[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST FOR U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, AND U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
AND OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-865 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION, AND OPERATIONS
Kathleen M. Rice, New York, Chairwoman
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Ranking
J. Luis Correa, California Member
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Al Green, Texas John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
officio)
Alexandra Carnes, Subcommittee Staff Director
Emily Trapani, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Kathleen M. Rice, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
Mr. Robert E. Perez, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Ms. Tracy Renaud, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services:
Oral Statement................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
For the Record
The Honorable Kathleen M. Rice, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union.............................................. 57
Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director, Southern Border Communities
Coalition.................................................... 63
Church World Service........................................... 64
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Robert E. Perez... 67
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Robert E. Perez... 68
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Matthew T. Albence 69
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Matthew T. Albence 69
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Tracy Renaud...... 70
A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST FOR U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, AND U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
----------
Thursday, May 9, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 310, Cannon House building, Hon. Kathleen M. Rice
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rice, Correa, Torres Small, Green,
Clarke, Higgins, Lesko, Joyce, and Guest.
Miss Rice. The subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today----
Mr. Higgins. Mike, please.
Miss Rice. I have a loud enough voice to carry, I think.
Can everyone hear me?
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
the fiscal year 2020 budget request for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. I want to thank the
administration officials who came here this morning to testify
and provide additional details about their priorities and
programs for the coming fiscal year.
But I am going to be frank with everyone here today. This
budget request is deeply flawed and seems to double down on a
number of highly questionable policies that have been patently
and repeatedly rejected by Congress over the past 2 years. That
includes billions of dollars for a useless border wall and
hundreds of millions of dollars for additional detention space
for migrant families.
Let me be clear, these items were nonstarters in last
year's budget, and they will be nonstarters this year, too. The
fiscal year 2020 CBP budget proposal includes a $5 billion
request for a border wall, while simultaneously eliminating or
reducing funding for several technology-oriented security
measures, including video surveillance and cross-border,
tunnel-detection systems. Shockingly, the proposed budget would
also drastically reduce funding for nonintrusive inspection
systems, which scan for drugs, guns, and other contraband at
ports of entry.
Last year Congress allocated over $500 million to procure
new NII systems. In the 2020 budget, the President requests
just $59 million. That is not enough. We have been over this
time and time again. We need to continue investing in proven
border security technology. It works and it works well.
Eliminating funding for something as effective as NII systems
is reckless and dangerous, and it will hamper our ability to
secure our border. There is overwhelming evidence of that.
In fiscal year 2018, 90 percent of heroin was seized at
ports of entry by CBP officers while only 10 percent was seized
between ports. CBP officers at ports of entry also seized 81
percent of fentanyl in the same period. NII systems play an
indispensable role in these types of seizures.
Meanwhile, there is absolutely no evidence that a border
wall would be more effective in stopping contraband from
crossing the border. None whatsoever. Nevertheless, here we are
again litigating this issue. The President himself frequently
talks about the horrors of human trafficking and of the
families that have been devastated by the opioid epidemic. Yet
given the chance to actually do something about it, to actually
invest in the resources that will help prevent those tragedies,
he opts for a border wall, something that only serves to
bolster his ego and irrevocably harm our border communities.
It is hard to believe that this needs to be said, but
clearly it does. Our committee is not in the business of
funding ridiculous, xenophobic, campaign promises. We are in
the business of securing our border and ensuring the efficacy
of our border operations. We will not sign off on a budget that
is chockful of baseless, politically-motivated line items that
would only leave our border more vulnerable than it already is.
This brings me to my next point: This committee is not just
responsible for ensuring border security. We are also
responsible for making sure that that security apparatus does
not undermine a fair, thorough, and humane immigration and
asylum process. This budget woefully fails to deliver on that
as well.
First and foremost, the fiscal year 2020 budget creates
something called the Border Security and Immigration
Enforcement Fund, which appears to use USCIS fees to fund an
expansion of detention capacity to 60,000 beds, including a 300
percent increase in family detention space, as well as an
increase in law enforcement and prosecution-related personnel.
As I see it, this fund only further advances USCIS's alarming
change in focus from an agency responsible for facilitating and
granting immigration benefits into an enforcement arm for this
President to execute his cruel and punitive immigration agenda.
Thus far, USCIS has not answered questions about this fund,
instead directing questions to the White House. I can assure
you that we will get the answers here today.
Second, in addition to the 60,000 beds that the fiscal year
2020 budget proposes, it also requests funding for 54,000 ICE
detention beds, a significant increase over the 40,520 cap in
the fiscal year 2018 and 2019 appropriation bills. ICE has
continuously ignored the bed caps and still exceeds its current
bed capacity today as it carries out Trump's anti-immigration
agenda.
Immigration detention is supposed to be civil detention.
However, I have seen ICE detention facilities, and I can assure
you, there is nothing civil about them. ICE's detention
facilities look and feel like prisons. I saw them with my own
eyes last month when I led a delegation from this committee
down to El Paso. These facilities are chronically cited for
conditions that are hazardous to the health and safety of its
detainees, including lack of medical care, overuse of solitary
confinement, spoiled and rotten food, and unreported health and
security incidents. That is to say nothing of the repeated
reports of abuse toward LGBTQ individuals, pregnant women, and
other vulnerable populations.
To make matters worse, ICE has consistently failed to hold
detention facilities accountable to performance standards. How
in good conscience can we increase their capacity for detention
when they have proven incapable of properly overseeing their
existing facilities?
On May 1, 2019, OMB sent a letter to the Speaker,
requesting an emergency appropriation of $4.5 billion for the
remainder of fiscal year 2019 to address the, ``humanitarian
and security crisis at the Southern Border.'' Of that $4.5
billion, $1.1 billion was for DHS, and what did DHS say they
would use that money for? Additional detention beds, rapid DNA
testing for individuals that CBP and ICE believe could be human
smugglers disguised as family units, and training for Border
Patrol agents to begin administering credible fear screenings
to families that they apprehend.
All the while, this administration continues to illegally
curtail and criminalize our asylum process. They have continued
to implement the metering process, whereby the administration
limits the number of people who are permitted to apply for
asylum each day, and they have maintained the remaining Mexico
policy where migrants and asylum seekers are forced to wait in
Mexico while their asylum cases are processed. Taken together,
these two strategies have led asylum seekers and migrants to
cross in between ports of entry which is far more dangerous.
Last week Bishop Mark Seitz from the Catholic diocese of El
Paso, Texas, testified before this subcommittee. He described
the dangerous conditions he saw in Mexico along the U.S.
border. He specifically called on the Trump administration to
end policies like migrant protection protocols, also known as
``remain in Mexico,'' that force asylum seekers to wait in
Mexico under grave safety, humanitarian, and due process
concerns.
Not only does this policy put tremendous stress on our
Mexican partners, it has also proven to be deeply flawed. For
example, several migrants subject to remain in Mexico, received
notices to appear in immigration court, but with an incorrect
court date or no date at all. Even though the migrant could not
have possibly shown up for a court date they did not know
about, some have been ordered removed in absentia. It is things
like this, that make a mockery of our entire immigration
system.
Then, of course, there are the President's absurd threats
to close the border altogether or charge fees for asylum
applications, but this is what happens when you prioritize
fear-mongering and campaign slogans over thoughtful border
policies like addressing chronic personnel challenges and
helping our Central American neighbors. President Trump's
proposed DHS budget is simply a continuation of his misguided,
shortsided, enforcement-only approach to border security and
immigration. At this point, we know all too well how that ends.
It will undoubtedly lead to the inhumane treatment of migrants
and severe misallocations of limited DHS resources. If anyone
has any doubts about that, then I would remind them of the
administration's horrifying family separation policy which
plunged DHS into a state of utter chaos and paralysis and
caused unimaginable trauma to thousands of children.
When does it stop? When will this administration wake up to
the reality that these policies are not only inhumane, they are
not only un-American, but they are actually undermining our
ability to secure our border. These policies make us less safe.
We cannot continue down this road. We cannot continue allowing
this administration to divert resources away from solutions and
distort DHS's critical mission. We need to focus on and invest
in the proven, common-sense strategies that will address both
the humanitarian and security challenges at the border, and
that is what I intend to do here today.
[The statement of Chairwoman Rice follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Kathleen Rice
May 9, 2019
I want to thank the administration officials who came here this
morning to testify and provide additional details about their
priorities and programs for the coming fiscal year. But I'm going to be
frank with everyone here today. This budget request is deeply flawed
and seems to double down on a number of highly questionable policies
that have been patently and repeatedly rejected by Congress over the
past 2 years. That includes billions of dollars for a useless border
wall and hundreds of millions of dollars for additional detention space
for migrant families.
Let me be clear. These items were non-starters in last year's
budget, and they will be non-starters this year too. The fiscal year
2020 CBP budget proposal includes a $5 billion request for a border
wall, while simultaneously eliminating or reducing funding for several
technology-oriented security measures including video surveillance and
cross-border tunnel detection systems. Shockingly, the proposed budget
would also drastically reduce funding for Non-Intrusive Inspection
(NII) Systems, which scan for drugs, guns, and other contraband at
ports of entry. Last year, Congress allocated over $500 million to
procure new NII systems. In the 2020 budget, the President requests
just $59 million. That is not enough.
We have been over this time and time again. We need to continue
investing in proven border security technology. It works. And it works
well.
Eliminating funding for something as effective as NII systems is
reckless and dangerous and it will hamper our ability to secure our
border. And there is overwhelming evidence of that. In fiscal year
2018, 90 percent of heroin was seized at ports of entry by CBP
officers, while only 10 percent was seized between ports. CBP officers
at ports of entry also seized 81 percent of fentanyl in the same
period. NII systems play an indispensable role in these types of
seizures. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no evidence that a border wall
would be more effective in stopping contraband from crossing the border
. . . none whatsoever. Nevertheless, here we are again, litigating this
issue.
The President himself frequently talks about the horrors of human
trafficking and of the families that have been devastated by the opioid
epidemic. Yet, given the chance to actually do something about it . . .
to actually invest in the resources that will help prevent those
tragedies, he opts for a border wall . . . something that only serves
to bolster his ego and irrevocably harm our border communities.
It's hard to believe that this needs to be said, but clearly it
does: Our committee is not in the businesses of funding ridiculous,
xenophobic campaign promises. We are in the business of securing our
border and ensuring the efficacy of our border operations. And we will
not sign off on a budget that is chock-full of baseless, politically-
motivated line items that would only leave our border more vulnerable
than it already is.
And this brings me to my next point. This committee is not just
responsible for ensuring border security, we are also responsible for
making sure that that security apparatus does not undermine a fair,
thorough, and humane immigration and asylum process. And this budget
woefully fails to deliver on that as well.
First and foremost, I noticed that the fiscal year 2020 budget
creates something called the ``Border Security and Immigration
Enforcement Fund,'' which appears to use USCIS fees to fund an
expansion of detention capacity to 60,000 beds, including a 300 percent
increase in family detention space, as well as an increase in law
enforcement and prosecution-related personnel. As I see it, this fund
only further advances USCIS' alarming change in focus from an agency
responsible for facilitating and granting immigration benefits, into an
enforcement arm for this president to execute his cruel and punitive
immigration agenda. Thus far, USCIS has not answered questions about
this fund, instead directing questions to the White House. I can assure
you that will not fly today.
Second, in addition to the 60,000 beds that the fiscal year 2020
budget proposes, it also requests funding for 54,000 ICE detention
beds, a significant increase over the 40,520 cap in the fiscal year
2018 and 2019 appropriations bills. ICE has continuously ignored the
bed caps and still exceeds its current bed capacity today as it carries
out Trump's anti-immigration agenda. Immigration detention is supposed
to be civil detention. However, I have seen ICE detention facilities,
and I can assure you there is nothing civil about them. ICE's detention
facilities look and feel like prisons. I saw them with my own eyes last
month when I led a delegation from this committee down to El Paso.
These facilities are chronically cited for conditions that are
hazardous to the health and safety of its detainees including lack of
medical care, overuse of solitary confinement, spoiled and rotten food,
and unreported health and security incidents. And that's to say nothing
of the repeated reports of abuses toward LGBTQ individuals, pregnant
women, and other vulnerable populations. And to make matters worse, ICE
has consistently failed to hold detention facilities accountable to
performance standards. How in good conscious can we increase their
capacity for detention when they have proven incapable of properly
overseeing their existing facilities.
On May 1, 2019, OMB sent a letter to the Speaker requesting an
emergency appropriation of $4.5 billion for the remainder of fiscal
year 2019 to address the ``humanitarian and security crisis at the
Southern Border.'' Of that 4.5 billion, 1.1 billion was for DHS. And
what did DHS say they would use that money for? Additional detention
beds. Rapid DNA Testing for individuals that CBP and ICE believe could
be human smugglers disguised as family units. And training for Border
Patrol agents to begin administering Credible Fear Screenings to
families that they apprehend.
All the while, this administration continues to illegally curtail
and criminalize our asylum process. They have continued to implement
the ``metering'' process, whereby the administration limits the number
of people who are permitted to apply for asylum each day, and they have
maintained the Remain in Mexico policy, where migrants and asylum
seekers are forced to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases are
processed. Taken together, these two strategies have led asylum seekers
and migrants to cross in between ports of entry, which is far more
dangerous.
Last week, Bishop Mark Seitz from the Catholic Diocese of El Paso,
Texas, testified before this subcommittee. He described the dangerous
conditions he saw in Mexico along the U.S. border. He specifically
called on the Trump administration to end policies like Migrant
Protection Protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico'' that force
asylum seekers to wait in Mexico under ``grave safety, humanitarian,
and due process concerns.'' And not only does this policy put
tremendous stress on our Mexican partners, it has also proven to be
deeply flawed. For example, several migrants subject to Remain in
Mexico received Notices to Appear in immigration court, but with an
incorrect court date, or no date at all. And even though the migrant
could not have possibly shown up for a court date they did not know
about, some have been ordered removed in absentia. It's things like
this that make a mockery of our entire immigration system . . . And
then of course, there are the President's absurd threats to close the
border altogether or charge fees for asylum applications.
But this is what happens when you prioritize fear-mongering and
campaign slogans over thoughtful border policies, like addressing
chronic personnel challenges and helping our Central American
neighbors.
President Trump's proposed DHS budget is simply a continuation of
his misguided, short-sighted, enforcement-only approach to border
security and immigration. And at this point, we know all too well how
that ends: It will undoubtedly lead to the inhumane treatment of
migrants and severe misallocations of limited DHS resources. And if
anyone has any doubts about that, then I would remind them of the
administration's horrifying family separation policy, which plunged DHS
into a state of utter chaos and paralysis and caused unimaginable
trauma to thousands of children.
When does it stop? When will this administration wake up to the
reality that these policies are not only inhumane . . . they are not
only un-American . . . but they are actually undermining our ability to
secure our border. These policies make us less safe. We cannot continue
down this road. We cannot continue allowing this administration to
divert resources away from solutions and distort DHS's critical
mission. We need to focus on and invest in the proven, common-sense
strategies that will address both the humanitarian AND security
challenges at the border . . . and that's what I intend to do here
today.
Miss Rice. With that, I now recognize the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today to present President Trump's
fiscal year 2020 budget for Customs and Border Protection,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Law enforcement professionals tasked with actually securing
our border agree that we need layered security, enhanced 21st
Century security, to control the incredible flow of human
trafficking and illegal crossings. We need enhanced technology
to detect an incoming illegal crossing, enhanced physical
barriers to delay and deter that crossing, enhanced capacity to
respond to that detected and deterred crossing, and enhanced
capacity to process once arrests are made appropriately
according to the law.
Budgets for border security should be determined based upon
the actual needs as expressed by the law enforcement
professionals on the ground and commanders in the field, not by
politicians and bureaucrats in the District of Columbia.
I have said in every hearing held this year, and I will say
again, there is a growing humanitarian, National security, and
illegal immigration crisis at the Southwest Border. This fiscal
year, CBP is on track to apprehend the highest number of
migrants in 12 years. This increase in new migrant crossings
has pushed our ability to properly manage our Southern Border
and enforce our immigration laws. We have been pushed to the
breaking point and beyond. Migrants professing--processing
facilities along the border are continuing to be pushed far but
past their capacity. Border Patrol is apprehending record
numbers of groups of a hundred migrants or more. It is very
challenging to deal with. CBP just reported that they
encountered over 100,000 people at the Southwest Border in
April of this year alone, nearly a 600 percent increase since
2017.
Law enforcement officers are being taken off the line of
duty to transport and accompany migrants to hospitals once they
reach our border in deteriorating health. This is
unsustainable.
For political reasons, perhaps, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, have hesitated to even admit that a crisis
exists. During the last fiscal year, there was attempts to zero
out funding for additional Border Patrol agents, to zero out
funding for additional ICE agents, and to block supplemental
appropriations language to support our men and women along the
border. This effort to defund border security is an attack on
law enforcement. It forces illegal migrants to be released en
masse, into our border communities, and prevents ICE from
arresting criminal aliens who threaten public safety.
Because of this inaction, last week the administration
submitted a fiscal year 2019 supplemental budget request to
Congress for $4.5 billion in humanitarian assistance. I
encourage my colleagues to set aside their hatred for President
Trump and work to address the crisis at the border.
I stand ready to work with Members on both sides of the
aisle to pass legislation in support of this necessary
supplemental request. Today we will examine the President's
fiscal year 2020 budget request and determine if it is adequate
in providing CBP, ICE, and USCIS, with the tools and resources
necessary for them to carry out their mission. I was happy to
see increases made to the CBP and ICE budgets to address the
crisis at the border and at least deliver a down payment on
border security called for by the law enforcement professionals
on the ground.
The President's fiscal year 2020 budget funds the
construction of approximately 300 miles of enhanced physical
barriers and needed 21st Century technology. Important access
roads, and the ability to respond is included in this budget.
The budget also makes strong investments in front-line
personnel, to hire an additional 1,000 ICE law enforcement
officers, 750 Border Patrol agents, 171 CBP port of entry
officers, 128 immigration court-processing attorneys, and the
necessary associated support personnel.
I was encouraged to see that the request includes strong
investments in Homeland Security investigations, to fund and
prosecute cross-border criminals, including terrorists,
transnational criminal organizations, human traffickers, and
all those who participate in sexual exploitation.
President Trump is determined to do what it takes to secure
the homeland, and I support this thoroughly justified budget.
Today, we are fortunate to have experts before us who can
explain why they need these resources and how they will be
deployed. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I
respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and, Madam
Chair, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
May 9, 2019
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today to present President Trump's fiscal year 2020 budget for
Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
I've said this in every hearing held this year, and I will say it
again: There is a growing humanitarian, National security, and illegal
immigration crisis at the Southwest Border.
This fiscal year, CBP is on track to apprehend the highest number
of migrants in 12 years. This increase in new migrant crossings has
pushed our ability to properly manage our Southern Border and enforce
our immigration laws to the breaking point. Migrant processing
facilities along the border are continuing to be pushed past 100
percent capacity. Border Patrol is apprehending record numbers of
groups of 100 migrants or more. CBP just reported that they encountered
over 100,000 people at the Southwest Border in April of this year,
nearly a 600 percent increase since 2017. Law enforcement officers are
being taken off the line of duty to transport and accompany migrants at
hospitals once they reach our border in deteriorating health.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is unsustainable.
For political reasons, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
refuse to act or even admit that a crisis exists. During the last
fiscal cycle, they tried to zero out funding for additional Border
Patrol agents. They tried to zero out funding for additional ICE
agents. They then blocked supplemental appropriations language to
support our men and women along the border.
This effort to defund border security is an attack on law
enforcement. It forces illegal migrants to be released en masse into
our border communities and prevents ICE from arresting criminal aliens
who threaten public safety.
Because of this inaction, last week the administration submitted a
fiscal year 2019 supplemental budget request to Congress for $4.5
billion in humanitarian assistance. I encourage my colleagues to put
aside their political rhetoric and hatred for President Trump and work
to address the crisis at the border. I stand ready to work with Members
on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation in support of this
necessary supplemental request.
Today, we will examine the President's fiscal year 2020 budget
request and examine if it is adequate in providing CBP, ICE, and USCIS
with the tools and resources necessary for them to carry out their
important mission.
I was happy to see increases made to the CBP and ICE budgets to
address the crisis at the border and put a down payment on border
security.
The President's fiscal year 2020 budget funds the construction of
approximately 300 miles of new border barriers, needed 21st Century
technology, and important access roads.
The budget also makes strong investments in front-line personnel to
hire an additional 1,000 ICE law enforcement officers, 750 Border
Patrol agents, 171 CBP port of entry officers, 128 immigration court
prosecuting attorneys, and the necessary associated support personnel.
I was encouraged to see that the request includes strong
investments in Homeland Security Investigations to find and prosecute
cross-border criminals including terrorists, transnational criminal
organizations, human traffickers, and those who participate in sexual
exploitation of children.
President Trump has the determination to do what it takes to secure
the homeland, and I support this thoroughly justified budget request.
Today, we are fortunate to have experts before us who can explain
why they need these resources and how they will be deployed.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
May 9, 2019
Today, we will hear from the 3 DHS components that are responsible
for carrying out the Department's border security and immigration-
related missions. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget proposal
continues to illustrate that the Trump administration's priorities are
skewed, short-sighted, and cruel. One only needs to review the White
House's supplemental request sent to Congress last week to know that
the administration continues to act in bad faith in regards to
addressing the current challenge we face of our Southern Border.
There is a humanitarian crisis on our Southern Border, and this
situation has been unfolding for nearly a year. This crisis is one of
this administration's own making, and few steps have been taken to
truly alleviate the pressures on the migrants, officers, and agents on
the ground.
The White House's supplemental request is a non-starter. The
request for $81.7 million for more detention space for migrant families
illustrates that the administration refuses to acknowledge or does not
care that detention is harmful to children. The request for $23 million
for a pilot program that will dramatically change the credible fear
screening process is both deeply problematic and possibly illegal--
which is not surprising for the Trump administration. Neither of these
two requests should be approved by Congress.
Similarly, the President's fiscal year 2020 DHS budget proposal
doubles down on many of the same requests that have been denied for
funding by Congress over the past 2 years. For example, the fiscal year
2020 U.S. Customs and Border Protection budget is dominated yet again
by a request for billions of dollars for a wasteful border wall at the
expense of other critical border security investments--such as non-
intrusive inspection technology at ports of entry. This technology has
proven, time and again, to be an important tool in detecting nearly 90
percent of the illegal drugs seized by CBP.
Despite the long-standing and serious problems with conditions and
abuses at immigration detention facilities, the White House continues
to advocate for more bed space. Funding for ICE's Homeland Security
Investigations, which investigates transnational drug trafficking
organizations and human smuggling rings, would be diverted to fund
interior immigration enforcement arrests and deportations instead.
Meanwhile, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' budget proposal
shows this administration is unilaterally morphing the agency into an
enforcement one, contrary to the law, rather than addressing the
growing backlog of immigration applications.
Border security is more than building a wall. Shortchanging legal
due process and treating migrants inhumanely are not in keeping with
our country's values. Democrats remain committed to being good stewards
of taxpayer dollars by targeting resources at proven border security
efforts while treating those arriving at our Southern Border in a
humane manner.
I would urge the administration to stop putting forward non-starter
budget requests and instead join us in that effort.
Miss Rice. I welcome our panel of witnesses. Our first
witness is Mr. Robert Perez, the deputy commissioner for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection. In this role, he serves as the
agency's senior career official, overseeing the personnel who
work every day to protect our Nation's borders. During his 26-
year career in Federal law enforcement, Mr. Perez has also
served as the director of field operations in CBP's New York
field office and in Detroit, Michigan, and held various other
positions at CBP headquarters.
Next, we have Mr. Matthew Albence, the current acting
director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr.
Albence oversees ICE's day-to-day operations and manages its
operational and mission support personnel. Previously, he led
ICE's enforcement and removal operations directorate, and has
more than 24 years of Federal immigration law enforcement
experience.
Finally, we have Ms. Tracy Renaud, the acting deputy
director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. She has
also held a number of positions at USCIS headquarters,
including chief of field operations and deputy associate
director of refugee asylum and international operations. Ms.
Renaud has spent more than 32 years working in the area of
immigration benefits and services.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
or her statement for 5 minutes, and we will start with Mr.
Perez.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. PEREZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PROTECTION
Mr. Perez. Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I am honored to represent the nearly
60,000 men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
speak to you about our fiscal year 2020 budget request. Across
the board, CBP employees continue to perform difficult and, at
times, dangerous work in complex and a dynamic environment.
