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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–846 PDF 2007

USCIS FEE INCREASE RULE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Serial No. 110–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(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 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

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 and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; accompanied by Mr. Rendell Jones, Chief Financial Officer, 

and Mr. Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

Mr. Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, NALEO Educational Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

Mr. William R. (Bill) Yates, Executive Consultant, Border Management Strategies (BMS) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45

Mr. Rhadmes Rivera, Vice President of 1199, SEIU United Health Care 

Workers East 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 2

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

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

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter to David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) dated September 12, 2007 ....................................................................... 62

Fee Increases Imposed by USCIS Fee Rulemaking for Selected Immigration 

Applications, Effective July 30, 2007, Compiled by NALEO Educational 

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 64

Letter to Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services dated February 20, 2007, from the American Friends Service Committee .................................................................................................................... 66

Page

IV

American Friends Service Committee Recommendations on DHS Docket No. 

USCIS–2005–0056 of September 19, 2007 ......................................................... 68

Prepared Statement of Fred Tsao, Policy Director, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights .................................................................................... 71

Prepared Statement of Michael A. Knowles, President, National Citizenship 

and Immigration Council (AFGE/AFL-CIO) ...................................................... 82

‘‘EXHIBIT A (text of petition by USCIS District Adjudications Officers)’’ by 

the National CIS Council 119 ............................................................................. 85

Letter to Linda Swacina, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services District 

Director dated April 11, 2007, from Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Adjudications Officers .......................................................................................... 86

Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Jonathan R. Scharfen, Deputy 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ....................................... 93

(1)

USCIS FEE INCREASE RULE 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Delahunt, King, 

and Goodlatte. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake 

Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and 

Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Since we have sufficient Members here to begin 

our hearing, the Subcommittee will come to order. 

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s hearing on the immigration fee increase rule and H.J. Res. 47, 

a resolution that would render the recent immigration fee increase 

rule by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services null and 

void and require the Agency to issue a new rule to modify its fees. 

Our Subcommittee held its first hearing on the 2007 fee increase 

rule on February 14, when the rule was initially proposed. At that 

time, I had many questions about the methodology used to calculate the new fees, including how and if actual costs were accurately calculated, whether those actual costs included financial mistakes made by the Agency, and whether USCIS had properly prepared a plan for technology transformation, a cost that was used 

to justify the increase in fees. 

Every answer I received to questions I had at that time led to 

even more questions and concerns about the rule. So, for the last 

7 months, my staff and I have engaged USCIS and outside experts 

to understand the rule and its methodology, and I am still concerned. As a result, I have introduced H.J. Res. 47 to render the 

fee rule null and void and require the Agency to issue a new rule 

to modify its fees. 

The Subcommittee has sought detail on how the technology 

transformation will work. We have asked the basic question of how 

to define success and how to measure that success. After 7 months, 

we have not received information sufficient to ensure that the 

money spent on technology will result in a system that is sufficient, 

2

scalable, secure, and interoperable. I am hopeful that today we will 

get some answers. 

And I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking minority 

Member, Steve King, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, 

and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s hearing on the immigration fee 

increase rule and House Joint Resolution 47, a resolution that would render the recent immigration fee increase rule by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

null and void and force the agency to issue a new rule to modify its fees. 

Our Subcommittee held its first hearing on the 2007 fee increase rule on February 

14 when the rule was initially proposed. At that time, I had many questions about 

the methodology used to calculate the new fees, including how and if actual costs 

were accurately calculated, whether those actual costs included financial mistakes 

made by the agency, and whether USCIS has properly prepared a plan for technology transformation, a cost that was used to justify the increase in fees. 

Every answer I received to questions I had at that time led to even more questions and concerns about the rule. So, for the last seven months, my staff and I have 

engaged USCIS and outside experts to understand the rule and its methodology. 

And I’m still concerned. 

As a result, I have introduced H.J. Res. 47 to render the fee rule null and void 

and force the agency issue a new rule to modify its fees. 

The Subcommittee has sought detail on how the technology transformation will 

work. We’ve asked the basic question of how they define success and how they will 

measure that success. After seven months, we have not received information sufficient to assure us that the money spent on technology will result in a system that 

is efficient, scalable, secure, and interoperable. 

I am hopeful that today we will finally have some answers.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this hearing 

today. 

In February, this Committee held a hearing on the USCIS fee increases, and I welcome back Chief Financial Officer Rendell Jones, 

as well as Associate Director for Domestic Operations Mr. Michael 

Aytes, who were also helpful in our last hearing in explaining the 

rationale and need for the fee increases. 

Holding a second hearing on the fee increases this session, when 

the new fee schedule has been in effect for only 1 full month, 

should certainly allay the concerns of some that fee-reliant USCIS 

is not subject to sufficient congressional oversight. 

The rule we are reviewing today took effect on May 30 after a 

60-day public comment period. Thousands of comments were received and fully evaluated prior to publishing the final rule that resulted in several changes to the proposed rule. Those changes included discounted fees for children who are filing adjustments of 

status applications concurrently with their parents and the expansion of the fee waiver rules for certain applications. 

On July 30, the day the new fee rule took effect, Chairwoman 

Lofgren introduced H.J. Res. calling for the rule to be given no 

force and effect. I am concerned that this was done without the 

benefit of a GAO report on the latest USCIS fee study or the resulting fee schedule, especially since the USCIS fee study was conducted as a result of the GAO findings in 2004. 

However, Chair Lofgren first requested such a hearing report 

last week in a letter dated the day before this hearing was noticed. 

3

I, therefore, must conclude that H.J. Res. is a rush to judgment. 

We should wait for the GAO audit before concluding that the fee 

calculations are flawed. 

Federal law authorizes USCIS to collect fees to cover the full 

costs of adjudicating all of the applications it receives, including 

the cost of adjudicating applications for which it does not, for humanitarian reasons, collect fees. 

Full cost recovery includes more than the direct cost of providing 

services. It covers overhead and support costs, such as the cost of 

personnel, facilities and litigation. Most importantly, it includes the 

cost of background checks and fraud detection, both of which are 

critical to ensuring that immigration benefits are granted to those 

who deserve them and not to those who do us harm. 

When the examinations fee account was created, it was intended 

that USCIS become a predominantly fee-funded Agency. Some disagree with this concept, but I believe that the American taxpayer 

should not have to foot the bill for granting a highly sought-after 

benefit to immigrants, and while I certainly agree that our Nation 

is enriched by legal immigration, given the competing needs for tax 

dollars, it only makes sense that those who directly receive an individual immigration benefit should pay for it. 

The Office of Management and Budget has stated that when the 

public benefits as a necessary consequence of an Agency’s provision 

of a benefit to an individual, the Agency should seek to recover 

from the identifiable recipient either the full cost of the Federal 

Government of providing the special benefit or the market price, 

whichever applies. 

There is no fair market price that can be assigned to the privilege of living and working in this country. The ability to naturalize 

is the greatest benefit a country can bestow. Indeed, it is priceless. 

Therefore, USCIS should structure its fees to recover its full costs. 

The new fee schedule is based on a comprehensive fee study that 

was conducted at the recommendation of the GAO in the 2004 report. That was the last report conducted on this issue. Although 

the increases may be substantial in some categories, they are not 

necessarily excessive. 

Even the new $595 fee for naturalization applications only requires that a prospective citizen save about $10 per month toward 

the objective during the 5 years of permanent residence needed to 

apply. The application fees for other benefits remain a minor portion of the overall costs of bringing a relative, a fiance, or an employee to the United States. 

USCIS has structured the fee rule so that there will be measurable near-term improvements that will benefit all stakeholders. 

These include a 2-month decrease in processing time for the four 

major kinds of applications by the end of fiscal year 2008 and a 20 

percent overall reduction for all application types by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

Unless GAO finds the fees excessive, the new fee schedule should 

remain in place to allow USCIS to fund continued service improvements while enhancing its security and fraud-detection capability. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

4

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

As neither Chairman Conyers nor Ranking Member Smith are 

present, we will invite them either to submit their statements for 

the record or to deliver their statements if they arrive later during 

the hearing. And mindful of our time constraints, other Members 

are invited to submit their opening statements in the record. 

The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

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

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

JUDICIARY

Today’s hearing provides an opportunity for us to obtain answers to some very 

serious questions regarding the substantial fees charged by the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services to immigrants seeking citizenship in the United States. 

As many of you will recall, I expressed deep concern about the size and fairness 

of these fees when we met last February about the agency’s proposed fee increases. 

Here are just a few questions that I hope will be resolved today. 

First, what is the justification for increasing naturalization application fee by 80 

percent? Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds to USCIS so it can address 

processing backlogs and make long-overdue infrastructure and technology improvements. Yet, the agency apparently needs additional funding and we need to know 

that it is justified. 

Second, what effect do these increased fees have on legal immigrants trying to express their patriotism and commitment to this country by applying for citizenship. 

I am particularly concerned about the equity of charging future applicants for the 

costs of the agency’s past failures. 

Third, we need an explanation about why USCIS is using funds from its Premium 

Processing Fees to fund operating costs beyond those permitted by law. The law specifically states that Premium Processing fees must be used solely to cover the costs 

of adjudicating Premium Process Service cases and to make information technology 

infrastructure improvements. 

I want to commend Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership on this issue and for 

introducing House Joint Resolution 47, which would require the agency to reconsider its cost structure and substantiate the fee increase it really needs.

I am pleased to introduce our first panel this morning. We have 

two panels of witnesses, and seated on the first panel, I am pleased 

to welcome back Deputy Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Jonathan Scharfen. Prior to assuming his post at 

USCIS, Mr. Scharfen served for 25 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, 

retiring in 2003 at the rank of colonel. Mr. Scharfen is no stranger 

to the House of Representatives, however, where he served as both 

Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director to the House International Relations Committee following his military service. Mr. 

Scharfen received his B.A. from the University of Virginia, his J.D. 

from the University of Notre Dame, and his LL.M. from the University of San Diego. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome back Rendell Jones, the chief financial officer of USCIS. Responsible for the budget, accounting 

and financial planning of the Agency, Mr. Jones became USCIS’s 

first CFO in March of 2006. Prior to his appointment, he served as 

the Deputy Budget Director of the Department of Homeland Security. His tenure with the Federal Government, however, began at 

the Department of Justice in 1996 as a Presidential Management 

Intern. Mr. Jones later worked as the management analyst in the 

Civil Rights Division and also served as one of the Department’s 

Congressional Appropriations Officers. He earned a bachelor’s in finance cum laude from Virginia Commonwealth University and a 

5

master’s in public administration from North Carolina State University. 

And finally, we would like to welcome Michael Aytes back to the 

Subcommittee. Mr. Aytes is the associate director of Domestic Operations at USCIS. Mr. Aytes began his career with the Federal 

Government’s immigration agencies in 1977, after graduating with 

a bachelor’s degree from the University of Missouri. After then-INS 

hired him as an immigration inspector in Chicago, he quickly rose 

through the ranks and, in 1990, became the first Assistant Commissioner for Service Center Operations charged with managing all 

the INS’s service centers. Mr. Aytes played a critical role in the information and Customer Service Division as it transitioned into 

USCIS in 2003, and he has served as an Associate Director since 

October of 2005. 

As I think you all know, we have 5 minutes for opening statements, and the lights will alert you with the yellow flash when you 

have 1 minute to go. Your full statements will be submitted as part 

of the record, and when your time is about to expire, we do ask 

that you summarize. 

And without objection, the Chair will recess the Committee as 

necessary when we are interrupted by votes. 

And we invite you, Mr. Scharfen, to begin. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN R. SCHARFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. RENDELL JONES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lofgren, 

Congressman King, Congressman Gutierrez. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss recent changes made to the USCIS fee schedule. 

I am accompanied by our Chief Financial Officer, Rendell Jones, 

and our Associate Director of Domestic Operations, Michael Aytes. 

I welcome today’s hearing as part of an ongoing dialogue regarding how much we charge for the vital services we provide. We welcome the Congress’s constructive advice and critical insight on this 

matter and look forward to continuing to work closely with Members of the Committee. 

As you know, USCIS recently completed a lengthy fee review and 

rulemaking process culminating with the July 30 implementation 

of a comprehensive revised fee schedule. 

The new fee schedule took into account more than 3,900 comments received after the publication of the proposed rule in February. We received comments from Members of Congress, community-based organizations, refugee and immigrant service and advocacy organizations, public policy groups, State and local government entities, educational institutions, and private corporations, 

among others. 

