all have some 
frustrations on this and I am not blaming you guys, but you are 
public servants and we are asking questions and I would like to 
follow through with some more of these just to get clear, in my 
mind, how you are operating. I would appreciate that you try to 
help us as quickly as we can to get to that.
    Senator Tillis, did you have another round?
    Let me ask this. You do not use name checks, which a lot of 
police and law enforcement officers do in addition to a 
fingerprint check when they are running an inquiry. Do you know 
if the plan is with the DAPA applicants, that they would be 
not--that a name check not be used for them?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, we run name checks on our status 
granting benefits, particularly naturalization applications and 
adjustment of status applications.
    There are no other applications that I am aware of that we 
routinely run FBI name checks.
    Chairman Sessions. Which would mean that these DAPA are not 
going to be run, right?
    Mr. Renaud. That is correct, sir.
    Chairman Sessions. I am concerned about the situation of 
how you process the applications. Everybody that applies for 
relief under DAPA, they are not going to come to Crystal City 
to file their papers and be interviewed, right? Who will answer 
that? Is that you, Mr. Neufeld?
    Mr. Renaud. I think you got me again, sir.
    Chairman Sessions. You are a busy man today. They are not 
going to come to Crystal City, right?
    Mr. Renaud. The plan before the injunction, you are 
correct. They would apply--they would request deferred action 
through the mail.
    Chairman Sessions. They request it through the mail. Can 
this be electronically transmitted or will it have to be in an 
actual form of an original document mailed to Crystal City?
    Mr. Renaud. We did not plan on initially providing 
electronic filing or submission of evidence.
    Chairman Sessions. Is that a firm decision or do you know? 
You should know. Is that a firm decision?
    Mr. Renaud. The firm decision of--prior to the injunction, 
the firm decision was that if we were to go live in May with 
deferred action for parents of Americans, we would not have 
gone with electronic filing. It would have been predominantly a 
paper adjudication.
    Chairman Sessions. Would things like rent receipts or a 
diploma of some kind filed in a postal envelope, mailed to you, 
is that the kind of thing you would be looking at?
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you for the question. I think that as 
with many of our applications, when someone needs to establish 
under the DAPA rubric, residence, for example, then we would--
to a certain extent, we would get what they would--what they 
chose to submit.
    We would typically try and put out information through our 
website and other outreach that indicated to potential 
requesters of what evidence would be most compelling and we 
would also include that in training materials and in standard 
operating procedures for our adjudicators.
    Much of that work had not been done at the time of the--at 
the time of the injunction. At this point, it is not going 
forward.
    Chairman Sessions. The individual sends you some documents. 
How long, under the President's order, did you have to be in 
the country before could claim the benefit of this? It is an 
advantage if you came unlawfully longer ago than if you came 
recently.
    Mr. Renaud. The requirement in the Secretary's memo was 
that they were present in the United States prior to I believe 
1/1/2010. I think that is right.
    Chairman Sessions. January 2010.
    Mr. Renaud. Correct.
    Chairman Sessions. It is January 2015, past. We are talking 
about a number of years ago. They have got to prove they have 
been here, correct?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, that is correct.
    Chairman Sessions. Crystal City is going to evaluate the 
documents.
    Mr. Renaud. That is correct.
    Chairman Sessions. What if it looks like it is a copy of a 
high school diploma with a similar name? He applies as John R. 
Smith and the diploma says John Smith. How do you evaluate 
that? He says this showed I graduated from high school six 
years ago or I entered the country and had a job six years ago 
or I resided at this apartment six years ago. How do you decide 
that? You do not see a person sitting across from you and you 
cannot ask questions.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, through our training, through our 
standard operating procedures, and through the expertise honed 
over time with our adjudicators, they are trained to evaluate 
evidence, to ferret out fraud, and to use their judgment in 
determining whether someone has met the preponderance of 
evidence standard to establish that they meet one or more of 
the eligibility criteria.
    It is a judgment call on the part of the----
    Chairman Sessions. You remember the historic case about the 
police officer search that turned up a bunch of drugs and he 
said, ``Why did you search it,'' and he said, ``I had a psychic 
feeling that there was an illegal activity going on.'' They 
threw that out.
