U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

92–120 PDF 2004

FUNDING FOR IMMIGRATION

IN THE PRESIDENT’S 2005 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 25 AND MARCH 11, 2004

Serial No. 68

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Full Committee Counsel 

LUKE BELLOCCHI, Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

HEARING DATES 

Page 

February 25, 2004 .................................................................................................... 1

March 11, 2004 ........................................................................................................ 55

OPENING STATEMENT 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 3

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 6

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

of California .......................................................................................................... 7

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 9

MARCH 11, 2004

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 55

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 81

WITNESSES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

The Honorable Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11

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

Mr. Michael T. Dougherty, Director of Operations, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19

Mr. Daniel B. Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Mr. Seth M. M. Stodder, Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30

Page

IV

MARCH 11, 2004

Mr. T.J. Bonner, National President, National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 57

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 59

Mr. Timothy J. Danahey, National President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 62

Mr. Michael W. Cutler, former INS Special Agent 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 65

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68

Dr. Demetrios G. Papademetriou, President, Migration Policy Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 70

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 73

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 5

Prepared statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of California ............................................................... 7

Prepared statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State of California ..................................................................... 8

Prepared statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of California .......................................................... 9

MARCH 11, 2004

Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 81

Prepared statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of California .......................................................... 94

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

Response to questions submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee to Mr. Michael T. 

Dougherty, Director of Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .................................................. 106

Response to questions submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee to Mr. Daniel B. 

Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 108

(1)

FUNDING FOR IMMIGRATION

IN THE PRESIDENT’S 2005 BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:09 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N. Hostettler 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today, 

the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 

will examine the funding for immigration-related programs in the 

President’s FY 2005 budget. 

In the last session, the Subcommittee rigorously investigated the 

operations of the agencies charged with carrying out our nation’s 

immigration laws. In the course of this oversight, the Subcommittee heard from critics who complained that our country is 

in an immigration crisis because our laws governing aliens are not 

being enforced. Experts complained that worksite enforcement had 

been abandoned, allowing unscrupulous employers free to employ 

illegal aliens. 

In addition, complaints were raised that the Government was not 

doing enough to identify convicted criminal aliens before they were 

released to continue to prey on the American public. Further, critics noted that many aliens who were not detained would not appear for removal proceedings and that many non-detained aliens 

who had appeared and were ordered removed would ignore the orders and abscond. 

Commentators also asserted that the United States had not done 

enough to protect itself along its borders and at its ports. In an August 2003 report, for example, the General Accounting Office identified vulnerabilities and inefficiencies in the inspections process at 

the land ports. Those vulnerabilities could be exploited by terrorists, who have abused our immigration laws in the past to harm 

the American people. 

Finally, the Subcommittee has heard complaints from citizens 

and aliens about staggering backlogs in the adjudications process. 

According to the GAO, those backlogs reached an unacceptable 

level of 6.2 million pending applications by the end of FY 2003, 

making aliens who played by the rules wait years for their cases 

to be adjudicated. 

2

I am pleased to note that in his FY 2005 budget, the President 

has addressed many of the deficiencies in the Government’s implementation of the immigration laws that were uncovered by the 

Subcommittee. Specifically, the President’s FY 2005 budget re- quests an additional $281 million for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Of that increase, $23 million will go to worksite 

enforcement, more than doubling the resources devoted to this priority. The President further requests an additional $30 million for the 

Institutional Removal Program, to ensure that aliens convicted of 

crimes in the U.S. are identified and processed before they are released back into society. The President also requests an increase of 

$50 million to apprehend alien absconders and $5 million for additional detention bed space to ensure that aliens appear for their 

immigration proceedings and that aliens ordered removed actually 

leave. 

In addition to these increases, the President requests an addi- tional $257 million for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which 

enforces the laws along the border and at the ports. Of this $257 

million, the President requests more than $20 million to identify 

high-risk travelers and goods for inspection. This will allow lawabiding travelers to enter the United States and continue to their 

destinations without delay. 

In addition, the President’s FY 2005 budget contains a $64 million increase for Border Patrol surveillance and sensors technology. 

Such technology is a force multiplier which frees Border Patrol 

agents to enforce the law more vigilantly. The FY 2005 budget also contains an additional $58 million for 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This includes additional funding to reduce the backlog of applications and to enable 

the agency to meet the goal of the 6-month standard for processing 

all applications by FY 2006. 

Finally, the President’s FY 2005 budget requests an increase of $120 million for consular relations. Consular officers are our nation’s first line of defense in keeping out aliens intending to do us 

harm. This includes $52 million to assist implementation of fingerprint capture capability at all visa-issuing posts and $37 million to 

help develop a new biometric passport with embedded chips. The 

ability to capture fingerprints during the visa issuance process will 

allow inspectors to ensure that a bearer of a visa is the person to 

whom it was issued. Similarly, the issuance of biometric passports 

will make it easier for inspectors to verify that a passport is valid 

and held by the U.S. citizen it was issued to. 

Further, additional funds are devoted to 60 new consular-related 

positions to handle the increased workload related to the important 

new requirement that all visa applicants be individually interviewed. 

The Subcommittee will examine these proposed funding increases and assess to what degree the increases assist the U.S. 

Government in responding to the main immigration challenges facing the United States today: reducing the large illegal alien population, protecting the American people from alien criminals and terrorists, and ensuring that applications for immigration benefits are 

adjudicated correctly and in a timely manner. 

3

Before I turn it over to the Ranking Member, the chair observes 

that as the nature of our Committee makeup, there are many times 

when witnesses requested by the majority and witnesses requested 

by the minority may not hold the same viewpoint and that those 

viewpoints may diverge. But I would like to personally thank Ms. 

Jackson Lee as well as other Members of the minority on the Subcommittee for allowing us to have this panel with all Administration witnesses to talk about the very important issues that are before us. 

With that, I turn to the Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 

an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank the Members of this Committee who are present and I thank 

the minority side in particular for their cooperation. We are, in 

fact, in partnership with this effort that is a challenge for all of us, 

so I would indicate to the witnesses I appreciate your presence 

here, as well, and be reminded that any comments that we make, 

it’s because we are in a partnership trying to achieve both a degree, a high degree of national security but also respecting the responsibilities we have as we interface with people who are seeking 

to come into this country legally. 

Let me also note and compliment the presence of Director 

Aguirre for some of the work that I have seen him engage in on 

this question of immigration reform and the tone that he has exhibited. I think we are a long way away from solution, but I do appreciate the effort that you’ve made in explaining the importance 

of recognizing that there are immigrants that come to this country 

who come for economic reasons or come for opportunities of improvement of their lives. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that’s where I’m going on this particular Committee, and I know that there’s a bell about to ring. 

Might I just say to the panelists, forgive me for my departure. 

There is a crisis brewing in Haiti and we are to be engaged in a 

meeting at the White House on this question and so I may not be 

able to complete this hearing, and that goes to my point, as well, 

are we prepared for what might be a pending flood of refugees into 

this country. 

My concern today in looking at the budget is that we have a 

large sum of money for enforcement, and that is good, but we are 

certainly less than complete with the funding that we have for immigration services and benefits and citizenship and that is my concern. We are backlogged with valid applications of individuals who 

seek to come into this country legally. We are speaking about or 

debating the question of immigration reform and I intend to introduce a comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act of 2004. But in 

doing so, I am frightened of the burden and responsibility that will 

be put upon certain segments of homeland security and the fact 

that we will not have the resources. 

Several years ago, we debated the desirability of dividing the 

former Immigration and Naturalization Service into two bureaus, 

an enforcement bureau and a benefits bureau. I expressed concern 

about the possibility that the enforcement bureau would become 

the focus of most of our resources to the detriment of our benefits 

bureau. 

4

We no longer debate whether INS should be divided into different bureaus for enforcement and benefit purposes. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security has made that separation a reality. On the enforcement side, we have the Bureaus of 

Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, ICE, and on the benefits side, we have the 

Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

I wish I could say that I was wrong, that my fears were unfounded, but my fears were not unfounded. The enforcement bureaus are receiving most of our resources to the detriment of the 

benefits bureau. The FY 2005 request for the two enforcement bureaus is $10 million-plus, whereas the FY 2005 request for the benefits bureau is only, I’m sorry, is this, $1.711 million. In other 

words, the Administration is proposing to spend six times more on 

enforcement than on benefits. 

The real disparity, however, can be seen more clearly in the increases that these amounts represent. The Administration is requesting an increase of $538 million for the enforcement bureaus, 

but only is requesting a $58 million increase for the benefits bureau. In other words, for every additional dollar the Administration 

is requesting for the benefits bureau, it is requesting $9 for the enforcement bureaus. 

I am not opposed to providing sufficient funding for the enforcement bureaus. My concern is that the Administration is not requesting adequate resources for the benefits operations. The Citizenship Bureau has not been able to keep up with its work. The 

U.S. CIS has a backlog of more than six million benefit applications. The Texas service center presently is working on visa petitions that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents filed for 

unmarried sons and daughters on October 30, 1998. These applications sit for more than 5 years before anyone begins to work on 

them. 

Such delays do not just affect the people in other countries who 

are the subjects of the petitions, the petitioners are also individuals 

in this nation. The petitioners who file family-based and employment-based visa petitions are lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United States and American employers. In fact, when 

such a petition is denied, the foreign person who is the subject of 

the petition does not have standing to file an appeal. The right to 

the immigration benefit lies with the American petitioner. We are 

hurting our own who are within these borders, not just the alien 

who is the subject of the petition. 

Despite this crisis, the Administration’s budget for U.S. CIS only 

allocates $140 million for backlog reduction. Even with the addition 

of the $20 million U.S. CIS expects to receive from increased processing fees, this is not sufficient to eliminate the backlog. The magnitude of the backlog problem can be seen in the fact that during 

the 3-year period of fiscal years 2001 to 2003, U.S. CIS reported 

operating costs exceeded available fees by almost $460 million. 

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2001, the number of pending 

applications increased by more than 2.3 million, about 59 percent, 

to 6.2 million at the end of fiscal year 2003. This increase occurred 

despite additional appropriations beginning in fiscal year 2002 of 

$80 million annually to address the backlog. 

5

Meanwhile, $340 million is allocated for the U.S. VISIT program, 

which may turn out to be a waste of resources that could have been 

used elsewhere, such as for reducing the benefits application backlog. The stated objective for U.S. VISIT is to enhance the nation’s 

security while facilitating legitimate travel and trade through our 

borders. According to a September 2003 report from the General 

Accounting Office, U.S. VISIT is a very risky endeavor. The potential cost of the program is enormous and may not be able to measurably and appreciably achieve its goals. 

I am not sure that U.S. VISIT will increase the security of our 

borders, although I want it to do so. Even if it is fully and successfully implemented, U.S. VISIT only screens foreign visitors seeking 

admission on the basis of non-immigrant visas. It does not screen 

non-immigrant visitors from 27 countries participating in the visa 

waiver program, and if we know what is happening in Europe, we 

know that Europe is without borders. That means that those who 

don’t come under the visa waiver program have the ability to send 

their individuals or constituents into countries who are subject to 

the visa waiver program and who knows what will happen. Twenty-seven countries participate in a visa waiver program or anyone 

who presents a green card, and it will be years before the system 

is fully operational at all of the land borders. 

I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying this, that we are in 

a partnership to do better. I believe, however, we are failing if we 

do not provide the resources for individuals seeking legal access to 

this country. 

And lastly, I would say to Mr. Dougherty, just in a comment to 

you, I am concerned in our airports across the country and I will 

cite the Houston airport, in that we are not training our officials 

sufficiently to protect the civil liberties and rights of individuals 

who come into this country and should be bound by those laws. We 

are finding that people are being detained inappropriately. Questions are being asked inappropriately. These people are not being—

not threatening, they are not terrorists, and we are doing a disservice to the international reputation of this nation. We can be secure without violating the secure needs and the civil rights needs 

of our citizens and others. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Several years ago, we debated the desirability of dividing the former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS) into two bureaus, an enforcement bureau and a 

benefits bureau. I expressed concern about the possibility that the enforcement bureau would become the focus of most of our resources to the detriment of the benefits bureau. We no longer debate whether INS should be divided into different bureaus for enforcement and benefits purposes. The establishment of the Department 

of Homeland Security has made that separation a reality. On the enforcement side, 

we have the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and, on the benefits side, we have the 

Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS). 

I wish I could say that I was wrong, that my fears were unfounded, but my fears 

were not unfounded. The enforcement bureaus are receiving most of our resources 

to the detriment of the benefits bureau. The FY 2005 request for the two enforcement bureaus is $10,214 million, whereas the FY2005 request for the benefits bureau is only $1,711 million. In other words, the Administration is proposing to spend 

6

6 times more on enforcement than on benefits. The real disparity, however, can be 

seen more clearly in the increases that these amounts represent. The Administration is requesting an increase of $538 million for the enforcement bureaus but only 

is requesting a $58 million increase for the benefits bureau. In other words, for 

every additional dollar the Administration is requesting for the benefits bureau, it 

is requesting 9 dollars for the enforcement bureaus. 

I am not opposed to providing sufficient funding for the enforcement bureaus. My 

concern is that the Administration is not requesting adequate resources for the benefits operations. The Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) 

has not been able to keep up with its work load. USCIS has a backlog of more than 

6 million benefits applications. 

The Texas Service Center presently is working on visa petitions that U.S. citizens 

and lawful permanent residents filed for unmarried sons and daughters on October 

30, 1998. These applications sit for more than 5 years before anyone begins to work 

on them. Such delays do not just affect the people in other countries who are the 

subjects of the petitions. The petitioners who file family-based and employmentbased visa petitions are lawful permanent residents and citizens of the United 

States and American employers. In fact, when such a petition is denied, the foreign 

person who is the subject of the petition does not have standing to file an appeal. 

The right to the immigration benefit lies with the American petitioner, not with the 

alien who is the subject of the petition. 

Despite this crisis, the Administration’s proposed FY 2005 budget for USCIS only 

allocates $140 million for backlog reduction. Even with the addition of the $20 million USCIS expects to receive from increased processing fees, this is not sufficient 

to eliminate the backlog. The magnitude of the backlog problem can be seen in the 

fact that during the 3-year period from fiscal year 2001 through 2003, USCIS’s reported operating costs exceeded available fees by almost $460 million. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2001, the number of pending applications increased by more 

than 2.3 million (about 59%) to 6.2 million at the end of fiscal year 2003. This increase occurred despite additional appropriations beginning in fiscal year 2002 of 

$80 million annually to address the backlog. 

Meanwhile, $340 million is allocated for the US-VISIT program, which may turn 

out to be a waste of resources that could have been used elsewhere, such as for reducing the benefits applications backlog. The stated objective for US-VISIT is to enhance the nation’s security while facilitating legitimate travel and trade through our 

borders. According to a September 2003 report (GAO–03–1083) from the General Accounting Office (GAO), US-VISIT is a very risky endeavor, the potential cost of the 

program is enormous, and it may not be able to measurably and appreciably achieve 

its goals. 

I am not sure that US-VISIT will increase the security of our borders even if it 

is fully and successfully implemented. US-VISIT only screens foreign visitors seeking admission on the basis of nonimmigrant visas. It does not screen nonimmigrant 

visitors from the 27 countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program or anyone 

who presents a green card, and it will be years before the system is fully operational 

at all of the land borders. 

I believe that we need to pay more attention to benefits operations and that we 

much use our resources more wisely. 

Thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, for an opening statement that he may have. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In view of 

the fact that we have a limited time and we have a vote, in consideration for the Ranking Member having to go to another meeting, 

I wouldn’t want to deprive her from the opportunity to express herself on any of these issues. I would just ask unanimous consent 

that my opening statement be made a part of the record. 

I would just like to add that while I understand the statements 

the Ranking Member made relative to many people being detained 

that shouldn’t be detained at the airports, I’d like to add that we 

have about 12 million people in this nation that should have been 

detained that haven’t been detained, and I would yield the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

7

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing on funding for 

immigration in the President’s 2005 budget. I am pleased to see that there are funding increases proposed for several programs that I believe are very effective at improving our ability to enforce immigration laws and secure the border, but I am primarily concerned with results. Monies appropriated by Congress should yield tangible results, and I don’t mean just flow charts. 

Among the funding increase proposals is the request for an additional $30 million 

in funding for the Institutional Removal Program, more particularly the subset of 

this program that screens inmates at city and county jails for immigration violations. This jail screening program, which was pioneered in my District and authorized nationwide by legislation I authored, is integral to removing criminal illegal immigrants because it screens prisoners at the point of entry into the criminal justice 

system, not only those who later receive prison sentences. This program has proven 

effective in my District, despite a lack of funding, and has never been expanded nationwide as intended. I have concerns with amount of resources that are currently 

being dedicated to this program, and it is my wish that a large portion of the $30 

million increase for all Institutional Removal Programs goes to the portion of that 

program that services the nation’s points of entry into the criminal justice system—

city and county jails. 

Additionally, I was pleased to see that additional monies have been requested for 

interior and border enforcement efforts. Statistics abound that tell us we are not 

doing an adequate job of policing our borders and enforcing immigration laws within 

the United States. However, I question whether a 50% increase in employer enforcement measures is enough. 

Further, I am pleased to see that additional monies have been requested to institute a program to add biometric identifiers to American passports. Biometric identifiers are integral to the ability of this country to ascertain the true identity of individuals. I am interested in hearing more about the progress of this effort and what 

the Department of State plans to accomplish with these funds. 

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and giving us an opportunity to hear about these and other programs and ask questions about what 

monies requested will yield.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening statement she may make. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask that my 

written statement be made a part of the record and will simply say 

that, first, I am concerned at the short time frame that the Committee and Subcommittee has been provided to actually review this 

budget and I think that is a disservice to the whole Committee, 

both the majority and minority. I think if we had more time, we 

could do a more substantive job. 

So I would ask that the—I have certainly complained and I hope 

that the Chairman can also complain on behalf of his Members 

that we get more time next year and that we have an opportunity 

to, with additional time, to provide the kind of oversight that I 

know we all want to do. 

I have a number of questions that I will be raising, but the one 

statement I would like to make just at the outset is that I continue 

to be enormously frustrated at the backlogs that continue in this 

Department. I guess this is immigration day for me. This morning, 

we had Asa Hutchinson at the Science Committee talking about 

student visas and then here today, this afternoon, Mr. Aguirre. I 

reminded Asa of a meeting that we were invited to attend as Members of the Judiciary Committee with the Attorney General at 

breakfast. 

8

Obviously, the Committee is ideologically quite diverse, but the 

Members that were invited to meet with the Attorney General only 

talked about one thing. We complained about the Immigration 

Service to the Attorney General and it was all about processing. 

Eighty percent of the cases that come into my district office relate 

to immigration matters and it’s almost always American citizens 

with spouses and family members. I know we have a 6-month goal. 

We’re really, I think, 2 years into the 6-month goal, 5-year plan 

and I would say the bulk of the cases in my office are a year, year 

and a half old and it’s just not acceptable. 

I am concerned about the deployment of technology, what kind 

of planning we have. I understand that there is a request for additional fees. I don’t per se oppose fee increases, but until I see how 

they’re going to be spent and that there will actually be benefit, I’m 

not prepared to say that that’s acceptable. So I’m hoping that we 

will—we are going to have to vote in a minute, but in the affirmative testimony, perhaps we can get some insight into the technology 

planning and the backlog reduction plans that are being envisioned, because I’m sure you don’t enjoy being the object of complaints and we don’t enjoy the complaining. We all would like to 

get this really moving more quickly than it has. 

I, in view of the time, will yield back to the chair. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for holding 

this very important hearing to discuss the immigration provisions in the fiscal year 

2005 budget. I would also like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here 

today to let us know how we can help them improve our immigration programs 

across the country. I believe this is an essential oversight responsibility we have as 

members of this subcommittee. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. 

It appears the majority in the Judiciary Committee was anxious to move forward 

on finalizing the Committee’s official views and estimates on the 2005 budget request without giving, not only the minority, but also the majority in this Subcommittee a substantive opportunity to contribute to those views. The majority in 

the Judiciary Committee wanted those view and estimates finalized this week. 

However, I would have had to submit my opinion on the official views and estimates before we even held this hearing. What is the point of having this hearing 

if we have no way of officially responding to what we learn today about the immigration provisions in the budget request? 

In the very limited time I was given to review the views and estimates, I found 

glaring problems that I would like to address at this hearing before we must officially submit our views of the budget request. The most glaring problem was the 

fact that while three and half pages were dedicated to enforcement functions, by far 

the largest sections only one small paragraph was written about service functions. 

While I agree there are many problems with enforcement, there are equally as 

many problems, if not more, with services, especially with the backlog of immigration applications. I would like to address some of those issues today and learn more 

about what types of funds and plans are needed to correct this tremendous problem 

that currently effects more than 6 million petitioners. 

Although we do not come together on many issues as a subcommittee, I hope we 

can agree on this one—our oversight responsibilities should never be bypassed. We 

have a duty to ensure that our immigration programs are receiving appropriate 

funding and functioning properly. This is why I am very glad that we are here today 

for this hearing and hope we will agree that the full Committee’s views and estimates on the budget should not be finalized until we have had enough time for this 

hearing and an analysis to follow this hearing.

9

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, for an opening statement. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

Chairman and our Ranking Member Jackson Lee for convening 

this hearing today to discuss how the funds in President Bush’s 

budget will be used for our admittedly broken immigration system. 

As the only Latina that sits on the Judiciary Committee, and 

representing a district that is 60 percent Latino, immigration reform is important to me both personally and as a Member of Congress. I’m a little disappointed and very concerned that President 

Bush’s immigration principles and now his budget are causing 

more confusion and harm than good in our efforts at immigration 

reform. 

In fact, the system is so confusing that this weekend, I will be 

convening an immigration forum in my district to try to educate 

my constituents on what is election year rhetoric and what is reality in the immigration system. Unfortunately, unsuspecting immigrants in California and nationwide are already being taken for 

hundreds of dollars in scams, promising to sign them up for the 

nonexistent temporary worker program that Bush talks about. 

Simply put, these immigration principles are not going to work 

and they’re not going to help the existing backlog. My colleague 

from California, Zoe Lofgren, mentioned that 80 percent of her 

casework is immigration related, and I would venture to guess that 

mine is about the same. And with no earned legalization opportunities for the eight million hard-working undocumented immigrants 

in this country, a program like a temporary guest worker program 

opens the door to continued unfair treatment of workers and offers 

them no hope for the future. 

In the interest of time, I am going to stop there and I will submit 

the remainder of my comments for the record. But I just want to 

underscore the fact that we can’t continue to make budget decisions 

and put the bulk of our resources at enforcement, an enforcement 

that we don’t really know what we’re getting for our money, and 

not try to tackle the issue of the backlog. That is a huge issue that 

keeps families apart. It is a huge issue that continues to create 

problems with immigration, and it is in our national security interest to try to get that backlog dealt with so that we know who is 

in this country and so that our national security is not at risk. 

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair states that all opening statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee for convening 

this hearing today to discuss how funds in President Bush’s budget will be used for 

our broken immigration system. 

As the only Latino on the Judiciary Committee and representing a district that 

is 60% Latino, immigration reform is important to me personally and as a Member 

of Congress. I am very concerned that President Bush’s immigration principles, and 

now his budget, are causing more confusion and harm than good in our efforts at 

immigration reform. 

In fact, I am trying to clear up a lot of the confusion caused by President Bush’s 

immigration principles in my district by holding an immigration forum this weekend 

10

1The replies to post-hearing questions from Ms. Jackson Lee to the Honorable Eduardo 

Aguirre, Jr., and Mr. Seth M. M. Stodder were not available at the time this hearing was printed. 

to educate my constituents on what is election-year rhetoric and what is reality. 

Unsuspecting immigrants in California and nationwide are already being taken for 

hundreds of dollars in scams promising to sign them up for Bush’s non-existent temporary worker program. 

Simply put, President Bush’s immigration principles will not work. 

It is obvious that the President’s broad temporary worker program is not going 

to solve the problem of illegal immigration since it does not solve the family reunification problem. With no earned legalization opportunities for the 8 million hardworking undocumented immigrants in this country, the temporary worker program 

opens the door to unfair treatment of workers and offers them no hope for the future. 

There is a better course of action for the President and for immigrants in this 

country. If the President is serious about immigration reform he will support the 

DREAM Act and the AgJOBS bill. These bills will make meaningful reforms to our 

immigration system. However, the President has refused to support these bills. Instead, he has proposed a budget that will continue to pump hundreds of millions 

of dollars into a system that does not work. 

We all agree that our immigration system needs to be reformed. Illegal immigration is still a problem. Families still have to wait years, sometimes decades to be 

reunited. And, our borders are still not secure enough. We agree that it will take 

a major investment of federal funds to fix all of these problems. But if we are going 

to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, we need to be absolutely sure that the 

money is going into a system that will be effective. We need to put our money into 

a system that makes our country safer, and is fair and efficient for the immigrants 

already in this country and those that are waiting to get in. 

President Bush’s budget does not do that. The President’s budget continues his 

pattern of giving hundred of millions of dollars to so-called enforcement programs 

while neglecting immigration services programs. In his budget the President seeks 

$281 million more for DHS’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 

FY ’05 than he did in FY ’04. This is the largest funding increase for a Bureau of 

DHS that the President seeks in his budget. My concern is what kinds of enforcement measures does the President have in mind for this additional $281 million? 

I hope it is not ill-advised enforcement plans like the CLEAR Act which cuts funding to states and localities, burdens local law enforcement agents, undermines the 

NCIC database, and diverts scarce DHS resources away from apprehending terrorists. The CLEAR Act will not work, will not make us safer, and will be a complete 

waste of federal money. We should not be spending $281 million in additional dollars on enforcement programs like the CLEAR Act that make our country less secure. 

A much better use of our funds are on programs that make our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and reduce the incentives for illegal immigration—such 

as reducing the visa backlog and promoting citizenship. 

President Bush has proposed an additional $60 million for $500 million initiative 

to reduce the visa backlog by 2006. I am glad that the President is spending funds 

to reduce the visa backlog but $60 million is inadequate to make the necessary 

changes to a visa processing system that needs significant reform. 

The President’s visa reduction program is now several years old and we still have 

a backlog of over 6 million visas. Plus, the Bush administration is trying to increase 

the fees for visa applications with no indication of the reason for the increase or 

if the additional funds will help to reduce the visa backlog. I cannot support raising 

the fees for visa applications if the money will not help families reunite quicker. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today and I hope that they can 

tell this Subcommittee exactly how President Bush’s budget will repair our immigration system and not waste precious taxpayer dollars.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent to submit—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. I recognize the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—to submit my questions for the record for 

this panel, and I thank you.1

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

11

The chair will have the Subcommittee recess until these votes 

are over. I believe there are two votes. We may be down there 20 

to 25 minutes, and I appreciate the indulgence of the witnesses. We 

will return as soon as possible. We are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Once 

again, I thank the panel for your patience. 

Now to introduce the members of the panel. Mr. Eduardo 

Aguirre, Jr., is the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services. In this position, he is charged with the overseeing of the 

administrative adjudication of applications for immigration benefits. He came to CIS from the Export-Import Bank, where he 

served as Vice Chairman and COO. 

Prior to joining the Government, Mr. Aguirre was the President 

of International Private Banking at Bank of America, culminating 

a 24-year career with that institution. He has also served as Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Houston system 

and as a non-attorney director for the Texas State Bar. He has a 

Bachelor of Science degree from Louisiana State University. Thank 

you, Director Aguirre, for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee, I recognize that you have to go to a pressing matter, 

and other Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Eduardo 

Aguirre and I have the honor of serving as the first Director of the 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department 

of Homeland Security. 

On the occasion of my confirmation hearing before the Senate 

when my dear friend, the Ranking Member, Sheila Jackson Lee, introduced me to the Judiciary Committee, I shared with them my 

story of having arrived in the United States as a 15-year-old unaccompanied minor from Cuba. My parents sent me here to escape 

a repressive regime and to experience freedoms and opportunities 

found only in America. That, of course, was the legal immigration 

track, the very system that I am now charged with fundamentally 

transforming. 

We are a welcoming nation and the hard work and patriotism of 

our immigrants has made our nation prosperous. We seek to continue to improve the administration of immigration benefits for the 

more than six million applicants who petition CIS every year. 

Upon creation of CIS, my team of 15,000 people and I embrace 

a simple but imperative mission, making certain that the right applicant receives the right benefit in the right amount of time while 

preventing the wrong individuals from obtaining our benefits. 

We established three priorities that guide the aspects of our 

work: Eliminating the immigration benefit application backlog 

while improving customer service and enhancing national security. 

As we approach our institutional 1-year anniversary, I’m particularly pleased with the progress we have made and the professionalism exhibited by our employees day in and day out, while 

mitigating security threats that we know to be real and relentless. 

12

To date, Mr. Chairman, we have initiated online options for application filings and case status updates. We’ve established the Office of Citizenship. We’ve eliminated lines at some of our highest 

volume offices. We’ve introduced a toll-free customer service help 

line. We streamlined the certificate of citizenship process for internationally adopted children. We’ve developed a more secure travel 

document for permanent residents and we fleshed out our leadership team while we were standing up our bureau. 

CIS is one of the largest fee-funded agencies in the Federal Government, charging fees for a variety of benefits from individuals 

seeking to enter, reside, or work in the United States. Therefore, 

the actual cash flow for our business operations vary from year to 

year with the number of immigration benefit applications received. 

In any typical day, my team of 15,000 will process 140,000 national 

security background checks every day, receive 100,000 web hits, 

take 50,000 calls in our customer service centers, adjudicate 30,000 

applications for immigration benefits, see 25,000 visitors at 92 field 

offices, issue 20,000 green cards, and capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130 application support centers. That 

was every day. 

Backlogs of immigration benefit applications began to grow during the 1990’s, seeing an overall 77 percent increase from FY ’93 

to FY ’01. The primary factors included a dramatic increase in the 

number of applications and petitions received, delays in securing 

funding and positions to process these applications, the lengthy 

amount of time it takes to recruit, hire, and train adjudicators, and 

the lack of comprehensive approach to monitoring, supporting, and 

maintaining timely processing. That was, of course, in the past. 

Beginning in the year 2002, the President pledged and the Con- gress supported a multi-year $500 million initiative to obtain a universal 6-month processing time standard by FY 2006 for all immigration benefit applications while providing quality service to all 

customers. We developed a comprehensive backlog elimination plan 

prior to September 11, 2001, to achieve this goal. The plan called 

for improvements to processes and expanded quality assurance efforts designed to achieve a high level of performance. 

We initially realized significant improvements. In FY 2002, processing times for applications averaged by type between three and 

72 months. By the end of the year, these same averages were reduced to between one and 26 months. 

However, September 11, 2001, profoundly affected our business 

operation, employees, and stakeholders. New guidance was issued, 

security background checks were enhanced, and new processes 

were implemented. Already, many applications were subject to fingerprint and background checks. The enhanced check instituted in 

July 2002 represents an additional set of name checks against a 

variety of lookout databases housed in the Interagency Border Inspection System, also called IBIS. Approximately 35 million security checks were performed last year. 

This change in the way we process immigration benefit applications has meant higher processing costs for CIS. We make no 

apologies for our commitment to the integrity of the immigration 

system and we will not try to save a quarter if it means compromising security to process an application more quickly. We will conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
13

tinue to coordinate and identify suspected benefit fraud cases and 

refer them to ICE for enforcement action. We’re making America 

safer against security and criminal threats one background check 

at a time. 

I believe that the President’s FY 2005 budget will set us on the 

right path toward improving immigration services. The budget includes a total for CIS of $1.711 billion, $140 million in discretionary appropriated funds and $1.571 billion in fees, and seeks an 

additional $60 million to boost the total dedicated to backlog reduction efforts to $160 million. 

To ensure that our backlog does not increase any further, we are 

currently seeking to adjust our fee schedule through the regulatory 

process by recovering the cost associated with comprehensive security enhancements that were instituted after September 11, 2001. 

The cost of these security enhancements are about $140 million annually, or $21 per application. The fee adjustments will also support new activities such as establishing a refugee corps and establishing the new Office of Citizenship. 

In addition, CIS will develop study materials and teaching guides 

to ensure that the process of preparing for naturalization is meaningful, so that immigrants who choose to become U.S. citizens, as 

I did, have a real understanding of the commitment they are making when they take the oath of allegiance of the United States. 

We are also developing standardized testing procedures so that 

applicants can be assured that they are experiencing an equitable 

testing process. We do not want to make the test more difficult. We 

do not want to make it less difficult. We want to make it more 

meaningful in a way that it does not have an adverse impact on 

any particular group of applicants. We are committed to improving 

the current process and doing it right. 

We fully realize that increased funding alone will not enable us 

to realize our goals. We’re taking a hard look at the way we currently conduct our business. We’re aggressively working to modernize our system and increase our capacity through the engineering of processes, the development and implementation of new information technology systems, and the development of mechanisms to 

interact with customers in a more forward-reaching manner. We 

are now in the process of finalizing a new backlog elimination plan 

that will outline changes to our business processes and will set 

forth our revitalized vision of delivering immigration services in the 

future. 