We held numerous briefings and discussions with the Congress, 

and the Director testified before this Subcommittee in February. 

Based on this valuable input, the final fee schedule incorporated 

a number of substantive changes to the proposed fee structure to 

assist families with children applying for immigration benefits and 

prospective parents trying to finalize their adoptions. The new fee 

6

structure also expands the availability of fee waivers and exemptions for individuals seeking political asylum and special refugee 

status and continues to provide benefits at no cost for victims of 

human trafficking and violence. 

USCIS made every effort possible to craft a rule and fee schedule 

that is fair, equitable, and appropriate, given the urgent need to 

dramatically improve immigration services to our customers, enhance security and integrity, and build a modern and efficient 

Agency for the long term. Revenue generated from the new fees 

will be reinvested to improve customer service, accelerate processing, enhance security, expand our offices, hire additional personnel, train those personnel and create new business processes to 

decrease the time it takes to process applications. 

Since the final rule became effective, I have been convening on 

a monthly basis our Agency’s top leadership to monitor progress on 

the additional hiring, infrastructure enhancements, and other improvements discussed in our rulemaking to ensure the initiatives 

are on schedule and appropriately coordinated across USCIS. 

Continuing to meet our processing goals will be a challenge due 

to a recent surge in workload. We are presently facing a substantial influx of new workload which we believe was driven by several 

different factors, including progression of the employment-based 

visa bulletin and the desire of many applicants to file before the 

new fee schedule went into effect. We are also seeing an overall 

sustained increase in filings, perhaps due to anticipation of comprehensive immigration reform and outreach regarding naturalization. 

While we are committed to meeting our processing goals, it will 

take several months, if not more, to analyze the operational impact 

of this influx of work on our goals. In the meantime, we are developing and implementing operational mitigation strategies to address this recent surge. 

With these new challenges on our horizon, preparation is key. So 

that we may quickly and efficiently tackle a future caseload that 

is guaranteed to increase, our core challenge is to build a 21st century business infrastructure. Achieving this goal will take time. 

USCIS and DHS leadership have devoted significant management 

attention over the last year to develop our business transformation 

program. 

By replacing our outdated paper-driven system, new electronic 

filing procedures will allow individuals the ability to create an electronic profile and online account with USCIS. These revised processes will help the Agency to meet customer expectations for ondemand information and immediate real-time electronics service 

over the Internet. 

Towards this goal, USCIS has incorporated productivity measures into the fee model to ensure that productivity gains resulting 

from automated business processes and better technology will be 

factored into future fee reviews. USCIS plans to review and update 

fees every 2 years. In comparison to fee reviews conducted during 

previous Administrations, fee reviews going forward will combine 

assumptions from recent experiences, incorporate productivity 

gains resulting from the modernization of operations, and take acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:06 Dec 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092007\37846.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37846
7

count of foreseeable changes in national security measures and procedures. 

With this flexible fee schedule, USCIS will obtain the resources 

it needs to bring about the nature and extent of operational improvements sought by the Members of this Committee and Congress as a whole. 

I am familiar with the view expressed that this Agency should 

be supported to some extent through appropriations instead of fees. 

In general, however, USCIS was given express authority to cover 

the full costs of its operations through customer fees. Law and policy have long provided that the costs of providing immigration benefits are borne by those applying for them. 

In the past, USCIS has relied on temporary funding sources, 

such as appropriations. With a more stable and reliable funding 

source of fee revenue, this Agency can operate more effectively and 

respond to changing operational needs better. 

I want to thank you for your time today, and I look forward to 

a continuing dialogue with you about the strategic direction in operations of USCIS in achieving our common goals. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

[The prepared statement of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES


JS-1.eps
9


JS-2.eps
10


JS-3.eps
11


JS-4.eps
12


JS-5.eps
13

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Scharfen. 

I think I may have confused matters when I introduced both Mr. 

Jones and Mr. Aytes and then addressed you in the plural as to 

testimony, because Mr. Jones and Aytes are here as resources to 

answer questions and have relied on Mr. Scharfen to make the 

Agency’s testimony. 

So we will begin our questioning now, and I would first like, 

without objection, to put in the record the letter sent by myself and 

Chairman David Price to the General Accounting Office requesting 

a review of the methodology that forms the basis of the fee measure. 

[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have a number of questions. I guess I would just 

like to note—and I think other Members may pursue this more—

that if you look at 1991, what the fee was for citizenship, for example, and what the fee is today, there has been a 750 percent increase in the fee, and I am hard-pressed to think of anything else 

in America that has gone up 750 percent in that timeframe. Even 

health care I do not think has gone up that much. 

So, certainly, I do not object to having a fee system. I think that 

that has served the system and our Nation of immigrants well. The 

question is whether the magnitude of the increase is justified and 

whether this generation of fiances is paying for the accumulated 

neglect of technology for the last several decades, which is really 

why we have asked the GAO to take a look at this. 

This is also an opportunity for us to take a look at what you are 

doing with the money, and it is of great interest to me, as I think 

you know. Recently, the General Accountability Office did a report 

on your transformation program, and among their many findings, 

there was concern expressed about the enterprise architecture and 

whether there were sufficient guides and constraints in the transformation plan with that enterprise architecture and alignment 

process. I am wondering where the Agency is in the development 

of its enterprise architecture for transformation. How close are we 

to having this component identified? 

And I further have a concern that, you know, you need to have 

your enterprise architecture in place or else you end up with willynilly acquisition of technology that does not work well, does not 

interoperate, does not serve the mission of the Agency, and I have 

recently learned that CIS is working on a whole new system, apparently a relatively new one, on fraud detection. For national security, obviously, we want fraud detection, but I am concerned that 

if that is disintegrated—I do not mean disintegrating—but not an 

integrated computer architecture plan, it is not going to be interoperable, it will not work well, not only with CIS, but with the 

other agencies that we must connect with. 

So I am wondering, Mr. Scharfen, if you can address these questions or your team? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you very much. 

I will start in reverse order, if I may, please, regarding, I believe, 

the data system that you are referring to, is the FDNS-DS System. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I agree that the going forward the transformation 

system should incorporate all of the different systems—computer 

14

technology systems or business systems—that we have in our organization, and that is our intention, to do that. 

In fact, we have met with this Subcommittee’s staff and, due in 

large part to some of that interaction with the Committee staff and 

with you, ma’am, and some of the professors out on the West Coast 

with whom we had the benefit of meeting, we have increased our 

efforts to ensure that our transformation program is all inclusive 

and does include the type of systems, such as the FDNS-DS System. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I interrupt just briefly? 

And I thank you for that report. 

And just for the benefit of the other Members, Stanford University, at my request, did volunteer their Computer Science Department and School of Business as a free advisor to the Agency and 

minority staff and majority staff and staff from the Agency did go 

out and get the benefit of their thinking on the computer issues 

particularly, and we do acknowledge and thank Stanford for that 

donation. 

If you could continue, Mr. Scharfen? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. And part of that discussion did cover the Federal 

enterprise architecture and where we were on that and whether or 

not we were sufficiently along in identifying the different models 

that make up that architecture. I guess there are five all together. 

You have the performance reference model and then the business 

service data and the technology pieces to that. 

We have a relatively new Chief Information Officer who is, I 

think, expert just on these architecture-type issues. He is also very 

good and experienced with large contracting issues. And what we 

have done, in terms of trying to better identify the performance reference models or the performance criteria, is that the CIO has an 

effort, within the next 4 months, roughly, to better identify some 

of those performance reference metrics and then be able to feed 

those in to our ongoing transformation contracting, and we will try 

to integrate that going forward with that transformation contracting effort. 

As to the GAO report, I would point out that we found the report, in general, encouraging, especially on the part of our improved planning that we had received. I guess they looked at nine 

criteria. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do not disagree, but we always look for needs to 

improve. We do not need to spend our time patting ourselves on 

the back. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Fair enough. The performance measures was one 

of the ones that they said we are falling short on, and so that is 

what we have done, to answer your question, ma’am. The CIO is 

pursuing that portion of the performance reference models. And 

also, on the human capital, we have incorporated the human capital officer more in the transformation planning effort, which is another shortcoming the GAO identified. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I can see that my time has expired. Perhaps working with the minority, we can find a time where we can have even 

a workshop type of meeting with the CIO and delve into more on 

the computer plans, not limited by the 5-minute rule. 

15

At this point, I would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. King, 

for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Scharfen, thank you for your testimony. 

I look back on the February hearing and Mr. Aytes’ testimony 

from that, that 85 percent of the fee waiver applications were 

granted, and my question on that is what percentage of the 

adjudicants are not revenue producing? In other words, of all the 

applicants that we have, what percentage of them do not produce 

revenue and what does that do to add to the cost of the fees of 

those that do produce revenue? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. All together—and I will let my CFO chime in 

here if I do not have the percentages right—as to fee waiver applications, only about 1 percent of applicants apply for a fee waiver. 

In terms of both the waivers and those applicants that do not have 

to pay the fee, it covers 6 percent of the applicants. That is including people such as refugees that would not be paying. So that is 

6 percent, to answer your question directly, sir. 

In terms of the work that is involved, it represents 8 percent of 

the workload that is not covered by fees. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. That gives some clarity to it and a sense 

of proportion, and I notice Mr. Jones nodding his head to confirm 

that testimony. 

And I also recognize you are working with the FBI on background checks and, when you engage the FBI, does that incur a fee 

on your part? Do you have to compensate them for their work? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. We have just been working with the FBI 

on those, and going forward, we will be paying an increased fee for 

the FBI name checks and fingerprint checks as well. 

Mr. KING. And that is calculated into your analysis when you 

have these fee changes? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That is correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. Then I wanted to express something else here that is 

maybe a little bit broader question, and that is that the debate that 

lingers yet—and I think we have come to some sense of consensus 

on fee based and, of course, all Members of this Committee do not 

agree on the fee based part—is that some would like to see that 

borne by the taxpayer, and some would like to see that entirely 

borne by the applicants, and I am in that category of entirely borne 

by the applicants because they are the ones that receive the benefit. 

I just wanted to comment that it occurs to me that you are in 

a situation where you are seeking to try to find a proposal here 

that satisfies a consensus of us. In fact, if we could come to unanimous consensus, that would be the ideal situation. And what 

strikes me is the idea of the galleon dialectic where you lay everything out on the spectrum, and you say, ‘‘Well, taxes are objectionable to this group, so they are off the table. And these fees are objectionable to this group, so they are off the table.’’ That would be 

the fee waiver component of it. 

And so it narrows down those areas where we can find a consensus that we believe fees are appropriate, and the narrower that 

gets, the higher the fees have to be for those who are paying them, 

and so, at some point, we need to take a look at this and identify 

16

that maybe 6 to 8 percent of this cost that is added to the balance 

of them is the fee waiver component. So those folks that do not 

have the fees waived have a price in that of 6 to 8 percent more. 

I do not know if that is the actual number. I know you have 

given me a percentage analysis. Would you say that is accurate? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes. In terms of applicants, 6 percent of the applicants are not paying fees either through a waiver or by the policy decision that the other applicants would be paying for them, 

such as the refugee or victims against violence applicants. 

Mr. KING. And I want to go on record, I do not object to that. 

I just point out that the narrower that lists get to the people that 

are paying, the higher the rate gets for those that pay. 

Then, also, you have premium processing funds that are part of 

this? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. Can you tell me how those premium processing funds 

are applied across the balance of your costs? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Right. In the past, the purpose of those is for 

transformation. In terms of into the new fee rule, those funds will 

be going toward transformation. And one of the reasons why we are 

so keen on getting a new fee rule is that, in the past, those funds 

were not being spent entirely on transformation costs. They were 

being spent on other operational costs because there were not 

enough fees to cover the ongoing operations of the Agency, and that 

is why there was interest in that area. 

But the fees were falling so short that we were having backlogs 

developed because of those shortcomings. But with the new fee, 

those premium processing fees will end up being spent on transformation, so that there will be over $100 million spent annually 

on the transformation program, so that we can make some of the 

improvements that we need to improve the delivery of services to 

applicants. 

Mr. KING. And closed technology infrastructure? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. Improved services, business processes. It 

involves infrastructure, it involves technology, and it involves 

transforming all of those to improve the services across the board. 

