[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020
----------
Serial No. 116-85
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-554 WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRIS HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair
J. LUIS CORREA, California KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair, a member of Congress from the
State of California, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship.................................................... 1
The Honorable Ken Buck, Ranking Member, a member of Congress from
the State of Colorado, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship.................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Joseph Edlow, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Panel 2
Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, American Immigration Lawyers Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 71
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
Michael Knowles, President, American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1924 AFL-CIO
Oral Testimony................................................. 86
Prepared Statement............................................. 88
Doug Rand, Senior Fellow, Director, Technology and Innovation
Initiative, Federation of American Scientists
Oral Testimony................................................. 93
Prepared Statement............................................. 95
Supplemental Statement......................................... 238
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies, and Instructor for Senior Law Enforcement
Officers, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety,
Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 257
Prepared Statement............................................. 259
LETTER, MATERIAL, ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
A memo for the record ``Remote Naturalization Oaths are Legally
Permissible,'' by Ethan Nasr and Peggy Gleason, submitted by
the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a member of Congress from the
State of California, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship.................................................... 24
Statement for the Record by Pamela Roberts, Citizenship and
Family Unification Staff Attorney, HIAS Pennsylvania, submitted
by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a member of Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship.................................................... 46
Statement for the Record by American Immigration Council,
submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a member of
Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship.................................... 52
Statements for the Record submitted the Honorable Zoe Lofgren,
Chair, a member of Congress from the State of California,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
1. American Friends Service Committee....................... 278
2. Statement for the Record from American Immigration
Council.................................................... 281
3. Statement for the Record from Asian Americans Advancing
Justice (AAJC)............................................. 288
4. Statement for the Record from Central American Resource
Center of San Francisco (CARECEN SF)....................... 295
5. Statement for the Record from Church World Service....... 296
6. Statement for the Record from Cities for Action.......... 297
7. Statement for the Record from Coalition for Humane
Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).................................. 299
8. Article for the record ``How the Trump Administration's
Xenophobic Ideology Created a Financial Crisis at USCIS,''
by Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director, DHS Watch.................. 302
9. Statement for the Record from Immigration Legal Resource
Center (ILRC).............................................. 314
10. Statement for the Record from Invest in the USA (IIUSA).. 320
11. Statement for the Record from Kids in Need of Defense
(KIND)..................................................... 336
12. Statement for the Record from Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service............................................ 339
13. Statement for the Record from National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)............. 346
14. Statement for the Record from National Immigration Law
Center..................................................... 351
15. Statement for the Record from National Partnership for
New Americans.............................................. 355
16. Statement for the Record from President's Alliance on
Higher Education and Immigration........................... 362
17. Statement for the Record from Yael Schacher, Senior U.S.
Advocate, Refugees International........................... 366
18. Statement for the Record from Sanaa Abrar, Advocacy
Director, United We Dream.................................. 369
19. Statement for the Record from Most Reverend Mario E.
Dorsonville, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington, U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops............................. 377
20. Statement for the Record from Marilyn Levy, Staff
Attorney, Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center..... 387
APPENDIX
Letter for the Record to Honorable Chad F. Wolf, Acting
Secretary, and Joseph Edlow, Deputy Director for Policy, from
Patrick Leahy, Vice Chairman, and Jon Tester, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, submitted by the Honorable
Sylvia R. Garcia, a member of Congress from the State of Texas,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.................... 392
Letter for the Record to the Honorable Speaker Pelosi, Leader
Schumer, Leader McConnell, and Leader McCarthy submitted by the
Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia, a member of Congress from the State
of Texas, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.......... 394
Letter for the Record to Honorable Chad F. Wolf, Acting
Secretary, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia, a
member of Congress from the State of Texas, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship.................................... 394
Statement for the Record from HJC Immigration and Citizenship
Subcommittee, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia, a
member of Congress from the State of Texas, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship.................................... 406
Statement for the record ``Protecting American Workers Through a
Stable and Reliable Seasonal Workforce'' from H-2B Workforce
Coalition, submitted by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a member of
Congress from the State of Ohio, Committee on the Judiciary.... 407
Statement for the Record from The American Association of
Physicists in Medicine (AAPM).................................. 408
Statement for the Record from Bart Klein, Attorney at Law........ 411
Item for the record In the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington by Bart Klein................... 413
Statement for the Record from Marketa Lindt, President, American
Immigration Lawyers Association................................ 466
Statement for the Record from Miriam Feldblum, Executive
Director, Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and
Immigration.................................................... 478
OVERSIGHT OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
----------
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jayapal, Correa, Garcia,
Neguse, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, Buck,
Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, and Steube.
Staff Present: Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma,
Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Anthony Valdez, Staff
Assistant; John Williams, Parliamentarian; Betsy Lawrence,
Counsel; David Shahoulian, Chief Counsel; Ami Shah, Counsel;
Alex Wang, Fellow; Andrea Loving, Minority Chief Counsel for
Immigration; and Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel.
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship will now come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Before we begin,
I'd like to remind Members again that we have established an
email address and distribution list that's dedicated to
circulating exhibits, motions, or other written material that
Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today.
If Members would like to submit materials, please send them
to the email address that has been previously distributed to
member offices, and we will circulate the materials to Members
and staff as quickly as we can.
I would also remind all Members that guidance from the
Office of Attending Physician states that face coverings are
required for all meetings in an enclosed space, such as the
Subcommittee hearings, and it's expected that individuals in
the room will wear a mask except when they are speaking.
I would now recognize myself for an opening statement. So,
today's hearing, the oversight of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, comes at a critical time. Since January
of 2017, we have watched this Administration strip away USCIS'
service-oriented mission and eradicate commonsense policies
that improve agency efficiency.
Instead, the Administration has implemented countless new
policies that add bureaucratic red tape, increase costs, and
restrict and reduce immigration channels. As is often the case
today, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed this mismanagement.
Now, absent funding from Congress, 13,400 USCIS employees
face the threat of furlough just 1 month from now. Agency
officials have proposed repaying appropriated funds by imposing
an additional 10 percent surcharge on all requests for
immigration benefits.
The Agency blames its financial crisis on reduced filings
during the COVID pandemic. While this reduction in filings
contributed to the crisis, USCIS was well on its way to
insolvency long before the COVID-19 hit our shores.
Last year, this Subcommittee held a hearing to examine how
restrictive policy and procedural changes led to record high
case backlogs and processing delays. Despite large staff
increases and decreases in immigration filings over the past 2
years, the backlog has only grown larger. The case backlog now
stands at a staggering 2.5 million cases.
USCIS frequently points to the growing case backlog as
justification to hire additional adjudicators. Since 2016, the
Agency has added about 5,000 new employees while hiking fees to
pay for the added salary cost.
We observed this only 8 months ago when USCIS proposed an
additional 21-percent fee increase, quote, to fund additional
staff and, quote, perform more national security betting. Yet,
in the same role, USCIS acknowledges that the additional staff
it plans to hire will not measurably improve processing times.
Now, USCIS has proposed a 10-percent surcharge on top of
the 21-percent surcharge proposed earlier to repay appropriated
funds. The Agency is forcing customers to not only shoulder the
cost of misguided management and policy choices but to pay even
more for slower services. This really is not acceptable.
Additionally, even as USCIS cites the drop in filings as
the cause of its troubles, the Administration continues to take
actions to restrict immigration further driving USCIS revenues
into the ground.
For example, on June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that
the Administration's rescission of DACA was unlawful. That
means the DACA program that existed before the President's
unlawful action was taken was reinstated. Just yesterday, DHS
issued a new memorandum announcing that it is reconsidering the
DACA program and shortening the permissible renewal period.
DHS also instructed USCIS to reject all initial DACA
applications. While the future of DACA remains uncertain, one
thing is clear: By holding new DACA applications at processing
facilities for at least the week prior to issuance of this new
memo, USCIS was directly violating the Supreme Court's
judgment.
Similarly, high demand for immigrant visas, it now seems
that thousands of visas will go unused this year. Chair Nadler
and I first raised this issue with the Administration in May,
but we receive no response. In fact, instead of advancing
priority dates to increase adjustment of status filings, the
Administration appears to have stifled priority date movement
to prevent such filings. Indeed, only recently, after we sent a
second letter did we see more movement in priority dates.
Unfortunately, given how late it is in the fiscal year, this is
likely too little too late, but perhaps that was the point.
I look forward to hearing from our first witness, Mr.
Edlow, deputy director for policy at USCIS, on these and other
issues. I also look forward to hearing from the witnesses on
our second panel so that we can understand how agency
mismanagement and the threat of furloughs has impacted
immigrant communities, U.S. businesses, and USCIS employees.
When you consider all that the Administration has done to
restrict legal immigration over the past 3 and a half years,
it's no wonder that USCIS now stands before us hat in hand
asking for money to maintain current operations. The Trump
Administration has been characterized by incompetence, from the
catastrophic response to COVID-19 to mismanagement of this
agency.
However, I hope we can all agree that no good purpose will
be served if we allow the immigration system to grind to a
halt. It's my hope that today's hearing will further current
negotiations by helping us to better understand how we got to
where we are, where we are today, and that we can find a
solution that all of us can embrace.
It's now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Buck from Colorado, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, let me tell
you, it is a pleasure to be back in the Judiciary Committee
hearing room. It feels like a home that I haven't visited for a
while, and it's just nice to get back to a little sense of
normality.
Thank you for holding this hearing to conduct oversight of
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This
Subcommittee has an important oversight responsibility. USCIS
has continued its important work in the face of COVID-19, the
COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting office closures and budget
shortfalls the Agency has experienced. In fact, the Agency has
gone out of its way to ease the process for benefit applicants
wherever possible.
Since March, the Agency has conducted over 106,500
naturalization ceremonies, approved over 87,600 applications
for adjustment of status, and ensured our agricultural system
remains competitive by allowing more than 130,500 H-2A
employees to enter the country. While delays remain, these
numbers show that USCIS takes its mission seriously.
The Agency does face large challenges going forward,
including the previously mentioned $1.2 billion budget
shortfall, the potential need to furlough up to 75 percent of
the Agency's workforce, and the residual delays in benefit
adjudication. However, I have confidence the Agency will
continue administering our Nation's immigration laws fairly and
consistently no matter the circumstances.
Mr. Edlow, thank you for taking the time out of your busy
schedule to come today to answer important questions about the
work you are doing at USCIS. I look forward to hearing the
challenges and successes of USCIS as well as any ways in which
we in Congress can be helpful to the Agency's mission.
I thank the chair and yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Buck.
I would now like to introduce our first witness.
Joseph Edlow joined the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services in July 2019, first serving as chief counsel for the
Agency before transitioning to his current role as deputy
director for policy in February of this year.
Prior to this, he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of
Justice and Assistant Chief Counsel at the Baltimore field
office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. Edlow also worked for 3 years in the House of
Representatives, first in the office of our former colleague
Raul Labrador, and then as counsel for this very subcommittee.
We welcome him back to the Subcommittee today and look forward
to his testimony.
Mr. Edlow, if you would please rise, I will begin by
swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
Mr. Edlow. I do.
Ms. Lofgren. Let the record show the witness answered in
the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated.
Please note that your written statement will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you
try to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes, and to help you
stay within that time there's a timing light on your table.
When the light switches from green to yellow you have 1 minute
to sum up, and when the light turns red, it means your 5
minutes have expired and we'd ask you to try and stop at that
point.
So, Mr. Edlow, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH EDLOW
Mr. Edlow. Thank you. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck,
and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. USCIS' mission is to
safeguard the integrity and promise of the Nation's lawful
immigration system by efficiently and fairly adjudicating
requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans,
securing the homeland, and honoring our values.
I am here today on behalf of the nearly 20,000 dedicated
and hardworking professionals of USCIS. It is my honor to lead
them and the day-to-day operations of this agency. These are
difficult times for our Nation and for USCIS. The pandemic has
affected virtually all aspects of American life and has had a
dramatic effect on USCIS operations and revenue.
Despite our best efforts, we have been forced to issue
furlough notices to nearly 70 percent of our employees. Without
funding from Congress, we will have no choice but to proceed
with large-scale furloughs on August 30th.
As you know, USCIS is unique among Federal agencies. We are
97 percent fee funded. The fees we collect for certain
petitions and applications pay for our operations, including
the salaries of our workforce. Those fees also cover the cost
of adjudicating many immigration requests and benefits for
which we do not currently collect a fee, such as asylum,
refugee status, humanitarian visas, deferred action, and
satisfactory departure.