The President's fiscal year 2020 budget includes a combined
total of $18.2 billion that enables CBP to carry out our
mission through a range of investments needed to secure our
Nation against 21st Century threats. The funds included in the
fiscal year 2020 budget support our critical mission
initiatives in border security, trade, and travel,
counterterrorism, and other organizational improvements.
The need for investment in border security has never been
greater. We are in the midst of an on-going humanitarian and
National security crisis on our Southwest Border. Last month,
CBP apprehended over 109,000 migrants along our Southern
Border, more than 66 percent of which were families and
unaccompanied children. Two days last month we apprehended over
5,000 migrants within one 24-hour period. So far this fiscal
year, we have encountered 148 large groups of over 100 people.
The increases in families and children coming across our
border, in large groups and often remote areas, presents unique
challenges to our operations and facilities. Our resources are
outpaced by this crisis. Our system is well beyond capacity. As
a career, law enforcement professional, with over 26 years of
experience, I can tell you, I have never seen anything like the
crisis we are experiencing now. We must secure our border, and
working together, I know we can find solutions to do so.
With regard to border security, the three primary areas of
investment in the fiscal year 2020 budget are infrastructure,
technology, and personnel. Funding provided for CBP in this
budget supports construction of approximately 200 miles of new
border wall system, including real estate environmental
planning, land acquisition, and construction.
Alongside the border wall system, technology is a critical
tool that increases our situational awareness and decreases
risks to the safety of our front-line personnel. The fiscal
year 2020 budget request proposes investing in the sustainment
and continued deployment of technology to strengthen border
security operations between the ports of entry in the land,
air, and maritime environments.
But an organization is only as good as its people, and CBP
has made it a top priority to attract, hire, train, and recruit
a world-class work force. The 2020 budget includes an increase
of $164.5 million to support hiring, training, and equipping of
750 additional Border Patrol agents and 145 mission support
personnel. CBP is also actively working to minimize attrition
and fill positions in hard-to-fill locations.
In addition to border security, facilitating lawful trade
and travel is a crucial part of CBP's mission. The 2020 budget
provides $62.6 million to support the procurement and
recapitalization efforts of non-intrusive inspection
technologies at our ports of entry that enable CBP to detect
materials and contraband that may pose a threat to our country.
The budget also requests an increase in funding for 267 CBP
officers, agriculture specialists, trade and revenue positions,
and mission and operational support personnel.
In today's dynamic threat environment, detecting terrorists
and criminals is paramount for our National security. To unify
and streamline the vetting of international travelers and visa
and immigration benefit applicants, the 2020 budget also
includes $31.5 million to fund positions, tools, and system
enhancements for the National vetting center.
Finally, the fiscal year 2020 budget dedicates $54.9
million in critical investments toward organizational
initiatives, which will enable CBP to mature and develop our
capabilities and business processes to meet the challenges of
tomorrow.
Our goal is to be the most innovative and trusted law
enforcement agency in the world, and we are taking active
measures to make that goal a reality. With the on-going support
of Congress, CBP will continue to secure our Nation's borders
while facilitating international trade and travel.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Perez
May 9, 2019
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the
subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today. As America's
unified border agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
protects the United States from terrorist threats and prevents the
illegal entry of inadmissible persons and contraband, while
facilitating lawful trade and travel. The President's fiscal year 2020
budget includes $18.2 billion in net discretionary funding and an
additional $2.6 billion in mandatory and offsetting fee funding that
will help CBP achieve our complex and vital mission with the right
combination of trained and dedicated personnel, intelligence-driven and
risk-based strategies, collaborative partnerships, tactical
infrastructure, and advanced technology. Nearly a third of this amount,
$5.9 billion, is for critical investments that will advance CBP's goals
across all of our mission areas.
Over the past year, we have made significant strides across every
area of our mission. We facilitated record levels of lawful trade and
travel, inspecting more than 413.9 million travelers--a 4.2 percent
annual increase from the previous year. We interdicted increasing
quantities of hard narcotics, including the largest seizure of fentanyl
in CBP history at the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry (POE). That
seizure was 254 pounds, or more than 100 million lethal doses. We
enhanced screening and vetting, including advancements in cargo and
conveyance screening technology that provides CBP with a significant
capacity to detect dangerous materials and other contraband. We
continued to implement the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act
(TFTEA, Public Law No. 114-125). And we remained committed to ensuring
that our officers and agents are safe as they carry out their critical
duties, and have the best training, policy, and equipment. Across the
board, CBP continues to do difficult work in a complex and dynamic
environment, and needs a range of investments to secure our Nation
against 21st Century threats. The funds included in the fiscal year
2020 budget support our critical mission initiatives in 4 strategic
priority areas: Border security, trade and travel, counterterrorism,
and organizational objectives.
Before discussing in detail the President's 2020 budget, I would
like to thank the subcommittee for its support of CBP priorities in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 (Public Law No. 116-6), to include
funding increases for humanitarian aid, staffing at our POEs, Non-
Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment and other border security
technologies. We are eager to put this funding to work to improve our
Nation's security and facilitate lawful trade and travel. I ask
Congress to support our fiscal year 2020 budget submission, which will
allow our front-line personnel to do their jobs and carry out our
critical missions to keep our Nation safe and prosperous.
As the subcommittee is aware, the fiscal year 2020 budget builds on
the fiscal year 2019 President's budget and continues the important
efforts enacted in fiscal year 2019, as well. In a number of key areas,
the fiscal year 2019 enactment diverges from the fiscal year 2019
President's budget, both in terms of funding levels and limitations on
where and how CBP can use the funding provided. The fiscal year 2019
appropriations act does not fully fund our most critical needs for
border wall system construction nor the hiring of additional Border
Patrol agents, which deviates from the requirements identified by our
agents on the front line. Accordingly, the administration continues to
seek Congressional support for these priorities.
In addition, the fiscal year 2019 appropriations act provides
significant investments in humanitarian aid in response to a
substantial increase in illegal crossings by family units and
unaccompanied children, and arrivals of inadmissible persons at POEs
across the entire Southwest Border. I want to express my appreciation
for the support of this initiative and for the $415 million in fiscal
year 2019 funds for facilities, medical care, transportation, and
consumable commodities to help CBP care for those in its custody. We
are executing those funds now and, while we are sustaining these
efforts with $82.2 million in the fiscal year 2020 budget, we look
forward to a dialog with you on how best to meet our evolving
requirements at the Southwest Border. CBP must continue to adapt to the
dynamic border environment while continuing to provide humane treatment
for migrants we encounter.
This situation on the border with unprecedented numbers of families
and children represents an acute and worsening crisis. At the end of
March, fiscal year 2019, the U.S. Border Patrol has seen more than a
370 percent increase in the number of family units apprehended compared
to the same time period in fiscal year 2018. We are continuing to
monitor the on-going crisis at the border and will keep the Congress
apprised of the evolving situation.
Returning to the details of the fiscal year 2020 budget, our
strategic priorities include $5.6 billion for border security; $188.4
million for trade and travel facilitation and enforcement; $31.5
million in support of the National Vetting Enterprise; and $74.3
million for organizational initiatives that will help CBP meet future
challenges and opportunities. These investments will enhance border
security, enforce the Nation's immigration laws, promote public safety,
minimize the threat of terrorist attacks by foreign nationals, maintain
our ability to provide critical emergency response support to our DHS
component partners, and protect American workers from unfair foreign
competition.
border security
CBP guards the front line of the United States, and our border
security mission--at POEs, along our borders, and from the air and
sea--is a matter of National security. At the border, we face alarming
trends in illegal crossings that impact security, exploit our laws, and
challenge our resources and personnel. We are seeing increases in
illegal crossings and arrivals of inadmissible persons at POEs across
the entire Southwest Border. In fiscal year 2018, CBP recorded 404,142
apprehensions by U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents along the border and
279,009 inadmissible cases by CBP officers at U.S. POEs--an
approximately 15 percent increase between ports of entry over the
previous year. CBP personnel also played a critical counter-narcotics
role, seizing or contributing to the seizure of 1.1 million pounds of
marijuana; 282,570 pounds of cocaine; 248,132 pounds of
methamphetamine; 6,552 pounds of heroin; and 2,463 pounds of fentanyl.
There are 3 primary elements of border security: Infrastructure,
technology, and personnel. The fiscal year 2020 budget proposes new
investments in all 3 elements, including the border wall system, as
well as technology and equipment that keeps CBP personnel safe and
allows them to more effectively and efficiently carry out their
missions. All three components are necessary to safeguard and manage
air, land, and maritime borders.
Infrastructure
Tactical infrastructure, including physical barriers between the
POEs, has long been a critical component of CBP's multi-layered and
risk-based approach to securing our Southwest Border. It is undeniable
that border barriers have enhanced--and will continue to enhance--CBP's
operational capabilities by creating persistent impedance and
facilitating the deterrence and prevention of successful illegal
entries. CBP plans to deploy a border wall system in a multi-phased and
prioritized approach that meets USBP's operational requirements,
safeguards National security and public safety, and is the result of
thorough analysis of threat, cost, and mission effectiveness. Border
wall systems are comprehensive solutions that include a concentrated
combination of various types of infrastructure such as physical
barriers, all-weather roads, lighting, sensors, enforcement cameras,
and other related technology, and contribute to USBP's core master
capability of impedance and denial. The fiscal year 2020 budget
includes $8.6 billion for the border wall, including $5.0 billion for
DHS to support the construction of approximately 200 miles of new
border wall system. This funding supports real estate and environmental
planning, land acquisition, wall system design, construction, and
construction oversight.
Infrastructure investments also include facilities used by our
workforce at and between POEs. Constructing and improving CBP's
physical infrastructure is essential to keeping facilities
operationally viable for front-line and mission support functions. CBP
supports a vast and diverse real property portfolio, including more
than 4,300 owned and leased buildings, over 28 million square feet of
facility space and approximately 5,000 acres of land throughout the
United States.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $127.4 million for the
construction, modernization, and expansion of Border Patrol, Air and
Marine Operations (AMO), and Office of Field Operations (OFO)
facilities. Of the $127.4 million total, the fiscal year 2020 budget
includes $84.2 million for the Border Patrol, which provides $22.0
million for a Border Patrol checkpoint in Freer, Texas; $15.0 million
for the Carrizo Springs, Texas, checkpoint; $15.0 million for the Eagle
Pass, Texas, south checkpoint; and $15.0 million for a Forward
Operating Base in Papago Farms, Arizona. It also includes $14.2 million
for minor construction, alternations, and improvement projects at
Border Patrol facilities and $3.0 million for design efforts.
Of the $127.4 million construction total, $6.0 million is provided
to co-locate AMO's Corpus Christi Marine Unit at the U.S. Coast Guard's
(USCG) existing property at Port Aransas, Texas. USCG's current
facility is being rebuilt due to damages incurred during the 2017
hurricane season and provides a new location for CBP that is closer to
our operational watercraft.
Further, the fiscal year 2020 budget includes $14.8 million to
continue modernizing our POEs with capital improvements, furniture,
fixtures, and equipment to ensure the facilities meet mission and
security requirements. Also included is $22.4 million to support OFO
expansion activities at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in
New York. An important area for future collaborative work with the
committee will be on modernizing and right-sizing U.S. Border Patrol
and Air and Marine Operations facilities in response to growing and
changing missions.
Technology and Equipment
CBP's border security mission regularly requires that Border Patrol
agents and CBP officers operate in diverse and remote locations where
tactical communication, transportation, and surveillance capabilities
are essential to coordinating mission activities and protecting the
safety of CBP law enforcement personnel. The fiscal year 2020 budget
will enable the continued deployment of proven, effective technology
and equipment to strengthen border security operations in the land,
air, and maritime environments.
Land
For our land-based border operations, technology and equipment are
force-multipliers that enhance our agents' and officers' abilities to
detect and respond to illegal activity. Fixed systems provide
persistent surveillance coverage to efficiently detect unauthorized
border crossings. Once detection is confirmed, Border Patrol can
quickly deploy the appropriate personnel and resources to interdict the
item or person of interest. The budget supports these critical assets
by including $1.1 million for procurement and deployment of Integrated
Fixed Tower (IFT) technology, which consists of surveillance radars and
electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras mounted on fixed towers with
communications to an operations center. In some areas along the
Southwest Border, USBP also uses Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS), which
provide short-range, persistent surveillance. The fiscal year 2020
budget includes a procurement of approximately 8,900 UGS units and
support equipment at $20.6 million.
Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) are fixed technology
assets used in select areas along the Southwest and Northern borders.
These systems provide
short-, medium-, and long-range persistent surveillance mounted on
stand-alone towers, or other structures. The RVSS uses cameras, radio,
and transmitters to send video to a control room. This enables a
control room operator to remotely detect, identify, classify, and track
targets using the video feed. The fiscal year 2020 budget includes
$40.7 million for deployment of upgraded RVSS technology to 22 sensor
towers and command control technology at Brownsville (5 new and 5
existing) and Fort Brown (9 new and 3 existing) Stations in the Border
Patrol's Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector. This investment will enhance
the Border Patrol's situational awareness of border activity through
persistent surveillance and detection to facilitate proper law
enforcement resolution. The fiscal year 2020 budget also includes an
additional $17.9 million to sustain RVSS.
In areas where rugged terrain and dense ground cover may limit the
effectiveness and coverage of fixed systems, USBP also uses mobile and
relocatable systems. Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (MVSS) consist
of short- and medium-range mobile surveillance equipment mounted on
USBP vehicles. The budget includes $14.8 million to procure and deploy
30 MVSS.
Investments in the deployment and sustainment of border security
technology such as IFT, RVSS, MVSS, and UGS will significantly
strengthen CBP's ability to detect, identify, classify, and track
illicit activity.
The budget also includes $15 million for the procurement of 50
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). The Border Patrol requires sUAS
capabilities to conduct surveillance in remote, isolated, and
inaccessible portions of the Nation's borders. The sUAS provides ground
reconnalissance, surveillance, and tracking capabilities in support of
USBP surveillance tasks of predicting, detecting, tracking,
identifying, and classifying suspected items of interest. An additional
$1.7 million is also provided for sUAS operations and maintenance. The
ability to persistently and discreetly surveil remote areas along
portions of the border is critical to USBP's ability to secure the
border. To keep pace with 21st Century technology, the budget includes
a further $12.1 million to enable Remote Surveillance Technology
Innovation.
The budget also provides $3.2 million in operations and maintenance
costs for the Cross Border Tunnel Threat (CBTT) program. The CBTT
program strengthens border security effectiveness between POEs by
diminishing the ability of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs)
to gain access into the United States through cross-border tunnels and
the illicit use of underground municipal infrastructure. This effort
helps CBP predict potential tunnel locations; detect the presence of
suspected tunnels and tunneling activities, and project the trajectory
of a discovered tunnel; confirm a tunnel's existence and location
through mapping measurement; and facilitate secure information sharing
across all stakeholders.
The CBP mission is dangerous, and CBP personnel can encounter
situations requiring the use of force. As such, it is vitally important
that CBP law enforcement personnel are equipped with properly
functioning weapons. The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $19.4 million
to continue CBP's transition to the new 9mm service weapon. In 2019, 95
percent of all CBP service handguns will exceed the expected service
life, resulting in an increased hazard rate for service handguns and
exhausting the current reserve inventory. This funding will provide
overall mission support associated with new training mandates related
to the handgun transition and overall requirements associated with the
acquisition of 9mm duty handguns, ammunition, replacement parts, and
holsters.
Investments in opioid detection equipment and safeguards are
essential for ensuring the safety of our employees and for combatting
the opioid crisis gripping our Nation. In January of this year, CBP
officers at the Nogales Commercial Facility seized the largest amount
of fentanyl in CBP history. Opioids--particularly fentanyl and its
analogs--present significant dangers to first responders, including CBP
officers, Border Patrol agents, and their K-9 partners. The budget
provides $8.9 million for presumptive testing devices and related
training, and naloxone countermeasure units and related training for
OFO. It also includes an increase of $7.1 million for chemical analysis
software and equipment for 24/7/365 narcotics reach-back services,
laboratory instrumentation, satellite border laboratory locations, and
digital forensics workspace and equipment. This funding will maintain
OFO's safety stance for POEs and enhance CBP's Laboratories and
Scientific Services (LSS) Directorate's capabilities and capacity.
Additional technology funding includes $18.8 million for the Border
Enforcement Coordination Network, which will replace Border Patrol's
legacy Border Patrol Enforcement Systems.
Air
The fiscal year 2020 budget also seeks significant investments in
our aircraft fleet, starting with $56.8 million to purchase two multi-
role enforcement aircraft (MEA). MEA are the optimal sensor-equipped
aircraft for surveillance operations in regions along the Southern and
Northern Borders, and maritime environments where terrain, weather, and
distance pose significant obstacles to border security operations. This
aircraft further serves as a force multiplier for law enforcement and
emergency response personnel, facilitating the rapid-response
deployment of equipment, canines, and people.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $46.5 million to support the
conversion of 3 Army HH-60L helicopters to CBP's UH-60 Medium-Lift
Helicopter (MLH) configuration. These assets are the only helicopters
with medium-lift capability that are rugged enough to support
interdiction and life-saving operations in hostile environments, and
are able to operate at high altitude in the desert, over open water,
and in extreme cold. This request includes initial spare repair parts,
training, and Army testing.
The P-3 Long Range Tracker and Airborne Early Warning Aircraft
provide critical detection and interdiction capability in both the air
and marine environment. Their sophisticated sensors and high endurance
capability greatly increase AMO's range to counter illicit trafficking,
and CBP P-3s are an integral part of the successful counter-narcotic
missions operating in coordination with the Joint Interagency Task
Force-South. The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $8.1 million to
address obsolescence issues in the P-3 by refreshing technology
infrastructure of core critical detection and interdiction components.
Aircraft sensor EO/IR systems provide improved detection and
identification capabilities, greater stand-off ranges for more covert
operation and safety, and have laser range finders, laser target
illumination, and shortwave infrared functionality, which enhance
mission coordination between airborne and ground agents. The EO/IR
systems allow agents and investigators to view and record criminal
activity for prosecution without alerting the suspects to their
presence. Most of AMO's EO/IR systems are technologically outdated and
have obsolescence issues, which causes maintenance and reliability
issues. The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $13.5 million to replace
up to 10 old, obsolete EO/IR systems, including a one-time purchase of
high-bandwidth receive/transmit hardware, which supports transmission
of motion video information and enables CBP to communicate
simultaneously with multiple aircraft. Without this upgrade, CBP
aircraft will have to share assets, thereby increasing the risk of
damage to the sensors during system swap-outs. This funding increase
will also enable the purchase of associated mission equipment that will
ensure the continued viability of AMO assets to detect, identify,
classify, track, and illuminate targets of interest to National
security.
Other investments in our aircraft fleet include $2.4 million for
support services for Light Enforcement Aircraft programs to develop
analytical products to determine future technology requirements, and
$3.0 million for compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration's
NextGen initiative, completing the phased-in purchase and installation
of ADS-B transponders and cockpit displays in more than 250 AMO
aircraft.
Maritime
AMO's Marine Interdiction Agents operate Coastal Interceptor
Vessels (CIV) in coastal waters to combat maritime smuggling and defend
the waterways along our Nation's borders from acts of terrorism. The
vessels provide agents with additional speed and maneuverability, and
improve safety. They are also equipped with a state-of-the-art marine
navigational suite. The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $14.8 million
for the procurement of 14 CIV that will replace the outdated legacy
vessels. The subcommittee's support of this program with the enactment
of $14.5 million for CIV procurements in fiscal year 2019 is very much
appreciated.
Innovation Team
In October 2018, CBP formally established the CBP Innovation Team
(INVNT). This team was established following a successful CBP pilot to
transition commercial technologies in joint partnership with DHS S&T's
Silicon Valley Innovation Program. INVNT's mission is to identify,
adapt, and deliver innovative and disruptive commercial technology
solutions to keep front-line personnel safer and more effective. The
team invests in four areas: Autonomous platforms; artificial
intelligence-driven analytics; sensors; and communications
capabilities. INVNT has successfully transitioned multiple
technologies, including autonomous towers, compact sensors, and big
data analytics, into operational use. These capabilities are directly
contributing to increased situational awareness in San Diego Sector and
supporting the National Targeting Center with the development of
algorithms that facilitate lawful trade and travel.
CBP INVNT has established itself as a strong partner for industry,
and CBP looks forward to continued support from the committee to enable
us to increase the rate at which CBP transitions new technology into
operational use.
Personnel
An organization is only as good as its people, and CBP has made it
the top mission support priority to attract, hire, train, retain, and
support a world-class, resilient workforce.
Through a combination of process changes, realignment of resources
and leadership focus, CBP increased both Border Patrol and Office of
Field Operations year-end strength for the first time in 6 years.
Border Patrol Agent hiring increased by 95 percent and CBP officer
hiring increased by 39 percent over fiscal year 2017, resulting in an
additional 120 agents and 380 officers at the end of fiscal year 2018.
On the non-front-line side, we also increased hiring by 17 percent.
We continue to retool and upgrade our recruitment, hiring, and
retention mechanisms to help us meet staffing requirements not just to
secure the border, but also to address all critical emergent needs at
the ports. In just the last year, CBP has opened permanent recruitment
offices on multiple military installations across the country, enhanced
data-driven digital advertising/marketing and social media efforts,
implemented an ``applicant care'' initiative that helps guide recruits
through the CBP hiring process, and launched a Fast Track process to
move well-qualified candidates more quickly through the hiring process.
We also launched several initiatives designed to increase workforce
resilience and employee retention, including our new veteran support
program, family outreach events, and multiple family support programs,
such as the child care subsidy program, backup care program, and direct
child care program. Our investments are starting to deliver positive,
sustainable results, and in fiscal year 2018, hiring outpaced attrition
for Border Patrol agents for the first time in 6 years. We will
continue to further enhance our capabilities and build on our momentum
through fiscal year 2020 and beyond.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes an increase of $164.5 million
to hire, train, and equip 750 additional Border Patrol agents and 145
mission support personnel. Staffing Border Patrol Sectors at
operationally-required levels is fluid as threats change and TCOs adopt
new tactics. Even as the Border Patrol continues to conduct staff
analysis and develop models to refine Border Patrol personnel
requirements, it is already clear that additional Border Patrol agents
will be necessary in fiscal year 2020 just to meet today's operational
and staffing requirements. Anticipated trends, coupled with currently
heightened enforcement efforts, result in a clear requirement for
additional Border Patrol agents to interdict illegal activity in an
all-threats border environment.
CBP is also actively working to minimize attrition and fill
positions in ``hard-to-fill'' locations that are often remote and offer
very limited amenities compared with metropolitan locations. We
appreciate the subcommittee's support of Border Patrol's relocation and
retention initiatives, including those aimed at helping fill mission-
critical vacancies and developmental assignment opportunities.
Improving retention is a priority for both the Secretary and me, and,
as described above, we will continue to look at novel approaches to
best support and retain our valuable workforce.
Trade and Travel
Advancing U.S. economic competitiveness and prosperity is a
strategic priority for CBP, and facilitating lawful trade and travel is
a crucial part of CBP's mission. Ensuring an efficient, secure supply
chain and safe, strong global tourism is imperative for a healthy
economy. In fiscal year 2018, CBP processed more than $2.6 trillion in
imports, and collected approximately $47 billion in duties, taxes, and
fees--an increase from the previous fiscal year, caused in part by the
increased duties on steel, aluminum, and products from China.
In the fiscal year 2019 budget CBP received an increase of
approximately $520 million for the procurement of non-intrusive
inspection (NII) technology at land border ports of entry. The funding
will support system procurements as well as the implementation of new
concepts of operations that are focused on significantly improving
scanning rates of both commercial and privately-owned vehicles. The
procurements will occur following successful completion of technology
demonstrations at Southwest Border ports of entry. The focus is not
just to replace aging systems, but to transform port operations in
order to expertly facilitate legitimate travel and trade, while
successfully interdicting deadly fentanyl and other contraband.
The fiscal year 2020 budget continues substantial investment in NII
technology that enables CBP to detect materials that pose significant
economic and National security threat. Using NII imaging equipment, CBP
officers can examine cargo conveyances such as sea containers,
commercial trucks, and rail cars, as well as privately-owned vehicles,
for the presence of contraband without physically opening or unloading
them. NII technologies--both radiological detection and imaging--are
force multipliers that enable CBP to screen or examine a larger portion
of the stream of commercial traffic while facilitating the flow of
legitimate trade, cargo, and passengers.