Mr. KING. And the fees that go to fingerprints and background 

checks the FBI are doing, will that result in more personnel being 

put on board at FBI to turn this around more quickly? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. We have been working with the FBI 

and, just recently, we have also had a number of meetings trying 

to work through this difficult problem of the FBI backlog. Just in 

terms of cases that are in a backlog at the FBI awaiting background checks, there are 150,000 in that backlog. That is 

unsustainable, and so we are working with the FBI on two fronts: 

one, to modify and improve or re-engineer the search criteria, and 

two is to apply more of resources to the name-check process. The 

FBI is hiring over 30 individuals to work just on the USCIS’s backlog. 

Mr. KING. Then if I could just quickly, in conclusion, pose this 

question, is that once the infrastructure is up in place and there 

are more FBI personnel, you have to have more to work the backlog of 150,000 down than you will need to sustain the applications 

after that backlog is worked down. So also into this fee, are we 

17

building infrastructure that will be in excess of our needs once the 

backlog is resolved? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I would answer that in two ways. First, we would 

like to bring down the speed, the time it takes to do a background 

investigation to much less than 6 months. I am reluctant to set out 

a goal here now. I would like to just first get rid of that FBI backlog. Some of those cases, over 50,000, are over 2 years old, and we 

would like to first get it down where we get rid of that backlog entirely. 

But then we want to work hard to get that below 6 months, and 

that is what we are doing. In general, if we make improvements 

and we have overcapacity, in retrospect, as we move forward because of these increases in technology gains, the idea is that every 

2 years, you would have a new fee review and you would do a new 

fee study, a cost analysis, so that you could have adjustments to 

the fee so that you would not have that overcapacity. 

Mr. KING. That is what I needed to know. Thank you, Mr. 

Scharfen. 

Madam Chair? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I recognize now Mr. Gutierrez for his 

5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you for calling the hearing, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

First of all, I would like to just speak to you so that you understand that there are two differences of opinion on the immigrant 

community that you serve. 

I think it is a false dichotomy that is being made here between 

permanent residence and the rest of the American population. The 

fact remains that in order to get any means-tested program in the 

United States, you have to be a permanent resident for 5 years. So 

you do pay taxes for services you cannot receive, because the last 

time I checked, there was not a deduction for the first 5 years. 

Everyone that is a permanent resident—and you correct me if I 

am wrong—is required to register at Selective Service, and, indeed, 

in the war in Iraq, the first fatality was Lance Corporal Gutierrez, 

permanent resident, entered the country, interestingly enough, undocumented to the United States and the first casualty. 

I mean, when I am on a road, permanent residents paid with 

their taxes for that road that I traveled. When I get a book at a 

library, they paid for that. When I call 911, they are helping to pay 

for the police department and the fire department which I benefit 

from. As a matter of fact, when I travel to Iowa, which might not 

have as many people, but roads are just as expensive where there 

is heavily populated populations, they helped pay for that through 

their income taxes and Federal taxes and taxes on gasoline. 

So it is kind of a false dichotomy that we are making here. Aren’t 

there 80,000 permanent residents serving in the military forces of 

the United States with much distinction today? 

I just wanted to clear that up so that you might have another 

point of view of how some people look at immigrant community. 

I want to ask you a specific question. The proposed fee regulation, was sent by you to OMB on October 26 of 2006. That is the 

proposed regulation, your request for fee increases, first has to go 

to OMB. Is that correct? 

18

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And that was done on October 26 for 

these fee increases of last year. Is that correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You have no qualms with that? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We are under the 5-minute rule. You can go 

check and correct your testimony later on. 

A few days later—that is on November the 3rd—you folks sent 

to OMB for a regulatory change on the green card. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I assume it is. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. A week later? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Then in February of this year, February 

of 2007, you cleared the OMB hurdle for both the fee increases and 

the green card changes. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. I assume it is. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So, basically, you said, ‘‘We want to send this to 

OMB to follow the regulatory process for fee increases, and we 

want to send a week later to change the green card.’’ Everybody 

has to change their green card that has an unexpired date. You did 

both those things basically simultaneously and, indeed, OMB within weeks approved both of those for you. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. All right. Good. Now the final rule on the fee increase was published on May 30, 2007, and took effect on July 30, 

2007. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Now what was the old fee for changing a 

green card? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. $190, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Plus $70 biometrics? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And what is the new fee? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. $80 for biometrics and $290 for the green card. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So, although you received from OMB the authority to go ahead and change the green card selection back in February, 7 months ago, you waited until the fee increase went into 

effect, thereby charging the very people who you want to have a 

new green card an additional 40 percent. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Why did you do that? Why did you do that? If 

you had authority to do both of these things, if you started the 

process at the same time, if OMB approved them virtually simultaneously, why did you affect a community of people, 750,000 people, 

who had done nothing wrong? 

You issued them a green card without an expiration date. You 

wanted them to change that green card, but is it not true that you 

waited until the fee increase went into effect in order to tell them, 

‘‘We want you to change your green card’’? Why did you do that? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Well, I think, if I could answer in a general fashion, that as a general matter, the whole purpose behind the fee 

rule is that recover our actual costs of——

19

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is not my question. My question is, you 

asked for the green card regulation to be changed simultaneously 

with the fee increases. You got approval for both of them simultaneously, yet you went ahead with the fee increases and then said, 

‘‘We want to change the rule on the green card.’’ Is that not true? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That is correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Why did you do that? That is fundamentally unfair to a community of people who have played by the rules, but 

you want additional dollars. As a matter of fact, you knew that, but 

you did not put it in your budget, that you were going to get an 

additional $277 million from green card holders here in the United 

States of America. Is that not true? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Well, I think one thing I would point out, sir, is 

that the green card rule is a proposed rule at this point and 

that——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Can I just ask for 30 seconds to——

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. We have to vote. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

I understand that, but, you see, that is why I tried to be careful. 

You went for the rule change to OMB in October. A week later, 

you went for the green card. OMB approved both of them for you 

in February of this year. You moved forward on the fee increase, 

but waited until the green card change, although you had authority 

at the same time. Why didn’t you do it all simultaneously? You 

suggested in your testimony, you said, ‘‘Members of the panel, 

many people have gone and applied for American citizenship because they saw the fee increase was coming,’’ right. 

Why didn’t you give the same opportunity to permanent residents that have green cards to go ahead and take care of it before 

the fee increase? It is fundamentally unfair for us, and it demonstrates the inefficiency of your department and those—and I will 

end with this—that say, ‘‘Just give your department, your Agency 

all the money it wants,’’ because you guys have some kind of super 

efficient model of Government. 

You are not, and, in this case, I would suggest that you go back, 

as you are looking at the rule, and say, ‘‘You know something? We 

made a mistake. It was not really fair. We should charge the old 

fee, not the new fee,’’ and give them the same opportunity because, 

indeed, the Government worked for them efficiently and in a timely 

manner. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and I know Mr. 

Scharfen wants to answer, but we have a vote. We will recess and 

come back, and Mr. Scharfen may want to add something in answer to your question after he thinks about it while we are voting. 

So we are in recess until after this vote. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Under the rules, we can proceed with two Members, and, ordinarily, we would wait for the Ranking Member, but 

because we took an hour to vote, I am going to—I am sure Steve 

is on his way over—at least introduce the next panel and invite 

Mr. Scharfen to see if there was anything further you wanted to 

add. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. No, ma’am, other than to say to Mr. Gutierrez, 

I understand your points very well, and as the Marines say, sir, I 

20

hear you loud and clear, and I will take that back and put that into 

our deliberative process, sir. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And I would hope we would have time for a second round, but 

given how long it has taken, I think we will move to the second 

panel in hopes that Steve is on his way. 

And so thank you very much. We will reserve—Mr. King has arrived—the right to have additional questions submitted in the next 

5 legislative days, and we ask if the Committee will forward them 

to you if we receive them from Members and ask that you respond 

as promptly as you can in that situation. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

We will now ask our second panel to come forward, and we have 

coming forward Arturo Vargas, the executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, or 

NALEO, and NALEO’s Educational Fund. Before joining NALEO, 

Mr. Vargas served as the Vice President for community education 

and public policy at MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Mr. Vargas also worked as the Senior 

Education Policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza prior 

to his work at MALDEF. He serves on several community boards 

in his home of Los Angeles, including those of the United Way and 

Community Technology Foundation of California. He holds both his 

master’s and bachelor’s degrees from my alma mater, Stanford 

University. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome Bill Yates, an executive consultant with Border Management Strategies, an immigration and border security consulting firm. Mr. Yates began his career as a special agent with the INS in Newark, New Jersey, and after 31 years 

of service to the Federal Government’s immigration agencies, he retired from USCIS in 2005 as Chief of Domestic Operations. The recipient of several awards from USCIS for his distinguished service, 

Mr. Yates also received the American Immigration Law Foundation’s public service award last year. He earned his bachelor’s degree in Asian Studies from Seton Hall University, and I would note 

that over these many years, Bill was always a source of reliable information to me, and I appreciate his being here today. 

And finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Rhadames 

Rivera, the vice president of 1199, the Service Employees International Union’s United Health Care East. Mr. Rivera has served 

as vice president of the union, based in New York City, since 2000. 

Prior to working with SEIU, Mr. Rivera coordinated housing and 

organizer networks for the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board 

in New York; taught as a training director and researcher in several schools in Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic; and worked as 

a counselor and job development specialist at the Cardinal Cushing 

Center in Boston. He studied at Cornell University’s School of 

Labor Relations’ Leadership Institute, as well as the Northeast 

Broadcasting School in Boston, and earned his degree in social 

work from the University of Puerto Rico. 

Each of your full statements will be made part of the official 

record of this hearing, but we would ask you to summarize in 5 

21

minutes your oral testimony, and when that yellow light goes on 

on the table, it means there is only 1 minute to go, and then we 

will move on to questions. 

And, once again, let me apologize for our lengthy departure. The 

House took longer than we thought it would to cast three votes, but 

sometimes that is the nature of the House. 

So, if we can begin with you, Mr. Vargas, welcome and thank 

you. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member King, 

and Congressman Gutierrez who has left the room. Thank you for 

the invitation to appear before you today. 

The NALEO Educational Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that facilitates the full participation of Latinos in the 

American political process. In fact, our founder is a past Member 

of the House of Representatives, the late Congressman Edward 

Roybal, who served in this chamber for over 30 years. 

In January of this year, we launched our ‘‘ya es hora 

¡Ciudadania!’’ campaign, it’s time, citizenship, which is a national 

year-long effort to inform, education, and assist eligible legal permanent residents from across the United States apply for U.S. citizenship. It was an effort that included more than 400 local and national organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the 

SEIU and the We Are America Alliance and our media partners, 

Univision Communications, Entravision, and impreMedia, who 

have played a critical role in our public education efforts, and I 

would say that this campaign is in part responsible for the surge 

that the USCIS referred to earlier in applications for naturalization. 

Nonetheless, the application fee increases implemented by the 

USCIS are imposing a prohibitive financial burden on countless immigrant families. According to 2000 Census data, more than one 

out of three of our Nation’s noncitizen households have annual incomes of less than $25,000, and data from the Pew Hispanic Center 

suggests that 25 percent of residents eligible to naturalize have 

family incomes below the poverty line. 

We know that multiple family members often want to apply for 

naturalization at the same time. With the increase imposed, a family of four would confront a bill amounting to $2,700. Even the cost 

for one family member of $675 represents, for many newcomer families, the cost of their monthly rent or their mortgage payments. 

We believe that the increase in immigration application fees over 

the past 15 years, as you noted, Chairman, is a result of fundamental flaws in our system for financing immigration services, 

which have also left the USCIS without the funding for important 

business process and infrastructure improvements needed to modernize its operation. 

This system has primarily resulted from a combination of factors, 

in our view: the USCIS’s misinterpretation of a perceived statutory 

mandate to fund virtually all Agency costs from application fee revenues, and the lack of congressional action to clarify that the statutory section does not require the Agency to completely fund its opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:06 Dec 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092007\37846.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37846
22

erations exclusively through those fees; the Agency’s reluctance to 

seek sufficient appropriated funding to complement fee revenues, 

which could help keep application costs at a reasonable level; and 

congressional mandates that require many immigrant applicants to 

essentially fund services unrelated to their own application. 

Our first concern with the USCIS’s interpretation of the statute 

is in the way it determines the cost of providing adjudication and 

naturalization services, which are covered from fees. Attached to 

my written testimony are comments we provided to the Agency 

when it officially proposed the fee increases. These comments contain a more technical analysis of what we believe are some of the 

more questionable calculations used by the Agency to ascertain 

how much it will cost to provide services to applicants. 

We are particularly concerned that under our current system of 

financing immigration adjudication, newcomers are being required 

to shoulder the entire burden of paying for the modernization of 

the USCIS and major enhancements for immigration operations 

that benefit the Nation as a whole. 