Unlike an appropriated agency, a fee-funded agency must
have sufficient funding remaining on September 30th to carry
over on October 1st to begin and sustain operations for the new
fiscal year. The pandemic has virtually eliminated this
necessary carryover funding. Without funds from Congress or a
large-scale furlough, USCIS will run out of money in early
fiscal year 2021.
We have done what we can to mitigate this crisis by
reducing spending, instituting a hiring freeze, and identifying
more than $100 million of unliquidated obligations between
April and June. We began the year working to adjust agency
spending as we had already identified that our current fee
schedule was insufficient to recover estimated costs this
fiscal year.
I have spoken to many of you and your staffs about our
fiscal crisis and our funding proposal, which will ensure that
USCIS continues operations throughout this fiscal year and
start fiscal year 2021 on strong financial footing. Most
important to me are the men and women of USCIS who continue to
successfully perform our agency's critical mission under such
uncertain circumstances in these unprecedented times.
Facing a pandemic, USCIS employees engaged innovative
strategies to continue limited naturalization ceremonies to
prevent the spread of COVID-19. While our slowdown did delay
taking the oath for some, I am proud to report that all 110,000
of those pending oaths will be completed by the end of this
week.
This is merely a snapshot of the spectacular work done by
the talented and dedicated USCIS workforce. Starting in June,
we safely and effectively reopened most USCIS offices while
protecting applicant and employee safety during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic.
At field offices, we implemented a variety of measures,
such as providing hand sanitizer at entry points, requiring
facial coverings, installing physical barriers and social
distancing markings.
At asylum offices, USCIS began conducting video facilitated
asylum interviews using available technology, including mobile
devices provided by USCIS to ensure that the asylum officer,
applicant, interpreter, and representative can fully and safely
participate in the interview while maintaining social
distancing.
As our offices resume in-person services, USCIS looks to
pick up where we left off. Last year, USCIS naturalized 834,000
new U.S. citizens, an 11-year high. The Agency completed over
103,000 credible fear claims, a record high and more than 113
percent increase since 2015, as well as approximately 79,000
affirmative asylum applications.
The dedication and commitment of the USCIS workforce is
inspiring, even as the financial situation and the specter of
large-scale furloughs have been the toughest obstacle we have
faced. I look forward in doing whatever it takes in working
with Congress to resolve this issue.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the productive
conversation I have had with witnesses set to appear on the
second panel later this morning. I believe we share a strong
commitment to the USCIS workforce and remain confident that we
can work together to find a resolution.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Edlow follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Edlow.
This is the time when Members of the Subcommittee may ask
questions of our witness for 5 minutes each, and I will begin.
As you're aware, except for uncapped categories, such as
immediate relatives, our immigration law provides a certain
number of employment and family-based immigrant visas each
fiscal year. There are millions of people who have been waiting
for decades until a visa is available to them.
According to recent reports, an estimated 5 million
individuals with approved immigrant visa petitions are waiting
in the immigrant visa backlog. Mr. Edlow, do you agree that the
Immigration and Nationality Act requires these visas to be
issued if there is enough demand?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, I agree that we have a duty to
get as close to the immigrant visa caps that Congress has set
per year as we possibly can, and we are making progress this
year to getting there. Obviously, with the in-person services
closed for a number of months, including at application support
centers, we have not been able to move as many as we would have
liked to through the process.
That said, as of July 16th, we have already allocated 86.8
percent of the fiscal year annual limit for employment-based
preference categories. So, we are moving. That is over 106,689
visas that have been allocated, and of that, most of that was
USCIS.
Ms. Lofgren. As you know, Mr. Edlow, several weeks ago, we
were advised by DHS officials that, as of April 29th,
approximately 126,000 family-based visas and nearly 75,000
employments-based visas were available. Mr. Nadler and I had
written about this, and in June, Mr. Nadler and I sent a
follow-up letter to the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security expressing our concern that the departments were not
faithfully complying with the law to ensure full use of
statutorily authorized immigrant visa numbers for fiscal year
2020 and 2021. We copied you on the letter. We asked for a
response to this letter. We asked for a staff-level briefing by
July 6th, but to date neither has been provided. Now, why is
that?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, I apologize. My understanding was
that you had received a response on that letter. It was not
drafted by me, but I have seen that response. If you have not
gotten that, I will ensure that you and Chair Nadler get that
immediately.
Additionally, we are happy at USCIS to provide you a
briefing with our role with regard to analyzing and determining
how to move the visa bulletin forward and how we work with the
Department of State on that. As to the Department of State's
role, I would defer to them, of course. I will check in on
that. Congresswoman, I know that that letter has been drafted.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, let me just tell you, I understand from
our staff that we have not received a response, so we'll look
forward to that.
Due to the suspension of consular services and various
residential proclamations, overseas demand for immigrant visas
has certainly decreased in recent months, but it's well
documented there's a great deal of demand for such visas from
persons already legally in the United States.
Visa availability, as reflected in the visa bulletin, is
set by the Department of State in consultation with USCIS. Do
you or other political appointees play a role in that
consultation process?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, that consultation process is, as
you said, completed by the Department of State with
consultation from USCIS. I have been involved in discussions on
that occasionally. By and large, month in and month out, I am
not typically involved in those conversations. In April, I was
involved, and I believe the letter that we were supposed to
have sent back to you would have addressed that and would have
identified that.
Certainly, as we were trying to figure out what our next
steps were with being able to process under our limitations
from the pandemic, we did want to be careful as to moving that
number forward, but then that number has significantly moved
forward in the months following. Our letter explains that.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Edlow, let me just be frank. Members of my
staff have received information from USCIS employees indicating
that DHS political leadership overruled career officials in
setting the priority dates for the July visa bulletin. Did you
have a role in that?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, I have no knowledge of that at
all.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Mr. Edlow. I was not involved in setting the July visa
bulletin at all.
Ms. Lofgren. Then it's political interference elsewhere,
and we will try to follow up with that.
I'm nearing the end of my time. I'd like to conclude by
saying that, while I understand USCIS had to temporarily
suspend in-person services and close field offices earlier this
year, that doesn't excuse the Administration from complying
with its congressional mandate to ensure full use of immigrant
visa numbers.
In addition, there are many ways to move cases through the
system without person-to-person contact, including interview
waivers in clearly approvable cases, although I understand the
Agency suspended processing of those cases as well.
In my final minute, I would just like to raise the issue of
the Supreme Court decision--other Members may want to talk
later--about DACA. So, the Supreme Court ruled that what the
Administration did was unlawful. In putting aside yesterday's
reconsidering and prohibiting new applications, the Department
was clearly in violation of the Supreme Court decision for at
least a week and maybe currently.
I would just like to note how distressing it is that at the
hearing, which took place 40 days after the Supreme Court's
decision was issued, DOJ lawyers stated that the USCIS had not
found the time or resources to change their website.
We expect compliance with the law. We certainly expect
compliance with Supreme Court decisions. I don't know whether
it was your decision or Mr. Wolf's or Mr. Cuccinelli's or the
White House, but compliance with that decision was
disappointing at best.
I see that my time is expired. So, I will now turn to Mr.
Buck for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. Because of the unique
situation, Madam Chair, I'm going to recognize the
Congresswoman from Arizona, Ms. Lesko, for her time, and I
appreciate the chair's indulgence.
Ms. Lofgren. Sure.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Edlow, for being here today.
I have a couple of questions actually about DACA. I believe
that when President Obama originally did the executive order
that gave DACA recipients what they get today, it was
unconstitutional because it wasn't done through Congress.
Of course, we had the recent Supreme Court ruling, which,
quite frankly, I didn't agree with that, but that being it, I
understand that currently under DACA you have to have
continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007.
We're now in 2020. So, does that mean that the youngest person
in DACA would be about 13 years old that would apply new, new
applications, is my understanding?
Mr. Edlow. For applications when they were accepted, yes,
if the person had been here, I guess, depending on when they
were born, yes. They would've had to have been here in 2007, so
yes.
Ms. Lesko. Okay. So, I just am trying to understand,
because I'm not in your field so I don't understand, why would
somebody that is 13 years old not have applied for DACA yet?
Like why--because the changes were for new applicants, right?
Wasn't that the change that was done yesterday by the Trump
Administration, new applications were put on pause?
Mr. Edlow. Well, let me back up a little bit and explain.
Ms. Lesko. Sure.
Mr. Edlow. So, back in 2017, through Acting Secretary Duke,
the now--that memo has now been rescinded by Acting Secretary
Wolf's memo, but Secretary--Acting Secretary Duke rescinded
DACA, and in doing so, there was litigation that ensued. Due to
that litigation, the Department and the government was enjoined
from ending the program with regard to renewals.
So, we kept processing renewal applications at that point.
However, we did stop all new applications. So, new applications
have not been accepted since--I don't--I apologize. I don't
remember the date off the top of my head but sometime in 2017
or 2018, and that's been the status quo since then, and then
until now when we have the Supreme Court that ultimately found
that the program could be rescinded. There was no question
about that, about the legality of rescinding it; it was the
manner in which Acting Secretary Duke rescinded it.
Accordingly, what we took--what we did at that point was
begun to hold new applications while we continued to talk with
our attorneys, both within the Department as well as with the
Department of Justice, to figure out what the next steps would
be. But there has not been an opportunity to apply for an
initial DACA--to have that process since 2017, 2018.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you. That makes sense to me. Thank you for
explaining it to me.
Can we pivot now to the backlog cases? I think in the
opening statement Madam Chair had said that you're really far
behind in processing, that the Trump Administration has done a
terrible job. I'm paraphrasing, something to that effect. Can
you kind of respond to that? Because I have a bunch of
information here that actually you've done a lot of processing
in different fields. Would you like to respond?
Mr. Edlow. I would be happy to. Thank you, Congresswoman.
So, in the queue of cases that are outside normal processing
times, which is what is typically referred to as the, quote,
``backlog'' unquote, we do have right now about 2.5 million. We
also have another 2.5 million cases that are in processing
times.
There are the third group of cases that are cases that are
pending but are outside of USCIS' ability to control. For
example, we have request for evidence out or we're waiting for
something from somebody else.
So, we are absolutely making progress and doing whatever we
can to add efficiencies into the system and using new methods
of e-filing and e-processing to bring down the time of
adjudication.
Now, expediency is absolutely critical. I'm not saying it's
not. We have to balance that with making sure that we are doing
a fulsome adjudication and properly ensuring that the integrity
of the system is met. We cannot allow speed to be the enemy of
making sure that the applications are approvable.
So, I support the career men and women of my agency who
have done a phenomenal job of ensuring that their adjudications
are within the law, they're within the scope, and I'm very
impressed with the work that I've seen since I've taken over at
the helm of USCIS.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. So, let's
turn now to the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Edlow, thank you for being here. Since its inception,
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has
benefited over 825,000 individuals. That is 825,000 people who
have stepped out of the shadows and reached new academic and
professional heights and contributed tremendously to our
country. DACA also enjoys broad support among the American
public, with 66 percent of American voters supporting the
program.
Mr. Edlow, I would like to discuss the recent Supreme Court
decision describing or declaring the Administration's
rescission of DACA unlawful. Putting aside yesterday's DHS
memo, quote, reconsidering the DACA program, do you agree with
the Supreme Court's ruling that the Administration's rescission
of DACA was arbitrary and capricious? Yes or no.
Mr. Edlow. I have said I don't agree with it.
Ms. Jayapal. Okay. Based on that ruling, the Administration
should have immediately returned the program to its original
form, which includes processing new DACA applications, which
your agency did not do. In fact, by not processing new DACA
applications prior to the new memo, USCIS was in direct
violation of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Edlow, I understand you don't agree with the Supreme
Court's decision, but do you believe compliance with the
Supreme Court is a choice?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, Supreme Court compliance is not a
choice; however, the mandate did not enter into last week.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Edlow.
Mr. Edlow, I didn't ask you anything other than whether you
think that compliance is a choice, and you said, no, it's not a
choice.
Did you consult with DHS leadership or the White House on
yesterday's memo?
Mr. Edlow. I'm not going to get into internal conversations
that I've got into about the memo.