    You have to be able to articulate what it is, right? If the 
officer is feeling good that morning and he sees a Xerox copy 
of a name with no middle initial or with a middle initial that 
is different from the applicant, what do they do?
    Mr. Renaud. My understanding, again, and the standard 
operating procedures have not been written, but certainly we 
would adjudicate eligibility under that particular criteria 
based on the totality of the evidence, not one document and we 
would use their--we would rely on their training and their 
judgment to determine whether the preponderance of evidence is 
met.
    If they believe that there is some fraud or 
misrepresentation, we have embedded--we would have embedded 
fraud detection national security professionals who would have 
been able to evaluate and more closely look for fraud and other 
indicators on that document. This is what we are good at.
    Chairman Sessions. You are hiring a bunch of people with no 
experience, right, that are going to be reviewing parts of this 
process. That is why I asked you about that earlier. That is 
what Mr. Palinkas was expressing concerns about.
    Mr. Renaud. We offer job--we offer jobs to--of the 329 
selected, 162 of them were veterans. We think they have 
experience. We hired the most experienced. We offer tentative 
employment.
    Chairman Sessions. Veterans of Homeland Security?
    Mr. Renaud. No. Veterans from the United States military 
and we believe that their judgment, with our training, we 
believe that we would have been successful in implementing this 
program to the best of our ability, sir.
    Chairman Sessions. Second, look, I am just asking 
questions. You did not set the policy. This is not going to 
work. You know it and I know it. That is how the person 
probably cleared here. Let us say there was evidence in North 
Carolina of this individual that he was a gang member. Would 
any of your adjudicators--are they going to go out and 
investigate that before they give him legal status?
    Mr. Renaud. Again, I am not going to comment----
    Chairman Sessions. Just a yes or no, please. Are you going 
to call people out to investigate that, interview witnesses?
    Mr. Renaud. I do not know the answer to that question.
    Chairman Sessions. The answer is no. You do not have any 
staff to go do those interviews and you are not going to do 
them. Are you doing any on DACA now in those kind of 
circumstances?
    Mr. Renaud. We have referred cases for interviews for DACA 
and in certain cases, my understanding and perhaps Mr. Neufeld 
could answer more definitely, is that we do coordinate with our 
colleagues in ICE where there are particular issues regarding 
public safety. Chairman Sessions. For the most part, you are 
going to get an envelope with papers and you will run a 
background check that may pick up criminal activity.
    But Senator Cornyn pointed out what about a series of DUI--
say it is a DUI, a reckless driving and a marijuana possession. 
Under your standards, would they be admissible?
    Mr. Neufeld. I can speak--I have got experience with the 
DACA program existing and that as my colleague noted, the 
requirements--one of the requirements is not to have been 
convicted of a felony, there misdemeanors, or a significant 
misdemeanor. Generally speaking, DUI, you are out.
    Chairman Sessions. DUI----
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Chairman Sessions. [continuing] Counts as being out. What 
about marijuana possession, cocaine possession, plead to a 
misdemeanor, cocaine sale charge, pled to a misdemeanor?
    Mr. Neufeld. Sitting here today, I do not know how all of 
those would measure up against the significant misdemeanor----
    Chairman Sessions. Yes, you do.
    Mr. Neufeld. No, I do not. I really do not. I would 
actually think that--my gut would be that those would be 
disqualifying, but I do not want to say definitively because I 
am not 100 percent sure of that as I sit here.
    Chairman Sessions. All right. Now, if a person--what if 
somebody files a lawsuit against you guys and says the policy 
says you have got to be convicted of a felony or serious 
qualifying misdemeanor and this does not qualify?
    Mr. Neufeld. Our attorneys tell us that this is a 
completely discretionary program and so we can make these kinds 
of calls without--not without fear that it will be litigated, 
but that we will be ultimately successful in those litigations.
    Chairman Sessions. I think, in general, what we are going 
to find is--would you submit for the record how many 
independent investigations are being done to determine DACA 
qualification? Can you tell us how many?
    Mr. Neufeld. I should be able to provide to you information 
about the number of referrals to ICE that we have made. I could 
not give you the outcome of those referrals.
    Chairman Sessions. That would be of value. Of course, you 
do not have any officers, Mr. Renaud, to investigate that. They 
will be in Crystal City or whatever. They do not go to San 
Diego or Miami to investigate an allegation about somebody.