In its rulemaking for the current increase, the USCIS described $524 million in additional resource requirements that involve the 

cost above the basic resources the Agency claims it needs to reach 

its missions responsibilities. This half-billion dollars represents 

one-quarter of the $2 billion budget for the Agency it assigns for 

fiscal year 2007-2008 application processing activities. 

However, a significant number of these resource requirements 

appear to be fairly expensive, which are unusual and atypical of a 

normal application processing year, such as the establishment of a 

second full-service card production facility and upgrades to USCIS’s 

information technology environment. There is no reason why Congress is prevented from appropriating funds for immigration naturalization services, and there are many reasons why the USCIS 

should actively seek such funding from Congress. 

We believe that the Members of the Subcommittee, the leadership of the Agency, and those who work closely with our Nation’s 

newcomers share a common vision for American’s immigration system. We want a well-managed immigration system that can make 

timely and accurate adjudications in an evolving national security 

involvement. We want to ensure the applicants pay a reasonable 

fee to receive policy immigration services. However, our current 

system for financing these services will simply not allow us to 

achieve these goals. 

We believe the USCIS must rescind the current fee increase and 

work with the Administration and Congress to implement some 

changes, and my policy recommendations are summarized on pages 

10 and 11 of my testimony, and, in essence, what we believe is we 

just see a partnership between America’s newcomers and America 

because, in fact, the benefit of being a citizen is not a one-way 

street. America benefits when newcomers become full participants 

in our democracy and contribute with their lives. I speak here as 

a son of a naturalized citizen, and I can say that I think this country is stronger today because my mother participates in every single election. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS


AV-1.eps
24


AV-2.eps
25


AV-3.eps
26


AV-4.eps
27


AV-5.eps
28


AV-6.eps
29


AV-7.eps
30


AV-8.eps
31


AV-9.eps
32


AV-10.eps
33


AV-11.eps
34


AV-12.eps
35


AV-13.eps
36


AV-14.eps
37


AV-15.eps
38


AV-16.eps
39


AV-17.eps
40


AV-18.eps
41


AV-19.eps
42


AV-20.eps
43


AV-21.eps
44

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Yates? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. (Bill) YATES, EXECUTIVE 

CONSULTANT, BORDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Mr. YATES. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member King, Representative Gutierrez, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Bill Yates. I am an executive consultant of Border 

Management Strategies and a former INS and USCIS employee 

with over 31 years in immigration service and enforcement operations. It is a privilege to share with this Subcommittee my professional experience with an insight into the USCIS fee schedule. 

No one wants to see fees that are so high that it discourages individuals from filing for naturalization or other benefits. However, 

we all want and expect USCIS to operate efficiently, serving its 

customers with timely and accurate information and benefit decisions, while, at the same time, protecting all Americans by ensuring that benefits only go to eligible applicants. 

The fee schedule change that went into effect recently is extremely significant because it supports customer service and national security goals while providing USCIS with an opportunity to 

invest in badly needed business and IT improvements. 

USCIS inherited an enormous financial liability from the INS because of the asylum adjustment of status naturalization and immigrant visa petition backlogs. During fiscal year 2001, INS estimated that the value of the backlogs in deferred revenue represented a shortfall in the examinations fee account of $700 million 

to $800 million. 

Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we believe that a combination 

of President Bush’s commitment to fund the $500 million backlog 

elimination effort plus savings that could be achieved through business re-engineering efforts could eliminate that deferred revenue 

funding gap. The plan was to fund the re-engineering efforts 

through the premium processing fees and use appropriations to 

help eliminate the backlogs. 

Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 environment, those premium 

processing funds had to be diverted to pay for additional background checks and increased security for Government buildings 

and employees. During fiscal year 2002, new background checks 

alone necessitated the re-assignment of 800 adjudicator work years 

resulting in an even larger backlog. Exacerbating the situation was 

a decision by the Department of Justice mandating the reassignment of hundreds of INS adjudications officers to conduct National 

Security Entry Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, interviews. 

Then during November 2002, INS learned that it had naturalized 

an individual who was under investigation for suspicion of being a 

terrorist. This occurred despite INS having received two negative 

responses to background checks. As a result, INS returned to the 

FBI approximately 2.6 million naturalization and adjustment of 

status name checks to be redone. While that work was underway, 

those applications were ordered held in abeyance. 

The immigration services division of the INS that became USCIS 

faced huge backlogs and enormous challenges as it became an 

45

Agency under the Department of Homeland Security on March 1 

of 2003. However, by March 2004, production increased and backlogs stopped growing. By September 2004, steady progress was 

being made each and every month at reducing wait times, and by 

September 30, 2006, USCIS had met most of its backlog reduction 

targets. 

There are limited options for reducing fees for USCIS customers, 

and most options entail placing additional burdens on taxpayers. I 

think that there are good arguments for taxpayer funding for military naturalization and for refugee and asylum processing, but I 

acknowledge that there are also good arguments for continuing the 

current funding requirements. 

I think that the more significant issue is the vulnerability of the 

current funding system to fluctuations in receipts. A significant 

portion of the current fees relate to a surcharge that is required to 

support infrastructure as well as the non-revenue-generating applications. 

And, by the way, I just spoke to Rendell Jones, and I believe that 

surcharge is approximately 50 percent of the entire fee. 

For example, a drop in asylum filings would be deemed a financial blessing for CIS, but a significant decrease in naturalization 

applications could cause serious budget issues given that large surcharge that helps to pay for infrastructure. 

If Congress decides to maintain the current funding rules, then 

lower fees can only come through transformed business practices. 

I do believe that there are opportunities to succeed in this, but it 

requires a dramatic change in how USCIS conducts business. Fortunately, I believe it is possible to improve efficiency in operations 

while also increasing process integrity. 

In my written testimony, I offer specific recommendations, and I 

will be pleased to discuss any of those points. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yates follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. (BILL) YATES

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairwoman, members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Bill Yates and I am an Executive Consultant of Border Management Strategies, a company that provides immigration and border security expertise to both the public and private sectors. Prior 

to my involvement with Border Management Strategies I spent over 31 years with 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, serving in a variety of officer and management positions in both enforcement and service disciplines. I began my career as a special agent at Newark, NJ 

in 1974, and at the time of my retirement, September 29, 2005, I was the senior 

career official at USCIS. It is a privilege to share with this subcommittee my professional experience with, and insight into, the fee funding process, the reasons for the 

steep fee increases, the challenges USCIS faces in breaking the backlog cycle, and 

the need to transform core business practices. 

GROWTH IN APPLICATION FEES

The fee schedule change that went into effect last month is extremely significant 

for USCIS because it is the first time that that the fee schedule will actually recapture the full costs of USCIS operations. I am familiar with the previous fee schedule 

changes beginning with 1998 and each of those prior fee increases failed to fully recapture the full cost of doing business. In each instance from 1998 through the 2005, 

46

the amended fee schedule reflected the results of compromises, not calculations 

Since FY 2002 USCIS has relied upon its premium processing fee revenue to meet 

its base financial obligations. Those funds were intended to be used for business 

process improvements, but were necessarily diverted to pay for new background 

checks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At one point during 

the third quarter of FY 2002 we calculated that the new background checks required the redeployment of over 800 adjudication officer work-years, and increased 

expenditures by over $10 million dollars per month. The fee schedule change in 

2004 did include funds needed to pay for background checks, but premium processing revenues continued to be used to pay for other underfunded programs, including a portion of the backlog reduction efforts, and for the infrastructure requirements needed for USCIS to become a stand-alone agency as intended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

Certainly, the fee increases beginning with 1998, when fees increased by an average of 76%, have been high, and high fees represent a significant burden to many 

USCIS customers. The reasons for these steep increases above the standard inflation costs are due predominately to;

• Growth in non-fee and restricted fee application processing costs requiring 

significant surcharges being placed on fee paying customers to cover those 

costs.

• Creation of new programs and components, such as the National Records 

Center (NRC), the National Customer Service Center (NCSC), the Missouri 

Service Center (MSC), and the Fraud Detection and National Security Office 

(FDNS)

• Implementation of the Application Support Center contract for fingerprint 

and more recently biometrics capture

• Implementation of new background checks following the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001

• Increases in building and personnel security costs due to the threat of terrorism.

• Creation of USCIS as a stand-alone agency within the Department of Homeland Security

• Increased emphasis on eliminating application and petition backlogs

• Operational inefficiencies and maintenance costs for archaic legacy information systems 

APPLICATION AND PETITION BACKLOGS

Backlogs at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have developed for 

a number of reasons, some predictable, and some resulting from unpredictable 

events. Massive surges in application receipts, poor computer systems, paper-based 

labor-intensive processes, a flawed funding system, unfunded mandates, inefficient 

business processes, post September 11, 2001 security check processes, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check delays, lack of a scalable workforce, 

dissolution of the INS, and an immature Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

that has struggled with immigration regulatory processes, have either contributed 

to backlogs or impeded efforts to eliminate them. 

Despite the aforementioned USCIS has made dramatic gains in reducing backlogs 

and wait times for applicants for benefits over the past three fiscal years, and many 

of the agencies identified above have contributed substantially to that success. Unfortunately, while these achievements are both significant and welcome, the gains 

are not the result of strategies that will prevent the growth of future backlogs. That 

is because eliminating the backlog cycles at USCIS requires identification of the 

chain of responsibility among the USCIS, DHS, Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, 

OMB, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the United States Congress. As 

with any chain, ignore any of the links and failure is the likely result. 

WHAT HARM IS CAUSED BY BACKLOGS

The consequences of backlogs are varied and often severe; prolonged family separations, lost opportunities for families to migrate to the United States; companies 

being unable to get the permanent or temporary workers they need when they need 

them; permanent residents being denied employment opportunities reserved for citizens; and the lives of unattended minors and relatives of refugees and asylees being 

placed at risk. Academicians and immigration statisticians are hindered in their attempts to provide meaningful analysis of migration trends because backlogs can 

47

1 Backlog cycle refers to a repeating pattern of growing volumes of pending applications with 

receipts far exceeding completions followed by a period of backlog elimination efforts during 

which time completions far exceed incoming receipts. 2See 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 31, Petitions for Naturalization Filed 

. . . Fiscal Years 1907 to 2004

lead to incorrect conclusions. The backlog cycle 1 can decrease or increase the numbers of individuals who immigrate, or who become citizens during specific periods 

of time. Because of this it becomes extremely difficult to draw conclusions or prepare 

long-term forecasts critical to inform a variety of public policy matters. 

Backlogs are self generating. Applicants awaiting decisions on adjustment of status applications may need to file several applications for extensions on temporary 

stay or for interim benefits including, work authorization or foreign travel authorization. Backlogs also cause severe stress among USCIS employees and their families as employees are routinely required to work overtime during the workweek and 

often on weekends, as well. Because of a succession of workload surges during the 

past 10 years forced overtime has become a fact of life for many USCIS employees. 

The DHS Ombudsman argues that backlogs create national security 

vulnerabilities. He notes that significant numbers of applicants for adjustment of 

status will ultimately be deemed ineligible to adjust their status, but because of 

backlogs applicants may remain in the United States for long periods of time before 

a final determination is made. Although USCIS background check procedures ameliorate the risk identified by the Ombudsman, it is true that backlogs create opportunities for ineligible aliens to remain in the United States for extended periods of 

time. It is also true that permitting ineligible applicants to abuse the system to extend their residence in the United States is not an acceptable condition. 

WHY HASN’T USCIS BEEN ABLE TO ELIMINATE ALL BACKLOGS

Backlogs are generally event-driven. The current backlog cycle has its roots in the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). That Act generated waves of 

application surges that overwhelmed the adjudicative capacity of the INS/USCIS. 

Ironically, it was not the initial legalization wave that overwhelmed INS records 

and adjudicative processes, as well as FBI fingerprint clearance processes. Instead, 

it was secondary wave consisting of lawful permanent residents who began filing for 

naturalization during the mid to late 1990s in record numbers that exceeded the 

infrastructure capabilities of the INS. Between 1981 and 1990 INS received 2.4 million applications for naturalization. During the 1991 to 2000 period INS received 7.4 

million applications, a 208% increase.2

In addition to suffering from its own processing system failures the INS was further hampered by the inability of the FBI to timely process fingerprint check and 

name check background requests. From the mid 1990s forward immigration application processing would increasingly be negatively impacted by processing delays associated with background checks. The fingerprint check process with the FBI, however, would evolve to become a model process that is better, faster, and more secure. 