The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $62.6 million to support
procurement of more than 20 large-scale NII systems and approximately
200 small-scale NII systems for recapitalization efforts as well as new
systems to support operational needs. It also provides $8 million for
the procurement of approximately 3 large-scale NII and 3 small-scale
NII systems as well as the associated infrastructure to support
operational requirements at the Gordie Howe International Bridge land
POE. Also for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, the fiscal year
2020 budget designates $12 million for the procurement and deployment
of Land Border Integration Equipment and Z-Portal screening technology
to support inspection requirements for bus, privately- and
commercially-owned vehicles lanes, along with booths and
infrastructure.
Utilizing detection equipment deployed Nation-wide at our POEs, CBP
is able to scan 100 percent of all mail and express consignment mail
and parcels; 100 percent of all truck cargo and personally-owned
vehicles arriving from Canada and Mexico; and nearly 100 percent of all
arriving maritime containerized cargo for the presence of radiological
or nuclear materials. Let me take this opportunity to express further
appreciation for the subcommittee's decision to add $520 million to our
fiscal year 2019 funding for NII.
The fiscal year 2020 budget also requests an increase in funding
for a combined 267 CBP officers, agriculture specialists, trade and
revenue positions, and mission and operational support positions. This
funding will help CBP move closer toward the necessary staffing levels
identified in the OFO Workload Staffing Model, Agriculture Resource
Allocation Model, and the new Mission and Operational Support Resource
Allocation Model.
CBP's intelligent enforcement efforts are anchored on further
improving risk management and the impact of efforts to detect high-risk
activity, deter non-compliance, and disrupt fraudulent behavior by
using technology, big data, and predictive analytics. Through the use
of data-driven operations and enhanced ability to collect and analyze
information, CBP can better develop a holistic understanding of the
global trade environment. To better protect U.S. consumers and
businesses, the fiscal year 2020 budget includes $24.3 million to
increase intelligent enforcement.
CBP recognizes how critical our trade enforcement and facilitation
role is in protecting our Nation's economic security. We are working to
ensure a fair and competitive trade environment where the benefits of
trade compliance exceed the costly consequences of violating U.S. trade
law. The fiscal year 2020 budget continues to build on our progress and
will enable CBP to hire additional staff to support continued TFTEA
implementation.
national vetting enterprise and countering transnational organized
crime
Since CBP's creation after the tragedies of September 11, 2001,
preventing the travel of bad actors to the United States has been a
primary CBP objective. Our Nation's enemies, whether terrorists or
criminals, remain determined and agile, and detection is paramount for
our National security.
In 2018, in order to unify and streamline the vetting of
international travelers and visa and immigration benefit applicants,
the President signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 9,
Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the
National Vetting Enterprise, establishing the National Vetting Center
(NVC). Consistent with applicable law and policy, the NVC ensures that
traveler and immigration populations are consistently vetted against
all appropriate U.S. Government information to identify National
security and public safety threats. The fiscal year 2020 budget
includes $31.5 million to fund 20 full-time positions, a case
management tool, targeting system enhancements, and systems engineering
for the NVC, which will be co-located with the National Targeting
Center.
In addition to our vetting efforts, CBP also guards against threats
from TCOs. TCOs maintain a diverse portfolio of crimes, including
fraud, human trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion. They are also
heavily involved in human, weapons, bulk cash, and drug smuggling
through their sophisticated criminal networks.
Part of CBP's strategy to counter TCOs is participation in joint
task forces. CBP is the lead component for the Department of Homeland
Security's Joint Task Force-West (JTF-W), and a participating component
in JTF-East (led by USCG) and JTF-Investigations (led by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The fiscal year 2020 President's
budget will further enhance JTF-W's ability to execute counter-network
operations by meeting JTF-W's intelligence and targeting team's travel
requirements and by providing investigative case support with the
purchase of new forensic equipment and investigative software. This
funding will help ensure these unique collaborative efforts have the
resources they need.
organizational initiatives
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget dedicates $54.9 million in
critical investments to organizational initiatives, which will enable
CBP to mature and develop our capabilities and business processes to
meet the challenges of tomorrow.
Modernization and Improvement
Revenue Modernization is a multi-year, phased program that will
benefit the trade and travel industries and the U.S. economy by
simplifying the collections process, providing modern electronic
billing and payment options, and creating operational efficiencies at
the POEs. The purpose of Revenue Modernization is to free up CBP
officers to focus on law enforcement duties rather than the labor-
intensive process of collecting fees at POEs; to offer modern, on-line,
and electronic billing and payment options; and to enable access to
reliable, transaction-level financial information to inform decision
making and promote accountability.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $15.7 million to increase
electronic payment capabilities into collections processes, modernize
Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) system collections,
and expand the location and collection capabilities of the Mobile
Collections and Receipts (MCR) project. Initially deployed to pilot
participants in New Orleans, Louisiana; Gulfport, Mississippi; Mobile,
Alabama; and Los Angeles/Long Beach, California sea POEs, the budget
will enable MCR to expand to 84 out of 186 POEs.
While technology and network-enabled capabilities significant
enhance CBP's daily operations, it also increases CBP's vulnerability
to cybersecurity incidents. The fiscal year 2020 budget allocates $25.0
million to address high-risk internal cybersecurity, including
hardware, software, monitoring tools, and contract support services to
operate the CBP Security Operations Center (SOC). The SOC enables CBP
to support Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation of security
vulnerabilities and to detect and respond to cybersecurity threats.
In the theme of modernization, CBP is also seeking to transform its
time-keeping system. CBP processes time-keeping in the CBP Overtime
Scheduling System (COSS), which came on-line in 1998. The President's
fiscal year 2020 budget supports retirement of the antiquated COSS and
replace it with a modern, integrated scheduling and timekeeping
solution. This modern system will provide comprehensive and accessible
scheduling and timekeeping data.
Personnel and Mission Support
CBP's Operations Support (OS) Office brings together experts,
analysts, innovators, and facilitators from across 9 functional areas
that directly support the operational offices to strengthen mission
effectiveness. These specialized capabilities that OS provides play a
critical role in making a more agile, innovative, and stronger CBP.
Integrating across the OS functional areas--including intelligence,
international affairs, planning, requirements development, incident
coordination, laboratories and scientific services, and use of force--
is essential to fully support CBP's operational office. The fiscal year
2020 budget provides $2.3 million to fund contract support for this
critical function.
The Information and Incident Coordination Center (IICC) enhances
internal and external situational awareness and coordinates CBP's
incident response capabilities. The IICC serves as a 24/7 central entry
point of communication and information flow for field CBP and DHS
management officials. The fiscal year 2020 budget provides $1.6 million
to support the implementation of new programs and the continuation of
others to comply with both Presidential and DHS policy directives.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $1.1 million for 6 criminal
investigator positions within the Investigative Operations Division,
National Security Group with the Office of Professional Responsibility.
These positions would focus on detection and investigation of counter-
intelligence and insider threats. This allotment also funds 6
management and program analyst positions for programmatic oversight.
A substantial mandate within TFTEA is the Enforce and Protect Act
(EAPA), which allows a party to submit an allegation of dumping
circumvention to CBP, and grants CBP new authorities to make adverse
decisions against an importer based on the lack of response or an
incomplete response to an inquiry. CBP is mandated to initiate and
pursue EAPA allegations within certain time frames, and demand for
these services is growing. The fiscal year 2020 budget funds $1.5
million in overseas operating costs, including housing and utilities,
and mission-critical travel in support of EAPA and forced labor
investigations.
CBP's AMO plays a critical role in narcotics interdiction,
investigations, and domain awareness, and our standards for recruitment
are very high. As such, we face a challenge to meet authorized staffing
levels. CBP trains all of its new AMO agents to become full-time law
enforcement agents through the Air and Marine Basic Training Academy at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. The budget
enables the Air and Marine Basic Training Academy to increase student
throughput in fiscal year 2020, which will strengthen AMO on-board
staffing.
legislative proposals
Finally, as in the past, the fiscal year 2020 budget highlights
some of the legislative priorities CBP hopes to achieve with the help
of Congress. The legislative proposals, if enacted, will increase user
fee revenues that would directly impact the trade and travel operations
programs, projects, and activities.
The Department will submit a legislative proposal that increases
the Immigration Inspection User Fee (IUF) by $2 and removes the IUF
exemption for certain travelers. The fee was initially set at $5 per
passenger in 1986, increased to $6 per passenger in 1993, and to $7 per
passenger in May 2002. The legislation that increased the fee to $7
introduced a second fee of $3 per passenger effective February 27,
2003. The fee applied to vessel passengers whose journey originated in
the U.S. territory, Canada, or Mexico--passengers to whom the $3 fee
applied had previously been exempt. The fee has not been adjusted since
that time, though travel volumes and CBP costs for immigration
inspections have continued to increase. If passed, the IUF increase
legislation would support up to an additional 1,753 CBP officer
positions.
The Department will also submit a legislative proposal to decrease
the shortfall between the costs of CBP's inspections activities and the
collections received. Per the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), passenger inspection fee
collections fund customs inspection activities that are mandated by
law. The fee levels set in current law do not fully cover CBP's costs.
The proposal will increase the customs inspection fees for air and sea
passengers, as well as increase all other COBRA inspection fees and any
respective caps. The baseline fee has not been adjusted since 2007,
though a final rule of increased inflation has gone into effect. The
proposed legislation also supports up to an additional 1,169 CBP
officers. The legislation also seeks to extend COBRA and Merchandising
Process Fees past their current sunset dates.
The Department is resubmitting a legislative proposal to redirect
approximately $160.8 million in Electronic System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA) surcharge collections from Brand USA to CBP. The
base fee of $10 per application remains unchanged and funds the vetting
of travelers and refugees; helps reengineer and modernize the entry and
exit process; and fund the staffing and overtime processing of arrivals
and departures from the United States. The Brand USA funding would not
constitute an overall increase to CBP's budget, but rather offset a
commensurate decrease in CBP's Operations and Support (O&S)
discretionary appropriation.
The Department is also resubmitting a legislative proposal to
create a $10 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) user fee. As Senate
appropriators indicated in their markup of the fiscal year 2019 DHS
appropriations bill, non-immigrant visa holders who benefit from this
program, not U.S. taxpayers, should pay for the operation and
maintenance of EVUS. Once the authorizing proposal is enacted, CBP will
no longer require appropriated funding to support the EVUS program.
CBP looks forward to working with you and your colleagues in the
appropriate committees of jurisdiction to accomplish these legislative
priorities.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget recognizes the serious and
evolving threats and dangers the American people face each day, enables
CBP to continue its vital operations, and provides funding for new
initiatives critical to our success across all mission areas. With the
support of Congress, CBP continues to secure our Nation's borders and
promote international trade and travel. I want to thank the Members of
this subcommittee for your continued support of CBP. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
Miss Rice. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Albence to summarize his statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Albence. Thank you.
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and distinguished
Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss ICE's $9.3 billion fiscal year 2020 budget request.
While this represents a $1.2 billion increase from the fiscal
year 2019 enacted--excuse me--enacted budget, this increase is
critical for ICE to meet its current and future mission needs,
and it will enable ICE to invest its necessary personnel,
equipment, and systems.
In particular, it provides resources and officers to
address an increasing number of at-large criminal aliens and
the ever-growing, fugitive, alien population. Those who have
been provided due process and have been determined by a judge
to have no lawful right to remain in the United States,
numbering at more than 570,000 people.
This increase in funding also provides for attorneys to
reduce the rapidly expanding, nondetained alien docket,
transportation cost removals, medical care for detainees, UAC
transportation, expansion of criminal investigative personnel
to combat opioids, solid exploitation, human smuggling, and the
deleterious impacts of transnational gangs across the United
States.
ICE's Homeland Security investigations special agents
protect the United States against terrorists and other criminal
organizations through criminal and civil enforcement of Federal
laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
The fiscal year 2020 budget maintains HSI's critical
operations abroad, supports hiring of an additional 150
domestic special agents, and increases our efforts to target
and combat dangerous, transnational gangs and other criminal
organizations.
In fiscal year 2018, HSI made 4,333 arrests of gang
leaders, members, and associates, including 959 Mara
Salvatrucha, MS-13 members. Our special agents helped take more
than 750 firearms off the street through these investigations,
and we intend to expand on that success going forward.
Additionally, last fiscal year, HSI identified and assisted
more than 1,477 crime victims, including 308 human trafficking
victims, and 715 child exploitation victims. Leveraging its
border enforcement security task forces, HSI is increasing
investigation and enforcement activities, combatting
organizations that illicitly introduce and distribute fentanyl,
heroine, methamphetamine, and cocaine into and throughout the
United States.
Narcotics enforcement efforts throughout fiscal year 2018
resulted in more than 11,400 criminal arrests with seizures
totaling more than 1 million pounds.
Another component of HSI's international engagement, the
visa security program, maximizes the visa process and a
counterterrorism tool to identify, exploit, and disrupt
transnational terrorists and criminal networks seeking to harm
the United States. In fiscal year 2018, the VSP screened almost
2.2 million nonimmigrant visa applicants at high-risk
diplomatic posts. From those applicants VSP made over 1,200
nominations, or enhancements, to the terrorist watch list and
recommended the refusal of over 9,000 visa applications.
The Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert
Program, known as BITMAP, is managed by HSI in collaboration
with the Department of Defense and Customs and Border
Protection. Through BITMAP, HSI extends the U.S. border by
targeting high-risk subjects who attempt to enter the United
States utilizing illicit pathways.
Under this program HSI trains and equips foreign
counterparts to tactically collect biometric and biographic
data on special-interest aliens, gang members, and other
persons of interest as identified by the host country. In
fiscal year 2018, BITMAP enrolled over 41,000 persons of
interest, including over 100 biometric enrollments, or
amendments, to records of known and suspected terrorists.
From an enforcement and removal operations perspective, DHS
and ICE continue to work to balance effective law enforcement
with the overwhelming number of aliens, including family units
and unaccompanied alien children arriving at our borders. The
increase in the flow of migrants and the change in those who
are arriving at our border are putting migrants, particularly
young children, at risk of harm from smugglers, traffickers,
criminals, and the dangers of the difficult journey.
ERO remains committed to directing its enforcement
resources toward those aliens posing the greatest risk to the
safety and security of the United States, as well as to
maintain the integrity of our border.
In fiscal year 2018, ICE housed a daily average of 42,188
aliens, with 61 percent of the aliens booked into detention
stemming from CBP or border apprehensions, a number which has
swelled to 75 percent during fiscal year 2019, as a result of
the on-going crisis. Consequently, additional detention
capacity will be necessary to prevent the expansion of catch
and release. Specifically, the budget includes nearly $2.7
billion to increase detention capacity to support an average
daily adult population of 51,500 and an average daily family
population of 2,500, for a total of 54,000 beds, and also
includes augmentation for ground and air transportation-
related, alien movements and removals.
Securing our borders is a fundamental National security
priority as well as a humanitarian issue. However, we can never
achieve strong border security without effective interior
enforcement. In fiscal year 2018, ERO officers removed over
250,000 illegal aliens and made over 150,000 interior arrests,
with more than 138,000 of those having criminal histories.
The fiscal year 2020 budget request includes attorney
resources to ensure that ICE is able to carry out its statutory
responsibility to prosecute removal proceedings before
immigration courts. There are currently over 870,000 pending
cases before the immigration courts, and ICE attorneys are an
indispensable part of the immigration hearing process.
In fiscal year 2018, ICE obtained over 122,000 orders of
removal for a ratio of more than 150 cases per attorney. With
the hiring--with the hundreds of additional immigration judges
that DOJ is in the process of hiring, it is critical that we be
resourced at a level which ensures that aliens charged with
immigration violations, have their cases completed efficiently
and either receive relief to which they are entitled, or
removed promptly.
Simply put, an inadequate augmentation of local resources
will prevent the realization of the efficiencies envisioned by
the substantial increase in immigration judges and will not
reduce the massive backlog of cases.
Looking ahead, the men and women of ICE will continue to do
their sworn duty to enforce all laws with which we are charged,
removing the scourge of illegal narcotics from our communities,
dismantling gangs that prey upon the vulnerable, protecting
children from sexual exploitation, and arresting, detaining,
and removing criminal aliens, public safety threats, known or
suspected terrorists, and immigration violators, all of which
are critical to the National security, border security, and the
safety and well-being of our country.
Thank you again for inviting me today and providing me the
privilege of representing the outstanding, dedicated
professionals in every job series, program, and assignment
within this great agency.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albence follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew T. Albence
May 9, 2019
introduction
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members
of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the fiscal year 2020 President's budget for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We look forward to
discussing our priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and highlighting
our continued efforts to ensure we make the most efficient and
effective use of the resources to carry out our vital homeland security
mission. Every day, the over 20,000 dedicated, proud, professional men
and women at ICE work to promote homeland security and public safety
through broad enforcement of over 400 Federal laws governing border
control, customs, trade, and immigration.
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget includes $8.8 billion in
discretionary funding, reflecting a $1.2 billion increase from the
fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. Additionally, the budget estimates
$527.4 million in budget authority derived from mandatory fees,
bringing total estimated budget authority to $9.3 billion. This
increase in funding is critical for ICE to meet its current and future
mission needs and enables ICE to invest in necessary personnel,
equipment, and systems. Particularly, it provides resources and
officers to address an increasing number of at-large criminal aliens
and the ever-growing fugitive alien population--those who have been
provided due process and have been determined by a judge to have no
lawful right to remain in the United States--numbering at more than
570,000. This increase in funding provides for attorneys to reduce the
rapidly expanding non-detained alien docket; transportation costs for
removals, medical care of detainees, and UAC transportation; and
expansion of criminal investigative personnel to combat opioids, child
exploitation, human smuggling, and the deleterious impacts of
transnational gangs across the United States.
enforcing immigration laws
Our immigration enforcement efforts are led by the more than 6,000
law enforcement officers of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).
ERO's deportation officers enforce our Nation's immigration laws by
identifying, arresting, detaining, and removing illegal aliens. To
ensure the National security and public safety of the United States and
the faithful execution of the immigration laws, officers may take
targeted enforcement action against any removable alien who is present
in the United States in violation of immigration law.
ERO remains committed to directing its limited enforcement
resources toward those aliens posing the greatest risk to the safety
and security of the United States, as well as the integrity of our
border. In fiscal year 2018, ICE removed 256,085 illegal aliens, a 13
percent increase over fiscal year 2017. Additionally, ICE's ERO
officers arrested 152,074 aliens, an 11 percent increase over fiscal
year 2017, of which 138,117 had criminal histories. ICE housed a daily
average of 42,188 illegal aliens, with 61 percent of the aliens booked
into detention stemming from CBP border apprehensions, a number which
has swelled to 75 percent during fiscal year as a result of the on-
going border crisis. ERO also responded to 1,533,007 immigration alien
inquiries from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
through ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center. Additionally, ERO
conducted 807 foreign Fugitive Alien Removals (FAR) arrests--removable
aliens wanted for or convicted of crimes committed abroad and residing
within the United States.
Due to the crisis on the border, additional detention capacity will
be necessary to prevent the expansion of catch-and-release.
Specifically, the budget includes nearly $2.7 billion to increase
detention capacity to support an average daily adult alien population
of 51,500 and an average daily family population of 2,500, for a total
of 54,000 beds. The budget also includes an augmentation for ground and
air transportation related alien movements and removals, and additional
funds for the Alternatives-to-Detention (ATD) program to increase the
average daily participants to 120,000.
Additional resources are also requested in fiscal year 2020 to
ensure that ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) is able
to carry out its statutory responsibility to prosecute removal
proceedings before the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) immigration
courts.\1\ There are currently over 870,000 pending cases before the
immigration courts, and OPLA attorneys are an indispensable part of the
immigration hearing process. They determine the legal sufficiency of
charging documents, appear in court, examine witnesses, prepare
evidentiary submissions and legal pleadings, work with opposing counsel
to narrow issues, hold aliens who are seeking asylum and other forms of
relief to their burdens of proof, and ensure that immigration judges
enter fair and correct decisions, including by filing appeals of
erroneous decisions. In fiscal year 2018, OPLA obtained over 122,000
orders of removal for a ratio of more than 150 cases per OPLA line
attorney (up from a ratio of 135 cases per attorney in fiscal year
2017). With the hundreds of additional immigration judges that DOJ is
in the process of hiring, it is critical that OPLA be resourced at a
level which ensures that aliens charged with administrative immigration
violations have their cases completed efficiently, and either receive
relief to which they are entitled or are removed promptly. The
President's request for 128 additional attorneys and 41 additional
support staff for OPLA addresses a critical resource gap. Without these
resources, ICE OPLA will not be able to handle the heavy workload.
Simply put, an inadequate augmentation of OPLA resources will prevent
the realization of the efficiencies envisioned by the substantial
increase in immigration judges and will not reduce the massive backlog
of cases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 6 U.S.C. 252(c).
\2\ In addition to representing DHS in proceedings before EOIR,
OPLA is responsible for advising ICE leadership and operational
personnel on legal matters and addressing an array of other litigation
and legal matters facing the agency, which have seen significant
increases in tempo and complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
combatting transnational criminal organizations
ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agents protect
the United States against terrorists and other criminal organizations
through criminal and civil enforcement of Federal laws governing border
control, customs, trade, and immigration. As the largest investigative
arm of DHS, HSI utilizes its broad legal authorities to investigate
immigration and customs violations, including those related to weapons
and contraband smuggling, child exploitation, human trafficking and
smuggling, transnational gangs, export control, human rights abuses,
narcotics, financial crimes, cyber crime, intellectual property
infringements, immigration document and benefit fraud, and worksite
enforcement. The fiscal year 2020 budget maintains HSI's critical
operations abroad, supports hiring of an additional 150 domestic
special agents and increases our efforts to target and combat dangerous
transnational gangs and other criminal organizations.
In fiscal year 2018, ICE's HSI agents arrested 44,069 individuals,
making a record 34,344 criminal arrests, along with 9,725
administrative arrests. HSI achieved numerous significant enforcement
initiatives and accomplishments, and additional funding is necessary to
sustain and build upon our successes. For example, HSI made 4,333
arrests of gang leaders, members, and associates, including 959 Mara
Salvatrucha (MS-13) members. Our special agents helped take more than
750 firearms off the streets through these criminal investigations, and
we hope to expand on that success going forward. We will continue
targeting transnational criminal gangs like MS-13. Results from across
the country show that these policies are working and helping make
communities safer for our kids, who are frequently targeted for
initiation.
HSI identified and assisted more than 1,477 crime victims,
including 308 human trafficking victims, and 715 child exploitation
victims. HSI initiated more child exploitation cases and achieved more
arrests, indictments, and convictions paying immediate dividends when
considering the long-term, lasting damage these criminals can inflict
upon their young victims. HSI is prioritizing the identification and
rescue of child victims of sexual exploitation, working to disrupt and
dismantle the transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) responsible
for the sexual exploitation of children through cyber crime and child
sex tourism.
Narcotics enforcement efforts throughout fiscal year 2018 resulted
in more than 11,400 criminal arrests, with seizures totaling more than
1 million pounds. Our workforce is dedicated to eliminating the
transnational criminal organizations responsible for the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of these illegal and deadly drugs. Leveraging
the Border Enforcement Security Task Force, or BEST unit resources, HSI
is increasing investigation and enforcement activities combating
organizations that illicitly introduce and distribute fentanyl, heroin,
methamphetamine, and cocaine into and throughout the United States.
HSI conducted 5,981 Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)
inspections; issued over $10.0 million in judicial fines, forfeitures,
and restitutions against employers found to be in violation of
employment eligibility verification requirements; conducted nearly
1,500 presentations to 8,257 employers regarding the requirements and
benefits of the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers
(IMAGE) program, designed to reduce unauthorized employment and
minimize fraudulent identity documents; and certified 18 exceptional
employers as new IMAGE members.
In addition to leveraging domestic assets, HSI works closely with
attache personnel deployed to 68 offices in 51 countries world-wide.
These personnel are uniquely positioned to utilize established
relationships with host country law enforcement, including
Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs). These TCIUs are
composed of DHS-vetted and trained host country counterparts who have
the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of law in their
respective countries. The use of TCIUs enables HSI to promote direct
action on its investigative leads while respecting the sovereignty of
the host country and cultivating international partnerships. These
efforts, often thousands of miles from the U.S.-Mexico border in
countries like Colombia and Panama, act as an outer layer of security
for our Southwest Border.
