U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–313 PDF 2007

PROPOSED IMMIGRATION FEE INCREASE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 14, 2007

Serial No. 110–1

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director-Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Deputy Chief Minority Counsel/Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 6

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 7

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez, Ph.D., Director, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 3

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 5

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois ................................................................. 8

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 9

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barney Frank, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Massachusetts ........................................................ 47

Letter to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren from the Honorable Joe Baca, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Congressional Hispanic Caucus ........................................................................................ 48

Letter to the Honorable Luis Gutierrez from the Honorable Emilio Gonzalez, 

Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 50

Page

IV

Chart outlining the Proposed Fee Increases of Employment Based v. Family 

Based fees, submitted by the Honorable Emilio Gonzalez, Director, United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 52

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Responses to Post-Hearing Questions posed by Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and the Honorable Keith 

Ellison ................................................................................................................... 53

(1)

PROPOSED IMMIGRATION FEE INCREASE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman, Jackson 

Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Davis, Ellison, Conyers, King, Lungren, 

Gohmert, and Smith. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Good afternoon. This first hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 

and International Law will come to order. 

I would just like to note a few housekeeping items here at the 

beginning of our meeting, which is that we will proceed in our 

order of questioning by seniority, making accommodation on an ad 

hoc basis for Members who have conflicts. 

I will make an opening statement, and I am so pleased that our 

Ranking Member, Mr. King, will make an opening statement. 

Certainly, we will accommodate the Chair of our full Committee 

and the Ranking Member of the full Committee to make opening 

statements. We will ask other Members to submit their opening 

statements for the record. 

I would like to welcome everyone to this very first hearing of the 

Immigration Subcommittee in the 110th Congress. I would like to 

welcome Mr. King and the Members of the Subcommittee, as well 

as USCIS Director Gonzalez and the members of the public and 

press who have joined us here today. 

I appreciate that Mr. King and I share a commitment to reforming the nation’s immigration laws. Together, this Subcommittee 

will find a new way forward on some of the most important issues 

of our day. 

Our immigration services need to move ahead. They must transform themselves into 21st-century organizations, fully automated, 

paperless, able to communicate among themselves, and able to 

track not only the status of the cases they process but the entries 

and exits of those who come to the United States. 

Our security interests demand these things. America’s immigration services must be able to adjudicate cases in ways that ensure 

the safety and security of America and Americans. The immigration services must have the resources to do that. They must have 

2

the people, the technologies and the business processes to do their 

job. 

As the 9/11 Commission indicated in its report, the services our 

immigration authorities provide to their customers is just as important to our security. America’s immigration authorities are in many 

ways, as the 9/11 Commission recognized, our face to the world. 

When the good people of the world try to come to America to visit, 

to work, to live, our immigration authorities, by their actions and 

by their lack of action, make a statement about America and Americans. Excessive delays, backlogs, arbitrary decisions—they all send 

negative messages. Those messages, as the 9/11 Commission recognized, can harm our national security. 

As the agency charged with adjudicating applications and petitions for naturalization and immigration benefits, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is often the first point of contact 

many people have with America. 

It is imperative that the CIS provide the best possible service. 

CIS, by its own admission, is not yet a 21st-century organization. 

It has not yet implemented the technologies and business processes 

that it requires to adjudicate its cases effectively. 

Over the past several years, Congress has appropriated hundreds 

of millions of dollars to CIS to help it reduce its backlog, fund its 

operations, and transform itself into a 21st-century organization. 

And yet, as we gather here today, the Administration has requested a precipitous drop in directly appropriated funds. 

In place of those funds, CIS has proposed to significantly raise 

its fees, by an average of 96 percent. In return, CIS promises to 

decrease its average processing time by 20 percent. We need to ask 

whether that return on investment is sufficient. 

Some of the proposed fee increases seem quite large. The fee for 

naturalization applications would rise by 80 percent. The fee for an 

adjustment of status applications would rise by over 178 percent. 

We need to ask questions about the need for such large increases. 

It is also important for this Subcommittee to gain an understanding of how the agency has been spending the money it has received, both from fees and from direct appropriations, over the past 

few years. Only by understanding how the agency has previously 

invested its resources can we fairly judge the promises it makes in 

its proposed fee regulation. 

We must get answers to questions about the agency’s future 

plans. We must ask that the agency provide us with its plans to 

transform its technology and business processes. We must begin to 

explore the best means by which CIS ought to be funded. We know 

that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits, but does not require, the agency to fund its costs through user fees. Only by understanding the nature of the agency’s operations can we make informed judgments about the best available means to ensure the 

agency has the funding it needs to perform its critical mission. 

I look forward to hearing from the witness, Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, 

Director of CIS, today. I look forward to gaining a fuller understanding of the agency’s current practices, its future plans, and 

how it made its decision to raise the fees. 

At this point, I would like to call on the Ranking Member to 

make his opening statement. Mr. King? 

3

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee in the 110th Congress. I especially welcome the Subcommittee’s Ranking 

Member, Mr. King, the members of the Subcommittee, USCIS Director Gonzalez 

and the members of the public and press who have joined us here today. 

I appreciate that Mr. King and I share a commitment to reforming the Nation’s 

immigration laws. Together this Subcommittee will find a new way forward on some 

of the most important issues of our day. 

Our immigration services need to move ahead. They must transform themselves 

into 21st Century organizations, fully automated, paperless, able to communicate 

amongst themselves and able to track not only the status of the cases they process, 

but the entries and exits of those who come to the United States. 

Our security interests demand these things. America’s immigration services must 

be able to adjudicate cases in ways that ensure the safety and security of America 

and Americans. The immigration services must have the resources to do that. They 

must have the people, the technologies and the business processes to do their job. 

As the 9-11 Commission indicated in its report, the services our immigration authorities provide to their customers is just as important to our security. America’s 

immigration authorities are, in many ways, as the 9-11 Commission recognized, our 

face to the world. When the good people of the world try to come to America, to 

visit, to work, to live, our immigration authorities, by their actions and by their lack 

of action, make a statement about America and Americans. 

Excessive delays, backlogs, arbitrary decisions, all send negative messages. Those 

messages, as the 9-11 Commission recognized, can harm our national security. 

As the agency charged with adjudicating applications and petitions for naturalization and immigration benefits, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is 

often the first point of contact many people have with America. It is imperative that 

CIS provide the best possible service. 

CIS, by its own admission, is not a 21st Century organization. It has failed to implement the technologies and business processes that it requires to adjudicate its 

cases effectively. 

Over the past several years, Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of 

dollars to CIS to help it reduce its backlog, fund its operations and transform itself 

into a 21st Century organization. And, yet, as we gather here today, the Administration has requested a precipitous drop in directly appropriated funds. 

In place of those funds, CIS has proposed to significantly raise its fees—by an average of 96%. In return, CIS promises to decrease its average processing times by 

20%. It is appropriate to ask whether that return on investment is sufficient. 

Some of the proposed fee increases seem quite large. The fee for naturalization 

applications would rise by 80%. The fee for an adjustment of status applications 

would rise over 178%. We must ask questions about the need for such large increases. 

It is also important for this Subcommittee to gain an understanding of how the 

agency has been spending the monies it has received, both from fees and from direct 

appropriations, over the past few years. Only by understanding how the agency has 

previously invested its resources can we fairly judge the promises it makes in its 

proposed fee regulation. 

We must get answers to questions about the agency’s future plans. We must ask 

that the agency provide us with its plan to transform its technology and business 

processes. 

We must begin to explore the best means by which CIS ought to be funded. We 

know that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits, but does not require, the 

agency to fund its costs through user fees. Only by understanding the nature of the 

agency’s operations can we make informed judgments about the best available 

means to ensure the agency has the funding it needs to perform its critical mission. 

I look forward to hearing from the witness, Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director of CIS, 

today. I look forward to gaining a fuller understanding of the agency’s current practices, its future plans and how it made its decision to raise the fees.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to congratulate you 

for receiving the gavel and starting off this, our first hearing of the 

4

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. I promise to memorize that title before 

this is over. [Laughter.] 

I am looking forward to this process, and I very much appreciate 

the tone and the professionalism that you bring. 

I am also looking forward to the hearing here today to discuss 

the proposed rules and for the fee increases with Director Gonzalez. 

Federal law requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services operate as a fee-based agency. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 also requires that USCIS review its fee schedule 

every 2 years to ensure that it reflects the costs incurred by the 

agency. I would go above and beyond this by encouraging timely 

cost projections every year. 

USCIS conducted its last comprehensive fee review in 1998, so 

the current fees are based on 1998 cost projections, with some adjustments. Agency operating costs have risen significantly since 

1998, and while USCIS raised some fees in recent years, those increases were not nearly enough to cover today’s operating costs, 

which will be about $1.752 billion for fiscal year 2007. 

USCIS recently conducted its first comprehensive fee review 

since 1998. The rule proposed by USCIS on February 1 is a result 

of that review. 

I commend Director Gonzalez for trying to ensure that American 

taxpayers are not forced to pay the costs of foreign nationals getting immigration benefits such as an adjustment of immigration 

status, employment authorization or replacement of a green card. 

The proposed increases do not seem excessive. For instance, under the new fee structure, it would cost a person $595 to apply 

for naturalization, or $320 to petition for a non-immigrant worker. 

These fees are small in contrast to the benefits of American citizenship or legal work status in the United States. If I might quote the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee, ‘‘American citizenship is 

priceless.’’

The fees take into account those immigrants who are least likely 

to be able to pay. For instance, victims of persecution will not have 

to pay fees to apply for asylum, and victims of trafficking will not 

have to pay fees to apply for T-visas. 

USCIS experts will receive 4.7 million immigrant benefit applications anticipated for 2008 and 2009. It will cost the agency $2.329 

billion to have the staff to adjudicate the petitions, conduct background checks on applicants, and pay the other costs to process all 

of those applications. 

Some of the proposed new fees will pay for the enhanced security 

and integrity of the immigration system. It is an especially important goal. I am pleased to see that these fees will fund 170 additional fraud detection and national security agents to oversee fraud 

investigations and the processing of applications that have national 

security concerns. 

It is not unprecedented for criminals and terrorists to try and 

enter the United States through legal channels. Mahmoud Abu 

Halima, a terrorist who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993, 

received amnesty through the 1986 immigration bill. Furthermore, 

9/11 hijackers came into the United States on student and visitor 

5

visas. As we have tragically learned, thorough background checks 

are especially critical to immigration processing. 

The balance of the money will go toward modernizing the technology and business structure of USCIS and improving the delivery 

of services, including a 20 percent average decrease in the time for 

application processing by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

These are laudable goals, but only if the national security goal 

is met first. I emphasize that: only if the national security goal is 

met first. I know that some have condemned the proposed fee increase and called it unfair to the immigrants who have to pay the 

fees. Some of you have called on the Administration to find other 

ways to fund the changes needed at USCIS. But unfortunately, 

these groups fail to acknowledge that it is right for the people who 

receive the benefits to pay for them. 

In other words, the immigrants who will enjoy the priceless benefits of living and working in America should have to pay for the 

costs of coming here. After all, the fees are less than the average 

costs of being illegally smuggled into the United States—roughly 

$2,500. American taxpayers should not be burdened with paying 

other people’s immigration costs. 

The agency responsible for processing the benefit applications 

should charge the amount required to recoup its costs, so taxpayers 

are not let footing the bill. If the proposed fees do do that, then 

they are justified. 

Dr. Gonzalez, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

I thank the Chairwoman for holding this hearing. I am pleased for the opportunity to discuss the proposed rule for fee increases with Director Gonzalez. This 

is the first of what I hope will be many insightful hearings in the Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. I 

am looking forward to working with Chairwoman Lofgren. 

Federal law requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) operate as a fee-based agency. 

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 also requires that USCIS review its fee 

schedule every two years to ensure that it reflects the costs incurred by the agency. 

(31 U.S.C. 901–03). I would go above and beyond this by encouraging timely cost 

projections every year. 