The extremely efficient live scan fingerprint system featuring electronic capture and 

transmission between USCIS and the FBI achieves response times in minutes or 

hours as opposed to months for the old paper and ink process it replaced. Unfortunately, name check processes have become even more problematic than during the 

1990s because the vulnerabilities are now better understood, but the solutions remain complex and labor intensive. 

INS made substantial progress on backlogs during FY 2001, but following the terrorist attacks the FY 2002 focus shifted from backlog reduction to enhanced identity 

verification efforts. Adjudicators were fearful of approving applications because no 

one knew which application could contain the next potential terrorist. The Attorney 

General ordered mandatory Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) checks on 

all applicants for benefits. DOJ also decided to use INS adjudication officers to conduct the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) interviews. In 

addition to the hundreds of adjudicators reassigned to conduct background checks, 

hundreds more were reassigned to conduct NSEERS interviews. Then, in November 

2002, INS learned that it naturalized an individual suspected of being a terrorist. 

Subsequent reviews revealed that INS had received two negative responses from the 

FBI in response to routine background check inquiries despite the existence of FBI 

investigative records. INS ordered field offices to halt work on a large volume of adjustment of status and naturalization applications, reviewed the incident with the 

FBI then returned approximately 2.6 million name checks to the FBI for rework. 

Unfortunately, the rework resulted in processing delays for hundreds of thousands 

of customers. 

48

As INS’ Immigration Services Division was preparing to become a stand-alone 

agency in DHS on March 1, 2003, it was still growing backlogs, still dealing with 

a workforce that feared making a wrong decision, still underfunded, and now lacked 

an administrative support infrastructure since DHS had assigned all INS administration and IT support programs to ICE. However, by the end of its first year as 

an agency within DHS, USCIS stopped the growth of backlogs. Within the next six 

months it was reducing backlogs. By the end of FY 2006 it had met a majority of 

its goals to reduce processing times to six months or less. During the same period 

that USCIS reduced backlogs it improved the integrity of its processes. These gains 

were made possible only through Congressional appropriations as well as premium 

processing fee funds. 

BUILDING INTEGRITY INTO THE ADJUDICATIVE PROCESSES

One new construct that initially caused a fair amount of disagreement within and 

DHS was the creation of the Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) office. 

Some argued that it represented a USCIS effort to establish its own investigative 

force in direct competition with ICE, and that it did not belong in a service organization. I strongly disagree. FDNS was established to assist adjudicators make the 

correct case decisions through evidentiary verification activities. If fraud is identified FDNS will review the record to determine whether the suspected fraudulent application is part of a broader conspiracy or a single party fraud case. Fraud cases 

are referred to ICE for criminal investigation and prosecution. FDNS may continue 

to offer support during the investigation and prosecution stages. FDNS enhances 

ICE’s capabilities by eliminating referrals for investigation based upon mere suspicion and by offering expertise in adjudications requirements and case support activities. 

FDNS also fills the gap between USCIS responsibilities and ICE responsibilities. 

When ICE initiates a conspiracy investigation its goals are to stop the criminal enterprise, prosecute the principals, seize assets, and initiate removal proceedings 

where appropriate. It is not an ICE responsibility to adjudicate the hundreds or 

thousands of applications that may individually be suspect. That responsibility rests 

with USCIS and each and every decision to deny must stand on its own review of 

case facts. It is FDNS’ responsibility to bridge that gap by assisting adjudicators to 

obtain the evidence needed to render the correct decision on each and every application or petition filed. FDNS also assists in resolution of background check hits, and 

conducts sampling surveys of the various benefit processes to identify high risk 

processes. 

In addition to the obvious benefits described above, the work of FDNS sends a 

clear message to USCIS employees—that agency leadership cares about the integrity of the adjudicative processes. This is invaluable for the long-term health of 

USCIS. 

HOW CAN THE BACKLOG CYCLE BE BROKEN

USCIS defines a backlog as the volume of pending application work that exceeds 

the cycle time (stipulated processing time) for that particular adjudication. Since different benefit applications have different evidentiary and processing requirements 

cycle times necessarily vary by form type. 

Backlogs develop when the load represented by the volume of applications and petitions (converted to labor hours) filed with the agency exceed its adjudicative capacity.

Because application volumes or loads can be converted into hours of required adjudicative effort, and because the capacity of the USCIS workforce can also be converted into hours of available adjudicative effort, the solution to backlogs is to ensure that the adjudicative capacity meets or exceeds the load at all times. 

Since both the load and capacity can be accurately calculated the only remaining 

variable in eliminating backlogs is utilization. USCIS must manage or utilize its adjudicative capacity such that it directs sufficient hours within its overall capacity

against each and every form type so that it effectively meets the load. For example, 

if the total load represented by all of the FY 2007 applications and petitions is 12 

million hours of adjudications work, USCIS must possess the capacity and must 

manage the dedication of 12 million hours to timely complete all FY 2007 filings. 

Workload calculations do not present challenges to USCIS. IT possesses the expertise to accurately determine the load that any application surge will create. It also 

possesses the expertise to determine its adjudicative capacity. The principal challenges for USCIS include; forecasting surges, creating a scalable workforce to meet 

increased and decreased load demands, managing its capacity so that it operates as 

efficiently and as effectively as possible, gaining access to the funding authorization 

49

3The dual adjudication process adopted by the INS and maintained by USCIS is inefficient. 

When INS introduced the CLAIMS 4 Naturalization electronic processing system agency leadership was promised efficiency gains of 25% or more. Unfortunately, processing times actually increased by approximately that amount because the system efficiencies were more than cancelled 

out by the requirement that the adjudicating officer continue the full paper adjudication and 

then adjudicate the case in the system as well. 4Partially-completed casework typically involves continuing a case without decision due to an 

eligibility issue that has been discovered during the interview or case review process. When a 

detailed officer returns to her home office it is a common occurrence that these partially completed cases will require reassignment to another officer who will then review the entire record 

again to become familiar with the case facts and to be certain that the first reviewer did not 

miss any key issues or evidence. 5 Application surges result from a variety of factors including new legislation, statutory numerical limitations, grants of temporary protected status, reactions to proposed fee changes, 

modified processing requirements or changes in public policy. The annual commencement of the 

H-1B filing period on April 1st, is an example of a predictable surge in petitions. A new grant 

of temporary protected status may be unpredictable. 6 Creating a scalable infrastructure is particularly difficult for a government entity. However, 

USCIS developed its Application Support Centers (ASC) as scalable fingerprint and biometric 

identification centers. The ASCs are contract facilities with contract staff, but each such facility 

has on-site government oversight. The performance record of these facilities is excellent. 7The mere fact that USCIS collects application fees and deposits them in its Examinations 

Fee Account does not mean that it can access those funds. DHS, OMB and then Congress must 

approve any effort by USCIS to increase its funding—a process that may be blocked, delayed, 

or simply ignored at any step. 8The FBI conducts both fingerprint checks (biometric) and name checks (biographic) for the 

USCIS. Fingerprints provide criminal history information. Name checks ascertain whether ineligibility information exists in FBI records or whether the applicant is the subject of an ongoing 

investigation by the FBI.

before a surge hits, eliminating the current practice of paper-based adjudication plus 

electronic-based adjudication of the same application in favor of a single electronicbased adjudication.3

USCIS’ backlog elimination efforts to date have been made more difficult because 

backlogs, employee attrition rates, and filing surges do not occur uniformly throughout its 250+ offices. It may have a capacity surplus in one office and a capacity deficit in another. Statutes, government rules, customer concerns, and paper intensive 

processes combine to limit its ability to move work from one office to another. Details of employees from offices with greater capacity to ones with less capacity, as 

well as mandatory overtime, have become routine management tools, however, details are very costly, disruptive to employees’ lives, limited by available office space, 

and may result in lower quality adjudications. Agency managers have reported that 

overtime and employee details to backlogged offices frequently result in diminishing 

returns as employee burnout leads to increases in errors. Adjudicative costs can rise 

steeply due to overtime payments and due to the amount of rework needed on partially-completed cases.4

One of the most significant issues confronting USCIS in effectively managing load, 

capacity, and utilization is application surges.5 Surges are a fact of life for USCIS, 

and any plan to prevent backlogs must have an effective surge response plan. To 

deal with surges USCIS must have certain elements of its infrastructure scalable 6

as well as a scalable workforce. 

IDENTIFYING THE CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITY

Even if USCIS accurately forecasts the timing and increased workload of a surge, 

it still may not be able to timely process the new workload without help from its 

partners.

• DHS, OMB, and Congress must provide the funding authority to expand 

USCIS’ adjudicative capacity,7 and 

• DHS and OMB must facilitate the timely publication of necessary rules and 

notices in the Federal Register, and

• FBI must have the capacity to process greater volumes of biometric and biographic background checks,8 and 

• USCIS’ operating plan must include scalable contracts for mail processing, 

file creation, data entry, biometric capture, records storage, IT services, and 

facilities expansion. USCIS must review plans with its contractors to ensure 

viability and must develop its own plans for a scalable workforce and scalable 

50

9 A virtual office can be created by developing the capability to move an application electronically to an adjudications officer regardless of their physical location. Work-at-home programs 

and relocating certain applications from offices that lack sufficient capacity to others that possess excess capacity will be enhanced. 

facilities or develop a virtual office 9 that can obviate the need for space expansion 

THE CURRENT FUNDING SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND CAN LEAD TO BACKLOGS

Fees have long been charged to petitioners and applicants for immigration benefits, but the decision to require that USCIS be totally dependent on fees is relatively 

new. There isn’t anything conceptually wrong with requiring that USCIS recapture 

the costs of administering the adjudications program, however, USCIS and its customers are vulnerable to the current bureaucratic processes and appropriation policies. 

Although USCIS is a fee funded agency it does not have access to fees except 

through the annual appropriation process, or through the very inefficient and unpredictable reprogramming process. Workload surges because of legislation or special 

programs such as TPS may generate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in new 

fees, but USCIS may not receive Congressional authority to access those funds. This 

scenario occurred in 2000 when Congress passed the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act). That Act generated over one million additional applications 

with fees, but because the legislation did not authorize INS to access the revenue, 

and because a subsequent reprogramming request was denied by Congress, INS had 

to hold the applications until such time as it received funds needed to adjudicate 

the additional caseload. Access to LIFE Act fees deposited in the Examinations Fee 

Account was not authorized by Congress until the following fiscal year. 

THE CURRENT FEE SYSTEM CREATES VULNERABILITIES FOR USCIS

The non-fee, and Congressionally-restricted fee application work of the USCIS 

now amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in costs annually. The non-fee applications include all asylum applications, refugee applications, military naturalization 

applications, and fee-waiver applications. Congress has limited by statute the fee 

paid by applicants for temporary protected status to $50, covering only a small fraction of the true cost of that adjudication. The financial liability that these non-revenue generating applications create for the USCIS makes it very vulnerable to increases in non-fee applications and/or decreases in fee applications given the significant surcharge placed on each fee application. As USCIS reduced its adjustment of 

status backlogs during FY 2005 and FY 2006 it realized that it would receive substantially fewer requests for employment authorization. I recall that we estimated 

a reduction in fee revenue of between $50 to $60 million dollars. The financial ramifications were significant because each of those employment authorization application fees carried a large surcharge that was needed to fund asylum, refugee, military naturalization and other non-revenue generating workloads. 

Transforming USCIS business processes and IT systems 

The future success of USCIS requires that it transform its business practices so 

that it ends the current dual-adjudication process (paper and electronic), creates a 

central view or account that contains complete immigration history information, offers customers multiple channels for accessing information and filing, and develops 

a robust inventory and case management system. 

Although it is frustrating that these capabilities do not exist today we should also 

recognize the progress that USCIS has made during a very difficult time with severe funding constraints. 

Business process improvements that have been initiated include;

• Development of the lock-box initiative with the Treasury Department to deposit fees quickly and to enter application data into a national tracking system

• Case tracking on-line

• Electronic forms distribution

• A web site that provides outstanding information and research capabilities

• Transparency of its operations by providing on-line access to the Adjudicator’s 

Field Manual

• Transformation of the Application Support Centers from fingerprint centers 

to biometric data capture and identity verification centers.