Another component of HSI's international engagement, the Visa
Security Program (VSP), maximizes the visa process as a
counterterrorism tool to identify, exploit, and disrupt transnational
terrorist and criminal networks seeking to harm the United States. In
fiscal year 2018, the VSP screened 2,196,708 million non-immigrant visa
applicants at 35 (36 as of fiscal year 2019 Q2) high-risk U.S.
diplomatic posts. From those visa applicants, VSP made 1,251
nominations/enhancements to the terrorist watch list and recommended
the refusal of 9,007 visa applications.
An additional international program is the Biometric Identification
Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP), managed by HSI in
collaboration with the Department of Defense (DOD) and Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). Through BITMAP, HSI extends the U.S. border by
targeting high-risk subjects who attempt to enter the United States
utilizing illicit pathways. Under this program, HSI trains and equips
foreign counterparts to tactically collect biometric and biographic
data on special interest aliens, gang members and other persons of
interest as identified by the host country. Foreign partners share this
data with HSI to populate and enhance U.S. Government databases. In
fiscal year 2018, BITMAP enrolled over 41,000 encounters of persons of
interest, including 31 biometric enrollments of Known and Suspected
Terrorists (KST) and 81 enrollments resulting in a biometric
enhancement to a KST record. BITMAP has matched nearly 190 persons to
the DOD Biometrically-Enabled Watchlist (BEWL) and added 200 new
identities to the BEWL. Since inception in fiscal year 2011, BITMAP has
enrolled over 94,000 encounters of persons of interest. including over
450 enrollments of KSTs. BITMAP has matched to over 230 persons to the
DOD BEWL and added 1,500 new identities to the BEWL.
Terrorism remains one of the most significant threats our law
enforcement faces in protecting the homeland. Our counterterrorism and
anti-criminal exploitation efforts seek to prevent terrorists and other
criminals, such as human rights violators, from exploiting our Nation's
immigration system. HSI's overstay analysis efforts provide timely,
relevant, and credible information on entry, exit, and immigration
overstay status of visitors to the United States to enhance security,
facilitate legitimate trade and travel, and ensure the integrity of the
immigration system, all while protecting the privacy of visitors.
positioning our workforce to meet the mission
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $313.9 million to hire
additional personnel critical to mission success. This funding would
allow ICE to hire 850 additional ERO Officers, 150 additional HSI
Criminal Investigators, 128 additional attorneys, and 538 additional
support staff including intelligence analysts, case management
specialists, and other operational support personnel.
investing in information technology and infrastructure
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes $7.8 million to fund the
deployment and modernization of ICE's information technology
applications--systems infrastructure that support our front-line
personnel and improves information sharing with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and partner organizations.
Tactical Communication (TACCOM) is an integral part of all
successful ICE law enforcement operations, including criminal
apprehension, emergency response, surveillance, and multi-agency task
force operations. In addition to daily operational needs, TACCOM
provides critical support necessary for National Special Security
Events (NSSEs) and responses to natural and man-made disasters. ICE
needs to procure and deploy multi-band mobile and portable radios and
the required radio infrastructure nationwide to support
interoperability communications, improve officer safety, increase
mission effectiveness, and reduce capability gaps. The fiscal year 2020
budget sustains $53.6 million in IT resources for this effort.
In addition to information technology enhancements, ICE facilities
and vehicle recapitalization plans are funded within the fiscal year
2020 budget. An additional $71 million is requested to conduct critical
repairs at ICE-owned facilities and improve mission capacity at leased
facilities. Funding for the 5-year vehicle recapitalization plan is
also included providing $49.4 million to support the lease and
acquisition of 1,000 new law enforcement vehicles.
ICE relies on the availability of these mission-essential systems
to perform critical functions across the enterprises. These systems, in
turn, rely on modern and up-to-date infrastructure to ensure
operational readiness and optimal performance.
conclusion
ICE continues to work to balance effective law enforcement with the
staggering number of arriving aliens, including family units, at our
borders. The increase in the flow and the change in those who are
arriving at our border are putting these aliens, particularly young
children, at risk of physical and emotional harm from smugglers,
traffickers, criminals, and the dangers of the difficult journey.
Our workforce is dedicated to eliminating the transnational
criminal organizations responsible for the manufacture, distribution,
and sale of illegal and deadly drugs. We are determined to work with
our local law enforcement partners to meet this crisis head-on and
reverse the devastating toll these substances are taking on our
communities.
Funding people, technology, and equipment are especially prudent
investments given today's challenges. We believe no other investment
will return more operational value on every dollar than the
extraordinary men and women of ICE. Removing illicit narcotics,
dismantling gangs, protecting children from sexual exploitation, and
detaining and removing criminal aliens, public safety threats, and
immigration violators, along with ICE's ability to counter emerging
threats also constitutes an operational success that continues to yield
important results for the Nation.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to
your questions.
Miss Rice. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize
Ms. Renaud to summarize her statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TRACY RENAUD, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Ms. Renaud. Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal of
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
My name is Tracy Renaud, and I am the acting deputy
director of USCIS. I have had the honor to serve this agency
and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
since 1982. As the agency that administers the lawful
immigration system, we are proposing a budget of $4.8 billion,
97 percent of which comes from fees paid by those seeking
certain immigration benefits. Of the proposed budget, $122
million would be appropriated funds to support the E-Verify
program, which last year verified the employment eligibility of
38 million new hires.
In addition, our budget proposal includes $25 million in
fee revenue to build a USCIS Academy Training Center at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, South
Carolina. A new headquarters building is under construction in
Camp Springs, Maryland, and it will centralize operations and
consolidate our staff from locations across the National
Capital Region. The move is anticipated for fiscal year 2020.
I would like to focus on E-Verify for a moment, because it
is the appropriated portion of our budget. E-Verify is an
electronic system that allows employers to confirm the
eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.
Nearly all confirmations occur instantly or within 24 hours. As
of April 15 of this year, more than 855,000 employers were
enrolled in E-Verify.
USCIS previously received appropriated funding to modernize
the technology behind E-Verify. The system can now handle
nearly 11,000 users at once, with scaleable technology to
accommodate future growth. We have also increased accuracy and
efficiency by automating more data checks, providing the
verification algorithms, and providing for employer, data-
entry-error checks.
During the 35-day partial Government shutdown, E-Verify
suspended operations and was unavailable to employers. When the
system resumed operations on January 27, we received more than
600,000 requests, triple the volume we have ever seen in a
given day.
Between January 27, and February 1, E-Verify successfully
processed approximately 2 million requests. E-Verify's expanded
capabilities, achieved through the modernization, made it
possible to handle the unprecedented incoming volume and
eliminate the backlog promptly and efficiently.
We anticipate achieving full operating capability of E-
Verify modernization by the fourth quarter of this fiscal year.
Since 2016, we have experienced a period of unexpectedly high
demand for immigration benefits. We are still feeling the wake
from the extraordinary receipt growth of fiscal years 2016 and
2017.
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS received more than 8 million
petitions, applications, and requests for immigration benefits.
The agency naturalized over 757,000 new citizens, a 5-year
high, and issued nearly 1.1 million green cards to new, lawful,
permanent residents.
We are also undertaking several initiatives to realize
efficiencies, focus resources, and better facilitate access to
information, including shifting away from first-in/first-out
processing of affirmative asylum cases, and returning to a
last-in/first-out process, to help identify nonmeritorious
asylum claims earlier and place those individuals into removal
proceedings sooner.
Committing to making the filing and adjudications of
applications a paperless process by the end of calendar year
2020, which will put the agency in a better position to
allocate resources, spot trends, and work with other agencies.
We continue to focus on filling positions and reducing
vacancy rates and ensuring employee overtime is available to
increase adjudication capacity. We are also focused on
improving screening and vetting standards and procedures for
immigration benefits, including expanding the use of in-person
interviews for certain employment-based adjustment
applications, enhancing screening and vetting in the U.S.
refugee admissions program with the goal to close security gaps
and take a more risk-based approach to refugee admissions, and
expanding the targeted site visit and verification program to
take a more targeted approach to combatting fraud and abuse.
Our country and the world have changed significantly since
I joined the service 37 years ago, yet our immigration policies
and practices have not kept pace. Our immigration system and
our Nation are vulnerable in new and dynamic ways. USCIS is
dedicated to serving and safeguarding the American people, our
Nation, and our economy. I am extremely proud of the hard work
and professionalism I see every day from the people at USCIS.
Again, thank you for allowing me to be here, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Renaud follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy Renaud
May 9, 2019
introduction
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services' (USCIS) fiscal year 2020 budget.
USCIS administers the lawful immigration system for the United
States. The agency's mission is to safeguard the integrity and promise
of that system by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for
immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland,
and honoring our values.
My name is Tracy Renaud. I am the acting deputy director of USCIS.
I have had the honor to serve in this agency and its predecessor, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, since 1982. A lot has changed
since then. But while our country and the world have changed
significantly, our immigration policies and practices have not kept
pace. Today, we realize that many current security and integrity risks
to our system did not exist in the last century, and many of the
threats that did exist then have evolved. At the same time, National
and economic interests demand efficient and reliable processes so that
our Nation can retain its preeminent position in the world for
business, education, and technology. The agency is working hard to
tackle many issues through technology, updated regulations, and clear
guidance. Yet, there is only so much that the agency can do through
regulation and technology. As Congress continues to grapple with
immigration policy, I want you to know that USCIS stands ready to
provide assistance on immigration-related legislation.
fiscal year 2020 budget
USCIS is nearly 97 percent fee-funded. The USCIS budget for fiscal
year 2020 provides funding to support our critical mission. The budget
allocates $4.8 billion in funding, of which $4.7 billion would be
financed through mandatory fee revenue, and $122 million would be
funded with discretionary appropriations. The appropriated funding
supports the operation and maintenance of the E-Verify program. The
fee-funded portion of the budget, which supports all other USCIS
operations, includes $25 million and the required language to enter
into an interagency agreement for the construction of a USCIS Academy
Training Center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC)
in Charleston, South Carolina.
uscis updates
Here are some statistics that provide a quick snapshot of USCIS in
fiscal year 2018:
More than 8 million petitions, applications, and requests
received.
Approximately 19,000 employees and contractors working in
approximately 240 offices.
$4.5 billion budget supported almost entirely (97 percent)
by fees.
849,000 naturalization applications completed--nearly a 10-
year high.
757,000 new U.S. citizens naturalized--a 5-year high.
Nearly 1.1 million Green Cards obtained by new lawful
permanent residents.
Nearly 2.1 million employment authorization applications
processed.
14 million USCIS Contact Center calls received.
38 million new hires verified through E-Verify.
191,000 FOIA requests received.
As of the end of March 2019, USCIS had an approved level of 20,404
positions and 18,473 employees on-board. USCIS operates offices in a
variety of settings--from high-volume service centers, to asylum
offices and field offices where interviews take place, to application
support centers, to our headquarters offices. A new building under
construction in Camp Springs, Maryland, will centralize operations and
consolidate our staff from locations across the National Capital
Region. This consolidation will likely occur in fiscal year 2020.
The agency derives nearly all its revenue from fees for services--a
fact of which we are very mindful. As the stewards of these funds, we
continually seek greater efficiencies, while also striving for the
highest degree of integrity and security. One thing remains constant--
the workload USCIS faces each year is staggering. This workload
represents the full spectrum of immigration benefits that our laws
provide to those seeking to come to the United States--temporarily or
permanently--and those who seek to become citizens of this Nation.
USCIS anticipates workloads and resource needs based on events and
historic trends. Occasionally, however, workloads do not conform to the
models that have served us so well, and we have to adjust priorities,
processes, and resources. Since 2016, there has been a period of
unexpected high demand for immigration benefits.
As receipts have grown, USCIS has continued to add staff and look
for ways to maximize use of our existing facilities wherever possible.
As discussed below, USCIS is tackling increased workloads with several
initiatives designed to realize efficiencies, focus resources on
adjudicating cases, and better facilitate access to information.
operational updates
E-Verify
E-Verify is an electronic system that allows employers to confirm
the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. It
compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment
Eligibility Verification, to records available to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration, the
Department of State, and certain State Department of Motor Vehicle
divisions. Nearly all confirmations occur instantly or within 24 hours.
As of April 15, 2019, more than 855,000 employers were enrolled in E-
Verify. Enrollment has grown by an average of approximately 1,500 new
employers each week in fiscal year 2019.
USCIS previously received appropriated funding to modernize the
technology that supports the E-Verify program. This modernization
effort was designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
E-Verify program for its users and USCIS, and to manage the rapid
increase in enrollments and use of this popular program.
As a result of the modernization effort the program can now handle
up to 10,800 concurrent users, with the ability to handle even more
with the scalable technology that has been built. Additionally, the
modernization effort improved accuracy by automating more data checks
and improving the verification algorithms, which has reduced the manual
verification workload by 35 percent since implementation. Finally, the
modernization effort provided for employer data entry error checks.
These checks have improved the accuracy of E-Verify results and reduced
data mismatches from an fiscal year 2016 baseline of 84,116 down to
341.
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS executed an agreement with the National
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). The former Records
and Information from Department of Motor Vehicle for E-Verify (RIDE)
program included only 10 States. The new connection to NLETS allows
verification of States' Department of Motor Vehicles data in over 40
States. This effort will help flag fraudulent or invalid driver's
licenses and State-issued identification cards.
USCIS upgraded the Verification Information System architecture for
case processing by eliminating redundant steps and providing a more
user-friendly experience through an improved design. This included
implementing an auto-scroll feature that automatically advances to the
next section on the page. This reduced the case processing screens from
10 to 3 by removing unnecessary pages and steps. Additionally, there
are new checks for data entry errors by the employer, which improved
accuracy of the results and reduced data mismatches.
In April 2018, USCIS launched E-Verify.gov, a new dedicated Uniform
Resource Locator (URL, i.e., web address), as opposed to the previous
sub-URL within the agency web address. The dedicated URL enhances the
existing brand with a new look throughout the website and other public
materials. Website hits to E-Verify.gov increased over 8 percent in
fiscal year 2018. The dedicated URL streamlines materials on the site
for easier and faster navigation for employers, improves readability
and explanations of E-Verify services and products (my E-Verify,
account roles, web services) for the public, and strategically targets
and supports unique external users that are separate and apart from the
larger USCIS audience.
In July 2018, an E-Verify data field was added to the Federal
Procurement Data System that identifies Federal contractors subject to
the E-Verify clause. This addition will allow our E-Verify Monitoring
and Compliance team to better monitor Federal contractors for required
enrollment and usage of E-Verify.
Between January 27 and February 1, 2019, approximately 2 million
cases were successfully processed in E-Verify, eliminating the case
backlog from the most recent partial Government shutdown. During the
35-day shutdown, E-Verify suspended operations and was unavailable to
employers. When the system resumed operations on January 27, it
received more than 600,000 cases--triple the volume previously seen on
a single day. By January 30, the number of E-Verify cases had reached 2
million. E-Verify's expanded capabilities, achieved through
modernization, made efficiently and promptly handling this backlog
possible.
We anticipate achieving full operating capability of E-Verify
modernization by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019.
Beginning in fiscal year 2019 and continuing into fiscal year 2020,
we plan to concentrate on strengthening system architecture, improving
system reliability and resiliency, and delivering verification services
with the highest degree of speed and accuracy possible, while reducing
user burden. We will leverage cloud-based data warehousing and analytic
services that allow business users to run customized reports,
dashboards, and data analytic tools to monitor performance, program
integrity, and support decision making. We will also enhance the
systems that support call center operations, monitoring and compliance
units, status verification operations, and program promotion. These
enhancements will allow us to better monitor the program and respond to
employer's questions.
SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements)
USCIS also administers the SAVE Program, which provides a fast,
secure, and efficient verification service for Federal, State, and
local benefit-granting agencies to verify a benefit applicant's
immigration status or naturalized/derived citizenship.
More than 1,100 agencies use SAVE. New features include improved
case search capabilities, larger file size upload capacity, and more
user-friendly navigation. Improved ease of use has led agencies to
submit many cases digitally using uploaded documents, doubling from
17,000 per month to 34,000 per month, thereby reducing abandonments and
improving the effectiveness of the program.
SAVE became fully paperless in May 2018 and has reduced response
time from 20 business days to 5 business days or less. An estimated
170,000 formerly paper cases a year will now be submitted and responded
to electronically.
Asylum and Credible Fear
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS adjudicated nearly 82,000 applications
for affirmative asylum, a 61 percent increase from fiscal year 2017. In
January 2018, USCIS announced a shift away from ``first in, first out''
processing of affirmative asylum cases and a return to ``last in, first
out'' (LIFO) processing. This priority approach, first established by
the asylum reforms of 1995 and used for 20 years until 2014, seeks to
deter those who might try to exploit the existing backlog as a means to
obtain employment authorization. The goal is to quickly identify non-
meritorious claims, thereby deterring such claims and helping to slow
the growth of the affirmative asylum caseload that disadvantages
legitimate asylum seekers. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2019,
USCIS had approximately 325,000 affirmative asylum applications pending
adjudication. Returning to a LIFO interview schedule has allowed USCIS
to identify non-meritorious asylum claims earlier and place those
individuals into removal proceedings sooner.
Individuals placed in the expedited removal process who claim a
fear of return are screened by the Asylum Division for a ``credible
fear'' of persecution or torture to determine whether they will be
issued a Notice to Appear in full removal proceedings in Immigration
Court. In fiscal year 2018, USCIS processed nearly 98,000 credible fear
claims. Adjudications were up 22 percent from fiscal year 2017 and
nearly doubled from fiscal year 2014.
Refugee Program
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS officers interviewed more than 26,000
refugee applicants in 45 countries, and the United States admitted
22,491 refugees. In fiscal year 2018, the Refugee Affairs Division
committed the equivalent of an average of 100 full-time equivalent
positions throughout the fiscal year to support the Asylum Division
workload. To sustain this level of commitment, Refugee Affairs Division
staff completed over 500 details to the Asylum Division. In fiscal year
2019, it continues to detail staff to assist but on a smaller scale as
the Asylum Division continues to add permanent staff.
USCIS, along with our partners, has implemented a number of
enhancements recommended because of two reviews of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program (USRAP) pursuant to Executive Orders. The
enhancements aim to close security gaps and take a more risk-based
approach to refugee admissions. These enhancements are an additional
layer of security for the American people and take account of evaluated
intelligence, as well as identified gaps in screening and vetting
operations. These enhancements are part of a long-standing practice of
prioritizing integrity and security in the USRAP. Since the inception
of the program, USCIS and other processing partners have consistently
reviewed the USRAP and implemented enhancements to its security vetting
and program integrity in order to carry out the mission and safeguard
the United States.
eProcessing
USCIS' goal is to make the filing and adjudication of applications
a paperless process by the end of calendar year 2020. The agency has
taken in, stored, and transported paper forms and documentation in the
tons for far too long. USCIS is committed to using the technology
necessary to support on-line filing and electronic records management.
An electronic government is the key to increasing efficiency,
reliability, and accuracy. USCIS is taking active steps to increase
operations on-line.
USCIS is modernizing our IT strategy and business processes to
enable all applicants to file for benefits on-line so that we can
adjudicate cases electronically. This effort is called ``eProcessing.''
The plan is to create an on-line filing platform for each benefit
request product line, gradually stopping the creation of new paper
immigration records. Once digital, cases can be adjudicated with more
current and comprehensive information. USCIS will be better able to
allocate resource, see trends, and collaborate with other agencies.
Today individuals can file several forms on-line, including the
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, the Application for
Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document, and the Application
for Naturalization. On-line filing opportunities are scheduled to
expand quickly because existing technical functionalities can be reused
to facilitate an increased rate of deployment for subsequent benefit
request types.
Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Interviews
Pursuant to Section 5 of Executive Order 13780, Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, DHS and
Federal partners continue to develop ``a uniform baseline for screening
and vetting standards and procedures.'' As part of this effort, USCIS
has expanded the use of interviews. This expansion includes
transitioning certain employment-based adjustment applications from
service centers to field offices for interviews.
Specifically, USCIS has transitioned the adjudication of
employment-based adjustment of status applications based on an
underlying immigrant worker petition. The employment-based adjustment
cases that were transitioned for interviews to field offices generally
included applications filed on or after March 6, 2017 (the effective
date of Executive Order 13780). USCIS service centers generally
continue to adjudicate employment-based cases filed before March 6,
2017, that still await visa availability.
USCIS has provided training to field offices on the adjudication of
employment-based cases, along with fraud detection training, to ensure
a high level of consistency in the adjudication of employment-based
adjustment of status applications while maximizing the use of available
employment visa numbers.
Site Visit and Verification Programs
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS created and expanded the Targeted Site
Visit and Verification Program in response to Executive Orders 13768,
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, and
13788, Buy American and Hire American, to take a more targeted approach
to combating H-1B fraud and abuse by focusing on:
Cases where USCIS cannot validate the employer's basic
business information through commercially available data;
H-1B-dependent employers (those who have a high ratio of H-
1B workers as compared to U.S. workers, as defined by statute);
or
Employers petitioning for beneficiaries who work offsite at
another company or organization's location.
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS completed 414 targeted H-1B site visits,
confirming fraud in 149 cases. From the start of fiscal year 2019
through April 22, 2019, USCIS conducted 2,209 targeted H-1B site
visits, confirming fraud in 100 and non-fraud related compliance issues
in another 100.
In fiscal year 2018, USCIS also began Targeted Site Visit and
Verification Program pilots for the following nonimmigrant employment
classifications:
L-1B (intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge)
E-2 (treaty investors)
H-2B (temporary nonagricultural workers)
USCIS is currently reviewing the results of these pilots.
USCIS plans to continue expanding the Targeted Site Visit and
Verification Program pilots in fiscal year 2019. So far this fiscal
year USCIS has added the L-1A (intracompany transferee in a managerial
or executive position) nonimmigrant visa classification and conducted a
mini-pilot on selected EB-3 (immigrant unskilled worker) petitions in
the Targeted Site Visit and Verification Program.
USCIS Tip Unit
In June 2018, USCIS established a Tip Unit in Williston, Vermont.
This unit, co-located with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Tip Line Center, is working on processing the thousands of
immigration benefit fraud tips that USCIS receives annually from the
public and other Government entities. USCIS has established dedicated
mailboxes for tips: ReportFraudTips@uscis.dhs.gov,
ReportH1BAbuse@uscis.dhs.gov and ReportH2BAbuse@uscis.dhs.gov. The Tip
Unit refers actionable or articulable leads to USCIS officers for
further action. Since becoming operational, the Tip Unit has processed
over 45,000 tips from the public. Of these, over 26,000 leads have been
developed and numerous fraud findings and referrals were submitted to
ICE for criminal investigation.
conclusion
It is my privilege to be here to discuss USCIS' budget for the
upcoming fiscal year. Our goal by the end of 2020 is to have all of our
adjudications moved to a digital environment, allowing full digital
processing and more streamlined workflows. But technology can only do
so much. It cannot replace the people who actually make the decisions.
That is why we continue to focus on filling positions and reducing
vacancy rates, and ensuring employee overtime is available to increase
adjudication capacity. We are still feeling the wake from the
extraordinary receipt growth during fiscal year 2016 and 2017. As
certain workloads have continued to grow, so too has the complexity of
some adjudications, and the time needed for us to do our job in
compliance with the will of Congress, as expressed in the immigration
laws.
USCIS is dedicated to serving and safeguarding the American people,
our Nation, and our economy, and I am extremely proud of the hard work
and professionalism I see every day in service to our Nation. Again,
thank you for allowing me to be here and I look forward to answering
your questions.
Miss Rice. I thank all the witnesses for their testimony,
and I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
questions.
I am going to put this question to all three of the
witnesses. There have been multiple news reports finding that
the actual architect of the Trump administration's immigration
agenda is White House Advisor Stephen Miller. Have any of you
ever been contacted by Stephen Miller?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will answer
first. I have been in meetings with Mr. Miller at the White
House, but that is it. Other than in a professional capacity,
with respect to what my duties, I have had interaction----
Miss Rice. What was discussed at those meetings?
Mr. Perez. Pardon me, ma'am?
Miss Rice. What was discussed at those meetings with
Stephen Miller?
Mr. Perez. Various efforts of the Department and of the
agency with respect to our border security mission.