Ms. Jayapal. You're testifying before the Judiciary
Committee, the Immigration Subcommittee. Did you consult with
DHS leadership or the White House on yesterday's memo? I'm not
asking you for details of it. I'm asking you if you consulted.
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, the memo was not issued by me. I
would defer to Acting Secretary Wolf.
Ms. Jayapal. Did you consult or not? It seems a fairly
simple question. It was not a gotcha question. Did you consult
or not?
Mr. Edlow. I've had conversations, but I've not consulted
on the memo.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. So, that would be a yes. So, then
did USCIS not accept new DACA applications due to knowledge
that this memorandum was to be issued?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, in conversations with my lawyers
and with the Department of Justice following the Supreme Court,
we were determining what the next steps were going to be. We
immediately stopped rejecting new applications.
We were holding them, so we had them ready to go should
this decision have come out and the Acting Secretary--if the
Acting Secretary had directed us to accept. We were aware that
there was additional litigation, and we were taking the steps
that we needed to.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I think that's sufficient.
Let me switch gears to your website. Last week, over a
month after the Supreme Court's ruling, 1 month after the
Supreme Court's ruling, Department of Justice lawyers
representing USCIS in a hearing admitted to inaccuracies
regarding new DACA applications on the website. DOJ lawyers
stated that USCIS had, quote, ``not found the time or resources
to change their website to reflect the new status of DACA
applications.'' Is that accurate?
Mr. Edlow. I can't speak to the accuracy of that.
Ms. Jayapal. You're the deputy director of the Agency, and
you can't tell me whether what the DOJ said about your agency
not having the time or resources to change their website is
accurate?
Mr. Edlow. Well, as far as having the resources, I just
don't know--I need to consult with my IT people.
Ms. Jayapal. You're the deputy director of the Agency and
you can't tell me whether your agency had the resources in time
to change the website.
The following day, after the Supreme Court's decision, the
website published a statement claiming that the decision had,
quote, ``no basis in law,'' on your website. Then yesterday
when the new DACA memo was issued, there was a banner on the
website within minutes.
Can you explain to me, Mr. Edlow, how there was plenty of,
quote, ``time and resources to post a statement opposing the
Supreme Court decision but not to update the website to comply
with its order after more than 1 month''?
Mr. Edlow. Again, Congresswoman, the order did not take
effect until the mandate issued. We at that point were
consulting with Department of Justice and with our attorneys--
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Edlow, the Supreme Court you do not get to
decide whether you're going to comply with the Supreme Court
order. You have had a month since the Supreme Court's decision
to change your processing applications and make sure you comply
with that order. You have not done that. It is your job to
comply with the Supreme Court.
This Administration does not get to decide which orders it
complies with or not. It does not get to decide that it can put
up a statement that says that the Supreme Court decision was--
that you don't agree with it, but you don't actually comply.
There are an estimated 300,000 young people waiting for you
to do your job and to allow new applications to this program.
The Supreme Court rightly upheld this program. Your agency
needs to do the same.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
I would turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Buck. I appreciate
it--and Madam Chair.
There has been some misconception here. The Supreme Court
decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v.
Regents of University of California did not say that the DACA
program was necessarily legal. What they said is that the
Administration failed to comply with the APA in its decision to
revoke or rescind their determination that the DACA program was
instituted illegally. That is a completely different animal
than what we've heard from our colleagues across the aisle so
far today.
The reality is they--and this gets to the point that you've
been making, Mr. Edlow, about they made their decision. Their
mandate wasn't effective until last week, and in reality, the
Administration could pursue its course based on the decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court to actually expand on their memo for the
reasons why and providing rationale for why they chose to
rescind the DACA program. Isn't that true, Mr. Edlow?
Mr. Edlow. That is, yes.
Mr. Biggs. In 2017, USCIS said there was 689,800 people
still in DACA, in the DACA program. How many are there today,
if you know?
Mr. Edlow. Yeah, Congressman, it's approximately 826,000.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. According to press reports, the Obama/
Biden Administration accepted documents such as Xbox Live
receipts from DACA applicants as evidence to prove the
requisite elements of DACA, such as physical presence. Do you
agree that an Xbox Live receipt is subject to fraud and should
not be used to prove DACA requirements?
Mr. Edlow. I absolutely agree. I was appalled when I heard
that was accepted as evidence of physical presence or anything
else.
Mr. Biggs. Are you familiar with a piece listing a series
of folks, Ms. Yadel Alvarez-Chio, who was a DACA recipient who
was smuggling illegal aliens into the country, Jose Yepez-Vega
doing the same, Rafael Martinez Alvarez doing the same,
Guadalupe Perez-Avila doing the same, are you aware of some of
those cases? What happens to those people who are using their
DACA status to violate U.S. law and are doing things such as
smuggling illegal aliens into the country?
Mr. Edlow. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I can't say that
I'm familiar with those specific examples, but in general, if
we determine or if there is a determination made that the
individual is using that status or is committing crimes and has
been convicted, that case would obviously be referred to
Homeland Security investigations for appropriate prosecution
and then termination of the DACA program.
Mr. Biggs. Do you know, Mr. Edlow, how many folks have been
referred to DHS for investigation regarding crimes committed in
the U.S.?
Mr. Edlow. Congressman, we've put out several reports on
that. I would need to get back to you on the exact figure.
Mr. Biggs. If you would do that.
Mr. Edlow. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Biggs. One of the things that you're here for today is
obviously oversight, but in particular, is your concerns--I
mean, the chairwoman mentioned the furloughs that are pending.
Tell us about that and the finances to try to keep people from
being furloughed so you can fulfill your duties and how long it
will take to pay that money back?
Mr. Edlow. Thank you, Congressman. Yeah, we are in a
tremendous budget shortfall at this point. Prior to COVID, we
were operating at a deficit. Frankly, we've been operating at a
deficit for the last several years, but we were no way in a
budget shortfall that was going to cut into our mission or
potentially bring about furloughs.
This was the result of COVID, and we have charts that I
believe we provided to the Committee to show the significant
dip in our receipts during this year, something that we're
still trying to recover from.
We have asked for approximately $570 million to finish out
this fiscal year and $650 million or so to begin the next
fiscal year. As I mentioned in my opening, since we are fee
funded largely, we need carryover. We don't have surplus. We
have carryover.
So, when the reports came out the other day that if we
didn't furlough employees, we would still have some degree of
surplus to roll over into the next year, that's just not
accurate. Surplus, by definition, is something that would be
unobligated and likely have to be returned to the Treasury. In
our case, it would be carryover that would be used for
obligated funds and expenses. We need to make sure that we're
able to address this in a way that I can take care of my--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
We'll turn now to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this most
important hearing.
Mr. Edlow, thank you very much for being here today.
My district is home to the largest number of Dreamers in
the country. I've got to tell you, they're scared. My daughter
has a lot of friends that are Dreamers. They come to my house,
and they ask, ``What can we do? We're scared.'' They have a
good reason to be scared. They're essentially political
pinatas.
Obama created the program. Trump Administration created the
program. United States Supreme Court said you didn't terminate
the program correctly. Go back and do it again. Then just a few
weeks ago President Trump said, I am going to provide Dreamers
with a pathway to citizenship. We're waiting for language so we
can Act on that piece of legislation.
Then, yesterday, we have a new memo with new instructions.
So, you can understand that these individuals, that, by
definition, to be a DACA recipient, you have to follow the law,
gainfully employed or be going to school. A lot of these
Dreamers are our front liners in the fight against COVID.
They're nurses, healthcare workers.
You know what? They're also growing our crops and
harvesting our crops and working at poultry plants. They're the
folks that are keeping us fed while this country burns with
COVID-19. We also have some that have made the ultimate
sacrifice defending this country. We have soldiers that are
fighting for this country. Yet, they're in limbo right now.
So, I want to ask you, that memo, which was the latest
twist and turn in the life of these individuals, almost a
million, are you accepting new DACA applications?
Mr. Edlow. Accepting new--no, we are not accepting new DACA
applications.
Mr. Correa. Are you accepting new advanced parole
applications?
Mr. Edlow. No, we are not, sir.
Mr. Correa. By what authority?
Mr. Edlow. Congressman, we've got a memo and the memo
speaks for itself from Acting Secretary Wolf, and we will be
putting out additional guidance. I will be putting out
additional guidance in the coming days as to exactly how we are
going to be responding to every type of application and request
that comes in on that.
Sir, if I can turn briefly to the limbo that you referred
to and just change it slightly.
Mr. Correa. Yes.
Mr. Edlow. I understand where you're coming from, but I
also want to address the fact that our employees are also in
limbo. I know you have--we've spoken about this. You have a
significant number of employees in your district who are also
in limbo.
Mr. Correa. Many employees in my district.
Mr. Edlow. That is why I do want to make it as clear as
possible that my primary goal here is to impress upon you the
important work that my staff is doing, that our workforce is
doing, and that I really need to make sure--
Mr. Correa. Sir, I have limited time.
Mr. Edlow. Yeah.
Mr. Correa. Let me tell you right now, I know many of those
workers that work for you, they're my constituents. I've told
them we're trying to come up with a solution, and that's part
of the message here today, which is how do we get back on track
to make sure that you process those applications in a timely
manner, which leads me to my next question, which is agency
remote naturalization votes. How are we doing with that right
now?
Mr. Edlow. Remote naturalization is not something that we
are presently considering and let me explain what's going on
there.
Mr. Correa. Please. You've got a minute and a half, so--
Mr. Edlow. I'll try to be as brief as possible, sir. During
the pandemic, when we had to cancel so many pending oath
ceremonies, we were concerned about how we were going to get
through that. Since we've reopened, we've been able to get
through that entire backlog.
Mr. Correa. So, do you believe you'll be moving in that
direction? I sent you a letter Saturday--
Mr. Edlow. No.
Mr. Correa. --Democrats and Republicans urging you to move
in that direction.
Mr. Edlow. I understand, sir.
Mr. Correa. Is your position you don't have the legal
authority to do so?
Mr. Edlow. I don't think we have the legal authority. I
also am concerned about the operational implementation of it
with regard to getting people their naturalization
certificates, ensuring that people are in the--
Mr. Correa. I've got 45 seconds.
Mr. Edlow. Yeah.
Mr. Correa. So, I'd like to work with you, Mr. Edlow, on
figuring out the operational aspect of remote naturalization.
I've got a memo here that I'm going to ask for unanimous
consent to submit for the record that says you do have the
legal authority. The HEROES Act has H.R. 6800--within it that
essentially talks about clarifying and urging you to move ahead
with remote naturalization.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. CORREA FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Edlow. Mr. Correa, as I said, I have concerns. As you
know, I've worked with you before, I'm happy to work with you
and work with your staff and discuss this more. The only thing
that I do want to mention too, is we need to remember that only
part of the naturalization ceremonies that we do are
administrative. There's a large part of this country that has
exclusive jurisdiction before the courts, and so I can't do
anything as far as that's concerned.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Correa. I am out of time. I would like to conclude for
2 seconds. I just want to say, Mr. Edlow, let's work on these
issues. These are very important topics for new Americans--
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Correa, your time is expired.
Mr. Correa. --for folks that are working hard to keep this
country great. Thank you very much. I yield.
Ms. Lofgren. Let's turn now to Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. I thank the chair, and I want to thank Mr. Correa
just briefly for his hard work on the TikTok bill and moving
forward on that. It was a great demonstration of bipartisanship
and I appreciate that.
I would ask the chair to recognize Mr. Steube for his
questioning.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, Mr. Steube is recognized. Hello, Mr.
Steube.
Mr. Steube. Hey, Madam Chair. Thank you for this hearing. I
yield to Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Lofgren. He's just yielded to you, Mr. Steube.
Mr. Steube. Yeah, I'm yielding back to him so he can yield
to another member.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Very fine.
Mr. Buck. Thank you. We're playing a little ping-pong here.
Mr. Steube is a great athlete, and I appreciate him yielding to
me.
Mr. Edlow, I wanted to ask you real briefly, you mentioned
that the backlog and the need for additional funding is a
result of the coronavirus issues that we are facing. Would you
please expand on that?
Mr. Edlow. Yes, certainly. First, Mr. Buck, just so you
understand, I'm not saying that the backlog is a result of
COVID. The backlog is something we've been dealing with for a
number of years. It's the ebb and flow of receipts given
programs coming in or things of that nature.