This, Mr. Chairman, concludes my prepared remarks. I thank 

you for the invitation to testify before this Committee. I apologize 

for the lengthy statement and I look forward to the questions. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Director Aguirre. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguirre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR. 

Good afternoon Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members 

of the Subcommittee. My name is Eduardo Aguirre and I have the honor of serving 

as the first Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, within the Department of Homeland Security. 

We are a welcoming nation, and the hard work and patriotism of our immigrants 

has made our Nation prosperous. We seek to continue to improve the administration 

of immigration benefits for the more than six million applicants who petition USCIS 

on an annual basis. 

14

1Program transferred to BTS in November of 2003. 

We continue to commit ourselves to building and maintaining an immigration 

services system that provides information and benefits in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, and professional manner; while preventing ineligible individuals 

from receiving benefits. Put more simply, it is our job to make certain that the right 

applicant receives the right benefit in the right amount of time, while preventing 

the wrong individuals from obtaining our benefits. 

USCIS is one of the largest fee-funded agencies in the Federal government— charging fees for a variety of benefits from individuals seeking to enter, reside, or 

work in the United States. Therefore, the actual cash flow for our business operations, including a network of 250 local offices, Application Support Centers, Service 

Centers, Asylum Offices, National Customer Service Call (NCSC) Centers, Forms 

Centers, and Internet portals, varies from year to year with the number of immigration benefit applications received. 

In any typical work day, our workforce of 15,500 (one-third of whom are contractors) will:

• Process 140,000 national security background checks;

• Receive 100,000 web hits;

• Take 50,000 calls at our Customer Service Centers;

• Adjudicate 30,000 applications for immigration benefits;

• See 25,000 visitors at 92 field offices;

• Issue 20,000 green cards; and

• Capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130 Application Support Centers.

USCIS has established three priorities: (1) eliminating the immigration benefit 

application backlog, (2) improving customer service, while (3) enhancing national security. In our first year of operation we have: initiated on-line options for a few application filings and case status updates; established the Office of Citizenship; eliminated lines at some of our highest volume offices; introduced a toll-free customer 

service help line; streamlined the Certificate of Citizenship process for internationally adopted children; developed a more secure travel document for permanent residents; and fleshed out our leadership team. 

Backlogs of immigration benefit applications began to grow during the 1990s. 

Overall, there was a 77% increase from FY 1993 to FY 2001. The primary factors 

contributing to the backlogs were a dramatic increase in the number of applications 

and petitions received, delays in securing funding and positions to process this increasing number of applications, the lengthy amount of time it takes to recruit, hire 

and train adjudicators, and the lack of a comprehensive approach to monitoring, 

supporting and maintaining timely processing. 

Beginning in FY 2002, the President pledged, and the Congress supported, a 

multi-year $500 million initiative to attain a universal six-month processing time 

standard by FY 2006 for all immigration benefit applications while providing quality 

service to all customers. We developed a comprehensive Backlog Elimination Plan 

prior to September 11, 2001 to achieve this goal. The Plan called for improvements 

to processes and expanded quality assurance efforts designed to achieve a high level 

of performance. We initially realized significant improvements. In FY 2002, processing times for applications averaged, by type, between three and seventy-two 

months. By the end of the year, these same averages were reduced to between one 

and twenty-six months. 

However, September 11, 2001 profoundly affected our business operations, employees, and stakeholders. New guidance was issued, security background checks 

were enhanced, and new processes were implemented, including conducting interviews for the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) Program.1 Additionally, since July 2002, we formally enhanced our security background 

checks on the processing of all immigration benefit applications to ensure that those 

who receive immigration benefits have come to join the people of the United States 

in building a better society and not to do us harm. 

The process of performing enhanced security checks has been designed to compare 

information on applicants, petitioners, beneficiaries, spouses and children and other 

household members who apply for an immigration benefit against various Federal 

lookout systems. Already, many applications were subject to fingerprint and background checks. The enhanced check instituted in July 2002 represents an additional 

set of name checks against a variety of lookout databases housed in the Interagency 

Border Inspection System (IBIS). 

15

2 As required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

The purpose of conducting security checks is to help law enforcement agencies 

identify risks to the community and/or to national security and to prevent ineligible 

individuals from obtaining immigration benefits. On the vast majority of applications, we perform two checks; one when the application is initially received, and one 

at the time of adjudication. Approximately 35 million security checks are performed 

annually. 

In most of these cases (some 97%), the checks take only a few minutes. In the 

event of a ‘‘hit’’, however, we must hold that application without resolution until the 

security issue at hand is resolved. Last fiscal year, we processed a little over six 

million immigration benefit applications. Approximately 7% of the applications processed resulted in an initial security hit, and after further scrutiny, 2% resulted in 

confirmed security or criminal threat matches. 

This change in the way we process immigration benefit applications has meant 

higher processing costs for USCIS because the costs of performing these checks were 

not factored into the existing fee schedule. As a result, existing resources have been 

diverted to perform the additional security checks until the fees could be adjusted 

to cover these costs. Although the security enhancements have meant longer processing times in some categories and a significant growth in the application backlog, 

USCIS has taken the position that security absolutely will not be sacrificed in our 

search for increased efficiency. USCIS will continue to coordinate and identify suspected benefit fraud cases and refer them to ICE for enforcement action. 

Our intra-government coordination demonstrates that our approach realizes the 

intended results. By way of example, within the last month our background check 

procedures identified individuals wanted for murder in Portland and sexual assault 

in Miami. We are making America safer against security and criminal threats, one 

background check at a time. 

I believe that the President’s FY 2005 budget will set us on the right path toward 

enhancing immigration services. The budget includes a total for USCIS of $1.711 

billion, $140 million in discretionary appropriated funds and $1.571 billion in fees, 

and seeks an additional $60 million to boost the total dedicated to backlog reduction 

efforts to $160 million. Our overall goal is to achieve a six-month processing time 

standard for all immigration benefit applications by FY 2006. 

To ensure that our backlog does not increase further, we are currently seeking 

to adjust our fee schedule through the regulatory process by recovering costs associated with comprehensive security enhancements instituted after September 11, 

2001. The annual cost of these security enhancements are about $140 million or 

about $21 per application. 

The fee adjustments will also support new activities such as establishing a refugee corps to improve the quality of refugee adjudications and establishing the new 

Office of Citizenship 2 to promote instruction and training on citizenship responsibilities to both immigrants and U.S. citizens. The Office of Citizenship is developing 

initiatives to target immigrants at two critical points on their journey toward citizenship: when they obtain permanent resident status and as they begin the formal 

naturalization process. In the past, the Federal government provided few orientation 

materials for new immigrants. In contrast, CIS will reach out to new immigrants 

at the earliest opportunity to provide them with information and tools they need to 

begin the process of civic integration. In addition, CIS will develop study materials 

and teaching guides to ensure that the process of preparing for naturalization is 

meaningful, so that immigrants who choose to become U.S. citizens have a real understanding of the commitment they are making when they take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. The establishment of a Refugee Corps, with an expanded management support structure, will provide a strong and effective overseas 

refugee processing program that will more efficiently identify inadmissible persons 

and those who are of national security interest without compromising the U.S. Refugee Program’s humanitarian objectives. 

We fully realize that increased funding alone will not enable us to realize our 

goals. We are taking a hard look at the way we currently conduct our business. We 

are aggressively working to modernize our systems and increase our capacity 

through the reengineering of processes, the development and implementation of new 

information technology systems, and the development of mechanisms to interact 

with customers in a more forward-reaching manner. For example, USCIS has recently eliminated the backlog of applications for the Certificate of Citizenship on Behalf of an Adopted Child with a program that proactively provides parents the certificate. 

16

We are now in the process of finalizing a new Backlog Elimination Plan that will 

outline changes to our business processes, and which will set forth our revitalized 

vision of delivering immigration services in the future. 

Additionally, we are examining the standard of knowledge in the current citizenship test to ensure that prospective and new citizens know not only the facts of our 

nation’s history, but also the ideals that have shaped that history. 

The project management team for this initiative recently met with over a dozen 

historians, civics experts, and adult educators to discuss the redesign of the U.S. 

history portion of the naturalization test with the goal of making the test more 

meaningful, substantive, and fair. This group is examining the meaning of significant events that occurred in our nation’s history, and is exploring ways in which 

naturalization candidates may better retain the significance of these events. Recognizing that many Americans have strong beliefs about what our new citizens should 

know about our country, we plan to publish the proposed test content in the Federal 

Register and ask for public comment. We believe that many Americans would like 

to have a say in what we are asking our new citizens to learn, and we are eager 

to hear from them. We look forward to briefing you and other Members of Congress 

on our proposed new citizenship test content and receiving your feedback, as well. 

In a related effort, this same team is working to redesign the current citizenship 

testing methodology in an effort to ensure more uniform results. Currently, a candidate in Los Angeles is, in all likelihood, not tested the same way or asked the 

same questions as a candidate taking the same exam on the same day in Boston. 

Therefore, we are developing standardized testing procedures so that applicants can 

be assured that they are experiencing an equitable testing process. 

We do not want to make the test more difficult. We do not want to make it less 

difficult. We want to make it more meaningful in a way that does not have an adverse impact on any particular group of applicants. Therefore, we will carefully pilot 

test the revised English, history, and government tests before implementing them. 

And, we will continue to consult with our stakeholders to solicit their input. Our 

newly created Office of Citizenship will be responsible for coordinating the development of educational materials designed to complement this important initiative. 

Our plan is to implement the new test and testing process in 2006. Given the importance of the ultimate benefit for those tested—U.S. citizenship—this process is 

not one that can or should be rushed. We are committed to improving the current 

process and to improving it in the right way. 

As we approach our institutional one-year anniversary, USCIS has stood up an 

organization of which we are very proud. We have established a leadership team, 

improved many of our operational processes, and continue to strive to make further 

improvements. The funding requested in the President’s FY 2005 budget request is 

an important factor in continuing to improve the service we can offer our customers. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation to testify before this committee and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Michael Dougherty is the Director of Operations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. As 

Director of Operations, he is responsible for the overall management and coordination of ICE’s operations and serves as Assistant 

Secretary Michael Garcia’s principal representative to DHS and to 

the law enforcement and intelligence communities. 

Prior to this appointment, Mr. Dougherty was a partner in 

KPMG, LLP. He began his law enforcement career as an INS special agent in New York and was among one of the first agents assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorist Attack Force, or is that Task 

Force? Task Force. That should be Task Force, the FBI Joint Terrorist. You were attacking the terrorist problem, but that was actually a task force. 

Mr. Dougherty graduated from Ohio State University with a 

bachelor’s degree in political science. Mr. Dougherty, thank you for 

being here today. You are recognized. 

17

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my profound 

pleasure to appear before you today and the distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, as well. It’s also my privilege to discuss 

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2005 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

As you know, ICE was created on March 1, 2003, and has grown 

to become the largest investigative arm in the Department of 

Homeland Security and also is today the largest Federal investigative agency. ICE now also has the broadest investigative mandate 

in the Federal Government and is executing its new homeland security mission by building upon the traditional missions, resources, 

authorities, and capabilities of the agencies it inherited. 

Today, one of ICE’s primary missions is to detect vulnerabilities 

and prevent violations that threaten national security. In other 

words, ICE investigates homeland security crimes. Today, I will 

discuss how the President’s 2005 budget will continue to strengthen ICE’s immigration enforcement mandate, which is only one of 

the mandates it currently has today. 

The 2005 budget seeks $4 billion in appropriated funds for ICE, 

$302 million more than in fiscal 2004, representing an approximately 10 percent increase. The requested increases include $186 

million for ICE to fund improvements in immigration enforcement, 

both domestically and overseas, including more than doubling 

worksite enforcement efforts, increased efforts to combat benefits 

fraud and investigate violations of the SEVIS and U.S. VISIT systems, and approximately $100 million increase for detention and 

removal of illegal aliens. 

Critical to the removal process is ICE’s ability to effectively litigate cases before the Immigration Court. The budget request includes a $6 million enhancement to provide additional attorneys to 

keep pace with our increasing caseload. 

Our budget also seeks $14 million to support our international 

enforcement efforts related to immigration. Ten million dollars of 

these funds will be used to implement ICE’s visa security program 

to fulfill its obligations under section 248 of the Homeland Security 

Act related to visa security. 

I’d like to briefly highlight and further explain some of the enforcement initiatives represented in the 2005 budget today. First, 

worksite enforcement. The 2005 budget includes an additional $23 

million for worksite enforcement. This represents nearly 400 agents 

and support staff and more than doubles existing funds dedicated 

to worksite enforcement. With these resources, we will be able to 

continue our commitment to traditional worksite enforcement. 

However, worksite enforcement is also a useful tool in securing 

the nation’s critical infrastructure. Since September 11, ICE has 

screened 260,000 employee records pertaining to 3,600 critical infrastructure employers and has identified in excess of 5,000 unauthorized workers who obtained employment, principally by presenting counterfeit documents to their employers or providing false 

information to security officials. 

18

Pursuant to these enforcement operations targeting critical infrastructures, such as airports, military installations, defense contractors, and Federal buildings, ICE has arrested over 1,000 individuals and secured the criminal indictment of 774. 

Another key priority as reflected in the budget is benefits fraud. 

Recent history has shown that immigration fraud poses a significant threat to national security and public safety because it enables 

terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens to gain entry and remain in 

the United States. ICE’s goal, working in conjunction with CIS, is 

to detect, combat, and deter immigration fraud through aggressive, 

focused, and comprehensive investigations and prosecutions. The $25 million requested in the ’05 budget will enable ICE to 

continue and increase high-impact fraud investigations and prosecutions, providing increased national security and ensuring the integrity of the immigration application process. To ensure the most 

effective application of the resources, ICE has collocated benefit 

fraud units with CIS service centers to focus on the criminal organizations that engage in large-scale immigration fraud and that 

seek to undermine the system of legal immigration. 

We also have significant initiatives reflected in our budget in the 

detention and removal program. Detention and removal of illegal 

aliens present in the United States is critical to the enforcement 

of our immigration laws. ICE today has a daily detention population of approximately 21,000. In ’03, ICE removed more than 

140,000 individuals from the United States, including 76,000 criminal aliens. An increase of $108 million in fiscal 2005 would expand 

ongoing fugitive apprehension efforts, facilitate the removal of 

jailed aliens from the United States, and create effective methods 

to control non-detained cases and support additional detention and 

removal capacity. Specifically, $50 million are requested to continue the implementation of the ICE National Fugitive Operations Program. ICE today 

has 18 fugitive operations teams deployed throughout the country, 

and since March 1 has apprehended approximately 6,000 fugitives. 

A large number of these were convicted of serious crimes and were 

subsequently ordered deported. Thus, the program has a significant 

public safety impact in communities across the nation. The ’05 

budget request would fund an additional 30 teams to locate these 

potential threats to public safety. 

We also seek funding for the Institutional Removal Program, 

which is designed to ensure that aliens convicted of crimes in the 

United States are identified, processed, and where possible, removed. The $30 million request would transfer the Institutional 

Removal Program from the responsibility of the Office of Investigation to the Office of Detention and Removal, freeing up special 

agents to work on more complex crimes directly related to national 

security. It would also make management of the program consolidated under a single operational division, as recommended by both 

the General Accounting Office and the Department of the Inspector 

General. 

Concluding, $11 million has been requested in the ’05 budget, 

which would more than double the capacity of the Intensive Supervision Program. Pilot projects have demonstrated that effective control of lower-risk persons who are released in the communities durVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
19

ing immigration proceedings or while awaiting approval can stem 

the growth of the fugitive population. This year, we plan to have 

eight supervision sites that will be able to monitor 200 individuals 

per site using methods such as electronic monitoring, halfway 

houses, and voice recognition technology. Increases in ’05 would 

double the capacity for each site and provide for an additional site. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, deterring illegal migration and 

combating immigration-related crime have never been more critical 

to the national security. The men and women of ICE are tackling 

this challenging mission with remarkable dedication. I believe the 

President’s ’05 budget request for ICE will provide significant resources to further the mission of ICE on behalf of the American 

people. We’re eager to work with you and the Members of Congress 

to provide the American people with the level of security they demand and deserve. 

I thank you and look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOUGHERTY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. It is a privilege to appear before your committee 

today to discuss the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 for US 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

In March of 2003, when the Department was created, a new federal investigative 

agency was also formed: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—or ICE, as 

it is better known. As the largest investigative arm of Homeland Security, ICE’s primary mission is to detect vulnerabilities and prevent violations that threaten national security. In other words, ICE investigates homeland security crimes. In particular, border security, air security, and economic security. 

ICE pursues its homeland security mission by building upon the traditional missions, resources, authorities and expertise of the legacy agencies it inherited. The 

investigative and intelligence resources of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs Service, Federal Protective Service and Federal Air Marshal Service have been fused together to allow us to go after the criminal enterprises in new ways. ICE is bringing new approaches to traditional areas of law enforcement and creating enforcement programs in response to its homeland security 

mission. 

Today, I will discuss how the President’s FY 2005 Budget will continue to 

strengthen ICE’s immigration enforcement mandate. 

ICE FY 2005 BUDGET FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

ICE is committed to enhancing immigration security and enforcement, as the FY 

2005 budget illustrates. The FY 2005 budget seeks $4.0 billion for ICE, $302 million 

more than FY 2004, representing an increase of 8 percent. 

The requested increases include $186 million for ICE to fund improvements in immigration enforcement both domestically and overseas, including a more than doubling of current worksite enforcement efforts; increased resources to combat benefits 

fraud and investigate violations of the SEVIS and US-VISIT systems; and approximately $100 million increase for the detention and removal of illegal aliens. Detention and removal of illegal aliens present in the United States is critical to the enforcement of our immigration laws and the requested funding will expand ongoing 

fugitive apprehension efforts, the removal from the United States of jailed illegal 

aliens, and additional detention and removal capacity. Critical to the removal process is ICE’s ability to effectively litigate cases before the Immigration Court. The 

budget request includes a $6 million enhancement to provide additional attorneys 

to keep pace with an increasing caseload. Our budget also seeks $14 million to support our international enforcement efforts related to immigration, including enabling ICE to provide visa security by working cooperatively with U.S. consular offices to review select visa applications. 

20

INVESTIGATIONS INITIATIVES

As a result of the President’s proposed new temporary worker program to match 

willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers, enforcement actions against 

companies that break the law and hire illegal workers will increase. The FY 2005 

President’s Budget includes an additional $23 million for enhanced worksite enforcement. This more than doubles existing funds devoted to worksite enforcement and 

allows ICE to assign more Special Agents devoted to this effort. With these resources, ICE will facilitate the implementation of the President’s temporary worker 

program initiative by enhancing our traditional worksite enforcement program that 

offers credible deterrence to the hiring of unauthorized workers. Without such a deterrent, employers will have no incentive to maintain a legal workforce. 

Since 9/11, ICE has screened 259,037 employee records pertaining to 3,640 critical 

infrastructure employers and identified over 5,000 unauthorized workers who obtained employment by presenting counterfeit documents to their employer and providing false information to security officials. ICE enforcement operations targeting 

unauthorized workers in critical infrastructure facilities such as airports, military 

installations, defense contractors, and federal buildings have resulted in the arrest 

of over 1,000 workers and the criminal indictment of 774 individuals. ICE’s challenge is to enhance public safety by ensuring that individuals intending to do us 

harm do not gain insider access to critical facilities by taking advantage of 

vulnerabilities in hiring and screening processes that enable undocumented workers 

to go undetected by employers and security officials. 

Benefits Fraud 

Immigration fraud poses a severe threat to national security and public safety because it enables terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens to gain entry and remain 

in the United States. ICE’s goal, in conjunction with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is to detect, combat, and deter immigration fraud through aggressive, focused, and comprehensive investigations and prosecutions. ICE focuses 

on identifying and targeting the most significant, prolific and egregious violators for 

prosecutions, such as organizations and facilitators responsible for multiple benefit 

applications and individuals that pose a risk to national security or public safety. 

In September 2003, ICE created Benefit Fraud Units in Vermont, Texas and California as a means of identifying and targeting fraud, at the earliest possible point—

when an application is received at a USCIS Service Center. 

The $25 million FY 2005 budget request will provide stable funding to ICE’s benefits fraud and will enable ICE to continue and increase, high-impact fraud investigations and prosecutions, providing increased national security and insuring integrity 

in the immigration application process. 

Special Agents Dedicated to Compliance Enforcement 

As part of its overall immigration enforcement strategy, ICE will continue to analyze data generated through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 

(SEVIS) and US-VISIT program to detect individuals who are in violation of the Nation’s immigration laws and pose a threat to homeland security. ICE’s Compliance 

Enforcement Unit has investigated and resolved over 21,000 National Security 

Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) and SEVIS violator leads. This represents less than half of all violator leads generated under the programs. With an 

estimated FY 2004 enrollment of nearly 700,000 foreign students and exchange visitors and 7,000 schools and programs, estimates suggests that more than 30,000 

leads may be generated by the SEVIS program this year. 

The FY 2005 budget’s request of $16 million will increase the funding for ICE’s 

SEVIS and US-VISIT compliance efforts by over 150 percent through the addition 

of 130 Special Agents to investigate and resolve violator leads. The funding will also 

allow continued and expanded data mining technology, as well as targeting software, to increase the efficiency of identification and tracking efforts towards nonimmigrant aliens who may pose the most significant national security threats. The 

increased funding will allow ICE to double the overall violator resolution rate from 

the forecasted FY 2004 rate of 30% to 60% in FY 2005. 

International Affairs 

ICE’s Office of International Affairs is the largest consolidated Attache unit within DHS with over 50 foreign offices in over 42 countries. ICE Attaches and subordinate foreign offices work closely with Embassy staff and counterpart host government departments to execute international initiatives and extend the U.S. borders. 

Pursuant to section 428 of the Homeland Security Act and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security and State, ICE’s FY 

2005 budget request of $14 million includes an increase of $10 million to support 

21

a new Visa Security Unit (VSU). The VSU and DHS staff stationed at overseas 

posts, including Saudi Arabia, will work cooperatively with U.S. consular officials 

to promote homeland security in the visa process. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL INITIATIVES

Detention and Removal of illegal aliens present in the United States is critical 

to the enforcement of our immigration laws. ICE has a daily detention population 

of approximately 21,000 and in FY 2003, ICE removed more than 140,000 individuals including 76,000 criminal aliens. An increase of $108 million in FY 2005 will 

expand ongoing fugitive apprehension efforts, the removal from the United States 

of jailed offenders, effective methods to control non-detained cases, and support additional detention and removal capacity. 

Fugitive Operations 

$50 million dollars are requested to continue the implementation of the ICE National Fugitive Operations Program, established in 2002, which seeks to eliminate 

the existing backlog and growth of the fugitive alien population. Currently, ICE has 

18 Fugitive Operations Teams deployed throughout the country and since March 

1st, approximately 6,000 fugitives have been apprehended and nearly 700 additional 

criminal aliens have been apprehended in connection with fugitive operations teams. 

The FY 2005 budget request would fund an additional 30 teams to locate these potential threats to public safety. 

Institutional Removal Program 

The Institutional Removal Program (IRP) is designed to ensure that aliens convicted of crimes in the U.S. are identified, processed, and, where possible, ordered 

removed prior to their release from a correctional institution. ICE requests $30 million to transfer the IRP duties currently being performed by Special Agents to Immigration Enforcement Agents. The shift of responsibilities will allow Special Agents 

to be assigned to more complex investigations in the areas of National Security, 

Smuggling, and Financial Investigations, and make management of the IRP the sole 

responsibility of a single operational program office, Detention and Removal Operations, as recommended by both the General Accounting Office and the Department 

of Justice Inspector General. 

Alternatives to Detention 

$11 million dollars have been requested in the FY 2005 budget to more than double the capacity of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). The 

premise for this initiative is that the effective control of lower risk persons released 

into the community during immigration proceedings or while awaiting removal will 

stem the growth of the fugitive population. In FY 2004, ICE plans to have eight intensive supervision sites operational that will be able to monitor 200 individuals per 

site using methods such as using electronic monitoring devices, half-way houses and 

voice recognition technology. Increases in FY 2005 would double the capacity for 

each site and provide for an additional site. These alternatives to traditional detention practices are more cost effective; allow ICE to detain a greater number of aliens 

who may pose a threat to public safety; and early results from pilot projects reflect 

an increased appearance rate for immigration court proceedings for those in an intensive supervision program versus those released on their own recognizance. 

Detention Bed Space 

Adequate detention space has long been considered a necessary tool to ensure effective removal operations. An increase in bed space to accommodate a higher volume of apprehended criminal aliens results in a significantly higher appearance 

rate at immigration proceedings. When final orders of removal are issued, this will 

result in a greater number of removals and fewer absconders. With the $5 million 

request for FY 2005, ICE will enhance its ability to remove illegal aliens from the 

United States. 

Caribbean Regional Interdiction 

Pursuant to Executive Order, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security 

and State share responsibility for responding to the migration of undocumented 

aliens interdicted or intercepted in the Caribbean Region. Additional funding of $6.2 

million is requested to support the cost of housing up to 400 migrants as they await 

determination of any immigration claims. This initiative will support operations at 

Guantanamo Bay and maintain a high level of preparedness for possible Caribbean 

migration emergencies or other mass migration events. 

22

LEGAL PROGRAM BACKLOG ELIMINATION

The ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor’s Office (OPLA) completed approximately 275,000 cases in Immigration Court in FY 2003, assisting in these proceedings in the determination of who qualified for immigration benefits and who 

was subject to removal. The number of new cases received in immigration court has 

continued to increase from approximately 150,000 cases in FY 93 to 290,652 cases 

in FY 2002. In addition, ICE OPLA is currently handling approximately 500 national security related cases as well as 250 cases involving possible human rights 

abusers in various stages of immigration court proceedings. At the same time, the 

case preparation time has continued to fall and we project that time available for 

preparation could also fall. To keep pace with the increasing number of complex immigration court cases as well as an aggressive plan by the Department of Justice 

to address the pending cases, additional attorneys and support staff are required. 

$6 million dollars are sought in the FY 2005 budget to increase the program staffing 

and help address the increased workload. Additional resources will permit ICE 

Counsel to identify and argue for the removal of individuals who pose national security or public safety risks, while at the same time ensuring that bona fide claims 

are granted. 

CONCLUSION

Deterring illegal migration and combating immigration-related crime have never 

been more critical to our national security. The men and women of ICE are tackling 

this challenging mission with diligence, determined to ensure that no duty is neglected. The President’s FY 2005 Budget Request for ICE is an important step in 

restoring the rule of law the system of legal immigration. We are eager to work with 

you and the other Members of Congress to provide the American people with the 

level of security they demand and deserve. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Daniel Smith was named the State Department’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs in 

November of 2002. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign 

Service and previously served as Deputy Executive Secretary to 

Secretary of State Colin Powell. Prior to this assignment, he served 

as executive assistant to the Under Secretary for Global Affairs. 

Mr. Smith received his B.A. summa cum laude from the University of Colorado in Boulder and his Ph.D. and M.A. in history from 

Stanford university. Mr. Smith, thank you for being here. You’re 

now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. SMITH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today before you on the Department 

of State’s Border Security Program. I am pleased to provide an 

overview of how the Bureau of Consular Affairs administers that 

program. Funded largely through the Department’s limited fee-retention authorities for consular services, the Border Security Program exists to strengthen the security of the United States by 

pushing out our borders. 

In fiscal year 2005, the priorities of the Consular Affairs are: 

Protecting our homeland by strengthening the visa process; protecting Americans by providing consular information, services, and 

assistance; providing Americans with the most secure travel document possible, the U.S. passport; and providing consular personnel 

worldwide with the tools and training they need. 

The Department of State’s visa work abroad constitutes a vital 

element in our national border security. To guard against terrorists 

23

and other threats, consular officers must have the best information 

available within the U.S. Government. The majority of the data in 

our consular lookout system now is derived from the law enforcement and intelligence communities. We reciprocate that data sharing, and Department of Homeland Security officers at ports of 

entry now have access to the 75 million visa records in our Consular Consolidated Database. 

We have joined in the establishment of the Terrorist Screening 

Center that will integrate terrorist watch lists and serve as the 

centralized point of contact for U.S. terrorist information. Together 

with the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, we will rely on the 

TSC to ensure that consular officers have access to the information 

they need to deny visas to those who would do us harm. 

We are also engaged with DHS in implementing a biometrics 

program that will track the entry and exit of foreign visitors by 

using electronically scanned fingerprints and photographs. The system is designed to create a coordinated and interlocking network 

of border security. With our aggressive roll-out schedule, the program will be in effect at all non-immigrant visa adjudicating posts 

by October 26 of this year. 

Consular Affairs also works to promote the safety and security 

of Americans abroad. We strive to extend to all Americans our best 

efforts to ensure their safety wherever they might be. We provide 

current information on travel conditions and security through our 

website at travel.state.gov and through the Overseas Citizens Services Call Center. 

CA has also been heavily involved in assisting U.S. citizen parents whose children were abducted or wrongfully retained abroad, 

as well as working to prevent future abductions and wrongful retentions. We have worked toward implementing a transparent 

international adoption process that safeguards the interests of children, birth parents, and prospective adoptive parents. These initiatives, among others, are overwhelmingly funded as part of the Border Security Program. 

We are also engaged in an ongoing process of continuous improvement of the U.S. passport, the world’s most valuable identity 

and travel document. Embedding biometrics into U.S. passports to 

establish a clear link between the person issued the passport and 

the user is an important step forward in the international effort to 

strengthen border security. We recognize that convincing other nations to improve their passports requires U.S. leadership. To that 

end, the Department of State has a program that should produce 

the first biometric U.S. passports by October of this year. 

We also continue to strengthen homeland security by ensuring 

that the consular function has appropriate facilities and is staffed 

at sufficient levels by consular officers who are trained to screen 

out terrorists. As part of the Border Security Program, the Department is requesting additional positions to provide us the ground 

troops necessary to staff our first line of defense. 

We continue to strengthen management controls via the issuance 

of standard operating procedures as well as our program of Consular Management Assistance Teams. CA uses its new Vulnerability Assessment Unit to analyze consular data, systems, and 

24

processes to detect anomalies in visa and passport processing to reduce vulnerabilities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Consular Affairs is to help Americans abroad, to facilitate legitimate international travel, and to 

stop the travel to the United States of foreigners who present a 

threat to our country. By focusing on information sharing, providing sufficient resources, and enhancing the integrity of our processes and documents, the Department of State is ensuring that we 

have a Border Security Program in which the American people can 

place their trust and confidence. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. SMITH

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the Department of State’s 

Border Security Program. I am pleased to explain both the strategy employed by 

the Department of State in its Border Security Program and then how that strategy 

is implemented in the day-to-day operations of the Bureau of Consular Affairs. 

The Border Security Program at the Department of State is a complex mission 

involving the activities of a number of bureaus and offices. Funded largely through 

the Department’s limited fee retention authorities for consular services, the Border 

Security Program exists to strengthen the security of the United States by ‘‘pushing 

outward’’ our borders. The Department has followed a consistent and multi year 

strategy that focuses on:

• Providing accurate and timely information to all personnel responsible for 

processing passports, adjudicating visas and providing other consular services.

• Ensuring that all personnel responsible for Border Security services have the 

business quality hardware and software they need to fulfill their responsibilities.

• Connecting all overseas and domestic operations responsible for Border Security together through high-speed networks, which make possible such powerful tools as the CLASS namecheck system and the Consolidated Consular 

Database (CCD).

• Investing in our people to ensure that they have the training needed to provide quality Border Security Services. Covering the operating costs of many 

Department of State personnel who provide Border Security services.

• Ensuring the integrity of our people, processes and products.

The Department’s Border Security Program is much larger than just the Bureau 

of Consular Affairs (CA). CA’s main partners in implementing this program include 

the Bureaus of Diplomatic Security, Information Management, Human Resources, 

Intelligence and Research, and Resource Management as well as the geographic bureaus. The Administration is seeking some $836 million in the FY-05 budget to help 

fund these activities. 

In terms of Consular Affairs, our mission is to help Americans abroad, facilitate 

legitimate international travel, and prevent the travel to the United States of foreigners who are likely to engage in activities harmful to our country. We have no 

higher responsibility than the protection of our citizens and safeguarding our country’s borders through the Border Security Program, and we are determined to carry 

out this responsibility in the best and most effective manner possible. 

In FY 2005, the priorities of CA are:

• protecting our homeland by strengthening the visa process as a tool to identify potential terrorists and others who should not receive visas and preventing those people from entering the United States;

• protecting Americans by ensuring that they have the consular information, 

services, and assistance they need to reside, conduct business, or travel 

abroad;

• providing Americans with timely and effective passport services and a secure 

travel document; and

25

• providing consular personnel worldwide with the tools and training they need 

to carry out these responsibilities. 