Miss Rice. So broadly the administration's policy and what
it was going to be and how you were going to implement it at
the border?
Mr. Perez. More so an exchange of ideas and how to
implement what we believe are the best policies moving forward,
yes.
Miss Rice. That is what I said. Thank you.
Mr. Albence.
Mr. Albence. Yes, ma'am, I have been contacted by Mr.
Miller, been in meetings with him as well, as with many other
White House individuals.
Miss Rice. So, Mr. Albence, I am asking about you, not
other White House officials. It is a very simple question, to
you, not any other White House official. When he contacted you,
what did he contact you about?
Mr. Albence. Generally, it is operational guidance with
regard to impact that a certain policy may have.
Miss Rice. He was directing to you what the policy--the
White House policy was, to make sure that you, as a soldier in
the field, were implementing it correctly?
Mr. Albence. No. It was more of, if we instituted this
policy, could it be operationalized, how would it be
operationalized, what would be the impact on the operations. It
was more an exchange of ideas versus a--it was not a direction
that I would do X, Y, or Z.
Miss Rice. So he would speak to you about a policy--
immigration policy that he had and was asking you whether you
thought it was going to work or not?
Mr. Albence. Or if it could work, if it would be possible
to implement, would it be able to operationalize.
Miss Rice. Ms. Renaud.
Ms. Renaud. I have---- [inaudible.]
Miss Rice. Has he spoken to you about immigration policy
and how it is going to be implemented at the border and
elsewhere?
Ms. Renaud. [Inaudible.]
Miss Rice. Can you speak up?
Ms. Renaud. Oh, thank you. The conference calls that I have
participated on have been mostly seeking updates on
implementation of either Executive Orders or Presidential
memorandums and status of where we are.
Miss Rice. He specifically was asking you in your capacity
for data regarding your piece of that operation?
Ms. Renaud. He is a participant. He doesn't chair the
calls. So whoever chairs the calls will do the----
Miss Rice. Did he speak on the calls?
Ms. Renaud. Yes.
Miss Rice. Did he ask questions?
Ms. Renaud. Yes.
Miss Rice. Did he ask questions specifically of you?
Ms. Renaud. Not of me, no.
Miss Rice. Were you asked to give information?
Ms. Renaud. Yes.
Miss Rice. Mr. Albence, I want to go back to what I talked
about in terms of, I think one of the most shocking parts of
the budget which would drastically reduce funding for NII
systems, which are specifically used to scan for drugs, guns,
and other contraband at ports of entry, if you look at any
public statement that the President makes and people in his
administration, whether it is his spokesperson or other people,
about our biggest problem at the border, that then becomes an
interior problem in this country, it is drugs.
So I think it doesn't make much sense to me that in his
budget, he would cut from $500 million to procure new NII
systems to the 2020 budget where he requests just $59 million.
Do you think that is a wise decision?
Mr. Albence. With all due respect, ma'am, that is on the
CBP budget, so I would defer to my colleague here to answer
that question.
Mr. Perez. I will gladly answer for you, Madam Chairwoman.
So----
Miss Rice. Let me just say, Mr. Albence, we spoke about
drugs when we met previously, so you have an opinion. What is
your opinion?
Mr. Albence. Again, I can't speak to the money. I can tell
you what we have learned in Homeland Security investigations
that----
Miss Rice. I am asking you, are you aware of the NII
systems that are used?
Mr. Albence. A little bit, ma'am. I don't have----
Miss Rice. Do you think they make sense?
Mr. Albence. From what I understand, they are effective
systems, yes.
Ms. Rice. So do you think it makes sense to cut the
procurement dollars for that technology?
Mr. Albence. I don't have insight into the whole CBP
budget----
Miss Rice. So you are not going to answer the question.
OK, Mr. Perez, can we go to you?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, ma'am--Chairwoman. So in the fiscal
year 2018 budget, we were provided, thanks to Congress, the
ability to recapitalize----
Miss Rice. So Mr. Perez, I have very limited time. I have
to interrupt you, and I am very sorry. I am asking you one
specific question.
Mr. Perez. Right.
Miss Rice. Do you think it is a good decision for this
administration to cut the budget for NII systems, from $500
million to $59 million, yes or no?
Mr. Perez. Since we have money between 2018 and 2019 to
recapitalize nearly 75 percent, thanks to Congress, of our
entirety of our NII systems, and we are balancing a very
complex mission that is multifaceted----
Miss Rice. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Perez. I don't think deem it unreasonable to position--
--
Miss Rice. So basically you don't need any money, you don't
even need----
Mr. Perez. No.
Miss Rice [continuing]. The $59 million?
Mr. Perez. No, I'm saying we need all the----
Miss Rice. Wow, I think it sounds like you don't even--
well, I just saved us $59 million. Thank you.
Mr. Perez. We will gladly--thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Miss Rice. OK, Mr. Perez, thank you.
Mr. Perez. Thank you.
Miss Rice. So I just have one question for Ms. Renaud.
Despite the on-going violence and political unrest that
renders El Salvador unable to adequately handle the return of
their nationals, then-Secretary Nielsen announced the decision
to terminate TPS status for El Salvador in January 2018. Do you
know what the reasons justifying the termination of TPS for El
Salvador were?
Ms. Renaud. I do not know the reasons off the top of my
head, ma'am. I would be happy to get you that information.
Miss Rice. Did USCIS provide the Secretary or anyone within
the administration with an opinion as to whether TPS should be
terminated or extended?
Ms. Renaud. Yes. USCIS prepares country conditions for the
Secretary whenever there is going to be a determination made on
TPS for any country. Along with that, we usually do provide a
recommendation.
Miss Rice. So what was your recommendation?
Ms. Renaud. I don't recall. It was some time ago.
Miss Rice. Any of the northern triangle countries or--I
shouldn't say that. I should say--yes, so El Salvador, along
with Nicaragua and Honduras, can you give us----
Ms. Renaud. I don't have that----
Miss Rice [continuing]. Did you give opinions about those?
Ms. Renaud. We gave opinions on all of those, and we----
Miss Rice. But you don't remember what they are now?
Ms. Renaud. I don't on the----
Miss Rice. So I am going to ask you to please provide me
with--this committee with that information.
Ms. Renaud. We will follow up with you, ma'am.
Miss Rice. So I just want to ask, we have a lot of people
up here who want to ask questions. I asked direct questions.
Can you please give direct answers? There is no filibustering
on the subcommittee. So, please, can we all use the time
wisely, and can you answer in the most direct way possible?
Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding technology,
Mr. Perez, with the purchase of new technology, would there be
a requirement to replace that new technology every year?
Mr. Perez. Not every year, Congressman.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. I believe we try and keep to direct
answers here. I believe most of the folks in the audience here
have a laptop or an iPad. I don't know of anyone that replaces
that technology every year.
You had mentioned a number, I believe you said 75 percent
of your systems have been upgraded or replaced with new
technology?
Mr. Perez. We received funding, Congressman, between fiscal
year 2018 and 2019 to recapitalize and replace over 230 of our
280 systems.
Mr. Higgins. OK. So just to clarify, you have already
received funding to replace a large percentage of your
technology that was indicated here. So would it not make sense
that the budget decrease? It is just common sense. We can move
on.
Let's talk about personnel, please. The budget request
includes $163.6 million to recruit, hire, and train 750
additional Border Patrol agents. It is no secret that CBP
experiences difficulties in recruiting, hiring, and retaining.
It is a gruelling job, and it is insane down there right now. I
am amazed at the retention that you are managing. How long
would you project it would take, given flexibilities regarding
hiring bonuses, retention bonuses, et cetera, can you fulfill
the hiring of 750 additional Border Patrol agents if we provide
the budget for it?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congressman. We expect that we will.
The time frame, I wouldn't want to speculate as to how long.
Right now, particularly with Border Patrol agents, our
attrition rates are at about 6 percent, which is higher than
our other law enforcement uniformed personnel. We have put in
place a lot of hiring initiatives to retain more, to--with----
Mr. Higgins. Do you have the flexibility needed at the
command level regarding bonuses and retention bonuses, hiring
bonuses, et cetera?
Mr. Perez. We do, however, it is part of the supplemental
request that was put forward.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Perez. We are looking forward to getting that support.
Mr. Higgins. Moving on, the President has requested $4.5
billion emergency supplemental funding for the crisis at the
border. Mr. Perez, can you explain why these funds are so
critical?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congressman. So in addition to the
surging of now nearly--or just over a thousand CBP officers and
Border Patrol agents along the Southern Border from parts all
over the country, the nourishment, the procurement of
consumables for primarily the families and the children that
are in our custody for the time they are, the softsided
facilities that we have put up recently.
In addition to all of that, and being able to fund what we
have already done, everything that we expect to continue to
have to be done in this urgent crisis, is included in that
supplemental request, along with some very critical support for
our interagency partners, particularly in----
Mr. Higgins. Would funding directed within the supplemental
request help the American men and women that work for you to
respond to the humanitarian crisis?
Mr. Perez. Unquestionably so.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Moving to Acting Deputy Director--excuse
me--Acting Director Albence. Would you explain to us, sir, the
expansion of the 287(g) program, in the form of the warrant
service officer program? We are talking about personnel, for
boots on a guy--ground, like me, this is significant. Difficult
jobs, difficult to hire and retain, and you have determined a
way to expand an existing 287(g) program within the parameters
of the law, to be a force multiplier for your endeavors at ICE.
Would you explain the warrant service officer program, please?
I have 35 seconds.
Mr. Albence. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. The
warrant service officer serves as a force multiplier for ICE.
We only have about 6,000 or so sworn law enforcement officers
within ERO to cover the wide spectrum of duties that we have to
do.
The warrant surface officer allows us to deputize State and
local law enforcement agents and deputies to execute
immigration warrants on our behalf. So that way, individuals
that are sitting in their custody, criminals that are here
illegally, have committed a criminal violation--convicted----
Mr. Higgins. That is, the program essentially puts in place
trained and certified officers at the State and local level?
Mr. Albence. Absolutely. It allows us to take our officers
that are sitting in these detention facilities----
Mr. Higgins. Automatic detainers.
Mr. Albence [continuing]. And replace them with theirs.
Mr. Higgins. Would you provide to the committee, please,
some details and explanations of that program for my colleagues
on both sides?
Mr. Albence. I would be happy to.
Mr. Higgins. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Miss Rice. So before we go on, I just--you know, I just
want to go back to something that Mr. Albence said. You had
said before there are 109,000 people had been apprehended
between ports of entry, and the actual number is 98,000. You
include people who actually presented themselves at a port of
entry and were then turned away by CBP ICE. So I think it is
important to be accurate. It is not 109,000. It is 98,000.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
All of you, first of all, seem to have a tremendous history
of serving our country, thank you very much. I just returned
from Central America, where I took a tour of the triangle
countries to look at what was going on. I concur with my
colleague from Louisiana, we do have a crisis, and it is a
refugee crisis. It is one that is been going on, probably since
the 1980's. It has just been invisible for the most part, and
now, when we have these caravans, I think it is easier to
detect.
I went to these three countries to ask, what is going on,
what is fueling all of this activity. The simple answer is a
lot of violence, a lot of drugs, a lot of dollars--dollars that
flow out of our country because of our insatiable appetite for
drugs, that everybody's essentially on the take, there is so
much money, there is so much violence, and most people are just
looking for a better place.
A lot of interesting things going on. Some of our aid has
helped create some educational centers, some jobs, some local
training, some deported individuals that are going back and
trying to start lives. Good silver linings in those dark
clouds. One of the other ones I found, and I was pleasantly
surprised, was to find fusion centers in those Central American
countries where our FBI agents, DEA agents, other Federal
agencies, working together to make sure that we track a lot of
those individuals that are dangerous criminals, that seem to
move from one country to another, in and out. We talk a little
bit--your testimony was about investing more resources to make
sure we track these folks that I would call high, serious
risks.
My question is, any of those resources also going to
coordinate with groups like--or entities like fusion centers in
Central America or Mexico?
Mr. Albence. Thank you, Congressman. We actually have----
Mr. Correa. Can you make it a quick--just an answer----
Mr. Albence. Yes sir. We have--Homeland Security
Investigations has attache offices in each of these countries
that work very closely with the law enforcement agencies in
those countries. In fact, we have----
Mr. Correa. Is some of the budget that you requested to
augment those efforts, or is that----
Mr. Albence. No. We will augment those efforts. We have
transnational criminal investigative units. We have vetted
officers from those foreign governments that work----
Mr. Correa. Thank you, you answered my question. You
mentioned 570,000 criminal aliens that you are following, or--
--
Mr. Albence. It was 570,000 immigration fugitives. So these
are individuals that are here illegally.
Mr. Correa. Now, define a fugitive for me. Is that somebody
who murdered----
Mr. Albence. So an immigration fugitive is an individual
who has been through the entire immigration court process, has
had their due process, and at the end of that process, has been
ordered removed by an immigration judge, but has failed to
comply with that order.
A portion of those, I don't have the exact number, but I
believe it is around 130,000 or so, do have criminal records.
Mr. Correa. Your discussions with Mr. Miller, when you
spoke to him, it was clearly immigration policy, how you are
doing the job. My question is--again, all of you have very long
careers in this area of Government--when you talk to Mr. Miller
or you were part of those discussions, did you find Mr. Miller
asking your opinion as to what worked or didn't work, or was it
more Mr. Miller telling you the new vision that he wanted to
implement in terms of immigration policy and immigration
enforcement?
Mr. Albence. No, sir, it was the former. It was, we have
this policy idea, how would it work, how would you
operationalize it, is it doable----
Mr. Correa. Child separation, was that something of a
policy you came up with or he came up with?
Mr. Albence. No, sir. I wasn't involved in that.
Mr. Correa. Who came up with that?
Mr. Albence. I believe that was the Former Attorney General
developed a prosecution program, a zero-tolerance prosecution
program is what related to----
Mr. Correa. One final question. I have got 40 seconds.
Border Patrol agents hiring, recruiting, I know that--was it
last year or the year before we had that challenge where you
all were paying somebody a $10 million bonus to hire, to speed
up the hiring of agents, and only about a dozen were hired.
So my question is, have you changed the way you are looking
for recruits? Are you going, for example, to college campuses?
Are you going to, you know, hire veterans, or are we still
doing these 10 million for a dozen kind of programs?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we have put forth
several initiatives to try to improve our hiring, targeted
recruitment----
Mr. Correa. Very quickly, it is my understanding that the
big issue in hiring agents is passing of the polygraph test,
the lie detector test. I was talking to some of the members of
the local union. They were telling me it is easier for an FBI
agent to pass than it is for an agent to actually pass. Is that
the case? Are we doing anything to change that specific issue?
Mr. Perez. Making sure we adhere to the practices and the
policies that we have in place to maintain the integrity. We
feel we have made a lot of strides on the polygraph program,
Congressman, and that we are not experiencing nearly some of
the challenges that we had had a couple of years ago.
In addition to targeted recruitment for veterans, in
addition to fast-track hiring processes to get people who are
willing, through the process much faster. Last year actually
was the first year that we actually got ahead in the 5 years of
Border Patrol agents, meaning bringing on more than we
attrited. So we are encouraged moving forward that we are going
to be able to continue to do the same.
Mr. Correa. Madam Chair, I am out of time, I yield.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Correa.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Joyce from Pennsylvania for 5
minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank our
witnesses for being here today. Currently, there is a massive
crisis on our Southern Border. Just last month's data of
attempted illegal crossings represented more than a 100 percent
spike over the previous year and a staggering 500 percent
increase from 2 years ago. I witnessed this first-hand when I
was at the Southern Border just last month.
While I was there, I witnessed first-hand the lack of a
secure border in areas along the Colorado River, which allows
the cartels to smuggle drugs into our country, to smuggle drugs
that end up in my district in south central Pennsylvania.
There is another issue with the surge of people who seek to
be apprehended at the border. They are brought into custody,
they say prescribed words, and they are allowed access to
American jobs, health care, and education that law-abiding
citizens--with no real ability for these individuals to verify
their claims. This new group of family and unaccompanied minors
arriving from Central America present significant new
challenges, and it is truly driving this crisis.
Fully acknowledging that the Majority has refused to even
address this emergency request for funding sent to Congress by
DHS Secretary McAleenan, do you think that the budget request
for fiscal year 2020 are still in line with what is needed to
protect our Nation? This is a simple yes and no question, and I
will address Deputy Commissioner Perez first.
Mr. Perez. I will say yes, Congressman.
Mr. Joyce. Director Albence, do you feel that the budget
requests are in line to address this crisis?
Mr. Albence. Yes, I do.
Mr. Joyce. Second--thank you both--Secretary McAleenan also
made requests to change the asylum laws, among other changes,
to alleviate the pressures at the border. These are similar to
what legislations from Representative Collins, that I
cosponsored, would fix the Flores settlement and strengthen our
asylum system. Do you believe that passing these laws would
have impact on the crisis at the border? If we pass them, do
you think it would cut down on the amount of money we have to
spend to address this crisis? In essence, will fixing our
asylum system save taxpayers in the long run without
sacrificing our security? Again, I ask for your yes-no answers.
Mr. Perez. I will say yes, but if I may, Congressman, I
will just add that it is the most urgent and immediate need
that we need right now to deal with this crisis.
Mr. Joyce. So let me clarify that. So passing the asylum
laws would most be pressing for us to fix the problem that you
face on the Southern Border?
Mr. Perez. That and fixing the--having the ability to
main--keep families together through an expedited immigration
process, and being able to return unaccompanied children to
noncontiguous countries, as long as they are not being
trafficked. Fixes to Flores, TVPRA, and asylum, those are the
three legal fixes that are most urgent now.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Albence, would you please comment as well?
Mr. Albence. Mr. Perez is absolutely correct.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you both.
I yield back my time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. Deputy Commissioner Perez,
just to give you an opportunity to clarify. The numbers we have
for border apprehensions for April were 98,977. You mentioned a
number of 109,000. Will you clarify for the committee, please,
where the other 9,000 law enforcement interactions were at the
border?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congressman. The number--the 109,000
that I cited included not just apprehensions in between our
ports of entry, but encounters at the ports of entry of
inadmissible migrants. So that is the total number that we
encountered, again, 109,000.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Miss Rice. I thought that is what I said, but thank you for
clarifying that.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Ranking
Member as well. Madam Chair, it is an honor to serve under your
leadership. I thank you for hosting this hearing.
Mr. Albence, you are now the acting director of ICE. Is
this correct?
Mr. Albence. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Green. But you have not always been the acting
director. In 1994, you were with INS. Is this correct?
Mr. Albence. Correct. I started as a special agent in San
Antonio that year.
Mr. Green. Special agent. You have, through the years, seen
a good many things take place at ICE. You know the history of
ICE, do you not?
Mr. Albence. I have experienced many things, yes, sir.
Mr. Green. You know that ICE has metamorphosed from the
Office of the Superintendent of Immigration, created and placed
in the Treasury Department in 19--that is 1891, excuse me, and
it has gone through a good many changes and metamorphosed into
INS in 2003. ICE--according to this, the INS was abolished in
2003. Is that correct?
Mr. Albence. The various----
Mr. Green. This is, by the way, coming from your home page.
So I am reading from----
Mr. Albence. The various----
Mr. Green. Without giving me the history, just let me ask
you, is that correct, was INS abolished?
Mr. Albence. It wasn't abolished. It was fold---its
responsibilities were folded into DHS.
Mr. Green. Well, let me ask you this. Why would you have on
your home page that INS was abolished and its functions placed
under three agencies?
Mr. Albence. I would have--I would have to take a look at
that page. But, yes, the functions were separated between----
Mr. Green. OK. Well, does INS exist now?
Mr. Albence. No, it does not.
Mr. Green. Then it was abolished, wasn't it?
Mr. Albence. That is a term you could use, sure.
Mr. Green. Well, it is a term that you use. I am looking at
your home page.
Mr. Albence. OK.
Mr. Green. Do you--would you--I hate to--look, now, I know
the questions to ask. I am not going to do it to you, but you
will agree, if you would, that INS does not exist now, and it
was abolished?
Mr. Albence. I agree it does not exist now, correct.
Mr. Green. OK. Well, let's just say it was abolished so
that I don't have to go through another exercise. The reason I
am sharing this with you is because you didn't complain when
INS was abolished, did you?
Mr. Albence. No. I would say there was a great bit of
consternation on both the individuals from the Customs Service,
as well as INS during the time of the merger. It was a
difficult merger for many individuals.
Mr. Green. And the merger took place?
Mr. Albence. Yes, it took place.
Mr. Green. Would you reverse it if you could?
Mr. Albence. I don't think I would reverse it, because we
have come so far, and we have learned how to utilize both our
customs and immigration authorities for the benefit of National
security and public safety.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir. If you could, you would improve upon
it, wouldn't you?
Mr. Albence. Sir, the men and women of ICE come to work
every day trying to do their job better.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir. So you would improve upon what you
have, would you not?
Mr. Albence. If we can, yes.
Mr. Green. OK. So if someone, according to what you have
here, has indicated that INS was abolished and ICE was created,
one of the products, then if someone else said, well, look,
let's improve upon ICE, let's abolish ICE, let's create
something that is better, and you thought that this something
was better, just as you have acclimated to the iteration that
was created in 2003, you would want to see that better thing
take place, wouldn't you? You would want to see it, wouldn't
you? You would want to be one of the persons to support that,
wouldn't you?
Mr. Albence. I can envision an agency being better based on
the----
Mr. Green. Well, let me just ask you this. All of these
iterations, let's look at it--1891, 1895, 1903, 1906, 1913,
1924, 1933, 1940, 2003. All of these changes, it has
metamorphosed, and now we have perfection.
Mr. Albence. I would say that you have within----
Mr. Green. Would you say you have perfection?
Mr. Albence. I don't think anybody would say they have
perfection.
Mr. Green. OK. That is what I am looking for. You wouldn't
say that.
Because you don't have perfection, my assumption is that--
just as the President has said that Boeing with its 737 MAX 8
ought to change the name, he said. Let's not call it the MAX 8.
Let's improve upon it and, he said, give it another name.
This is why you have a good many people saying, let's
improve upon ICE, and it is OK for it to get another name,
given that it has all of these other names that it has had
through the years. Why not make it better? You understand the
point.
I yield back my time.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Green.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guest, the gentleman from
Mississippi, for 5 minutes--oh, my gosh, I am so sorry.
Mrs. Lesko. No worries.
Miss Rice. The gentlewoman from Arizona, Ms. Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, I want to say thank you. Thank you for the
work that you do. I really want to thank all the men and women
that work for you. Coming from the State of Arizona, the No. 1
issue of constituents in the State of Arizona, in my district,
is securing the border. We see the impacts each and every day.
I have gone down and visited the border and met with some
of the agents down there, and my staff has met with the ICE
agents in Phoenix. I applaud you for your hard work. This is
hard work. You are doing a lot of humanitarian work, as well,
with the crisis that is going on on the border. So I just want
to say thank you.
I do have several questions. Don't know if I can fit them
all in or not. But similar to what Mr. Joyce said, I, too, am
sponsoring legislation, and hopefully my staff can get together
with you to talk about all of the details, but I had met with
Secretary Nielsen in the past.
So I am introducing a bill to tighten the ``credible fear''
standard; permit DHS to remove asylum seekers to safe third
countries, where they could apply for asylum without the need
for bilateral agreements; to give more funds for more detention
bed space and immigration judges. I was just wondering what
your thoughts were on it.
Anybody can speak.
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congresswoman, again, for your
support of our men and women.
Certainly, all those solutions are part of, again, a very
complex mix of immediate solutions we need.
I don't want to undersell the need, especially given the
supplemental that was put forward, of resources now, by virtue
of the absolute humanitarian overwhelming crisis we have, as
well as the security crisis that goes right alongside that.
But certainly, again, those legal fixes are, as I mentioned
before, the most, in my professional opinion, urgent and
immediate need that will make a huge difference in what it is
we are dealing with.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Yes, I have been on record as saying
we need the resources and the money. I think we need not only--
we needed the funding for the border fence, because I think it
is part of the solution, not the entire solution, but we need
to change the laws. That is up to Congress. I think President
is doing what he can. Because he has to protect our Nation.
That is his No. 1 duty. That is our No. 1 duty. This is a
security crisis and a humanitarian crisis.
I remember Secretary Nielsen, right here in this committee
room, saying how 11-year-old girls are being tested, pregnancy
tests. I think 3 out of every--or 1 out of every 3 women is
being raped. This is bad news. We really need to fix it.
