DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEVERLY PHETO, STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 5 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Immigration Enforcement: Identification and Removal 

of Criminal Aliens, Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program Fee Increases ....................................................... 1 

Citizenship and Immigration Services: Legal 

Immigration and Refugee Processing ............................ 267 

Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2009 

Budget Request .................................................................... 367 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
PART 5—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEVERLY PHETO, STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 5 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Immigration Enforcement: Identification and Removal 

of Criminal Aliens, Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program Fee Increases ....................................................... 1 

Citizenship and Immigration Services: Legal 

Immigration and Refugee Processing ............................ 267 

Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2009 

Budget Request .................................................................... 367 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

43–385 WASHINGTON : 2008 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: IDENTIFICATION AND 

REMOVAL OF CRIMINAL ALIENS, STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM FEE INCREASES 

WITNESSES 

CATHERYN COTTEN, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL OFFICE, DUKE UNIVERSITY 

JULIE L. MYERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [ICE], DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Today we will be discussing the wide variety of activities 

carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and 

we will first focus on the Agency’s Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program. 

We will hear testimony about this program from Ms. Catheryn 

Cotten, the Director of the International Office at Duke University, 

and we will then have time for a round of questions. Then we will 

hear testimony about the overall range of ICE’s programs from Assistant Secretary Julie Myers. We will then have time to ask Ms. 

Myers questions about the Agency’s 2009 budget and her goals for 

ICE over the next year. 

In our post-9/11 world, ICE has an extremely important mission. 

It has broad responsibility for enforcing customs and immigration 

laws including the prosecution and removal of those found in violation of immigration statutes. While other areas of the Department 

are focused on preventing unlawful entry into the United States, 

ICE has what is perhaps the even more difficult job of finding and 

removing illegal aliens once they have blended into the population. 

Given the important role ICE plays, we will want to hear why the Agency’s 2009 budget request is only $4.7 billion or one-quarter 

of one percent more than provided for 2008, far below the rate of 

inflation. I want to start out, however, by highlighting an area in 

which ICE has clearly made good progress. 

Two years ago ICE’s financial audit showed material weaknesses 

in all eight areas reviewed. I want to congratulate Ms. Myers and 

her financial management staff for eliminating all of those material 

weaknesses in the 2007 audit. I trust that they will continue to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

work hard to correct the remaining financial system security deficiencies. 

ICE continues to face numerous challenges in other areas. This 

subcommittee has high expectations for what can be achieved before the transition to the next administration. Chief among our interests is ICE’s ability to identify and remove every criminal held 

in penal custody and judged deportable. 

As our listeners may know, we made this goal the centerpiece of 

the fiscal 2008 appropriations law, and we continue to believe that 

it should be ICE’s top priority. In 2006, the DHS Inspector General 

reported there were over 600,000 criminal aliens held in U.S. custody but largely unknown to ICE, yet today, ICE is not able to 

guarantee that all incarcerated criminals without the right to remain in the U.S. will be removed from the country upon their release or parole. For 2008, this subcommittee provided ICE $200 million for the 

comprehensive identification and removal of criminal aliens, and 

ICE is required to report to the committee by March 25, less than 

one month from now, on how this funding is being used. We want 

to hear from Ms. Myers about the progress that has been made in 

planning for this initiative. 

In 2008, the subcommittee also provided significant support for 

ICE to expand its detention capacity, more than quadrupling last 

year’s request for additional beds, and increasing ICE’s detention 

capacity by 4,500 spaces to 32,000 beds overall. This continues the 

example set in the previous Congress. 

Since 2006, in fact, the subcommittee has increased ICE detention capacity by a dramatic 56 percent. We need to ensure that this 

expansion is accompanied by equally robust oversight of detention 

standards, and particularly, the committee is concerned about the 

treatment of children and other vulnerable individuals in ICE custody. 

The largest increase proposed in the 2009 ICE budget is for 1,000 

additional detention beds. Last year the committee discovered that 

ICE had been forced to request a budget for detention beds that did 

not meet its operational detention needs, so we will be asking Ms. 

Myers for assurance that the budget requested for detention in 

2009 reflects the best operational estimate the Agency has for 

needs in the coming fiscal year. 

An important security responsibility at ICE is the protection of 

federal offices by the Federal Protective Service, or FPS. GAO reported that the capabilities of FPS have deteriorated so significantly that federal buildings ‘‘face a greater risk of crime or terrorist attack.’’ This must be corrected. The committee mandated 

additional FPS hiring in the 2008 omnibus bill, which we will certainly discuss today. 