VISA SERVICES

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 highlighted as never before the crucial role the Bureau of Consular Affairs plays in U.S. border security through the visa process. The 

Consular Officers of the Foreign Service at the 212 visa adjudicating embassies and 

consulates abroad are truly our first line of defense. In FY-05, we will continue our 

efforts to ensure that the visa process is as secure as possible and that it supports 

our overall homeland security efforts so that—with the immigration check at the 

port of entry and the enhanced capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security—it will form a coordinated and interlocking network of border security in which 

the American people can have confidence. 

One of the most important tools we can provide our consular officers abroad is 

information that will help them identify and deny a visa to a terrorist, criminal or 

other ineligible alien. Our goal is to push the borders of the United States out as 

far from our shores as possible to stop a problematic or questionable traveler overseas. To this end, our coordinated efforts with law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies have more than doubled the names of known or suspected terrorists and 

other ineligible aliens in our databases. We will continue to seek opportunities for 

data sharing with federal agencies that have a role in the visa process or interact 

with visa recipients. In fact, the majority of the data in our consular lookout system 

now derives from other agencies, especially those in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. 

I am particularly proud that an activity funded through the Department’s Border 

Security Program—the TIPOFF program—is a key building block for the Terrorist 

Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which will maintain the principal database on 

known and suspected terrorists in a highly classified form. The TIPOFF database 

with its approximately 120,000 records was transferred to TTIC on November 17, 

2003. TTIC, together with the separate Terrorist Screening Center, will eliminate 

the stovepiping of terrorist data and provide a more systematic approach to posting 

lookouts on potential and known terrorists. 

We are also currently engaged with DHS in implementing a biometrics program 

to track the entry and exit of foreign visitors by using electronically scanned fingerprints and photographs. This new system, which begins with consular officers collecting electronically scanned fingerprints at consular sections abroad and continues 

with DHS’s US-VISIT program at ports of entry and departure, will create a coordinated and interlocking network of border security. We began our new Biometric 

Visa Program in September 2003, and it is now operational at more than 70 visaadjudicating posts. With our aggressive rollout schedule, the program will be in effect at all visa-adjudicating posts by the congressionally mandated deadline of October 26, 2004. The inclusion of additional biometrics, in addition to the photograph 

that has always been collected, in international travel documents is an important 

step in continuing to improve our ability to verify the identity of prospective travelers to the United States. In the process of screening visas and passports domestically and abroad, additional biometrics can serve as a useful adjunct to existing 

screening processes that identify individuals who might be terrorists, criminals, or 

other aliens who might represent a security risk to the United States. 

Other visa-related initiatives that will be funded through the on-going Border Security Program include:

• Re-engineer the interagency visa clearance process to allow stronger accountability and quicker processing.

• Improve the capacity of CLASS to handle additional information such as 

Interpol and deportation lookout information, and lost and stolen passport 

data.

• Continue to work with countries that are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and with ICAO to meet the requirement that those countries incorporate biometric identifiers in their passports by October 2004, as congressionally mandated.

• Review facial recognition results from initial test deployment at visa posts to 

determine how it may benefit screening in the operational environment.

• Introduce new, tamper-resistant and machine-readable immigrant visa foil. 

This new machine-readable immigrant visa process will include digitized 

photo and fingerprints.

• Eliminate crew-list visas and require all seafarers to obtain individual visas. 

26

AMERICAN CITIZENS: 

The Bureau of Consular Affairs works to promote the safety and security of the 

3.2 million Americans who reside abroad and those U.S. residents who make about 

60 million trips outside the U.S. each year. This complements our overall homeland 

security efforts on the visa side of the house, extending to all Americans our strongest and best efforts to ensure their safety wherever they might be. We provide current information on travel conditions and security through our Consular Affairs 

home page at http://travel.state.gov, which received nearly 198.5 million inquiries in 

FY 2003, and the Overseas Citizens Services (OCS) Call Center, which received approximately 70,000 calls. 

International tensions and security concerns, especially incidents of international 

parental child abduction, have prompted more parents to take preventive action to 

monitor or limit their children’s travel abroad. This has resulted in a growing number of requests for passport lookouts, and increased inquiries concerning preventive 

measures to avoid international parental child abductions, in particular. The Office 

of Children’s Issues (CA/OCS/CI) has also worked with the OCS Call Center to respond to routine inquiries concerning preventive measures, while maintaining responsibility for passport lookouts. We hosted a meeting with left-behind parents in 

2003 and plan similar meetings through FY 2005. 

Our priorities for American citizens in FY 2005 include implementation of the 

Hague Inter-country Adoption Convention, which will require CA, as the Central 

Authority for the Convention, to take on responsibilities never before performed on 

the federal level; enhanced services for victims of crime abroad and tracking of statistics on such crimes; enhanced emergency ‘‘fly-away’’ teams; efficient administration of overseas civilian participation in the 2004 general election; expanded use of 

CA’s web site and the Overseas Citizens Services Call Center to provide the most 

current information on travel conditions and security; continuation of the re-engineering of the American Citizens Services software; and outreach around the United 

States to educate the public and stakeholder groups about our programs and the 

assistance that consular officers abroad can provide. Topics to be addressed will include: travel safety overseas, especially for students; crisis preparedness; international parental child abduction, including prevention measures; intercountry 

adoption; the passport application process; and consular notification and access in 

arrest cases. These initiatives are overwhelmingly funded as part of the Border Security program. 

PASSPORT SERVICES: 

Just as we are committed to the most secure adjudication process and documentation to support the visa process, the same is true in terms of what we consider to 

be the world’s most valuable document—the U.S. passport. In FY-03, Passport Services issued over seven million passports. We recently completed the system-wide introduction of photodigitization technology to support passport printing. That effort 

has been so successful that we have, in turn, moved the production of passports 

issued abroad to our U.S. domestic production facilities so that we can take advantage of the significant security improvements embodied in the photodigitization 

process. But, we also have many other initiatives underway. We will proceed with 

our efforts to enhance biometrics in U.S. passports and bring our passport into compliance with international standards established in May 2003. The inclusion of a 

‘‘smart’’ chip in the passport, on which we will write the bearer’s biographic information and photograph, will increase the security of the document. This initiative is 

consistent with U.S. legislation that requires our Visa Waiver Program participants 

to take such a step, but it is not required. We are nonetheless pursuing the initiative because it supports U.S. national security. This new passport will further 

strengthen our ability to reliably link the authorized bearer of a passport to its user. 

We are completely redesigning the U.S. passport and its security features. And, 

since the passport process is only as strong as the underlying adjudication process, 

we are strengthening our datasharing efforts with agencies in order to help confirm 

the identity of applicants. We will enhance our computer systems and provide for 

expected upgrades to accommodate the production of passports. To protect the over 

60 million passport records stored on-line and provide redundant systems to support 

other agencies that require access to these vital records, new storage and server systems will be procured in FY 2004 and FY 2005. Again, these activities are funded 

as part of the Border Security Program. 

27

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE: 

We continue to strengthen homeland security by ensuring that the consular function has appropriate facilities and is staffed at sufficient levels by consular officers 

who are trained to screen out terrorists. As part of the Border Security Program, 

the Department is establishing 93 new consular positions—13 domestic and 80 overseas in FY-04 and is requesting 60 additional positions in FY-05—15 domestic and 

45 overseas. In addition, the Department plans to establish 68 new positions overseas in FY-04 and is requesting 63 in FY-05 as part of the Consular Associate replacement program. These additional positions will give us the ground troops necessary to staff our first line of defense. 

We place a high priority on maintaining efficient and state-of-the-art systems and 

leveraging technology to the extent feasible because of the global nature of consular 

operations and the necessity for interagency data-sharing. We will continue to replace IT equipment for consular sections abroad as well as Consular Affairs domestic operations on a 3 to 4 year cycle, provide updated remote and computer-based 

training on consular systems to supplement hands-on training by visiting experts 

at least once every 12 to 18 months, and maintain Support Desks to provide key 

links between employees and the development and support elements in the Consular Systems Division. 

Good management requires effective internal controls. We continue to strengthen 

management controls via the issuance of standard operating procedures (SOPs), conducting Management Assessment and Internal Control Reviews at passport agencies, certifications that management controls are in place at consular offices, and 

sending Consular Management Assistance Teams (CMATs) to work collaboratively 

with posts toward our common goal of protecting homeland security and our borders. In FY 2005, the CMATs will maintain a robust schedule of visits to assess the 

integrity of management controls, effective resource utilization and space allocation, 

and the extent to which Department-mandated SOPs have been understood and implemented. CMATs serve as a resource in identifying and helping to resolve post 

needs, as well as providing guidance and counseling as appropriate. CA uses its new 

Vulnerability Assessment Unit, a joint initiative with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, to analyze consular data, systems, and processes to detect anomalies in visa 

and passport processing, thus reducing CA’s vulnerability to system manipulation. 

The Department’s Border Security Program is a critical element in the Department of State’s goal to protect American citizens and safeguard the nation’s borders. 

By focusing on sharing information, providing sufficient infrastructure and human 

resources, increasing connectivity, and enhancing the integrity of our processes and 

documents, the Department of State is ensuring that we have a Border Security 

Program in which the American people can place their trust and confidence. 

Thank you and I welcome your questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Seth Stodder is Counselor and Senior Policy 

Advisor to Commissioner Robert C. Bonner at U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. In this role, he oversees all aspects of policy development at CBP and is a key aide to Commissioner Bonner in 

managing the Federal Border Agency. 

Mr. Stodder is a 1995 graduate of the University of Southern 

California Law School. He received his bachelor’s degree from Haverford College, where he graduated with honors. Thank you, Mr. 

Stodder, for being here. You are recognized for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SETH M. M. STODDER, COUNSEL AND SENIOR 

POLICY ADVISOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. STODDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify here 

today on the efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

As you all know, CBP is a new agency within a new Department 

of Homeland Security and it’s coming up on its first birthday. For 

the first time in our history, our nation has a single agency, CBP, 

responsible for managing and securing the borders of the United 

States and all ports of entry into the United States. Under the 

28

leadership of Commissioner Bonner, this new agency brings together all of the border inspectors from the legacy Customs Service, 

INS, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as the entire 

U.S. Border Patrol, and is focused squarely upon one of the chief 

missions of the Department of Homeland Security, preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. 

Certainly, the legacy agencies were focused on anti-terrorism. 

You all will recall that in 1999, it was a Customs inspector on the 

Northern border, Diana Dean, who intercepted and apprehended 

an al Qaeda terrorist, Ahmad Ressam, who was transporting a 

huge load of explosives aimed at destroying the Los Angeles Airport. 

And I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent news reports concerning 

the testimony of legacy INS Inspector Jose Melendez-Perez to the 

9/11 Commission. At Orlando Airport on August 4, 2001, just over 

a month before the September 11 terrorist attacks, Inspector 

Melendez-Perez turned away another terrorist by the name of Mohammed al Qahtani, and al Qahtani was picked up ultimately by 

U.S. forces in Afghanistan and he may have been a conspirator in 

the 9/11 attacks. 

But the creation of CBP within DHS brings both the legacy customs inspectors like Diana Dean together with the legacy immigration inspectors like Jose Melendez-Perez, along with the agriculture 

inspectors and Border Patrol officers. It brings together the great 

wealth of talent and expertise from the legacy agencies and focuses 

them on a single homeland security mission, and this is already 

bearing fruit. One face of the border has arrived and it’s making 

us more effective in carrying out our homeland security mission as 

well as in reinventing the border to make it more efficient for legitimate travel and commerce. 

We now have a single CBP port director at every port of entry 

into the United States. We have a consolidated National Targeting 

Center and consolidated CBP Passenger Analytical Units. We have 

consolidated CBP secondary inspection teams focused on anti-terrorism, bringing together the expertise and, importantly, the broad 

legal authorities of customs, immigration, and agriculture inspectors. We’re rolling out CBP primary inspections. Change is coming 

and change is coming fast. 

The interceptions of the terrorists Ressam and al Qahtani were, 

quote, ‘‘cold hits’’ by trained, dedicated inspectors who sensed that 

something was wrong with these individuals, but this is the last 

line of defense for CBP. 

Since September 11, we have been focusing on pushing our border out to identify and meet potential threats well before they 

reach our shores. This concept underpins some of the CBP’s signature programs, like CSI and the Customs-Trade Partnership 

Against Terrorism, but it also motivates our efforts with regard to 

the movement of people into our country. 

We collect Advance Passenger Information, or API, for all international air passengers, which we feed into our NTC and into our 

Passenger Analytical Units at the airports. Of course, the NTC is 

linked up to the Terrorist Screening Center and to the Terrorist 

Threat Integration Center, or TTIC, and we have up-to-the-minute 

information on potential terrorists on watch lists. But the NTC, 

29

through the Automated Targeting System, goes well beyond the 

watch lists in identifying potential terrorists, potential threats. Our 

sophisticated targeting system allows us to identify potential terrorists or criminals who might not be on any watch list but who 

might still present a risk to the American people. 

Enhancing this capability is a critical piece of the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2005, as the budget requests $20 million for enhancements to our targeting capabilities and to the National Targeting Center. 

DHS is also pushing the border out in other ways, through ICE’s 

Visa Security Program, through U.S. VISIT, and through new concepts such as the Immigration Security Initiative, or ISI, which 

CBP will be piloting in Warsaw later this year. This program, 

which builds upon the legacy INS Immigration Control Officer Program, will put CBP officers in foreign airports to work with the 

carriers and the host governments to identify and question potential terrorist risks before they get on planes bound for the United 

States, a CSI for people, if you will. 

We’re also moving forward on securing our border between the 

ports of entry. Since 9/11, we have tripled the number of Border 

Patrol agents on the Northern border and we will be backing them 

up with more equipment to help them prevent terrorists or other 

criminals from illegally crossing our borders. The President’s fiscal 

year 2005 budget will help CBP hugely on this score, for it provides 

$64 million in funding for border technology, including sensors and 

cameras. The budget also provides $10 million to test unmanned 

aerial vehicles, or UAVs, which we think will add another layer of 

detection capability. 

And these efforts are not limited to the Northern border. We are 

continuing to strengthen our capabilities on our border with Mexico, with our main focus this year on getting better control over our 

border in Arizona. And we’re working very closely with our partners in Mexico to get this done. 

As you may know, Secretary Ridge, Under Secretary Hutchinson, 

and Commissioner Bonner and others traveled to Mexico City last 

week and secured an agreement from Mexico on greater cooperation in securing our mutual border. One of the key deliverables was 

an agreement to implement a program of interior repatriation of 

Mexican nationals illegally crossing into Arizona during the hot 

summer months back to their home states in Central and Southern 

Mexico. The details of this program are still being worked out, but 

we strongly believe that this historic agreement will result in fewer 

illegal crossers, fewer migrant deaths, and better control of our border. 

As I said, our priority mission at CBP is keeping terrorists and 

terrorist weapons out of the United States, but the efforts I have 

discussed are making us more effective in carrying out our broader 

mission of securing our border against criminals, illegal migrants, 

illegal drugs, and other things that violate U.S. laws and harm the 

American people, and we’re doing this while carrying out what we 

call our twin goal of facilitating movement of legitimate people and 

commerce through programs such as NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST. 

With that, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify and I look forward to taking any questions. 

30

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Stodder. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stodder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SETH M. M. STODDER

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN HOSTETTLER, RANKING MEMBER JACKSON 

LEE, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify today about U.S. Customs and Border Protection efforts to protect the United 

States from terrorists and criminal aliens and to ensure the integrity of the immigration laws. My name is Seth Stodder, and I am Counsel, and Senior Policy Advisor to the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

As you know, on March 1, 2003, immigration inspectors from the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS), agricultural inspectors from the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), customs inspectors from the U.S. Customs Service, and the entire Border Patrol merged to form the U.S. Customs and Border Protection—CBP—within the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate of 

the Department of Homeland Security. Now, for the first time in our country’s history, all agencies of the United States government with significant border responsibilities have been brought under one roof. With our combined skills and resources, 

we can be far more effective than we were when we were separate agencies. 

The priority mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from 

entering the United States. This extraordinarily important priority mission means 

improving security at our physical borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders—so that American borders 

are the last line of defense, not the first line of defense. 

RESPONDING TO THE TERRORIST THREAT

As the single unified border agency of the United States, CBP’s mission is vitally 

important to the protection of America and the American people. Numerous initiatives were developed to meet our twin goals of improving security and facilitating 

the flow of legitimate trade and travel. Our strategy is built upon a combination 

of factors: expanding advance information on people entering the United States; fostering initiatives that ‘‘push the border outwards’’ and extend our security perimeter; securing the movement of people through partnerships with other countries, 

including our neighbors to the north and south; and increasing staff positions and 

detection technology for greater border security. 

NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER (NTC)

The National Targeting Center (NTC) has significantly increased our overall capacity to identify potential terrorist threats and other violators by providing centralized national targeting of passengers for the first time. NTC inspectors and analysts 

use a sophisticated computer system to monitor, analyze, and sort information gathered by CBP and numerous intelligence and law enforcement agencies against border crossing information. NTC personnel identify potential terrorists, terrorist targets, criminals, and other violators for increased scrutiny at the border ports of 

entry. When NTC personnel identify potential threats, they coordinate with our officers in the field and monitor the security actions that are taken. The NTC staff 

works closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-led Terrorist Screening 

Center (TSC) to coordinate terrorist threat information, and the FBI has recently 

agreed to assign liaison staff to the NTC. 

AIRLINES REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CBP WITH ADVANCE PASSENGER INFORMATION

One of the greatest challenges we face in the war on terrorism is determining 

whom to look at most closely. Because of its mission, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has the law enforcement authority to question closely and search every person entering the United States. The Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) 

helps us with our focus. APIS requires airline personnel to transmit data on every 

passenger on every aircraft electronically to CBP on take-off from foreign airports. 

In conjunction with the new requirement, systems were upgraded and expanded 

to ensure that APIS could keep up with the expanded workflow. APIS is now a realtime system that runs advance passenger information against law enforcement and 

terrorist databases on a passenger-by-passenger basis. By the time a plane lands, 

CBP is able to evaluate who on the aircraft may pose a threat to the United States 

and take appropriate action, including sharing that information with the TSC. 

Local port of entry Passenger Analysis Units, made up of officers with both immigration and customs backgrounds, analyze the APIS manifests to determine passengers of interest while flights are still traveling to our airports. In addition, APIS 

31

manifests for arriving air and sea passengers are run against FBI and other agency 

databases for wants, warrants, and criminal history information. The same information is readily available for land border passengers referred for secondary processing. 

PUSHING OUR BORDER OUTWARDS

We realize that we must push our zone of security outward. This is the ‘‘extended 

border,’’ defense-in-depth concept, part of what Secretary Ridge has aptly called a 

‘‘Smart Border’’ strategy. Pre-flight inspections and consular pre-screening for visa 

issuance are two critical areas that defend our borders prior to persons actually arriving in the United States. 

COOPERATION WITH CANADA

The Smart Border Declaration with Canada is a 30-point plan for increasing security and facilitating trade. It focuses on four primary areas: the secure flow of people; the secure flow of goods; investments in common technology and infrastructure 

to minimize threats and expedite trade; and coordination and information sharing 

to defend our mutual border. This plan provides for the harmonization of processes 

and an increase of information sharing. To improve our effectiveness, CBP has expanded the use of liaison and increased intelligence sharing with other Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies, our counterparts within the Canadian 

government, and the intelligence community. 

Since September 11, 2002, the Border Patrol has expanded an already proven initiative called the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET), which pools law enforcement resources and integrates operations and intelligence activities from various Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the Canadian government. The IBET concept has been expanded from two locations to fourteen locations 

that now cover the entire northern border. 

NEXUS

With Canada, we have implemented a program that enables us to focus our resources and efforts more on high-risk travelers, while making sure those travelers 

who pose no risk for terrorism or smuggling, and who are otherwise legally entitled 

to enter, are not delayed at our mutual border. Under NEXUS, frequent travelers 

whose background information has been prescreened for criminal or terrorist links 

are issued a proximity card, or SMART card, which allows them to moved expeditiously through the port of entry. NEXUS has expanded to eight crossings on the 

northern border. 

WATCH LIST EXCHANGE

Another initiative with includes a revised and expanded information sharing 

agreement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada was signed in February 2003, 

and is being implemented by CBP. Also, we have agreed to exchange terrorist information and run advance passenger information for arriving air passengers against 

watch lists, so that each country knows of potential threats and can take appropriate steps in a timely manner. 

COOPERATION WITH MEXICO

Mexico also pledged support to help increase security while facilitating trade 

across the southwest border. We have continued important bilateral discussions 

with Mexico to implement initiatives that will protect our southern border against 

the terrorist threat, while also improving the travel flow. Like NEXUS on the northern border, SENTRI is a program that allows pre-screened, low-risk travelers to be 

processed in an expedited manner through dedicated lanes at our land border with 

minimal or no delay. This has the obvious benefit of enabling CBP personnel to 

focus their attention on those crossing our borders that are relatively unknown, and 

therefore might pose a potential threat. SENTRI is currently deployed at 3 southwest border crossings. 

We continue to implement our agreement with Mexico to share advance passenger 

information. This reciprocal exchange of data with Mexico will have the same benefit that the exchange of such data with Canada has, allowing law enforcement officials in both countries to track the movement of individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorist groups or other criminal organizations. We will also continue 

our negotiations with Mexico to establish a significant and credible Mexican Federal 

Law enforcement presence along the southwest border. 

32

INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND HUMAN RESOURCES TO COUNTER THREATS

New initiatives and a refocused mission are important elements in combating the 

new terrorist threat, but new goals could not have been met without increasing the 

number of personnel working at our nation’s borders. This was especially critical for 

our Northern Border ports of entry where staffing was insufficient to do the security 

job without choking off the flow of traffic. 

Before 9/11, we had approximately 1,600 customs and immigration inspectors on 

our shared 4,000-mile border with Canada. Most of the lower volume border crossings were not open 24 hours a day. There was little security when they were closed. 

After 9/11, all border crossings were staffed with at least two armed officers at all 

times. This human resource intensive effort was only a temporary measure—until 

these crossings were ‘‘hardened’’ and we were able to electronically monitor our low 

volume northern ports of entry to prevent unauthorized crossings. We accomplish 

this by installing gates, signs, lights, and remote camera surveillance systems. 

CBP has received significant staffing increases for the northern border. Today we 

have over 2,900 CBP inspectors along the northern border. CBP currently deploys 

slightly over 1,000 Border Patrol Agents to our Northern Border—on 9/11, there 

were only 385. We have also bolstered our staffing on the southern border. We know 

that terrorists have and will use any avenue they can to enter our country. Prior 

to 9/11, we had 4,371 inspectional staff at the southern ports of entry. Today we 

have almost 4,900. 

ONE FACE AT THE BORDER

Establishing the Department of Homeland Security is the most important organizational step here at home that President Bush and our nation have taken to address the ongoing threat of international terrorism, a threat that is likely to be with 

us for years to come. 

On March 1, 2003, approximately 42,000 employees were transferred from the 

U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration & Naturalization Service, and APHIS to the 

new U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For the first time in our country’s history, 

all agencies of the United States Government with significant border responsibilities 

are unified into a single federal agency responsible for managing, controlling and 

securing our Nation’s borders. We are now creating ‘‘One Face at the Border.’’

Although legacy customs and immigration inspectors have assumed interchangeable roles at the land border ports of entry for years, unified CBP primary inspections also are now done at our country’s airports. Significant cross training is being 

provided to our frontline inspectors to ensure effective implementation, and counterterrorism training is creating a better understanding of terrorist issues and better 

referrals to the secondary area. 

We have also developed and are implementing combined anti-terrorism secondary 

units, which leverage the expertise and authorities of legacy customs, immigration, 

and agriculture inspectors to conduct a joint secondary inspection of passengers 

deemed high-risk for terrorism. CBP is also coordinating and consolidating our passenger analytical targeting units to bring together specific customs, immigration, 

and agriculture experience and authority to more effectively identify and interdict 

individuals who pose a possible terrorist risk. 

As of October, 2003, we began hiring and training a new group of ‘‘CBP Officers,’’

who will be equipped to handle all CBP primary and many of the secondary inspection functions, in both the passenger and cargo environments. We are also deploying 

CBP Agriculture Specialists to perform more specialized agricultural inspection 

functions in both these environments. 

Training is a very important component to the roll out of the CBP Officer. We 

have created a new 14 week, 71-day basic course that provides the training necessary to conduct primary processing and have a familiarity with secondary processing of passengers, merchandise, and conveyances, in all modes of transport—air, 

sea, and land. The new CBP Officer course was built from the 53-day basic Customs 

inspector course and the 57-day basic Immigration inspector course, with 

redundancies removed, and with additions to address anti-terrorism and CBP’s role 

in agriculture inspection. The training also supports the traditional missions of the 

legacy agencies integrated in CBP. Our first CBP Officers were hired on September 

22, 2003, and they immediately started training at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC). 

Training CBP officers to recognize fraudulent documents is another serious commitment. All CBP officers will receive our most current training on identifying 

fraudulent and altered documents. CBP secondary officers will receive more advanced training, and will continue to receive support from the world-class excellence 

33

of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Forensic Document Laboratory 

(FDL). 

ENHANCED SECURITY BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY

We know that securing the areas between the ports of entry is just as important 

as adding security at the ports of entry. CBP’s Border Patrol is responsible for patrolling those areas and, uses technology and Agents detect attempts to enter the 

United States illegally between the ports of entry. The Border Patrol’s mission includes an aggressive strategy for protecting against terrorist penetration, at both 

our northern and southern borders. 

On 9/11, there were only 368 authorized positions for Border Patrol agents for the 

entire northern border. We are currently at over 1,000. This staffing increase will 

better secure our border against terrorist penetration. But we are doing more than 

just adding staffing. We are adding sensors and other technology that assist in detecting illegal crossings along both our northern and southern borders. The network 

of sensors consists of seismic, magnetic and thermal devices used to detect and track 

intrusions. 

The CBP Border Patrol is also evaluating the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 

(UAVs). UAVs are remotely piloted or remotely programmed aircraft that can carry 

cameras, sensors, communications or other equipment. The U.S. Military has employed UAVs, in various states as far back as the Vietnam War. The U.S. southern 

border with Mexico is some 2,000 miles long while our border with Canada is some 

4,000 miles long. Each border contains vast and sparsely populated expanses. UAVs 

can potentially give Border Patrol personnel the same ‘‘eyes-on’’ capability that the 

military gets from UAVs in dangerous or hazardous environments. 

RESPONDING TO THE AIR THREAT

When DHS received specific, credible intelligence regarding a possible threat of 

terrorist exploitation of the Transit Without Visa Program (TWOV) to conduct an 

attack on international commercial aviation, we moved quickly to address the 

threat. The concern was that terrorists might have been able to exploit security 

loopholes in the TWOV program. Under the TWOV program, citizens of countries 

who normally required a visa to enter the United States, were allowed to fly into 

and transit the United States without undergoing the visa issuance process and the 

security checks that the process entails. Accordingly, on CBP’s recommendation, the 

Administration moved quickly to suspend the TWOV program in response to the 

threat. This issue will continue to be reviewed. 

CBP COLLECTS BIOMETRICS

The National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was implemented on September 11, 2002. The NSEERS program requires certain nonimmigrant aliens from designated countries to be fingerprinted, interviewed and 

photographed at ports of entry when they apply for admission to the United States. 

NSEERS enables the U.S. Government to better track certain individuals of interest 

entering and leaving the United States. 

CBP’s collection of this biometric information has been an enforcement benefit for 

the nation. Under the NSEERS program, we have apprehended or denied admission 

to more than 1,190 aliens at our ports of entry. The new United States Visitor and 

Immigrant Status Indication Technology (USVISIT) provides us with much of the 

biometric information now collected during the NSEERS registration process. 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATION TECHNOLOGY (US-VISIT)

The Department of Homeland Security’s newest border security tool is the recently launched United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication Technology, 

or US-VISIT program. Using biometrics—two digital, inkless finger scans, and a 

photograph—US-VISIT captures the identity of passengers seeking admission to the 

U.S and makes it harder for individuals, especially terrorists and criminals, to enter 

the United States using fraudulent documents and assumed identities. 

US-VISIT is part of a more comprehensive system that begins overseas, where the 

Department of State collects biometrics at the time of visa application. Currently, 

55 posts are capturing digital finger scans, and all 211 visa-issuing posts will by 

operational by October 2004. These biometrics are then run against a database of 

known or suspected criminals and terrorists. When the visitor gets to the border, 

CBP uses the same biometrics—these digital fingerscans—to verify that the person 

at our port is the same person who received the visa. In addition, US-VISIT provides the digital photograph taken at the time of visa issuance to the CBP officers 

34

on primary. And it works. We already know that these new procedures make it 

much more difficult for criminals or terrorists to use fraudulent documents to illegally enter the United States. The biometrics reveal individuals who are using, or 

have in the past, used an alias. This type of matching helps our CBP officers make 

admissibility decisions and enhances the overall integrity of our immigration system. 

On January 5, 2004, US-VISIT became operational at 115 of our nation’s international airports and 14 of our largest passenger ship seaport locations. Through 

February 17, CBP has processed more than 1.1 million passengers through USVISIT, and had 100 ‘‘hits’’ on the biometrics. An example of a criminal violator detected by US-VISIT is a 10-year fugitive wanted on a New York warrant for vehicular homicide. He was apprehended at JFK. Although he was traveling under an 

alias that was not entered into any of our databases, he was identified in US-VISIT 

through a biometrics match. A similar scenario arose in Miami where we apprehended a fugitive who had been convicted and was wanted on sentencing for statutory rape of a victim under 17. One fugitive had entered the United States over 60 

times in the past four years under assumed names and dates of birth. There are 

other similar successes that demonstrate the importance of US-VISIT as a new law 

enforcement and homeland security tool. Let me add that the success of US-VISIT 

has not come at the price of open borders. We have seen no significant increase in 

wait times at the airports since the implementation of the program. 

The US-VISIT system will expand to the 50 busiest land ports of entry by December 31, 2004 and then to all land ports by December 31, 2005. US-VISIT is but a 

first step in the Department’s goal of reforming our borders. It will take time and 

investment to achieve the goals of the program and ensure integrity in our immigration system. 

CONCLUSION

The creation of DHS, the unification of the border agencies within CBP, and the 

joining of CBP with TSA and ICE under the BTS Directorate are efforts that have 

enabled us to have a more comprehensive and effective strategy as we press forward 

with our many initiatives. 

With the continued support of the Congress, CBP will succeed in meeting the 

great demands placed upon it, and will play a key role—by better securing our border against the threat of terrorist and criminal aliens—in the Department of Homeland Security. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any 

of your questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I will now begin the round of questioning from 

the Subcommittee. First of all, Director Aguirre, the budget that 

has been submitted by the Administration seeks an additional $60 

million for CIS to reduce the backlog in pending applications. In 

January, earlier this year, the GAO told our Committee that from 

the beginning of FY 2001 to the end of FY 2003, the number of 

pending applications increased by 59 percent despite additional 

backlogs—excuse me, additional appropriations in FY 2002 to address the backlog. Why do you think that the backlog continues to 

increase? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, the report that you refer to, of 

course, hit right along the lines of September 11 and so we must 

recognize that a significant number of background checks that were 

not being performed prior to 9/11 began to be performed shortly 

after and actually increased subsequent to that when we recognized the possibility of what could be done in cooperation with 

other agencies. 

Additionally, we, going back to September 11, there were also 

certain items within the old INS that fell to what would now be 

the new CIS. The NSEERS program, the creation of the SEVIS 

program, things that frankly today are not within our purview that 

have now been transferred over to ICE were part of the, if you will, 

the weight that we were having to carry during that period. I susVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
35

pect that much of the increase in backlog that occurred during that 

year can be almost traced right back to September 11. 

Now, we’ve made progress and we’ve made a number of adjustments, partly separating the INS and devoting the enforcement efforts to one side and the service to another. So I’m not sure that 

when we see the report again we would see the same type of criticism. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. And so you’re saying that there 

was a significant increase in the number of background checks as 

a result of September 11, is that what you said at the—— Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. There was a significant increase in background checks which were not being done before. Therefore, that 

actually slowed down each application significantly, and then on 

top of that, hundreds of our adjudicators were redeployed from actually adjudicating cases to doing NSEERS and doing security 

checks that were away from their normal daily duties. Now, many 

of those individuals—hundreds of those individuals have actually 

repatriated, if you will, back to CIS and are going back to the adjudication process. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Dougherty, the President’s FY 2005 budget includes an additional $23 million for enhanced worksite enforcement. In your testimony, you suggest that there may be a tie between this funding and the President’s proposal for a temporary 

worker program. If the agency receives the funding but the program does not go in place, do you see this funding being used for 

worksite enforcement, however? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the emphasis for us in terms of the strategic direction is to continue our commitment to traditional worksite enforcement. We recognize, however, that should the TWP go forward, that there will be a corresponding enforcement impact, and we would expect to have a significant challenge in meeting that, and so we would address it towards that goal. 