The funding issue, yes, is a direct result. We have a chart
that I believe we've provided to the Committee that shows at
least during the--frankly, during this Administration, the dip
in receipts in the end of February, March, and April of 2020
was significant. It was a drop of several hundred thousand to
the point where we could not--we went from a deficit that we
could recover from to a deficit where there was no way to
complete the fiscal year without additional funding.
Mr. Buck. The total amount of additional funding, from what
I heard the two numbers that you mentioned, somewhere in the
$1.3 billion, $1.4 billion area?
Mr. Edlow. $1.2 billion or so, yes.
Mr. Buck. Okay, $1.2 billion. Are you aware that we are
going to be considering a new bill for coronavirus relief that
is coming over for the Senate, and it has $70 billion in that
bill for K through 12 education? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Edlow. I was aware that the bill existed. I have not
looked at it beyond what was included for us.
Mr. Buck. Okay. So, you're talking about $1.2 billion--
Mr. Edlow. Yes.
Mr. Buck. --for a Federal Government function, and Congress
will be considering $70 billion for a local function, K through
12 education.
The CARES Act had $150 billion in it for State and local
governments, again, not a Federal function that we're talking
about, a constitutional Federal function, frankly, but a
function that Congress has considered to help, absolutely
appropriately, with State and local governments.
One hundred seventy-five billion in the CARES Act for
hospitals, $45 billion in the CARES Act for FEMA, State and
local disaster relief. A total of $765 billion was appropriated
by Congress to State and local governments for coronavirus
relief, and you're asking for $1.2 billion. I think it's
important that we put that in perspective.
Congress spends billions of dollars, in my opinion
wrongfully, but we spend billions of dollars all the time and
you're asking for really a drop in the bucket that we should be
appropriating to make sure that we are doing our job as a
Federal Government and one of the core functions of the Federal
Government.
To hear the politics that's being played right now is just
unfortunate because much of the shortfall that you're facing is
a direct result of the coronavirus that has affected so many
and infected so many.
I appreciate you coming before Congress, and I appreciate
your honesty, your integrity, and the fact that I know you. We
work together, and I know you wouldn't waste a single dime of
taxpayer money.
So, for you to come and ask for $1.2 billion, I'm sure that
it is necessary and that it is going to be spent wisely and
compassionately to make sure that people that are in limbo are
treated appropriately and that we are able to process those
folks and welcome them to our country.
So, I thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
Congresswoman Garcia had to attend a competing hearing in
the Armed Services Committee. Hopefully, she will be able to
return, but until then, Mr. Neguse will be recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing.
Of course, thank you, Mr. Edlow, for your testimony.
I want to address the current State of the processing
backlog, which my colleague from Colorado, Representative Buck,
referenced. I think, as I'm sure you are aware and my
colleagues would agree, one of the biggest complaints that we
receive from constituents on immigration relates to processing
delays at USCIS.
Can you briefly explain why the case backlog has continued
to grow? My understanding is overall receipts have decreased
for 2 consecutive years and staffing has increased so
significantly, really over the past 5 years. My understanding
is that it's about 3,000 people who have been added to your
payroll since 2016. So, what accounts for the backlog?
Mr. Edlow. Well, sir, receipts have declined, but they've
also increased in other years, in 2017 and 2018, and trying to
move to be able to complete these cases. We're not at a point
yet where we are completing more cases than we're receiving in.
That's unfortunately something that we are trying to deal with
at this point.
We're also dealing with certain things, for example, on the
asylum backlog we have about 390,000 cases that are pending.
Our asylum folks, the directorate has done an amazing job,
especially during the pandemic of pre-adjudicating these cases
to get them ready to a position where they can move forward and
try to drill down on some of that backlog.
We have to recognize that there are other things that
happened during that period of time too or prior. For example,
spending--putting a lot of our officers dealing with credible
fear cases along the southern border, that has pulled away from
our ability to handle some of the backlog in the affirmative
asylum cases.
The same thing is true--we're prioritizing and we are
trying to do what we can on the backlog with our field
operations directorate and our service centers, and I think we
are making progress. You are correct: We've hired more people.
We've invested in technology. I think the e-processing is
certainly--
Mr. Neguse. Mr. Edlow, just because my time is limited, I
would say, I want to say, first, thank you for your candor
because I do think with respect to one of the issues that you
mentioned, clearly, to the extent that, again, I understand the
data might mean different things to different people, but as I
understand the data shows that the processing times on average
in the aggregate--excuse me, that the applications rather in
the aggregate over the course of the last 4 years have, in
fact, gone down.
So, as you said, to the extent there are competing
priorities, to the extent this Administration has made
decisions to reallocate resources within your agency to other
purposes, which in turn implicates the processing times at
USCIS, that is, in fact, one of the main reasons why that
backlog persists. Nonetheless, I appreciate your answers in
that regard.
I, of course, concur with my colleague from Colorado and
with Representative Correa. Obviously, we all recognize the
budget crisis that USCIS faces, and we all, I think, here in
the Congress are eager to assist and want to do what we can to
provide the Agency with the necessary stabilization resources
that would be needed so that the hard workers at USCIS back in
Colorado and elsewhere across the country can continue to do
their jobs.
I do want to ask you, and I recognize this might be a
sensitive line of inquiry, my understanding from my colleagues
on the House Appropriations Committee is that the
Administration has yet to submit a formal request for emergency
funding. While I'm aware that OMB has sent a letter supporting
your request, a lack of White House involvement is, at least in
my view, is apparent.
So, I am wondering if you've spoken or communicated with
senior White House or senior DHS officials about the budget
crisis and about this request for funds. Have you communicated
with them about the need for the White House for Mr.
Cuccinelli, for others to tell Congress that they support this
request so that we can ultimately build the political consensus
here on Capitol Hill to get it done?
Mr. Edlow. Yes, Congressman, you're correct. Mr. Vought
from OMB did send a very strongly worded support letter to the
appropriators. Additionally, Acting Secretary Wolf has sent a
letter on our behalf and Acting Deputy Secretary Cuccinelli has
made numerous phone calls to Members in both the House and the
Senate about our issue.
So, this is something that's a whole-of-government approach
to try to address, and I've had conversations with people in
the White House, with OMB. They are strongly supportive of
this.
As far as their determination or their decision that no
active--no formal, as they're calling, quote, ``formal request
has been sent, I would defer you to OMB on that'' unquote.
There's no lack of support for this request from the White
House, from OMB, or from the Department.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
I think, if I may intervene, it would be helpful to get a
formal request. I mean, we're not doubting your support, but
there's some processes.
I will turn now to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Mucarsel-Powell, for 5 minutes.
You need to unmute your microphone and start, again. You're
muted, Debbie. There. Thank you.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. Can you hear me now?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, we can.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
It's not the first time that we've had a hearing with USCIS
and backlogs. I represent an area where I have thousands of
constituents that have immigrated here to the United States and
we get calls every single day about immigration status, to help
with a variety of things. About 70 percent of the calls that
we're receiving are immigration related, Mr. Edlow.
What I hear every single day, when I check those logs of
calls, it's that the USCIS agency has terrible backlog so we
all know this. We are actually assisting right now a professor
that is working in my district. She's been waiting for 3 years
for USCIS to reach a decision on her request for an adjustment
of status, and her case has been bungled from the start.
She's provided additional documentation, met all the
demands that USCIS has made, and she's still waiting. So, like
that, I have hundreds of cases in my office. As you can
imagine, the backlogs affect immigrants who are actually trying
to follow the law. They want to go through all the proper
processes, but it's affecting families in my district.
Actually, when immigrant employees can't get their
employment authorization processed in time, it also affects
small businesses in my district. You can ask anyone here in
South Florida, businesses are very concerned about the issue
that immigration faces.
So, this backlog has continued to grow and I don't
understand--Mr. Neguse really touched on it. We have continued
to see an increase on staff that has been brought on by the
USCIS, but the backlog doesn't decrease. Now, you're hear
asking for more funding.
I know that there's a significant problem with USCIS with
the funding issues. I also know that you're furloughing many
employees. I actually have met one employee that told me just
this week that she received a notice from one day to the next
that she's going to be furloughed as of August 30 without any
sort of back pay or any benefit, and she had to scramble to
look for a job.
So, let me just say that in my district, I have a Kendall
office, and people may lose their jobs, so I'm very concerned
not only about the immigration community in South Florida, but
also of the workers in the Kendall office that may lose their
jobs.
So, if at 13,000, Mr. Edlow, if the 13,000 USCIS employees
were furloughed for any significant period of time, let's say,
30 days, how would that impact the case backlog?
Mr. Edlow. Well, Congresswoman, first, you're right that we
are getting a lot of inquiries when it comes to case status and
having to deal with people on the backlog. Fiscal year to date,
we've received over 118,000 congressional inquiries on largely
on that point and other people questioning status of various
things. We are--I believe, we've handled about 94 percent of
those thus far.
In terms of the individual person that you're referring to,
if you want to have your staff submit something or get my chief
of legislative affairs some information, I'd be happy to look
into that and give you a call as to what's going on, but
obviously I don't know the case at hand.
Congresswoman, I'm just as concerned about the staff in
Kendall and everywhere else in Florida and everywhere else in
the country by what would happen.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Let me stop you there, Mr. Edlow, just
because of time. Let me just say, again, before COVID, before
this health crisis and economic crisis that we're facing, we
had a hearing, and the issue is the same and I don't see any
improvement.
Let me talk about another program, the Cuban Reunification
Program. Now, you earlier stated that you get your funding
through application fees. Is that correct?
Mr. Edlow. Largely, 97 percent, yes.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Let me just say that I introduced a
bill recently, actually, last year to immediately restart the
processing of applications of that program to reunify these
families. They've been applying for years. They've paid all
their fees. Some families that really can't make ends meet,
they actually had to pay over a thousand dollars in fees, and
this 2 or 3 years ago, before the Trump Administration stopped
the program from one day to the next, what is happening with
the Cuban Reunification Parole Program, which was started under
a Republican President, President George Bush?
I have so many constituents. Every day they're sending me
messages. They've applied. They've gone through the process.
They have paid their fees. You have their money, Mr. Edlow,
what is happening to that program?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, I would be happy to get back to
you on that exact program and provide you and your staff a
briefing on that.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I've requested information for months.
I still have yet to receive an answer to this. Now, again,
there are families, there are mothers that have not been able
to see their children. They have--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. If you can give me information. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Let's make sure that not only the gentlelady
from Florida, but the entire Committee be briefed on this as
soon as possible.
Mr. Edlow. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. I understand that the gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Escobar, has had to join Congresswoman Garcia in the Armed
Services Committee hearing. It's a very important hearing on
the murder of Vanessa Guillen, and so I will now recognize the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will shortly be joining my colleagues in the Armed
Services Committee for the hearing on Vanessa Guillen, who was
brutally murdered on the grounds or as a United States military
person in the United States Army, what a very tragic and
heinous circumstances.
Let me, Mr. Edlow, indicate that we are well aware of the
plight that the Agency is in, USCIS, because of the decrease in
fees and the request or the need for about 1.5, $1.2 billion.
I did not hear your answer. Did you say that you had made
the request for emergency funds?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, we made a request--we worked with
the department, as well as OMB, and we were the ones authorized
to bring that to the Appropriations Committees, and I've made
that clear to the authorizers as well.
A support letter was sent from OMB and letters have been
sent from Acting Secretary Wolf and calls have been made by
Acting Deputy Secretary Cuccinelli.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me just say, Members want to be
responsive to this system of immigration that has been the
cornerstone of the growth and unique experiment of the United
States, but we have some grave concerns.
So, let me publicly say, and I'll ask, I denounce and find
abhorrent and outrageous the response of the Administration on
DACA.
DACA is part of the infrastructure of my district. I have
had DACA employees, DACA interns. I've invited a DACA, Mr.
Cesar Espinoza, a student to the State of the Union and I am
confused about, one, the order that says that new applications
will be rejected and that it will be a 1-year turnaround or a
1-year application process.
Would you give me very briefly the thinking of any sense of
humanity for a 1-year status and having to reapply, again? How
does that make sense?
Mr. Edlow. Congresswoman, I would refer you to the memo
which lays out Mr. Wolf's rationale for that. I was not part of
that decision.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Why don't you briefly characterize it
since I'm sure you've read the memo?