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is another important 

component of ICE’s domestic activities. This program’s mission is 

to ensure that foreign students and the educational institutions 

they attend are legitimate and do not offer opportunities for terrorists or other exploitation. 

ICE has proposed doubling the revenues collected from foreign 

students and educational institutions to increase associated enforcement, to improve institutional support and outreach, and to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

develop a replacement data system critical to the program. Coincident with protecting our country, however, we must be careful not 

to send a signal to the students, researchers and academics 

throughout the rest of the world that the United States no longer 

welcomes them. 

The 9/11 Commission Report recommended, ‘‘rebuilding the 

scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out to 

young people and offer them knowledge and hope’’, as a part of a 

strategy to counter cultural causes of terrorism. On a subcommittee 

overseas delegation to the Middle East in January, foreign ministers in Egypt and Oman emphasized how a reduction in student 

exchanges with the United States negatively affects their countries. 

Perhaps more critically for us, however, it also harms the global 

image and perception of our country abroad. After DHS and the 

State Department revised the student visa process in 2003, foreign 

enrollment fell by more than 20,000 students nationwide for the 

2005/2006 academic year. Fortunately, foreign enrollment is once 

again increasing and has almost reached the historic highs set in 

the 2002/2003 academic year. 

But higher fees and negative perceptions about a planned expansion of ICE enforcement risks sending the wrong message to those 

who wish to come to this country for educational purposes. To discuss this issue and open our hearing this morning we welcome before us Ms. Catheryn Cotten, the Director of the International Office for Duke University and the Duke Medical Center. 

Ms. Cotten is a constituent of mine, I am proud to say, but she 

was recommended to the subcommittee by the Association of American Universities. Ms. Cotten is an expert on international student 

visa issues and has worked with DHS since it first established the 

programs to monitor international students and exchange visitors. 

So we look forward to exploring the implication of ICE’s new proposal with you, Ms. Cotten, and we appreciate your traveling here 

to be with us today. So we will hear from you in just a moment. 

Let me first turn to my colleague, Ranking Member Hal Rogers, for 

his remarks, after which we will have five minutes for your testimony, Ms. Cotten, and then time for questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Ms. 

Cotten and Assistant Secretary Myers. First, a few words about 

ICE. In many ways, the recent history of ICE epitomizes the maturation and development of DHS itself. It was just a few years ago 

that ICE was suffering from what I would call an INS hangover as 

the Agency was failing to meet its mission requirements, unable to 

hire critical personnel and was found to be deficient in virtually all 

aspects of its financial and budgetary systems. 

Now, just three years later, ICE is meaningfully contributing to 

significant improvements in our border security, sustaining the 

practice of catch and return, vigorously enforcing immigration and 

customs laws, keeping pace toward hiring additional special agents 

and immigration enforcement officers, and just recently cleared its 

material weaknesses and obtained a clean financial audit. 

Assistant Secretary Myers, this turnaround is a testament to 

your leadership as well as to the perseverance and dedication of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

the men and women at ICE. In many ways, you all have weathered 

the onslaught of challenges and helped ICE begin to meet our expectations as the second largest law enforcement agency in the federal government and the largest investigative component within 

DHS. 

But before I congratulate you too much I must offer a bit of caution. I do not have to tell anyone here that the very nature of this 

mission requires constant vigilance and continuous improvement. 

Allowing the wrong person with the wrong motives into our country can have dire consequences. Our recent past reminds us of this. 

ICE must build upon its contributions to the Secure Border Initiative and never again return to the flawed and defeatist practice 

of catch and release. ICE must expand efforts to disrupt and arrest 

the heinous perpetrators of transnational crimes, such as internet 

pornography exploitation, human smuggling and money laundering. 

ICE must ensure sufficient resources are devoted to customs enforcement to protect our economy. I am pleased to see the fiscal 

2009 request does just that. Finally, as our terrorist adversaries 

search for less obstructive means of entry into the country, ICE 

must rise to the challenge of preventing abuse of programs, like the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program and Visa Waiver Program. 

So to put it mildly, ICE must continue to improve. Far too much 

is at stake to fail. After all, it was James Madison who noted 

America’s, ‘‘indebtedness to immigration for her settlement and 

prosperity’’, and it was Lincoln who noted that not even the Civil 

War could stop immigrants from seeking the gold and silver that 

waits for them in the west. 

So I see ICE as a fulcrum in the balance between legitimate travel and trade upon which our country depends with that of the security that has become an unquestioned necessity in the post-9/11 

world, a role that is as challenging as they come. 