Should the program not proceed, we believe the money, or the 

money and the positions, could be profitably used to do two things. 

One is continue our traditional worksite enforcement operations 

like we did most recently, it’s been publicly reported, with WalMart 

and other cases that are currently pending, and then also continue 

our critical infrastructure protection cases, which have had a direct 

impact across the nation. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. You’ve brought up an interesting 

point which will actually be the subject of a hearing in the future, 

and that is the administration of such a temporary worker program, what it would actually entail, and the notion that you’ve 

brought up that there will be a significant impact on worksite enforcement is not lost on this Subcommittee. 

Eleven million dollars were requested by the President to more 

than double the intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which 

provides alternatives to detention. Mr. Dougherty, what sorts of alternatives to detention has ICE examined under the program? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. To date, we’ve examined a few things. First is 

electronic monitoring through—commonly known as electronic 

36

bracelets to monitor where people are out in the community, 

whether they have left their residence, for example, and that’s done 

through a centralized monitoring process. 

We’ve also had an experimental project with voice recognition 

technology where an individual is required to call in and the technology verifies the voice print, that it is the person, they’re calling 

at a particular place at a particular time. There are other concepts 

we have which we are experimenting with and would like to move 

forward with more residential settings for family members, for example, who are detained, rather than having them in the traditional detention, have them in a more community setting. It’s better for families, and more economical for us to supervise if they are 

in a residential setting. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Dougherty. In your testimony, 

you point out that these individuals are not of a violent nature. 

They are somewhat more lower on the emphasis, you might say, of 

concern for national security and potential criminal activity. 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. These would be individuals 

who, after having applied, the standard detention guidelines would 

not be deemed necessary to detain for either national security reasons or public safety concerns. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Dougherty. The Chairman’s 

time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to begin my 

questions by addressing the first to Mr. Aguirre. In your written 

testimony that you submitted, you discussed the regulator fee increases that the U.S. CIS is seeking and you say that the fee increases will ensure that our backlog does not increase further. 

I’m interested in knowing what studies the U.S. CIS conducted 

or what evidence does the U.S. CIS have that proves that the fee 

increases will result in a reduction of the current visa backlog. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Sorry. I keep forgetting to push the button. 

Congresswoman Sa ́nchez, I think my indication was not that it 

would reduce the backlog but that it would not increase the backlog. The fee increase for us is a recuperation of the expenses of 

processing the applications as we’re processing them right now. It 

is not intended to be a backlog reduction fiscal effort. The backlog 

fiscal effort, it’s a different function. 

The increase in fee for us is simply a recognition that 2 years ago 

was the last time we looked at the fees and many things have 

taken place in the last 2 years, and right now, we’re simply not recovering the cost of processing the application. 

I will just make an additional comment on the fee increase. It’s 

almost a conundrum. We have a backlog and, therefore, fees were 

collected for applications that are now being processed months if 

not years later, and those fees were computed at the cost of pre9/11 processes. The processes that we have right now are simply 

not being captured by the old fees, and therefore, I don’t want to 

confuse the fees with the backlog. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I understand. I think I understand your point. I’m 

curious in knowing whether U.S. CIS in the process of finalizing 

a new backlog elimination plan that will outline the changes in 

37

your business processes that are supposed to tackle the existing 

backlog. What processes do you have in mind to help do that, because the backlog issue is of growing significance. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, of course, as I briefly mentioned in my opening comments, we are expecting to have a backlog elimination program report to the Congress within the next few months. We were 

waiting for the final on not only the fee increase, but actually on 

the budget so that we would know what resources would be available to us and, therefore, we can then allocate it. It’s a matter——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So we’ll expect that in the next couple of months, 

then? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. Thank you. 

A question for Mr. Smith. In your written testimony, you discuss 

DHS using biometrics to track the entry and exit of foreign visitors 

using fingerprints and photographs and you say that this program 

has been in place since September of 2003, is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I’m talking about our overseas collection, that 

we’ve begun now the overseas collection——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay, and it’s currently operational in 70 locations? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s exactly right. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. In that time, how many known terrorists have 

been identified and apprehended as a result of the biometric checks 

that are occurring? 

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman Sa ́nchez, I’m not aware of any 

known terrorists that have been apprehended as a result of those 

checks. We have had a number of hits, though, with NCIC databases with the, or through the DHS IDENT system of people who 

were obviously individuals we did not want to admit to the United 

States. I think we had roughly 60 hits so far. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. And you don’t know what the—and what 

was the ultimate of those hits? They just denied entry into the 

United States? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, in some instances, it may well be that there 

was a waiver requested and it could have been a waiver was 

issued. But most of them would have been denied entry, yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. But no known arrests? 

Mr. SMITH. Not that I’m aware of. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. You also discuss in your testimony CIS’s efforts to make the visa processing system more secure, and I don’t 

think that there’s a person up here that disagrees that that needs 

to happen. My question is, what is CIS doing to make the visa 

processing system more efficient and less burdened by the delays 

it is currently experiencing. 

Mr. SMITH. You’re referring to the Department of Homeland Security or are you referring to the State Department in this regard? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The State Department. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the State Department has done a number of 

things. We have, for instance, a pilot program now that we’re initiating which will allow us to electronically communicate with other 

interested agencies in Washington, the so-called Security Advisory 

Opinion Improvement Project. We think that that will reduce some 

38

of the delays in the security advisory opinions that we have been 

having of late. 

I should stress, though, that most visas are adjudicated without 

any reference to Washington. That is, only a small minority are 

ever referred for special clearances to Washington, and 80 percent 

of those are cleared within a month. But there have been—has 

been attention focused on particular certain categories of security 

advisories and concern expressed about some of the delays there. 

As I say, we are working with our partners in the interagency community to improve the communication and to reduce any needless 

delays in that process. 

We have also, as I mentioned, been a partner with our other colleagues in creating the Terrorist Screening Center. We think that 

having a watch list, one watch list for the U.S. Government for 

counterterrorism purposes will expedite this whole screening process. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here today. We certainly appreciate that. 

Mr. Dougherty, I’d like to start with you if I may, please, sir. 

There is a basic worker verification program that has been a pilot 

project in six States, California, Texas, Florida, New York, New 

Jersey. How are you monitoring that program? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Congresswoman, I believe you are referring to 

the SAVE system? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. My current understanding is that the SAVE 

system is administered, technically administered, by CIS, today 

and I think I can speak to the process, unless my colleague would 

like to do that. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Go right ahead. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Thank you. As you said, it is a pilot project that 

Congress funded and it provides an interface for certain governmental entities in certain, in narrow cases, within industry to 

verify Employment Authorization Numbers or an alien number. I 

understand there is an interface with the Social Security Administration and then a subsequent interface with the immigration databases. 

Essentially, as I understand the process, you get a yes or a no 

answer. Is this a valid number? Is the person representing this 

number, proffering it, authorized to work or not? Today, there is 

no automatic referral process when there is a denial, or a record 

that indicates that the number is not valid, or the number is not 

authorized, or the number does not represent authorization to 

work. There’s not an automatic referral to ICE for an enforcement 

action. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay, thank you. Now, is ICE or is CIS working with the military with this worker verification program? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, we are working with the military 

in a variety of aspects. I’m not sure how that would fit to your 

question. Our work with the military has more to do with natuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
39

ralizations and things of that nature, but I’m not—I’d be happy to 

get closer to your question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That will be fine. My question is coming from 

an article that I have, and I’ll be certain that this is passed to you 

so that you can prepare a response for the question. It comes from 

the Denver Post and the concern over some of the individuals in 

our military whose status is unknown as regards their citizenship. 

So I would appreciate a response on that, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Not at all, Congresswoman, but let me do mention 

that for people to serve in the military, they must be holding a permanent residency. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Correct. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. And, therefore, the military is responsible for determining the status of the individual. We are working with the 

military right now to expedite the naturalization of those who seek 

it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Correct, and our concern there is on the documentation and I’ll be sure you have the article because we would 

appreciate a response. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Happy to. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I do have one question for you, sir. You know, 

I know that the Nebraska Service Center, Texas, California, all 

provide timely detailed information to my caseworkers when we 

call on them for help and I wish that I could say the same thing 

for the Memphis sub-office because we hear many complaints from 

constituents concerning the Memphis office, and this is one, for example. 

A U.S. citizen wanted to adopt internationally and was told she 

needed to speak with a supervisor. After waiting in line for over 

an hour, she was told the supervisor had left for the day. And 

many examples of evidence and documents are sent that are supposedly never received in that office, and as a result, work permits 

are revoked, individuals being sent to the wrong town for their 

swearing in and being told that they can’t participate in the swearing in in that town. 

One thing we would like to know is how our D.C. office and our 

district office can work with yours to improve the service that our 

constituents and our staff receive from the Memphis office and we 

would appreciate your help on that. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, thank you for bringing that to 

our attention. I have in almost a year that I’ve been at this job, 

I have gone around the country and met with about a third of my 

15,000 employees. I regret to say I haven’t made it to Tennessee 

just yet and Memphis will be on my list to make sure that we take 

a look at what it is we can do to make that office satisfactory, not 

only to you, but particularly to those who apply for services and see 

if there’s anything that, you know, resource allocation or guidance 

that’s necessary. I’m not aware of any particular problems so I 

can’t respond specifically, but I will look into it for you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That would be excellent. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

40

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The questions I had on 

the fees have, for the most part, been asked, but I did note in the 

GAO report that they—this is a quote, it’s not very nice, but it’s 

them saying it—they say, ‘‘CIS knows neither the cost to process 

new applications nor the cost to complete pending applications,’’ unquote. Do you think that’s incorrect, and if it is correct, how do 

you—how did you base your recommendation for the fee increase? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, I might add, you said today was 

immigration day for you. Every day is immigration day for me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. And I’m not sure if they were referring to a point 

prior to the fiscal year which they analyzed or to today. I don’t 

think it is accurate today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. I think we are actually very sophisticated in determining the cost of our application processing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Let me ask a question, and this is a specific 

one but it’s something that I have been working on along with 

other members of the Refugee Caucus and it involves, obviously, 

therefore, both your agency as well as the State Department. But 

we have, as you know, we have not actually admitted the number 

of refugees that the President has said that we would, and I think 

there are a lot of reasons for that. It is a concern to the Refugee 

Caucus, which is, as you know, a strong bipartisan caucus here in 

the House. 

But specifically, I am concerned about the 2,000 stateless Vietnamese who are in the Philippines. I sent a letter to Arthur Dewey 

at State, and I’ll be happy to give you a copy. It’s my understanding that the State Department has essentially identified the 

population, recommended them for resettlement, but that CIS has 

not actually performed its function yet. 

Now, I have a special soft spot in my heart for these refugees because when other countries were forcibly deporting Vietnamese refugees back to Vietnam, we met—I met, along with some others, 

with the members of the Philippine legislature and also the Catholic Church in the Philippines and they intervened, and even though 

the Philippines is a very poor country, they did not take the step 

that others did and they allowed these refugees to stay, because 

many of the refugees that were returned ended up being imprisoned or killed. 

I’m wondering, is there a way that we can help you get this resolved so that—these are all people who have ties to the United 

States. Can you fill us in on what’s going on with that? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, ma’am. I also have a special spot in my heart 

for refugees because I myself was a refugee from Cuba and, in fact, 

Catholic Charities was the one that cared for me until I was able 

to be of age. 

I’m not particularly aware of this case with the Vietnamese although I would point to the fact that if you ask what it is that you 

can do, please approve our appropriations request as soon as possible because it—within it there is a request for Refugee Corps. 

Right now, as we handle refugees, we are drawing from individuals that are already on asylum corps and then we are temporarily 

detailing them abroad for interviewing of refugees. We are very inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
41

terested—I am personally very interested in filling every potential 

opening for refugees in the President’s—— Ms. LOFGREN. Perhaps I can ask you, if I would, I’ll give you this 

letter and if you could get back to me on these particulars, I’d be 

very appreciative. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Glad to do it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I’ve got one more question. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that’s all I’ll have time for. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Get it in there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It has to do with biometrics. This is immigration 

day because between seeing Asa Hutchinson in the morning, we 

saw McCleary in the Science and Technology Subcommittee of 

Homeland Security and he mentioned that his Science and Technology Directorate is developing standards for biometrics. And I 

asked him the question, we’re deploying biometrics in the State Department and in the border functions, but you haven’t yet devised 

them. 

And the question is, how are we going to integrate the best practices and standards that the Science and Technology Directorate is 

developing into what you’re already deploying, because from what 

I am hearing, we may want some duplication. The FBI wants ten 

fingerprints because of what they learn abroad. The dataload on an 

iris scan is a lot lighter and we may want to do that. So I guess 

this is both for State and CIS. How do you plan to integrate this 

science? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, I’ll begin, ma’am, by indicating that biometrics is, of course, a very fast, fluid, moving target. For us, the 

issue of biometrics is more related to background checks than with 

identification per se. In other words, we need ten fingerprints so 

that the FBI can comb their files efficiently and cost effectively and 

give us information on an individual. They could actually identify 

half a fingerprint, but it takes so long and costs so much that it 

would be impractical. 

We are making sure that as we develop biometric standards, 

we’re in coordination with the rest of Homeland Security, State Department, Justice, and elsewhere so that we are not duplicating or 

working at odds with each other. I leave it to State to continue answering the question, but it’s a continuing issue. There is no finish 

line to this. 

Mr. SMITH. Just to add, Congresswoman, we decided on initially 

two fingerprints. This was an interagency decision, actually, of the 

Secretary of State, Secretary Ridge, and the Attorney General who 

were involved in this decision, because we believed that was the—

what was necessary to meet the law—in order to meet the October 

deadline for collecting biometrics with our visas. Thus far, it has 

worked very well and we’ve been in sync, absolutely, in lockstep 

with the Department of Homeland Security on U.S. VISIT. 

When we talk about biometrics and the passport, though, it’s a 

different story. The biometric in the passport is going to be facial 

recognition. This is the International Civil Aviation Organization’s 

standard. It was the standard that Congress had adopted with regard to the Visa Waiver Program and the requirement that those 

countries place a biometric in their passport; and we are proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
42

ceeding on the basis of that standard now with respect to the U.S. 

passport. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I realize that my time has expired, but are we 

going to have a second round of questions or is this it? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, we will. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Then I’ll yield back my extensive time. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would first direct my questions to Mr. Dougherty. As I look at 

some of the numbers that you have here in your testimony, having 

examined about 260,000 employee records, about 1,000 workers are 

arrested, 774 indictments, those kind of numbers, I see that the nation has been discussing numbers of illegals within the country in 

the range of eight to 12 million. I’m wondering if you have a number on that. Do you have a sense of how many illegal aliens are 

in this country, and if so, could you also break down how they got 

here? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. No, sir, Congressman. I don’t have a reliable 

number for the number of individuals in the United States without 

authorization and I’m not sure I’ve seen a reliable estimate. I will 

tell you that from our perspective, when we look at the problem, 

we need to focus our enforcement resources on the highest national 

security and public safety impacts. So when we look out at that 

population, we think about the criminal aliens, those that have 

committed serious crimes and have been ordered deported for that. 

Or working through our partners, with our partners in the FBI and 

the Joint Terrorist Task Force concept, the national security 

threats. 

Mr. KING. So you’d have a sense of the percentage of those 

illegals that have committed serious crimes. You’d have a sense of 

how many are incarcerated in our Federal and our State penitentiaries today. Would you be able to give us a sense of about how 

many American citizens fall victims to those criminals? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Sir, I think I probably have the statistics or a 

sense of the statistics on the first part. In terms of the number of 

citizens who are victimized, probably working with the Department 

of Justice, some number could be arrived at, but we’d be happy to 

provide you and the Committee with any studies we have. 

Mr. KING. I’d be very interested in that number, and the reason 

I asked the question is that we have compassion for victims of all 

kinds and this Committee often talks about the number of people 

who are victimized, if they are forcefully repatriated to their home 

country, as well as those who cross the desert, but that number is 

the only number we hear. We don’t hear the number of people who 

are victimized by those who have successfully made the crossing. 

Thank you. 

I’d direct my next question to Mr. Stodder. You discussed, I believe, an increase in border enforcement along the 4,000-mile Canadian border, maybe as much as tripled the number that we had 

around September 11. 

Mr. STODDER. Right. 

43

Mr. KING. Do you have a sense of how effective that’s been in 

some concept of percentage of enforcement and about what it would 

take to get closer to the 100 percent enforcement? 

Mr. STODDER. I actually don’t have a sense necessarily of how effective that’s been. I mean, we, as of the end of last year, last calendar year, we reached 1,000 Border Patrol agents on the Northern 

border. 

The thing you have to think about the Northern border is that 

it is a different phenomenon than the Southern border because we 

don’t necessarily have a mass migration threat that we have on the 

Southern border. I mean, it’s really much more of a sense of—the 

attempt is to—everybody who’s crossing that border is absolutely 

a threat and we need to detect them and interdict them. 

But we are in the process—we have 1,000 Border Patrol agents 

on the Northern border. We are building up our sensoring capability on the Northern border. By the summer, we anticipate we 

will be piloting UAVs on the Northern border at some point. So I 

think we will get more of a sense, I think, through this year in the 

sense of what we really need on the Northern border. But this is 

a work in progress. 

Mr. KING. Are any of those same things happening on the Southern border? 

Mr. STODDER. Yes. I mean, certainly the UAVs. We also would 

anticipate testing UAVs on the Southern border in Arizona, as well 

as I think ICE is also doing some stuff with UAVs, as well. But 

absolutely, and we are increasing our sensoring capability. The 

President’s budget in ’05 will also give us the ability to go further. 

Mr. KING. Given that we have a border policy, at least in the 

Western Hemisphere, that a birth certificate and driver’s license 

gets you into the United States unless you’re coming from Cuba, 

if we should decide that we want to require that traveler to provide 

an affirmative identification and proof, that would be the form of 

a passport, a biometric passport in whatever form we’ve discussed 

here. Can you handle that at the border if everybody crossing has 

to swipe a passport, or does that just burden you so much that it 

can’t happen? 

Mr. STODDER. Well, not necessarily. I mean, the policy decision 

on that is obviously well above us, but, I mean, obviously there 

would have to be changes in the system a bit, but the U.S. VISIT 

system, I think would form a basis for some of that. But I would 

probably defer that question a bit. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, and I’d just in my brief moment left, I’d 

direct then to Mr. Smith, if we went that route and required passports coming from all Western Hemisphere countries, is that something that you could process, or how big of a burden would that be? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, sir, I believe you’re talking about requiring 

American citizens to have passports, is that correct, or——

Mr. KING. I’m talking about anyone coming from a nation in the 

Western Hemisphere other than Cuba that’s today using a birth 

certificate. Oh, you’re right. You’re right on that, on American citizens. 

Mr. SMITH. Because most of them, other than Canadians, would 

have to come with a passport and visa. But with respect to American citizens and the requirement that American citizens travel 

44

within the Western Hemisphere with a passport, it is a very large 

policy decision and one that would have enormous resource implications for the Department in terms of the issuance of passports, 

but one that at this point, at least, has been discussed, but I don’t 

know that there’s any proposal with respect to that requirement. 

Mr. KING. And my reference does fall to non-American citizens 

who use those false identification processes to come in under the 

guise of being American citizens just with birth certificates and 

drivers’ licenses. 

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. King. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Berman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Aguirre, on October 27 of last year, Melissa Hart and 

I on this Committee, along with 13 of our colleagues, sent you a 

letter regarding the need for administrative reforms in improving 

the processing of the nonprofit arts-related O and P non-immigrant 

visa petitions. Do you think that letter is being irradiated, or can 

we get a response to that at some point into the near future? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congressman, I’m sorry that I don’t know about 

your specific letter. We went through a very—— Mr. BERMAN. We’ll give you a copy. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, but I just wanted to say that we went 

through a very extensive scrubbing process before the end of the 

year to make sure that no letters were pending response and so I’m 

terribly sorry that yours may be the one and only that perhaps we 

missed. So I’d be more than happy to look at it. We want to maintain a responsive posture toward Members of Congress and I’ll take 

a look at it. 

Mr. BERMAN. Great. I appreciate that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman would yield for just a moment—— Mr. BERMAN. Sure. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I also have a copy of my letter that I signed 

on, the same letter that the gentleman is referring to, so mine has 

gone unanswered also and I would appreciate joining him in his request. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. If it is the same letter, I’m sure I have the same 

response. 

Mr. BERMAN. Think of it as 15 letters. [Laughter.] 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Of course, it is immigration day, isn’t it? [Laughter.] 

Mr. BERMAN. I appreciate that. You’ve talked a little bit about 

the fees and your plan and we know about the recent fee increase. 

I’m looking at the—what would happen if someone came in and—

what would happen to the backlogs and your ability to function if 

somebody came and said that a third of the money you’re now 

using will be diverted for other purposes? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, sir, if a third—now you’re going to a hypothetical and it’s bending my head. If a third—— Mr. BERMAN. There’s a legislative effort to take away a third of 

your money to provide to the States for the detention of people held 

by local law enforcement based on their status. 

45

Mr. AGUIRRE. Right. 

Mr. BERMAN. I’m wondering what that would do to the services 

side of the agency and your effort to deal with the backlogs. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. Well, Congressman, what I said in my 

opening statement is that we are a fee-driven operation and we are 

depending on those fees to fund the operations that we have, the 

15,000 employees, a third of which are contract employees. And so 

if the funds weren’t there, I’m sure we would not only increase the 

backlog, but terribly disrupt the Immigration Service. 

Mr. BERMAN. I guess it would be a way of stopping contracting 

out. [Laughter.] 

No, just—but I take it your response is, it would have a devastating impact on what you do. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Very, very good choice of words. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. Because H.R. 2671, the CLEAR Act, directs that a 

third of the fee resources be diverted to funding the States for the 

cost of detaining these people. It allows you the ability, then, to 

raise your fees even further. I’m curious what you think of the implications of a policy that says that legal residents and people applying for legal resident status in the regular way, and people applying for naturalization who are legal permanent residents, should 

subsidize the detention of illegal immigrants in State prisons and 

local jails. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congressman, obviously you’re familiar with a bill 

that I’m not and therefore any response that I give to your very 

specific questions are going to be without taking the whole thing 

into context. 

My answer perhaps will be that I think the Congress has acted 

and the President has signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

which separated the service side of immigration from the enforcement side of immigration so that each of us could focus not only 

our resources and our attention and our process analysis to a relatively different aspect of the same universe. And therefore, we are 

doing the best we can to identify the cost of our application processing so that the fees can be funding that process. 

Mr. BERMAN. So that the strong Congressional bipartisan desire 

to separate enforcement from services and provide a fee-based 

funding mechanism for services would be—that separation concept 

and principle would be violated by an effort that would try to divert fees to cover enforcement activities by State and local law enforcement officials. Is that a fair conclusion? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. I’m sure your analysis is accurate in relation to 

how you understand that bill. I don’t know the bill. 

Mr. BERMAN. I hope you won’t. Thank you very much. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from California. 

We will now enter into a second round of questions. Mr. Aguirre, 

Director Aguirre, if I could, with regard to the workload that your 

organization has, there is no effective hard maximum to the number of applications that CIS can potentially be called on to adjudicate, is that correct? I mean, there’s essentially no limit? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, the limits as they were I think are 

related to how the Congress has instituted into law the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are a number of caps in any numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
46

ber of different categories, and, of course, that, therefore, establishes the limit. But in the abstract, there is no limit. We are a— we take as people come and apply. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Especially with regard to family members. 

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I just think that that needs to be understood 

for the record, that while there is a significant backlog, there is almost an endless source of applications that can be added to your 

workload, so I appreciate that. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Job security, as it were, yes. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes. Mr. Stodder, I have questions. The Border 

Patrol has seen an increase in agents in the past few years. 

Mr. STODDER. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. You pointed that out in your testimony. It does 

not seem as if there is an increase called for in the FY 2005 budget. Is that accurate? 

Mr. STODDER. That’s accurate. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. How is the Bureau going to affect change with 

regard to the number of folks coming into the country illegally? 

Mr. STODDER. I think, Mr. Chairman, I think that—I mean, our 

sense of this is, and you have to look at border security in terms 

of the mix of resources that we throw at the problem, and the 

green shirts, as we call them, or the Border Patrol agents are one 

piece of it. We have between 9,000 and 10,000 Border Patrol agents 

on the Southern border right now, which is a large complement of 

agents. 

But you have to look at it also in the context of other technology 

that we bring to bear, whether it be low-tech technology like fences, 

sensors, and et cetera and cameras and things like that all the way 

to very high technology, like UAVs. It’s the mix of resources that 

we think brings substantial control to the border. 

I mean, in our estimate, thinking about the Border Patrol in 

terms of its strategy and how it’s rolled out since the mid-’90’s, it’s 

really starting with Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego and similar programs in Texas, in El Paso and Laredo. We have gotten substantial control over the border in certain urban areas, like San 

Diego. 

I was just in San Diego a couple of weeks ago and it’s amazing 

to see the development, actually in Chula Vista, right opposite the 

border, that would have been unthinkable 15 years ago before the 

Border Patrol really got control of that border there, and how did 

it do that? It got it somewhat through increased Border Patrol 

staffing, but it also got it through increased fencing, better sensors, 

better cameras, better surveillance, et cetera. 

So I think that the fact that we are not requesting additional 

Border Patrol agents in fiscal year ’05 is not going to hamper our 

ability to control the border because I think that the increase in 

sensoring and cameras in our estimate is going to be far more important and will allow us to get much better control over the border. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. My concern is that I think there was a study 

in 1998 with regard to staffing of especially the Southwest border. 

At that time, it was determined that there would be slightly—have 

to be slightly less than 16,000 agents to man just the Southwest 

47

border. I understand the influence of force multipliers with regard 

to UAVs and other technology—— Mr. STODDER. Right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER.—but given that that is an untested mix, I’m 

wondering what we do in the interim with regard to going from improving our Border Patrol to a mix of technology and human resources that is untested at this time. That’s my concern. 

Mr. STODDER. Mr. Chairman, I guess, with all due respect, I 

would say that that mix is not necessarily untested. I mean, the 

one piece that is untested is the UAVs and we are testing them 

now and we will be testing them over the summer. But I think that 

the mix of infrastructure and technology and detection technology 

and cameras as well as uniformed Border Patrol agents is tested 

and it works and it’s worked in San Diego, it’s worked in El Paso, 

it’s worked in certain parts of Texas, and we’re applying that— we’re going to be applying that pretty strongly in Arizona this year 

to try to get better control in Arizona. 

I mean, certainly, I mean, in the future, we may evaluate and 

view that we might need more people. But at this point, we don’t, 

I mean, we don’t think we do and we think we can make do with 

what we’ve got with the increases in technology and sensoring and 

cameras as well as the UAVs that the President’s budget calls for. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. STODDER. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few other 

additional items. 

All of us have district offices and it turns out that all of us have 

lots of immigration inquiries, so this one is really for my hardworking staff in the hopes that we might come up with a better 

procedure than we’ve had so far. 

We have had—we now have the third case in as many years of 

an American citizen with kidney failure who needs a kidney transplant from a sibling or family member in another country. The first 

case we had, and we had to go, I mean, it was a big to-do in the 

newspaper. I mean, this is a U.S. citizen. And the doctor, we talked 

with the doctor. The doctor did letters. The woman was going to 

die if her brother didn’t give her the kidney. I thought it was great 

that he was willing to donate his kidney, and it took almost 8 

months. I mean, she was on dialysis for 8 months and finally he 

got his visa, he donated his kidney, and then he went home. 

We had another case, it took 8 months. And we have another 

case still, and it’s very confusing and it just seems to me, I guess 

this is for both Smith and Aguirre, that there ought to be a way—

I mean, certainly we don’t want a fraudulent situation and there’s 

no disagreement with that. But these are ascertainable items. If 

you’ve got a physician—I think the current case is at UCSF. We 

had one at Stanford University Hospital. I mean, the doctors are 

not going to be making this up and there ought to be some way 

to streamline this so that Americans here who need that kind of 

help can get it quickly and not have to hang on and potentially risk 

their lives because of bureaucratic delays. 

Can you offer me any hope on that, either one of you? 

48

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, I’m going to punt only by saying 

that I don’t think it’s our purview. I think it’s going to be probably 

a temporary visa—— Ms. LOFGREN. It is a temporary visa, but I’m thinking—— Mr. AGUIRRE. So it would probably be State. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is the State Department that is in charge of 

issuing the visas, but it seems to me there could be some coordination between—or even the Congressional offices. I mean, there isn’t 

a Congressional office in the country that’s going to lie about this. 

I mean, we’re your allies in keeping our country safe and strong. 

Maybe I need to direct this to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman Lofgren, I was not aware of those 

specific cases that you mentioned but I have heard of similar cases. 

As you know, each individual needs to apply on their own——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH.—and qualify on their own for a visa, but there are 

two possibilities. One would be that they were able to qualify and 

to establish their bona fides and come over to the United States for 

this purpose. The other possibility would be humanitarian parole, 

which the Department of Homeland Security would decide 

upon——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH.—in those cases where we found that somebody was 

not eligible for a visa. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, maybe what I could do is I could summarize 

these cases and send them to you and ask you to think if there’s 

some way we could streamline this, because in the case of one lady, 

she almost died. I think there was concern that her brother, he was 

young and he was from the Philippines and would he go home. 

Frankly, I’d rather the American citizen got the transplant and 

lived than we had somebody overstay their visa, in all honesty. 

But, in fact, he went right home after he donated the kidney, just 

as he promised he would. So I will do that. 

The other question I would like to ask has to do with processes. 

I continue to have concerns about the deployment of technology in 

immigration services and I’m hoping that your backlog reduction 

plan will address that, the storage of fingerprints so that we don’t 

have to do them over and over again, the online processing of applications, the ability to check on the status. I mean, half of the calls 

into your offices are people trying to find out what’s going on. If 

there was another way to find out, everybody would be happier and 

your officers could do their work. 

I also wanted to express my hope that you will come to the San 

Jose office, and when you do, don’t let them know in advance. Just 

show up and then tell me what you think of the guard services that 

we have contracted for, because one of my constituents who is a 

dean at the local college married a woman from Russia. They applied and he told me that it was the most humiliating thing as an 

American he’d ever been through, that his wife, as they were 

standing in line, said, ‘‘This is just like home. This is just like the 

Soviet Union.’’

Mr. AGUIRRE. Quite an endorsement, huh? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. So we can do better than that and I would 

love to have you come to San Jose. 

49

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, Congresswoman, I look forward to visiting 

that office as I do basically all of them. Your first question in terms 

of technology, technology is, without a question, the only way we 

are going to get out of this horrible backlog that we have and so 

we’re looking for new technology to be implemented and making 

sure that it is cost effective and practical and applicable. 

Now, in terms of the customer service that people may or may 

not get, I’d just like to assure you that as an immigrant myself, the 

one and only requirement that I established when I accepted this 

job was that we would treat all applicants with dignity and respect, 

and that was embraced by both Secretary Ridge and President 

Bush. At any time that we encounter a cultural issue in terms of 

our employees not understanding that, we take corrective actions, 

whether they’re contract employees or otherwise. So I assure you 

that any time we hear about situations like these, we’ll take a good 

look at it and make sure that people are treated with dignity and 

respect even if we’re going to say no to the question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may indulge the Chairman, I would direct 

your attention to the contract security personnel at the San Jose 

office——

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN.—because I’ve personally witnessed, as have all the 

staff, really very abusive——

Mr. AGUIRRE. Duly noted. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stodder, as I listen to your testimony, I don’t believe I heard 

you call for more Border Patrol officers on either the Northern or 

Southern border? 

Mr. STODDER. Well, I didn’t say that. I mean, I said that the 

President’s budget has not requested more Border Patrol officers in 

the aggregate. It may be that we continue to move Border Patrol 

agents around in the sense that getting to 1,000 Border Patrol 

agents on the Northern border, we did take people from different 

locations around the country. So it may be that we conclude in this 

year that additional agents are needed on the Northern border, in 

which case we will move agents to the Northern border. 

Mr. KING. Then on the Southern border, if you have a 4,000-mile 

border on the Northern border with 1,000 agents up there and you 

have a 2,000-mile border on the Southern border, how many agents 

do you have down there? 

Mr. STODDER. We have close to 10,000 on the Southern border. 

Mr. KING. On the Southern border? 

Mr. STODDER. Yes. 

Mr. KING. So there’s a tremendous amount of concentration down 

there in comparison, at least, to the Northern border. 

Mr. STODDER. Right. Totally different threat, though, I mean, in 

the sense of the—the mass migration threat from the Mexican border into the United States. 

Mr. KING. Certainly. 

50

Mr. STODDER. I mean, it’s essentially that mission, whereas I 

think the Northern border mission is less of a mass migration mission and more of a detection and response mission. 

Mr. KING. And so it might be that there is, as a percentage of 

the number of illegal crossings on the Northern border, there is 

that threat of terrorism that might be greater in proportion to the 

number of population that come across. 