Mr. Edlow. I have. As Mr. Wolf has said, we are in the
process now--and this is what the memo says--of reviewing the
DACA program to determine what next steps are appropriate.
During that period of time, it makes more sense to have people
realize that this is now a 1-year renewable status.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, convey to Mr. Wolf the complete,
absolute condemnation of the majority at this time in the House
of Representatives and to acknowledge that it is insensitive
and inhumane.
I think my colleagues have already made the record of the
widespread service that DACA status persons are from the United
States military to first responders, to COVID-19 hospital
personnel, and that it is tragic that a Nation that was built
on the hard work of immigrants and certainly those of my
descendants, enslaved Africans, would do a dastardly deed like
this.
Let me move to the idea of people who are waiting in line,
and I would ask and join my colleague from California, Mr.
Correa, about remote naturalization and how can we help move
that forward. That would help with the fees. As you well know,
there's an enormous backlog.
I've been on this Committee now for 25 years, with
consistency, the Subcommittee on Immigration. How can we help
have you deliberate and think on the idea of remote
naturalization and also the processing of individuals seeking
legal status, such as green cards and others?
How can we work to get that done?
Mr. Edlow. I look forward to working with this Committee to
address that. As I said, I believe there's some legal
impediments right now to the remote naturalization. I would say
there are increasing receipts when it comes to naturalization
and, ma'am, I do want to make it known that, during this
Administration, on average, we have seen record highs of
naturalizations, which includes about 20,000 on average more
naturalizations per year than in the previous Administration.
We are working very, very hard to prioritize
naturalizations and do what we can on that front.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I don't know how that could be the
case when you do have a budget deficit and there is so many
people in our respective districts that have not been able to
be naturalized, and so I commend you to doing the right thing
and deeply digging into the remote naturalization and we will
address the numbers.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mr. Edlow. If I could maybe respond to that briefly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman wanted to respond.
Ms. Lofgren. Very briefly. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Edlow. If I may just briefly respond. As far as the
receipts, we do have a lot of pending naturalization cases, but
those receipts have already come through, so we've already used
that to adjudicate cases that are now past.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Edlow. As far as the naturalization efforts that are
pending right now, as I said, anyone who is going to be oathed
but was stopped because of COVID has now been oathed.
It's just now a matter of getting back into the interviews.
We are taking very creative measures to try to get people
interviewed as quickly as possible and move that forward, but
this is something that's going to take some time, but we are
working on that.
Ms. Lofgren. Thanks, Mr. Edlow.
Mr. Edlow. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Before calling on Ms. Scanlon, I would like to
remind Members who are physically present that there is a
requirement to wear a mask and that mask should cover both your
nose and your face. If you are unable to do that, we would ask
Members to leave the physical space and participate remotely,
noting that our colleague, Mr. Gohmert, has just announced that
he has tested positive for COVID and he was a member who was
unwilling to consistently wear a mask.
It's a reminder that this is very serious and if you're
unwilling to wear a mask that covers both your nose and your
mouth, please do leave the room and we will arrange for you to
participate remotely.
At this point, I would like to recognize Ms. Scanlon for
her 5 minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much, Chair Lofgren.
I also have been getting a lot of calls about
naturalization in my district. I represent the Philadelphia
region and I think 10 percent of my constituents are foreign-
born, so a lot of family Members, et cetera, who are anxious
about that.
We've talked this morning a lot about remote
naturalization, but what about socially distanced
naturalization? We've seen in other regions of the country
there have been drive-thru, there's been the use of high school
stadiums, things like that.
Is the Agency doing anything to meet these practical issues
in this time?
Mr. Edlow. Yes, Ms. Scanlon. As you see, we are doing
drive-thru naturalizations--
Ms. Scanlon. Well, not in my region.
Mr. Edlow. Well, in your region, I will tell you, I was
there last week where I naturalized in a socially distant
ceremony. I naturalized the last group of pending oath cases
that had been rescheduled from during COVID.
So, Philadelphia is completely up to date right now on
naturalizations. Now, I'm not suggesting that we've gotten
through all the interviews that we've had to cancel because of
COVID. We are still working through that, and a lot of that
has, unfortunately, been the result of needing to make sure
that we have the appropriate barriers in place and that we can
do the socially distanced processing and interviewing in these
facilities.
So, getting these facilities ready to be safe for our
workforce, as well as the public, was something that took some
time, but we're naturalizing people outside. We're doing it in
a way that keeps people 6 feet apart.
The staff, what I witnessed, was one group going out before
I was going to go into naturalized, I watched my staff work so
tirelessly to quickly sanitize that whole room so that we could
have the next group moving forward.
I was in Virginia a couple weeks ago to do a
naturalization--
Ms. Scanlon. Maybe we can pursue this offline because I've
only got a couple minutes, but I appreciate hearing that
because my office has been reaching out and we hadn't been able
to get that information.
Mr. Edlow. Yeah, I'm happy to continue working with you on
that.
Ms. Scanlon. So, we would love to attend a social distant
naturalization ceremony.
Mr. Edlow. I would love to have you. I will go with you in
Philadelphia. If you want to go to Virginia or Baltimore,
whatever you'd like.
Ms. Scanlon. Philly would be best.
Mr. Edlow. All right. We'll do that.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. This is only my second hearing of this
sort. Last year I was here because it's my first full term in
Congress and last year we heard about the backlogs and the
funding challenges, but the very same day that we had that
hearing last year, we learned that CIS officers were being
transferred to temporary duty at ICE or they were being asked
to volunteer for that.
Since then, your CIS has transferred millions to ICE to
hire agents and in your new proposed fee increases, again,
there's a proposal to annually transfer money from CIS to ICE.
So, I'm a little confused about how come--you're telling us
that we need to--that CIS relies upon carryover funding at the
same time that that funding is being transferred to an
enforcement agency which has a separate mission.
Mr. Edlow. Understood. As far as the individuals that went
over a few years ago, there was some admin support staff that
went over to help some admin support staff at a sister agency.
Ms. Scanlon. Right, but this at the same time that
representatives from your agency were coming in and telling us
that you didn't have enough staff.
Mr. Edlow. They were not the adjudicators. They were not
the ones moving the cases. That said, my understanding is that
there has not been a single dollar transferred from USCIS to
ICE in, at least, the last two fiscal years, if not before
that, too.
So, we can confirm and get back to you on that, but I do
not believe any money has been transferred to ICE for the
hiring of any agents or for any other purposes.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. My understanding was that the new
proposed fee increases included some transfers, but if you can
check on that.
Mr. Edlow. I think there was something in the notice of
proposed rulemaking on that. I do not believe that's in the
final rule, but, again, we'll get back to you on that.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
In December of 2019, Congress passed the Liberian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act as part of the NDAA to create a
roadmap for citizenship for Liberians who had been here for a
certain amount of time. I think there's about 10,000 Liberians
who are eligible.
There was only a 1-year window for implementation of that,
and it took months after December of 2019 for CIS to issue
guidance and then, of course, we landed in the middle of this
pandemic.
So, we're running out of time. Are you familiar with that
program, and do you have any ideas on how we can get through
the backlog? Apparently, not a single application for that
program has been processed yet.
Mr. Edlow. I am absolutely familiar with the program, and I
remember when guidance was issued on that after the bill
passage. I will need to get back to you as to what's going on
with the status of those individuals who have applied.
Ms. Scanlon. I'd appreciate it because we have a very
vibrant--one of the larger Liberian communities in my region.
With that, I'd ask unanimous consent to introduce a statement
from HIAS and Council Immigration Agency on why we need to
extend the deadline for Liberian citizenship given the
extraordinary barriers that have arisen this year.
With that, I yield back.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
I would note that no other Members are present at this
point, so we will conclude this first panel. I would note, Mr.
Edlow, that we will keep the record open for 5 days.
Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional
written questions for witnesses or additional material for the
record, and we would ask that you respond to those questions
promptly should that occur.
At this point, I'm going to ask that we have a brief recess
so that we can transition to the second panel. I would like to
remind Members, once again, of the requirement to have a mask
that covers both your nose and mouth. If you're unable to do
that, we will ask that you leave the hearing.
With that, we are in recess for about 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. So, if Members can reconvene, I believe that
we are ready for our next panel, and I would like to introduce
them.
First, I want to introduce Sharvari Dalal-Dheini. I think
I've mangled your name--I have apologies--who is the director
of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers
Association where she directs the association's administrative
and congressional advocacy efforts with a focus on illegal
immigration system.
She has been cited in numerous national media stories and
recently authored an article for Think Immigration on the USCIS
budget short falls.
Prior to joining AILA in May of 2019, Ms. Dalal-Dheini
served for 11 years as counsel with the USCIS office of the
chief counsel.
Michael Knowles is the President of the American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 1924 AFL-CIO. Local 1924
represents over 2,500 USCIS employees in the national capital
region.
Mr. Knowles also serves as special representative for
humanitarian affairs for the AFGE National Citizenship and
Immigration Services Council 119, which represents 14,500 USCIS
employees worldwide.
Mr. Knowles has worked in the fields of human rights and
refugee protection since the end of the Vietnam war and as
served as an asylum officer with the USCIS Arlington asylum
office since 1992.
Doug Rand is a senior fellow and director of the Technology
and Innovation Initiative at the Federation of American
Scientists, focusing on the intersection of immigration policy
and artificial intelligence.
He's also the cofounder of Boundless, a technology company
that assists individuals in navigating the immigration system.
Prior to this, Mr. Rand served for 6 years under the Obama
Administration as assistant director for entrepreneurship in
the Office of Science and Technology policy.
Finally, Jessica Vaughan, has worked with the Center for
Immigration Studies since 1992 and currently serves as director
of policy studies.
Ms. Vaughan is also an adjunct instructor for senior law
enforcement officers at the Northwestern University Center for
Public Safety in Illinois.
Prior to her work with the Center for Immigration Studies,
Ms. Vaughan was a foreign service officer with the U.S.
Department of State where she served in Belgium, Trinidad, and
Tobago.
We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses on this
second panel, and we thank them for participating in today's
hearing. Now, if you would all please rise, I will begin by
swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Ms. Vaughan, you are not unmuted.
Ms. Vaughn. Thank you. I do.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. The record will reflect that each one of
the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Please note that each of your written statements will be
entered into the record in its entirety, and accordingly, I ask
that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
To help you stay within that time, for those witnesses
testifying in person, there's a timing light on the table. When
the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to
conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals
your 5 minutes have expired.
For those who are testifying remotely, there's a timer on
your screen to help you keep track of time.
So, let's hear from our first witness, Ms. Dalal-Dheini and
you're going to help me on how to pronounce your name. Please
unmute and begin.
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. You can call me Shev, but my last name's
Dalal-Dheini.
Ms. Lofgren. That would be so helpful, thank you.
TESTIMONY OF SHARVARI DALAL-DHEINI
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Good morning, Chair Lofgren and Members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today about the need for oversight, accountability,
and transparency into the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, especially in the light--in light of the possible
furloughs of more than 13,000 of its employees due to an
alleged budget shortfall.
I serve as--I am honored to be here on behalf of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, a bar association of
more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law professors. I am
here on behalf of our Members and the countless families,
vulnerable individuals, students, and businesses they regularly
represent in front of USCIS who will suffer tremendous harm if
the U.S. immigration system comes to a halt.
Even more so, I am honored to be here as someone who worked
for over a decade with the dedicated civil servants at USCIS
whose livelihoods are now in jeopardy. Having spent the
majority of my career at USCIS, I am someone who strongly
believes in the mission of the Agency and deeply care for the
people who work there.
I am also someone who can clearly see when the Agency has
strayed from its statutory mission of focusing exclusively on
the Administration of benefit applications and has transformed
into a vetting agency more focused on stopping legal
immigration.
I was hired by USCIS in 2008 because of congressional
appropriations it received to help eliminate backlogs. We are
here today because, once again, USCIS is asking for a bailout
and processing times have skyrocketed, but this time there's no
operational plan attached to reduce backlogs, just one to make
their customers pay for it.
USCIS claims that its financial woes are result of the
coronavirus; however, USCIS' problems existed well before the
pandemic caused by years of fiscal mismanagement as well as the
Agency's implementation of many policies that negatively
impacted its own revenue. Throughout most of my career at
USCIS, any time a new policy was being discussed, there was a
concerted effort to consider the operational impact it would
have and to keep backlogs in check.