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, we do not have investigators.
    Chairman Sessions. You do not have them. It is not your 
fault. You just do not have them.
    The standard is preponderance of the evidence. That is 
about the lowest--that is the lowest legal standard. It just 
means on a scale, you think it tilts this way; is that correct? 
Preponderance of the evidence.
    Mr. Renaud. Yes. Preponderance of evidence, to me, means 
more likely than not.
    Chairman Sessions. Really it is just more likely than not 
is the classical legal definition; is that correct?
    Mr. Renaud. I will not disagree with that.
    Chairman Sessions. A person submits a document and they 
assert that they have been in the country for six years and 
they worked and they submit a W-2 form from three years ago and 
a rental receipt from six years ago. What do you do then?
    Mr. Neufeld. In the DACA context, if there was nothing in 
between, we would probably issue a request for additional 
evidence for the intervening years.
    Chairman Sessions. Is it not pretty easy to--but a valid 
rent receipt would be sufficient?
    Mr. Neufeld. Not standing alone. In the context--considered 
in context with other evidence, it could be helpful.
    Chairman Sessions. All you have got to do is prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not, he said he 
was here and that is his rent receipt. You are not going to go 
out and call the landlord, are you, to see if that is correct 
or if he could identify the person, are you?
    Mr. Neufeld. Not generally.
    Chairman Sessions. No. That is not going to happen.
    Mr. Neufeld. As I said----
    Chairman Sessions. It is just too many people. You have 
asked for too many processes and the person sitting here is not 
an investigator. He is a veteran from the Army.
    Mr. Neufeld. I want to be clear. We would not approve a 
case simply on the basis of single rent receipt.
    Chairman Sessions. What else would you look to have? What 
would you normally expect would be strong documentation?
    Mr. Neufeld. We would look to at least something to support 
their presence every year that is required.
    Chairman Sessions. They would have to be continuously in 
the United States, not just here six years ago, returned for a 
year and come back for four.
    Mr. Neufeld. I believe in the DACA context, the requirement 
for continuous presence is for the last--I am forgetting the 
time period. For DACA, it is 2007 and onward. Then they have to 
establish that they established a residence while under the age 
of 16.
    Chairman Sessions. What if the applicant came here, brought 
a child, went back to their country, brought a 13 or 14-year-
old child. The 14-year-old child stayed with the uncle and 
continuously received DACA benefits and now applies for their 
parents to come. They would not be able to come unless they 
were in the country, correct?
    Mr. Neufeld. There is no provision for DACA recipients to 
bring their parents.
    Chairman Sessions. If they are here already, then they can 
apply for status.
    Mr. Neufeld. Excuse me. The parents?
    Chairman Sessions. Yes.
    Mr. Neufeld. For the injunction--well.
    Chairman Sessions. Right.
    Mr. Neufeld. Even in the DAPA context, they have to show--
and this is where I am getting out of my area--but they have to 
show that they are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent 
residents. not DACA specific.
    Chairman Sessions. The child was born here and the parents 
returned and left the child with an uncle or brother or 
something. Then if they are here, they have to prove they were 
here for five--since 2010.
    Mr. Renaud. Under DAPA, Senator, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. What will you accept as proof of the 
child's citizenship?
    Mr. Renaud. We would--there are obviously a number of ways 
that a child can become a citizen. We would look for--
generally, the best evidence of birth in the United States is a 
civil registration of birth that is timely registered. We would 
look to our own records to see if that child has naturalized or 
become a citizen through a derivative status.
    Chairman Sessions. How do you verify the birth certificate? 
You will not see--the individual will not come there. You get a 
document. Everybody would have to submit a birth certificate or 
some other document. Every DAPA, every parent who is seeking a 
benefit would have to submit a birth certificate of the child.
    Mr. Renaud. Under DAPA, again, reminding that we have 
stopped----
    Chairman Sessions. Right. I know you have.
    Mr. Renaud. At this point, I am speculating because these 
rule and procedures--these procedures have not been written 
yet, but typically, yes, we would--one of the eligibility 
requirements under DAPA would have been that the deferred 
action requester, the parent, would need to show that the--that 
they had a child as of--as of November 20, I believe, who is a 
citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident of 
the United States and we would look for either evidence in our 
own records or evidence that they could submit, such as a copy 
of a permanent resident card for permanent resident status or 
we would look for a birth certificate or evidence of 
citizenship or naturalization.