USCIS conducted its last comprehensive fee review in 1998, so the current fees 

are based on 1998 costs projections. Agency operating costs have risen significantly 

since 1998. While USCIS raised some fees in recent years, those increases were not 

nearly enough to cover today’s operating costs, which will be $1.752 billion for FY 

2007. USCIS recently conducted its first comprehensive fee review since 1998. The 

rule proposed by USCIS on February 1st is the result of that review. 

I commend Director Gonzalez for trying to ensure that American taxpayers are 

not forced to pay the costs of foreign nationals getting immigration benefits, such 

as adjustment of immigration status, employment authorization or a replacement 

green card. 

The proposed increases do not seem excessive. For instance, under the new fee 

structure, it will cost a person $595 to apply for naturalization or $320 to petition 

for a nonimmigrant worker. These fees are small in contrast to the benefits of American citizenship or legal work status in the United States. 

The fees take account of those immigrants who are least likely to be able to pay. 

For instance, victims of persecution will not have to pay fees to apply for asylum, 

and victims of trafficking will not have to pay fees to apply for T visas. 

6

USCIS expects to receive 4.7 million immigration benefit applications in FY 2008– 2009. It will cost the agency $2.329 billion to have the staff to adjudicate the petitions, conduct background checks on applicants and pay the other costs to process 

all of those applications. 

Some of the proposed new fees will pay for the ‘‘enhanced security and integrity 

of the immigration system,’’ which is an especially important goal. I am pleased to 

see that these fees will fund 170 additional Fraud Detection and National Security 

agents to oversee fraud investigations and the processing of applications that have 

national security concerns. 

It is not unprecedented for criminals and terrorists to try to enter the United 

States through legal channels. Mahmud Abouhalima, a terrorist who blew up the 

World Trade Center in 1993 received amnesty through the 1986 immigration bill. 

Furthermore, 9/11 hijackers came into the United States on student and visitor 

visas. As we’ve tragically learned, thorough background checks are especially critical 

to immigration processing. 

The balance of the money will go toward modernizing the technology and business 

structure of USCIS and improving the delivery of services—including a 20 percent 

average decrease in the time for application processing by the end of FY 2009. These 

are laudable goals, but only if the national security goal is met first. 

I know that some have condemned the proposed fee increase and called it unfair 

to the immigrants who have to pay the fees. Some have even called on the Administration to find other ways to fund the changes needed at USCIS. 

Unfortunately, those groups fail to acknowledge that it is right for the people who 

receive the benefits to pay for them. In other words, the immigrants who will enjoy 

the priceless benefits of living and working in America, should have to pay for the 

costs of coming here. After all, the fees are less than the costs of being illegally 

smuggled into the United States: $2,500. American taxpayers should not be burdened with paying other people’s immigration costs. 

The agency responsible for processing the benefit applications should charge the 

amount required to recoup its costs so taxpayers aren’t left footing the bill. If the 

proposed fees do that, then they are justified. 

Director Gonzalez, I look forward to your testimony.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. 

At this point, we are honored to have both the Chairman and 

Ranking Member of the full Committee. So I would like to ask Mr. 

Conyers if he would like to make an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I would like to make a few 

comments that will not take 5 minutes. I thank you, and of course 

congratulate you as you become Chair, after spending a considerable number of years on the Committee and outstanding work on 

at least several Committees. I am very pleased to join you and the 

Ranking Member and the new Members to the Judiciary Committee who are joining you on the Subcommittee. 

I only wanted to commend you for cautioning us to be on our best 

behavior at your first hearing. 

So, Dr. Gonzalez, you will be amazed at the courtesy and politeness to which you will be treated in this first hearing. 

The idea that an 80 percent increase in the application fees is 

reasonable and necessary is, to me, comparable to the incredible 

factor of massive tax reductions for the most fortunate in our society. What is being done in terms of the discussion of fees with reference to immigration is determining what we should charge and 

how much more we should charge for some of the poorest among 

us to become citizens. 

Many in the immigrant community see the increase for what it 

is: increasing the costs of the American dream; telling those least 

fortunate among us that they probably need not apply. 

John Trasvin ̃a, the head of the Mexican American Legal Defense 

Fund, MALDEF, said that ‘‘the Administration’s proposed fee increases will only erect a barrier to the American dream of citizenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
7

ship.’’ We have other comments, particularly from the Asian American Justice Center. 

But to me, Members of the Committee, I will be waiting carefully 

to find the evidence that the immigrant community citizens and applicants are receiving fair value for their money. Fees have been 

going up across the years. Services have not been substantially improving. 

So this is an excellent way for this very important Committee of 

the Judiciary to begin its considerations of these and other related 

immigration topics in the course of the 110th Congress. 

I thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

I thank the Director for being here today to answer questions we have about the 

substantial proposed immigration fee increase. 

I am particularly concerned about the effect this has on legal immigrants trying 

to express their patriotism and commitment to this country by applying for citizenship. 

I have reviewed the fee increase for naturalization applications—an 80% increase, rising from $330 to $595. The total cost of filing a naturalization application would 

be $675 after including the $80 biometric fee. 

I have always thought this Congress was interested in legal immigration and integration of immigrants by becoming full members of American society through citizenship. This substantial fee increase belies that goal. 

The President of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund has noted, ‘‘The Administration’s proposed fee increases will only erect a barrier to the American 

dream of citizenship. . . .’’

I also understand that Congress has repeatedly appropriated discretionary funds 

to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to specifically deal with backlogs and infrastructure and technology improvements, problems that are again addressed in the justification for this fee increase. Congress has also gone along with 

various increases in the past, all premised on the CIS or legacy INS theory that 

such monies were necessary to solve persistent and long-enduring problems at the 

agency. 

Yet, with this substantial fee increase, we are being told again that this money 

is necessary to solve the same problems that were supposed to be solved with previous monies. 

The Asian American Justice Center has rightly observed that ‘‘the naturalization 

fee has gone from $90 to $400 in the last 15 years and will increase yet again to 

$675 under today’s proposal. At the same time, immigrants and their families have 

faced continuing backlogs and delays in the processing of their applications and diminishing customer service.’’

Furthermore, CIS concedes that it has been using funds from the Premium Processing Fees to fund operating costs beyond those permitted by law. The law specifically states that Premium Processing fees must be used solely to cover the costs of 

adjudicating Premium Process Service cases and for information technology infrastructure improvements. Perhaps if the agency had used those funds as required by 

law we wouldn’t have the existing problems at CIS. 

Given past failures of the agency to correct serious problems that should have 

been fixed years ago, I am quite concerned about the equity of charging future CIS 

customers for mistakes made by the agency in the last decade. 

With such a history, how is this Congress supposed to believe the latest justification for another fee increase?

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. 

And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on chairing your 

first hearing as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. That 

8

is a great distinction, and you are an able Chairman, given your 

background and expertise. I know that this hearing, as well as all 

future hearings, are going to be very productive. 

I would also like to thank Director Gonzalez for testifying today, 

and say to Director Gonzalez, while I have to leave shortly and will 

not be able to stay for the questions, I did read your testimony and 

do appreciate your perspective. 

Madam Chair, I would also like to say that in thinking about the 

proposed fee to become a legal permanent resident or get your 

green card, I have to say my perspective is that that has to be the 

best deal in America. To think that for a few hundred dollars, one 

can become a legal permanent resident and then, 5 years later, a 

citizen has to be one of the greatest values in the world. 

I subscribe to the feeling that the greatest honor our country can 

bestow on anyone is that of U.S. citizen. Years ago, Teddy Roosevelt, when he was president, said, ‘‘The highest office anybody 

could ever hold was citizen.’’ That is the kind of deference I give 

that particular office and that particular status. 

So it is an honor. It comes with many benefits. It comes with 

many responsibilities. But again, for a few hundred dollars to have 

those opportunities and to have those benefits is truly a great 

value. 

I also think it is appropriate that an individual pay for the cost 

of processing the benefits and the title and the status that they are 

getting. Rather than burden the taxpayer with those costs, it is appropriate that those who receive the benefits pay those costs. I 

don’t think we are going to have too many complaints about the 

funds involved. 

There are, in fact, millions of people around the world who would 

dearly love to come to the United States legally, who would love 

to become legal, permanent residents, and subsequently citizens. 

There are millions of people around the world who would pay thousands of dollars just for that opportunity. 

So again, I want to put in perspective and keep in perspective 

the money that we are talking about, the costs of the application 

that we are talking about, because truly, the cost is small compared to the priceless honor that one acquires when one is in this 

country as a legal permanent resident or a citizen. 

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make some brief 

opening statements, and congratulations again to you on chairing 

this hearing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

In the interest of proceeding to our witness and mindful of our 

busy schedules, I would ask that other Members submit their 

statements for the record. Since we are in recess next week, I 

would ask that Members submit any opening statement by the 

close of business next Wednesday. 

Without objection, all opening statements will be placed in the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, thank you for calling this hearing on an issue that is of utmost importance and concern to me and my constituents. 

9

I would also like to thank our witness, Dr. Gonzalez, for his time and willingness 

to share with us further information on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

(USCIS) proposal to increase fees for immigration petitions. 

As a member of Congress who provides extensive district services to assist immigrants and prospective citizens to navigate the complex process of legal immigration, I fear that an average 66% increase in immigration fees will price good, hard 

working, legal immigrants out of their opportunity to obtain benefits for which they 

qualify and have earned. Citizenship should not be auctioned for sale to the highest 

bidder, and it should not be bestowed on someone based on his or her income. 

Immigrants are prepared to pay the cost of processing the applications they submit to USCIS and for courteous, timely and efficient services. However, the cost 

must be a fair price, and not burden the applicants of the future with budget shortfalls and agency inefficiencies of the past. 

Clearly, the USCIS proposal would require petitioners to pay costs above and beyond those of processing their actual applications. It is unacceptable to charge immigrants additional fees for expenses unrelated to application processing, such as litigation costs, reducing the backlog of previous applications, or rolling out new technologies that USCIS should have implemented long ago. We must find an alternative solution to the agency’s funding shortfalls and future needs, and Congress 

can and must help. 

Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act permits USCIS to recover 

the full costs of processing applications. The statute also allows USCIS to request 

appropriations of Congress. I am perplexed as to why the Administration is requesting a mere $30 million for Fiscal Year 2008, when USCIS received approximately 

$180 million in Fiscal Year 2007, $115 million in 2006, $160 million in 2005 and 

$236 million in 2004. Given that USCIS has requested and received appropriations 

in the past, why not engage us, the Congress, in trying to find the right balance 

between fees and appropriations that will not place insurmountable financial hurdles in the path of tax-paying immigrants and prospective citizens? 

I hope this hearing sheds some light on these questions and provides us with an 

opportunity to explore alternative solutions to secure funding for USCIS. I look forward to the witness’ testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

This subject of this hearing is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

(USCIS) proposal to raise immigration benefit application fees. On January 31, US 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed increased fees for immigration benefits. Under the proposed increase, the cost for naturalization would rise 80 

percent from $330 to $595 for adult applicants and from $255 to $460 for children, 

the fee for lawful permanent residence would rise 178 percent from $325 to $905, 

and the fee for fingerprinting would rise 14 percent from $70 to $80. The public has 

until April 2, 2007, to file written comments. The changes will take effect in June 

2007, at the earliest. 

In 1988, Congress authorized the establishment of a benefit applications user fee 

account to facilitate the use of application fees to fund benefit processing operations, 

which resulted in a shift of the burden for funding benefit processing operations 

onto the applicants. This includes the agency’s overhead and law enforcement activities such as investigations and security checks. The applicants also bear the cost 

of processing the applications of other applicants who do not have to pay an application fee. 

USCIS waives application fees for various classes of applicants, such as applicants 

who cannot afford the fee, applicants filing for asylum, and members of the United 

States Armed Forces filing for naturalization. USCIS’s proposal would add waivers 

for applications filed by victims of human trafficking and applicants seeking an immigrant classification under the Violence Against Women Act. 

According to USCIS, the increased fee revenues would be used for improving processing times and for completing the transition from paper to electronic processes. 