Assistant Secretary Myers, you know the stakes, you know the 

challenges. Today, I am interested in hearing how ICE is meeting 

this challenge and how this budget request moves ICE forward. As 

for our discussion today on student visas, I look forward to hearing 

how ICE can improve its service to academia while also providing 

the security that is necessary. 

After all, we must never forget that all of the 9/11 hijackers exploited legal means of immigration, including tourist and student 

visas. I certainly appreciate the fact that our academic institutions 

heavily rely upon the contributions of international students and 

scholars. Several of us on this subcommittee have learned firsthand 

about the diplomatic value of international students in exchanges 

with leaders from the Middle East. 

After 9/11, our student visa programs required reinvention, for 

lack of a better term, because these programs lacked controls 

aimed at protecting us from terrorism, let alone sufficient mechanisms to ensure visa holders were, in fact, bona fide students. So 

I believe I state the obvious when I say there must be a balance 

between the needs of our institutions of higher learning and that 

of security. 

The challenge of course is for ICE to execute its Student and Exchange Visitor Program in a way that effectively maintains the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

records of legitimate visiting students and scholars but does not 

create undue burdens upon them or host schools. Therefore, I am 

encouraged by ICE’s recent improvements to improve its service to 

academia as well as to the security surrounding all aspects of student visas. 

In closing, I want to be very clear about this. I certainly see the 

value in the over 673,000 active students attending over 9,200 

higher education institutions throughout the U.S. These are our 

world’s medical researchers, future civil engineers, teachers, scientists, diplomats. 

I am not necessarily concerned about the hundreds of thousands 

of legitimate nonimmigrant students who seek to enrich their educational experience. I am, however, very concerned about the one 

individual, the wrong individual with the wrong motive, seeking to 

do us harm. In closing, I welcome our witnesses here today. 

I look forward to hearing how ICE can improve its management 

of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program as well as improve 

its larger contributions to our homeland security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Hal. 

Ms. Cotten, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERYN COTTEN, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

OFFICE, DUKE UNIVERSITY

Ms. COTTEN. Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, I 

really appreciate the opportunity to be here and to testify on behalf 

of Duke University. I cannot speak for all of the higher education 

institutions in the U.S., but I can tell you that we are sharing similar experiences with our international students and scholars. 

I am especially pleased to hear that you were visiting earlier this 

year with leaders in the Middle East. I was there with a Duke 

group a few years ago in Egypt and Jordan, and even then, when 

9/11 was fresher, there was the interest in coming to the U.S. and 

the assumption that the U.S. had a democratic system that allowed 

its citizens to speak to its leaders. 

I remember sitting outside the Cairo Museum speaking with a 

young man who said, you tell your President, and he gave me a list 

of things for me to go back and tell my President, because he believed that was possible in America, that I could come back and 

talk to my President. And so we do appreciate from the education 

community that our members of Congress are going out and making those contacts and seeing those relationships. 

At Duke in the SEVIS Program we have about 1,900 international students. Those are F–1 students primarily. Probably a 

couple of hundred of those are on optional practical training, which 

means that they have graduated but they are still our responsibility under SEVIS for as long as they are in optional practical 

training. 

So even after they graduate we are requiring them to report addresses and so on, and we are keeping those contacts valid. We 

have about 600 J–1s who are generally the professors, the researchers, the people in short-term scholars, specialists and so on. 

Those would be in the J–1 program under SEVIS, and we can talk 

more about them later if you would like. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

6 

I would like to speak about the recommendations for fee increases and to say that we understand that it takes money to do 

what ICE has proposed. Certainly an improved computer system, 

improved access to data, is something that we all need. An increase 

of 100 percent for the SEVIS fee from $100 to $200 is not trivial. 

People think of universities like Duke, how much could $100 be, 

but there are students all over the country for whom that is a great 

deal of money. That is as much as it costs to make the trip all the 

way to the Embassy, and this fee is generally not refundable. So 

they pay the fee, and then they go to the Embassy, and then because of the nonimmigrant intent that is part of the F–1 and J– 

1 student status they are denied visas and not permitted to come. 

And so they have not only spent that money, but they have spent 

it in their minds for nothing, and they come away with an even 

worse feeling about America. So we would certainly encourage careful thought about doubling that fee. We are also concerned about 

the monies that the schools will be paying. 

We know that we have not been paying that for a number of 

years for the recertification. We will be doing that now. Certainly 

no university in America can say please charge us more. We have 

to be careful with all of our money. We would like to see appropriate benefits from that additional money. Also, we would like to 

see a use of funds that is efficient and effective. 