51

• Improved processes for permanent residents who need to replace a lost or expired permanent resident card (green card)

• Development of the Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) program 

to assist adjudicators in evidentiary verification efforts, and to assist ICE by 

identifying, criminal fraud conspiracies, and individuals who pose public safety and/or national security risks

• Digitization of immigration records supporting both long-term storage needs 

and simultaneous availability of records to all three immigration agencies

• Development of analytical tools to accurately measure workloads in each and 

every office for staffing purposes, and zip code analysis of application receipts 

to ensure that offices are located where customers actually reside.

In addition, USCIS is currently engaged in a number of active pilot projects to 

test establishment of customer accounts, enumeration and tracking options, records 

digitization, and revised adjudication procedures. 

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) MYTH—IT CAN ELIMINATE OR PREVENT THE

GROWTH OF BACKLOGS

USCIS business processes cannot be transformed into efficient, effective, and 

fraud resistant approaches without dramatic improvements in its IT capabilities. 

Conversely, building new relational databases and system interfaces will accrue 

only very modest gains unless business practices are transformed. 

USCIS processes remain primarily paper-based, and even its electronic application filing opportunities require the customer to mail supporting evidentiary materials in paper format. Agency rules require business petitioners to file extensive paperwork with each and every petition to prove that it is a legitimate business capable of paying the proffered wages. This wastes the customer’s time, increases the 

customer’s preparation costs, increases the length of time the adjudicator spends reviewing evidence, and increases file storage costs as the same corporate reports and 

financial documents may be stored in thousands of separate petition files. 

As the DHS agency responsible for immigration records USCIS also has the responsibility to make those records available to ICE and CBP when needed. This requires not just digitizing records but also creating the business rules and governance rules with respect to maintenance and updating of record information. 

USCIS faces a complex set of tasks in its efforts to transform both its business 

processes as well as its IT systems. Fortunately, it is well-positioned to move forward with that effort now that backlogs have been reduced and the premium processing funds can be reserved to fund transformation efforts. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

My first recommendation is that the new fee schedule remain in place. The revenue implications for USCIS would assuredly curtail business transformation efforts 

with long-term negative implications for all USCIS customers. I do believe that by 

transforming business and IT processes USCIS can reduce its overall operating 

costs, and this may support lower fees in the future or at least curtail the rate of 

fee increases beyond the normal inflation-based increases. USCIS faces a complex 

set of tasks in its efforts to transform both its business processes as well as its IT 

systems. Fortunately, it is well-positioned to move forward with that effort now that 

backlogs have been reduced and the premium processing funds are available to fund 

long-term improvements. 

With the new fee schedule in place USCIS can use the resources generated by the 

premium processing fees to fund its transformation efforts. Those funds should be 

protected or reserved for that purpose. 

To ensure success of its efforts to break the backlog cycle and to transform its 

business practices I also recommend that;

• USCIS develop a surge capacity plan and require the same from its contractors

• USCIS continue efforts to eliminate paper, eliminate redundant evidentiary 

requests, and establish processes for electronic verification of application and 

petition data

• USCIS implement its transformation efforts in concert with CBP and ICE as 

all three immigration agencies rely upon USCIS application and petition 

data, and records systems

• USCIS in concert with the DHS CIO develop IT systems that provide inventory control, case management, case status, and address information, includVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:06 Dec 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092007\37846.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37846
52

ing a capability to populate or flag multiple DHS systems with change of address data

• Congress should consider funding new mandates until such time as new fees 

can be implemented, or in the alternative, develop a process where funds will 

be appropriated up front, but must be repaid as the revenue is generated 

through fees

• DHS develop the capability to efficiently review and publish regulations and 

regulatory notices and this capability should be sufficiently robust that it not 

break down during leadership changes at the Department

• OPM assist USCIS in developing a more flexible workforce (position classification for temporary or part-time workers) that can expand and contract to 

deal with workload shifts

• USCIS improve its officer training to achieve its objective of timely and consistently accurate adjudications

• Background check process delays need to be eliminated

• A decision needs to be made concerning how long an application may be held 

in abeyance for suspicion of ineligibility, and procedures should be published 

identifying who has authority to suspend an adjudication and for what period 

of time

• Background check wrap-back functionality needs to be incorporated into the 

background check systems so that USCIS is automatically notified if potentially disqualifying information is obtained by intelligence or law enforcement 

agencies subsequent to a USCIS background check request

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this subcommittee. I look forward to 

answering your questions.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Yates. 

And finally, Mr. Rivera. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF RHADMES RIVERA, VICE PRESIDENT OF 1199, 

SEIU UNITED HEALTH CARE WORKERS EAST 

Mr. RIVERA. Good morning, Chairwoman. Good morning, Mr. 

Gutierrez. Good morning, Mr. King. 

On behalf of 1199 SEIU Citizenship Program, we thank you for 

the opportunity to address this Subcommittee and other distinguished guests that are here today. I will be able to talk about the 

fee increase and the impact on the health-care workers that we 

serve. 

The 1199 Citizenship Program began in January 2001. The program is administered by our benefit fund and pension fund and 

training and education fund and provides an array of innovative 

and comprehensive benefits, including educational and training 

programs that are designed to accommodate the needs of more 

than 300,000 union members. 

We are the largest health-care workers union in the Nation, representing workers in homecare settings, hospitals, nursing homes, 

pharmacies, clinics, and other health-care agencies. Our membership reflects the diversity of immigrants to this Nation, particularly 

in New York City. Our members include health-care workers from 

continents and countries from around the world, including the Caribbean, South America, Central America, Canada, Africa and Europe, with the majority of members who utilize the program coming 

from the Caribbean. 

The top countries of the top percent are Jamaica, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, and Guyana. We are proud that our membership 

embodies such rich diversity, and are reminded that our Nation indeed is a land of immigrants. 

53

Our program overview: The benefits of U.S. citizenship are numerous. Citizenship provides our immigrant members with more 

opportunities and a greater feeling of belonging and a sense of security. They are able to fully integrate themselves into our country. 

More importantly, through our citizenship, our members gain the 

right to vote and participate more fully in the democratic process. 

We are committed to designing programs that expand the rights 

and empower our members, who are the health-care workers who 

keep our hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and other health-care 

agencies running. 

The Citizenship Program has served more than 7,000 in the process of naturalization and benefits. Yearly, our program averages 

more than 1,000 member participants. Through the efforts of a 

dedicated and competent group of professionals, applicants are offered free legal assistance and educational support, including application preparation, review and filing of the form N-400, N-600, I90, N-565, N-648, AR-11 and others. 

The program offers a different class choice for applicants to study 

U.S. Government and civics while reviewing interview techniques. 

We have developed an academic curriculum, video, and book highlight program stories that we provide to you. 

To date, our office has submitted over 6,178 N-400 applications. 

We proudly brought up almost 4,677 persons that are naturalized 

U.S. citizens through the help of our program. Yet hundreds of our 

applicants are at an advanced stage of naturalization, awaiting 

interview or having the oath. 

We note more than 500 applications that are in backlog waiting 

adjudication. Some of these applications have not received any information through the form G-28 Notice of Appearance as Attorney 

or Representative submitted along with the application. 

The 1199 SEIU Citizenship Program is accredited and recognized 

by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

The fee impact: Recently, the fee increased effectively July 30, 

2007, is the biggest immigration application fee increase recorded 

in the history of immigration. The USCIS reported that overall applications and petitions were increased an average of nearly 86 percent. Most agree that the new fees are unprecedented. The fees for 

naturalization applications have increased five times since 1999, 

from $225 in 1999, to now the new fee of $675. 

Our program is currently experiencing a drop in participation 

during the weeks since the new fees took effect. The scheduled appointments dropped by 50 percent during the month of August. 

Many of our members are voicing concerns of the struggle of saving 

money for the application. 

In contrast, during the months leading up to the increase, we 

serviced double our normal capacity. Our members participated in 

record high numbers in an effort to get their applications processed 

before the scheduled increase. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Rivera, your 5 minutes has expired a little bit. 

I wonder if we could ask you to summarize, and then we can get 

to our questions. We do appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. RIVERA. Okay. Essentially, our main concern is that normal 

family, normal union members will not be able to pay the increase, 

knowing that regular workers probably get paid $650 a week, and 

54

the fee for a whole family will be rising over $2,000-something. It 

is our concern that we need to change this approach and be able 

to provide working people with the right to become a citizen in this 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RHADAMES RIVERA

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairwoman, on behalf of the 1199SEIU Citizenship Program, 

thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and other distinguished 

guests on the important topic of USCIS fee increases and the impact on the 

healthcare workers we serve. 

The 1199SEIU Citizenship Program began in January 2001. The program is administrated by our Benefit and Pension and Training and Education Funds. The 

funds provide an array of innovative and comprehensive benefits including educational and training programs that are designed to accommodate the needs of the 

more than 300,000 union members of 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East. 

We are the largest healthcare workers union in the nation, representing workers in 

homecare settings, hospitals, nursing homes,, pharmacies, clinics and other 

healthcare agencies. 

Our membership reflects the diversity of immigrants to this nation—particularly 

to New York City. Our members include healthcare workers from continents and 

countries from around the world, including the Caribbean, South America, Central 

America, Canada, Africa and Europe, with the majority of members who utilize the 

program coming from the Caribbean. The countries in the top percentile are Jamaica, Trinidad, Dominican Republic and Guyana. We are proud that our membership embodies such rich diversity and are reminded that our nation is indeed a land 

of immigrants. 

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The benefits of U.S. citizenship are numerous. Citizenship provides our immigrant 

members with more opportunities and a greater feeling of belonging and a sense of 

security—fully integrating them into our country. Most importantly, through citizenship our members gain the right to vote and participate more fully in the democratic 

process. We are committed to designing programs that expand rights and empower 

our members, who are the healthcare workers who keep our hospitals, nursing 

homes, clinics and other healthcare agencies running. 

The Citizenship Program has served more than 7,000 people in the process of naturalization and related benefits. Yearly our program averages more than 1,000 

member participants. Through the efforts of a dedicated and competent group of 

professionals, applicants are offered free legal assistance and educational support. 

Assistance includes application preparation, reviewing and filing of the forms N–

400, N–600, I–90, N–565, N–648, AR–11 and FOIA’s. 

The Program offers an array of different class choices for applicants to study U.S. 

Government and Civics while reviewing interview techniques. We have developed an 

academic curriculum, video and book highlighting immigrant stories. 

To date our office has submitted over 6, 178 [N–400] applications. We proudly 

boast 4,677 persons that are naturalized U.S. citizens through the help of the program. Yet hundreds of our applicants are at advanced stages of naturalization 

(awaiting interviews and oaths). We note more than 500 applications that are in 

backlog and waiting adjudication past USCIS established average processing time 

frames. Some of these applicants have not received any information although the 

form G–28 Notice of Appearance as Attorney or Representative was submitted along 

with the applications. The 1199SEIU Citizenship Program is accredited and recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

FEE INCREASE IMPACT

The recently imposed USCIS fee increase, effective July 30, 2007, is the biggest 

immigration benefit application fee increase recorded in the history of immigration 

fee changes. USCIS reported that the overall application and petition fees were increased an average of nearly 86%. [USCIS Press Release January 31, 2007] Most 

agree that the new fees are unprecedented. The fees for naturalization applications 

have increased five times since 1999 from ($225 in 1999 to now $675 including the 

biometrics). 

55

Our program is currently experiencing a drop in participation during the weeks 

since the new fees took effect. Scehduled appointments dropped by 50 percent, during the month of August. Many members are voicing concerns as they struggle to 

save money for the application. In contrast, during the months leading up to the 

increase, we serviced double our normal capacity. Our members participated in 

record high numbers, in an effort to get their applications processed before the 

scheduled increase. We had such high numbers that we partnered with other community service providers to accommodate the increased participation in our program. 

Our union members have good jobs with fair contracts negotiated that include 

comparable pay and comprehensive benefits. However, they voice that the new fee 

is a lot of money for working class people to be able to afford. Some are saving up 

or borrowing money so they can afford to file for citizenship. Still others—even before the latest increase—expressed that they were having difficulties raising the 

money when the fee was $400.00. We often learn of workers using vacation pay or 

even tax refunds to pay for naturalization application fees. 

Citizenship is a benefit that typically families often want to do together. Husbands and wives often naturalize together with their children over the age of 18. 

The increase makes it difficult for a working class family to simultaneously apply 

for citizenship. 

A family of three would need $2,025 to file for U.S. citizenship together. 

And Home Care and Nursing Home workers—who provide care to some of the 

most vulnerable members of our society—still earn low wages and are fighting for 

more equitable earnings. The high naturalization fees are especially hard for these 

workers. 