USCIS projects that with the increased fees, it would be able to reduce average 

processing times by 20 percent by the end of FY 2009. It also plans to use the increased fees to more effectively address national security concerns, better prevent 

and detect fraud, and invest in technology that transforms processing methods, 

thereby increasing the agency’s efficiency and effectiveness. 

Immigration benefits have great value. It is not inherently unreasonable to require applicants to bear the cost of processing their applications. I think it is unreaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
10

sonable, however, to require them to pay for the processing of applications filed by 

other applicants as well. I also think it is unreasonable to require them to pay for 

the costs of modernizing the system for processing benefits applications 

Under this system, USCIS has to collect fees at a level that will ensure recovery 

of the full costs of processing the benefits applications. The fees also must cover the 

cost of the infrastructure that USCIS must develop and maintain to support case 

processing and the administration of the nation’s immigration laws. 

This fee-based funding system affects every facet of USCIS operations, including 

the ability to implement new program and processing initiatives; begin information 

technology and other modernization efforts; and plan for the future. USCIS must 

calculate its budget by multiplying current fees by projected application volume and 

then conform the budget to those numbers. This results in a budget that is based 

on projected revenues rather than consideration of anticipated needs and costs. 

The USCIS Ombudsman, Prakash Khatri, has been working on alternative funding systems, and he has made some good suggestions. For instance, he has suggested that Congress consider a revolving fund account or other appropriated funding source for USCIS. A revolving fund could be used to defray current costs and 

be replenished from future fees. 

We will need such a funding system to make it possible for USCIS to cover the 

start up costs of a legalization program that could involve 10 or more million applications. To be able to process such a large increase in applications, USCIS will have 

to hire and train additional personnel, buy or rent additional office equipment, and 

lease additional office space.

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to 

declare a recess of the hearing at any point. 

We have a distinguished witness, Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, with us 

this afternoon to help us consider this important issue. 

Before we proceed any further, I want to make an inquiry. 

Dr. Gonzalez, you have a distinguished career in our military, so 

do you prefer to be called ‘‘Colonel’’ or ‘‘Doctor’’ Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You can call me anything you want. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, since it says ‘‘Dr. Gonzalez’’ on your name 

tag, I will introduce you as Dr. Gonzalez, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Prior to his confirmation as Director in December of 2005, Dr. 

Gonzalez served as the Director of Western Hemispheric Affairs at 

the National Security Council and completed a distinguished 26-

year service in the U.S. Army. 

Dr. Gonzalez earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of 

South Florida in Tampa and got his master’s degrees from Tulane 

and the U.S. Naval War College and a doctorate in international 

relations from the University of Miami. 

Dr. Gonzalez, your written statement will be made part of the 

record in its entirety. I would ask that you now summarize your 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the time, 

there is a timing light at your table. When 1 minute remains, the 

light will switch from green to yellow, and then red when the 5 

minutes are up. 

Dr. Gonzalez, we welcome you. Please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Ph.D., 

DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. And good afternoon, Madam Chair, 

Ranking Member King, Members of the Committee. My name is 

Emilio Gonzalez, and I am the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

11

I am accompanied today by USCIS’s Chief Financial Officer, Mr. 

Rendell Jones, and our Associate Director for Domestic Operations, 

Mr. Michael Aytes. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding USCIS’s 

proposal to adjust the immigration benefit application and petition 

fee schedule. 

I believe that we all share the same interest when it comes to 

the future of our immigration service. We all want a quick and secure flow of legal labor across our borders. We all want an easy 

way to verify the status of workers. We prefer the speed and convenience of an electronic and Internet application processing system, as opposed to filing paper-based applications through the 

mail. 

We don’t want application backlogs, and we want to avoid the 

unnecessary red tape and redundancies that slow down our systems. That is why we have proactively taken steps today to make 

sure that we will have the personnel and procedures in place for 

the potential operational realities of tomorrow. 

Consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget and a 

2004 GAO report on the existing fee structure, USCIS has completed a new, comprehensive fee review that will adjust application 

and petition fees to guarantee full cost recovery and allow USCIS 

to strengthen the security and integrity of our immigration service, 

provide customer service and modernize business operations for the 

21st century. 

Specifically, the new fee structure will enable USCIS to improve 

the integrity of our immigration system by increasing fraud prevention and detection efforts and expanding national security enhancements; by reducing the processing times by 20 percent by the end 

of fiscal year 2009; by addressing performance gaps identified by 

the Government Accountability Office, the DHS Inspector General, 

and the USCIS Ombudsman; to upgrade facilities and provide better training to ensure a skilled workforce; to automate business operations, modernize information technology infrastructure and reduce unacceptable paper-based processes. 

While these initiatives are characterized as enhancements to our 

current resources and operations, they are also critical investments 

necessary to meet our current mission requirements. We are adjusting our application process to ensure that USCIS not only 

makes up for lost revenue, but so that we can also build an immigration service for the 21st century. The new fees represent the 

comprehensive cost of what it takes to keep this agency not only 

afloat but moving forward. 

It is important to note that this fee increase is necessary regardless of whether comprehensive immigration legislation is passed. 

Law and policy have long called for the costs of providing immigration benefits to be borne by those applying for them, and for the 

most part, should not be funded by the U.S. taxpayer. The increased revenue generated by this rule will support enhanced security and refine USCIS business processes to strengthen our ability 

to perform our mission and continue to deliver a quality product to 

every applicant. 

I understand that these fees will have human consequences. 

Since becoming USCIS Director, I quickly learned that everything 

12

we do in this agency affects people, which is one of the main reasons that I so enjoy being its Director, because the work that we 

do at USCIS can make a positive impact on the daily lives of countless individuals. What we do every single day is concrete, far-reaching and, by no means, abstract. 

As a naturalized American myself, I naturally view the fee proposal through the prism of an immigrant. At the same time, as Director, I am mindful of my sworn duty to maintain the integrity of 

our immigration service. Therefore, my goal and heartfelt obligation is to make sure that USCIS has the resources required to provide immigrants with the high quality professional assistance they 

expect and deserve. 

We recognize that the proposed fees will increase costs for those 

seeking to become citizens or sponsor workers. However, the 

USCIS isn’t trying to make money or turn a profit. Instead, we are 

trying to create a fair way to make sure we cover our costs from 

those who utilize our services and not to pass the bill on to the 

American taxpayer. 

These new application prices are necessary to enhance and improve our service, making it easier and quicker to process applications, all without compromising national security. In a short time, 

immigrants will see a more vibrant, technologically savvy, transparent and professional and speedy immigration agency. 

I look forward to your questions this afternoon, and thank you. 

Madam Chair, with your approval and before the questioning 

process, I would like to invite my colleagues, Mr. Michael Aytes, 

Associate Director for Domestic Operations, and Mr. Rendell Jones, 

the USCIS Chief Financial Officer, to join me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We would welcome them as resources to you in answering questions that the Committee may have. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]

13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EMILIO T. GONZALEZ


ETG0001.eps
14


ETG0002.eps
15


ETG0003.eps
16


ETG0004.eps
17


ETG0005.eps
18

ATTACHMENT


ETG0006.eps
19

Ms. LOFGREN. As we ask our questions of Dr. Gonzalez, I will 

recognize Members in the order of their seniority on the Subcommittee, alternating between majority and minority, provided 

that the Member is present when his or her turn arrives. Members 

who are not present when their turn begins, will be recognized before a new round of questioning would begin. I will reserve the 

right to accommodate Members who are unavoidably late or in a 

conflict situation with another obligation. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Gonzalez, under the proposed fee schedule, the preamble to 

the rule says, ‘‘Premium processing revenues will be fully isolated 

from other revenues and devoted to the extra services provided to 

premium processing customers and to broader investments in a 

new technology and business process platform.’’

It looks to me, from the rule, that USCIS has identified a new 

technology and business process platform, but I don’t have a report 

on this. I haven’t asked for one yet, but I wonder, do you have a 

concept or plan to transform your technology and business process 

platform? If so, can you tell us what that would be? And can you 

provide us with a copy? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We do have a business process plan. In fact, we have even established a transformation office within USCIS because, as we looked 

across the board, we realized that we need enhancements everywhere. We need enhancements in I.T. We need enhancements in 

security and fraud detection, enhancements in infrastructure and 

training and personnel. 

We can get you what it is specifically that you are looking for, 

whether it is our spend plan, whether it is our concept of operations, our transformation. I am not sure——

Ms. LOFGREN. I am interested, I mean broadly, where are you 

going to spend the money, whether it comes from fees or as appropriations, as it has for the past two Congresses. What is the plan 

to improve business processes? What is the technology plan? 

I would like to review that in some detail with you, and perhaps 

even bring in some of our friends from the academic community to 

advise not just the Committee but also the department and critique 

it and make sure that it is the best possible plan. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Since I brought with me my subject-matter experts on the entire fee structure, I would defer to Mr. Aytes, my 

Associate Director for Domestic Operations. 

Mr. AYTES. Madam Chair, we would welcome that. In fact, the 

GAO is now looking at that issue with us. They have been doing 

some interviews. We have been working closely with the Department in developing the technology. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Very good. Then we will look forward to getting 

those details. 

Let me ask, a new fee for an adjustment-of-status application 

would be $985 for each applicant 14 years of age or older and $805 

for each applicant under age 14. So for a family of four with a 15-

year-old and an 11-year-old, the total filing fee for adjustment of 

status would be $3,760. 

For a family with a primary wage-earner making approximately $12.41 an hour—and I choose that because it puts them at 125 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
20

cent of poverty, which allows them to be sponsored and issued an 

affidavit of support—it would take approximately 303 hours or 7.6 

weeks of work to earn the fee for the family to adjust their status. 

That seems, to me, awfully high. I am wondering if you have considered the impact that a fee at that level would have on a normal 

hard-working family and whether it would be really too burdensome. 

I know in 1998, there was a fee schedule looked at, and not the 

full fee was imposed because of the impact on working immigrants. 

Did you look at that? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chair, this is why this is part of the dialogue that we have not only with Members of Congress but also 

with all our stakeholders and our constituents in the field. 

I would say that the $905 figure deserves some explanation. Al- though from $300 to $900 looks like it is an exorbitant increase, 

one of the things that we factored into this new price was the interim benefits that were being charged separately before. 

In our study—which I might add, our fee review took 8 months 

to complete—we found that an average applicant came into one of 

our offices for additional work authorizations at least twice, and 

that they came in also to ask for other interim benefits such as 

travel documentation. 

Currently, we are charging an average applicant about $800. So the net increase is really from $800 to $905. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But, if I could—and I am going to live by the rules 

on the time—but not every applicant has an extension, and not 

every applicant—you know, the 15-year-old doesn’t need a work 

issue. With the biometric fee, it is $985, not just $905. So as I understand the rule, this family that I have described would also not 

be eligible for a waiver. 

I just want to raise this issue. I know that you care about this, 

but we are dealing with the rule and how we might make this work 

for the Government, as well as the immigrant. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. I care about it deeply, which is one 

of the reasons that I mentioned in my opening statement that I so 

enjoy my job. I am not only the head of immigration, but I also see 

myself as an advocate for our immigrant communities. I understand that everything has a cost and that everything has an effect. 

Our goal is not, by any means, to create a situation where an immigrant simply cannot afford to apply. But at the same time, I 

want that person to expect and deserve the very best level of service, so that when you do have to pay an increase, you can go into 

a facility, not have the waits, not have the long lines, not have the 

shoddy buildings. 

There is a tit-for-tat here. It isn’t as though we are increasing 

our fees and that the person paying them will see nothing in return. 

But I recognize your comment, and yes, ma’am, this is part of 

our comment period. We have been getting many comments. We 

are going to review them and make adjustments as necessary before we move out. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. I would now like to recognize the Ranking 

Member, Mr. King. 

21

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Gonzalez, I thank you for your testimony. 

As I look over the fee schedule, the first question I want to ask 

is, are there fees out there that you are asking on this adjustment 

that are actually lower than your cost to produce those benefits? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There are some benefits that we are actually not 

charging for and continuing not to charge for, and there are some 

benefits that we charge for now that we have zeroed out. We don’t 

charge a fee for asylum-seekers. We don’t charge a fee for refugees. 