But let me go to the next question.
The President's request, he wants to add 128 attorneys and
41 support staff for the ICE Office of the Principal Legal
Advisor.
So, in addition to immigration judges, Director Albence,
why do you need the extra attorneys?
Mr. Albence. Well, the immigration courts can't proceed
without those OPLA attorneys to actually present and prosecute
those cases. So there has been a large increase of immigration
judges over the past couple of years. There has not been a
corresponding increase of OPLA attorneys.
So, without those OPLA attorneys, you could hire and bring
on as many judges as you want; you will only make that
bottleneck get worse.
Mrs. Lesko. OK. Thank you.
My next question is, I have heard numerous stories about
adults bringing in children to take advantage of our laws and
our court settlements here, and some of those children aren't
their children. They are being recycled and sent back to their
home country and then being exploited again.
What are we doing to try to address that problem now?
Mr. Albence. Homeland Security Investigations over the past
3 weeks has been surging resources to the Border Patrol sectors
to start ferreting out these fraudulent families. In the matter
of just a couple of weeks, we identified 256 potentially
fraudulent families and confirmed that 65 of those were indeed
fraudulent families.
Within the first week, we found a young 7-year-old girl
from Guatemala who was on her second trip to the country, whose
mom had rented her to her uncle so that he could come to the
country because he knew that he would be released. She also
told us that her two brothers were already here and came in
January, and she didn't know where they were.
So we know and we have criminal investigations on-going of
multifaceted criminal organizations, both domestic and
international, that are profiting off this problem, profiting
off the poor children that are being trafficked. That is our
primary goal in having those officers and agents down there, is
to ferret out these traffickers and smugglers.
Mr. Perez. If I can add, Congresswoman, year to date, to
put it into context, on the CBP side, in the last 6 months of
last fiscal year, we identified 466 fraudulent families. So
far, in the first 6 months of this fiscal year, we are up to
3,500, just over 3,500 fraudulent families.
So we are, again, working right alongside our colleagues in
ICE on this very, very important issue.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes. Thank you very much. I mean, we do have a
crisis. I mean, some people, I think, might be denying it, but
it is right in front of our eyes. This is a humanitarian crisis
and a security crisis. I thank you for your work.
I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico,
Ms. Xochitl Torres, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Chairman Rice.
Thank you also, Ranking Member Higgins.
Thank you all for being here.
As you know, Border Patrol is currently under immense
strain, partly due to the administration's ``metering'' and
``remain in Mexico'' policies, which are pushing some migrants
to cross the border between ports of entry, often in areas like
the one that I represent, which is rural and remote.
In my district in southern New Mexico, Border Patrol
checkpoints have been suspended, and many agents have been
recalled from the field to assist with processing individuals
voluntarily presenting along the border.
In speaking to a Border Patrol agent in my district, he
said, ``We are not a detention center agency. We are a law
enforcement agency.'' I couldn't agree more.
This is why CBP must be doing more to contract trained
personnel to assist with non-law-enforcement duties, such as
feeding, transporting, and giving medical care when necessary
to migrants. This would allow agents to return to their law
enforcement responsibilities for which they are really trained.
Mr. Perez, can you please describe how CBP is planning to
allocate part of its fiscal year 2020 budget toward contracting
for these non-law-enforcement duties?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congresswoman.
So, in the fiscal 2020 budget as well as, if I may, the
supplemental request, very much the transportation, the care
and feeding, the soft-sided facilities that we have raised, all
of those non-law-enforcement-related duties are not only
already being contracted and actually contracts being pursued
to be expanded because of the crisis we have at hand, but
certainly in 2020 those are exactly the type of things we are
looking to get our officers and agents out of doing and
bringing on more other folks to do those types of functions for
us.
Ms. Torres Small. That is great to hear, Mr. Perez. Thank
you so much.
How can Congress feel confident that the funds it
appropriates for these very specific purposes, such as
contracting services you just described, will not be
reprogrammed for the administration's own priorities?
Mr. Perez. Well, I don't have the specific numbers right
now, Congresswoman, but I will gladly get back to you on what
it is we have already obligated from the funds we have been
provided and actually what it is we have already begun to spend
this fiscal year, as well, you know, with respect to what it is
we are asking for, again, on the supplemental that is so
critically important, you know, regarding the contracting and
the like, you know, just so that you have a good frame of
reference of how it is we are investing all those moneys.
Ms. Torres Small. Sorry, my question was about future
appropriations from Congress. You identified the need is still
on-going. How can we make sure that is where the money goes?
Mr. Perez. Well, it is unquestionably true, Congresswoman,
you know, front-line agents and officers are there to perform a
law enforcement function, National security function, first and
foremost, certainly a humanitarian function, given a crisis
like the one we have in front of us. To make sure that we are
fulfilling that mission responsibility, to keep our communities
safe, keep drugs off the street, keep criminals from coming
across our borders, that is where our focus will remain--and
keeping, you know, again, the Nation safe.
So I am very confident that I can tell you that if we are
able to bring on those contracts, get these types of roles
filled with non-law-enforcement types, that is something the
agency will remain very interested in doing.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. I don't feel the assurance
that I think we need to be able to work to support you in what
needs to happen. I think if there is any additional words you
can lend to that, it would be very helpful for me to continue
to advocate for these continued needs.
I want to turn to investments in our ports of entry, which
are also essential to our National security.
Facts show that the majority of illegal drugs that come
into the United States enter through legal ports of entry. For
example, according to the CBP's own numbers, in fiscal year
2018, 90 percent of the heroin was seized at ports of entry by
CBP officers, while only 10 percent was seized between ports of
entry by Border Patrol.
Yet, in recent years, not enough attention has been given
to CBP's $5 billion land port of entry modernization backlog or
to the deployment of drug inspection technology at the ports of
entry. My colleague Miss Rice spoke about NII tech, and I
reinforce the need to invest there.
Mr. Perez, as a former port director and the director of
field operations, you know first-hand the importance of these
investments. Do you believe the administration should be giving
more funding priority to decrease the backlog of CBP's land
port of entry modernization portfolio and to drug-interdiction
systems at ports of entry such as this non-intrusive inspection
technology?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am really grateful
to the Congress for what it is we have received. I mentioned
earlier about the recapitalization of a huge portion of the
non-intrusive inspection fleet. We also received an incredible
amount of funding, as well, for hand-held technologies, you
know, for video surveillance and the like. So those are
investments we are absolutely looking forward to continuing to
make and are part of the fiscal year 2020 budget.
With respect to modernization of the ports, that is also
something that is a priority for us in respect to, you know,
there are so many of them that are outdated. We are living that
every day right now, with respect to Border Patrol stations and
ports of entry.
So, facilities-wise, definitely, you know, we have a few
options there. We don't own all of those facilities. We have to
work through GSA a lot of times. But we also have, you know,
collaboration with the private, you know, communities
themselves, where we could pursue some of those endeavors also.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Perez. I know I am out of
time, but I look forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Perez. OK.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Guest, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you.
To each of the witnesses, thank you for being here. I want
to thank the men and women that serve under you for your
service to our country.
Throughout prior hearings that we have had, I believe that
there has been testimony that we have a drug trafficking crisis
along our Southwest Border, a human trafficking crisis, an
immigration crisis, and now a humanitarian crisis.
Would each of you agree that the current situation along
our Southwest Border would fit in the definition of a crisis
state based on everything that we have going on at this time?
Mr. Albence. Undoubtedly.
Ms. Renaud. Yes, I do believe there is a crisis at the
Southwest Border.
Mr. Perez. I do, Congressman, unlike anything I have ever
seen in 26 years.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Albence, in your report that you provided to
us as part of your testimony, you say, I believe on page 3,
that ICE seized over 1 million pounds of illegal narcotics in
fiscal year 2018. Is that correct?
Mr. Albence. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Guest. Mr. Perez, you also gave a figure in your report
about narcotics that was seized. Would the amount seized by
your agency be in addition to what Mr. Albence had in his
report?
Mr. Perez. It would, Congressman. We collaborate often, the
agencies, but those would have been deconflicted, in addition
to, yes.
Mr. Guest. So you report a million pounds of narcotics
seized.
Mr. Perez, you broke yours down. You said that you all
seized in that fiscal year 1.1 million pounds of marijuana,
282,570 pounds of cocaine, 248,132 pounds of methamphetamine,
6,552 pounds of heroin, and 2,463 pounds of fentanyl. Is that
correct?
Mr. Perez. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Guest. Thank you. Please thank the men and women that
you serve with.
I think, as the American public, as Members of Congress, we
often don't give you and the men and women that you work with
the credit that you deserve. Because of your hard work, because
you are standing there on the border, we have been able in a
year to prevent millions of pounds of illegal drugs from coming
into this country.
So I would ask that when you return home to the men and
women that you serve with that you let them know that there are
members of the American public and Members of the Congress that
appreciate what they do on our behalf.
I wanted to speak very briefly on the current immigration
crisis that exists along our Southwest Border.
Mr. Albence, you were saying in your report that there are
currently 870,000 pending cases. Is that correct?
Mr. Albence. On the non-detained docket, so individuals not
in custody. We have about 50,000 people in custody that are
also pending.
Mr. Guest. OK. So that would be in addition to the 870,000?
Mr. Albence. Correct.
Mr. Guest. So we have, then, roughly 920,000 pending cases?
Mr. Albence. That is a good approximation, yes.
Mr. Guest. As I understand from media reports, the average
wait time for a hearing is 2 years. Would that be approximately
correct, give or take?
Mr. Albence. It depends on the location. In some places, it
could be 2 years. In some places, EOIR is setting out court
dates 3 to 4 to 5 years.
Mr. Guest. So we have people who are sometimes being
released, and they are given a court date to return in 5 years?
Mr. Albence. That is quite possible, yes.
Mr. Guest. I think there was testimony that you all gave a
few minutes ago that--and I believe, Mr. Perez, you were the
one that offered this--that you believe that the best thing
that Congress can do to alleviate the crisis along our
Southwest Border is to fix our broken asylum process.
Mr. Perez. Yes, Congressman, in addition to, again, fixing
Flores, the ability to keep families together through the
entirety of an expedited immigration process and hearing and
adjudication of their case, and fixing the TVPRA or the ability
to process unaccompanied alien children and repatriate them to
noncontiguous countries like we do for Canada and Mexico if
they are not being trafficked. Those are the three really
primary areas of legal change that we absolutely need.
Mr. Guest. My question is, until we fix those three issues,
are we just basically managing the crisis along our Southwest
Border?
Mr. Perez. I personally believe those are the most
prevalent--unquestionably prevalent pull factors of the
phenomenon that we are seeing right now and what the criminal
alien smuggling organizations are very consciously exploiting
and profiting off of.
Mr. Guest. Again, thank you for your service. Thank you for
testifying today.
I will yield back the remainder of my time.
Miss Rice. The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the
gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank our
Ranking Member, Mr. Higgins.
We are a Nation of immigrants. Our country's prosperity is
inherently linked with our history of welcoming people from all
corners of the Earth. Diversity has been and continues to be
our greatest strength.
But Donald Trump sees strength through a different lens.
When he sees an immigrant family, he sees a threat to our
Nation rather than an opportunity to enrich it. He thinks
ripping those families apart, not just at the border but
through bureaucratic maneuvers here in the District of
Columbia, is somehow strong. But he is wrong. Congress has an
obligation to get it right and to fix this inhumanity.
So let me start by asking you, Mr. Albence, I want to get
some ideas of current policy and how it is actually being
implemented.
In March, I actually sent a letter to DHS regarding ICE's
immigration check-in policies, and I am still waiting for a
response. So I am Congresswoman Clarke from Brooklyn, New York.
Traditionally, DHS has allowed immigrants to be accompanied
by persons of their choosing during check-ins with ICE
personnel. However, when I attempted to accompany Ravi Ragbir,
a New York immigrant rights activist, to his check-in
appointment this January, many members of our group, including
elected officials, were denied entry to ICE's field office.
So I would like to know: What is DHS policy with respect to
allowing members of the public, including family members,
clergy, and public officials, in accompanying immigrants to
facilities where ICE check-ins occur?
Mr. Albence. So I can get back with you with the specific
policy with regard to how we manage the check-in process. In
many locations----
Ms. Clarke. That is fine. That will be good.
Mr. Albence. OK.
Ms. Clarke. If I can get that in writing, I would like to
know what the policy is. And----
Mr. Albence. I will check on your letter. I am sorry for
the delay.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Why has DHS's long-standing policy, which has been to allow
folks to be accompanied, been changed?
Mr. Albence. Again, I will get you a written response on
that.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
The Supreme Court appears likely to allow the
administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020
Census. This comes after a Federal judge in New York ruled
against adding the question, which would have forced everyone
to answer whether or not they and others in their household are
U.S. citizens.
Federal law prohibits the Census from sharing data with
other Federal agencies, such as ICE. But the laws have been
circumvented before to target minority families. During World
War II, the Census Bureau found a loophole so it could help the
Government identify Japanese-Americans for internment.
Will you commit, if the Supreme Court allows the citizen
question appear in the 2020 Census, not to seek any data
whatsoever in violation of existing law regarding immigration
status from the Census Bureau?
Mr. Albence. I would never ask any of my officers to do
something in violation of law.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Ms. Renaud and Mr. Perez, by the end of the summer, the
President wants to sanction countries with visa-overstay rates
higher than 10 percent, including by potentially restricting
entry from those countries. In plain English, that means
tearing apart families simply because of the Nation they hail
from.
The order cites 20 specific countries, 13 of which are on
the continent of Africa. Caribbean nations like Jamaica and
Haiti could also become targets. Last year, Donald Trump used
vile language to describe Haiti, Central America, and the
continent of Africa. Now the President is putting those words
into action.
Do you have any additional information about what specific
restrictions Donald Trump intends to impose on nationals of
visa-overstay countries?
Mr. Perez. I do not, Madam Congresswoman.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Ms. Renaud. Nor do I.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Ms. Renaud, USCIS recently issued new guidance to asylum
officers on adjudicating ``credible fear'' claims, directing
them to be more confrontational and focus on discrepancies
between testimony instead of the testimony itself. There may be
a series of reasons as to why there are differences between the
testimony given at Border Patrol compared to trained asylum
officers.
How are you planning to document those discrepancies? Given
the serious life-and-death consequences of a negative finding,
what kind of discretion are experienced asylum officers given
to determine what is an allowable discrepancy?
Ms. Renaud. Thank you for the question, ma'am.
Our asylum officers, as you well know, are very well-
trained. We give them an extraordinary amount of training.
We did recently update a lesson plan which clarified to
them that they need to address the credibility issue related to
the individual themselves, both when they are looking to find a
positive ``credible fear'' screening or a negative ``credible
fear'' screening.
In addition to that, what we asked them is that they do
elicit testimony when they find discrepancies, and that is so
that they can deconflict. But they still have the discretion to
have a finding of a positive screening or a negative screening.
We just want them to actually document the fact that they
deconflicted any conflicts between what they told CBP when they
entered and what they are telling us during the screening
process.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you for your responses.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
We are now going to go into Round 2 of questioning.
Ms. Renaud, I want to ask you, I understand that USCIS is
planning to close its overseas field offices, which I strongly
oppose. Do you know if the State Department is planning to
charge USCIS for the services that they would take over from
USCIS?
Ms. Renaud. Yes, they would charge us. They already do so
in a number of other locations.
Miss Rice. So how would that save any money for the Federal
Government and not actually result in an increase in costs? I
understand why you need your personnel--why you would want to
make that decision, but how do you think that is going to save
money and not actually incur a higher cost?
Ms. Renaud. It is very costly to have individuals stationed
overseas, and our cost analysis right now, based on the rates
the Department of State is charging, shows that we will have a
substantial amount of savings, although we are negotiating with
them right now about those specific locations. So we won't have
a solid number about the financial impact until we finish those
negotiations for our 22 locations.
Miss Rice. But it is also not just a financial impact. It
is actually, can they handle the increase in the workload with
the personnel that they have, or are they then going to turn
around and request additional hires, which would increase the
cost there, not just----
Ms. Renaud. Excuse me, ma'am. The volume of work that we
have in our overseas offices is very minor compared to the work
that State already has. So we don't believe that they will need
to plus up. They may hire some of our locally-engaged staff
that are trained in that work already, and it gives them
trained personnel to be able to continue----
Miss Rice. When is that decision likely to be made?
Ms. Renaud. We are in negotiations right now with State. We
have started maybe 10 days ago the conversations with them
about the cost related to these particular functions. So we
expect over the next 30 or 60 days we would finalize those
costs.
Miss Rice. OK.
Mr. Perez, you have testified here today that the CBP is
already greatly understaffed. Why do you think that CBP is
going to be able to handle ``credible fear'' interviews for
asylum seekers instead of trained USCIS officials?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
What we are doing now is we are just pursuing a pilot,
working with our colleagues at CIS, and essentially just
looking for any and every tool in the toolbox that we can apply
to try to streamline, make more effective, more efficient the
process and all the different administrative responsibilities
that we have at the border.
Again, we are working on a pilot alongside CIS right now,
and, you know, where and how we evaluate those results will
remain to be seen once we are done.
Miss Rice. So the pilot, has it started or not?
Mr. Perez. No. We are in the process of our agents now
getting trained. Again, as Ms. Renaud mentioned, it is very
extensive training to be able to do that work. They will also
be supervised by a CIS supervisor while we perform this pilot.
Again, we are just using every tool in the toolbox we have
available to us in an effort to try to be as innovative as we
can to make more efficient, you know, the backlogs and the
complexities of what we are facing at the border right now.
Miss Rice. How are you paying for that training process for
these agents?
Mr. Perez. I believe we actually included in the
supplemental request some funding for that. Other than that,
that would be just coming out of our base funding.
Miss Rice. OK.
So, Mr. Perez, I just want to stay with you for another
question. Actually, let me just ask you, on that note, I know
it is only in the pilot phase, but where will Border Patrol
agents actually conduct the ``credible fear'' interviews? Will
they be in the field or at the ports of entry?
Mr. Perez. It will be in a field location, but we are still
working on determining exactly where.
Miss Rice. OK.
So we have spoken about DHS's targeting and surveillance of
people who are known to either work with or advocate for
migrants. I had highlighted the case of the 59 people, mostly
Americans, who are on a CBP list entitled ``San Diego Sector
Foreign Operations Branch: Migrant Caravan Fiscal Year
Suspected Organizers, Coordinators, Instigators, and Media.''
Can you tell us how these 59 people were targeted and who
compiled the list and who ordered that list to be made?
Mr. Perez. The matter and the allegations you are talking
about, Madam Chairwoman, are being investigated by our Office
of Inspector General at the Department right now.
What I can tell you is, once we were made aware, that we
very diligently not only reported it to our Office of Inspector
General, but our Office of Professional Responsibility
augmented and is supporting them in that same investigation.
What I can assure you is that we do not target any group
based on profession, based on ethnicity or anything of that
nature. So, when and if we see any of those types of
allegations, we take them very seriously. What we absolutely do
do is manage the risk of any potential threat that comes to the
border.
So they are working on that investigation, and we are
waiting to see what the outcome is.
Miss Rice. Is your internal OPR analysis done yet?
Mr. Perez. They would be in a supportive role, our Office
of Professional Responsibility, to the Office of Inspector
General's investigation.
Miss Rice. So they don't come up with their own results.
Mr. Perez. Not during--it is my understanding that, no, not
when an Office of Inspector General investigation has taken on
that case.
Miss Rice. You have not been informed by OPR of any
findings that they have made regarding that case.
Mr. Perez. Not anything that I can disclose at this time.
Miss Rice. So you have, but you can't disclose it until
after the----
Mr. Perez. Well, it is a sensitive investigation, so,
although I have some general awareness, not definitive findings
but general awareness of what occurred, again, I have to defer
to investigators to let them pursue the entirety of that
investigation until it is concluded.
Miss Rice. So can you tell us if this kind of targeting is
still being done by CBP?
Mr. Perez. Again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you.
We do not tolerate targeting or profiling of any type for
anybody's profession, any ethnicity, any type of profiling at
all. What we do is manage threats and risk based on, you know,
potential criminality, criminal activity, and, as such,
criminal histories.
We do not tolerate that at all within our work force, never
have, absolutely never will. We take very, very seriously any
of those allegations, run them to ground to the best of our
ability.
Miss Rice. Are you aware as to whether this activity
occurred in other areas of the country, outside of the San
Diego area?
Mr. Perez. I am not aware.
Miss Rice. So there is a case in San Francisco where the
CBP ordered an Apple employee to hand over his company-owned
phone and laptop. The employee did not decline but asked to
speak to attorneys at Apple, because he had signed a
nondisclosure agreement and his devices held corporate
information. CBP told him he had no right to an attorney and
eventually let him leave but revoked his Global Entry status,
which you can imagine had an immediate effect on his ability to
travel for work.
Questioning by officers clearly indicates CBP knew about
his past jobs and perhaps his social views. Do you know if this
was also a part of a targeting effort by CBP? Were you aware of
this incident?
Mr. Perez. I am not aware of the incident, Madam
Chairwoman. I will gladly get back to you with a little bit
more specificity of what we can share.
Miss Rice. Great. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Regarding the 920,000 pending cases, you had stated there
were 870,000 pending cases, and you said it was another 50,000
to my colleague. What of that number, clarify for us please,
had been released on summons?
Mr. Albence. I don't have the exact number. I can look to
see what we have. We would release them. Depending on the
circumstances, they may be bonded out by an immigration judge.
Mr. Higgins. Not bond. I am talking about initial summons
that would have to have been after apprehension, found to be a
misdemeanor crossing----
Mr. Albence. Right. So if I----
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. And no other felony warrants and
they are released. They are released with a summons to be
contacted for a court date.
Mr. Albence. Right.
Mr. Higgins. That number, give us a round figure, please.
Mr. Albence. Yes, so all those individuals are placed with,
depending on the type of entry which they made and the
encounter--whether they overstayed their visa, whether they
entered the country illegally--are issued a notice to appear or
a charging document.
Mr. Higgins. OK. What, roughly, is that number?
Mr. Albence. That is all those individuals that I mentioned
are in that process because they were given a charging
document. So that 920,000 are all in that process because they
have been charged with an immigration violation.
Mr. Higgins. All right.
When an American citizen bonds out after initial arrest, he
is given bond instructions, which include the clarification
that it is incumbent upon than American citizen to maintain
contact with the judicial system if he has a change in phone
number, address, et cetera.
If an American citizen is granted parole after sentencing
or remanded to probation and parole with suspended sentence,
the clarification is given as well, it is incumbent upon that
American citizen to maintain contact with the judicial system.
Of these pending cases of illegal immigrants that have been
given summons, one of the common complaints that we hear from
them when we listen compassionately, they say, ``Well, we were
never contacted by the court.''
So would you clarify for us, please--and anyone can answer
this--is it incumbent upon the judicial system to maintain
contact with that released illegal immigrant, or is it
incumbent upon the illegal immigrant to maintain contact with
the judicial system?
Mr. Albence. So a lot of the aliens that are not in custody
do have reporting requirements. They would report to ICE,
actually. They would not report to the immigration courts. So
they would report to ICE on a----
Mr. Higgins. To law enforcement.
Mr. Albence [continuing]. On a periodic basis. However, it
is also their responsibility, if they change their address, to
notify the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is the
jurisdiction for the court.
Mr. Higgins. Just to move on, what you are stating is that
it is incumbent upon the offender or the suspect to maintain
communication with the system, not the other way around.
Mr. Albence. Right. They are required to comply.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Moving to--let's discuss, if we can, Deputy Commissioner
Perez, the justification for the additional miles of enhanced
physical barriers, 21st-Century technology, access roads, and
border law enforcement personnel.
My understanding is the 2018 Border Security Improvement
Plan was mandated in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill.
After distribution to the Appropriations Committee, this plan
was subsequently shared with this committee upon our request.
Who at CBP had input in this comprehensive plan to secure
our Southwest Border? Were the men and women on the ground
consulted?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congressman.
Absolutely, yes. So it was a combination, first and
foremost, of our field leadership and field agents, as well as
the----
Mr. Higgins. OK.
Mr. Perez [continuing]. Program office and headquarters.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that clarification. Limited
time.
So agents and operators in the field, what you are saying
is, actually had input into the analysis that identified the
need for hundreds of additional miles of enhanced physical
barrier, 21st-Century technology, access roads, and law
enforcement personnel to gain operational control of the
Southwest Border. Is that your statement, sir, that the men and
women in the field made this determination, not bureaucrats in
the District of Columbia and not politicians in the District of
Columbia?