    Mr. Neufeld. That is similar to what we would do in a visa 
petition context. If that child was over 21 and wanted to bring 
in their parent under the existing statutes, they would submit 
a petition and one of the pieces of evidence that we would 
require would be evidence of citizenship of the child. We make 
those kinds of----
    Chairman Sessions. Let us say that an individual is not 
your child and has the same last name and you submit that birth 
certificate and you get a mailing and it says ``this is my 
child's birth certificate''?
    Mr. Renaud. Well, it would need to----
    Chairman Sessions. Is that all it takes, when maybe it is 
not their child?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, as with other immigrant--family based 
immigration applications, it is--the burden of proof is on the 
petitioner or the requester in the deferred action context to 
establish that--to establish the facts.
    A birth certificate showing--we would--we would look for--
if it was a U.S.-born child, we would look for a timely 
registered civil document that showed the child's name and the 
DACA requester's name as a parent. If one or more of those data 
points were not--were not on the form or the form was not 
timely registered, we would look for additional--we would 
request additional evidence of relationship.
    Chairman Sessions. Let us say you were here, a person or 
adult had been here for a number of years, 10 years, but they 
did not have a child born, but they mail in a packet to you 
with a birth certificate and an affidavit.
    Do you still have to submit an affidavit with that?
    Mr. Renaud. They may.
    Chairman Sessions. You do not even require it. You require 
verification of the application?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, we do not find--I am not sure who the 
affidavit is from or what it is saying. We prefer not to have 
affidavits because we do not--I mean, it is not the most--it is 
not the strongest piece of evidence that we can use to 
establish eligibility.
    Chairman Sessions. All right. They submit a birth 
certificate and declare ``this is my child.'' In their 
application, do they say this is the birth certificate of my 
child and I certify I am telling you the truth under penalty of 
perjury or they just submit it with a little handwritten note 
that says ``this is my child's birth certificate''?
    Mr. Renaud. Typically, although the form for DAPA has not--
is not finalized, most of our forms, DACA forms or other forms, 
collect information and conceivably we would have collected--we 
are planning to collect on the form the name of the requester, 
the name of the child that they claim as the qualifying child, 
and they would sign that under the penalties of perjury.
    Chairman Sessions. All right. Is it your plan that they 
would submit a birth certificate along with that?
    Mr. Renaud. That would be my expectation, yes. For a child 
born in the United States or, frankly, for a child born 
anywhere, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. Would it have to be a certified birth 
certificate or can it be a copy of one?
    Mr. Renaud. We generally accept copies.
    Chairman Sessions. Would you take copies of a high school 
diploma or an employment check, pay stub of some kind?
    Mr. Renaud. Thank you for the question, Senator. We 
typically require copies, but reserve the right to request 
originals if we have questions about the authenticity of those 
documents.
    Chairman Sessions. The operating procedures, as I 
understand it, on page eight, states that affidavits may be 
used to show that someone meets the five-year continuous 
residence requirement or to support a shortcoming in 
documentation with respect to the brief, casual and innocent 
departures during the five years of continuous presence.
    A shortcoming in documentation can be filled with a--to 
prove your five-year continuous residence can be filled with an 
affidavit.
    The evidence, if you have got an affidavit and you have got 
some general supporting documentation, you are in, right?
    Mr. Renaud. Senator, I am not sure what you are reading 
from because the standard operating procedures for DAPA have 
not been written.
    Chairman Sessions. This is September 13, this is DACA. Yes, 
DACA, excuse me, in 2012, your procedures. Is an affidavit in 
itself preponderance of the evidence?
    Mr. Renaud. In the DACA context, we accept any evidence 
that anybody wishes to submit. We do not give much value in 
general to affidavits, depending on what they are submitted 
to--as evidence.
    Chairman Sessions. You are in a predicament because the 
President has directed under his order that they should be 
approved if there is a preponderance of the evidence. You do 
not have any lawyer that is cross-examining this document. You 
do not have an investigator to go and look up and call back to 
this company they claim to have worked for, right?
    Mr. Neufeld. Generally speaking, no.
    Chairman Sessions. You do not.