That is a matter of management. That is a decision I made to continue that. 

We also don’t charge to naturalize our U.S. men and women in 

uniform. We have naturalized, under the President’s executive 

order, about 28,000 men and women in uniform around the world, 

and we don’t charge for those services. 

We have also zeroed out under this fee rule the T-visa, which is 

for victims of people who have been trafficked, and we have also 

zeroed out the Violence Against Women Act beneficiaries. 

So, yes, we have actually taken some steps to zero out some fees. 

Mr. KING. Okay. I see a fee here, I have a list of costs that I 

think you have produced. I am looking at Form I–360 that shows 

a proposed fee of $375 and a cost of $2,408. Would someone want 

to speak to that particular fee? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The increase? 

Mr. KING. Well, the cost being so much greater than the proposed fee. The published cost is $2,408, and the proposed fee is 

$375, moving it up from $190. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Rendell? 

Mr. JONES. Congressman King, the I–360 is one of the forms. 

There are a couple of exceptions that we talk about at the end of 

the rule. 

The basic premise is, the more time it takes to adjudicate an application, the more it costs. The more our costs, the more applicants have to pay. 

But for the forms like the I–360, and a couple of others—there 

are about four or five of them—where the volumes are pretty 

low——

Mr. KING. Could you define the I–360, please? 

Mr. JONES. I am reading from the form list here. The I–360 is 

a petition for Amerasian widow, widower or special immigrant. 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Mr. JONES. There are a couple of those, and the estimated volume for those is a little less than 5,000 a year. So it is pretty small 

compared to our overall fee-paying volume of 4.7 million. 

But what we have done in those few exceptions, is we have held 

the increase to what the average increase is. So you are correct 

that what we show as the cost is higher than what we are doing 

as to average increase, but there are about four or five exceptions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Then I direct my follow-up question to the Director, then. Keeping that in mind, is that a reflection of compassion on a classification of applicant that might be significantly hardshipped by the 

higher fee? 

22

Mr. GONZALEZ. Correct. And also the volume is low enough so 

that we could afford to do that without necessarily skewing any 

further the total fee structure. 

Mr. KING. If there were going to be an initiative to rearrange 

some of these fees and still produce the funding stream that you 

need to meet the goals that you have laid out in your testimony, 

do you see much room to maneuver that? How difficult was it to 

lay this out? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, the maneuver room, it is hard because you 

have to have critical mass, so that if you start adjusting fees on 

some benefit categories, and it just so happens that the numbers 

of filings are maybe minuscule compared to the total filings. You 

know, you could charge some people $10,000 for a benefit, but the 

number of filings are so low that it won’t affect the bottom line of 

what we need to take this agency to where we want it to be. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

As I look down through this list of fee schedules, I identified four 

that the cost is greater than the fee. The balance of them appear 

that the listed cost is less than the proposed fee. It is what I would 

expect, but also I would think if we would do the math on this 

sheet, we would come up with the increase that you have testified 

to. 

Can you tell me what will happen with the margin that is above 

your cost to produce the benefits? What will happen to that capital? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Go ahead. 

Mr. JONES. It is shifted to the other applicants. So if it is costing 

us more for the I–360 than we are charging, then other applicants 

are bearing that marginal cost for each additional unit. 

Mr. KING. Would it be true if I were to put the costs and the proposed fees on a spread sheet and multiply the numbers of the projected applicants across there, does that balance sheet come out to 

zero? Or does it produce some capital for, say, infrastructure improvement and technology improvement? 

Mr. JONES. You mean over and above what we say our costs are? 

Mr. KING. Correct. 

Mr. JONES. It equals our costs. 

Mr. KING. It equals your costs? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Then where will you get the resources to upgrade your 

technology? 

Mr. JONES. There are a couple of things. Implicit in the price for 

those applications are resources to help with our existing technology, but we have also, as the Chairwoman has mentioned in her 

statement, isolated the premium processing revenue to be able to 

devote that to our business transformation program. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize now the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, ma’am. 

What we are saying now is that the Statue of Liberty lifts her 

lamp beside the golden door, to welcome those who would love to 

23

come here. And with the other, she roots around in the immigrants 

pockets, while plucking out bills. Not an appealing image. 

I am trying to find out, Madam Chair, whether this agency is 

distinctive in the Federal system for being dependent on the fees 

it collects to do business. 

Because the worst-case scenario—and this is my question: What 

if you don’t get this increase, gentlemen? 

To be honest with you—and you have been working this area 

longer than me, but it doesn’t look like there is going to be an 

eager rush to support these massive increases. What do you do 

then? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, Mr. Chairman, I will be honest with you. If 

we don’t get this fee increase, if we don’t get this revenue, we are 

simply not going to be able to keep up with our workload. 

Mr. CONYERS. But you are not already. I mean, look, we know—

and I am not blaming you, because I have been warned by the Subcommittee Chair, it is not your fault. This thing has been in disarray for years, sir. 

So if that is all that is going to happen, you mean things will 

stay the same as they are. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, with all due respect, we have made some, I 

think, sincere, genuine and very positive improvements over the 

last several years. 

Right up front, we eliminated a backlog that stood at nearly 4 

million files. We have increased our processing. We have new business models. We have stood up national security infrastructure. We 

are a more secure and we are a more customer-savvy organization 

than we were years ago. 

I will grant you that this is not the agency that I would like to 

see. This is an agency that is in transition. This is an agency that 

needs to be better than it is now. We have addressed the past deficiencies with the limited resources that were allocated to us under 

old cost models. 

My point is that immigration, quite frankly, is a growth industry. 

You are right. Our applications are increasing, but you know what? 

Our organization is static. Our personnel is static. We have increasing demands on our budget. 

If we do not get the revenue that we seek—and I will be very 

honest with you, sir—if we don’t get all of the revenue that we 

seek, we won’t be able to keep up our workload. We are going to 

see humongous backlogs. We are going to be suffering, from a national security perspective. And we are going to be back to where 

we were 5 or 10 years ago. 

My proposal, our proposal as an agency, is to be able to take this 

agency to where it needs to be prospectively. We are trying to address the gaps that everybody knows are out there. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I just left the Chairman of the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee. We don’t do the appropriations authorizations here. We just listen to the case and make recommendations that go to the Committees. 

But you would be one of the few people that come to the Congress to say, if you don’t get what you demand, you are out of business, and that you have to get it all. I want to be the first to send 

my condolences to you, because in the state that we are in fiscally, 

24

it is hard for me to imagine anybody that is going to get what they 

want. 

We have Katrina victims out there. We have the public education 

system billions short. We have a budget recommendation where 

there have been cuts, and programs not just cut but eliminated. 

So if you are here to tell us it has to be all or nothing at all, I 

will be the first to send you whatever kind of cards they sell in a 

drugstore for this kind of activity—not a Valentine’s Day card. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I may, it isn’t an all-or-nothing approach, but 

it is incumbent upon me, as the Director of the agency, to put forward what our resource requirements are. 

To answer the first part of your question, we are 99 percent feebased. As a result, we have to generate the income to keep the 

agency not only afloat but moving forward. 

It isn’t my coming here to say I have to have everything or else, 

but I do need to be honest with you and sensitize you to the fact 

that, as an agency that has not been the most efficient in the past, 

those inefficiencies could very well come back to us sooner rather 

than later if we are not afforded the opportunity to recover the full 

cost of doing business. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez, for appearing before us and for the 

work that you do and for your volunteering to take on a tough task. 

I might just say, the comments of the gentleman from Michigan, 

the Chairman, made your case. He suggested that you are not 

going to get any money anywhere else. He suggested that the budget is so tight, you can’t look for another dollar going to your agency. 

So it sounds to me like you have come up with the proposal to 

make your operation work. 

I started on the Subcommittee in 1979, and recall—well, let me 

just ask you. In the 1980’s, as I recall, when you went to one of 

the INS offices for service, you were directed to people who had 

their files in shoeboxes. Do you still have that filing system? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I hope not, but, no, we do not. Nevertheless, 

we are still a paper-based agency, by and large. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But in the 1980’s, I recall particularly—I used to 

represent a district in southern California—people had to show up 

starting at 4 in the morning to try and get in line, and the line 

would go around the Federal office building in Los Angeles at least 

once, if not twice. 

Is that still the case? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, sir. Those lines are gone. We have gone to 

something called InfoPass, where people can actually go online and 

request an appointment at a certain hour, and they are seen. So 

the lines have virtually disappeared. 

But we also accommodate folks that need to come in, that don’t 

have an appointment, as walk-ins. It may take a little longer to be 

seen, but we don’t have those wrap-around-the-corner lines. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In the 1980’s, as part of the delegation from 

southern California, we were informed by the INS that we got 1 

25

day that they would look at the cases for our constituents, and that 

was the 1 day they worked on cases from anybody from our district. 

Is that still the way that you operate? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, our district officers work any number of 

cases, usually 12 to 15 cases a day. So it is a full workload. 

Mr. LUNGREN. For most of at least the last quarter of the last 

century, if not the last half of the last century, you folks were considered the backwater, that is the INS, of service within the Federal agencies and departments. Are you still considered that? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I would hope not. I consider us to be in the 

forefront, quite frankly, of the Department of Homeland Security. 

We have a role to play in Homeland Security, and there is a reason why USCIS is in Homeland Security. We not only have a service mission, but we also have a national security mission. 

A lot of the things that we are asking for in our fee review reflect 

that fact, and we want to expand on that to make sure that we are 

equal partners, not only within the Department of Homeland Security, but throughout the U.S. Government, in national security. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Have the improvements since the 1980’s cost 

money? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Are you where you need to be? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Negative, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is your technology where it needs to be? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Not at all, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Are you going to be able to handle the increases 

that we are talking about in terms of workload, even without any 

changes in the law? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, we are seeing those increases now, and we 

are handling them but not without difficulty. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What if we were to have a temporary worker program or program that did some kind of adjustment for people who 

have been here for a substantial period of time, which many people 

are talking about in terms of immigration reform? Can you handle 

that with the budget that you have? Or is the budget that you have 

based on the fees that you charge at the present time? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The budget that we have now is for the work that 

we have now. The budget that we are requesting is for the work 

that we are continuing to see increase. Any kind of a guest worker 

program, if enacted by Congress, would be funded separately from 

user fees. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Based on the fees that you have now, could you 

operate with the fees that you have now with the workload that 

you are anticipating? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I just hope Members of the Committee will recall 

the dire straits that the predecessor agency, the dire straits they 

were in for many, many years, and the terrible, terrible service 

given to people who were in this country on a legal basis, attempting to adjust their status, and all the interim benefits or services 

they would have. It was a disgrace. It was an absolute disgrace. 

So we may promise the promise at no cost, but we never made 

good on the promise. It didn’t matter how many Members of ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
26

gress, Democrat and Republican—it didn’t matter whether it was 

a Democrat or a Republican administration, we never got the kind 

of service that we wanted for our constituents. I would hope that, 

as we reflect on this, we reflect on how we get the kinds of monies 

into this system that are necessary. 

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I do believe one of the marks of 

responsibility is having people pay for what they get. In this particular area, I think we have to do it. 

It reminds me of when we had the legalization program under 

Simpson-Mazzoli. I was the Republican co-sponsor of that. We 

thought that most of the people who were going to partake in that 

could never trust the INS, and the INS wouldn’t be involved in the 

program, and the fees were going to be too high and so forth. And 

it ended up we had the most successful legalization program in history. 

So we have good people in your operation, but I hope that we will 

give you the money that is necessary, and I hope we would understand the tremendous benefits that you give to people when you 

can actually do it, as opposed to a promise that is never kept. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. 

Now, I would turn to our newest Member of the Committee, Mr. 

Gutierrez of Illinois, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. I want to say how delighted I am to join you, Madam Chairwoman, in the Subcommittee. I would like to thank you and Mr. Conyers for the help 

in securing the seat. I have been here 14 years in this Congress, 

and I can’t be happier or more delighted than to join you here this 

afternoon. 

Welcome, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I would like to deal with two specific areas with 

you, in my 5 minutes. 