Mr. Perez. Yes, Congressman, they had a significant amount
of input in all that, first and foremost.
Mr. Higgins. Are you aware that that appropriation was
included in the 2018 appropriations bill for the Border
Security Improvement Plan?
Mr. Perez. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Higgins. This is what we are trying to accomplish in
this fiscal year as well.
Mr. Perez. Indeed. Indeed.
Mr. Higgins. Gentlemen, madam, thank you very much for your
appearance today. We are going to get this thing hammered out.
We have faith in each other on both sides of the aisle and
confidence in your professional performance.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Miss Rice. I just want to clarify, Mr. Perez. I mean, I
appreciate the fact that the men and women on the ground were
asked for input, but the priorities were set right here in
Washington. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Perez. There is a program management office, Madam
Chairwoman, that handles, you know, and put together, alongside
the agency folks who built the Border Security Improvement Plan
that oversees all the activity of the wall planning and
procurement and processing.
Nevertheless, again, the prioritization, the types of
solutions that are put forth and were put forth was, you know,
first and foremost driven by the experiences and the folks in
the field, the leadership we have in the field, the ground
agents, based on, again, decades of their experience of what it
is they have known to have worked and will work along the
border.
Miss Rice. Was every single recommendation that the men and
women on the ground suggested taken and actually implemented by
the powers that be here in Washington?
Mr. Perez. I wouldn't know to that degree of detail, Madam
Chairwoman. What I would expect is that we took everything that
they suggested and then, nevertheless, you know----
Miss Rice. But you can't answer----
Mr. Perez [continuing]. Worked through with them----
Miss Rice. But you can't answer that question. I mean, you
are making it seem as if everyone here in Washington just
listened to what was said on the ground and that there was no
policy coming out of Washington. I just don't think you are in
a position to say that that is true.
Mr. Perez. Well, it was a collaborative process, Madam
Chairwoman, is what I am saying, and that, first and foremost,
the experience and the considerations and the input of the
field leadership and of the front-line agents was really the
driver behind the design and the implementation.
Miss Rice. But the overall policy, as it is in most
organizations, comes from the top down, right?
Mr. Perez. I am not sure which policy you are referring to.
Miss Rice. Any policy usually comes from the top down,
right? Wouldn't that be fair to say?
Mr. Perez. Usually, yes.
Miss Rice. OK.
Ms. Xochitl Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
The work that you do is incredibly hard, and I want to
recognize that. I want to recognize that it is getting even
harder and more complex, with the different people who are
approaching the border now, families who are approaching. It is
something--to adapt to these changing circumstances and to
constantly adapt, as you have, to continue to respond to needs.
But we have seen these challenges grow. We are all in it
together, from agents on the line and officers on the line, to
communities along the border, to the families that are
voluntarily presenting, and Members of Congress trying to
figure out what to do and how to work together to make it
happen. I just want to recognize and respect the work that you
do. Thank you.
Communities really are feeling it along the border too. I
have communities who are working incredibly hard to help--when
families are bonded out, to help them reach those families so
they can better comply with the orders they have been given.
Sometimes it is really hard because, with the increasing
numbers presenting along the border, they are not always
getting the right paperwork that has all the information that
they need. Border Patrol is incredibly strained right now, and
so being able to provide all of that paperwork has been
difficult. The coordination with these churches and other
organizations that are working to help this happen sometimes
slips through the cracks as well.
So I want to recognize the work that is being done and then
also ask if CBP has any plans to improve that coordination with
the local organizations for the release of these families.
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your recognition.
I can tell you that our interaction with the non-
Governmental organizations--you know, there is a handful of
which, certainly in your district and all across the Southern
Border--that that collaboration is at an unprecedented high. We
are absolutely grateful, because we couldn't do what we are
doing right now if not but for those non-Governmental
organizations, their collaboration not only with us but with
ICE as well, and how we all come together to deal with, again,
the humanitarian issues that we are confronting, the sheer
volume of families.
So I assure you, we are talking to them just about every
day, literally, our folks on the ground, every day. Because we
are moving hundreds of these families to them every day for
them to place and help find where it is that they need to go.
Look, do things like you just mentioned, raise to us if they do
encounter maybe, you know, a typo or something that they don't
understand quite with the paperwork that they have been given.
But, nevertheless, you know, we are very grateful, and I
assure you that is something that is going to be on-going.
Ms. Torres Small. Just to clarify, one of the big
challenges is just whether or not the families or the
individuals get pictures--the processing paper, if it has a
picture, a photograph of them. Because that is what allows them
to take a flight to reach their sponsor, if that is what their
sponsor paid--the person who sponsored their bond pays for.
Do you have any plans to try to make sure--because that is
something that ICE has done very well, is that when they
produce that paperwork it has that photograph which allows the
travel. Is that something that you are working toward
standardizing?
Mr. Perez. I will go back, Congresswoman, and check on that
and make sure that, you know, whatever it is that is the
standard is being applied.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
For fiscal year 2020, can you talk about any plans for that
budget to better assist with that local government and NGO
coordination?
Mr. Perez. I am not aware of any specific line item called
out for that. But, unquestionably, even as we were talking
earlier about some of the contractual arrangements, all of that
plays into some of that, you know, type of work, if you will,
that would end up with interaction and coordination with the
non-Governmental organizations.
So, as I said before, you know, even as we expect to find
solutions and want to work with you all to find solutions to
this immediate crisis, we are part of those communities, and
the NGO's are our neighbors as well, and so that collaboration,
from a professional level, will never wane. In fact, again, we
are very grateful for what we have right now.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I yield my time.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you once again, Madam Chair.
Ms. Renaud, I wanted to circle back, because I am just
trying to wrap my arms around this new policy of training
Border Patrol to be trained asylum officers. I wanted to get a
sense from you of, since the guidance went into effect on April
30, what is the daily average number of interviews completed by
an asylum officer?
Ms. Renaud. Excuse me. If I can clarify, are you talking
about ``credible fear'' screening?
Ms. Clarke. I am sorry. Yes.
Ms. Renaud. So the ``credible fear'' screening takes about
2 hours per individual. So, depending on how long they are
going to be in any facility that day, they can do up to 3 or 4.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Has that been an increase or a decrease
since April 30?
Ms. Renaud. The April 30 lesson plan has not been put into
effect yet. It will be put into effect mid-May. But we don't
expect that it will have a substantial difference. The 2 hours
has been pretty consistent for several years.
Ms. Clarke. How do you certify sort-of the training of the
Border Patrol officers?
Ms. Renaud. So the Border Patrol officers are conducting--
they have already done, as of the end of this week, 2 weeks of
distance training where they have read a number of lesson plans
and other materials.
They will begin their in-person training next week, and
they will have several weeks of in-person training at our
asylum office, conducted by our asylum officers, where they
will do some mock interviews, they will have some training
classes, they will observe some actual ``credible fear''
screenings that are being conducted by experienced asylum
officers.
Once we feel they are ready to actually start conducting
some ``credible fear'' screenings, we will have those be
monitored, and we will supervise them as they are doing it to
make sure they are going in the right direction.
Then, as Mr. Perez mentioned, once we feel that they are
able to go out on their own and do ``credible fear''
screenings, our supervisory asylum officers will supervise that
workload that they do. That includes the 100-percent check that
the supervisors do of our own employees. We will do to same
thing with----
Ms. Clarke. So do you have a time line for when this will
begin, since the guidance went into effect on April 30?
Ms. Renaud. So the Border Patrol agents will be finished
their training in late May. So they will begin actually doing
the screening in late May or early June, depending on Mr.
Perez's direction.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Perez, do you have a certain number of
Border Patrol agents that will be specific to the ``credible
fear'' screening process? Or is this going to become an
additional duty of your average, everyday officer?
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Congresswoman.
For the pilot--because it is just a pilot now--I believe
there are 10 agents that are in training with Ms. Renaud's
folks right now. We have identified another 2 groups, I
believe, of 20 to 25 each. So it is about a total of maybe 50
to 60 total agents, again, that we will initially utilize in
the pilot.
It really will depend on the outcomes that we all realize
as to whether or not, you know, we continue to move forward and
what type of investments we make subsequent to that.
Ms. Clarke. Would this be an additional duty for your
officers, or would they be specifically relegated to sort-of
that initial screening for ``credible fear'' or, you know,
determining whether someone should move forward?
Mr. Perez. Those are some of the exact details,
Congresswoman, that, right now, in the planning for the actual
pilot and its implementation, that we are working through right
now. So I am not aware that we have made those final----
Ms. Clarke. So it would be the 10 officers right now are
strictly dedicated to this training, or do they have other
duties?
Mr. Perez. I believe, right now, they may be primarily only
doing the training because of the time consumption of what it
is to receive the training. But, again, I would gladly get back
to you on that.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, would you get back to us? Try to give us
as much as you can about how their time would be delegated, if
it were to be sort-of a hybrid or an additional duty to their
regular duties.
Mr. Perez. Once we have the pilot up and running, we will
be glad to share that.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
I thank you all for your testimony here today.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Ms. Clarke.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
For Mr. Perez and Mr. Albence, I know you spent some time
before today with the Ranking Member and with myself, and I
appreciate you taking the extra time for that. I think it makes
for a more substantive hearing.
I know it is very difficult to sit there for the 2 hours
that you have been there and answer a bunch of questions from
us, but I think this is such an incredibly important
conversation, because not only does it give us the ability to
identify, maybe, where we need to fix things, but it does, as
Ms. Xochitl Torres Small and everyone else up here has said,
give us an opportunity to recognize the hard work that all of
you are doing in a very difficult environment.
So thank you all very much. I want to thank you again for
your testimony.
I want to thank the Members for their questions.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in
writing to those questions.
With that, I ask unanimous consent to insert 3 statements
into the hearing record from the National Treasury Employees
Union, Southern Border Communities Coalition, and Church World
Service.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
May 9, 2019
Chairman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and distinguished Members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this
statement for the record. As president of the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that
represents over 27,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers,
agriculture specialists, and trade enforcement personnel stationed at
328 land, sea, and air ports of entry across the United States and 16
Preclearance stations currently at airports in Ireland, the Caribbean,
Canada, and the United Arab Emirates. CBP's Office of Field Operations
(OFO) pursues a dual mission of safeguarding American ports by
protecting the public from dangerous people and materials, while
enhancing the Nation's global and economic competitiveness by enabling
legitimate trade and travel. OFO is the largest component of CBP
responsible for border security--including anti-terrorism, immigration,
anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and agriculture protection--while
simultaneously facilitating lawful trade and travel at U.S. ports of
entry that are critical to our Nation's economy. In addition to CBP's
trade and travel security, processing and facilitation missions, CBP
OFO employees at the ports of entry are the second-largest source of
revenue collection for the U.S. Government. In 2018, CBP processed more
than $2.8 trillion in imports and collected approximately $44 billion
in duties, taxes, and other fees.
According to CBP on-board staffing data, there is a shortage of
approximately 3,700 CBP officers at the ports of entry. Unfortunately,
the administration has not included sufficient funding in its fiscal
year 2020 budget request to address this significant staffing gap.
Instead, the administration's fiscal year 2020 budget requests only $28
million to fund the hiring of 171 new Customs and Border Protection
officers, 91 mission and operational support positions, and 5
agriculture specialists. According to CBP, these 267 new OFO employees
in the fiscal year 2020 budget request are designated to go to San
Luis, AZ, Blaine, Cincinnati, and Boston. CBP's limited OFO personnel
request is intended to test a ``Proof of Concept'' that if the OFO
allocations in its own Workload Staffing Model (WSM) at these 4 ports
of entry are fully met, then these ports should function without
excessive wait times, overtime, or other economic consequences of short
staffing.
While I am pleased that the administration included some new
funding for the hiring of critically-needed CBP officers, agriculture
specialists, and support staff, the fiscal year 2020 budget request for
this ``Proof of Concept'' experiment does not by any means meet CBP's
staffing needs. During post-shutdown negotiations earlier this year,
the House Majority proposed funding 1,000 CBP officer new hires, and
ultimately the fiscal year 2019 final funding agreement provided $58.7
million to hire 600 new CBP officers.
According to CBP's most recent analytic workload staffing models--
the fiscal year 2018 CBP officer WSM, the fiscal year 2018 Agriculture
Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM), and the fiscal year 2017 Resource
Optimization Model (ROM) for Trade Positions--an additional 2,516 CBP
officers, 721 agriculture specialists, and at least 150 trade
operations specialists need to be funded and hired in order to meet
current staffing needs at the U.S. ports of entry.
CBP employees at the ports of entry are not only the first line of
defense for illegal trade and travel enforcement, but their role of
facilitating legal trade and travel is a significant economic driver
for private-sector jobs and economic growth. According to CBP, for
every 1,000 CBP officers hired there is an increase in the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of $2 billion; $642 million in opportunity costs
are saved (the amount of time that a traveler could be using for
purposes other than waiting in line, such as working or enjoying
leisure activities); and 33,148 annual jobs are added. If CBP filled
the 3,700 needed new positions, the impact could be as high as a $7.4
billion increase in GDP; a $2.38 billion savings in opportunity costs;
and the creation of 122,650 new private-sector jobs.
In addition, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the
volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than tripled in the
past 25 years. Long wait times lead to delays and travel time
uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation costs.
According to the Department of Commerce, border delays result in losses
to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to decreases in spending by
companies, suppliers, and consumers. JEC research finds border delays
cost the U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8 billion each year.
cbp officer overtime
Due to the on-going current staffing shortage of 3,700 CBP
officers, CBP officers Nation-wide are working excessive overtime to
maintain basic port staffing. Currently, CBP officer overtime pay is
funded 100 percent through user fees and is statutorily capped at
$45,000 per year. All CBP officers are aware that overtime assignments
are an aspect of their jobs. However, long periods of overtime hours
can severely disrupt an officer's family life, morale, and ultimately
their job performance protecting our Nation.
In addition, since CBP officers are required to regularly work
overtime, many of these individual officers are hitting the overtime
cap very early in the fiscal year. This leaves no overtime funding
available for peak season travel, resulting in critical staffing
shortages in the third and fourth quarter of the fiscal year that
usually coincide with holiday travel at the ports.
At many ports, CBP has granted overtime exemptions to over one-half
of the workforce to allow managers to assign overtime to officers that
have already reached the statutory overtime cap, but cap waivers only
force CBP officers already working long daily shifts to continue
working these shifts for more days. Officers are required to come in
hours before their regular shifts, to stay an indeterminate number of
hours after their shifts (on the same day) and are compelled to come in
for more overtime hours on their regular days off as well. Both
involuntary overtime--resulting in 12- to 16-hour shifts, day after
day, for months on end--and involuntary work assignments far from home,
significantly disrupt CBP officers' family life and erode morale. As
NTEU has repeatedly stated, this is not a long-term solution for
staffing shortages at the ports and has gone on for far too long.
temporary duty assignments at southwest land ports of entry
Due to CBP's on-going staffing shortage, since 2015, CBP has been
diverting hundreds of CBP officers from other air, sea, and land ports
to severely short-staffed Southwest land ports for 90-day Temporary
Duty Assignments (TDYs).
This past month, CBP announced a new round of CBP officer TDYs--
possibly exceeding 2,000--to be voluntarily reassigned not to ports,
but to Border Patrol sectors across the Southwest Border. This
redeployment is making the existing problems at the ports even worse
and resulting in hours-long delays, since most of the CBP officers
being redeployed are from the Nation's most short-staffed land ports on
our Southern Border.
If these reassigmnents continue, they could lead to even more
extensive staffing shortages at other critical land ports of entry on
the Southern and Northern Borders, and at international air and
seaports. Reduced personnel numbers at other ports threatens CBP' s
capacity to carry out critical immigration, trade, and health-related
inspections and to interdict illegal drug shipments.
According to a newly-released study ``The Economic Costs of the
U.S.-Mexico Slowdown,'' by the Perryman Group that was commissioned by
IBC Bank in conjunction with the Texas Association of Business, Texas
Border Coalition, Texas Business Leadership Council and the Border
Trade Alliance, this most recent TDY has resulted in a significant
slowdown at the U.S.-Mexico border and led to substantial economic
harms. Millions of trucks cross the Southern Border every year, and
delays at the border cause logistical problems. The current slowing on
the U.S.-Mexico border is reducing efficiency and costing the U.S.
economy billions in output and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The study further states that if the diversion of CBP officers from
the Southwest Border international land ports continues, the State of
Texas alone could lose more than $32 billion in gross domestic product
in just over 3 months. If there is a one-third reduction in trade
between the United States and Mexico over a 3-month period, the cost to
the U.S. economy would be over ``$69 billion in gross product and
620,236 job-years (when multiplier effects are considered). Almost half
of these losses occur in Texas.''
NTEU urges Congress to require CBP to allocate personnel and
resources appropriately to ensure timely processing of people at all
ports of entry and better manage the changing demographic flows at our
Southern Border. To end all of these TDYs, CBP must fill existing CBP
officer vacancies and fund the hiring of the additional CBP officers
called for in CBP's own WSM. Without addressing the 3,700-CBP officer
shortfall, allocating adequate staffing at all ports will remain a
challenge.
opioid interdiction
CBP OFO is the premier component at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) tasked with stemming the Nation's opioid epidemic--a
crisis that is getting worse. According to a May 2018 report released
by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Minority titled Combatting the Opioid Epidemic: Intercepting Illicit
Opioids at Ports of Entry, ``between 2013 and 2017, approximately
25,405 pounds, or 88 percent of all opioids seized by CBP, were seized
at ports of entry. The amount of fentanyl seized at the ports of entry
increased by 159 percent from 459 pounds in 2016 to 1,189 pounds in
2017.''
On January 26, 2019, CBP OFO made their biggest fentanyl seizure
ever, capturing nearly 254 pounds of the deadly synthetic opioid at the
Nogales port of entry. According to the Drug Enforcement
Administration, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal
dose. From the January 26 seizure alone, it is estimated that CBP
officers seized enough fentanyl to kill 57 million people. That's more
than the combined population of the States of Illinois, New York, and
Pennsylvania. The street value for the fentanyl was over $102 million.
CBP officers also seized an additional 2.2 pounds of fentanyl pills and
a large cache of methamphetamine.
The majority of fentanyl is manufactured in other countries such as
China, and is smuggled primarily through the ports of entry along the
Southwest Border and through international mail and Private Express
Carrier Facilities, e.g. FedEx and UPS. Over the past 5 years, CBP has
seen a nearly 50 percent increase in express consignment shipments from
76 million to 110 million express bills and a 200 percent increase in
international mail shipments from approximately 150 million to more
than 500 million. Yet, according to CBP, over the last 3 years, there
were only 181 CBP employees assigned to the 5 Postal Service
International Service Centers and 208 CBP employees assigned to the
Private Express Carrier Facilities. NTEU's funding request would allow
for increases in CBP OFO staffing at these facilities.
Noting the positive impact of hiring additional CBP officers, it is
troubling that the President's 2017 Border Security Executive Order and
his subsequent budget request did not ask for 1 additional CBP officer
new hire. In 2017, CBP officers at the ports of entry recorded over
216,370 apprehensions and seized over 444,000 pounds of illegal drugs,
and over $96 million in illicit currency, while processing over 390
million travelers and $2.2 trillion in imports through the ports.
Imagine what they could do with adequate staffing and resources.
agriculture specialist staffing
CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture
inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases
at ports of entry. Agricultural specialists provide a critical role in
both trade and travel safety and prevent the introduction of harmful
exotic plant pests and foreign animal diseases, as well as potential
ag/bio-terrorism into the United States. All ports of entry are
currently understaffed relative to mission goals and workload
requirements of agricultural specialists. For years, NTEU has
championed the CBP agriculture specialists' Agriculture Quality
Inspection (AQI) mission within the agency and fought for increased
staffing to fulfill that mission. The U.S. agriculture sector is a
crucial component of the American economy, generating over $1 trillion
in annual economic activity. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, foreign pests and diseases cost the American economy tens
of billions of dollars annually.
Because of CBP's key mission to protect the Nation's agriculture
from pests and disease, NTEU urges the committee to authorize the
hiring of these 721 CBP agriculture specialists identified by CBP's
AgRAM to address this critical staffing shortage that threatens the
U.S. agriculture sector.
cbp trade operations staffing
In addition to safeguarding our Nation's borders and ports, CBP is
tasked with regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP
employees at the ports of entry are critical in protecting our Nation's
economic growth and security. For every dollar invested in CBP trade
personnel, we return $87 to the U.S. economy, either through lowering
the costs of trade, ensuring a level playing field for domestic
industry or protecting innovative intellectual property. Since CBP was
established in March 2003, however, there has been no increase in non-
uniformed CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel. Additionally,
CBP trade operations staffing has fallen below the statutory floor set
forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and stipulated in the fiscal
year 2017 CBP Resource Optimization Model for Trade Positions. NTEU
strongly supports funding for 140 new hires at the CBP Office of Trade
through direct appropriations to support Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act implementation.
cbp funding sources
CBP collects Customs User Fees (CUFs), including those under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), to
recover certain costs incurred for processing air and sea passengers
and various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers
and shipments. The source of these user fees are commercial vessels,
commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air
passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail,
customs brokers, and barge/bulk carriers.
COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are
designated by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as
100 percent of inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial
vehicle inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 24,576 CBP
officers currently funded, Customs User Fees (CUFs) fund 3,825 full-
time equivalent (FTEs) CBP officers. Further, Immigration Inspection
User Fees (IUF) fund 4,179 CBPO FTEs. CUF and IUF user fees fund 8,004
CBPO FTEs or one-third of the entire CBP workforce at the ports of
entry.
NTEU strongly opposes any diversion of CUFs. Any increases to the
CUF Account should be properly used for much-needed CBP staffing and
not diverted to unrelated projects. Unfortunately, while section 52202
of the FAST ACT indexed CUFs to inflation, it diverted this funding
from CBP to pay for unrelated infrastructure projects. Indexing COBRA
CUFs to inflation would have raised $1.4 billion over 10 years--a
potential $140 million per year funding stream to help pay for the
hiring of additional CBP officers to perform CBP's border security, law
enforcement, and trade and travel facilitation missions. Diverting
these funds has cost CBP funding to hire over 900 new CBP officers per
year since the FAST Act went into effect. These new hires would have
significantly alleviated the current CBP officer staffing shortage.
In order to find alternative sources of funding to address serious
staffing shortages, CBP received authorization for and has entered into
Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with the private sector, as well
as with State and local governmental entities. These stakeholders, who
are already paying CUFs and IUFs for CBP OFO employee positions and
overtime, reimburse CBP for additional inspection services, including
overtime pay and the hiring of new CBP officer and agriculture
specialist personnel that in the past have been paid for entirely by
user fees or appropriated funding. According to CBP, since the program
began in 2013, CBP has entered into agreements with over 149
stakeholders covering 111 U.S. ports of entry, providing more than
467,000 additional processing hours for incoming commercial and cargo
traffic.
NTEU believes that the RSA program is a Band-Aid approach and
cannot replace the need for Congress to either appropriate new funding
or authorize an increase in customs and immigration user fees to
adequately address CBP staffing needs at the ports.
RSAs simply cannot replace the need for an increase in CBP
appropriated or user fee funding--and make CBP a ``pay to play''
agency. NTEU also remains concerned with CBP's new Preclearance
expansion program that also relies heavily on ``pay to play.'' Further,
NTEU believes that the use of RSAs to fund CBP staffing shortages
raises significant equity issues between larger and/or wealthier ports
and smaller ports.
nteu recommendations
To address CBP's workforce challenges, it is clearly in the
Nation's economic and security interest for Congress to authorize and
fund an increase in the number of CBP officers, CBP agriculture
specialists, and other CBP employees.
In order to achieve the long-term goal of securing the proper
staffing at CBP and end disruptive TDYs and excessive involuntary
overtime shifts, NTEU recommends that Congress take the following
actions:
Support funding for 600 new CBP officers in fiscal year 2020
DHS Appropriations;
Support funding for 721 new CBP agriculture specialists, as
well as additional trade operations specialists and other OFO
support staff;
Address the polygraph process to mitigate excessive (60
percent) applicant polygraph failures;
Fully fund and utilize recruitment and retention awards, and
other incentives; and
Restore cuts in mission support personnel that will free CBP
officers from performing administrative duties such as payroll
processing, data entry, and human resources to increase the
numbers available for trade and travel security and
facilitation.