Mr. STODDER. That could be, because there aren’t that many economic migrants that are going to be coming across the Northern 

border. But, I mean, the notion of 1,000 Border Patrol agents, and 

again, as I was stating to the Chairman, you have to think of it 

in terms of the mix of what we’re doing on the Northern border, 

because it’s not just 1,000 Border Patrol agents up there. It is 

the——

Mr. KING. All the technology. 

Mr. STODDER.—all the technology. It’s the air assets. The other 

thing that’s important on the Northern border which we have 

worked with is working with the State and locals in the sense of 

we will be moving out to establish CBP task forces——

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Stodder. I’m watching the clock, but 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. STODDER. Yes. Sure. 

Mr. KING. Then I would direct to Mr. Dougherty. If I recall correctly, the Attorney General was here testifying some months ago 

that those illegal aliens adjudicated for deportation, if they were released on—if they were not incarcerated but released on their own 

recognizance, that about 85 percent of them, I believe was the 

number, 85 percent just blended back into society. 

I’m looking at a report here that shows that non-detained aliens 

with final orders, 87 percent report back—blend back in and, in 

fact, a number of non-detained aliens, is the term using, from countries who sponsor terrorism, they were looking at 94 percent. Do 

you care to comment on that? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. First of all, I’m not sure I’m familiar with the 

report you’re referencing, but I’m familiar with the concept. There 

is a well known incidence of those with final orders of removal who 

have—criminal aliens and non-criminal aliens who have been 

through proceedings, who were either not detained in the initial instance or who were subsequently ordered released by immigration 

judges while they were going through the proceedings who do not 

appear for removal or do not self-deport. It’s a significant problem. 

We are focusing our resources, as I mentioned earlier, on the 

criminal aliens in that population because that’s the highest public 

safety impact, as well as on the national security threats, as well. 

Today what we are also seeking with the funding levels requested 

in ’05, to work on reducing the increase in the rate of new fugitives. So one program we have in place now is to take individuals 

who receive final orders of deportation directly out of the courtroom 

in the immigration courts. They receive the final order. They do not 

have the opportunity to blend back into society. 

Mr. KING. Directly to deportation? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That’s correct, sir. 

Mr. KING. And I appreciate that comment, and I’m watching the 

orange clock here. I will just lay out maybe a possible way to devise 

51

a better system that we could have, and it’s not critical of the operations that any of you operate, but it keeps in mind that there’s 

a tremendous demand for illegal labor because of the price here in 

this country and that’s a magnet that attracts people that want a 

better life and we recognize that and it’s a human characteristic. 

I’m thinking that there’s another organization out there, another 

agency that has some tools that haven’t been brought to bear here. 

We have now enacted through Congress an act that allows an employer to identify a potential employee as a legal employee; they’ll 

eventually and very soon be able to go up on the web and enter 

in the same, Social Security number, green card number, and come 

back with a positive identification to verify that that’s a legally employable individual. 

I’m going to suggest to you all that I’d like to grant you some 

help of one day having an IRS agent sitting here and give them 

the authority to go in and enforce in a fashion different than testified today, and that would be to remove Federal deductibility for 

wages and benefits that are paid once an employer can verify the 

legality of the potential employees, whether they’re guest workers, 

whether they’re green cards, whether H-1-Bs, whether U.S. citizens. If we remove the Federal deductibility, employers themselves 

will enforce this and I believe it’ll take a lot of load off the back 

of all of you. 

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

once again for holding an interesting and timely and critical hearing on such an important subject matter. I want to make some observations and then I have a couple of questions for some of our 

witnesses here today. 

First of all, I am glad to see in the Administration’s budget an 

increase in the money that’s going to be spent on the worksite inspections. I notice, though, in some figures that we have been given 

in a memo to all Members of the Subcommittee that the number 

of companies fined for hiring illegal workers has plummeted from 

over 1,000 in 1992 to 13 in 2002. That means it was almost nonexistent. 

And while it’s a step in the right direction that we’re increasing 

the amount of money—as I recall, it was something like from $20 

million to $40 million, roughly—for worksite inspections, that’s a 

little bit like having two candles instead of one candle in a blackout. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not doing near what 

we should. 

The gentleman from Iowa just made an excellent point a while 

ago, which is basically if we’re not willing to enforce employer sanctions, we’re not really willing to reduce the attraction of the largest 

magnet that is attracting the individuals to this country, that is 

jobs. So I hope that this is the beginning of an Administration willing to go into the right direction. 

But what concerns me, I think, is the mixed signals that is coming from the Administration. We had this small increase in a very 

large budget in one area. Meanwhile, as I understand it, we are not 

52

increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. And meanwhile, 

going back to my assertion of mixed signals, we are approving 

matricular cards which are only going to be helpful to illegal immigrants and help them stay in the country longer. We’re not doing 

anything to discourage States from offering drivers’ licenses. We 

continue to give Federal benefits to many people in the country 

who are here illegally. 

In other words, we make it very, very easy in many, many ways 

for individuals to stay here who are here illegally. That is not the 

right signal to send if we are, in fact, serious about reducing illegal 

immigration in America. 

To the question that we hear asked so frequently, well, we have 

ten million people in the country illegally. What are we going to 

do, deport them all? No. There’s an alternative to that and there’s 

an alternative to gradual amnesty or immediate amnesty, depending on who is proposing it, and that is enforcing immigration laws. 

And if we enforced immigration laws alone, that would discourage 

many people from coming and would discourage those who are here 

from staying. 

All that would lead to a reduction in the number of people who 

are in the country illegally, which, by the way, is far more than ten 

million. Ten million refers to the number of people who are here 

permanently. If you today took a head count of the number of people in the country illegally, it would probably be closer to 20 million 

because there’s a lot of people who are here only for a month or 

two or three. 

That’s how serious the problem is, and if the Administration 

were serious, we wouldn’t be sending these mixed signals, in my 

judgment. 

Another mixed signal, by the way, is that I just had a staff counsel return from a trip to the border where she was informed by various agents that in New Mexico and Arizona, a person coming 

across the border illegally had to actually be apprehended between 

ten and 15 times before they were actually arrested and officially 

deported. When you’re coming into the country or want to come 

into the country illegally and you figure your chances, that you 

have 15 free chances, that’s an open invitation in bright red lights 

to come to America, keep trying to come to America. And, of course, 

we know once you get across the border and if you don’t commit 

a serious crime, you’re basically home free. So we shouldn’t be surprised that both the illegal immigrant traffic is increasing and we 

shouldn’t be surprised that so many people want to stay here. 

We’re making it very easy for them to stay here. 

By the way, I don’t know who to ask, Mr. Dougherty or Mr. 

Stodder. On the Texas border, how many times do you have to be 

apprehended before you’re actually a part of the deportation process, do you know? 

Mr. STODDER. I actually don’t know and it probably—it varies 

from location to location. It’s not just——

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. From sector to sector—— Mr. STODDER. Yes, sector to sector—— Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS.—but it’s probably five to 15 times? 

Mr. STODDER. Yes, it’s probably—that’s probably about right. I 

mean, the other issue is, of course, the question of prosecution, I 

53

mean, the prosecution thresholds in terms of whether you’re going 

to be prosecuted for illegal entry, because the other thing, of 

course, is even if you are officially or formally removed from the 

United States to Mexico and you have a removal order, you could 

cross again but not be prosecuted. So I’m not sure necessarily a removal order may not get you an enormous amount. 

But I do want to comment—— Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. But a removal order is far more than happens most of the time, is my point. 

Mr. STODDER. Sure. But I do want to comment on one thing in 

terms of what you’re talking about in Arizona—— Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Yes? 

Mr. STODDER.—which is what I refer to in my testimony, which 

is the interior repatriation issue with Mexico, because so many of 

the people who are—about 95 percent, close to it, say in Arizona 

or many of the border areas, of the Mexican citizens that are coming across the border or migrating are actually from Central and 

Southern Mexico. They’re not from the border States. And so that 

is what’s so vital about interior repatriation, because you’re right 

in the sense that if we are voluntarily repatriating people right 

across the border, where else are they going to go? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. That’s true, but you know what? You just 

used the magic word which I think just totally makes the interior 

repatriation meaningless. It’s voluntary. If someone wants to come 

back across the border illegally, why would they agree to go back 

to the interior or whatever country they came from? If it’s not mandatory, it’s to me very ineffective, at least in my opinion. 

Mr. STODDER. Well, there’s a distinction there in the sense that 

the interior repatriation back to Central or Southern Mexico is voluntary in the sense that it’s an agreement with the Mexican government and we are still working out the details of that. There will 

be inducements to have people go on the planes to go to the Central and Southern Mexico, including, potentially, lateral repatriation. 

But as I say, voluntary repatriation, that just simply means that 

they’re withdrawing their ability to come into the country, so they 

could choose to go into formal removal proceedings if they wanted 

to, but ultimately they will be——

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. But the question of whether they go all the 

way back to the middle of the country or the Southern part of the 

country is still voluntary, is it not? 

Mr. STODDER. It is voluntary, but, I mean, this is something that 

we are still working out the details of with the Mexican government. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I asked 

one more question even though my time is up and I don’t—am I 

the last one so I’m not holding anybody up other than——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. You’re the last one. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you. My last question is this. Under 

the Administration’s immigration proposal, you’re talking about potentially millions of people needing to be processed, millions of people placed, millions of documents checked and so forth. To my 

knowledge, such a massive new program is not funded in the PresiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.000 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
54

dent’s budget. Is that true? At least, I haven’t been able to find 

anything close to the amount of money necessary to implement the 

President’s proposal. Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congressman, I’ll try and answer that for you. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Aguirre? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. The proposal that the President makes is, of 

course, a very serious proposal, calling on the Congress to enact a 

law that would then be administered by our bureau, and the idea 

would be that as the Congress develops the standards for that law, 

we will price it and we will put a fee on it that is equal to the cost 

of——

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. So you’re waiting for the legislation before 

you put any money in the budget, is that right? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. The budget that we are currently looking 

at has no relationship to the proposal the President has made to 

the temporary worker program. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Right, and I consider it to be good news 

that the President wasn’t so sure of his proposal passing that he 

actually put money in the budget, but that’s a side story. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the extra question. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

The chair wants to once again thank the panel for your participation in this hearing. I appreciate your indulgence during the time 

of votes. 

Subcommittee Members are reminded that you have seven legislative days to revise and extend your remarks for the record. The 

business before the Subcommittee being completed, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(55)

FUNDING FOR IMMIGRATION

IN THE PRESIDENT’S 2005 BUDGET 

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N. 

Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 

Claims will hold its second of two hearings examining funding for 

immigration-related programs in the President’s FY 2005 budget. 

At our hearing 2 weeks ago, the Subcommittee heard from Administration witnesses on their agencies’ requests for funding. At today’s hearing, we will listen to a spectrum of private witnesses. 

Two of our witnesses head organizations representing immigration 

enforcement officers. One of the witnesses comes to us from the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. The fourth, a 

former INS adjudicator, inspector, and special agent, will provide 

us with the perspective of those on the front lines of immigration 

enforcement and adjudications. 

At its February 25, 2004, hearing, the Subcommittee examined 

a number of increases in funding in the President’s FY 2005 budget, and I would like to highlight a few. The budget requests an additional $281 million for U.S. Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement. Of that increase, $23 million 

will go to worksite enforcement, more than doubling the resources 

devoted to this priority. An additional $30 million is to be directed 

to ensure that aliens convicted of crimes in the U.S. are identified 

and processed before they are released back into society. The President also requests an increase of $50 million to apprehend alien absconders and $5 million for additional detention bed space to ensure that aliens appear for their immigration proceedings and that 

aliens ordered removed actually leave. 

In addition to these increases, the President also requests an ad- ditional $257 million for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

which enforces the laws along the border and at the ports. Of this 

$257 million, $64 million is directed toward Border Patrol surveillance and sensor technology. Such technology is a force multiplier 

which frees Border Patrol agents to enforce the law more vigilantly. 

56

The FY 2005 budget also contains an additional $58 million for 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This includes additional funding to reduce the backlog of applications and to enable 

the agency to meet the goal of a 6-month standard for processing 

all applications by FY 2006. 

In connection with backlog reduction, there is one increase in the 

FY 2005 budget that I think bears notice that we did not discuss 

at the last hearing. The Homeland Security budget requests an increase of 16 full-time positions for the Office of the Immigration 

Ombudsman. This office, created by the Homeland Security Act, is 

charged with proposing changes to problems encountered by individuals in dealing with citizenship and immigration services. These 

additional positions will allow the ombudsman to address systemic 

flaws in our immigration application processes, flaws that lead to 

wasteful redundancies and unnecessary delays. 

Critics have raised issues with priorities that have not seen funding increases in the FY 2005 budget, however. In particular, there 

is no funding for additional Border Patrol agents in the budget, 

ending a trend that lasted for several years. Further, critics have 

complained that there is not enough funding to reduce the backlog 

in immigration benefits applications. 

We will explore these issues and others today in reviewing with 

our panel how the President’s FY 2005 budget responds to the 

many immigration challenges facing the United States today. 

Those are reducing the large illegal alien population, protecting the 

American people from alien criminals and terrorists, and ensuring 

that applications for immigration benefits are adjudicated correctly 

and in a timely manner. 

At this time I will turn to Members of the Subcommittee who 

may have opening statements. If not, I will turn to introductions 

of the panelists. 

Today, T.J. Bonner has joined us and has served as president of 

the National Border Patrol Council since 1989. He joined the Border Patrol as an agent in 1978. He currently serves as a senior 

Border Patrol agent and patrols the San Diego sector. Mr. Bonner 

graduated magna cum laude from Los Angeles Valley College with 

an associate of arts degree. 

Timothy Danahey is the national president of the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association. He also serves as special agent 

with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Mr. Danahey was 

hired by NCIS in 1985 after 7 years’ service as a patrol officer in 

Stonington, CT. Mr. Danahey received his degree in psychology at 

the University of Rhode Island. He has also completed both the 

U.S. Air Force Air Command Staff College and the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officers College. In addition to his duties 

at FLEOA and NIS duties, Mr. Danahey is an Army Reserve officer. 

Michael Cutler is currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. Mr. Cutler began his 30-year career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, as an inspector at John 

F. Kennedy Airport in New York in 1971. He thereafter served as 

an examiner in the Adjudications Branch at the New York District 

Office. In 1975, Mr. Cutler became an INS special agent in the 

New York Service Office. He retired from the INS in 2002. Mr. 

57

Cutler graduated from Brooklyn College of the City University of 

New York with a B.A. in communication arts and sciences. 

Demetrios G. Papademetriou is president, co-director, and cofounder of the Migration Policy Institute where he concentrates on 

U.S. immigration policy and related subjects. Previously he was a 

senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International 

Peace, where he directed and co-directed the International Migration Policy Program. Before joining the Carnegie Endowment, Dr. 

Papademetriou was the Director for Immigration Policy and Research at the U.S. Department of Labor and the Chair of the Secretary of Labor’s Immigration Policy Task Force. He also served as 

Chair of the Migration Committee of the Paris-based Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development, or the OECD. Dr. 

Papademetriou received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Maryland. 

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing today. Mr. Bonner, the 

Chair now recognizes you for 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Members of 

the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present the views and 

concerns of front-line Border Patrol employees regarding the Administration’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. 

For the past several decades, illegal immigration has been out of 

control. Millions of foreigners cross our borders illegally every year, 

and hundreds of thousands more violate the terms of their authorized temporary visits. Every legislative attempt to solve these problems has failed. 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, perpetrated by foreign nationals should have served as a wake-up call to fix our 

failed immigration system. Sadly, little has changed since then. 

Although most politicians claim to support the strict enforcement 

of our immigration laws, many of their actions belie their rhetoric. 

A case in point is the Administration’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2005. Despite an overall increase of $3.6 billion for all DHS programs, 

the funding for one of its most important programs, the U.S. Border Patrol, is being slashed significantly. Its budget is slated for an 

actual decrease of $18.4 million. Another $74.2 million is being reallocated for sensors and surveillance technology and unmanned 

aerial vehicles. This de facto cut totals $92.6 million, or 5 percent 

of the Border Patrol’s overall budget of $1.85 billion. 

Substituting detection technology for staffing and equipment designed for apprehending lawbreakers is unwise. While such technology can be useful in pinpointing the location of those who cross 

our borders illegally, it cannot catch a single violator. Only trained 

people can accomplish that task. Instead of augmenting the staffing 

of the Border Patrol, however, the Administration’s budget proposal eliminates 19 agent positions. Inexplicably, all of the other 

occupations in the Department are slated to add positions or at 

least remain at the same level. 

58

While technologies such as remote cameras and sensors are undoubtedly useful in serving as extra eyes and ears, they can never 

replace the hands that catch violators. New technology should not 

come at the expense of staffing and other essential equipment. If 

such technology is deemed necessary, additional funding should be 

allocated for its acquisition. 

If our borders were under any semblance of control, this reduction and shifting of funding might make sense. With multitudes 

continuing to stream across our borders and elude apprehension on 

a daily basis, however, it is ridiculous. Until control of the borders 

is achieved, it is irresponsible to propose cutting the Border Patrol’s budget and staffing. As long as our borders remain porous, 

they are just as open to terrorists and other criminals as they are 

to illegal aliens. 

About a decade ago, the Border Patrol embarked on a forward 

deployment enforcement strategy that was designed to discourage 

illegal immigration. It never achieved that goal, and the strategy 

makes no sense at all given the new primary mission of securing 

the homeland and protecting it against conventional and unconventional attacks in the United States. 

In order to control illegal immigration, the employer sanctions 

laws need to be strengthened. The revised laws need to make it 

simple for employers to determine if a person is authorized to work 

in this country, difficult to circumvent, and onerous to violate. Although significant resources would initially be required to enforce 

these laws, the payoff would be well worth the effort and expense. 

Without the draw of jobs, illegal immigration would be reduced 

dramatically, allowing the Border Patrol and Inspections branches 

to concentrate on terrorists and other criminals. As it stands now, 

it is far too easy for these dangerous elements to slip in with the 

multitudes of illegal aliens. 

Amnesty for lawbreakers cannot be part of any law designed to 

discourage illegal immigration, as it has the exact opposite effect. 

Despite its claims to the contrary, the Administration’s proposed 

guest-worker program would grant amnesty to millions of illegal 

aliens. The high levels of illegal immigration that exist today are 

directly attributable to the 1986 amnesty. 

The Administration’s budget request also seeks significant funding to implement a new human resources system within the Department of Homeland Security. The unfair system that was developed over the objections of employees will discourage even the most 

patriotic individuals from serving in the Department. The proposed 

pay system will significantly decrease average employee wages over 

time in order to balance the Department’s budget and reward a few 

favored employees. The proposed disciplinary system will strip 

away meaningful appeal rights, allowing managers to unjustly punish employees for illegitimate reasons. The proposed labor-management relations system will deprive front-line employees of a voice 

in the decisions that affect them. 

In conclusion, the American people, as well as the courageous 

men and women who risk their lives every day protecting our borders, deserve far better than the Administration’s budget offers. 

The security of our Nation depends upon a comprehensive and effective immigration policy administered by a dedicated and highly 

59

motivated workforce. The Administration’s budget proposal not 

only fails to advance any of these critical goals, it represents a tremendous step backward. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER

On behalf of the 10,000 Border Patrol employees that it represents, the National 

Border Patrol Council thanks you for the opportunity to present our views and concerns regarding the Administration’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. 

For the past several decades, illegal immigration has been out of control. Millions 

of foreigners cross our borders illegally every year, and hundreds of thousands more 

violate the terms of their authorized temporary visits. Every legislative attempt to 

solve these problems has failed. 

The terrible events that unfolded on the morning of September 11, 2001 served 

to painfully remind us that we are not immune from terrorist attacks on our home 

soil. Without a doubt, our immigration laws and policies allowed all 19 of the perpetrators of that crime to enter and remain in the United States. Today, many of 

the same flaws and gaps that allowed those attacks to occur have not been fixed. 

This is unfathomable. As the philosopher George Santayana wisely noted in 1905, 

‘‘[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’’ Although most politicians claim to support the strict enforcement of our immigration laws, many of their actions belie their rhetoric. A case in point is the Administration’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2005. Despite an overall increase of $3,600,000,000.00 for all DHS programs, the funding for one of its most important programs is being slashed significantly. The budget 

of the U.S. Border Patrol, the only agency that patrols the 6,000 miles between the 

land ports of entry along the borders between the United States and its two contiguous neighbors, Mexico and Canada, is slated for an actual decrease of 

$18,395,000.00. Another $64,162,000.00 would be reallocated for ‘‘sensors and surveillance technology’’ and still another $10,000,000.00 reallocated for ‘‘unmanned 

aerial vehicles.’’ This de facto cut totals $92,557,000.00, or 5% of the Border Patrol’s total budget of $1,856,244,000.00. Substituting detection technology for staffing and 

equipment designed for apprehending lawbreakers is unwise. While such technology 

can be useful in pinpointing the location of those who cross our borders illegally, 

it cannot catch a single violator. Only trained people can accomplish that task. Instead of augmenting the staffing of the Border Patrol, however, the Administration’s budget proposal eliminates 19 agent positions. Inexplicably, all of the other occupations in the Department are slated to add positions or at least remain at the same 

level. 

The foregoing should not be construed as resistance to technology, but rather as 

a criticism of the theory that technology can replace human beings in labor-intensive tasks such as apprehending people who are determined to sneak into our country. While technologies such as remote cameras and sensors are undoubtedly useful 

in serving as extra eyes and ears, they can never replace the hands that catch violators. New technology should not come at the expense of staffing and other essential 

equipment. If such technology is deemed necessary, additional funding should be allocated for its acquisition. 

If our borders were under any semblance of control, this reduction and shifting 

of funding might make sense. With multitudes continuing to stream across our borders and elude apprehension on a daily basis, however, it is ridiculous. Until control 

of the borders is achieved, it is irresponsible to propose cutting the Border Patrol’s 

budget and staffing. As long as our borders remain porous, they are just as open 

to terrorists and other criminals as they are to illegal aliens. 

About a decade ago, the Border Patrol began deploying many of its resources in 

highly-visible, static positions along the immediate border, generally in close proximity to major urban areas. The theory behind this new enforcement strategy was 

that large concentrations of personnel would discourage illegal aliens from crossing 

in those areas, and the terrain and remoteness of the remaining areas would accomplish the same goal. Experience has shown that the latter part of that assumption 

severely underestimated the desperation and determination of the people who cross 

our borders. In fact, there has been no reduction in the volume of illegal immigration. The folly of this strategy is magnified when viewed in light of the Department’s 

new primary stated goal of securing the homeland and protecting it against conventional and unconventional attacks in the United States. It is inconceivable that terVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
60

1 According to Webster’s dictionary, amnesty is ‘‘the act of an authority (as a government) by 

which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.’’

rorists and other criminals will be deterred at all by the increased presence of uniformed agents. 

In order to control illegal immigration, the employer sanctions laws need to be 

strengthened. The revised laws need to make it simple for employers to determine 

if a person is authorized to work in this country, difficult to circumvent, and onerous 

to violate. Although significant resources would initially be required to enforce these 

laws, the payoff would be well worth the effort and expense. Without the draw of 

jobs, illegal immigration would be reduced dramatically, allowing the Border Patrol 

and Inspections branches to concentrate on terrorists and other criminals. As it 

stands now, it is far too easy for these dangerous elements to slip in with the multitudes of illegal aliens. 

Amnesty for lawbreakers cannot be part of any law designed to discourage illegal 

immigration, as it has the exact opposite effect. Despite its claims to the contrary, 

the Administration’s proposed guest-worker program would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. 1 The high levels of illegal immigration that exist today are 

directly attributable to the 1986 amnesty. 

Given the Administration’s support of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, the 

proposed budget and personnel cuts for the Border Patrol should probably not come 

as a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, they are disappointing and demoralizing to 

the front-line workers who risk their lives on a daily basis enforcing our Nation’s 

immigration laws. The Administration’s budget request also seeks significant funding to implement a new human resources system within the Department of Homeland Security. If the proposed system actually held out the promise of improving the 

existing system, it might be worth the increase sought by the Department. Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the opportunity to improve the current system, the 

ideologues in the Administration decided to combine the worst practices imaginable 

without regard to the consequences. The proposed pay system will significantly decrease average employee wages over time in order to balance the Department’s 

budget and reward a few favored employees. The proposed disciplinary system will 

strip away meaningful appeal rights, allowing managers to unjustly punish employees for illegitimate reasons. The proposed labor-management relations system will 

deprive front-line employees of a voice in the decisions that affect them. Taken together, these draconian measures will discourage even the most patriotic individuals 

from serving in the Department. 

In conclusion, the American people, as well as the courageous men and women 

who risk their lives every day protecting our borders, deserve far better than the 

Administration’s budget offers. The security of our Nation depends upon a comprehensive and effective immigration policy administered by a dedicated and highlymotivated workforce. The Administration’s budget proposal not only fails to advance 

any of these critical goals, it represents a tremendous step backward.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. Danahey, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. DANAHEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DANAHEY. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to testify 

on such an important and vital subject. I respectfully request my 

written submission be admitted to the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. DANAHEY. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association—FLEOA—is a voluntary, nonpartisan professional association. 

FLEOA currently represents over 20,000 Federal law enforcement 

officers and is the largest association for Federal officers of its 

kind. 

In April 2003, FLEOA testified and stated it was our belief that 

the creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, within 

the Department of Homeland Security was exactly what was needed to address systemic problems of the former INS and its inability 

61

to effectively enforce the immigration laws. We appreciated the 

Committee seeking our input on concerns we wish to discuss in the 

spirit of assisting you to make the Department more efficient and 

effective. 

As a national officer of FLEOA, I represent many of the outstanding men and women who enforce our Nation’s immigration 

laws. These men and women risk their lives every day in an ever 

increasingly dangerous line of work. 

I would like to highlight six points in my testimony. 

Pay parity. It is our belief that one of the biggest obstacles to effective immigration enforcement is the fact that ICE special agents 

are still being paid at very different levels, depending on which 

agency they migrated from. We recommend an immediate acrossthe-board increase for all legacy INS special agents as well as all 

agents currently assigned the 1811 job classification at DHS. 

Interior enforcement. Currently, the number of aliens illegally in 

the United States is estimated at about 8.5 million, or 28 percent 

of the foreign-born population in the United States. The annual increase in the undocumented population is in excess of 500,000 per 

year and could possibly be higher for recent years. The results from 

Census 2000 call into question some of the basic information regarding immigration which we relied upon in the past. 

Alien smuggling has become more sophisticated, complex, organized, and flexible. Thousands of aliens annually seek immigration 

benefits fraudulently. 

FLEOA testified in April 2003 that ICE will need to address 

problems concerning interior capacity issues in relation to USVISIT, Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, SEVIS, 

and other law enforcement agency referrals. 

FLEOA feels that ICE has begun to address these issues as part 

of its overall immigration enforcement strategy through the creation of ICE’s Compliance Enforcement Unit and the strengthening 

of its Worksite Enforcement Units. ICE management has stated 

that the FY 2005 budget will allow them to more than double existing funds devoted to worksite enforcement and allow ICE to devote 

more special agents to these efforts. 

Detention and removal. FLEOA testified in April 2003 that the 

administrative mission relating to ICE’s immigration enforcement 

such as Institutional Removal Program, IRP, and county jail cases 

be assigned to the Detention and Removal component. It is 

FLEOA’s belief that ICE would be better off served by allowing 

ICE special agents to focus on the complex criminal matters as well 

as matters relating to national security. 

International affairs. In FLEOA’s April 2003 testimony, we recommended the consolidation of DHS overseas operations. FLEOA 

stated that these functions should include oversight of visa 

issuance at overseas posts. Through the creation of ICE’s Office of 

International Affairs, ICE now has the ability to provide visa security by working cooperatively with U.S. consular offices to review 

select visa applications. 

Immigration fraud. In previous testimony, FLEOA cited a 2002 

GAO report titled ‘‘Immigration Benefit Fraud, Focused Approach 

Needed to Address Problems.’’ The GAO noted that the former INS 

did not know the extent of the immigration benefit fraud program 

62

problem. Excuse me. The GAO reported that the former INS interior enforcement strategy failed to lay out a comprehensive plan to 

identify how components within and among service centers and district offices are to coordinate their immigration benefit fraud investigations. 

FLEOA notes that ICE has created Benefit Fraud Units in 

Vermont, Texas, and California as a means of identifying and targeting fraud. 

Alien smuggling. FLEOA notes that ICE has failed to indicate a 

budget increase in support of efforts to investigate alien-smuggling 

and human-trafficking organizations. Currently, there is no stated 

mission involving the targeting of human-trafficking and aliensmuggling organizations within ICE. 

We recommend that by making human-trafficking and aliensmuggling investigations one of ICE’s primary enforcement functions, there exists a need to immediately fund and staff this component to levels to allow it to be effective. 

In summary, we note that many of ICE’s initiatives were suggested during FLEOA’s April 2003 testimony before this Committee. We will never restore domestic tranquility or integrity into 

the legal immigration process until we begin to establish meaningful rather than token control over our borders and the interior of 

the United States through comprehensive immigration law enforcement. 

On behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

and the many dedicated men and women who risk their lives enforcing our immigration laws, I appreciate your time and attention 

and the opportunity to share our views. I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danahey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. DANAHEY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am honored to testify on such an important and vital subject. I respectfully request my written submission be admitted to the record. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association—FLEOA, is a voluntary, nonpartisan professional association. FLEOA currently represents over 20,000 federal 

law enforcement officers and is the largest association for federal officers of its kind. 

Several years ago, FLEOA joined with all of the major state and local national police associations to form the Law Enforcement Steering Committee. The Law Enforcement Steering Committee includes the following prominent and important organizations: Fraternal Order of Police, National Troopers Coalition, Major Cities 

Chiefs of Police, Police Executive Research Forum, the National Association of Police 

Organizations, National Organization of Blacks in Law Enforcement, the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations and the Police Foundation. In becoming a part of this group, federal agents were able to add their voices to those of the 

over half a million state and local officers already commenting on the issues that 

our Association considers to be of greatest importance. I tell you today, as FLEOA 

has told our membership and the Law Enforcement Steering Committee for the past 

several years that the continuing revitalization of immigration law enforcement is 

one of our highest priorities. In April 2003, FLEOA testified before this committee 

and stated that it was our belief that the creation of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security was exactly what was 

needed to address systemic problems of the former INS and its inability to effectively enforce the immigration laws. We appreciated the committee seeking our 

input on concerns we wish to discuss in the spirit of assisting you to make the Department more efficient and effective. 

63

As a National Officer of FLEOA, I represent many of the outstanding men and 

women who enforce our Nation’s immigration laws. These men and women risk 

their lives every day in an ever-increasingly dangerous line of work. 

In our review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget regarding funds re- quested for immigration enforcement, we note that ICE has requested $4.0 billion 

for the FY 2005 budget, $302 million more than FY 2004, representing an increase 

of 8 percent. The requested increase includes $186 million for ICE to fund improvements in immigration enforcement both domestically and overseas, and approximately $100 million to fund the detention and removal of illegal aliens. We note 

that many of ICE’s initiatives were suggested during FLEOA’s April, 2003 testimony before this committee. 

PAY PARITY

FLEOA supports ICE’s budget request, although we note that its ability to effectively enforce our Nation’s immigration laws is contingent upon ICE’s ability to immediately address issues regarding pay equity within its Special Agent ranks. It is 

our belief that the one of the biggest obstacles to effective immigration enforcement 

is the fact that ICE Special Agents are still being paid at very different levels; depending on which agency, they migrated. The problems associated with this are selfevident. We recommend an immediate across the board increase for all legacy INS 

Special Agents as well as all agents currently assigned the 1811 job classification 

within the DHS. 

While ICE represents a significant advancement in the protection of the homeland, legacy INS Special Agents have been left behind when it comes to the issue 

of pay parity. In recent years, legacy Customs Special Agents had their positions 

upgraded to allow for progression to a GS–13 pay grade, while INS Special Agents 

could only progress to the GS–12 pay grade, a difference of several thousand dollars. 

With the consolidation of the two agencies under ICE, the practice of receiving less 

pay for the same position in the same agency has become a serious issue. FLEOA 

notes that legacy INS Agents have proved invaluable in the fight against terrorism, 

and will continue to do so under ICE. 

In the nearly one year since the creation of ICE, legacy INS Special Agents have 

been assured that the issue of pay parity is a top priority. However, in recent 

months it has become clear that there is neither the willpower nor apparently the 

resources to accomplish this important task. Meanwhile, ICE continues to hire new 

Agents, all of whom can progress to the GS–13 pay grade. This situation severely 

undermines morale. Far from being an issue of money, this is an issue of 

morale and equity. All ICE Special Agents bear the same risks in protecting 

the homeland. 

ICE will likely implement a new pay-banding compensation system in the near 

future, abolishing the former pay-grade arrangement. This leaves legacy INS Special Agents vulnerable to perpetually earning less than former Customs Agents. 

With less than 2000 Special Agents nationwide, the cost is minimal. 

INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT

Currently the number of aliens illegally in the United States is estimated at about 

8.5 million or 28% of the foreign-born population in the United States. The annual 

increase in the undocumented population is in excess of 500,000 per year and could 

possibly be higher for recent years. The results from Census 2000 call into question 

some of the basic information regarding immigration which we relied upon in the 

past. The surprising figures from the Census suggest strongly that immigration levels, particularly undocumented and temporary immigration, are substantially higher 

than most had suspected. 

Through its FY 2005 budget request, ICE has shown a commitment to the ‘‘base’’

Immigration Mission—starting with the development of a meaningful interior enforcement strategy. FLEOA notes that ICE has began to address concerns raised in 

a 2002 GAO Report titled ‘‘Immigration Enforcement, Challenges to Implementing 

the INS Interior Enforcement Strategy’’. In this report, the GAO noted that having 

an effective interior enforcement strategy is an essential complement to having an 

effective border strategy. The GAO noted that the former INS faced numerous and 

daunting enforcement issues such as the potential pool of removable criminal aliens 

and fugitives that number in the hundreds of thousands. The number of individuals 

smuggled into the United States has increased and alien smuggling has become 

more sophisticated, complex, organized and flexible. Thousands of aliens annually 

seek immigration benefits fraudulently. The GAO concluded that the former INS’

tasks with regard to interior enforcement are considerable given the nature, scope, 

and magnitude of illegal activity. 

64

FLEOA testified in April 2003, that ICE will need to address problems concerning 

interior capacity issues in relation to US-VISIT, Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and other law enforcement agency referrals. FLEOA testified that budget formulation, budget execution, resource deployment, personnel 

staffing, position management and position classification must address the lack of 

Special Agents, Deportation Officers, and other clerical staff actually in place to address ‘‘leads’’ from US-VISIT and SEVIS, as well as from sources to include federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies. Systems such as US-VISIT and SEVIS 

will be rendered toothless if ICE doesn’t have the interior enforcement resources to 

meaningfully deal with information on overstays, status violators and other law enforcement referrals. 

FLEOA feels that ICE has began to address these issues as part of its overall immigration enforcement strategy through the creation of ICE’s Compliance Enforcement Unit and the strengthening of its Worksite Enforcement Units. FLEOA feels 

that ICE’s FY 2005 budget request, as well as the request for an additional $23 million for enhanced worksite enforcement is a positive first step in creating the infrastructure required to investigate and resolve violator leads. ICE management has 

stated that the FY 2005 budget will allow them to more than double existing funds 

devoted to worksite enforcement and allow ICE to devote more Special Agents to 

these efforts. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL

FLEOA testified in April 2003, that the administrative mission relating to ICE’s 

immigration enforcement such as Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and county 

jail cases be assigned to the Detention and Removal component. It is FLEOA’s belief 

that ICE would be better served by allowing ICE Special Agents to focus on the 

complex criminal matters as well as matters relating to national security. To 

achieve this goal, it is essential that ICE Special Agents be relieved of all administrative jail duties. 

To this end, FLEOA supports ICE’s request of $30 million to transfer the IRP duties currently being performed by Special Agents to Immigration Enforcement 

Agents within the Detention and Removal Program. ICE realizes that this shift of 

responsibilities will allow ICE to assign Special Agents to investigations that are 

more complex. 

Our members in the field have continuously stated that one of the greatest problems in enforcing our Nations Immigration Law is in the area of 

detention and removal. Large amounts of illegal aliens are released in some 

areas (as many as fifty a day) before ever seeing an Immigration Judge. 

Lack of bed space is always cited as the reason. Many of these illegal aliens 

are released despite the fact that many do not have a valid, verifiable address. FLEOA supports the FY 2005 budget request for Detention and Removal Initiatives. 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

In FLEOA’s April 2003 testimony, we recommended the consolidation of DHS 

overseas operations. FLEOA stated that these functions should include oversight of 

visa issuance at overseas posts. ICE’s FY 2005 budget request of $14 million includes an increase of $10 million to support a new Visa Security Unit, which was 

established pursuant to Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act. Through the creation of ICE’s Office of International Affairs, ICE now has the ability to provide visa 

security by working cooperatively with U.S. consular offices to review select visa applications. 

IMMIGRATION FRAUD

In its April 2003 testimony, FLEOA cited a 2002 GAO report titled ‘‘Immigration 

Benefit Fraud, Focused Approach Needed to Address Problems’’. The GAO noted 

that the former INS did not know the extent of the immigration benefit fraud problem. The GAO reported that the former INS interior enforcement strategy failed to 

lay out a comprehensive plan to identify how components within and among service 

centers and district offices are to coordinate their immigration benefit fraud investigations. 

FLEOA notes that ICE has created Benefit Fraud Units in Vermont, Texas and 

California as a means of identifying and targeting fraud. FLEOA supports ICE’s request for $25 million in FY 2005 budget in an effort to ‘‘provide stable funding to 

ICE’s benefits fraud and assist in restoring integrity in the immigration application 

process’’. 

65

ALIEN SMUGGLING

FLEOA notes that ICE has failed to indicate a budget increase in support of efforts to investigate alien smuggling and human trafficking organizations. In its 

April 2003 testimony, FLEOA cited a 2002 GAO Report on the former INS, in which 

the GAO was very critical of the INS ability to investigate alien smuggling groups. 

At that time, FLEOA recommended that ICE be the central investigative agency for 

all human trafficking and alien smuggling investigations. Currently, there is no 

stated mission involving the targeting of human trafficking and alien smuggling organizations within ICE. 

We recommend that by making human trafficking and alien smuggling investigations one of ICE’s primary enforcement functions, there exist a need to immediately 

fund and staff this component to levels that allow it to be effective. Research and 

experience has led us to believe that the most effective means to enforce laws relating to human trafficking and alien smuggling organizations would be to centralize 

all human trafficking and alien smuggling investigations into one agency with adequate staffing, funding and a strong headquarters component. 

Congress and the Administration must begin to strike a balance between enforcement on our borders and enforcement in the interior. Word of mouth travels rapidly 

back to the source countries that one must merely make it across the border in 

order to attain this new form of unsanctioned amnesty. In short, we will never restore domestic tranquility or integrity into the legal immigration process until we 

begin to establish meaningful rather than token control over our borders and the 

interior of the United States through comprehensive immigration law enforcement. 

On behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the many 

dedicated men and women who risk their lives enforcing our immigration laws, I 

appreciate your time and attention, and the opportunity to share our views. I will 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Danahey. 

The floor now recognizes—the Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Cutler. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER,

FORMER INS SPECIAL AGENT 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you. Good morning. 

Chairman Hostettler, distinguished Members of the Committee, 

I want to start out by commending Chairman Hostettler’s courageous leadership in the vital area of immigration law enforcement. 

It is my belief that nothing will have a greater impact on the future of our Nation than the way in which we handle this critical 

issue. Consequently, I am honored at having been invited to participate in this hearing. 

I am a New Yorker. On September 11, 2001, ashes from the conflagration at the World Trade Center fell on my house. The sight 

of the location we used to refer to as ‘‘the World Trade Center’’ that 

we now call ‘‘Ground Zero’’ continues to trigger in me and my fellow New Yorkers a profound sense of loss and grief and anger. 

We are constantly reminded that we are in a state of war. Many 

of our Nation’s valiant men and women, many of them scarcely old 

enough to vote, go in harm’s way as members of our armed services 

to help wage a war on terrorism, some of whom return home seriously injured, or worse. I laud their bravery. The war effort is also 

costly in financial terms as well as human terms. But we must 

match the efforts of our soldiers fighting in distant lands with a 

commensurate effort within our own borders. The men and women 

who are responsible for enforcing our immigration laws need to 

have the resources to do an effective job. 

Of late, we have heard some people question if the immigration 

laws can be enforced. They say that we have tried to enforce the 

laws, but even with the additional Border Patrol agents now standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
66

ing watch at our Nation’s borders, we still have many millions of 

illegal aliens living and working in the United States today. I 

would say to them that we have, to date, only been given the illusion of making a serious effort to enforce our immigration laws. 

Before the merger of INS and Customs, there were some 2,000 

INS special agents enforcing the immigration laws within the interior of the United States. Let us put this in perspective. New York 

has some 8 million residents policed by some 38,000 police officers. 

There are perhaps one and half times as many illegal aliens in the 

United States today as there are residents in the City of New York. 

Clearly, many more special agents are needed to handle the issue 

of interior enforcement, especially in view of the fact that, according to recently published statistics, there are some 400,000 aliens 

still living within the United States borders that have been ordered 

deported. And from what I have read, some 80,000 of these aliens 

have serious criminal histories. How can we expect so few agents 

to effectively deal with so vast a problem? 

While only a small percentage of aliens become involved in serious criminal activity, a large percentage of our criminal population 

is indeed comprised of aliens. In addition to terrorists, our Nation 

is plagued by criminal aliens who are involved in narcotics trafficking, ethnic organized crime organizations, and other areas of 

criminal activities whose actions result in many more lives being 

lost each and every year than were lost in the horrific attacks of 

September 11. Half of the illegal aliens in the United States did 

not succeed in entering the United States by running the border 

but, rather, entered through a port of entry and then, in one way 

or another, violated the terms of their admission. This was, I would 

remind you, the way that the 19 terrorists who attacked our Nation 

entered our country. If we want to reduce the number of illegal 

aliens in our country and secure our Nation against the criminal 

intentions of terrorists and other criminals, we need to change the 

way we do business. It will require the expenditure of additional 

funds, but to not take appropriate action will ultimately cost our 

country far more. Law enforcement is labor-intensive work, and we 

desperately need many more special agents to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior. 

We need many more Border Patrol agents to properly patrol the 

thousands of miles of borders. As I am sure Mr. Bonner will attest, 

the job of a Border Patrol agent is frustrating, and our agents are 

put in harm’s way often, only to arrest recidivists repeatedly. 

We also need many more adjudications officers and immigration 

inspectors to do a more effective job of ensuring that applications 

are correctly adjudicated in a timely manner. I have been told that 

each adjudications officer is expected to process some 40 applications for benefits each and every day in order to get a passing 

grade on their evaluations. I have also been told that the average 

naturalization examiner is expected to process between 20 to 25 applications for United States citizenship each and every day. We 

have so truncated the process that applicants for citizenship are no 

longer required to provide witnesses to attest to the fact that they 

possess good moral character, nor are background investigations 

conducted in support of applications for United States citizenship. 

Additionally, there is no routine effort to conduct field investigaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
67

tions in conjunction with applications for resident alien status to 

be conferred upon aliens. Is it any wonder that we often find the 

fraud rates are as high as they are in the benefits program? I 

would recommend that perhaps retired INS annuitants or retired 

law enforcement officers from other agencies such as local police 

departments should be hired to act as compliance officers to lend 

integrity to this critical process. 

Another issue that we need to consider is the fact that there are 

four immigration service centers that process some 6 million applications for benefits each year. Each center has employees known 

as intelligence research specialists. Their job is to screen the applications for fraud. There are fewer than ten of these employees at 

each center. 

There is also supposed to be 128 special agents assigned to work 

in conjunction with these service centers. I’ve been told that sparse 

as that number of agents may seem, in reality only 30 or 40 special 

agents are actually working full-time in this vital mission in the 

entire United States. The result is that fraud is running rampant. 

To cite an example, the State of Florida will issue driver’s licenses 

to any aliens who can show proof that they have filed an application with immigration authorities to enable them to remain in the 

United States. The application need not be approved to qualify for 

the license to be issued, only that it is pending. As a result, many 

aliens working through immigration consultants and lawyers who 

specialize in immigration law have filed applications for authorizations to accept employment in conjunction with an application for 

political asylum. In reality, the application for political asylum is 

never filed, but the fee is waived for such an application and the 

receipt for the application satisfies the Florida requirement for the 

issuance of a driver’s license. The cost of processing the spurious application runs at least $200 per application, and it is never recouped by the Government. 

According to what I have been told, some 17,000 fraudulent applications have been identified. The aliens who made these applications have apparently given their real addresses on their applications, but ICE does not have the resources to go out and arrest 

these people, a number of whom are citizens of Middle Eastern 

countries and are consequently of potential national security concern. Florida is only one State of many that is experiencing this 

problem. 

Immigration inspectors are expected to determine the admissibility of an alien applying for admission to the United States in approximately 1 minute. We have in place a visa waiver program 

which means that we do not have the ability to effectively screen 

aliens seeking admission to the United States from the 28 visa 

waiver countries. 

Consider that Richard Reid, the so-called ‘‘shoe bomber,’’ was 

traveling on a British passport and would have been exempted 

from the requirement of obtaining a visa before applying for entry 

into the United States. If citizens of the United States can be inconvenienced by being thoroughly searched before they board airplanes, if they can be made to wait on long lines of traffic before 

crossing bridges and tunnels at elevated threat level times, then 

why aren’t we requiring that aliens who have no inherent right to 

68

be here be more effectively screened in the interest of national security? The effective screening of alien visitors would, in my humble opinion, decrease the number of aliens who ultimately violate 

the terms of their admission and potentially threaten our wellbeing and security. 

For years, the former INS was plagued by an incredibly high attrition rate. Funds that might have been put to far better use were 

squandered on a veritable revolving door in which the agency continually recruited and trained qualified young men and women who 

came to the INS highly motivated to serve their country, but who 

quickly became disillusioned by the inept leadership of the agency 

and resigned so that they could pursue satisfying careers at other 

agencies. No one at the INS seemed to care that so many talents 

and motivated employees were fleeing to other agencies. If we are 

to run a more cost-effective agency, management at ICE, CIS, and 

CBP must be made accountable for the attrition rates of the respective officers to which they are assigned. This would save significant 

money and result in a more effective and motivated workforce. 

Law enforcement relies on the principle of deterrence to provide 

the most bang for the buck. The abysmal reputation that our Nation has gained over the past several decades in terms of our ability and determination to enforce the immigration laws deters few 

if any aliens who would come here, either in violation of our laws 

or with the intention of violating our laws after they enter our 

country. It is said you only get one opportunity to make a first impression. The way that we enforce and administer the immigration 

laws serves as the first impression many people throughout the 

world have of our Nation’s resolve to enforce our laws. 

We can do better. We must do better. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, distinguished members of 

the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I want out to start our by commending Chairman Hostettler’s courageous leadership in the vital area of immigration law enforcement. It is my belief that nothing will have a greater impact on the future of our 

nation than the way in which we handle this critical issue; consequently I am honored at having been invited to participate in this hearing. 

The issue of immigration law enforcement is one that I have been involved with 

for some 30 years, the length of my tenure at the former INS. I began my career 

an immigration inspector, was detailed as an immigration examiner—now known as 

an adjudications officer and then, in 1975 I became a Special Agent. 

I am a New Yorker. On September 11, 2001, ashes from the conflagration at the 

World Trade Center fell on my house. I have a vivid recollection of the many yellow 

ribbons that were tied to the trees in front of many of my neighbors’ houses in the 

days that followed the worst terrorist attack ever committed on our nation. I also 

vividly recall the numerous cars that drove by bearing the photos of so many of the 

victims of the Trade Center attack with variations of the same plaintive question 

written below or above the photographs, ‘‘Have you seen my mother?’’ ‘‘Have you 

seen my son?’’ ‘‘Have you seen my wife?’’ ‘‘Have you seen my brother?’’ The people 

who tied the ribbons on the trees and pasted the photos on the windows of their 

cars were hoping and praying to one day find their missing loved ones. We know, 

of course, that their hopes were not realized. 

The sights I have mentioned and the smells of the fires that burned for quite 

some time after the attack will never leave my memory—they will never leave my 

heart. The look of rage, sadness, fear and pain etched on my neighbors’ faces will 

stay with me for the rest of my life. The sight of the location we used to refer to 

69

as the World Trade Center that we now call, ‘‘Ground Zero’’ continues to trigger in 

me, and my fellow New Yorkers, a profound sense of loss and grief and anger. 

We are constantly reminded that we are in a state of war. Many of our nation’s valiant men and women, many of them scarcely old enough to vote, go in harm’s way as members of our armed services, to help wage a war on terrorism, some of 

whom return home seriously injured or worse. I laud their bravery. The war effort 

is also costly in financial terms as well as human terms. But we must match the 

efforts of our soldiers fighting in distant lands with a commensurate effort within 

our own borders. The men and women who are responsible for enforcing our immigration laws need to have the resources to do an effective job. 

Of late we have heard some people question if the immigration laws can be enforced. They say that we have tried to enforce the laws but even with the additional 

Border Patrol agents now standing watch on our nation’s borders we still have 

many millions of illegal aliens living and working in the United States today. I 

would say to them that we have, to date, only been given the illusion of making 

a serious effort at enforcing our immigration laws. 

Before the merger of the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the U.S. 

Customs Service there were some 2,000 INS Special Agents enforcing the immigration laws within the interior of the United States. Let us put this in perspective. 

New York has some 8 million residents. These residents are confined to the five boroughs that comprise the City of New York. Our mayor has said that New York is 

the safest big city in the United States if not the entire world. I believe that he is 

right. The reason we have a safe big city is that those 8 million residents are policed 

by a police department that, from what I have read, has some 38,000 police officers. 

The United States is estimated to have anywhere from 8 million to 14 million illegal 

aliens who are scattered across a third of the North American Continent and they 

have been policed by some 2,000 special agents! What do you suppose would happen 

to New York’s crime rate if 36,000 members of the NYPD resigned tomorrow? Perhaps you now understand why we have the magnitude of the problem we have, 

where immigration law enforcement is concerned. According to recently published 

statistics, there are some 400,000 aliens still living and working within our nation’s borders even though they have been ordered deported. From what I have read, some 

80,000 of these aliens have serious criminal histories. How can we expect so few 

agents to effectively deal with so vast a problem? 

While only a small percentage of aliens become involved in serious criminal activity, a large percentage of our criminal population is, indeed, comprised of aliens. In 

addition to terrorists, our nation is plagued by criminal aliens who are involved in 

narcotics trafficking, ethnic organized crime organizations, and other areas of criminal activities whose actions result in many more lives being lost each and every year 

than were lost in the horrific attacks of September 11. Half of the illegal aliens in 

the United States did not succeed in entering the United States by running the border but rather entered through a port of entry and then, in one way or another, 

violated the terms of their admission. This was, I would remind you, the way that 

the 19 terrorists who attacked our nation entered our country. If we want to reduce 

the numbers of illegal aliens in our country and secure our nation against the criminal intentions of terrorists and other criminals, we need to change the way we do 

business. It will require the expenditure of additional funds, but to not take the appropriate actions will, ultimately, cost our country far more. Law enforcement is 

labor-intensive work and we desperately need many more special agents to enforce 

the immigration laws from within the interior. 

We need many more Border Patrol agents to properly patrol the thousands of 

miles of borders. As I am sure Mr. Bonner will attest, the job of a Border Patrol 

Agent is frustrating, and that our agents are put in harm’s way often, only to arrest 

recidivists repeatedly. 

We also need many more adjudications officers and immigration inspectors to do 

a more effective job of ensuring that applications are correctly adjudicated in a timely manner. I have been told that each adjudications officer is expected to process 

some 40 applications for benefits each and every day to get a passing grade on their 

evaluations. I have also been told that the average naturalization examiner is expected to process between 20 to 25 applications for United States citizenship each 

and every day. We have so truncated the process that applicants for United States 

citizenship are no longer required to provide two witnesses to attest to the fact that 

they possess good moral character. Nor are background investigations conducted in 

support of applications for United States citizenship. Additionally, there is no routine effort to conduct field investigations in conjunction with applications for the 

conferring of Lawfully Admitted, Permanent Resident status on aliens. Is it any 

wonder that we often find that the fraud rates are as high as they are in the benefits program? I would recommend that perhaps retired INS annuitants or retired 

70

law enforcement officers from other agencies such as local police departments should 

be hired to act as compliance officers to lend integrity to this critical process. 

Immigration inspectors are expected to determine the admissibility of an alien applying for admission to the United States in approximately one minute. We have 

in place a visa waiver program, which means that we do not have the ability to effectively screen aliens seeking admission to the United States from the 28 visa 

waiver countries. 

Consider that Richard Reid, the so-called ‘‘shoe bomber’’ was traveling on a British passport and would have been exempted from the requirement of obtaining a 

visa before applying for entry into the United States. If citizens of the United States 

can be inconvenienced by being thoroughly searched before they board airplanes, if 

they can be made to wait on long lines of traffic before crossing bridges and tunnels 

at times of elevated threat levels, then why aren’t we requiring that aliens, who 

have no inherent right to be here, be more effectively screened in the interest of 

national security? The effective screening of alien visitors would, in my humble 

opinion, decrease the number of aliens who ultimately violate the terms of their admission and potentially threaten our well-being and security. 

For years the former INS was plagued by an incredibly high attrition rate. Funds 

that might have been put to far better use were squandered on a veritable revolving 

door in which the agency continually recruited and trained qualified young men and 

women who came to the INS highly motivated to serve their country but who quickly became disillusioned by the inept leadership of the agency and resigned so that 

they could pursue satisfying careers at other agencies. No one at the INS seemed 

to care that so many talented and motivated employees were fleeing to other agencies. If we are to run a more cost effective agency, management at ICE, CIS and 

CBP must be made accountable for the attrition rate of the respective offices to 

which they are assigned. This would save significant money and result in a more 

effective and motivated workforce. 

Law enforcement relies on the principle of deterrence to provide the most ‘‘bang 

for the buck.’’ The abysmal reputation that our nation has gained over the past several decades in terms of our ability and determination to enforce the immigration 

laws deters few if any aliens who would come here, either in violation of our laws 

or with the intention of violating our laws after they enter our country. It is said 

you get only one opportunity to make a first impression. The way that we enforce 

and administer the immigration laws serves as the first impression many people 

throughout the world have of our nation’s resolve to enforce our laws. 

We must do better. 

I welcome your questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Papademetriou. 

STATEMENT OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, PRESIDENT, 

MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the Subcommittee. Good morning. I 

am delighted to be here. 

I will take or I have taken already a somewhat different tack in 

my testimony. I am focusing on the services side. I anticipated that 

everyone else would do exactly what it is that they’re doing. 

Roughly speaking, the resources for the enforcement side go up 

by about $500 million. The resources on the service side go up a 

nominal $68 million. But, in reality, in terms of governmental commitments, they go down by a larger amount than that. 

I do not know what is the proper level of enforcement resources 

that the country, our country, any country, should put into the 

function itself. Half a billion dollars may or may not be enough. I’m 

not going to take issue on this, with the exception that I have been 

in this business for about 30 years. Many of you have also done 

this for quite a while. I have never heard the Immigration Service, 

the enforcement function, or, for that matter, any other police or 

enforcement agency ever claim that they have had just the right 

71

amount of resources to do the job that they need to do. And I think 

it is important that we keep that in mind as we throw more and 

more resources at that part of the agency. 

Now, with regard to the services, I’m focusing on the adjudication backlogs. We all know that in immigration we have all sorts 

of backlogs. Sometimes we focus on the backlogs of people who 

have a theoretical right to come to the United States but have to 

wait outside until they get a visa. And those backlogs are 5 million 

people plus. What I’m focusing on today is in the 6.2 million plus 

people who are waiting for their adjudication, for their petition to 

actually be adjudicated by the services part of the Department, 

CIS. And if I might perhaps ask for my first chart to go up on the 

screen—that’s what I understand happens up there. This is, you 

know, too sophisticated for me. 

But on the principle that a picture is worth in this case about 

10 million words, if we can spend just about a minute on that particular chart, and you will see the history of the investments that 

our country has been making on the services part of the immigration function going back 20, 25 years, but the most important, the 

most interesting stuff begins to happen at about 1994. That’s when 

basically applications—that’s sort of the dark blue line—begin to 

increase. As you may recall—Mr. Smith certainly does—this was 

the time when we were talking a lot about immigrants and what 

it is that we’re going to do about them and what kind of new requirements we’re going to impose on them, et cetera, et cetera. And 

that conversation culminated in three pieces of legislation touching 

on immigrants, some more directly, some less directly, all of them 

in 1996. 

In the sharp rise of the red line on your chart, what you see is 

the Clinton administration effort in 1995 and 1996, something that 

became a major political debacle, to naturalize many more people 

than we had been doing up to that time. And you see the sharp 

increase in naturalizations from 1995 and 1996. 

Then, what you see between 1996 and 1998, you see a continuous 

increase in received applications but a dramatic drop in completed 

applications. And as you may recall, that was the time we tried to 

re-engineer, for God only knows which time—third, fifth time—the 

immigration services function. It took us a couple of years to reengineer it. Then indeed the re-engineering may or may not have 

been successful. The only thing I know is that the completed—the 

number of completed applications started to rise again from about 

1998 to the year 2001, 2002, after 9/11, and then you see a dramatic drop in all services. 

So the next three—and please do not put any more charts up 

there. You can sort of look at them at your leisure. The next three 

tables or charts are basically trying to peel away this particular 

onion. In the second chart, I’m taking naturalization out of the 

overall picture. In the following one, I’m focusing just on naturalization. And in the last chart, I’m focusing just on green card adjudications. 

What we have at the end of last year—and I’m sure that you can 

ask GAO or the immigration—I guess CIS, to give you the exact 

figure. What we have is a backlog in green card adjudications that 

is now probably about 1.3 or 1.4 million, and naturalization that 

72

is higher than that, naturalization backlogs are higher than that. 

And, of course, probably another three, three and a half, four million applications for all sorts of other immigration benefits. 

And I ask myself: Is this good for us? And you will have the answer here in perhaps too many words in my text. And I would like 

to make just one more point because this is an important point, not 

only for this Subcommittee but for thinking about immigration or 

thinking smartly about immigration. 

We need to understand that our failures—it’s not only that our 

failures in enforcement that increase the number of illegal—the 

size of illegal immigration in the United States, but it is also our 

failure in adjudications. 

The sad thing is that failures in adjudications are actually perfectly avoidable. I cannot tell you—the GAO perhaps could—what 

is the actual contribution or make an estimate of the contribution 

of these delays in adjudications to the illegal immigration—immigrant population in the United States. I suspect it’s going to be 

hundreds of thousands. It may be much more than that. But this 

is something that the Subcommittee should consider. 

I make five recommendations. Three of them in a sense deal with 

better management. The last two deal primarily with doing things 

differently. 

First, the Subcommittee might make certain through your oversight powers that the CIS is held equally accountable for its mandated responsibilities as the immigration enforcement bureaus are. 

Second, you might convey to the managers of CIS, and indirectly 

to the President, that they will be held to their commitments about 

better and more timely services and that excuses for failing to meet 

self-imposed targets and deadlines will be rejected. 

Third, that this Subcommittee, the full Committee, the Congress, 

should accept at least co-responsibility with the Administration for 

reducing and eliminating adjudication backlogs because, (a) they 

keep immediate families apart, (b) they induce employers to break 

the law, and, more generally, (c) they undermine respect for and 

the integrity of the immigration system itself. 

We don’t fail in that function only by not enforcing the law. We 

fail by not delivering on promises that we also make. 

The fourth recommendation, I think you should put, this Subcommittee, Congress, should put its shoulders behind better services in the immigration area by working with your colleagues in 

the relevant Appropriations Committees to obligate the proper levels of public funding resources to immigration services. The objective here will be to eliminate backlogs as quickly as possible. Simultaneously, you should make it absolutely clear that you will not 

tolerate standards of excellence for that function that are less than 

equal to those you regularly demand from the DHS’ enforcement 

bureaus. 

And, finally, you might want to begin to consider that maybe, 

just maybe, the CIS is misplaced within a bureaucracy whose mandate and measurements of success are about hard-headed, and necessary—it’s not in my testimony, but I think I have made it clear 

in my remarks—homeland security functions. Put differently, and 

looking once more at the four charts and the inexorable falling behind of immigration services for the last decade or so, should we 

73

1 CIS is responsible for adjudicating petitions for naturalization, permanent residence, refugee 

and asylum status, and non-immigrant entries. 

not be thinking more about whether the CIS contributes anything 

unique to homeland security and the cost at which it does so? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Papademetriou follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to comment on the President’s 

FY2005 Budget request for the immigration functions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

The facts about the President’s request are well known to you, especially since 

you have already heard from Government witnesses about them at an earlier hearing. 

In outline form, the President proposes to increase funding for the Department’s 

two ‘‘enforcement’’ bureaus—Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—by $538 million. At the same time, funding for 

the services/benefits part of DHS—Citizenship and Immigrant Services (CIS) 1—

would increase by $58 million. Even this increase, however, is deceptive in that in 

terms of appropriated funding, adjudications suffer an $11 million cut and overall 

funding for the Bureau is cut by $85 million. As Ms. Jackson Lee noted in her Statement of February 25, ‘‘. . . for every additional dollar the Administration is requesting for the benefits bureau, it is requesting 9 dollars for the enforcement bureaus.’’

Perhaps this is as it should be—were it not for two important and interrelated 

factors. 

The first is the fact that CIS is falling ever further behind in discharging its principal responsibilities to US citizens and US residents, namely, the adjudication of 

their petitions for immigration benefits for which they have already paid the requisite fees. Adding insult to injury, petitioners, who have been waiting for several 

years for the immigration services’ division to ‘‘get its act together,’’ are about to 

be required to pay more, retroactively, for a service they will receive at some distant 

time in the future. 

The second factor relates to the relationship between the Government’s abject failure in this elementary good governance function and illegal immigration. 

I will take each issue in sequence. 

IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION BACKLOGS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Benefit adjudication backlogs, on a steep rise since the mid-1990s, have spiraled 

seemingly out of control in the last two years. CIS Director Aguirre has acknowledged as much before this Subcommittee and has offered both his explanations for 

this development and another iteration of a ‘‘plan’’ for performing magic by the end 

of FY2006. 

And in fact, part of Director Aguirre’s explanation is quite legitimate. Delivering 

immigration benefits must indeed be accurate, security considerations must be satisfied to virtual certainty, and the service must be professional, courteous and above 

reproach. But immigration benefits must also be delivered in a timely fashion. 

The cost of failure in that last regard is not just longer waiting lines and the likely (but completely unnecessary and avoidable) swelling in the unauthorized population; it is the breeding of disrespect, if not disregard, for the rules, a phenomenon 

that has an extraordinarily corrosive effect on the rule of law. That effect is not unlike that which offends so many law-abiding Americans when they see unauthorized 

immigrants come and/or stay in our country illegally. 

a. Backlogs 

If you will allow me, I would like to give you a sense of the sorry state of our 

government’s performance in delivering immigration benefits in the last twenty or 

so years.

74

Let us take a look at Chart 1, which tracks the total benefit applications received, 

completed (a number that reflects approvals plus denials), and pending since 1980. 

(My colleagues at the Migration Policy Institute have also graphed the same data 

going back to 1960, and I will be happy to provide that graph to the Subcommittee, 

if you so wish. I assure you, however, that the trend and the relationship among 

these three variables are unexceptional, except for a brief spike in the number of 

applications received in 1976 that reflects certain one-time adjustments to our immigration formula that year.) 

Returning to the chart in front of you, please note that until the early 1990s, 

pending applications were holding fairly steady both in absolute numbers (in the 

low hundreds of thousands) and relative to completion rates—as did the numbers 

of received and completed applications. Demand began to grow as those who received legal permanent status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 


Papa1.eps
75

1986 (IRCA) became eligible for benefits, primarily as petitioners for their immediate family members. Yet, for a period, the then INS more or less was able to keep 

up with most of the additional demand, primarily as a result of the efforts of then 

INS Commissioner Doris Meissner. (Please note the sharp upward climb in completed applications—the red line—and the corresponding flattening in the number 

of pending cases—the light blue line—in chart 1.) 

Things started to fall apart, however, by the mid-1990s, when the IRCA-fueled demand for adjudications combined with the surge in naturalization petitions that resulted from what some analysts have characterized as the ‘‘assault on immigrants’’

that culminated in three pieces of legislation affecting that population in 1996: The 

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. 

Surges in demand, however, are not the only variable responsible for what happened after 1996. The naturalization re-engineering that followed the political debacle of the Clinton Administration’s efforts to promote naturalizations in 1995 and 

1996 created a sharp completion trough that lasted until 1998. At that time, completion rates increased nicely again until FY 2002, when they dropped precipitously 

once more—a drop from which they have shown no signs of recovering so far. In 

fact, at this time, the immigration services’ backlog is well over six million (it stood 

at 6.2 million at the end of FY2003, with more than 1.2 million pending ‘‘green 

card’’ adjudications and multiyear naturalization delays). 

No part of this tale is a surprise to anyone with even a passing interest on immigration matters. During the immigration roller-coaster years of the last ten years, 

demands on the INS (and its successor agencies) have been increasing exponentially 

while the organization’s capabilities have been diminishing seemingly at even steeper rates. It is no wonder, then, that the ratio of pending-to-completed applications 

have been rising so steeply during this same time.