Dr. Gonzalez, on page 4894 of the proposed rule in the preamble, 

the agency states, ‘‘Congressional requirement that your agency be 

self-funded from fees exists.’’

Are you required by law to recover all of the costs of the agency 

through fees? Or does it have the authority and discretion to develop a budget based on a sensible, fair and realistic balance of fees 

and appropriations? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I will answer that, and then I will pass it to 

my CFO. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I only have 5 minutes. I would really just like 

your answer. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We have received appropriations in the past. 

Those appropriations have been targeted for specific projects and 

programs. The most recent large appropriation we got expired in 

September. We are authorized to recover the costs. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am sorry, because I only have 5 minutes, isn’t 

it true that you are not required by law to have a fully fee-based 

operating agency and that you indeed may come to the Congress 

of the United States, and that you have in the past come to the 

Congress of the United States, to ask for money in order to operate 

your agency? 

27

Mr. GONZALEZ. I believe the INA states that we are authorized 

to recover the full cost of doing——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me go to, then, section 286 of the Immigration Nationality Act, section M. It says, ‘‘The fees for providing adjudication in naturalization service may be set at a level that will 

ensure recovery. Such fees may also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs associated with the administration of 

fees collected.’’

I have been here only 14 years, but one thing about this Congress, it understands the difference between ‘‘must’’ and ‘‘may.’’

Indeed, Mr. Gonzalez, isn’t it true that in 1999, you received in 

funds from the Congress of the United States $552 million; in 2000, 

$535 million; 2002, $632 million; 2003, $709 million? As a matter 

of fact, last year you received $182 million. 

Yet this year when you come before us, when you have these unprecedented fee increases, you are only asking for $30 million, 

when indeed, over the last 10 years, you have received over $4 billion. 

So I guess you can ask for funds. Indeed, you have asked for 

funds in the past. Is that not true? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. This agency has received appropriations. Since I 

have been here, I have not asked for an appropriation. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay, since you have been there, but you have 

during the last 10 years received over $4 billion, and you are asking for $30 million this year. Is that not true? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You are asking. So you see, I just want to be absolutely clear, because I think it is extremely helpful to all of us 

to understand that you are not exclusively a fee-based agency, that, 

indeed, you can come here. 

You said earlier that ‘‘pass the bill on to the American taxpayers.’’

Mr. Gonzalez, how many legal permanent residents of the United 

States are there? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I believe the number is approximately 8 million. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Approximately 8 million. Are all of them eligible 

to become citizens today? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Eight million. Do you consider them American 

taxpayers? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. That is my point. They are American taxpayers. We are trying to distinguish between American taxpayers, 

all of us here, and all of the millions and millions of people that 

you have under your jurisdiction that are going to apply for American citizenship. Indeed, they are American taxpayers. So the distinction is that there is no distinction between them. 

I would just like to ask you, you know, I will share with you, as 

an American taxpayer, I bet that I represent the feelings and the 

views of the Members of this Committee on both sides of the aisle 

when I say the following. 

When a Cuban refugee arrives here, an asylee arrives here in the 

United States, I am happy to use my tax dollars when he flees a 

28

communistic society to come to the land of freedom. I am ready to 

pay tax dollars for that. 

Those 28,000 men in our armed forces? I am happy to use American tax dollars so that they don’t have to, because they are in 

harm’s way defending our freedom. 

Dr. Gonzalez, I think it is a good idea, and that these immigrants, many of them poor, not be burdened. Let’s share it. Let’s 

share it, because, indeed, they have no responsibility over that one 

issue. 

Thank you. I am sorry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is all right. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. I don’t have a heavy hand on 

the gavel, but we would ask people to stay within their 5 minutes. 

I would now recognize Mr. Gohmert of Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the 

Chair having this hearing, and hopefully it will be the start of 

many more. 

With regard to the fees, I don’t know what everybody else has 

been hearing here on the panel, but, Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for being 

here, but there is just so much frustration in the application process. 

The feeling that so many have is that they have to hire an attorney, they have to hire somebody to help them because it is just too 

cumbersome and, gee, it takes so long as it is, maybe if they pay 

$1,000 or $3,000 to a lawyer, maybe it will help them get through 

the process quicker. 

So I am having people that are trying to help family members 

come in, people that are trying to change their status who are here 

legally, all these folks contacting me in my office. And they are saying, ‘‘Look, we wouldn’t mind paying a higher fee, but we would 

like some action. We would rather pay that money to CIS than to 

have to pay a lawyer or somebody that is practicing law without 

a license,’’ which is happening a great deal, or others acting like 

they are helping, some that don’t know what they are doing other 

than taking people’s money who feel desperate. 

So I am not as concerned about the amount of the increase if it 

could preclude the need to go hire additional help. 

I am also quite concerned, my office tells me that they have been 

advised by the Dallas CIS office that they have decided to cut the 

hours that they will accept calls from Members of Congress or their 

staffs, which is a little bit interesting for me. I guess we are getting 

pretty arrogant when we get to that point. 

And also, I don’t have trouble making the fees high enough to 

where this agency self-funds, with the exception of those who come 

in that absolutely cannot help themselves, but we do want to help. 

So I am not as concerned with the fees as I am with what happens 

once the fees are there in place. 

My friend, the Chairman of the Committee, has pointed out that 

we are already not keeping up, and this is a concern I have. What 

does happen with the money if we give you all of these increases? 

And some of them, on a percentage basis, are pretty dramatic. 

Going from $200 to $440 is not all that much in the scheme of 

things if you are paying $1,000 to $3,000 to a lawyer. But what 

happens to that money? 

29

Anecdotally, I have one family that notified me—and I got involved last month—they have been trying to have their brother get 

into this country legally since, I believe, it is 1996. After years of 

trying to push, he was finally notified in late 2001 that his application had been lost and he needed to reapply. 

He reapplied, and now that has been transferred from the Texas 

office to California. California says, ‘‘Good news. We are working 

faster than the Texas office’’—this was last month—‘‘and we are 

now up to processing applications from June of 2001. So gosh, we 

may get to you in the next year.’’

That is not good news. I would hope that certainly we could do 

better. 

I am one of those that has been pushing for border security, but 

that has to go hand-in-hand with an immigration service that 

works, that processes these things. 

I was delighted to hear that we have made great improvements 

with regard to the security aspect. I know previously we have had 

problems with adjudicators who did not have the proper security 

clearance. Hopefully, money will go to help those adjudicate more 

quickly and access the files they need to access. 

But I would be curious to know what is going to happen with 

this money if you get everything that you are requesting? What assurance do we have that these applications are going to be handled 

quicker than 6 years? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, sir, for your questions. I will answer 

them all, not necessarily in order. 

With regards to the hours being cut in Dallas——

Mr. GOHMERT. We will deal with that, but I am more curious 

about——

Mr. GONZALEZ. I have my legislative director right behind me, so 

I am sure we will deal with that by the end of the day today. 

With regard to the issue of people having to hire attorneys and 

so forth, what we have included in this fee proposal are manageable metrics where we lay out what we are going to do with the 

money, how it will actually be seen by the applicant, how the processing times will improve not just in 2009, where we expect at least 

a 20 percent improvement across the board, but also some improvements in 2008, where we expect also quicker processing times for 

about one-third of our applications. 

This fee increase is targeted at those areas that are going to 

make us be able to do just what you just said: process things faster; process things in an I.T.-centric way; process them with efficiency, transparency, so people don’t feel like they have waited for 

so long that they have to spend $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 on an attorney for an application that only cost $100. 

We took that into account because, quite frankly, those are some 

of the comments that we have heard. 

I will be honest with you, sir, I travel a lot. And every chance 

I go somewhere, I meet with not only members of the immigration 

lawyer communities but I also meet with immigrant advocates and 

NGOs and CBOs. A lot of them tell me, quite frankly—and I was 

surprised, to be honest—‘‘We don’t mind paying higher fees as long 

as we know where our application is, as long as we know it will 

30

be done in a predictable amount of time, and as long as we can get 

information about the status of it anytime we want.’’

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The time has expired. We are going to have a second round, I hope. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have to shoot out, but, Madam Chair, thank you 

for having the hearing. I would encourage us to raise the fees, but 

then, as I think you are going to be willing to do, have lots of oversight to make sure it gets spent wisely. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would now like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I thank the Chairperson and the Ranking Member for this hearing. 

Dr. Gonzalez, as you well know, this Committee is about to venture on to a journey of reviewing and, I hope, overhauling the immigration system of America, with the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. 

It is my understanding that the Administration is supportive or 

interested in a comprehensive immigration reform approach to the 

system. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I understand the question, are you saying that 

does the Administration approve our fee increase? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I didn’t use the word ‘‘fee’’ at all. I said, is the 

Administration interested in comprehensive immigration reform? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So as I look at the fees, the Administration 

is looking forward or forward-thinking as it relates to the potential 

increase, possibly, in applications and processes that may be put in 

place that may expand the types of individuals that will be able to 

apply for legalization or the expanded legal process, for example, 

more children, more families of individuals who have been waiting 

in line. 

The Administration is sort of looking forward that this may happen? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The Administration is exploring options to work 

with Congress on comprehensive reform, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But they are expecting the potential of an explosion in business? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, ‘‘explosion,’’ I think, would be a stretch. We 

see an increase and surge in business today, without comprehensive immigration reform. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, then with comprehensive immigration 

reform, the term is accurate, ‘‘explosion,’’ a surge, then. Do you expect a surge? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. With that in mind, has the Administration 

then thought of the necessity of a revenue stream for a system that 

has the potential to grow? A revenue stream that would come from 

an appropriations process versus a fee process? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. For the type of business that we do, I am still 

convinced that the best model for us is a fee-based process. A feeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
31

based process allows us to adjust our workload, depending on these 

surges that you and I just talked about. 

My concern would be that any type of an appropriation would be 

a static amount which would not address the surges that we are 

seeing now. We want to be able to surge resource-wise as we surge 

with applicants. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me give you an example of, I think, the 

challenges that we face with a total fee-based process. Just simply 

for individuals that are trying to status their children, and they are 

in the legal process, it moves from $255 to $460. Typically, someone might have more than one child. So in essence, it is almost 

half, a 50 percent increase. It is not exactly a 50 percent increase. 

And so, the question becomes whether or not the actual system 

itself can handle an exponential increase in fees, because what this 

tends to mean is every series of years we will increase the fees—

50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent. 

So my question to you, would it not be feasible to assess how 

much additional money you would need to get ready for processing 

the millions of individuals that are already in the legal system as 

we speak, or possibly that you might be able to respond to the 

surge? 

Could you predict readily the kind of dollars you might need? In 

your argument, you would rather base it on the fee base, but the 

fee-based system may be uneven. It might not even meet your 

needs because you don’t have an assessment of how many. 

Do you think this is the most accurate? Or do you think you 

could predict or project what kind of money you would need? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. With the fee-based model, what it would do is it 

would give us the resources right as the application is coming in. 

So if our intake grows by 15 percent, we are going to be resourced 

for that, as opposed to if we have static funding or we make projections that maybe don’t come to fruition, then we are looking at 

backlogs and inefficiencies and so forth. 

But with the fee-base that we propose, and which I still think 

works as the best model for an organization which essentially does 

services——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may, Dr. Gonzalez, because my time is 

short. It does not take into consideration, however—your fee-based 

system only takes into consideration the needs of the Government. 

It does not take into consideration the needs of the individuals applying nor the resources that you need to pre-train personnel to get 

them prepared to respond to this surge. 

So maybe it should be a combination of fees and revenue. I would 

like very much for you to consider that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would now turn to my colleague from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am pleased to be on this Subcommittee and intend to spend a 

lot of time here. I am from California, and I have two individuals 

in my office who are dedicated to immigration problems, requests 

and assistance full-time. 

32

We know a lot about your agency. I am afraid I don’t share the 

same description of your agency that you have put forth here 

today. We find that we are constantly trying to straighten out problems that were caused by the agency, by people who are processing 

who do not appear to know the law. 

And so, I am anxious, too, for some improvement in this agency. 