Congress should also redirect the increase in customs user fees in
the FAST Act from offsetting transportation spending to its original
purpose of providing funding for CBP officer staffing and overtime, and
oppose any legislation to divert additional fees collected to other
uses or projects.
Shutdowns, pay freezes, and proposed cuts to benefits, rights, and
protections do nothing to help with recruitment and retention of CBP
officers. The employees I represent are frustrated and their morale is
indeed low. These employees work hard and care deeply about their jobs
and their country. These men and women are deserving of more staffing
and resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
NTEU is not alone in seeking increased funding to hire new CBP
officers at the ports. A diverse group of business, industry, and union
leaders have joined forces in support of legislation and funding to
hire more Customs and Border Protection personnel and alleviate
staffing shortages at the Nation's ports of entry. The coalition--which
includes leading voices from various shipping, tourism, travel, trade,
law enforcement, and employee groups--sent the attached letter urging
House appropriators to provide the funding necessary to hire at least
600 new CBP officers annually (see Exhibit A.)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record.
EXHIBIT A
May 1, 2019.
The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Chuck Fleischmann,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
Dear Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann: As
stakeholders interested in the facilitation activities of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) at land, sea, and air ports-of-entry around the
globe, we urge you to provide additional appropriations in fiscal year
2020 for at least 600 new CBP officers over the current staffing level
to help the agency meet its current and future staffing needs.
With CBP's on-board data and most recent workload staffing model
showing a shortage of over 3,700 CBP officers, current staffing levels
fail to address the growing demands of travel and trade at our ports-
of-entry. Providing additional CBP officers at this time of growing
volumes of international passengers and cargo will both reduce lengthy
wait times and facilitate new economic opportunities in communities
throughout the United States.
Increasing CBP officer staffing is an economic driver for the U.S.
economy. According to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), ``every day
1.1 million people and $5.9 billion in goods legally enter and exit
through the ports of entry.'' CBP estimates that the annual hiring of
an additional 600 CBP officers at the ports-of-entry could increase
yearly economic activity by over $1 billion and result in the addition
of over 17,000 new jobs.
While the volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than
tripled in the past 25 years, CBP staffing has not kept pace with
demand. Long wait times at our ports-of-entry lead to travel delays and
uncertainty, which can increase supply chain costs and cause passengers
to miss their connections. According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, border delays result in losses to output, wages, jobs, and
tax revenue due to decreases in spending by companies, suppliers, and
consumers. The travel industry estimates long CBP wait times discourage
international visitors, who spend an average of $4,200 per visit, from
traveling to the United States. JEC research also finds border delays
cost the U.S. economy upwards of $5 billion each year.
We share your commitment to ensuring that America's borders remain
safe, secure, and efficient for all users, while enhancing our global
competitiveness through the facilitation of legitimate travel and
trade. Therefore, we request at least 600 new CBP officers in fiscal
year 2020 to continue building on the staffing advances made in recent
years.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Airports Council International--North America
American Association of Port Authorities
National Treasury Employees Union
American Association of Airport Executives
Borderplex Alliance
Border Trade Alliance
Cargo Airline Association
Cruise Lines International Association
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Fresh Produce Association of the Americas
Global Business Travel Association
National Association of Waterfront Employers
New York Shipping Association
United States Maritime Alliance
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Travel Association
West Gulf Maritime Association.
______
Statement of Vicki B. Gaubeca, Director, Southern Border Communities
Coalition
May 3, 2019
Please accept my testimony on behalf of the Southern Border
Communities Coalition, a network that brings together organizations
from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas, to ensure that
border enforcement policies and practices are accountable and fair,
respect human dignity and human rights, and prevent the loss of life in
the region. The Southern Border region is one of the most diverse,
economically vibrant, and safest areas of the country, home to about 15
million people. It is a place of encounter, hope, and opportunity, not
confrontation and hate. Yet for decades, policy makers have pushed to
militarize the Southern Border region with policies and funding that
has not made us safer, but instead has jeopardized the rights and
quality of life of those who live, work, and travel through the
borderlands. These harms have been deeply exacerbated by this
administration's reckless, unaccountable border militarization,
enforcement, and detention operations that have terrorized border and
immigrant communities, torn-apart families, and treated those seeking
protection at our Southern Border with cruelty. As this committee
considers the fiscal year 2020 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
appropriations, we urge you to reject this administration's requests to
expand Trump's bloated border militarization, deportation, and
detention regime by reducing funding for Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Border communities have already endured the construction of 700
miles of walls built in our towns, neighborhoods, and even backyards.
And regardless of whether the structures are called border walls,
fences, levee walls, or barriers--and made of concrete, steel, or some
other material--the reality is the same. Walls and the associated
hyper-militarization of the border don't make us safer or address the
root causes that motivate individuals to make the trek to our border.
Instead, walls harm those who call the Southern Border region home,
contribute to the on-going humanitarian crisis of migrant deaths,
endanger wildlife and the environment, strip property owners of their
lands, and reflect a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. These harmful
consequences will be felt long after this administration has left
because once constructed, border walls cause permanent harms that
cannot be remedied.
The last Congress alone provided President Trump with roughly $3
billion in border wall funding. President Trump's fiscal year 2020
budget proposes $5 billion for 200 additional miles of border wall--
this is in addition to the over $8 billion that this administration
seeks to siphon from the Department of Defense budget for more border
wall using its emergency powers. We strongly urge you to reject any
funding for President Trump's wall in the fiscal year 2020 DHS
appropriations bill--and ensure measures are in place to prevent
President Trump from circumventing Congress and seizing funds from
other agencies to pay for more wall.
In addition, we urge you to reject the administration's request for
additional funding for Border Patrol agents. For years, the Border
Patrol's budget has skyrocketed, although the agency has operated with
little or no oversight, accountability, or transparency, leading to
abuses and deaths across our Nation's borders. The agency has a
troubled track record of excessive force, racial profiling, sexual
assault, and misconduct. During this administration, agents have
separated families, tear-gassed asylum seekers, terrorized our
children, and acted as a deportation force in border communities.
Much ado has been made that there is a crisis in Southern Border
communities to justify further more wasteful, damaging wall
construction and other harmful, anti-immigrant policies. However, the
only crisis we see in border communities is one stemming from
excessive, unchecked militarization--and a humanitarian challenge of
people fleeing violence and seeking refuge in a country that has
historically been a beacon for refugees from throughout the world. The
White House has used existing funds to try to shut down our current
asylum system, cutoff access at ports of entry and lock up families and
children. In the face of these deeply misguided policies, border
communities have boldly stepped up to warmly greet and assist those who
arrive to our Southern Border seeking protection.
The bottom line is that border communities do not want more wall
and unchecked militarization, we want our taxpayer dollars dedicated to
critical programs that make our communities strong and vibrant such as
investments in education, health care, green infrastructure, and
housing. We urge Members of Congress to view the budget as a moral
document that reflects our priorities and values as a Nation. Congress
must invest in programs and agencies that uphold our shared values of
dignity and justice and divest from programs and agencies that flout
those values at every opportunity. It is unacceptable to claim support
for border and immigrant communities while continuing to fund the
border wall and grow the already inflated budgets for ICE and CBP. We
call on Congress to rise to the occasion and revitalize, not
militarize, our communities and reject Trump's dangerous budget request
for DHS in 2020 with significant funding cuts for CBP and ICE.
______
Statement of the Church World Service
May 9, 2019
As a 73-year-old humanitarian organization representing 37
Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions, and 23 refugee
resettlement offices across 17 States, Church World Service urges
Congress to cut funding for immigration detention, deportation, and
border militarization and to demand accountability over the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). We urge Congress to reduce funding for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) that has fueled family separation and the immoral and
illegal treatment of asylum seekers and other immigrants.
CWS urges the administration to rescind its April 2018 information-
sharing agreement between DHS and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) that turns HHS into an immigration enforcement agency
and prolongs family separation. The agreement ``requires HHS to share
the immigration status of potential sponsors and other adults in their
households with DHS to facilitate HHS's background checks.'' The
population of detained unaccompanied children ballooned, and although
HHS announced that it would stop requiring fingerprints from all
household members of sponsors, ORR continues to share information about
all potential sponsors with DHS, needlessly prolonging child detention.
CWS is strongly opposed to any proposal that would undermine Flores
protections or increase family incarceration, which is plagued with
systemic abuse and inadequate access to medical care. These conditions
are unacceptable, especially for children, pregnant and nursing
mothers, and individuals with serious medical conditions. The American
Association of Pediatrics has found that family detention facilities do
not meet basic standards for children and ``no child should be in
detention centers or separated from parents.'' CWS urges Congress to
reject any proposal that would expand family detention or violate the
Flores agreement's long-standing consensus that children should not be
detained for longer than 20 days.
CWS is equally troubled by proposals to weaken or eliminate
provisions in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
(TVPRA), which provides important procedural protections for
unaccompanied children in order to accurately determine if they are
eligible for relief as victims of trafficking or persecution. Weakening
existing legal protections, especially for children, undermines the
United States' moral authority as a leader in combating human
trafficking and increases vulnerabilities for trafficking victims by
curtailing access to due process, legal representation, and child-
appropriate services.
Congress and the administration should utilize community-based,
least-restrictive alternatives to detention (ATDs) that connect
individuals with family members, faith-based hospitality communities,
and local services to help them navigate the legal system. For example,
the Family Case Management Program (FCMP) is effective and less
expensive than detention, allowing people to be released, connecting
them with legal counsel, providing case supervision, and helping with
child care. The program is 99 percent effective at having families show
up for check-ins and court appearances and also ensures departure from
the United States for those who are not granted protection.
Immigration policies that repeatedly result in death do not make us
secure. The death of two children in CBP custody pointedly highlights
the urgent need for shifts in policy. Border crossings have declined to
near-record levels; the uptick in arrivals this year stems from
families fleeing violence, persecution, and desperation from El
Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Militarizing the border and
separating families undermine our moral and legal obligations and are
ineffective, as families continue to seek safety. The United States can
humanely process all families and individuals who arrive at our borders
seeking protection.
CWS strongly opposes sending troops to the border and any other
policy that further militarizes our border. Border communities are some
of the safest in the country. The most recent data available shows each
Border Patrol agent along the Southwest Border apprehended on average
about 3 migrants per month, far below fiscal year 2000 levels
(approximately 16 migrants per month). With CBP's all-time high funding
for border security procurement and development alone, legislators
should be looking for ways to rein in CBP's draconian enforcement
efforts.
The administration has also imposed multiple bans and a series of
changes to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) that have
prolonged family separation and left tens of thousands of vulnerable
refugees in limbo. It has decreased the number of refugees that can be
resettled in the United States to a record low 30,000 in fiscal year
2019, after resettling less than half of last year's then-historic low
of 45,000. Resettlement is the last resort for men, women, and children
who cannot return to their home countries and cannot rebuild their
lives in the country where they first fled. Resettlement is the already
the most difficult way to enter the United States, but these bans,
alongside many policy changes, have denied safety to tens of thousands
of bona fide refugees and have reversed decades of U.S. leadership on
refugee protection. We urge Congress to hold the administration
accountable to meeting its fiscal year 2019 refugee admissions goal and
rebuilding the resettlement program, returning the program to historic
norms.
As a faith-based organization, we urge Congress to hold the
administration respecting the humanity and dignity of all asylum
seekers, unaccompanied children, and others seeking protection.
Miss Rice. Without objection, the subcommittee record shall
be kept open for 10 days.
Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Robert E. Perez
Question 1. The administration's emergency supplemental request
includes $23 million to train Border Patrol agents to make credible
fear determinations.
How does Border Patrol's mission to ``detect and prevent the
illegal entry of aliens into the United States'' conform with an asylum
officer's duty to conduct a non-adversarial credible fear interview?
Under what authority is this pilot being pursued?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Where will Border Patrol agents conduct credible fear
interviews, in the field or at ports of entry?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. When and for how long will Border Patrol agents be
conducting credible fear interviews? How many will be tasked with this
new responsibility? Will they only conduct credible fear interviews or
is this in addition to their daily work?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. What training will they receive prior to conducting
credible fear interviews? Will other CBP personnel be tasked with
carrying out other asylum officer functions?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. How does the credible fear interview process training
provided to Border Patrol agents differ from training that asylum
officers undergo?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. What oversight will USCIS provide for credible fear
interview decisions made by these new interviewers to ensure
consistency in decision making alongside other asylum officers?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
migrant protection protocols
Question 7. The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) are currently
only being carried out in San Diego, Calexico, and El Paso. What is
CBP's role in advising the Department before MPP is put into effect at
other locations along the border? What kind of metrics are required to
monitor or review prior to expanding the program to other locations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. When MPP first began, serious flaws were noted in the
execution of the first cases. Migrants were not asked if they feared
being returned to Mexico, were given false hearing dates, and did not
have the opportunity to talk to attorneys before the hearing date. What
has been done to address these issues? Do these problems persist?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. There have been multiple media reports of migrants
being threatened in Mexico while awaiting their court date in the
United States. What are CBP and USCIS doing to ensure that those who
express fear of returning to Mexico are not returned?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. How many people have been allowed to stay in the
United States due to fear of returning to Mexico under MPP?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
rapid dna
Question 11. The Department recently concluded a limited pilot
program to use rapid DNA tests to check the authenticity of the parent-
child relationship. What is the total cost of implementing this pilot
program, including any technology to analyze the DNA, cost of capturing
the DNA, and training of officials involved?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
fraudulent families
Question 12. On what basis is a family categorized as
``fraudulent?'' How many fraudulent parental relationships have been
documented by CBP in the last 5 fiscal years? In how many of these
cases were the children related to the adult but a different
relationship or age that what was claimed? How many cases were referred
to the Department of Justice for possible human trafficking charges?
How many children were granted a U or T visa certification by ICE?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
cbp staffing
Question 13. In April, CBP announced a 5 percent retention bonus
for GS-12 and GS-13 Border Patrol agents that will be paid in 4
quarterly payments over the course of 1 year. Why did CBP decide to
extend this only to Border Patrol agents and not CBP officers at ports
of entry or AMO personnel? Does CBP have any plans to extend the bonus
to CBP officers? Why were only 2 pay grades included? What is the
attrition rate in these 2 grades versus lower grade agents?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 14. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget requests $28
million to fund the hiring of 171 new customs and border protection
officers, 91 mission and operational support positions, and 5
agriculture specialists. These 267 new Office of Field Operations (OFO)
employees in the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request are
designated to go to San Luis, AZ, Blaine, Cincinnati, and Boston to
test a ``Proof of Concept.'' With the current shortage of over 3,700
CBP officers and 721 CBP agriculture specialists according to CBP's own
WSM, why is the fiscal year 2020 CBP OFO staffing request limited to
just this ``Proof of Concept'' experiment?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 15. Why does the fiscal year 2020 budget request not
include funding for at least 600 CBP officers new hires, as does the
final fiscal year 2019 DHS funding deal, to relieve OFO staffing
shortages at the most severely short-staffed ports?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 16. What is CBP's plan to fund and hire the 3,700
additional CBP officers to end the OFO staffing shortage that has
necessitated excessive CBP officer overtime and TDYs since 2015?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 17. Is there a ``comprehensive recruitment and retention
strategy'' for CBP personnel at the ports of entry as there apparently
is for U.S. Border Patrol?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
border patrol mass releases of families
Question 18. Earlier in April, this subcommittee heard from Bishop
Seitz of El Paso that the mass releases conducted by Border Patrol
often occurred without prior coordination with local organizations and
migrant families did not seem to have the proper paperwork or an ICE
check-in appointment in their destination city. Does CBP have any plans
to improve coordination with local organizations on releases of
families? Has ICE offered any training to CBP to improve their
processes in releasing families?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Robert E. Perez
Question 1. Mr. Perez, I would like to give you the opportunity to
clarify the back and forth on the NII system funding today.
Please clarify for the committee the differences between requested
and appropriated funds for the program, and CBP's priorities and vision
for the NII program moving forward.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What percentage of U.S. ports of entry currently have
some form of an NII system?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Does the Department use a risk-based approach when
prioritizing where NII technology is needed? And if so, can you share a
list with the committee of your top 10 priorities for
recapitalization?''
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Matthew T. Albence
Question 1. The proposed emergency supplemental includes $61
million to cover a payroll shortfall for ICE personnel. Why is there a
$61 million shortfall?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. In February, the enacted Fiscal Year 2019 Consolidated
Appropriations Act included funding for 40,520 beds on average per day,
requiring ICE to bring down the number of beds by the end of the fiscal
year by almost 10,000 from current average daily populations. What is
ICE doing to comply with the enacted fiscal year 2019 appropriations
law requiring a draw down to 40,520 beds by the end of fiscal year
2019?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
alternatives to detention (atd)
Question 3. Please explain your current policy on Alternatives to
Detention (ATD). How do you select who gets ATD? Were alternatives,
including pilot projects, considered?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Earlier this month, Attorney General Barr made the
decision that immigration judges can no longer release detained
immigrants through bond hearings. As a result, the only way for an
immigrant to be released from detention is to seek parole by ICE. Is
ICE planning any changes to its parole policy?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. Even though a Federal court has enjoined ICE from a
blanket ``no parole'' policy, there are 5 ICE offices that have issued
virtually no parole since the start of the Trump administration: El
Paso, Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia. How many paroles
have been issued a year by each office for each of the last 5 years?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Matthew T. Albence
Question 1. Mr. Albence, I understand that starting in September
2018, the immigration courts in 10 cities across the country began
prioritizing family unit cases.
In which cities has this taken place?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Can you tell us how many cases have been on the docket,
how many removals ordered, how many aliens were granted relief, and how
many family units failed to appear for their hearings and were ordered
removed in absentia?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Mr. Albence, during your testimony, you mentioned that
increasing the number of immigration judges without a corresponding
increase in Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys will
make the immigration court ``bottleneck worse.''
Can you extrapolate on this issue? How does this contribute to the
bottleneck?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Can you provide for the committee how many immigration
judges have been funded and/or requested over the past 3 fiscal years
and how many corresponding OPLA attorneys were also funded/requested?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. Additionally, do you have any staffing models that show
the current and/or future needs of OPLA attorneys based on the
increases in immigration judges?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. Mr. Albence, in your testimony, you stated that over
the past 3 weeks, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) identified 65
fraudulent families out of 256 potential fraudulent families.
Is that from cases that CBP has identified to ICE HSI?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. How many additional cases have been identified over the
past year? Please provide the consequences of those identified cases as
well.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. What more needs to be done by Congress to combat this
problem?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. Does HSI incorporate DNA testing into this fraud
detection process? If so, how?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. Can you speak to the importance of DNA testing in
combating human smuggling and trafficking of minors at the border?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 11. Mr. Albence, in your testimony, you described the work
that ICE attaches are doing with fusion centers in Central America to
further border security.
Can you please describe these relationships in more detail?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 12. What more should we be doing south of the border to
combat transnational criminal organizations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13. Additionally, how does the BITMAP program align with
these efforts?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 14. What more can Congress do to strengthen these programs
and target transnational criminal organizations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Tracy Renaud
asylum processing
Question 1a. A recent media report details that under the Migrant
Protection Protocols (MPP), asylum officers are being forced to sign
the form saying the migrant wasn't likely to be persecuted in Mexico,
even if the asylum office believed the migrant's life could be in
danger if returned there.
Are you aware of concerns about MPP that asylum officers have
raised with their union? How many officers have raised concerns about
MPP?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. When an asylum officer decides the asylum seeker
should not be returned to Mexico, how many of these decisions are
reviewed and overturned by a Supervisory Asylum Officer?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1c. When an asylum officer decides the asylum seeker
should be returned to Mexico, how many of these decisions are reviewed
and overturned?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. USCIS recently issued new guidelines to asylum officers
on adjudicating credible fear claims directing them to be more
confrontational and focus on discrepancies between testimony instead of
the testimony itself. How are you planning to document these
discrepancies? How much time is USCIS expecting for asylum officers to
take to deconflict discrepancies and document the deconflictions?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
notices to appear (ntas)
Question 3a. In June 2018, USCIS announced a new policy that
dramatically expands the circumstances under which the agency may place
applicants and petitioners into deportation proceedings through the
issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs).
How many NTAs has USCIS issued to date as a result of this policy?
Will you provide this information broken down by USCIS office and
associated application type?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. How many NTAs did USCIS issue for each of the 2 years
prior to this policy going into effect?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. Has USCIS made any estimates concerning the overall
number of NTAs it anticipates issuing as a result of this policy? If
so, please provide those estimates.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Is USCIS also going to issue NTAs to survivors of
domestic abuse and human trafficking after their applications for T
visas, U visas, or Violence Against Women Act protections, have been
denied?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
case processing delays
Question 5. According to one study USCIS case processing delays
have increased 46 percent over the last 2 fiscal years and at the end
of fiscal year 2017, USCIS' net backlog exceeded 2.3 million delayed
cases. Has USCIS conducted any assessments of all factors, including
its own policies and practices, that may be affecting its case backlog?
If so, what are your findings?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. USCIS data indicates that ``case completions per hour''
have declined for 81 percent of application types since fiscal year
2016. What accounts for these declines? Given USCIS's acknowledgement
that this trend limits the agency's ability to reduce the backlog, what
actions are USCIS taking to address falling completion rates?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2019, USCIS was 472
employees short of authorized staffing levels for the Asylum Program
Office. Given the increase in asylum cases, what are you doing to
increase the number of staff at the Asylum Program Office to process
applications more quickly?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. Of your net backlog of 2.5 million cases how many of
these are asylum cases? How are you reprioritizing resources to reduce
the number of cases in the backlog?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
uscis-ice deportation coordination
Question 9. USCIS has been increasingly coordinating with ICE to
arrest individuals appearing before USCIS for immigration interviews.
Given the backlogs, processing delays, and increased interviews at
field offices, why is USCIS using its resources in this manner?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. To what extent has this partnership between USCIS and
ICE been memorialized in writing? Is there a memo or MOU that that lays
out procedures for coordinating the arrest of people attending an USCIS
interview?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 11. To what extent is USCIS headquarters directing field
offices to use interviews or other actions related to an immigration
application as a way for ICE to arrest individuals? Is there a memo
directing the use of this practice?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
fraud detection
Question 12. In fiscal year 2018, USCIS' Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate conducted 427 target site visits of
companies in fiscal year 2018. Of those 427 site visits, how many sites
were found to have fraud? How many were prosecuted?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
international offices
Question 13a. The administration announced it would be closing all
USCIS international offices. The administration has said it will shift
those functions to the State Department who will charge USCIS a fee for
completing these services.
International offices have a unique case management system called
the Case and Activity Management for International Offices (CAMINO).
Will the State Department assume custody of this system? If not, what
will happen to the personal information of U.S. citizens, including
biometric data, in CAMINO?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13b. As a result of the proposed closure of international
operations, will USCIS transfer or delegate any of its functions to
ICE?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13c. To what extent has DHS or USCIS conducted a cost-
benefit analysis or studied the potential impact of international
office closures on the State Department, military personnel, and
international services like international adoptions? Please provide a
copy of any analysis.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13d. Will the closure of overseas offices result in the
loss of full-time employment jobs? If so, how many? If there is no
loss, how will staff be reassigned?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
special immigrant visas (siv)
Question 14. Arrivals of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) for Afghans
for the first few months of fiscal year 2019 show that the United
States is not on track to resettling the number of Afghan SIVs planned
for this year. What is being done to ensure Afghans SIVs continue to be
processed, especially since they have not been subject to the same
pauses and additional vetting procedures that apply to other countries
and refugees generally?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 15. U.S.-affiliated Iraqis (Iraqi P-2s) have provided
critical services to U.S. missions abroad and now face persecution as a
result. Conservative estimates suggest there are tens of thousands of
Iraqis with close affiliations to the U.S. Government awaiting
interviews to have their resettlement cases processed. What is being
done to increase the number of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis who arrive this
year and next?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
refugee resettlement
Question 16. My understanding is that Security Advisory Opinion
(SAO) processing delays are in part responsible for the refugee
admission rate for fiscal year 2018 being well below the 45,000 refugee
ceiling. This year, the United States appears to be on track to settle
less than 20,000 refugees.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 17. What is the average time it takes to process an SAO
and what is the current backlog of SAOs awaiting determination?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 18. Given the intensive scrutiny refugees already face,
what additional security benefit do these changes add?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 19. How can we improve the U.S. refugee resettlement
program without decreasing the amount we resettle?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.