76

Taking naturalization petitions out of the statistical picture does not alter the 

overall portrait dramatically. This suggests that the inability of the INS and its successor organizations to deliver services with any predictability cannot be laid to the 

feet of surging naturalization petitions alone. Most migration specialists would 

agree that this statistical picture reflects a clear systemic performance deficit. They 

would also agree that it reflects the failure of the services’ side of our immigration 

system to make an effective case to its political superiors—whether at the Justice 

Department or DHS, but especially at OMB, the White House proper, and the U.S. 

Congress—that immigration services are critical to the organization’s mission and 

overall objectives. 

Chart 2 makes that point clear. It shows a broadly a similar pattern to that of 

the previous chart with similar troughs and surges and a virtually identical performance portrait. The similarity on patterns holds both for the gap between appliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120

Papa2.eps
77

cations received and those completed but especially for the steeply growing backlogs 

beginning in 1993 but becoming sharply obvious after 1996. 

The next two charts focus on two components of the adjudication function that 

should be of particular importance to this Subcommittee as it considers both the 

President’s budget request and his immigration reform proposals put forth on January 7 of this year.

The next chart offers another look at the performance pattern of the services’ side 

of the immigration agency, this time by focusing exclusively on naturalization petitions. The chart starts again with 1980 data. 

Chart 3 makes abundantly clear that when it came to naturalizations, the agency 

kept received, completed and pending applications within a rather narrow band essentially until 1994—when two factors began to wreak havoc with the system. By 

1994, the first cohorts of those who received permanent legal status under IRCA 


Papa3.eps
78

were becoming eligible for naturalization and were in fact availing themselves of 

that privilege. Simultaneously, that period’s intense debates about immigrants encouraged some immigrants to naturalize and persuaded others who, although eligible, had been sitting on the fence about whether to naturalize or not, to do so also. 

Hence the surge in applications. The severe slowdown in the adjudication of naturalizations during the re-engineering years in the late 1990s is clearly evident in 

the enormous spike in pending applications in 1997 and 1998, when the number 

stood at nearly 1.9 million. 

Three more data quirks on this chart require a brief explanation.

• First, and not surprisingly, these same two years (1997 and 1998) also witnessed the formation of the largest gap between pending and completed applications for any period—about 1.2 million.

• Second, completions of naturalization petitions surged from 1998 to 2000 

when, without any contextual explanation other than the chaos and 

dysfunctionality of an agency set adrift in the post 9/11 environment, they 

begin to slump sharply again, reaching their nadir today.

• Third, the number of petitions themselves dove dramatically starting in 1997, 

in some significant part because new applicants became discouraged by the 

widely-reported adjudication delays. This trend, however, reversed itself for 

a time after 9/11, demonstrating once more (as it did in the 1994–1996 period) 

the ‘‘defensive adaptation’’ character of naturalization surges. That is, that a 

proportion of those who seek to naturalize do so as a means of protecting 

themselves from the legal and other uncertainties of not being a citizen.

79

The final chart is the most graphic depiction yet of the chaotic relationship between demand for and the government’s capacity to adjudicate (or is it the priority 

it attaches to adjudicating?) lawful permanent residence (LPR) or ‘‘green card’’ applications. Chart 4 shows the dramatic and consistent increase in pending LPR petitions beginning with FY 1994. Remarkably, for much of that period of extended and 

continuous increases in demand, application completions have hardly ever kept up 

with new application intakes, a factor which explains the accumulation of the backlog evident in the graph. (The exceptions are 1995–1996 and 1999–2000). 

Most striking perhaps is the 2002–2003 segment of the graph that shows demand 

spiking at the same time that the government’s capacity to and priority in adjudicating petitions simultaneously plummets. While the need to be as certain as possible that no one who may wish us harm receives a green card—a perfectly natural 

impulse and a critical governance objective—the preponderance of the evidence still 


Papa4.eps
80

points to another, inescapable, conclusion: immigration services, whether under the 

old INS or the new CIS, have been no more than the stepchild in what many consider the immigration system’s foremost (and all too often nearly exclusive) responsibility: enforcement, not services. 

b. The Relationship of Backlogs to Illegal Immigration 

Estimating the relationship between multiyear adjudication backlogs and illegal 

immigration with some certainty is more of an art than a science and would require 

an agency with the data access and resources of a GAO to undertake the task. However, even without the benefit of full access to government data files and the ability 

to draw and examine a sample of immigration petitioners and intended beneficiaries, common sense allows one to speculate that some of a petition’s beneficiaries whose cases have been pending before the INS (and now CIS) for a long 

time are already in the United States illegally. 

More specifically, unreasonable delays in naturalization adjudications are likely 

to mean that many immediate families simply ‘‘re-unify’’ on-their-own—an act that 

in many ways is within the spirit if outside the letter of the law. Similarly, there 

is little reason to doubt that some, perhaps even many, among those waiting for 

green card adjudications might have done likewise—in the process involving the petitioning U.S. entities, many of whom are U.S. employers, in an avoidable pattern 

of deception and illegality. 

CONCLUSION

Illegal immigration has been properly targeted as one of our country’s largest governance challenges. In fact, the President has stated his determination to do something about it. It seems to me that substantial investment of new government moneys to immigration services would provide two significant benefits. First, it would 

be the fastest, smartest, and least divisive way to reduce the size of the proverbial 

haystack of unknown individuals that DHS Secretary Ridge worries about. Second, 

it would simultaneously reestablish respect for the law and allow the immigration 

services’ function to regain some of the integrity it has lost (and we all want it to 

have) and those who deliver the function to earn once more the confidence and reputation they seek and deserve. 

From both migration management and good governance perspectives we should 

not tolerate such enormous adjudication delays. The fact that virtually all costs associated with the delivery of immigration services are ‘‘recovered’’ in the form of 

fees, makes explanations other than the low priority the service function receives 

from senior decision makers in the U.S. Government seem weak, even feeble. The 

function’s bureaucratic location per se—within the Justice Department for more 

than 60 years or, now, within the DHS—does not seem to matter much. The President’s budget request for FY2005 continues to give immigration services the same 

low priority. 

Budgets, we learn in school, reflect what an organization considers more or less 

important. The facts speak for themselves. If this Subcommittee disagrees with the 

President’s assigned importance to immigration services, and given the obvious correlation between absurd delays in adjudications and illegal immigration, it has the 

ability to and, I would argue, the responsibility to stand up and say so. 

You and your Congressional colleagues might go about making yourselves clearer 

on these issues as follows:

• First, make certain through your oversight powers that the CIS is held equally accountable for its mandated responsibilities as the immigration enforcement bureaus;

• Second, convey to the managers of CIS, and indirectly to the President, that 

they will be held to their commitments about better and more timely services 

and that excuses for failing to meet self-imposed targets and deadlines will 

be rejected?

• Third, accept at least co-responsibility with the Administration for reducing 

and eliminating adjudication backlogs because (a) they keep immediate families apart, (b) induce employers to break the law, and, more generally, (c) undermine respect for and the integrity of the immigration system itself.

• Fourth, put your shoulders behind better services in the immigration area by 

working with your colleagues in the relevant appropriations’ committee to obligate the proper level of public resources to immigration services. Simultaneously, you should make it absolutely clear that you will not tolerate standards of excellence for that function that are less than equal to those you regularly demand from the DHS’ enforcement bureaus.

81

• Finally, this Subcommittee and this Congress must begin to consider that 

maybe, just maybe, the CIS is misplaced within a bureaucracy whose mandate and measurements of success are about hard-headed homeland security

functions. Put differently, and looking once more at the four charts and the 

inexorable falling behind of immigration services for the last decade or so, 

should we not be thinking more about whether the CIS contributes anything 

unique to homeland security and the cost at which it does so?

• Specifically, if immigration services can be delivered in as robust a way 

as possible (both in homeland security and program integrity terms) 

why not start thinking about removing the overall function from DHS? 

It is in fact entirely possible that creating a new regulatory agency 

(perhaps something akin to the Social Security Administration) that 

never loses sight either of its governance obligations or its responsibility toward its fee-paying clients—yet can be held directly accountable for its performance—might prove a better administrative vehicle 

that having CIS within DHS.

After all, immigration services are virtually completely self-funded and, I suspect 

that spinning them out of DHS will in fact generate ‘‘savings’’ of at least one sort—

personnel will be able to focus exclusively on the new agency’s mandate and its performance can be evaluated accordingly. The alternative is well known to us all: it 

often involves being detailed, temporarily re-assigned, or otherwise tapped for purposes other that what the function’s mandate requires and what those who seek 

benefits have paid for: the timely adjudication of petitions for a benefit to which 

they have a presumptive right.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Papademetriou. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for her opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

To the witnesses, thank you for your patience. I was delayed by 

another meeting on the other side of this campus. But I will ask 

unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

At our previous hearing on the Funding for Immigration in the President’s 2005 

Budget, I expressed concern over the fact that the FY 2005 budget request for the 

Department of Homeland Security strongly favors the Department’s two enforcement bureaus over its benefits bureau. The Administration is requesting six times 

more for the enforcement bureaus than for the benefits bureau. It is requesting 

$10,214 million for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau 

of Immigration and Customs Enforcement but only $1,711 million for the Bureau 

of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services. 

It also is significant that the Administration is requesting an increase of $538 million for the enforcement bureaus but only is requesting a $58 million increase for 

the benefits bureau. For every additional dollar the Administration is requesting for 

the benefits bureau, it is requesting nine dollars for the enforcement bureaus. 

I am not opposed to providing sufficient funding for the enforcement bureaus. My 

concern is that the Administration is not requesting adequate resources for the benefits operations. The Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) 

has not been able to keep up with its work load, which, according to Director 

Eduardo Aguirre Jr., includes more than six million benefits applications each year. 

USCIS does an incredible amount of work. Director Aguirre testified that during 

the course of a typical day, his workforce of 15,500 employees will do the following:

• Process 140,000 national security background checks;

• receive 100,000 web hits;

• take 50,000 calls at the Customer Service Centers;

• adjudicate 30,000 applications for immigration benefits;

• see 225,000 visitors at 92 field offices;

• issue 20,000 green cards, and

82

• capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130 Application Support Centers.

In addition to this, USCIS has to devote substantial resources to eliminating its 

backlog of more than six million benefits applications. 

Director Aguirre assured us that the proposed FY 2005 budget amount for USCIS 

would provide him with the resources he needs. I have great respect for Director 

Aguirre, but I do not share his optimism on this matter. The proposed budget only 

allocates $140 million for backlog reduction. Even with the addition of the $20 million USCIS expects to receive from increased processing fees, this is not sufficient 

to eliminate the backlog. This is apparent when you look at recent operating expenses. During the three-year period from FY 2001 through FY 2003, USCIS’s re- ported operating costs exceeded available fees by almost $460 million. Since the beginning of FY 2001, the number of pending applications increased by more than 2.3 

million (about 59%) to 6.2 million at the end of FY 2003. This increase occurred despite additional appropriations beginning in FY 2002 of $80 million annually to address the backlog. 

I also am concerned about the fact that USCIS is raising its application fees. This 

may be necessary to cover the additional expenses of post 9/11 security checks, but 

it is a move in the wrong direction if the objective is to generate needed operating 

funds through fees rather than through the President’s budget request. The Department of State relies heavily on fees to support its visa application operations, and 

its recent experiences show that this can be an unreliable way to provide necessary 

funding. 

Since 9/11, the State Department has experienced a decrease in non-immigrant 

visa demand. This has resulted in significant revenue shortfalls in the FY 2003 and 

the FY 2004 Border Security Program budget. To compensate for these shortfalls, 

the Department has applied funding provided by supplemental appropriations: $46 

million in FY 2003 and $109.5 million in FY 2004. The Department considered increasing the fees but refrained from doing this on account of concern that the increases could have an adverse affect on the public’s willingness to travel to the 

United States, which would reduce the demand for visas even further. 

Meanwhile, $340 million is allocated for the US-VISIT program, which may turn 

out to be a waste of resources that could have been used elsewhere, such as for reducing the benefits applications backlog. I believe that we need to pay more attention to benefits operations and that we much use our resources more wisely. Thank 

you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I will make some comments pertaining 

to my concern. 

We had a previous hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I expressed concern over the fact that the FY 2005 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security strongly favors the Department’s two 

enforcement bureaus over its benefits bureau. The Administration 

is requesting 6 times more for the enforcement bureau than for the 

benefits bureau. It is requesting some $10 billion for the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection, I believe, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but only $1 billion for the 

Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services, as I understand it. 

It also is significant that the Administration is requesting an in- crease of $538 million for the enforcement bureaus but only is requesting a $58 million increase for the benefits bureau. For every 

additional dollar the Administration is requesting for the benefits 

bureau, it is requesting $9 for the enforcement bureaus. 

It is interesting, if I take my memory clock or I report back—and 

this is by no means, Mr. Bonner, a suggestion that we cannot do 

more with the Border Patrol funding and a number of other issues 

that I have worked on over the years, including professional development. But what I am suggesting is that we’re in a partnership. 

And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I recall the organizing of the Homeland Security Department, and if we were to delve into the congressional records, testimony and comments both in front of the 

83

Homeland Security Committee as well as in the Judiciary Committee, I made it very clear that my concern was in merging all of 

these various agencies and changing the INS for the better, would 

we not disenfranchise the benefits issue? 

Just this past weekend, President Bush met with President 

Vicente Fox, and President Fox of Mexico came out and said, We 

have a deal, we’re going to be working together to downplay the 

utilization of the US-VISIT Program at the border for some frequent visitors. Certainly I would say there is some merit to discussing that. I’m glad that the President, President Bush, restrained himself in the details because, frankly, I believe Congress 

and the Homeland Security Department should be intimately involved. 

But the interesting point is that I know in their meeting—I 

would imagine that they must have had a follow-up of the big 

promise that the President made as it relates to the undocumented 

alien situation in this country. In order to begin to even look at a 

structure to deal with that, Mr. Chairman, even to look at it, you’re 

going to have to have more resources, because right now as we sit 

in this hearing we have a 6-million-person backlog or question 

backlog or request backlog on benefits. And let me share some of 

this with you. 

U.S. CIS has done an incredible amount of work. Director 

Aguirre testified that during the course of a typical day, his workforce of 15,500 employees would do the following: process 140,000 

national security background checks; receive 100,000 Web hits; 

take 50,000 calls at the customer service centers; adjudicate 30,000 

applications for immigration benefits; see 225,000 visitors at 92 

field offices; issue 20,000 green cards; capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130 application support centers. 

But what we have not addressed is that as they are doing the 

current work, 6 million benefits applications remain in backlog, 

and someone needs to take a visit to the Texas center, one of the 

busiest in the Nation, and you will find still the scurrying to find 

lost fingerprints. Even as we utilize the new technology, we have 

never caught up, Mr. Chairman, with fixing this issue. And with 

the dialogue with President Vicente Fox and this whole issue of undocumented aliens and with our discussion about earned access to 

legalization, even the President’s plan, which includes a flat earth 

program of guest worker and falling off at the end, but he does ask 

that everybody who’s willing to come would be documented. Can 

you imagine overlaying that responsibility, which, as I understand 

it, should be within the next fiscal year, and not have additional 

resources for benefits? 

I am delighted of the witnesses who have come for their testimony, but let me just say this: Even with the addition of the $20 

million U.S. CIS expects to receive from increased processing fees, 

this is not sufficient, Mr. Chairman, to eliminate the backlog. This 

is apparent when you look at recent operating expenses. And during the 3-year period from 2001 to 2003, U.S. CIS reported operating costs exceeded available fees by almost $460 million—$460 

million. Since the beginning of FY 2001, the number of pending applications increased by more than 2.3 million, about 59 percent, to 

6.2 million at the end of FY 2003. 

84

There are a number of numbers that I’ll use throughout my questioning, Mr. Chairman. Let me just conclude by saying this: I put 

these numbers on the record because I believe that you are sincere 

with these hearings on the budget, and this cannot be the hide-theball FY 2005 budget year when it comes to immigration issues. 

This cannot be the smoke and mirrors budget of 2005. If we’re 

going to seriously reform the immigration system to answer the 

questions of those who are anti-immigration, anti-immigrants, and 

are pro-homeland security, then we’re going to have to put our 

money where our mouth is. And even to begin talking about documenting anyone, this Department is going to need more monies. 

And, finally, I would say that I always begin my comments, Mr. 

Chairman, that immigration does not equate to terrorism. We need 

all of the elements that are here before us this morning to work 

with us to ensure a safe and secure homeland, but to meet the values of this Nation, and that is that we are a Nation of immigrants 

and of laws. We are not doing ourselves a service, Mr. Chairman, 

unless this Subcommittee aggressively works to increase—or to 

make the record that we cannot function, we cannot be law-abiding, we cannot document, we cannot be secure without increased 

funding on the benefit side. And I would ask the Chairman to work 

with me, and I look forward to working with him. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Flake. He will leave early, so we will—— Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I thank the Chairman. And I only have 

5 minutes, so I would appreciate if you could answer as briefly as 

possible. I will try to ask quick questions. 

Mr. Bonner, you stated in your testimony that we only have—oh, 

I’m sorry. This was Mr. Danahey mentioned that we only have 

token control of the border. We spend about 6 times as much now 

as we did just 15 years ago on the border, and that’s yielded us just 

token control? 

Mr. DANAHEY. It’s an improvement, sir, but I think we need to 

do more. 

Mr. FLAKE. How many troops or how many—some say ‘‘troops.’’ Some say ‘‘others.’’ How many more people will we need on the border to seal it? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Would the gentleman please turn on your 

microphone? Is it on? 

Mr. DANAHEY. It is. Sir, I don’t have a number right off the top 

of my head. I’d be happy to research that through our INS people 

to try to get you a better number. But from last year’s testimony 

where I think we cited that local police were being used to supplement the Federal agents and Border Patrol agents up on the New 

York border, for instance, it, of course, takes away from other assets that the States need to perform their functions. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Bonner, does your organization have a position 

on the President’s plan, immigration reform plan? 

Mr. BONNER. The guest-worker program? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. As we call it, the amnesty. We are intensely opposed to granting amnesty to people. That only serves to encourage 

more people to break the law. We discovered that in the 1986 amVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
85

nesty, all it did was monumentally increase the numbers. Back 

then, they estimated 3 to 4 million people in the country illegally. 

Currently, that has—— Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Bonner, could you give me your definition of amnesty? 

Mr. BONNER. Amnesty, according to the dictionary, is when 

you—when an authority, such as a Government, pardons people for 

breaking a law. 

Mr. FLAKE. Precisely. The President’s plan, as I understand it, 

includes a penalty, a fine, and then movement to the back of the 

line or no pathway to citizenship automatically. Is that still an amnesty? 

Mr. BONNER. It still is. Citizenship——

Mr. FLAKE. What would you call——

Mr. BONNER.—has nothing to do——

Mr. FLAKE. What would you call the current situation? The current situation, it would seem, is a de facto amnesty. Would you 

argue with that? 

Mr. BONNER. I would not argue that point. We have turned a 

blind eye to millions of people breaking our immigration laws. 

Mr. FLAKE. In an effort actually to document those who are here, 

force them to pay a fine, and then put them back at least 3 or 6 

years behind those in terms of seeking legal permanent residency 

or status, that’s less of an amnesty than what we have now. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. BONNER. I believe that most people are entering this country 

for the jobs. They’re not entering to become citizens. 

Mr. FLAKE. That’s correct. That’s my feeling. 

Mr. BONNER. And so that carrot out there of, well, you can become a citizen way down the line, they don’t care about becoming 

a citizen ever. They just want our money. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Danahey, what—do you believe the President’s 

plan is described well by Mr. Bonner? 

Mr. DANAHEY. I believe pretty close, sir, yes. 

Mr. FLAKE. Would you agree that today we have a de facto amnesty? 

Mr. DANAHEY. At this point we do not. 

Mr. FLAKE. We do not? 

Mr. DANAHEY. I don’t believe we have an amnesty program. We 

have a turnaround program. 

Mr. FLAKE. But you said we’re only making a token effort at the 

border. 

Mr. DANAHEY. That’s right. 

Mr. FLAKE. But would that not be improved by actually registering those who are here and giving them an opportunity to go 

back home by legally crossing the border with the legal process? 

Mr. DANAHEY. It would be a step in the right direction, sir. 

Mr. FLAKE. That would be a step—the President’s plan would be 

a step in the right direction? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Yes. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Cutler, are you familiar with the Bracero program of the 

1950’s? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes, to an extent. 

86

Mr. FLAKE. When it ended, did we have a better situation or a 

worse situation in terms of illegals coming across? 

Mr. CUTLER. To be honest, I really couldn’t tell you that. But 

what I can say to you, though, is that we are not deterring illegal 

immigration, and it is not just because of the border. The problem 

is—and I always talk about an enforcement tripod. It stands on 

three legs: the inspectors enforce the law at ports of entry, the Border Patrol between ports of entry, but we need that third leg, the 

special agents from within the interior so that when people get 

past the Border Patrol, they have concern that they’re going to be 

apprehended and ultimately removed from the United States. 

Right now there is no such—— Mr. FLAKE. That’s right. I couldn’t agree more. 

In 1964, when the Bracero program ended, INS apprehensions 

increased from 86,597 to 875,000, over a thousand-percent increase 

in illegal immigration. When you don’t have a legal program, a 

legal avenue for workers to come, they’re going to come illegally, 

and that’s the situation we have now. It’s a de facto amnesty. Any 

situation to register those, I would submit, and give them an opportunity to go home—the average stay in Arizona for a migrant worker coming used to be about 2.2 years. It’s increased to over 9 years 

today because there’s no legal avenue for them to return home. We 

have the worst of all situations in Arizona. They come, they bring 

their families, and they stay. What used to be a circular pattern 

of migration is now a settled pattern, and we’re doing nothing to 

stop it at the border. Even if we could seal the border, as some are 

advocating, even if we could, 40 percent of those who entered—or 

who are here illegally now entered the country legally. We’ve 

solved nothing. And so we have got to have a program to allow 

them to return home, I would submit. And Mr. Bonner’s point that 

they’re coming here for jobs is precisely right. We ought to recognize that, give them a program, and then allow those to return 

home. And then we can focus more resources on those who would 

actually come to do us harm. 

I thank the Chairman for indulging and putting me first, and I 

apologize for having to leave. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. Bonner and Mr. Danahey, the applications chart that was 

given us by Dr. Papademetriou indicates that between 1990 and 

2002, an increase in applications completed by the INS, now CIS, 

to be in excess of 3 times greater. Can you tell me if we have been 

able to remove 3 times the number of illegal aliens from the United 

States during that time, Mr. Bonner, on an annual basis? 

Mr. BONNER. I don’t know the exact figures, but I would be very 

surprised if we were removing even a fraction of the numbers that 

you’re talking about. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Danahey? 

Mr. DANAHEY. I agree with Mr. Bonner, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So, in proportion, we are, with regard to the 

service that’s being rendered to the United States of America, 

whether it’s—whether it’s adjudicating applications or enforcing 

the immigration laws, in proportion, with regard to the statistics 

that Dr. Papademetriou has supplied and your experience, we are 

87

spending quite a bit more proportionally on the immigration side 

than we are on the enforcement side, would you not say, with regard to the results? Mr. Bonner? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, I think that you need to look at the overall 

picture in terms of what is best for this country, and I think that 

we can’t ignore what happened on September the 11. There were 

only 19 people, and, you know, if you talk about, well, we’re doing 

a ‘‘pretty good’’ job of enforcement, ‘‘only’’ 19 people caused thousands of American citizens to die and cost us billions of dollars, and 

I think that—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. But, relatively speaking, Mr. Bonner, with regard—the American people have a citizenship process, service process now, and they have a law enforcement side. If we are nowhere 

near completing the same, proportionally speaking, with regard to 

law enforcement and services, proportionally would you not say 

that we are spending—with regard to the service that’s being rendered, we’re spending a lot more on immigration services, not with 

regard to total dollars but with regard to the statistics, the actual 

results of the activity, we are spending a lot more on services than 

we are on law enforcement. 

Mr. BONNER. I agree with you, and I think that we’re overly generous as a Nation in providing benefits to people, and I think we 

need to—the point I was trying to make is that it’s very important 

to protect our country. We can’t—we cannot go on with open borders and then allowing millions of people to put in for benefits. We 

need to stop and take a look and figure out what’s best for this 

country at this point in time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bonner, the budget request, as it was related to us at the 

Subcommittee in the last hearing from CBP, included increases in 

technology and sensoring cameras as well as UAVs. Do you believe—but not more agents. Do you believe that the Border Patrol 

needs more agents even as we increase spending in technology? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, absolutely. The technology is the eyes and the 

ears. There is no camera designed that will jump down off that pole 

and apprehend illegal aliens. That is up to Border Patrol agents. 

So it does no good. One of the things that they discovered back in 

the mid-1990’s when they launched Operation Gatekeeper in San 

Diego, CA, the sensors were going crazy, and they turned them off 

because they said it was demoralizing the agents because they 

couldn’t catch all the people that were going around them. 

Well, that’s kind of silly, in my view, to have technology and not 

use it. I think it would be beneficial to know exactly how many people are getting by us because that would provide a true measure 

of the effectiveness of the Border Patrol and give us an indication 

of how many more agents it would take to bring that border under 

control. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. One more question, Mr. Bonner. In 

January 2004, the President proposed a temporary worker program 

that you discussed earlier with Mr. Flake. Newspapers were reporting in January that the Border Patrol was conducting a survey of 

apprehended aliens to see whether they had heard about the President’s proposal. Is that true? And if that is true, is the survey still 

being taken? 

88

Mr. BONNER. It is true that in a number of areas they were taking the survey. It ended rather quickly. I’m not sure of the reasons. 

It became a political hot potato. Perhaps they didn’t like the answers they were receiving. 

Anecdotally, the agents in the field were relaying to me and others that many of the people that were coming across were making 

inquiries about the guest-worker program, about the amnesty. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. Bonner, I’ve worked with the Border Patrol agents some 

years back on professional development and increasing the civil 

service ranking to hopefully assist you all in retention. I’ve literally 

walked the Southern border, and let me thank you for the graciousness of many of the Border Patrol agents that have shown me some 

of the areas and challenges that they face. 

Tell me what you need to be really effective in terms of increased 

inspectors and Border Patrol agents in the United States as it 

might impact on the budget, what you really need to be at full capacity where you’d feel comfortable in terms of increased inspectors 

and Border Patrol agents. And, of course, we talk about the Northern border and the Southern border included. 

Mr. BONNER. I think that really depends on the strategy that you 

pursue. If we continue to pretend that we can stop everything at 

the border, bearing in mind that 40 percent of the illegal—somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of the illegal immigrant population comes in legally, but let’s continue to pretend that we can 

stop everything at the border, it would take millions of Border Patrol agents. Really, we need to get a handle on the root cause of 

why people are coming to this country. We need to enact tough employer sanctions laws that take the burden off of the employer’s 

back, put it on the Government’s back where it belongs, for the 

Government to develop some form of counterfeit-proof identification 

that will allow an employer to recognize someone who has a right 

to work in this country and that will allow the Government to penalize employers who try and circumvent that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But if we were to look at a different strategy, 

let’s just take your vision, not necessarily—I don’t necessarily agree 

with it, maybe, but then what kind of increase would you think 

that we would need in either Border Patrol agents or inspectors? 

Mr. BONNER. Under my vision, where you have employer sanctions laws that are enforceable, you could probably control the remaining elements because you would remove 99 percent of the people who are coming across our borders of those millions of people. 

And you would be left with terrorists and other criminal——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you’re not here today to ask for any increased compensation for Border Patrol agents, no increased numbers of inspectors? I just want to know—— Mr. BONNER. That’s not what I said. I said—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, then tell me—— Mr. BONNER. In an ideal world—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. But I’m trying to get to the bottom line. What 

is the number——

89

Mr. BONNER. Well, if we’re continuing to pursue the current policy, I think that at a minimum you need to be adding at the rate 

that they were adding a few years ago, a thousand agents per year. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That’s what I’m trying to get at, and we’ll 

work with that. Obviously, you have a difference as to the strategy, 

but we’re looking at numbers now, and we’re trying to be as responsive as we can. And so those are the numbers that, under the 

present structure, you are needing more assistance. Is that my understanding? 

Mr. BONNER. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me also just ask you a quick question, and 

I heard your comments to the Chairman and to Mr. Flake. I calculate—and when I say ‘‘I calculate,’’ based on numbers that have 

come to my attention—that there may be between 8 and 14 million 

undocumented individuals in this country. Are you saying that we 

have the capacity to deport 14 million people? 

Mr. BONNER. I believe that if you have laws that are enforceable 

for employer sanctions that people will go home. The reason they 

are here is for the jobs, and if the job spigot is turned off, they will 

go home, because their only other alternative is to sit and beg in 

the streets, in which case our police, our local police would arrest 

them for vagrancy, and then they would be deported. But I think 

that most of them would just simply go home. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I think you have a very large vision 

about that, and I would venture to say to you that 14 million who 

have put down roots, built houses, paying taxes, whether it’s sales 

taxes, children in school, are absolutely not going to do that. So I 

think we vigorously disagree, but I appreciate very much your comments on the Border Patrol. 

Mr. Papademetriou, thank you so very much. Give me a response 

to this idea that we are spending more for enforcement than we are 

for benefits, and what do we need to do in this budget year? You 

heard my consternation, and if you have better numbers than 6 

million—I don’t think the debate is on that question, but help us 

understand whether we are really in an equity as it relates to benefits and enforcement. And thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and I couldn’t agree more with your statement and 

the thrust of your questions. 

There is some fundamental difference that makes any comparison, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, between the resources 

that we invest on the one part of the function and the other one 

essentially invalid. First of all, the services function is largely selffunded. The governmental resources that go into the function are 

but a fraction of the numbers that you see. So there is a big difference over there as to who is paying. You’re going to have to com- pare not the $1.7 million to the—billion to the $10 billion, but 

whatever it is that comes out of our pocket, the public’s pocket, 

with what comes out of the public’s pocket for the $10 billion. 

That’s a real $10 billion. This is just a fraction of $1.7. 

The other part that makes that comparison suspect, in my view, 

is that in a sense we are comparing not apples and oranges but I 

think apples and widgets. We have not established that if we do 

more in the one area we necessarily will do better in the other 

90

area. The two are completely disengaged. We may not be doing well 

in terms of enforcement—and at some fundamental level I do not 

disagree with my colleagues on this side of the table. But, in reality, what we’re talking about is let’s continue to put resources 

there. Be smart about the methodology. You called it strategy. We 

all need to realize that we don’t have, you know, all of the money 

in the world. But, also, begin to address the issue of services if for 

no other reason because it breeds illegality. It contributes to that 

aid to 12, 14 million people. We don’t know exactly how many, but 

it contributes to that number. And we can bring that number down 

relatively with no cost to the Treasury. This is very, very significant. 

Let me give you an off-the-top-of-my-head, back-of-the-envelope, 

whatever you will, Madam Ranking Member, estimate of what it 

might take to remove people, because I am absolutely convinced—

I have been in this business long enough to be fully convinced—

that what you are saying, that these people are not going to leave 

is absolutely right. 

How long does it take, in terms of investigation, to actually—investigative resources, to actually trace down a number of people? 

How long—how many people does it take to actually go and pick 

them up? How much jail time does it take in order to prepare them 

for their hearings——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair is going to have to cut you off, Dr. 

Papademetriou. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Sorry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If he could just summarize, Chairman? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. There’s a question, I think, that was—the 

question was: Do you agree with the Chairman that we’re spending 

too much on immigration services with regard—and I think you answered that question. I appreciate that. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. My apology. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And we’re going to have another round of questions, and we will definitely—if the lady, gentlelady wants to address that issue, we will definitely get into that issue. But we’re 

going to move on now to Mr. Smith of Texas. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for again having a hearing on such an 

important subject, and thank you, too, for your selection of the witnesses who are here today, who are all experts in their fields. 

Mr. Papademetriou, I don’t mean to ignore you, but most of my 

questions are going to be addressed to the other witnesses. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. I expected that, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, we’ve heard some figures 

today about the number of people who are in the country illegally. 

The census, I believe, increased their figure after the 2000 census 

from 8 million to 11 million, but I just want to make the point 

again that the census only counted people who are in the country 

permanently, which is to say 365 days a year. If you were to today 

take a count of all the people who are in the country illegally, it 

could well be twice as many because of the people who are here for 

a short term. So the problem, I think, is probably greater than 

many of us realize. 

91

I assume, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Danahey, and Mr. Cutler, that we are 

all in agreement that we think we ought to reduce illegal immigration. Is that correct? Okay. 

Let me ask you if you feel that the following programs or proposals would, in fact, reduce illegal immigration. Do you think the 

States issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants is going to reduce illegal immigration? Is there anybody that thinks that it will. 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

Mr. DANAHEY. No. 

Mr. CUTLER. No. 

Mr. SMITH. Is there anyone who thinks that the issuance of 

matricula cards is going to reduce illegal immigration? 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

Mr. DANAHEY. No. 

Mr. CUTLER. No. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And, Mr. Danahey, you may disagree here, 

but, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Cutler, do you think that a new guestworker program is going to reduce illegal immigration? 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

Mr. DANAHEY. No. 