However, Madam Chair, I would like to just say that, along the 

thinking of Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I am simply not prepared 

to entertain any increase in fees unless and until we do comprehensive immigration reform. And then I think it makes good sense, 

better sense, to understand where we are. 

But since I know that you are going to continue to pursue this 

idea of having all of the services paid for through fees, have you 

considered that a large part of immigration reform may be a guest 

worker program? 

What about the employers who benefit from the immigrants who 

will be performing the work? Have you thought about asking them 

to share in this cost in any way? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. I would like to differentiate between 

a guest worker program, which for us would be another program 

that we would be doing, as opposed to what we are asking for 

today, which is to make our agency whole. 

Whether we have a guest worker program or not, what we are 

asking for today is to make our agency whole and to make it a professional agency so that you don’t have the problems that you just 

told me about. 

Ms. WATERS. Excuse me, but you do do employment authorization today? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We do, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. And you do advance parole—two things that you 

said will benefit the applicant if you increase the fees. Is that 

right? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What we are saying is we will roll in the fee. 

Ms. WATERS. I know what you are saying, but you talk about the 

benefit to the applicant——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. If you increase the fees. I, kind of, beg 

to differ with you. I have worked on too many problems of people 

who are subject to the 3-to-10-year bar, prevented from re-entering 

the United States, despite the fact they have this advance parole 

approval. You don’t even tell them, and you give them the approval, and then they can’t get back in. 

So let me just put a pin in that, because I want to see how you 

respond to the idea that perhaps the beneficiaries of those who 

come to work somehow share in the costs in some way. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I understand your question correctly, you are 

saying we should pass some of these increases to the businesses 

that benefit from the workers. Is that correct? 

Ms. WATERS. I haven’t said that you should. I am asking you 

have you thought about it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am, we have. 

Ms. WATERS. And what have you done about it? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What we have concluded—and I will ask my colleague, Mr. Jones, to expand on it—quite frankly, the revenue is 

33

not there. Even if we increase those business-based petitions exponentially, it would not give us the revenue that we would need to 

move forward in the way we would want. 

Ms. WATERS. Would a combination of that and some lesser increase give you the revenue that you would need? Of course it 

could. I mean, this is rhetorical. It is just a matter of how you assign additional fees to each. I mean, of course it could be. 

But go ahead. I want to hear what you have to say. 

Mr. JONES. It certainly could be something we would look at, but 

businesses now who petition for workers to come into the country 

also pay fees. 

Ms. WATERS. Are you asking for an increase? Because the people 

who are now applicants also pay fees. You are asking them for an 

increase. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. So you are asking for an increase on the business 

side? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. How much? 

Mr. JONES. It varies by form type. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In fact, one of the most substantial increases is 

a business-related one. Do you have it there? 

Mr. AYTES. There are two primary forms that are used by the 

employer community. That is the I–129, which will be changed 

from $190 to $320; and the immigrant petition for an alien worker, 

which is an I–140. That will increase from $195 to $475. Those are 

where the employer is sponsoring the importation of the worker. 

Ms. WATERS. So would you tell me what the mix is? What number are you trying to achieve? How much total increase to support 

your agency? I want to understand the balance between the request for increase, both on the applicant and on the business community. 

Mr. AYTES. In a very general sense, we are trying to charge each 

applicant, whether they be an employer or an individual, the cost 

of processing that application, not transfer in costs from one party 

to another, as a matter of equity, with the limited exception that 

the Director spoke of of fee waivers and a few applications where 

we have limited the increase. 

Ms. WATERS. May I stop you for a second? Exactly how much 

money are you trying to raise in order to have a completely supported agency by fees? 

Mr. JONES. The change in prices results in $1.079 billion change 

in fees. 

Ms. WATERS. And how much of that is assigned to the applicant 

and how much is assigned to the business community? 

Mr. JONES. I don’t have it broken that way, but I could get that 

for you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

If you could provide that information to the Committee, I hope 

we will have a second round. 

Thank you, Ms. Waters. 

Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

34

Has there ever been a study in terms of the benefit of expeditious 

processing, what it would translate into savings to the American 

taxpayer? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am not aware of that, sir, no. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. It is kind of a cost-benefit analysis. In 

other words, a change in adjustment providing more employment 

opportunities, et cetera. You know, what does that really mean? 

In other words, there is a credit side and a debit side, I presume. 

Has there ever been any kind of a calculus trying to come up with 

a figure? In other words, well, I think that speaks for itself. 

I just want to note that the Ombudsman has done that study. 

Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. AYTES. We are familiar with the Ombudsman’s study and his 

work, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Is there a number associated with that? 

Mr. AYTES. I don’t have that number in front of me. His calculations talk about the extent to which processing could be modified 

and accelerated in a way, with some offsetting processing costs, not 

the impact on the general economy as a result of processing being 

done faster. He suggested some alternative models for how we 

could handle certain types of applications more quickly. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Also, I think it was you—I don’t know 

whether it was Mr. Jones or Mr. Gonzalez that talked about that 

this is being done in an effort now, despite the fact we just learned 

through the questioning of our colleague, Mr. Gutierrez, that over 

a period of time, I forget how many years, there was a $4 billion 

appropriation by Congress. 

In terms of equity—I forget which one of you used that—to recoup the cost of the processing, has there ever been any consideration given to another equitable formula which would be predicated 

on an ability to pay? 

I think there is data showing that some 36 percent of applicants have a household income of less than $25,000. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, those who are unable to pay can apply for a 

waiver. In fact, last year we issued about 56,000 waivers of individuals that could show need. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Out of how many requests? 

Mr. AYTES. We approved about 85 percent of the requests that 

we received. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sorry? 

Mr. AYTES. We approved about 85 percent of the requests received. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Out of the total pool, what does that represent, 

in terms of the number of applicants? 

Mr. AYTES. Far less than one-tenth of 1 percent. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. See, that is my problem. If you have 36 percent 

of applicants that have household income of less than $25,000, we 

are talking numbers that are beyond their capacity to pay. 

I guess what I am suggesting is, has there been any consideration given to a fee system predicated on ability to pay? A sliding 

scale, if you will? 

Mr. JONES. When we first published the rule, we had members 

of the press, and we also talked to the CBOs, and both of those 

groups have raised that. We have talked about it internally. What 

35

we discussed, some of the operational challenges of that, it is basically then you are adjudicating twice on every application. 

You are going to have to adjudicate and determine whether or 

not this person, who is making this application, is in fact eligible 

for this reduction in price, because they provided you evidence that 

their income is what they say it is. And then you are going to have 

to adjudicate the underlying application or petition. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is it that much of an obstacle in terms of if somebody filed an income tax return, for example, okay? You know, and 

predicated on that, you have numbers to deal with. 

I mean, maybe there is something there that I am not factoring 

into the equation, but it doesn’t sound like you used the term ‘‘adjudication,’’ I don’t see somebody coming in with robes on and listening to testimony and issuing interlocutory decrees and orders. 

This is a computer spitting out a determination predicated on presumably a valid 1040. 

Mr. JONES. I apologize for being——

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I don’t mean, you know——

Mr. JONES. But in essence, part of the issue you would have is 

also the incidence of fraud and is the return that they provided you 

in fact a valid filed return. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand, but, you know, when we are talking about fraud, we have a lot more serious problems than just 

misstating income on a 1040. My point is, somebody is earning a 

salary, who is the CEO of a German subsidiary, and has a net income of $2 million a year, I don’t mind whacking him. I mean, we 

could beef that up pretty well if they—I yield to the Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We thank you 

for that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, your point is well-taken, and we will take it 

into account in our comments. I understand what you are asking. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez. 

Now I would yield to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I guess this is, kind of, a little bit perplexing to me, Dr. Gonzalez, gentlemen, about this whole line of questions is most of the 

points that Mr. Delahunt made are very good points. They are also, 

frankly, obvious points that you all do not seem to have thought 

a whole lot about until he questioned you about that. That is a little bit of a concern to me. 

Obviously, some people who apply for citizenship are very wellheeled economically. Some of them are dirt poor and are trying to 

find a country where they can feed their family. It doesn’t take a 

genius to figure that out. 

So I would just start with the observation that I frankly don’t 

understand why the agency seems to struggle to deal with the policy ramifications of a hardship exception. 

And then let me try to pin this to numbers a little bit. If I am 

reading this data from the Committee, the total filing fee for a family of four is around $3,760. Is that right? 

Mr. AYTES. For which application, sir? 

36

Mr. DAVIS. For a family of four, two parents, a 15-year-old, an 11-year-old, filing fee for applications is around $3,760. Is that 

about right? 

Mr. AYTES. For certain applications, it may well be. 

Mr. DAVIS. What is the median income of people who make these 

applications? 

Mr. AYTES. Again, it varies by type of application. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, somewhere, someone threw out the number 

$25,000. Where did that number come from? 

Well, let me take someone who is earning $25,000 a year—$3,760 

is a big chunk of money, frankly, to put this in very real terms. 

Most of us, I think, make $165,000 a year. If you asked any of us 

on this Committee to cut you a check for $3,760, I think we would 

think it was a pretty big chunk of money. So once again, there 

seems to be some disconnect here. 

What do you consider to be wage eligibility? You say you make 

a determination whether someone is able to pay. What amount of 

money do you consider someone to be making to be able to pay this 

fee? 

Mr. AYTES. Again, it varies by application. It really becomes a 

general public policy question of do you charge different individuals——

Mr. DAVIS. No, that is not the question. The question is, if someone files a waiver, what is the income cutoff? 

Mr. AYTES. We usually look at the poverty level, 125 percent 

above, if I recall correctly. 

Mr. DAVIS. Which is what number? 

Mr. AYTES. I don’t have that number in front of me, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. The poverty level, I guess, for a family of four today 

is around $25,000, isn’t it? 

Mr. AYTES. It may well be. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you a fairly basic question. Most of the 

people who engage this immigration argument, most of the people 

on this Committee who like to argue about these things, they usually like to say immigration is a good thing; it is illegal immigration that we worry about. And a lot of the people who engage this 

issue like to say we want to do everything we can to get people incentives to play by the rules. 

Proposition one: If you have a very low-income family that is interested in finding a country where they have a better chance to 

feed their family, they are very, very poor folks. And you charge 

them a fee of around $3,760, are you not giving them an incentive 

to break the rules and to use the illegal route? 

Mr. AYTES. We don’t believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. Really? 

Mr. AYTES. Indeed, we do not, because the issue is if we do not 

fully recover the cost of the application, the charge, what it means 

is we create backlogs. 

Mr. DAVIS. Wait a minute. You are giving me an administrative 

reason that explains why you want the fees. I get all the bureaucratic reasons why you want more money. What I am trying to get 

at is, when you charge very poor people a fee, don’t you provide 

them an incentive to do an end-around and to try to come here illegally? 

37

I don’t think I am that smart. I don’t think that that is that 

tough a question. 

Mr. AYTES. I think some people might reach that conclusion. 

Mr. DAVIS. And is that a good thing to do? I mean, shouldn’t we 

be trying to fashion a system that doesn’t create those kinds of incentives? Because legal immigration is a good thing. You all agree 

with that, right? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We only deal in legal——

Mr. DAVIS. You only deal in legal immigration, and it is a good 

thing, right? Very poor people trying to come here for economic improvement, who are playing by the rules and filling out an application, that is a good thing, right? Yes or no 

And you all nod your head ‘‘yes.’’ If it is a good thing, shouldn’t 

we be incentivizing them to play by the rules by carving out a 

hardship exception? 

Because I know it may be news to you gentlemen, but a very 

poor family that is trying to make choices about how they are going 

to feed their little children may not always make the same ethical 

calculus that you and I would make. 

So again, I would yield back my time, but it is just amazing to 

me that we are having an argument about whether or not there 

should be a hardship exception, when a lot of the people we are 

talking about who are applying are very poor people, and we are 

a country that is loaded with waivers of fees and hardship exceptions. You get a fee waiver if you fill out a gym application. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, our rule allows for fee waivers, and we will 

entertain fee waives, and we fully expect that they will be larger——

Mr. DAVIS. But not for very many people, apparently, Dr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, that is an issue of an individual filing for 

that waiver. We expect——

Mr. DAVIS. You said most of them who file don’t get it, and you 

said that the income threshold apparently is one where a lot of 

poor people still don’t get it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Eighty-five percent of them who file do receive a 

waiver. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do receive them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now would like to recognize a new member of our Committee, 

Mr. Ellison of Minnesota, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

One of the good things about going last is that most people will 

ask your questions. [Laughter.] 