Things changed in 2017 when a new group of political
leadership took rein. As new policy measures were being
discussed, it was made explicit that operational, legal, and
financial concerns didn't matter. This isn't inside
information. This approach is clearly written into USCIS'
recent policies that form an invisible wall to immigration.
USCIS has decreased efficiency, increased the cost of
adjudications, slowed case processing, and discouraged people
from applying for benefits. Many of these policies are detailed
in my written testimony, but today I highlight one particularly
egregious example.
In 2019, USCIS instituted a policy to reject applications
that leave any spaces blank, even if not material. This has
resulted in outrageous rejections. For example, a young child's
asylum application was rejected for failure to write N/A for
the dates of employment, even though, the application was
clearly marked that there was no employment history.
Similarly, multiple cases were rejected because the answer
written was none, not applicable, or NA, instead of N/A despite
the form instructing that it was okay to do so.
This blank space policy unnecessarily adds multiple layers
of review and cost by requiring review of the entire
application in the first instance, mailing back the application
at the government's cost, and reviewing the application, once
again, upon resubmission.
There is no evidence that it helps detect fraud or weed out
frivolous applications. All that USCIS has accomplished with
this, and the many other policies is to deter lawful
immigration and put its own workers at risk of losing their
jobs. USCIS cannot furlough more than 13,000 U.S. workers.
These are real people with real financial and family
responsibilities. They are not pawns.
If they can't work, there will be devastating economic and
social impacts on American families, businesses, and students.
USCIS' request provides Congress the opportunity to exercise
its oversight authority.
Congress must condition any funding on increased
transparency, accountability, and efficiency so that the Agency
can pull itself out of this crisis by its own bootstraps.
AILA urges Congress to take the following steps: One,
reject USCIS' proposal to pass off its own efficiencies by
imposing a 10 percent surcharge to its customers.
Two, impose stringent reporting requirements to hold USCIS
accountable such as those included in the bipartisan Case
Backlog and Transparency Act of 2020.
Three, require USCIS to implement cost-efficient measures
for adjudicating applications and petitions, including
reforming and rescinding policies set forth in--
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Dalal-Dheini, your time has expired so
we'd ask that you wrap up, please.
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Yep. Almost done. Verify whether
emergency appropriations and furloughs are even necessary.
The Agency bears a responsibility for correcting its
systemic problem and Congress must hold it accountable. Thank
you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Dalal-Dheini follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
We will now turn to Mr. Knowles for his 5 minutes of
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL KNOWLES
Mr. Knowles. Thank you, Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member
Buck, and other Members of the committee. It's a great honor
for me to be here, and hope you know how much it means to the
workforce to have one of their own here.
I wanted to recognize Mr. Edlow for his compliments to our
professionalism and our dedication, and to all your Committee
for your hard work supporting us so that we can do the work of
the American people.
My main message today is keeping us at work. Don't send us
home. I'm a little concerned that some of the dialogue today
seems to not recognize the urgency of this situation. The
plight of 13,000 Federal employees is not merely their own
plight, but the entire immigration system of the United States
is hanging in the balance, and it would be a great tragedy if a
furlough were to be allowed to go forward because the various
parties on the Hill and the Administration can't seem to agree
on what needs to be done and when.
For folks who are viewing on television might not
understand the word furlough. It's not a vacation. It's a
layoff. It's actually people being without work, having their
benefits disrupted, and it could become a permanent separation
from duty if measures are not taken to restore our operations.
I liken the word ``furlough'' to a free fall. A free fall,
if you would imagine, somebody jumping out of a plane and not
being sure when or if their parachute is going to open.
Our employees are deeply, deeply concerned. Their
confidence is deeply shaken. Their confidence in the leadership
of the Administration is shaken, and, frankly, their confidence
in the Hill is shaken because they're just not quite sure
people value their work and the importance of their work to our
country enough to Act swiftly and so we're here today to
implore everyone concerned.
Red, blue, left, right, center, Administration, Congress,
please Act now. We're well aware of the concerns that many have
about the crises facing our country, the pandemic, the crisis
of immigration.
Our agency's certainly broken and needs to be fixed. Many
of us have been calling for years for comprehensive immigration
reform, but these things cannot reasonably be expected to be
fixed in 30 days.
So, our union does not wish it to be seen that we're coming
here asking for a blank check for our boss. We're asking that
you keep us at work and that you work diligently with our
Administration and with each other to create an action agenda
that will incorporate accountability, guard rails, and other
things that are very necessary to get immigration services back
on the right path.
I think the views of our union are well-known to the
Committee and to the public. We have been very outspoken in the
last 3 years about some of the horrible and harmful policies of
the Administration, particularly in the area of humanitarian
affairs, refugees, and asylum. Their protection is at risk and
our country's compliance with their obligations to protect the
persecuted leave much to be desired.
So, all of these things we continue to speak loud and
clear. We will continue to do so. We have filed numerous Amicus
briefs. We recently filed substantive comments opposing the new
asylum regulations. We intend to continue to do so.
The most urgent thing I must ask is, please, let us stay at
work and, please, Congress, do your work and get us the funding
that we need, and agency--we ask the Agency to, please, do the
right thing. Use the money for what it's been allocated for.
We certainly oppose the reprogramming of any funds for any
other purpose than immigration services.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Knowles, your time is expired. We'd ask
you to wrap up, please.
Mr. Knowles. Right. I would just say to reiterate that the
failure of the immigration service would be devastating to the
entire country.
Our economy, our health system, our humanitarian programs,
our educational systems, our agriculture, all of it's at risk,
so let's stay on the job and get the job done.
Thank you for listening to me.
[The statement of Mr. Knowles follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mr. Rand.
Mr. Rand you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DOUG RAND
Mr. Rand. Chair Lofgren, Vice-Chair Jayapal, Ranking Member
Buck, and Members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship, it is an honor to appear before you today to
address the oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
My name is Doug Rand, and I'm providing this testimony in
my personal capacity. Today I wish to emphasize that USCIS is
simultaneously suffering from three crises:
First, a mismanagement crisis that is the fundamental cause
of the Agency's demand for a bailout from Congress.
Second, an accountability crisis that this Congress must
remedy.
Third, a naturalization crisis that could disenfranchise
over 300,000 future Americans by this November.
In mid-May of 2020, USCIS suddenly announced that without a
$1.2 billion bailout from Congress, it would soon need to
furlough over 13,000 of its employees because of projected
revenue shortfalls resulting from COVID-19. It is clear,
however, that the Agency's financial troubles are, in fact, due
to mismanagement and deliberate policy choices that long pre-
date the pandemic.
Let's rewind the clock to the end of 2016. The Obama
Administration had just increased USCIS user fees to put the
Agency on a firm financial footing for years to come.
Over the next 3 years, annual agency revenue shot up by
over $700 million, even as the annual number of cases dropped
by 5 percent, but apparently all this extra money wasn't enough
for the Trump Administration.
Even though, USCIS had an $800 million carryover balance at
the end of Fiscal Year 2018, last November the Agency warned
that it would be over $1.5 billion in the hole by the end of
Fiscal Year 2020. In other words, 1 month before the novel
coronavirus causing COVID-19 was even discovered, USCIS was
already projecting that a massive cash crunch would occur right
around now.
That's because USCIS knew well before the pandemic that it
was jacking up expenses even faster than revenues, especially
payroll expenses.
Since 2017, USCIS has increased its head count by nearly 20
percent. Why? First, USCIS is declared an ambition to more than
double the size of its fraud detection and national security
directorate with nearly a thousand additional hires, even in
the absence of any publicly disclosed evidence of the need for
such a surge.
Second, USCIS has created massive new red tape requiring
more staff to complete fewer cases. The Agency's internal cost
to process just five of its most common forms has shot up by
over $500 million per year.
This is the inevitable consequence of a flurry of
unnecessary policies. Three of the most consequential are: The
imposition of mandatory interviews for hundreds of thousands of
green card applicants, the elimination of the H-1B prior
deference policy, and the public charge rule, an unlawful
wealth test that has made green card adjudications vastly more
complex and time consuming for no legitimate reason.
On to the accountability crisis. For nearly two decades,
USCIS has been relatively under scrutinized by appropriations
and oversight committees in Congress because it always had some
service of funding.
Take the new USCIS fee rule, which seeks to eliminate fee
waivers for low-income naturalization applicants and transfer
some hundred million dollars of USCIS user fees to ICE despite
multiple directives from Congress not to do so.
I've read the hundreds of pages in this proposed fee rule,
and you can take my word for it, nowhere does USCIS adequately
explain why it needed $1.3 billion of extra revenue each and
every year even in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a condition of any bailout, USCIS must be fully
transparent with all its financial and operational data and
submit to a thorough independent audit so that the public and
this Congress can understand precisely how this insolvency
debacle happened and how to prevent it from happening, again.
Finally with the general election just a few months away
and the right to vote at stake for hundreds of thousands of
aspiring Americans, USCIS is created a naturalization crisis.
The average processing time for a citizenship application
has doubled to 10 months and is much worse than average in many
of your own congressional districts.
Citizenship applicants are waiting as long as 18 months in
Santa Anna, Swarthmore, and Houston, and well over 2 years in
North Dakota, Phoenix, Miami, and Seattle.
Worst still, USCIS is not remotely on track to naturalize
the next 350,000 people in line for naturalization who would
normally be eligible to vote this November, but still haven't
had their interviews yet. These aspiring Americans are young
and old, Republicans and Democrats, living across the country.
An estimated 68,000 are in California; 3,300 in Colorado;
40,000 in Florida; 200 in North Dakota; 8,000 in Pennsylvania;
27,000 in Texas; and 6,100 in Washington State, all of them at
risk of not being able to vote this year.
This dereliction of duty is hiding in plain sight. Unless
USCIS immediately expedites naturalization interviews and
administers same-day oath ceremonies, then these 315,000
citizenship applicants, some of whom have been in line for
nearly 2 years, will be disenfranchised.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any
questions you might have.
[The statement of Mr. Rand follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
We will now hear from Ms. Vaughan for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JESSICA VAUGHAN
Ms. Vaughn. Thank you very much the opportunity to testify
today.
The Trump Administration has implemented many sound
policies and regulations to restore the integrity of our legal
immigration system. It's now administered in a way that aligns
more closely with our national interests, better protects U.S.
workers, and makes it harder for special interests, bad actors,
and opportunists to gain the system. Claims that these changes
are meant to block or delay legal immigration are baseless.
In fact, according to USCIS data, in the last year
processing times have been constant or improved for the
majority of applicants. Some of the processing backlogs have
been significantly reduced, and USCIS approved the highest
number of new citizens in 11 years. Nevertheless, a variety of
chronic problems aggravated by external pressures, including
the coronavirus pandemic, continue to challenge the Agency.
Besides the crushing workload, rampant fraud, and influx of
frivolous applications, USCIS operates under an obsolete
funding process that hampers its progress. Moreover, there are
too many large benefit programs like DACA, new visas, and
asylum applications that are a fiscal drag on the Agency
because the applicants don't pay the full cost of processing
their applications.
The new fee Rule will help in the short-term, but to ensure
the Agency's sustainability, Congress should reduce the number
of fee-exempt programs and reform the fee collection and
appropriations process to give Congress more oversight over how
USCIS uses its revenue and also provide that stability.
USCIS has the challenge of balancing the imperative to
correctly and fairly adjudicate applications with the
expectation for them to be adjudicated within a reasonable
timeframe. Further, the Agency is constantly subject to
pressure from special interest groups like employers that
sponsor a lot of foreign workers and immigration and legal aid
attorneys who badger the Agency to adopt policies that they
think will favor their clients or their own practices.
For too long, USCIS leadership succumbed to this pressure
at the expense of correct and fair adjudication. The results
were unsatisfactory for the Nation and especially for those in
the U.S. workforce who have suffered harm because of rushed
decisions, tolerance of fraud, or questionable prioritization
of cases with serious consequences sometimes.
Recall the case of Tashfeen Malik, who 5 years ago with her
husband, killed 14 Americans and wounded 22 others in a
terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. She originally
entered on a fiancee visa and investigations after the attack
revealed that USCIS and the State Department were careless with
her application, missing several indicators that should have
led to a denial.
At the time of the attack, her brother-in-law was busy
arranging a fraudulent green card marriage between one of their
accomplices in the attack, an illegal alien.