For too many of the healthcare workers we represent, the cost for naturalization 

application fees is a grave economic burden and they sometimes must sacrifice basic 

needs in exchange for a chance to live the American dream. 

CONCLUSION

Individuals eligible to naturalize are lawful permanent residents working and 

paying taxes. They already contribute to the United States economy. Lawful permanent residents share the same tax responsibilities as Untied States citizens. Consequently, they already pay their share for the operation of government services. 

We predict that the newly imposed fees will reduce the number of working-class 

immigrants who can obtain citizenship because they will not be able to afford it. 

American citizenship is a privilege and financial cost should not deter hard working, 

lawful, permanent residents from fully participating in this great nation. 

The forms N–400, I–90, and N–600 should not be increased by the same percentage as other applications, since these forms are used to provide immigration benefits 

to the population of immigrants that are already permanent residents. And all of 

us should work together to support hard-working immigrants, like the healthcare 

workers who are 1199SEIU members, so that they can live the American dream just 

like the many generations of immigrants who came before them. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Lofren for the opportunity to testify today.

Ms. LOFGREN. We thank you for your testimony, as well as your 

tremendous service to our country. 

I know that Mr. Gutierrez has a competing hearing in Financial 

Services, so rather than begin the questioning, I am going to start 

with him and then go to Mr. King. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank you so much. Thank you so much, 

Madam Chairwoman. I really appreciate it. 

Sorry. My glasses broke. I will do the best I can. I am blind here. 

But I want to thank Mr. Vargas and Mr. Yates and Mr. Rivera 

for taking the time to be here this morning and for their wonderful 

testimony—it is going to be very, very helpful to us—and especially 

to SEIU in New York City and the NALEO National League for all 

their endeavors and their citizenship and in defense of immigrants. 

I want to thank you for that. 

I want to just take a moment as we re-examine this just to go 

back to the immigration examination fee account. This is in the Immigration Nationality Act, page 309, and it says that ‘‘fees for proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:06 Dec 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092007\37846.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37846
56

viding adjudication and naturalization services may be set at a 

level that will ensure recovery of the full cost of providing all such 

services, including the cost of similar services provided without 

charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants.’’

So, you know, we are very careful here about ‘‘must,’’ ‘‘may,’’ and 

what kinds of words we use, and, indeed, we have appropriated 

funds, at least since I have been in the Congress. I arrived here 

in 1993, and I can remember on several occasions voting for additional funds. So this notion that the immigration naturalization, 

the citizenship brings to us from the Federal Government that they 

must is really not true because I just read it from page 309. It 

says, ‘‘may.’’

Now, of course, I might have a little difficulty because you know 

English is not my first language, but I had good nuns, and they 

taught me the use of verbs, and it seems to me that ‘‘may’’ is ‘‘may’’ 

and ‘‘must’’ is ‘‘must,’’ and when they told me I may do something, 

I might not do it, and, indeed, they do not need to do it. 

Would anybody disagree on the panel with that assertion from 

the Immigration Nationality Act? No. Good. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The record will note that all the Members shook 

their heads no. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Because I think it is fundamentally important. 

The other thing is it seems to me when Government does infrastructure improvement, for the most part, what it does is it sells 

bonds. There is a bond issue. 

This is rather expensive endeavor, and the citizens affected, 

whether it is a municipality or a State or whatever locality, just 

those taxpayers at that particular moment, are not going to benefit 

from it, so, therefore, you know, future people are going to benefit 

from that road, that bridge, that school, that infrastructure, whether it is the sewer or water. 

I mean, there are huge infrastructure improvements that are 

being shouldered by one particular group of immigrants, the group 

of immigrants today that wish to become citizens of the United 

States, and so I think it would be fair and incumbent upon us to 

see how the payment of this infrastructure is paid by all of us. 

The other thing is we just heard testimony on 6 percent. Mr. 

Yates, do you know what 6 percent would be of the total? Do you 

know what the total increase is in terms of dollars? 

Mr. YATES. Not off the top of my head, I do not. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Approximately? Is it $5 billion more? What 

amount are they looking for? 

Mr. YATES. Oh, I believe the figure is closer to $600 million. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. $600 million. 

Mr. YATES. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So, as we look at this additional $600 million that we are looking for, let me just ask the members of the 

panel if any of them would object to their tax dollars being used 

for the citizenship processing fee of a soldier in the armed forces 

of the United States at this particular time of war. 

Mr. Vargas? 

Mr. VARGAS. Not only would I not object, I think it would be an 

honor to be able to help finance that. 

57

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Yates? 

Mr. YATES. I agree. I do not object to that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Rivera? 

Mr. RIVERA. I agree. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think most Americans would say that those are 

the armed forces, we should all contribute, and it would be, as Mr. 

Vargas said, not only the right thing to do, it would be an honor 

and a privilege to pay for them. And yet we have the immigrant 

community shouldering and bearing the brunt for those that are on 

the front lines in defense of this Nation today. 

The fact remains that there 35,000 permanent residents of the 

United States serving in the armed forces. There are an additional 

45,000 to 50,000 members of the armed forces that were once permanent residents, today who are naturalized citizens, a huge body 

of people that are serving in our armed forces, and statistically we 

see time and time again about their heroics. 

I know my time has expired, so I would just simply say, in conclusion, I think we need to look at this in a different way, and I 

thank Mr. Rivera and Mr. Yates and Mr. Vargas for coming before 

the Committee and helping us with this dilemma, and I thank the 

gentlelady so much. 

I am going to go see Mr. Bernanke with the prime market and 

what is going on with their——

Ms. LOFGREN. Help us out there. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know, I listen to this dialogue that has taken place here, the 

gentleman from Illinois, a couple of times on these panels, and I 

trust each of the witnesses were here to hear the previous testimony in the room, you know, the question of who is shouldering 

the burden. Now we have a lot more people than that in the military, and then there will be all of those that are shouldering the 

burden. They all deserve to be equally recognized and honored and 

revered for that, as well as those who are immigrants. 

Something that emerges, as I listen to this testimony, is the constant blending of the term ‘‘immigrant,’’ and I want to draw that 

distinction, and I would ask Mr. Vargas, in our dialogue, ‘‘immigrant’’ is used interchangeably between legal and illegal, and could 

you draw a distinction between the two for us and tell us when you 

use the word ‘‘immigrant?’’ Does it mean both legal and illegal, or 

are you referring and implying that they be legal in your testimony 

here? 

Mr. VARGAS. Mr. King, in my testimony today, my comments 

have been exclusively limited to legal permanent residents. These 

are individuals who have entered our country legally, have played 

by the rules, are taxpayers, and want to be full participants in 

American society. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. 

And do you say the same, Mr. Rivera, or do you have a different 

view? 

Mr. RIVERA. No, that is our view. 

58

Mr. KING. Okay. It is just important because of this national dialogue we have had for the last several years. It gets blended and 

merged between the two. 

And then I would go to Mr. Yates, and I would ask you, Mr. 

Yates, the issue was raised by the gentleman from Illinois in previous testimony, the number that I see is that had the fees for 

green cards not been increased when the update was requested, 

that would have made a difference of $82.5 million. Can you tell 

me what would have been the alternative if those fees had not been 

increased before the renewal of the green cards? 

Mr. YATES. Based upon the Agency’s testimony, they would have 

basically had a deficit. They would have operated at a deficit in adjudicating those applications. So they would have been faced at 

some point in time with putting a body of work aside that could 

not adjudicated because they would not have been able to pay their 

contractors and others to process that work. 

Mr. KING. Or could they have, as Mr. Vargas has recommended, 

come to Congress and asked for an $82.5 million appropriation, or 

could they have calculated in the rest of the fee structure an increase on the balance of everyone else’s fees to make up for that 

$82.5 million? 

Mr. YATES. Those are options. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I understand that it would not necessarily be 

valid to ask you to speculate on what they are, but I did want those 

options in the record for the consideration of the Committee and 

also the public, and I thank you for that analysis. 

I want to make sure also that people do not guess where I am, 

and I believe that U.S. citizenship is precious, and I am hearing 

discussion here that puts a value on citizenship, and I look at the 

dollars that are required to go down the path of lawful permanent 

residence and then naturalization application, and I would ask Mr. 

Vargas—and you are the one that has advocated that this be a taxpayer-funded endeavor, at least in a significant degree—could you 

tell me how you come to that conclusion? And do you put a dollar 

value on citizenship, and if you do not, how do you come to the conclusion that taxpayers should fund it? 

Mr. VARGAS. Mr. King, I put a tremendous value on citizenship. 

I think this country benefits when legal permanent residents become citizens. I think our country is stronger for that. I think you 

and I benefit when a legal permanent resident becomes a naturalized citizen. 

What we are advocating is partnership between the newcomer, 

the legal permanent resident, and this country. People should pay 

a fee for a reasonable service, but what we are doing is asking people to pay a fee for a service plus. They are being asked to pay surcharges. They are being asked to pay for one-time modernization 

improvements that benefit the whole country. So——

Mr. KING. I apologize. But I see your testimony says according 

to data from the 2000 Census, 43 percent of noncitizen households 

pay at least $700 in rent each month, and you have numbers at 

36 percent that have annual incomes of less than $25,000. 

Have you seen the Robert Rector study from the Heritage Foundation that shows that low-skilled households, regardless of their 

immigration status, are a net burden, high school dropout-headed 

59

households are a net burden on our taxpayers to the net cost of 

$22,449 a year. This is an economic recommendation you make. 

Have you evaluated that study, and do you have a response? 

Mr. VARGAS. I have not evaluated that study. I would be happy 

to look at the study, but I do also know that naturalized citizens 

also over the course of their life in the United States end up having 

higher incomes, meaning they pay more in taxes. 

Mr. KING. You also know they draw down more in services as 

well at the same time, and so I think we have some clarity on that, 

and I appreciate your testimony, everyone’s, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Given the time, I am going to be very brief, and I think perhaps 

I will submit some of my questions in writing. 

I would just note that I have been complaining about the lack of 

technology in this Agency for several decades, and Mr. Yates knows 

that because he has heard me complain, and actually I complained 

about it before I was ever a Member of Congress. It has been a tremendous frustration to me. We are still creating paper files in the 

Agency. It is absurd. 

On the other hand, I cannot help but note that over the years 

we have done a variety of things. We have allocated tax funds to 

improve the technology, and we never got it. We did a premium 

processing fee for well-heeled applicants. I mean, they were happy 

to pay the additional fee, and yet they did not get what they paid 

for, and I actually think that is illegal. 

I mean, you are not allowed to make a profit off of the applicants, and those fees were diverted. I mean, we took their money, 

and they did not get what they paid for. 

And I note on the fee structure, for example, the FBI fee structure right now, the FBI, as I understand it, is charging the Agency 

an average of $10. For the most extreme case, the cost is $22. But 

the Agency is charging the applicants $80. So that is a little profit 

center for the Agency, and I question even the legality of that. 

And it is not so much for the well-heeled applicant. I do not have 

a concern. I mean, if you are earning a good salary and you can 

pay, you should pay this fee, and the companies certainly that are 

filing for, you know, scientists and engineers are happy. They are 

not complaining about it. They are happy to pay the fees. 

But for your average working family, this is a very high amount, 

and we have had hearings in this room where every Member of this 

Committee has said we want people to become Americans. We have 

differed sometimes in our approaches on how best to help the immigrant community become thoroughly part of the fabric of the 

United States, but really there is no disagreement that we want 

immigrants to become completely part of the fabric of American society, and an important element of that is to help people become 

American citizens. 

We want immigrants to become American citizens, and it just 

seems to me counterproductive, since we all believe that, to then 

put a financial barrier for people who are working and not getting 

a lot of money. And so I guess one question I will ask before we 

close, maybe to Mr. Rivera and Mr. Vargas, in particular, because 

60

you are doing hands-on work with people in that category and helping them. 

We have a fee waiver in place that the Agency expanded a bit 

after our hearing and further discussions. Is that going to help at 

all or help enough with the group of people that you are working 

with filing for citizenship and, if not, what adjustments should be 

made on that waiver provision so that the person working in the 

nursing home helping the baby boomer’s parent can actually afford 

to become an American with us? Can I ask you that, of if you do 

not know now, you could get back to me? 

Mr. RIVERA. That is funny. I mean, placing the entire burden on 

the fee is very difficult——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. RIVERA [continuing]. To sustain the Agency. We think that 

essentially Congress needs to allocate some money to fund this 

process. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. RIVERA. And there are a significant amount of services that 

are provided that are sustained by the fees paid by immigrant 

workers that should be allocated to something else, the cost of the 

administration of this Agency to be allocated in something else. 