Just to be clear, as I understood your point earlier, Dr. Gonzalez, 

about 56,000 people apply for a waiver. Is that right? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir, last year, are the figures that we have. 

Mr. ELLISON. And about 85 percent of those received a waiver? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Was that a complete waiver or just a partial waiver? 

Mr. AYTES. That was a full waiver of the fees that they charge, 

in addition to the waivers that we give on a class basis by not 

charging for an application, like asylum. 

38

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. So that 85 percent includes asylum applicants? 

Mr. AYTES. No, that is where they have applied on an individual 

basis, asking ‘‘waive my fee when you charge others for the same 

service.’’

Mr. ELLISON. All right. What percentage does that 56,000 represent of the total number of applications? 

Mr. AYTES. Far less than one-tenth of 1 percent. 

Mr. ELLISON. One-tenth of 1 percent. 

Mr. AYTES. It is relative to 4.7 million applications that we 

project we will receive next year. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Now, I have a list here of fees. It is a schedule. Is this familiar to you gentlemen? 

I am assuming that every family member has to pay the fee. It 

is not one fee for a whole family. It is one fee per person. Am I 

right? 

Mr. AYTES. Typically, there are some applications where family 

members are included. 

Mr. ELLISON. So, for example, what is the average application fee 

when you total up for a family? I mean, do you have a number as 

to how much average expenditure is for a family who is applying 

to come in under one of our——

Mr. AYTES. It really varies by the service that they are requesting, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, but, I mean, you have an average. You could 

average these fees up and come up with what the average fee is. 

Mr. AYTES. Well, the fee to sponsor a relative is going to be $355. 

If that relative is overseas, they will have to apply for an immigrant visa, and they will have the cost of relocating their family to 

the United States. So this is one part of that total cost to them of 

immigrating. 

Mr. ELLISON. When I say ‘‘expenditure,’’ what I mean is fee expenditure, not total cost to the family. 

Mr. AYTES. The fee on the relative, if the relative is overseas, 

would be $355 for our processing of their sponsorship petition. 

Mr. ELLISON. How big are families that typically have to immigrate? Do you have an idea about how big the families are? Do they 

tend to be three family members or four? 

Mr. AYTES. They vary in size, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Of course they do, but, I mean, you must know how 

big the average family is. 

Mr. AYTES. Off the top of my head, I couldn’t tell you. It varies 

widely, based on family relationships. 

Mr. ELLISON. So you don’t know whether——

Mr. AYTES. We have——

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. Members of the family, you don’t know 

that? 

Mr. AYTES. Not off the top of my head, sir, no. 

Mr. ELLISON. Dr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. All right. I guess what I am trying to get is what 

sort of financial impact are families that are trying to immigrate 

legally, what are they really going to be faced with? How are the 

fee increases really going to impact them? 

39

Let me ask this: Could you describe the application for a fee 

waiver? What sort of standards are applied in that case? 

Mr. AYTES. We are usually looking at things like poverty level 

and their income. We are also looking at fee waivers at whether or 

not prospectively in this rule that whether or not it is consistent 

with the service that they are applying for. If a father is filing to 

petition for his wife and his children, under the law he has to sign 

an affidavit of support committing to support them financially, if 

the need arises. 

And so a fee waiver, arguing that he is unable to pay the fee for 

a petition, brings into question his ability to support them financially once they arrive. 

Mr. ELLISON. So application for a fee waiver could actually have 

a negative impact on their application to immigrate? 

Mr. AYTES. No, it would usually just be a question of the fee 

waiver itself, prospectively under this rule. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. That is interesting. So what impact on your 

immigration application would saying that you are indigent have? 

Would it diminish your changes to have your application granted? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Since 85 percent or 86 percent are approved, so 

I would argue no. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. But I am going back to the gentleman’s 

point about if you say that you are indigent, that might reflect 

poorly on your application. Is that right? 

Mr. AYTES. No, that is not correct. We would look at your request 

for a fee waiver in that light. We do not look at your economic situation with respect to the petition itself. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There would be an inconsistency. If you have to 

verify that you can support a family, why would you then want a 

waiver on the fee? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. But we will 

have a second round of questions. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could I at least get the last question? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Since you are the newest member, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

So, for example, I am still not clear on the point you are making. 

You could have a job you expect to get to support your family, but 

don’t have the money now to pay the fee. So I am trying to understand what you mean. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You have to file an affidavit which states that if 

you are bringing in a family member, that they will not be a public 

charge; that you will be able to provide for them. So it would be 

inconsistent if you file that affidavit, and at the same time ask for 

a waiver because you can’t afford the application itself. That is 

what we are trying to address. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think this has been a very helpful exchange for 

me. As I was listening here, right now, if you have an income that 

is 125 percent of poverty, you can issue an affidavit of support. 

But the fee waiver really, that 125 percent threshold for a fee 

waiver is related to a much lower fee. So we may want to take a 

look at what is the threshold for the waiver with greatly increased 

fees as part of this whole issue. 

I want to talk also about something that has not been discussed, 

which is—and the other thing, if I understand it, the I–485 does 

40

not have a waiver provision at all under this new rule. I think that 

is something we might consider—since that is a very high fee for 

a family of four. I mean, it could go for a family of four, it would 

be $5,000, with the biometrics. That is a chunk out of anybody’s 

monthly budget. It would be out of mine, and we Members of Congress earn more than 125 percent of poverty. 

So I think when we need a waiver, that shouldn’t be excluded. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is a good point, Madam Chair, and we will 

certainly consider that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I want to talk about citizenship as well, because 

if you are a legal permanent resident, you don’t have to become a 

citizen. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But if you want to become a citizen and you want 

to become fully American, we want you to do that. That is the 

beauty and the genius of America, is that people come from other 

countries to become Americans with us. 

The doubling of that fee does concern me in that it might deter 

some, especially people who are working people, who are going to 

be just as good Americans as entrepreneurs, from taking that step 

that they might want to do. 

So I really think we need to take a hard look at the impact of 

deterring what we want, which is assimilation of people who want 

to be patriotic Americans with us. 

I want to also—and I have gotten some feedback. People are very 

interested in how the money is going to be spent. I will tell you, 

I want the agency to modernize. I know that you do, as well. We 

want to create an efficient system. 

I am trying to figure out the budget issues. The premium processing fee, which is $1,000, if memory serves me right, was to be 

used to provide premium process services to business customers 

and also ‘‘to make infrastructure improvements in the adjudication 

and customer service processes under the INA.’’

Now, in the rule you say that the premium processing monies for 

regular operations has been used for regular operations, not connected to either of the things in the statue. And I am not being pejorative about this; I am just quoting the rule. 

So I am trying to figure, we had an appropriation of $115 million 

in 2006, basically for infrastructure improvement and backlog reduction; $182 million in 2007 for that same purpose. And now we 

have requested $30 million, which I think is primarily for a Basic 

Pilot. 

The question is, if we had to use the premium processing funds 

just for basic operations and we still have this need for the infrastructure upgrade and maybe even backlog reduction, are we out 

of the woods on what Congress wanted to do with these special appropriations? Or don’t we just need to do—maybe we need to do 

some of these fees. 

I am not saying otherwise, but don’t we need to look at the national interest, as we did in the last two Congresses, to achieve 

what Congress wanted to do. What happened to the money? I am 

not even saying it was the wrong thing, but how did this happen 

so that we ended up in this situation? 

41

Mr. JONES. There are couple of things I would say in response 

to your questions. 

First, the statute does read as you say it did for premium processing and the use of those funds. We have used them for some improvements. But the distinction we are making in this rule is we 

have used them for some improvements to our existing systems. 

I will give you an example. Right now, the main system we use 

to track our cases, is called Claims III, you would think is some 

big national system that you can look at. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t. 

Mr. JONES. Well, some people might, but it is not. It is a series 

of about seven regional systems that sort of feeds into——

Ms. LOFGREN. So you just messed with your antiquated system. 

You haven’t upgraded to a new system. 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. As opposed to totally revamping what 

some people call the ‘‘forklift’’ approach, reach in, take out the old 

stuff, throw that away and replace it with a new infrastructure. We 

haven’t been able to do that because of a problem in the base price 

structure. 

The second thing about the appropriations that we have gotten. 

In 2006, for example, most of the resources were for backlog reduction. We did have a small piece of appropriated resource for what 

we call our digitization program, which is digitizing alien files, Afiles. In 2007, most of the resources are really for the expanded 

basic pilot. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So it wasn’t for the——

Mr. JONES. Correct. It is not for sort of ongoing operations. That is what the $30 million in 2008 is for. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, but I think, based on comments—and unfortunately the Ranking Member had a meeting 

with a Cabinet Secretary that he couldn’t skip, so certainly we understand that. 

But I think there is some interest in understanding on the part 

of the whole Committee where the money is going and where we 

are, and what mix of appropriations and fees would be appropriate 

to get us where we need to go. 

At this point, I would recognize Mr. Gutierrez for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

I would like to just go a little bit into another part. 

Dr. Gonzalez, is it not true that by statute, anybody that is in 

the backlog are those who have made application to your department, that have not been acted on successfully after 6 months? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is what we consider a backlog, correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So how many applications are there in the backlog, considering that definition? Because I read another definition 

that you and your staff put together, that is different than the Federal statute on backlogs. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The backlog that we own right now, that is, it is 

ours and we can actually do something about it. I have a corrected 

number. I believe it was 65,000. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So there aren’t a million applications over in 

your department that have not been acted on past the 6 months? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There are other applications that have not been 

acted on, but for reasons external to our department. 

42

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. I guess, just following my line of questioning before, because you came before us and said, ‘‘We are a feedriven agency,’’ and yet we found $4 billion your agency has received through authorizations of the Congress of the United States 

during the last 10 years. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. For specific projects, correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay, for specific projects. And indeed, this year you are asking for $30 million in excess. So you are asking for 

money to run your agency that is not fee-driven. 

So now that we have cleared up that part, because I think it is 

very important if we are going to do our work and we are going 

to help you, because I know that the members of this Committee 

want you to be successful, and for your agency to be successful, we 

need to clear that up. 

I want to just clear up the backlog. Using the definition of those 

that have applied for a service, and that have not received a successful completion after 6 months, we have agree that that is basically the statute, how many people have made an application to 

your agency that are in the backlog? Notwithstanding the exclusions that you make subsequent, but using that statute. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is a fair question. 

Mr. AYTES. It is a fair question. If you count those folks where 

we have gone back to them and asked for more information, or 

where a statute says that they will not be able to immigrate for 

some years into the future, we would have 1.1 million, according 

to that calculation. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And that would be the calculation using 

the statute, as defined by Federal statute, by the Congress of the 

United States, that 6 months or more. 

And the reason I think I believe, Dr. Gonzalez, that it is valid 

for you to explain why the way we have federally described what 

is a backlog might be different than what you want to come before 

the Committee in terms of a backlog. I really do understand that. 

But I think if we hear it is 65,000, when indeed it is over one 

million, then we need to know that, because that really gives us 

the true scope of the issue that you are confronting. 

Let me just put it to you this way, if you are having trouble with 

the FBI—that is, you do not control the FBI fingerprinting check; 

it is outside, externally, so you exclude them from your backlog—

I think we need to know that so that we can deal with the FBI. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Just to give you some categories—and, by the 

way, the 6 months is not statutory. It is what the President has 

asked us to do and is what we have imposed on ourselves. 

But as far as what you called the ‘‘gross’’ backlog—and that is 

a fair question—there are immigrant petitions for countries that 

are over-subscribed. So if you are from a particular country, you 

could be waiting 10, 15, 16 years to immigrate to the United 

States. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And because my time is running out, I just want 

to suggest to you, if you could give us—as the President of the 

United States who you work for, has described the backlog as being 

anything after 6 months—if you could just give us, I think it would 

be extremely good for our Committee to know how many people 

have made a petition for a relative in a country where visas do not 

43

exist. I would like to know that, because those are part of the backlog, according to the President of the United States. 