Mr. CUTLER. No. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Mr. Danahey, a while ago I may have misunderstood, but the proposed guest-worker program by the Administration would allow people in the country illegally to stay for 6 

years, perhaps more, to work, to bring in their families. Do you 

honestly believe that these individuals are going to be inclined to 

return to their home country after those years, after their families 

are here and after they’re working? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Sir, I would say that they’re going to be inclined 

to try to stay here any way they can once they become comfortable 

and integrated into our society. 

Mr. SMITH. And do you think that none of these illegal immigrants are going to be taking jobs that are—that could be worked 

by Americans? And when I say ‘‘Americans,’’ I’m talking about citizens and legal immigrants as well. 

Mr. DANAHEY. Yes, sir, they would be taking jobs that could be 

filled by U.S. citizens. 

Mr. SMITH. And yet you said a while ago, I thought, that you 

thought that the proposed guest-worker program was a step in the 

right direction. How could it be a step in the right direction if it 

is taking jobs away from Americans and if it’s going to encourage 

people to stay in the country rather than go home? 

Mr. DANAHEY. It’s a step in the right direction in at least we 

know who is here and where they are. As far as taking jobs away, 

et cetera, I hadn’t looked at that broad of a——

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Don’t you think if we make it attractive for individuals to stay in the country illegally that it’s like to encourage 

more people to come into the country illegally? 

Mr. DANAHEY. It would. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Lastly, what single thing do you three feel that we should do to—

what’s the most important single thing we could do to reduce illegal immigration? Mr. Bonner, let’s start with you. 

92

Mr. BONNER. As I’ve stated previously, I think the single most 

important thing we could do would be to reform our employer sanctions laws. Turn off the job magnet. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I agree with that. 

Mr. Danahey? 

Mr. DANAHEY. I agree with Mr. Bonner, and also tighten border 

security as best we can. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And, Mr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. Well, I have to agree with Mr. Bonner, but come 

back again to the lack of interior enforcement, because this is all 

about interior enforcement. And there’s one fast thing if I just 

might get this in. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. CUTLER. We’re talking about identifying people by putting 

them through a process of giving them the ability to work in the 

United States. We won’t be really identifying the criminals or most 

of them, because if you look at the pressure that we’re under right 

now to handle all these applications—and I spoke about some of 

the pitfalls we have as of today. Imagine when someone walks into 

a crowded office and they say, ‘‘What’s your name?’’ and he gives 

them a name, provides no documents to support who he claims to 

be, what will the immigration authorities do? And most likely, 

under the pressure of the weight of the paper and the flow of the 

people, we will wind up creating almost a witness protection program, if you will, for people who shouldn’t even be here. 

Mr. SMITH. You reminded me of a final question to ask you all, 

and that is, don’t you think if we had a guest-worker program that 

made it easier for people to get into the country, stay in the country, perhaps get a job in the country, that that might not be an attractive vehicle to would-be terrorists? Mr. Cutler, do you believe 

that’s the case? 

Mr. CUTLER. Absolutely. These folks are very sophisticated, and 

they look for the holes in the system. And if you look at the 19 terrorists, each one of them found where there were those openings 

and went right through it. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Danahey, don’t you think a prospective terrorist 

would want to take advantage of a program like that? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. And, Mr. Bonner? 

Mr. BONNER. They would either take advantage of that program 

or—to me it’s—the notion that people—that criminals are going to 

come forward and register just doesn’t ring true with me. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for 

missing your oral testimony, but I did review the written testimony. 

A question for Mr. Papademetriou—is that the correct pronunciation? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Wow, for a Latina girl, that’s not bad, right? 

93

I’m interested in knowing with respect to the visa backlog that 

we’re currently experiencing, interested in knowing what your 

thoughts are on if we would dedicate a substantial portion of the 

monies allocated on immigration issues to reducing the visa backlog, how might that improve our ability to know who’s in this country and our ability to have improved homeland security? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you, Ms. Sa ́nchez. The two are perfectly consistent with each other. Whatever the analogy that you 

prefer will work here. By increasing the efficiency in delivering 

services, we reduce the possible number of undocumented migration; therefore, we make the job that people who enforce our laws 

have to do a bit easier. 

We also return some—and I suspect a very substantial proportion—of pride, if you will, and esprit de corps and all that to an 

agency and people who are good, but they’re completely disheartened. I don’t know the last time that you folks have had an opportunity to speak with the rank-and-file, you know, that deliver services over there, but this is not exactly a sense on their part that 

this is a priority of any Administration. And with all due respect, 

Mr. Chairman, this is not about Republican or Democrat. It’s not 

about people who head this agency. The fact is that we need to do 

something dramatically different. 

I propose here something that is radical enough, which is take 

CIS out of DHS. We’ll lose nothing. In other words, whatever it is 

that we need to do in terms of program integrity can be done from 

outside of the agency, particularly now that we’re creating interoperable databases, where we’re creating all sorts of common 

standards—for all of those things, all of these services can actually 

be performed from outside of the agency. And let’s have an agency, 

perhaps akin to the Social Security Administration, that knows 

what its job is day in and day out: to deliver services for those people who qualify, to actually give value for the people who pay the 

money. 

You may find out that you will not have to actually subsidize 

that agency, the same way that you have been doing for the past 

20 or 30 years, in large part because nobody is going to say, okay, 

you 1,500, you’re now going to have to stop delivering services, and 

you’re going to have to do special registration, which is what happened a year ago. 

So fundamentally, the relatively smart things—small things that 

are smart can make a big difference in the delivery of services. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Amazing that an agency that actually gets resources allocated to what the majority of its functions should be. 

A follow-up question very briefly. In your opinion, what would be 

the financial impact or what would be the necessary funding in 

order to do as they are suggesting with some other guest-workers 

programs, et cetera, of deporting the estimated 8 million undocumented workers in this country and also, with a new guest-worker 

program, setting up some kind of worksite—you know, not surveillance but monitoring of a new guest-worker program? What might 

that do to the agency? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. It would probably sort of turn the agency 

and spin it apart. The money will be extraordinary. Just a backof-the-envelope estimate, if we actually remove—apprehend and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
94

move 500 people a day—I’ll make it easy—and if there are 400 

days in a year, even though I know that’s not the number, and if 

there are 10 million people—Mr. Smith suggested that there were 

11 then, a figure I never heard before. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. It seems to go up according to people’s convenience. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. But the point is that even if we have 10 

million people it will take 50 years—50 years—and tens of billions 

of dollars to remove just these people. And that assumes that in 

the next 50 years we are not going to get a single new unauthorized person in the country, just a mere multiplication. 

So I think that we have to think smartly. Maybe we can disagree 

as to whether the President’s proposal is the right one. The President actually, you know, shot a starting gun and said let’s start 

thinking together about it. Maybe his idea is not enough. I suspect 

it’s not. But it is a starting of a conversation which we have refused to have in this country. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you very much for your testimony. My time 

has expired. I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

I’d like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member Jackson Lee for bringing 

the Members of this Subcommittee together to discuss funding for immigration in 

President Bush’s budget. This is the second time we’ve had a hearing on immigration and the President’s budget in the last two weeks. I, for one, am glad that we 

are making immigration an issue that is important enough to warrant two hearings. 

Every Member of this Subcommittee and all of our witnesses know that our immigration system is broken, and badly in need of comprehensive reform. I felt at the 

Subcommittee’s last hearing on President Bush’s budget and I still feel today that 

neither the President’s immigration principles nor his budget are going to fix all of 

the problems that plague our nation’s immigration system. 

PRESIDENT’S IMMIGRATION PRINCIPLES

Let’s start with the President’s temporary worker program. It will not stop the 

steady flow of illegal immigrants into this country because it doesn’t solve one of 

the biggest causes of illegal immigration—separated immigrant families. The President’s immigration plan has absolutely no provisions to reunify immigrant families. 

So, thousands of immigrants each year will continue to cross our borders illegally 

to be with their loved ones. 

Another problem with the President’s plan is that it has no earned legalization 

provisions. The President expects the 8 million hard-working undocumented immigrants in our country to sign up for his temporary worker program, subject themselves to second-class status during their brief stay in our country, and then stand 

in line to be deported. That is not going to happen. And even if by some chance 

it did happen, a deferred deportation program with no hope for the future is not 

the solution to our immigration problems. 

My fellow Democrats and I have on many occasions let the President know that 

if he is serious about immigration reform that he should support the DREAM Act 

and the AgJOBS bill. The President hasn’t supported these bills and by doing so 

has proven that his immigration principles are in fact an attempt to woo the Latino 

vote, not an effort to help immigrants improve their lives in this country. 

We’ve also introduced immigration principles of our own that address the fundamental problems with our immigration system that the President’s plan fails to address. The Democratic principles reunify families by reducing the visa backlog and 

allowing families to remain together while they work to earn legalization. Our principles also give hard-working, law-abiding immigrants in this country a chance to 

earn legal status and continue to contribute to our economy and our communities. 

95

The President’s immigration principles leave immigrants trying to better provide for 

their families out in the cold, and his budget doesn’t do much better. 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET

The President’s budget also proves that he is not committed to helping immigrants. The President’s FY ’05 budget increases by hundreds of millions of dollars 

so-called immigration enforcement programs while neglecting immigration service 

and citizenship programs. 

We all agree that we need to enforce our immigration laws and make sure that 

our border patrol agents have the resources they need to make our borders safe, orderly, and secure. These resources are vital for securing our homeland. However, if 

we want our country to be fully secure, we can’t neglect other equally vital immigration concerns like reducing the visa backlog, providing better, more efficient immigrant services, and promoting citizenship. But the President’s budget neglects these 

other important immigration reform issues. 

For example, the President seeks $281 million more for DHS’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in FY ’05 than he did in FY ’04. This is the largest funding increase for any Bureau of DHS that the President seeks in his budget. 

On the other hand, President Bush has proposed only an additional $60 million for 

visa backlog reduction. The President proposed a $500 million initiative to reduce 

the visa backlog by 2006. However, the President’s visa backlog reduction initiative 

so far has been a complete failure. This is obvious considering we have over 6 million visas yet to be processed and the numbers of backlogged visas are showing no 

signs of reducing. Furthermore, many U.S. citizens are waiting 10+ years to be reunited with their families. This includes thousands of Americans who have to wait 

22 long years to reunite with their family members in the Philippines. 

I am glad that the President is willing to spend funds to reduce the visa backlog. 

Unfortunately, the $60 million increase in his FY ’05 budget is inadequate to make 

the necessary changes to a visa processing system that needs massive reform. 

If we fail to reform our visa processing system and significantly reduce the backlog, immigrants will continue to break our laws to get into this country. The more 

our laws are broken, the less secure we are as a nation. So, if we want to fix our 

immigration system and truly be secure we must make backlog reduction and comprehensive reform as high a priority as enforcement, border security, and detentions 

and deportations. 

CONCLUSION

I thank all of the witnesses on our panel for being here today. I am looking forward to hearing testimony from some of the people on the front lines of homeland 

security and involved with coordinating immigration across our borders. Thank you 

all for taking the time out of your schedules to give us your thoughts and expertise. 

I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for the opportunity to express my views. 

I yield back.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. We’ll have a second round of questions. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate all your testimony and response to these questions, 

and as the pieces get filled in here on our immigration policy, a 

number of things accumulate in my mind as I sit here and listen, 

and one of them is—I’ll reference a statement that was made here 

by the gentleman from Arizona in reference to roughly 10 years ago 

the statement was made that about the average stay for an illegal 

in the country was 2.2 years and now it’s about 9 years. And if I’m 

going to quote him, I will say that the quote is this: ‘‘There’s no 

legal avenue for them to return home.’’

And I direct my question to Mr. Bonner. Is there any restriction 

to anyone returning home under any circumstances or under what 

circumstances might that statement have validity? 

Mr. BONNER. Nothing stops anyone from leaving this country. 

We’re not handcuffing these people and forcing them to remain 

here. They’re remaining here of their own free will. 

96

Mr. KING. In fact, then, there’s every legal avenue for every illegal to return back home, maybe with the possible exception of if 

they’ve committed a felony of some type and we’ve got them incarcerated for that. But those who have broken no other laws than our 

immigration laws, they all have a legal avenue to return home. 

Mr. BONNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification and that 

being in the record. And I’d also state that they do come here for 

jobs. We recognize that. That is the magnet. And they stay here for 

a variety of reasons, but one of them is the difficulty to return 

home. One of them is the cost to come back here. But another one 

is—and it’s not something that gets stated here very often, and 

that is that they like prosperity, the jobs, and the longer they’re 

here, the more comfort they have and the more likely they are to 

stay. 

I would challenge also even doing the math and the calculation 

on how long it would take to deport illegals, that number being 

pick your own, but 11 million plus. They came here on their own, 

and they can—many of them go back on their own if we have good 

domestic enforcement. And, let’s see, I would—okay. If we have— and I’d direct this question to Mr. Cutler. If we have roughly 12 

to 14 million illegals, why would we prioritize a tight budget to 

send our resources, our precious border control and internal enforcement resources instead into immigration services? And I hear 

that discussion here in this panel that there’s not enough money 

spent to move people through the process. Why would that be our 

priority if we have 12 or 14 million illegals here, why wouldn’t we 

use that money instead to enforce our borders and enforce our domestic enforcement of our immigration laws? 

Mr. CUTLER. I agree that the enforcement has to get the money, 

but the one thing that I would suggest, you know, I spoke about 

these people that work at the processing centers to weed out the 

fraud. We need more people there because I think it would help 

with the fraud aspect as well as with the service aspect, giving 

some kind of integrity to this program. 

One of the other problems that I’m hearing about is that right 

now where placement travel documents—alien cards, re-entry permits—are being done, the paperwork is being done, without looking 

at the files. So we, in effect, may be giving our documents improperly to impostors, enabling the aliens that want to travel freely 

across our borders to do precisely that. 

So I think we need to do more with intelligence; we need to do, 

I think, better coordination between service and enforcement from 

the perspective of having some kind of integrity. I know that the 

gentleman to my left, Mr. Papademetriou, was talking about spinning it off as a separate entity, the service side. But we’ve got to 

coordinate both activities, in my belief, so that there’s integrity. 

The idea that we would give out alien cards without looking at the 

files to make certain that the person getting the card is the person 

who should be getting the card and we’re issuing the documents 

makes no sense, just as it makes no sense that US-VISIT doesn’t 

fingerprint and photograph people from the visa waiver countries. 

So the folks we know nothing about we continue to know nothing 

about. 

97

So there has to be a strategy where we coordinate service with 

enforcement, but I think enforcement is really critical, especially 

now that we’re fighting a war on terror. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Cutler, and that was a point that 

needed to be emphasized. 

A direct question to Mr. Bonner, and that is, I believe the President gave his guest-worker speech on January 6th. What was the 

impact on illegal border crossings? Was there any impact there at 

the number of illegal border crossings on our Southern border after 

the President’s January 6th speech, or just prior to it, as we anticipated that speech? 

Mr. BONNER. The last numbers I have seen took us up through 

the middle of last month, and in certain parts of the country, notably our Border Patrol’s San Diego sector, apprehensions were up 35 

percent; in Tucson, they were up 31 percent. So, yes, there was a 

dramatic increase. 

Mr. KING. And when you convert that percentage into numbers, 

what—how many numbers is that? 

Mr. BONNER. Off the top of my head, I don’t remember. Bear in 

mind, the most significant number is the number of people who get 

by us, and we have never tracked that, unfortunately. But those 

are those 8 to 16 million—whatever the number is—million people 

living in your State and other States throughout this country. 

We’re simply not effective at stopping illegal immigration. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will now extend for a second round of questioning. Mr. 

Danahey, this question is for you. In this testimony, written testimony, Mr. Cutler suggests that there are too few special agents to 

effectively enforce the immigration laws of the United States. Do 

you agree with his contention? And has FLEOA examined how 

many agents the ICE would need to effectively enforce the immigration laws in the interior? And if so, how many? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Sir, we are looking at between 1,500 and 2,000 additional INS agents in order to be a starting point to see if that 

would impact the enforcement of the laws. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. To see if it would impact the starting point. All 

right. Very good. 

My question is to you, Mr. Bonner. Now, you made an interesting 

statement earlier. It could be an unfortunate statement in the results that happen as a result of the policy that we’ve had in place 

for many years that would result in this potentially happening. But 

the discussion has been made about the billions of dollars that 

would be necessary to remove illegal aliens who are currently in 

the country, but in its 1997 executive summary, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform underscored the importance of worksite enforcement, finding that ‘‘Reducing the employment magnet is 

the linchpin of a comprehensive strategy to deter unlawful migration.’’

You made a statement earlier that a vigorous employer sanctions 

program would result in a lot of people on the streets and local police would pick them up for vagrancy. So it would not necessarily 

be 50,000 ICE agents in the interior to find out where all these 

98

people are living, in their homes, in their apartments, and that sort 

of thing. But if we got rid of—according to the Commission, if we 

got rid of that linchpin, or if we created that linchpin, I guess, then 

a lot of this would—the linchpin, by its very definition, would cause 

a crumbling of this problem of illegal immigration, would it not? 

Mr. BONNER. Absolutely. And what I stated earlier is that most 

people would freely leave. They would go back to their country of 

origin. They would not simply sit around on the streets. I believe 

that this is the converse of the ‘‘if you build it, they will come’’ theory. If you tear down that stadium, they will leave. If you take 

away the job magnet, they’ll go home. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Danahey, that being the case, if you agree 

with Mr. Bonner, these extra 2,000 agents, would you suggest that 

we focus on employer sanctions, that we focus in that area to best 

leverage the capability that we would have if we had another 1,000 

or 2,000 agents in ICE? 

Mr. DANAHEY. I think that would be part of it, sir. We also have 

the students coming into the country. We also just have people 

coming into the country. And I think those are also issues that we 

have to address. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And when you say students with regard to illegal immigration, you mean students that come here legally and 

have been processed legally but overstay their visa, violate the 

terms of their visa, their stay here? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Yes, or they’ll come in and they just don’t go to 

school. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Okay. Very good. 

Mr. Cutler, in your testimony you discuss the immigration application process. How common, in your opinion, is fraud in the immigration process, in the application process, I should say? 

Mr. CUTLER. Fraud is rampant. I did marriage fraud investigations. I was also an examiner in the unit that interviewed people 

when they got married to determine if they were living together. 

I think that if we simply look at the idea of employer sanctions, 

by itself it won’t solve the problem. And fraud is the reason that 

it won’t. The people that want to work illegally in the United 

States—or work in the United States legally will become involved 

in fraud schemes in order to get the requisite documentation that 

will enable them to work. So that the guy that knows that he can’t 

get a job because he’s an illegal alien may well not leave, but he 

may well go to a marriage arranger and get residency based on a 

fraudulent marriage. 

So we really—again, this goes back to what I’m saying. You need 

to have a coordinated effort, a multi-pronged approach, where you 

go after each vulnerability in turn. And I think 2,000 more agents 

would be fine, but I don’t think it goes far enough. And I think we 

need better coordination now that we’ve merged—we’re in the process of merging Customs and Immigration. 

For example, I understand they’re no longer teaching Spanish 

language to the new agents at the academy. Now, a large percentage of the illegal alien population is solely Spanish-speaking. So we 

need to do more with language training. We need to—and not just 

Spanish, I think especially in this day and age we need strategic 

languages. But we need to approach this looking at the overall 

99

problem. You know, this whole thing is like a sealed balloon. If you 

push one end, it’s going to bulge at the other. If you say we’re not 

going to hire illegal aliens, yes, a lot of folks may well pack up and 

go home. But the more resourceful people and the criminals are 

going to say, okay, what do I have to do now that they’ve thrown 

this other hurdle in my path, whether it’s marriage fraud, whether 

it’s fraud of getting labor certification that they’re not entitled to. 

Where the rubber meets the road is where the agent goes out and 

knocks on a door and makes the inquiries and makes the arrests. 

So we need to look at fraud. We need to look at how many agents 

we’re assigning to the various task forces, whether it’s the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, where I spent many of 

my years, whether it’s the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The point 

is the work is there that needs to be done, but it’s labor-intensive 

and we really need those agents in the field from within the interior. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Excellent point, Mr. Cutler. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Let me continue, Mr. Papademetriou. You did not finish. I wanted you to continue giving us some very important instructions, and 

the reason is this is a budget hearing. We’ve got to quantify where 

there are weaknesses in the budget as it is making its way through 

the legislative process in the House and the Senate. 

I’ve already heard from Mr. Bonner, who has gone on record to 

suggest that he could use 1,000 more Border Patrol agents. The 

question, of course, is how we would use them, and that’s the philosophical question. But I think the real issue, if we begin to part 

the waters on this budget, it’s whether or not we’ve got enough in 

each budget line item, how we translate this to the appropriations 

process. 

So you were beginning to relay to me a very realistic scenario, 

and that is the amount of money to remove people. And I categorize it somewhere between 8 to 14 million, and I think those 

numbers are questions. But you began with investigation, jail time, 

and why don’t we just pick up where you left off. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if you’ve got a figure in hand, you need 

to share that with us as well. You’ve already qualified what you 

think—how you think you came to it. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Right. The figure that is an easy figure to 

get to is how long it would take, simply on the basis that 400 days 

in a year times 500 people removed per day is 200,000, 50 years 

to do 10 million illegals. 

Now, I don’t know anything about what’s going to happen, in 

other words, at which point momentum shifts and some of the 

things that my colleagues here may or may begin to happen. 

In terms of numbers, if you need a number that will basically tell you whether the CIS needs an extra $200 million from Government 

funds, or 300 or 150, I think you should—with all due respect, you 

should ask Mr. Aguirre to come here and propose a 3-year plan to 

you and what it would cost to bring down the backlog in adjudications to something that will be much more acceptable, perhaps a 

100

million rather than 6 million, and then hold him and the Administration accountable for that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me—as you well know, we are looking at 

the US-VISIT program, and let me quality my statement on the 

record by saying that I’ve had the privilege of visiting the Houston 

Intercontinental Airport, and the people who are utilizing the USVISIT program are doing a very good job. I’ve had the pleasure of 

visiting the Miami Airport as a Member of the Homeland Security 

Committee, both visiting to look at the US-VISIT—the 

implementators of this program are finding it easy to adapt to and 

are working very hard on it. 

My understanding is that $340 million has now been allocated 

for the US-VISIT program, which the judgment is still out. And let 

me just throw this back to you. What could we do in benefits and 

really impacting on immigration reform utilizing those dollars 

maybe in a more effective way than what we now have? 

Let me give my complaint on the US-VISIT, and then if you 

would answer, and that is, we’re collecting data. We’re taking pictures, we’re taking fingerprints, we’re matching, but we’re collecting data. And I think the question is the utilization of that data 

and whether we can effectively be preventive that way or maybe 

some other ways which I’m very, very enthusiastic about, and that 

is the point of leaving the particular nation, the particular country 

that you’re leaving, effectiveness on that end, which I think Mr. 

Bonner would hold to on the 19 that we had come in here on the 

tragedy of 9/11. Effectiveness in holding them back before they 

even got here might have worked better than what we even try to 

do on that border. 

So would you comment on utilizing the $340 million allocated to 

US-VISIT for some other purposes? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you. Let me start with your very 

last comment. There’s a basic principle in enforcement that basically says we can defend ourselves better the further away the person who wishes to come here illegally or wishes us harm is from 

physical borders. So your point about trying to do more and more 

things away from the border including before people get on airplanes or other conveyance vehicles is an extremely important one. 

Three hundred and fifth million is a lot of money. If you multiply 

that by 3 years, you will do substantial damage. You will make significant inroads into any backlogs that we have, particularly if 

they’re accompanied by systemic changes in the way that we do 

this. 

Everybody seems to be focusing on employer sanctions, and in a 

sense your question allows me to go there for a second. Let me just 

put a very simple proposition here. Employer sanctions were invented in Europe. Europe has enforcement resources, whether it is 

at their labor department, at the border, or elsewhere, that are 

multi-pulse on a per capita basis, multi-pulse, 5, 10, 20 times as 

much as what we invest in them. Their illegal immigration, net illegal immigration, goes up at roughly the same amount as the 

U.S.—half a million people. Germany’s underground economy 

grows at an estimated—that’s government estimates—5 to 7 percent per year, fueled primarily by unauthorized immigrants. 

101

So if we think even for a moment that enforcement is the answer, I would respectfully submit that enforcement may well be 

part of an answer and may be a valid part of an answer, if it is 

part of a comprehensive answer that includes doing smart things, 

such, again, as defending our borders before people get to them, 

such as spending money to give benefits to people that have paid 

for them and have earned them, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

Sanctions is not a panacea. We have seen this since the time that 

we actually put that law on the books in 1986. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say, in conclusion, Mr. 

Chairman, I hope that—I’m not sure out of this hearing whether 

we’ll have an opportunity for collaboration. You have your viewpoints about enforcement and other issues, but this is a hearing on 

the budget. The Budget Committee is meeting, and I know that I’m 

going to be attempting to impact them. I would only say to you on 

the record that where we can write a joint letter, where there is 

agreement on some of the issues, I would encourage us to do so, 

and I’d like our staff to get together and to do that. I know that 

you would have an opportunity to write a single letter, because 

there will be issues of disagreement. But I can’t imagine that we 

are not interested maybe in some common ground on providing resources. There were some inspector issues that I think were being 

made, a training issue with Mr. Cutler, language issues, resources 

there. And we might, if you will, scrutinize the budget and be able 

to find ways of joining in a joint letter on some of these and then 

we’ll be free to express ourselves differently on an individual basis. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Or either as the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member, you certainly have that privilege. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying that the budget allocates a 

large sum of money in overall discretionary spending. In the appropriations process, we can look and ask of the appropriators and our 

colleagues to look at these issues that we have found today, especially as a result of your questioning with regard to increasing the 

number of Border Patrol agents and ICE agents that would be necessary. And so I look forward to working with you on this very—

these very important issues, especially as we get closer to the appropriations process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Very good. I’m going to be contacting the 

budgeteers, but I welcome you to do that, but I look forward to 

working with you on the appropriations process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the witnesses very much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bonner, you made a reference to, I believe, the safety of the 

lives of American citizens in your testimony, and I didn’t—I didn’t 

catch the early part of that and the details, so I’d just ask you this 

question: Is there any data out there that you’re aware of, or anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
102

one on the panel, for that matter, that can let us know how many 

American citizens die each year at the hands of illegal aliens? 

Mr. BONNER. I don’t know that there is such data. We know that 

our prisons are full of criminal aliens who have committed all manner of crimes against our people, but I don’t know that anyone, be 

it Department of Justice or even the States, break it down and say 

that this murder was committed by an illegal alien. But I’m sure 

that it’s a very substantial number. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Anyone else on the panel want to take a shot at that? Mr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. Back in the last 1980’s, early 1990’s, I was the INS 

rep at the Unified Intelligence Division at DEA. We found that 60 

percent of the people arrested by DEA in New York were foreignborn, 30 percent nationwide. 

Now, I don’t know exactly how many people die every year because of drug trafficking and related crimes, but that number is 

significant. I would imagine it goes into the tens of thousands nationwide. So it certainly—I think it’s a proper statement to make, 

that we lose more people each and every year because of criminal 

activities committed by aliens operating within our borders than 

we lost of 9/11. It would be a multiple of the many—of the number 

of people that were lost. 

Mr. KING. And it would be also your opinion that we could extrapolate a number, provided it was qualified by those—some of 

those statistics that you’ve given us? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yeah, you know, it’s the whole problem of properly 

analyzing data, and—but I think you could certainly come up with 

an approximation. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. I only deal with the numbers that I know, 

sir. I do not know this number. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Also, Mr. Smith, asked the question: What is the most important 

thing we can do? And Mr. Bonner’s response was turn off the jobs 

magnet, and I think there was at least significant concurrence 

across the balance of the panel on that. And some of those things 

we might—we talked about were employer sanctions, internal enforcement, adding to the resources of those kind of things. And I’m 

going to ask you a question here. 

We have a program that’s been enacted by Congress called the 

SAVE program, System for Advanced Verification of Employment, 

and it started out a five-State voluntary pilot program, and now 

Congress has, through bipartisan action, enacted the SAVE program to now cover all 50 States. In fact, the enactment is in this 

following December. 

At that point, an employer will be able to enter in a Social Security number, I assume a green card number or other type of work 

permit identifier, and verify they have an individual employee as 

here to work legally. 

Now, when that happens, when it’s 50 States and it’s all enacted—and we may have a kink or two to get out of that, but at 

that point, I’m going to ask you about what you think the impact 

of turning off the jobs magnet if we would then enact legislation 

103

that would remove the Federal deductibility for tax purposes of 

wages and benefits paid to illegals and then gave the assistance of 

the Internal Revenue Service at your service to help enforce our internal domestic laws, what would be the impact then on turning off 

the jobs magnet and voluntary deportation, so to speak, if we dried 

up that job market by letting the IRS help enforce this as well as 

our Border Patrol and our internal security? Mr. Bonner first. 

Mr. BONNER. I think it’s a start, but as I understand the SAVE 

program, it’s voluntary, so that would have to change. I mean——

Mr. KING. Excuse me, Mr. Bonner. It’s with that assumption that 

it would still be voluntary but an employer could verify that employee to be—with a positive verification that they are legal, and 

then they would simply lose the tax deductibility of the wages and 

benefits paid. So it might be voluntary, but they could be audited 

by the IRS and have to pay then the interest, penalty, and principal on tax avoidance. 

Mr. BONNER. I think that that measure, while it might be a 

start, would not really go far enough to discourage people from hiring illegal immigrants. I think that more needs to be done in that 

respect. I think you need INS enforcement agents, special agents, 

criminal investigators, call them what you will, going around ensuring compliance much the way the IRS enforces the tax code, selective enforcement but it makes everybody else sit up and take notice that, you know, it’s not a good thing to be out there violating 

these laws because Joe down the street lost his business because 

he was hiring illegal aliens. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. Before I move this to Mr. 

Danahey, I would add that we’re looking at at least a $40 billion 

revenue incentive there by some numbers that we have. 

So, Mr. Danahey, your opinion? 

Mr. DANAHEY. Sir, that might increase the numbers that just 

look for employers that aren’t going to bother taking those benefits 

out. Also, that’s going to put an additional burden on the agents 

of the Internal Revenue Service, because they’ll be working with 

the same numbers that they are to perform their current mission. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. I think it’s a step in the right direction, but I think 

that we also need to coordinate with the Labor Department, and 

I think also, as I had suggested when I made my remarks, I believe 

that we should be hiring compliance officers. You might want to 

think about hiring retired law enforcement folks because they can 

hit the ground running a little bit more quickly than somebody 

coming into this cold, whether it’s retired annuitants or retired police officers. But I think that the idea of having compliance folks 

who don’t carry guns, don’t get the same 6(c) retirement program, 

which is costly, the hazardous duty retirement program, could become a force multiplier. But the only cautionary note that I still 

have to sound is that if we make it much more difficult for illegal 

aliens to seek employment and be successful at it, they will go into 

areas of fraud. So we have to understand that that balloon is going 

to get squeezed on one end, it’s certainly going to be bulging at the 

other end. You know, the thing comes back again to interior enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:37 May 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\022504\92120.001 HJUD1 PsN: 92120
104

forcement and coordinating so that we’re coming at it from more 

than one direction. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Cutler, and since Mr. Papademetriou 

deals only with facts and I’m out of time, I’m going to yield back 

to the Chairman. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

This hearing room has got to be turned over to another hearing 

at 12 noon, and so we are going to have to stop at this. But I very 

much appreciate the gentlemen for your attendance today and for 

your contribution to this discussion. 

Before I close, I would just like to tell specifically Mr. Bonner 

and Mr. Danahey, every Member of this Subcommittee, as well as 

the Congress as a whole, very much appreciates the work that you 

do and that the members of your various agencies to enforce the 

laws as Congress has passed. And we appreciate that. We understand the limitation of resources that you have. We understand 

from time to time your frustration, but we very much thank you 

for your service and we hope that help is on the way to help you 

do more good things. 

So with that, I—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I just want 

to add my appreciation as well to the two gentlemen, but also to 

the many, many agents that are out there on the front lines. We 

appreciate the work that they do, and since I have seen Mr. Cutler 

on a number of occasions, your 30 years is much appreciated, and 

you were the INS agent, but let me say that your fellow colleagues 

are still doing the very best that they can do, and we appreciate 

it. 

Mr. CUTLER. I am proud of all of them, and I appreciate the kind 

remarks. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The business before the Subcommittee being 

complete, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(105)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

106

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE TO MICHAEL T. 

DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


LeeQA2A.eps
107


LeeQA2B.eps
108

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE TO DANIEL B. 

SMITH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE


LeeQA3A.eps
109


LeeQA3B.eps
110


LeeQA3C.eps
111

Note: Rep. Lamar Smith presented post-hearing questions to the 

Honorable Eduardo Aguirre, Jr. A reply to those questions had not 

been received by the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims at the time this hearing was printed.

Æ