More recently, the Trump Administration has prosecuted and
denaturalized dozens of terrorists, war criminals, human rights
violators, and other serious criminals who lied, used false
documents, or otherwise fraudulently obtained immigration
benefits that put them on the path to citizenship.
Denaturalization of these people is not an attack on
immigrants, but an attack on fraud. Often it is legal
immigrants in the community that tip off authorities as to who
these people really are.
Two days ago, the Department of Justice announced a
settlement deal with Asta CRS, Incorporated, a technology
staffing company that flagrantly discriminated against U.S.
workers in hiring. Asta has placed hundreds of visa workers at
companies like Anthem, Barclay, FedEx, Capital One, and CVS,
and sponsored some employees for green cards while illegally
shunning U.S. workers.
It's not anti-immigrant to bust these companies. In fact,
it opens job opportunities for all legal U.S. workers.
Last November, a Federal grand jury indicted two South
Korean nationals for submitting 117 bogus applications for
alien workers, enabling 125 aliens to live in the U.S. after
paying visa fees of tens of thousands of dollars. They put
fraudulent tax and other corporate documents in their client's
application to deceive USCIS adjudicators and falsely claim
that their clients could not find suitable U.S. workers.
These illegal schemes clog the system and prevent
legitimate applicants from accessing the system. So,
immigration adjudications cannot be done on the cheap or
considered pointless red tape. The new set of fees that USCIS
is about to implement will help, but it's not going to be
enough because of the other chronic problems in funding.
Too many of the application fees are still set artificially
low. For example, under the new fee structure, asylum
applicants will pay a fee for the first time, $50, but the
actual direct processing cost for these applications is $366.
When you count the indirect processing cost, the fee really
should be set at $1,800. So, asylum applicants, most of whom
are actually ultimately not found qualified for the benefit,
will continue to be subsidized by legal immigrants and their
sponsors.
Fee waivers are another problem. So, it's time for Congress
to consider moving to an appropriation of the fees that USCIS
collects in order to get that stability and offer--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time is expired. If you could
wrap up, that would be helpful.
Ms. Vaughn. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Vaughn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
All our witnesses' testimony is supplemented by their full
written testimony and now is the time when Members of the
Committee may ask questions of this panel, and I will begin.
I want to talk to you first, Mr. Knowles, because I am so
concerned and sympathetic with the professional staff at USCIS.
I want you to know that our staff and the staff of the
Appropriations Committee has been in communication with USCIS
for months trying to come up with a solution.
I am confident that Mr. Edlow's testimony today that he
wanted to find a resolution is, in fact, correct. I'm not sure
everybody in the Administration is where he is, but we are
doing our best; however, we actually need a formal request to
the Appropriations Committee that meets their requirements, and
I know that the Administration knows how to do that because
they make those requests frequently.
So, we hope to get past that barrier and I'm hoping that
this hearing will help move us past some of the barriers that
seem to have come up.
I want to mention to Ms. Dalal-Dheini, if I may, a
question. We've heard a lot about the mismanagement and poor
implementation of policies that led to the budget crisis.
Now, you worked at USCIS for more than 10 years through
three different presidential Administrations and you've
discussed in your testimony certain factors that previous
Administrations would consider prior to implementing policy
changes to ensure it goes smoothly.
Now, what factors would a responsible leadership at the
department consider when rolling out new policies and
procedures and how might we work with the Administration to
make sure that an orderly process is included so that we don't
end up back in the same spot in another month?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I've experienced working through three different
Administrations and working on rolling out policies, and what
was very almost a reflexive nature of what would happen in the
process of rolling out policies was that the impact on the
operations and the adjudications would have a coequal voice at
the table. It would be discussed.
If we do this, then X is going to happen to adjudication.
It would look at the bigger picture of how it would work in the
grand scheme of things, but what's also important is also a
constant review of the impact of the policy after it's been
rolled out. What is the actual effect?
You can assume an effect before it rolls out, but then you
have to continue analyzing what that effect is. That's why AILA
has been a big supporter of the bipartisan Case Backlog and
Transparency Act because it mandates those reporting
requirements to ensure that USCIS is paying attention to the
impact of the policies that they roll out.
Ms. Lofgren. That's very helpful.
Now, I'd like to ask Mr. Rand, your testimony was very
helpful, but you are here not only because of your expertise,
but because of your knowledge about the intersection of
immigration policy and science.
Are you seeing an impact on science in the United States
through the way the Administration is administering our
immigration laws at this point?
Mr. Rand. Thank you, Chair Lofgren. Certainly, we're seeing
an impact. It's an incredibly adverse impact from the entire
array of policies this Administration continues to impose to
restrict legal immigration across the board.
It's almost impossible to think of any policy over the past
3 and a half years that is actually improved the ability to
serve its traditional roles, a magnet for international talent.
I would just point out one thing--many, I could point out.
In Mr. Edlow's testimony, he talked over and over again about
safeguarding the Nation's immigration system and ensuring that
only those who are eligible for a benefit receive one.
Let's talk about science for a second. There's maybe one
green card category also known as the genius visa for people of
extraordinary ability that has been traditionally a way for the
United States to attract the best and brightest scientists and
researchers from around the world.
Approvals are down 26 percentage points since 2017. That's
a quarter. It defies belief that a quarter of the genius visa
applicants suddenly don't deserve them or never did, including
a Nobel laureate who was rejected, why? Because USCIS wanted
more information on the interpreter who translated the Nobel
award.
So, this Administration is doing extraordinary absurd
things that are harming America's long-term competitiveness in
science technology, engineering, and math.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much for that testimony and my
time is expired.
I understand Mr. Buck had to leave, but Ms. Lesko, you are
recognized for your 5 minutes.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses today.
Before I ask questions, I first want to make a statement
that I think it's absolutely astonishing that a number of my
Democratic colleagues on Judiciary Committee and in the whole
caucus refused to say anything or condemn outright rioting,
looting in our cities, deny that they're really was any
takeover in Seattle, CHAZ, chop zone, even though, there are
shootings and killings, think it's perfectly fine to set up
sanctuary cities, really prioritize illegal aliens, but then
chastise me when my mask falls down--oh, my goodness--down here
and my nose is exposed. I just find it absolutely ludicrous.
In any case, I have a question for Ms. Vaughan.
Ms. Vaughan, what is the importance of USCIS detecting
fraud?
Ms. Vaughn. Well, it's critically important for a number of
reasons. First, it's important for our national security
because we know from post-mortems of case after case of
terrorists who were foreign nationals who carried out attacks
here that they often use immigration fraud to get into the
country to further their agenda and carry out these attacks. As
I mentioned, the San Bernardino attack is one of the most
concerning examples.
The other reason fraud is a problem is because it destroys
the integrity of our legal immigration system. It's no point in
having rules for the limited green cards and visas that are
available if they're going to be subverted through fraud.
The people who suffer from that are not only the sponsors
of these immigrants or workers, but also those who are coming
on legitimate applications who find that their application
times are taking longer and longer because the Agency has to
weed through so much fraud and frivolous applications.
The asylum system is the most obvious example of that where
we find that only a small percentage of the people who actually
submit those applications will be found qualified for that, if
they even show up for their hearings.
I saw this morning that something like 300-some thousand
asylum applications that are now pending and The Wall Street
Journal had an article this morning about a woman who is a
Uighur from China who's also a student in Rhode Island whose
application has been on hold for years because the Agency has
this backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, many of them
were illegal border crossers who heard that if they made an
asylum claim that they would be allowed to stay in this country
almost indefinitely.
Those are all the cases who, by the way, have not been
paying a fee for the asylum application that are clogging up
the system that prevent USCIS officers from moving forward with
these cases and getting to approve the bonified cases within
them.
The same is true of family-based applications and
employment-based applications. That's what happened when DACA
was implemented.
The DACA cases were made a priority, even though, they,
too, were not paying a fee that really covered the full cost of
their application. At the time that meant that U.S. citizens
who were trying to sponsor their spouses and children and
employers who were trying to get needed workers here on visas
and getting green cards approved, all those cases were shifted
to the slow lane so that the DACA cases could be prioritized,
and this eventually is a real drag on the system.
I don't think the taxpayers should have to cover the cost
of our legal immigration system, but I also don't think that
legal immigrants should have to subsidize the processing of
benefits for people who haven't come here legitimately and who
are merely trying to gain the system and commit fraud.
Ms. Lesko. Well, thank you. I only have 16 seconds left, so
I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
At this point I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Washington, Ms. Jayapal, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all so
much for being here. I really appreciate it.
This is a subject that's near and dear to my heart as some
of you know. I'm one of only 14 naturalized citizens to serve
in the United States Congress and it took me 17 years to get my
citizenship and series of alphabet soup of visas. It was a
difficult process, but I know that I'm one of the lucky ones,
and I really deeply appreciate the work that the employees at
USCIS do. Thank you, Mr. Knowles.
I appreciate the work of AILA and all of you that are here
talking about how critically important naturalization and
citizenship services are to this country. Despite the Trump
Administration's harsh rhetoric that would have you believe
that no one is in compliance with U.S. immigration laws, there
are actually millions of people that are bending over backwards
to do everything that we ask of them, and yet Trump's USCIS,
the USCIS as it has evolved under this President, is making
that process as difficult and slow and expensive as possible.
People across the country are experiencing this every day
as they face unprecedented wait times, overly stringent
vetting, and will soon pay drastically higher fees.
So, Ms. Dalal-Dheini, let me start with you. Do you agree
with the statement that there has been purposeful attempt to
dismantle USCIS and legal immigration processes?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Thank you, Representative.
Yes, I do agree with that statement because if you look at
the policies that have been enacted, they deliberately decrease
USCIS efficiency, drive up the cost of adjudication, slow down
case processing, and discourage individuals from applying
because the system has gotten so hard to navigate.
It's become much more complicated, complex, and although
the claims are that it's for fraud detection or to weed out
frivolous applications, there hasn't been evidence to that.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Rand for an agency to undergo such drastic
changes as we've seen at USCIS, is that a decision that stems
from the Agency itself or from the White House? Where is that
coming from?
Mr. Rand. Thank you, Vice Chair Jayapal. I think it's
pretty clear that it's the White House that is dismantling from
the top down our immigration system, and it's eliminated at
this point any dissenting opinions from the political ranks
throughout DHS, including USCIS.
The White House and USCIS' leadership are working together
hand in glove every day to create these massive new barriers to
immigration, including legal immigration. I mean, just look at
the fact that USCIS is still on paper headed by Ken Cuccinelli,
a man who has compared immigrants to rats and who often gets to
use the White House briefing room to spread misinformation.
Ms. Jayapal. So, as much as the White House would like us
to think that some of their efforts are around undocumented
immigrants, people who have not been afforded any fair process
to be able to actually legalize their status, it seems that
this is a concerted effort to end legal immigration as we know
it.
We've heard a lot today about the budget crisis facing the
Agency. Ms. Dalal-Dheini, is it your belief that this crisis is
as a result of decreased applications due to the pandemic or an
outcome of an agencies that actually trying to dismantle
itself?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. So, USCIS identified in its proposed fee
Rule back in November of 2019 that it would have a $1.5 billion
deficit at the end of the fiscal year. So, clearly, coronavirus
isn't the only problem. There may have been a decrease in
receipts, but what we have seen is that there has been a
decrease in receipts well before that, but an increase in
personnel and an increase in processing times.
So, clearly, that's not a good business model if you want
to be efficient and work like a business. You have to be able
to maximize your efficiency to deliver the best service. So,
yes, I do think it's been intentional to do that.
You've seen some policies that they've rolled out. For
example, Mr. Rand mentioned the adjustment of status
interviews, which have been mandated for every single
employment-based adjustment interview. These are individuals
who have been in this country for years on end, who have gone
through the system, have been vetted multiple times. The
average case processing time for those have increased by 58
percent in the matter of a few--in 2 fiscal years.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Knowles, my time is running out, but I
first want to just say thank you, to you and the many dedicated
employees at USCIS. We deeply, deeply appreciate what you do.
Do you agree that this shift that has been described here
is at the root of the budgetary problems facing the Agency?
Mr. Knowles. I believe that that is a large part of it.
Certainly, the pandemic is in sort of a perfect storm scenario.