[The material requested by Mr. Gutierrez was provided but is not 

reprinted here. The material is on file and available at the Subcommittee.] 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I want to know FBI fingerprinting, where the 

delay is there so that we can address that. Names, I know that 

names, because I don’t know if you have, but I have showed up at 

the airport and I have to show extra I.D.s because of my name. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Me, too. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You, too. So we get into this name thing. I would 

like to know who those people are so that we could address that. 

And lastly, I just want to close with this. Earlier it was said that 

this is a good deal because a coyote charges $2,500 and you guys 

only charge less than $1,000. Right? It is a good deal relative to 

what a coyote charges. 

I just want to say, Mr. Gonzalez, and maybe you could respond 

if you wish, that those kinds of analogies are just, A, not relevant 

and really do a disservice. Because I am a Member of the Financial 

Services Committee, and if a constituent of mine came and said, 

‘‘The bank charged me this extraordinary exorbitant interest,’’ I 

wouldn’t say back to them, ‘‘Well, you know, a loan shark from the 

mob would have charged you more.’’ I don’t think that would have 

been an excuse. 

So if you could just comment on coyote versus what you charge. 

Do you really want to be compared to coyotes? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I will get to your first point. We provide Congress with quarterly reports on all of those categories that you 

mentioned. I will make sure that you get a full list of all the packets we have provided. 

I don’t know any coyotes and I don’t know what they charge, so 

I would be remiss if——

Ms. LOFGREN. We don’t either. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We don’t either, but the gentleman from Iowa 

seems to know. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But I will tell you, sir—and again, I am sorry if 

I am over my time, but I do meet with people in the communities, 

and I have been heartened by the fact that even people that don’t 

like the size of the fee increase will come up to me and say, ‘‘I understand why you are doing it. We understand. What we want is 

service. What we want is transparency. We want somebody to answer the phone and talk to me about the status of my application.’’

So in that regard, I do think that what we provide is of great 

value. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Pardon me, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is all right. We have a second round. 

Mr. Davis of Alabama for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Two points, Dr. Gonzalez. I hadn’t planned to make 

the first one, but your comments led me there. 

Yes, I understand your point that people say, ‘‘I am willing to 

pay more to get better service.’’ Most Government agencies, we 

kind of assume that good service is a function of what they do and 

44

not a function of what we pay. So I am not sure that is a good analogy either. 

But I want to go back to this point again, because there is something about your numbers that does not add up to me. Did you represent earlier that only one-tenth of 1 percent of the applicants receive a hardship waiver? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Tell me what the one-tenth of 1 percent represents? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The total number of waivers submitted, as opposed to the total number of application benefits submitted. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. What is not adding up to me, if your threshold level for a waiver if 125 percent of poverty, are you representing that that small a fraction of people who apply are in the 

125 percent of poverty category? 

Mr. AYTES. What we are representing is that is the number of 

applications that we receive for a fee waiver. 

Mr. DAVIS. This is what that suggests to me, that there are probably a large pool of applicants who are eligible for a fee waiver, 

who are never making the application. Does that sound reasonable 

to you? Otherwise, you have an incredibly well-heeled group of people who are seeking to come to this country, and I don’t think that 

is the case. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, our waiver policies are very public. People 

know about them. 

Mr. DAVIS. But do you get my point, Dr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I get your point completely, and we are prepared 

for an increase in waiver requests under our new fee structure. 

Mr. DAVIS. Again, this is the point that I am making to you. If 

I am understanding you correctly, and tell me if I am not understanding you, a very small number of people make an application 

for a hardship waiver. Is that accurate? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. That would be accurate, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And that is around what percentage again, who even 

make the application? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Less than one-tenth——

Mr. DAVIS. Less than one-tenth. And the application threshold is 

125 percent of poverty. Is that right? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Surely you are not representing to me that only onetenth of 1 percent of the 1 million-plus people are in that zone of 

125 percent of poverty? You are not suggesting that this is that 

well-heeled a group. It couldn’t be. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is not our intention, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Of course not. So there obviously is a significant problem with people who are eligible for hardships, not knowing about 

it. 

And that takes us back to Mr. Gutierrez’s point and the point of 

others. If you have a fee-based system, it is requiring some people 

to pay who can’t do it. It also appears it is requiring some people 

to pay who are hardship-eligible but simply don’t take advantage 

of it. 

So given that those kinds of inequities appear to be woven into 

the system, that appears to be a very powerful public policy arguVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:40 Apr 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\IMMIG\021407\33313.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
45

ment for moving away from a fee-based system. That is the point 

that a lot of us are making. 

The second point, and this is the last point that I will make 

today, is Mr. Delahunt’s point is eminently sensible. Any fee-based 

system ought to be based on how much money you are making. If 

you are well-heeled, you ought to be paying a good fee. If you are 

not, you shouldn’t be. 

And it shouldn’t be a function of whether you filled out a hardship waiver. You know, that would be like saying that, ‘‘Well, we 

are going to tax very poor people, but we will give them a big deduction.’’ No, you don’t tax them in the first place most of the time. 

So there is a basic equity issue. 

And once again, that we are having an argument about this 

seems a little bit counterintuitive, given the emphasis that the 

President places on the value of legal immigration. Mr. Conyers 

touched on this earlier. 

It would be a wonderful point for the President to say, ‘‘We value 

people who play by the rules so much that if they are hard-working 

and struggling and not making a lot of money, we are not going 

to charge them anything. We will treat that as a service that their 

Government provides, because that is a value in its own right.’’

And I yield back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Dr. Gonzalez, could you talk about the availability 

of (o-m)? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I can’t talk about the availability for every applicant, but a large universe of our application pool goes through 

CBOs, NGOs. We provide information on waivers. I mean, the 

waiver information is out there. 

Now, are we making public service announcements? No. But the 

information is there. And, again, we fully expect a greater number 

of people to avail themselves to that waiver policy. 

Mr. ELLISON. Because I am so limited in time (o-m)? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ELLISON. (o-m)? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Our Web site right now is in English. We are in 

the process right now of updating our Web site in multiple languages. We just launched a new Web site this past October which 

is much better than our old one, and we are slowly building into 

it, but we expect to have different language fairly soon. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. And also, you know, Congressman Gutierrez 

made an excellent point about the coyotes phenomenon, but you 

would agree, I mean, coyotes, they subject people to danger. We 

don’t want to incentivize people to go to that illegal route, because 

it is dangerous. The people are exploited. It is against the law. 

Could you talk about how where you are, that it would be a bad 

idea to sort of create incentives so that people would not go 

through an illegal system? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, as I mentioned before, this agency only deals 

with legal immigrations. We don’t deal with coyotes. We don’t have 

a border security function. It is clearly an issue for other agencies 

to address. But I will tell you that anecdotally and empirically, we 

have looked back at previous fee increases. 

46

What we have found is that there really isn’t a major change. 

That is to say, you know, there might be a dip once that increase 

takes up, but then as it goes on, there is not a significant decrease 

in filings across the board when we have had this in the past. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is a good point, Doctor. Let me ask you this: 

Have you ever had an increase this big before? I mean, I think the 

average is like a 66 percent increase across all the fee levels. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Back in the 1990’s, the increase was actually 

higher than this. 

Mr. ELLISON. I think your assistant knows more, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. JONES. It was 76 percent, the last time there was a major 

fee study done for these activities, in 1998 by INS. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to thank you, Dr. Gonzalez, and your 

team for your testimony and for answering our many questions. 

Members may have additional questions for you, which we will forward and ask that you answer as promptly as you can, to be made 

part of the record. 

Given the upcoming recess and, without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open until the close of business next Wednesday, February 21, for submission of any additional materials. 

I think our hearing today has illuminated some of the potential 

problems with such large increases in immigration fees. We intend 

to give this proposal a careful look before it goes forward. 

I also think we have an opportunity to collaborate, to make sure 

that we have the resources necessary so that the agency can improve, as we all want, and yet we avoid unnecessary damage in 

ways that we don’t want. 

So I am pleased that you spent so much time with us. I look forward to working with you as a partner in making sure that this 

whole function of immigration works well. I am confident that we 

will be successful in that effort. 

So thank you, Dr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

Just as our comment period, our ongoing dialogue with our 

stakeholders and applicants, we look forward to an ongoing dialogue with you and this Committee so that we can achieve what 

we all want, which is an Immigration Service that we can all be 

proud of. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

The recently proposed rule change at the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should be rejected. Particularly unjustifiable is the fee increase for the I-485, the Application to Register or Adjust Status. 

The current fee of $325 dollars will, under the Proposed Rule, be increased to 

$905.00, bringing the total fee for this form to $985.00 after inclusion of 

fingerprinting costs, which are borne by the applicant. 

The I-485 increase according to USCIS is justified to eliminate the interim benefits forms (I-765 employment and I-131 parole). USCIS claims that on average due 

to delays applicants apply for two employment cards, which cost $180 each, and an 

advance parole document, which costs $170 while an applicant waits for the processing of the I-485. In my district this is rarely the case. Advanced parole is rarely 

applied for because most applicants have already accrued more than six months of 

illegal presence in the United States so that if they leave, even with advanced parole, they would trigger the bar to reentry for at least three years if not ten. Additionally the second employment card in the Boston region is only necessary for the 

I-485 applications that are stuck in the name/date of birth clearance with the FBI. 

Otherwise, the I-485 adjustments are taking on average less than six months for 

the Boston office. The second employment card processing time is taking more time 

than the immigrant visa interview. 

The proposed fee increases push the total cost of permanent residency—excluding 

the often unavoidable expense of attorney’s fees—to nearly $2,000. This places an 

undue burden on those immigrants seeking permanent status, who are often already 

in difficult financial circumstances. 

The justification given by the USCIS for this proposed increase is that the additional revenue is necessary to reduce processing delays, strengthen security and 

fraud prevention and investigation efforts, and to clear the extensive backlog of applications. This rationale, however, contains very serious flaws. 

In September of 2006, the USCIS announced the elimination of its backlog in naturalization applications. Although these efforts on the part of the USCIS are admirable, they only tell part of the story. The USCIS determines its backlog by counting 

only those applications that are ready for USCIS adjudication. However, all permanent resident and naturalization applications are subject to FBI review. Because 

those applications awaiting this review are not yet ready for adjudication, they are 

determined by the USCIS to be out of its control, and therefore are not reflected 

in its estimation of backlogged cases. Cases such as these are in no way rare. It 

would seem, therefore, somewhat disingenuous to call for a fee increase to support 

the elimination of a backlog which is largely—and by its own admission—out of the 

control of the USCIS. 

Furthermore, in 2006, the USCIS received appropriated funds to address and 

eliminate its backlog. USCIS should spend these funds efficiently and not put very 

difficult financial obstacles in the way of immigrants who are complying with the 

law. Immigrants seeking to become fully legal members of our society are not 

undesirables and we should not be discouraging them from doing so.

48

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN FROM THE HONORABLE JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS


Baca1.eps
49


Baca2.eps
50

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE LUIS GUTIERREZ FROM THE HONORABLE EMILIO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


EGLet1.eps
51


EGLet2.eps
52

CHART OUTLINING THE PROPOSED FEE INCREASES OF EMPLOYMENT BASED V. FAMILY

BASED FEES, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE EMILIO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


EG.eps
53

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS POSED BY CHAIRWOMAN ZOE LOFGREN AND THE HONORABLE KEITH

ELLISON


EGQA0001.eps
54


EGQA0002.eps
55


EGQA0003.eps
56


EGQA0004.eps
57


EGQA0005.eps
58


EGQA0006.eps
59


EGQA0007.eps
60


EGQA0008.eps
61


EGQA0009.eps
62


EGQA0010.eps
63


EGQA0011.eps
64


EGQA0012.eps
65


EGQA0013.eps
66


EGQA0014.eps
67

Æ


EGQA0015.eps