    Mr. Neufeld. In the context that--I believe the context 
that you are reading that in, the affidavit would be accepted 
to explain a reason for a departure within the time period in 
which they are required to have continuous physical presence.
    Chairman Sessions. Otherwise there is no affidavit. Can you 
say with certainty that the application for DAPA would be 
verified under oath, under penalty of perjury, I sign on the--
Mr. Renaud. I think we--Senator, I did not mean to interrupt, I 
apologize. I think that we can say with certainty that every 
application submitted to USCIS requires the signature of the 
moving party and that is signed under the penalties of perjury. 
Does it have the language over the signature?
    Mr. Renaud. I was just handed a form.
    Chairman Sessions. I hate to be taking this time, but I 
just think we in Congress need to understand, as I said at the 
beginning, the details of all this.
    I told my colleagues who offered the Gang of 8 bill I would 
vote for their talking points. It was when we read the details 
of the law that I could not support. Go ahead.
    Mr. Renaud. I do not have the form, I just have the 
instructions. Yes, I believe that there is a penalty of perjury 
of statement. They certify that everything is truth--truthful 
and accurate under the penalty of perjury and they sign under 
that statement.
    Chairman Sessions. Under DACA, which you have been 
processing since 2012-2013, if you submit a false document or 
you revealed, can you be prosecuted for that?
    Mr. Renaud. Yes.
    Chairman Sessions. If you submit a document that proves you 
have lied to get government benefits or status in the United 
States, under the policies, you are not supposed to report that 
for prosecution, right?
    Mr. Neufeld. We can share information with law enforcement 
authorities regarding criminal offenses.
    Chairman Sessions. Not including false documents to get 
into the country or work that are revealed in this process, 
correct? Are they not basically given amnesty from any false 
documentation they may have used that you discover in this 
process?
    Mr. Neufeld. We typically would not refer cases to ICE if 
the evidence was about, for instance, using a Social Security 
number that did not belong to them.
    Chairman Sessions. Thank you for this information. We are 
obviously not at the bottom of it, but, Mr. Renaud and Mr. 
Neufeld, at some point, there will be standard operating 
procedures for DAPA formalized, correct? If this goes forward 
and the court injunction is not sustained.
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Mr. Renaud. That is my understanding, yes.
    Chairman Sessions. Would it be in writing?
    Mr. Renaud. Yes. We put our standard--when we draft 
standard operating procedures, they are in writing and they are 
used as a training mechanism.
    Chairman Sessions. You will make those available to the 
Committee, yes?
    Mr. Renaud. I would--I do not know what is usual and 
customary, but we will follow all proper protocols.
    Chairman Sessions. I think the U.S. Congress would be 
entitled to know the policies that have been issued and I am 
sure we will get that.
    What I want the American people to know is the burden 
placed on you is such that you will not be able to fulfill the 
basic requirements that we expect to be fulfilled when a person 
applies to come to the United States and it is less than we are 
providing now for people to make legal applications.
    In fact, people who have already violated the law are 
getting less scrutiny than people who are applying to come. 
Hundreds, millions are turned down on a yearly basis for one 
reason or another, but yet if they had gotten through, past the 
border or overstayed a visa and were going through this 
process, they would likely be approved.
    I think, as Senator Cruz says, we have got a double 
standard here. We are indeed rewarding those who unlawfully 
enter over people who come lawfully in a number of different 
ways and I think it is dangerous in terms of national security.
    As many of the law enforcement officers have told us, Chris 
Crane at ICE, the head of the ICE Association, says this will 
make us less safe. Mr. Palinkas says there is no way we can 
process these applications objectively. It will make America 
less safe.
    That is the problem we have got. It is not so much your 
problem, but the President started it and he has tried to 
execute something that is not executable properly under the 
current conditions, I think. We will just have to continue to 
monitor it.
    We will keep the record open for questions.
    Senator Lee would like to enter into the record a leaked 
2010 memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security that 
discusses the use of advanced parole for illegal immigrants. It 
is something he has spent a lot of time on and I think people 
need to know things are not in accord with what the President 
says, and Senator Grassley, our Judiciary Chairman, has 
submitted his recommendations.
    I thank all of you for coming. We are dismissed, I know you 
are grateful to know.

         [Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                                 [all]