There are a tremendous amount of ways that you can be moved out 

of the fee pay to somebody else. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Vargas? 

Mr. VARGAS. If I can reply, I would certainly answer more detail 

in writing, Chairwoman, but we do know that the applicants largely are unaware of the availability of the fee waiver. 

But I would also like to advise you that my organization actually 

runs a loan fund where we make interest-free loans to individuals 

so they could help pay for——

Ms. LOFGREN. That is really admirable. That is terrific. 

Mr. VARGAS. And our default rate is less than 5 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That makes me very proud to be sitting here talking to you. 

My time has expired, and all the time has expired. I do thank 

you for your patience, for you willingness to be here to share your 

expertise. We will have 5 legislative days to ask additional questions in writing, and if we do that, we would ask that you answer 

as promptly as you are able to. 

And, again, we thank you very much for your participation. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

62

LETTER TO DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE (GAO) DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2007


3-1.eps
63


3-2.eps
64

FEE INCREASES IMPOSED BY USCIS FEE RULEMAKING FOR SELECTED IMMIGRATION

APPLICATIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 30, 2007, COMPILED BY NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND


4-1.eps
65


4-2.eps
66

LETTER TO DR. EMILIO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, FROM THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE


5-1.eps
67


5-2.eps
68

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON

DHS DOCKET NO. USCIS–2005–0056 OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2007


6-1.eps
69


6-2.eps
70


6-3.eps
71

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED TSAO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS COALITION FOR

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS


7-1.eps
72


7-2.eps
73


7-3.eps
74


7-4.eps
75


7-5.eps
76


7-6.eps
77


7-7.eps
78


7-8.eps
79


7-9.eps
80


7-10.eps
81


7-11.eps
82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION COUNCIL (AFGE/AFL-CIO) 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council (AFGE/

AFL-CIO), we are submitting this testimony for the record of the hearing on September 20, 2007 concerning H. Res. 47, Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s legislation to prevent the 

immigration fee increase from going into effect. The NCISC is the American Federation of Government Employee’s Council representing some 7500 employees working 

at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Our members at USCIS include: Immigration Information Officers, Contact Representatives, Immigration Officers, Adjudications Officers, Asylum Officers, Refugee Officers, Status Verifiers, Information Technology Specialists, Language Specialists, Community Liaison Officers, Training Officers, Program and Management Analysts, Clerks, and Supply 

Technicians. 

Madame Chairman, along with the Consular Officers of the State Department 

these dedicated civil servants are America’s gatekeepers—deciding who can enter 

our country and who can remain here. To say that these workers are critical to our 

nation’s homeland security efforts would be a gross understatement. Our members 

work tirelessly to review every application for any immigration benefit to ensure its 

legitimacy and determine the eligibility of the applicant. But when these obligations 

come up against long-standing, severe financial problems, outdated technology, inadequate infrastructure and other resource limitations at our Agency, something 

has to give. 

Despite Agency assurances to the Congress that all is well, it is not. In recent 

years, we the employees have faced multiple unrealistic challenges due to unrealistic assumptions about what USCIS can do and how much it costs to do it. So let’s 

collectively stop fooling the American people into believing that our gates are opening and closing as they should. 

USCIS, and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 

have been chronically underfunded and therefore ill-equipped to provide its employees with the tools and resources they need to perform the complex mission of the 

Service. We have a legacy of antiquated computer technology, dilapidated, crowded 

and in some cases unsafe facilities; poor and inadequate training; little funding for 

professional development and continuing education; insufficient staff and an overreliance on temporary or ‘‘term’’ employees and private contractors. This has resulted in backlogs, shoddy work product, enforcement vulnerabilities and an unrelenting push for numbers of applications processed over quality. The result is an increase in undetected fraud, the increased possibility of terrorists entering the country and poor customer service for people seeking legal and legitimate immigration 

benefits. It also results in a demoralized and stressed-out work force subject to unacceptably high turnover rates and an inability of our Agency to recruit, promote 

and retain the best qualified and most highly motivated workforce. 

We should not discount the contribution this situation has towards the growing 

problem of illegal immigration. Many who might have preferred to come to the 

United States of America through an orderly process in a legal status have become 

frustrated by the inevitable log-jams and turned to unlawful means to realize their 

dreams. 

The deep and abiding frustration felt by USCIS employees can be seen in the attached letter to Director Gonzales and petition that has so far been signed by over 

300 Adjudications Officers from District Offices around the country. These men and 

women are so concerned about the current situation, they have taken the unusual 

step of signing their names to a petition which states: 

‘‘Sir, with due respect, there is a quiet consensus amongst many (District) Adjudications Officers that we are not performing our duties in a way that truly serves 

our country, the American people and you. There is a clear, and we respectfully believe unreasonable, ‘‘push’’ for reaching quotas for case/interview completions, for 

‘‘numbers’’, and for quantity over quality.’’

Virtually every employee we have spoken with—regardless of their job series—

complains of the same problem: too much work to do in too little time, by too few 

workers. Many feel pressured by productivity requirements to complete their work 

without compensation, during lunch and break periods and during off-duty hours. 

Many feel pressured to ‘‘cut corners’’ in the adjudications process in order to make 

productivity and timeliness requirements. Many complain that they are often unsure of whether a benefit has been properly granted or denied, because of these constraints. 

The frustration felt by many USCIS employees is illustrated by the situation at 

the Dallas District Office, where some of our members describe a program called the 

83

Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment (DORA). The program was designed to ensure that 

the process of seeking to adjust immigration status as husband and wife was accomplished in as little as 15 minutes. According to one employee in that office, attorneys 

for immigrants were thanking adjudications officers profusely for the program and 

readily admitted there was no way to effectively detect marriage fraud under the 

program. 

And the frustration is felt in virtually every District office and Service Center 

when workers trying desperately to resolve long standing backlogs of applications 

are suddenly forced to deal with a new phenomena known as ‘‘front logs’’—a sudden 

surge in benefits applications (numbering now in the hundreds of thousands) having 

been submitted to USCIS just prior to the new fee increase going into effect. The 

surge could have and should have been anticipated, but it was not and now employees are being asked to speed up the assembly line. 

To make up for inadequate staffing in the locations that are handling the ‘‘front 

log,’’ the Agency has had to detail employees from other locations and make use of 

more overtime. The Agency has rightfully commended these employees for their 

hard work, but we remain concerned that our workforce is operating at a level beyond its current capacity to produce the work that the American public expects us 

to perform. As a result, quality and accuracy are sacrificed, and our ability to detect 

fraud and potential terrorist threats is diminished. 

WHY WE NEED THE FEE INCREASE: 

First, it needs to be said that our support for the USCIS fee increase is based 

on our understanding of where this money is to be allocated: more employees, improved infrastructure, better training and technology and a generally enhanced ability to perform our jobs effectively. The Agency has assured us that it intends to reclassify position descriptions and consider upgrades for many of our employees. We 

are pleased to hear that, but have yet to see that plan implemented. At the same 

time, we have witnessed the increase in numbers of Senior Executive Service positions and an increase in management and supervisory positions at the GS-13, 14 

and 15 levels. Absent upgrades for our main work force—the men and women who 

do the ‘‘heavy lifting’’ of providing the Agency’s services—the Union questions 

whether some of the spending made possible by fee increases is entirely justified. 

Adjudications Officers and other related occupations have received no grade increase 

in many years, and recognition of their contribution to the Agency must be equally 

considered before senior management again rewards themselves for work we have 

performed. 

But the new fee-rule, for all of the problems raised by critics, represents the only 

viable plan that is presently available to provide the Agency with the revenue it 

needs to adequately equip and staff its work force to carry out the mission. We wish 

to recognize and commend USCIS Director Emilio Gonzales for the leadership and 

vision he has shown by devising this important plan for resourcing our chronicallyunderfunded organization. He has demonstrated a genuine concern for the morale 

and effectiveness of our workforce by implementing a number of important new initiatives (all made possible by the fee increase) to upgrade our facilities and build 

new ones, expand training and career development opportunities, upgrade and integrate our information technology infrastructure and move our business process from 

a paper to an electronic environment. But the tasks and expectations we have been 

handed—the lawful and efficient adjudication of millions of benefits, visas and naturalization applications—remain daunting; we are still not sufficiently staffed and 

equipped to do the job. We believe important progress is being made in that direction, but the Agency’s efforts to achieve these improvements—and the Herculean efforts by its employees to do the job—will be seriously jeopardized if HR 47 prevents 

the fee rule from being fully implemented. 

That said, the Union believes that the Agency cannot, in the long run, be adequately and sustainably funded and resourced by fees alone—no matter what the 

scale of fees. There needs to be a balance between fee-generated resources for operational costs and appropriations to pay for our homeland security responsibilities 

and special programs, investment in infrastructure, capital costs and work force 

training, pay and benefits. 

Because UCSIS is a fee-funded agency, there is presently no other legal means 

for the agency to raise the funds it needs to operate. We believe this funding formula must be revisited by Congress as soon as possible. USCIS is a critical federal 

agency that plays an integral role in the Department of Homeland Security’s critical 

mission of preventing potential terrorists from entering and operating in the United 

States. Because our role is vitally important to all Americans, all Americans should 

contribute to the effective performance of that mission. USCIS is not an insular, esVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:06 Dec 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092007\37846.000 HJUD1 PsN: 37846
84

sentially invisible agency exclusively serving the needs of immigrants. In a post 9/

11 world, USCIS must hold up its end of the homeland security safety net. To do 

so will require more money, perhaps a great deal more money—should a comprehensive immigration reform bill pass—in the future. Fees for immigration benefits cannot and will not pay for it all. 

LONGER TERM FUNDING OF CIS: 

The NCIS Council strongly supports the inclusion of appropriated funds for specific activities of this agency. While we do not oppose the funding of immigration 

benefits from fees, we believe that many other activities should come from appropriated funds. While we are not prepared to recommend specific funding methods 

for each USCIS-provided service, we would welcome the opportunity to work with 

you on such a project. 

Finally, we are deeply concerned about the apparent inability of the Agency to 

provide you with the information Congress clearly needs to assess the reasonableness of the fee increase. As a union, we have no direct access to this information 

and can only promise to work in concert with the Committee to pressure the Agency 

to be more responsive. 

We, the employees of UCIS, are fully committed to the accomplishment of our assigned mission: to provide for the security of our Homeland by ensuring that those 

who immigrate meet all eligibility requirements to be accepted as members of our 

society. We provide a critical service to the people of the United States of America. 

Like any good or service, there is a cost involved. It is in the public interest to ensure that our immigration policy establishes a system that is reasonable, safe, and 

lawful that provides for the security of our homeland and the welfare of the people 

of the United States of America. Whether this cost is to borne solely by those who 

are seeking the benefits of our immigration laws, or by the taxpayers, or a combination of the two, is a decision to be made by Congress. But without adequate resources, we, the civil servants who administer and enforce our immigration laws, 

cannot be expected to accomplish our very important mission. 

However, in the end, until such time Congress decides to change the way USCIS 

is funded, we do believe this fee increase is necessary and should be allowed to go 

into effect. We ask that you support the Agency’s efforts—and in particular the efforts of the working men and women who help keep our country safe—by ensuring 

that USCIS has the resources it needs to do the job. Thank you.

85

‘‘EXHIBIT A (TEXT OF PETITION BY USCIS DISTRICT ADJUDICATIONS OFFICERS)’’ BY

THE NATIONAL CIS COUNCIL 119


9.eps
86

LETTER TO LINDA SWACINA, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES DISTRICT

DIRECTOR DATED APRIL 11, 2007, FROM CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

ADJUDICATIONS OFFICERS


10-1.eps
87


10-2.eps
88


10-3.eps
89


10-4.eps
90


10-5.eps
91


10-6.eps
92


10-7.eps
93

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JONATHAN R. SCHARFEN, DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES


11-1.eps
94


11-2.eps
95


11-3.eps
96


11-4.eps
97


11-5.eps
98


11-6.eps
99


11-7.eps
100


11-8.eps
101


11-9.eps
102


11-10.eps
103


11-11.eps
104


11-12.eps
105


11-13.eps
106


11-14.eps
107


11-15.eps
108


11-16.eps
109


11-17.eps
110


11-18.eps
111


11-19.eps
112


11-20.eps
113


11-21.eps
114


11-22.eps
115


11-23.eps
116


11-24.eps
117


11-25.eps
118


11-26.eps
119

Æ


11-27.eps