Yes, I think the budget crisis is largely a result of the
Administration's policies on immigration.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Correa, is recognized.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, let me start out by, Mr. Knowles, I just want to
thank you and your Members of your group for your support and
good work supporting our communities as they try to become
citizens and pursue the American Dream. A lot of your union
Members are my constituents, and I hear from them every day,
success stories and horror stories. So, again, thank you very
much. As you were talking, I was texting a couple of my
constituents who are very concerned about this issue.
I wanted to address some questions, comments, to Mr. Doug
Rand, actually to all of you. I'm going to ask the same
question to all of you. Mr. Doug Rand, you mentioned there was
an increase in personnel of 20 percent or 20,000 new hires to
detect fraud. Is there any way to figure out whether the--under
the cost-benefit analysis whether this increase in personnel to
detect fraud actually resulted in more fraud being detected or
it simply just slowed down the system?
Because as you know and I know, if you apply an adjustment
of status or citizenship and you lie in that application, later
the authorities can come back and pull that adjustment of
status or that citizenship out from under you. So, my question
to you is, has this new fraud effort yielded any results?
Mr. Rand. Representative Correa, I appreciate that
question. I can say very confidently that USCIS has provided no
data or backup to the public to justify its huge staffing surge
in terms of fraud detection. If that effort is bearing any
fruit, we have yet to see any evidence of it despite anecdotal
reports that are always going to be available.
I would point out that safeguarding our Nation's
immigration system doesn't just mean ensuring that those who
aren't eligible don't receive a benefit. Everybody agrees with
that. It also means ensuring that people who are eligible to
receive their benefit, and that is something that this
Administration has guaranteed is not going to happen.
Take the public charge rule. Thousands of people are going
to be denied green cards based on wealth, health, education,
disability, and a host of other arbitrary factors even if they
are unlikely to use welfare and other social safety net
programs in the future. So, this Administration fails to admit
that integrity goes both ways. It's not just about preventing
fraud.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Knowles, does that public charge Rule take
into consideration the taxes that these individuals pay into
the system at every level, Federal, State, and local?
Mr. Knowles. I can't quite speak to the Agency's policies
on that, but I believe I could say that our union agrees with
the statement of Mr. Rand that he just made.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Rand, let me ask you that same question.
Does the public charge rule, does it consider the taxes that
these workers pay into the system, Federal State, and local?
Mr. Rand. Absolutely not.
Mr. Correa. So, you're just looking at the cost and not the
expense side--or the benefits side of having a productive work
in our society?
Mr. Rand. That's correct.
Mr. Correa. Okay. Very quickly, I'm running out of time, a
minute and a half here, a little bit less. I'm going to ask a
quick question to the other Members of the panel, which is
should we support a full audit, full transparency? Mr. Knowles,
do you support audit transparency?
Mr. Knowles. Always.
Mr. Correa. Ms. Vaughan?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I do support audits and transparency for
the process and especially on the matter of fee waivers. I
think that everyone should get more information on the extent
to which USCIS is giving fee waivers.
Mr. Correa. Thank you. I'm running out of time.
Madam Sharvari, do you support that?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Absolutely. Transparency is necessary to
shine a light on the broken system.
Mr. Correa. I have so many other questions, but very
quickly, Ms. Vaughan, I'm going to come back to you and very
quickly ask, do you support a merit-based immigration system?
Ms. Vaughan. Yes, I do.
Mr. Correa. Where would a farm worker fit in that system?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, farm workers right now come in mostly
through the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program. It's a temporary
work program. In our current immigration system--
Mr. Correa. There's a lot of undocumented immigration farm
workers out there working without a green card. How would they
fit into that system?
Ms. Vaughan. Well--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I'm with my colleague, my good friend, Representative
Jayapal. I'm one of the 14 naturalized citizens in this
country, and it's incredible to me how we refer to immigrants,
like Representative Lesko, as aliens. We're humans. We
contribute greatly to the economy of the United States.
Actually, immigrants contributed more than $11 billion in
taxes. The reason why there's so many undocumented immigrants
in this country, it's because of the failure of the agencies
that process these applications.
Most immigrants that I have spoken to want to go through
the process to get legal documentation so that they can
continue to pay their taxes, stop hiding behind the attacks of
the Trump Administration, and continue to do the work that they
came to do. Most of them have been here for decades.
We need to find a way for us to process these applications
and provide a path for legal, whether it's citizenship, legal
resident status. The attacks against immigrants has got to
stop. There are so many myths, and I would like for Mr. Rand to
comment on this.
I know that, since the Trump Administration took over, in
2017, refugee admissions dropped to the lowest since 2002. He
has enacted stricter restrictions to H-B1 visas. He's trying to
follow a merit-based immigration system. Mr. Rand, if you can
comment on how this would affect the American economy because I
know that maybe some of my colleagues who talk a lot about the
economy may start paying some attention.
I can tell you in my area, Mr. Rand, most Republicans--I
have an area where there are thousands and thousands of
immigrants that live in my area in south Florida that came from
another country who are entrepreneurs, who are contributing to
the economy, and Republicans have asked for immigration reform.
They want them to remain here legally, but there's not a path.
I want you to talk on the effects that the Trump
Administration immigration policies can affect our economy and
our economic recovery. If you can comment on that, please.
Mr. Rand. Thank you so much, Representative.
I think one could go on and on about the economic benefits
of immigration. That is something that there's almost no
dissent among reputable economists about. Immigration of all
skill levels, high- and low-wage, builds our economy. It is a
myth that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens. We should
be so lucky as to have more immigrants who become new
Americans, like yourself and so many others.
I would just also add that, when comprehensive immigration
reform passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support,
at that time in 2013, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office noted that, if this had passed and had increased
immigration through legalization of the undocumented as well as
increased future flows, this would have put the Social Security
trust fund on much firmer footing, this would have increased
our GDP dramatically, this would have reduced budget deficits
dramatically, for all those who say they care about fiscal
responsibility, and would have increased U.S. worker wages.
So, without a doubt, if you do the opposite of that, which
this Administration is trying to do, our economy is going to
take a hit in the near and long term.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Rand, and since we're on the
topic, do you think that immigrants, undocumented immigrants
are taking jobs away from native-born Americans?
Mr. Rand. There is no evidence in the economic literature
of that, despite what many people would say rhetorically.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
Mr. Knowles, I want to shift to you. There's been a lot of
criticism, particularly from my colleagues across the aisle,
that asylum and refugee applications were not vetted properly
prior to this Administration. Do you agree with that
characterization?
Mr. Knowles. I absolutely reject that characterization. I
think we could say that the asylum and refugee programs have
been among the most rigorous, most professional. We certainly
provide vital services to protecting refugees. We also do a
good job of fighting fraud and combating terrorism. We're on
the front lines.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Knowles.
Mr. Knowles. I would appreciate more support for what we
do.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I know. You're career professionals,
and we're going to do whatever we can to support all of the
employees who are especially now facing furloughs in the
future.
Can you just describe quickly how asylum applicants were
vetted in previous Administrations so people understand that
there's a very strict vetting process? When you hear fraud, and
we don't have a lot of data that provides those--
Mr. Knowles. Well--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. The witness
will be--if you could very quickly.
Mr. Knowles. Yeah. If I could just say that the vetting
process is very careful, I would say extremely careful. If you
just look at our performance standards for asylum officers, 60
percent of our performance metrics and measures focus on how
well we determine credibility, how well we do security checks
and the like. So, we're very--
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Knowles, perhaps you could provide a more
fulsome outline to us for the written record, if you would,
please.
Mr. Knowles. We could send you our performance metrics
plan.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. We'll now turn--
Mr. Knowles. We do a careful job.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Ms. Scanlon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rand, just to follow up on one point. I asked the USCIS
representative about the suggestion that funds be transferred
from CIS to ICE, and he said they haven't transferred that
money. Are there indications that CIS has some interest in
diverting funds to ICE?
Mr. Rand. Representative Scanlon, there are certainly
explicit indications in that the Trump White House has
requested the authority to transfer hundreds of millions of
dollars or more of USCIS user fees to ICE in its budget
request, and USCIS reiterated this request in its proposed fee
rule. So, they've asked for permission. We don't have evidence
that they have actually executed those transfers in defiance of
Congress.
I would say, all that Mr. Edlow told this Subcommittee just
now is that, to his knowledge, such transfers haven't happened
in the last two fiscal years, and, of course, this
Administration has lasted for more than 2 fiscal years. So, I
certainly think it would be worthwhile to get a clear,
unequivocal answer to that very important question.
At the same time, Mr. Edlow and others have also admitted
that, even if funds were not transferred, personnel resources
were seconded over to ICE at a time when USCIS can ill afford
to lose any resources in its losing battle to beat back
skyrocketing backlogs and wait times.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Thank you for helping to clarify
that.
Ms. Dalal-Dheini, given your background, which includes
having worked at CIS for more than a decade, can you describe
in lay terms the impact that the proposed furlough would have
on CIS personnel?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I can give you
examples of individuals who I know have gotten furlough
notices. You have a single mother of a toddler who recently
purchased a home. You have a recent master's degree graduate
who just secured a position as an asylum officer and is
dependent on healthcare insurance for chronic healthcare
conditions.
You have a dedicated employee who served the Agency for
more than 20 years and is nearing retirement. You have an
experienced professional who has two young children whose
spouse has already been laid off due to COVID-19. So, those are
some.
Then there's also the impact of what will happen to U.S.
families, businesses: People won't be able to vote in time.
Individuals stuck in the backlog for naturalization won't be
able to vote. DACA recipients will not be able to renew their
benefits. Asylum applicants will face increased delays.
Critically, businesses won't be able to hire or retain
essential employees needed to recover from the global economic
crisis that we are now facing.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
Just to clarify, so we have people in this country who've
met all the requirements for citizenship; just because of the
backlog, they haven't actually received their citizenship yet,
and as a result, they can't vote in this year's election?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. So, there's a backlog of individuals who
are waiting to be administered the oath ceremony, and after
they are, then they're citizens and would be eligible to
register to vote.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. We've heard a lot about mismanagement
and policies that have led to the current budget crisis. What
factors do you think responsible leadership should be
considering when rolling out new policies and procedures for
CIS?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Well, I think the issue is really to
consider how much--to be able to properly balance the fraud
detection, the need to detect that, and extreme vetting, right.
There's a difference between understanding who is eligible and
not eligible, but then the vetting that this Administration has
taken to it goes to such an extent that it's just holding
people back even though they're eligible. It's not about
security. It's about deterring people from becoming American
citizens.
Ms. Scanlon. So, nobody here is advocating that we just
tear down the borders and let everybody in. We're still talking
about enforcing security?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. Absolutely. I mean, as an employee of
USCIS for over a decade, it was important to balance the need
to protect our homeland with administering faithfully the
Immigration Nationality Act. It's honoring our heritage to
welcome immigrants to benefit our country.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification
given some of the rhetoric that we've heard.
Are there any accountability mechanisms that Congress
should consider before agreeing to CIS' request for emergency
funding?
Ms. Dalal-Dheini. So, as I mentioned in my testimony, there
are a few. First, we really need to make sure that their
inefficiencies are not passed off to the customers unless it's
by their choice. The second is reporting requirements because,
since USCIS is 97 percent fee funded, Congress does not have
the opportunity to provide oversight, and reporting
requirements need to be about the status of the backlog, about
the processing of different cases. In addition, they need to
implement cost-efficient measures. Many of the policies rolled
out--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. It would be
wonderful if we could get the complete list for the written
record, and we will take that into account.
All time has now expired for questioning of our witnesses,
and we do have a deadline of 9 o'clock to conclude. So, I will
thank the witnesses, both Mr. Edlow and the second panel, for
being with us and participating in this hearing.
Without objection, by unanimous consent, I will put into
the record statements from 20 organizations that have asked to
have their statements made part of the record. I'll note also
that Members have 5 legislative days to submit additional
written questions for the witnesses or to provide additional
material for the record. If we do have questions for you, we'd
ask that you do answer them. We appreciate your participation
here today.
MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I'll just close by saying it's obvious that we need to come
up with a solution for what's going on here, and that involves
money, but it also involves policy. When the Nobel Prize winner
is being second-guessed, the Nobel Committee is being second
guessed on the scientist, Houston, we have a problem.
So, let's hope that we can resolve some of those problems,
get this agency back on the right track, and certainly do it in
a timeframe that allows the much valued professional staff to
have to stop worrying about their own personal future, which is
only natural.
At this point, I will thank everyone for participating, and
we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]