Most of our schools, most of the colleges and universities, are already verified, certified, accredited, such as through the financial 

aid system through the Department of Education, and so there is 

really no need to go back and reinvent the wheel on that part of 

our educational credentials at most of the universities. 

That could be done easily through data comparisons, through 

getting that information from other sources where it is already 

available. 

In terms of working with us to do the recertifications we would 

certainly appreciate any help that we could get, but the recertifications, for the most part, are happening as we move along, and 

so the need to spend a lot of energy on a specific recertification is 

probably not as high as one might think because we are reporting 

in our institutions not only about the students but about changes 

to our institutions through the SEVIS system, through the I–17s 

and through the J program, similarly. 

So as things change at our institution we are making those reports. So we would encourage the use of information already available and not doing double work that does not need to be done in 

this process. The local area liaison officers that are being suggested 

we think would be wonderful if they can give us the kind of assistance that we need to deal with other bureaucracies. 

We are having difficulties in connections of data with social security, for example. We would like to be sure that in general we get 

value for the dollar, that we are getting reports that normally could 

come out of SEVIS but now we are preparing separately for IIE, 

that we have access to information, that students, in particular, 

have access to their own information, that they be able to go into 

SEVIS and see that they are in status and what their history is, 

and that schools be able to do that as well. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

7 

In conclusion, Duke has a recordkeeping system. Since the days 

of CIPRIS, we were one of the 21 schools in that development, and 

we had great hopes for it at that time. Certainly, the events of 9/ 

11 changed the direction in which we had to go, and we had to put 

aside some of the enhancements that we would have expected to 

have had there not been a 9/11 event. 

We would encourage that ICE move forward with those enhancements as they were planned at that time. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

8 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 43385A.001
9 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 43385A.002
10 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 43385A.003
11 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 43385A.004
12 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 43385A.005
13 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 43385A.006
14 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 43385A.007
15 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 43385A.008
16 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 43385A.009
17 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 43385A.010
18 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 43385A.011
19 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 43385A.012
20 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 43385A.013
21 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 43385A.014
22 

BALANCING SECURITY AND STUDENT NEEDS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. We will put your entire statement in the record, which of course elaborates on the points you 

made and goes beyond them. Let me ask you first a rather broad 

question, and then I will zero in somewhat on the fee increases and 

the benefits that might accrue from an increased flow of fee revenue. 

In general, and you gave us a statement very close to the ground 

in terms of specific policy changes or proposed changes, but could 

you just back up a little bit and help us understand what is at 

stake here? We of course have done some necessary things since 9/ 

11 to increase security, and increase enforcement activity, and to 

make sure that international students are who they say they are, 

and that the institutions are legitimate. But there has come with 

that certain negative perceptions and some rather bureaucratic 

practices which we have all heard about in our offices, particularly 

those of us who represent higher education constituencies. How are 

we doing now in striking the balance that needs to be struck? What 

more can we do or should we do to ensure that U.S. programs remain the top choices for foreign students while ensuring security? 

Ms. COTTEN. Thank you. Some of these recommendations will go 

beyond the areas of ICE and SEVIS. I think certainly at this moment one of the things that keeps people out of the country is the 

nonimmigrant intent issue, that students and scholars have to 

prove that they intend to return home when they have finished 

their education, or their research, or their teaching. 

This is part of the law at this point. We could look at regulations 

or at instructions to consular posts that would look at the nonimmigrant intent issue differently since nonimmigrant intent is the 

most common reason for visa denials. It is certainly the most common reason for denials for the international students and scholars. 

So that is an area of concern. 

Then certainly when people get to the United States they are 

afraid to travel. They are afraid that if they go out they will not 

be able to get a visa to come back, or if they leave and they take 

not just a few days of a scientific meeting but maybe many weeks 

or months, to get visas to come back. We would encourage that 

since we are collecting data in SEVIS, that we have this information available, that we do visa extensions in the U.S. 

Once a person gets here there should be a way to manage that 

before they leave, particularly since we are reporting data on all of 

these F and J students and scholars. It is available from other 

sources as well. 

That information could be combined and used in an efficient way 

to give visa stamps to people, or visa extensions, or whatever we 

would like to call it, before they leave the U.S. so that that is not 

one of the things that they need to worry about, plan for, or spend 

time on before they return. So those are areas that would be important. 

Those would send messages that say that the U.S. wants you 

here. Then, as people arrive, and these are small things but things 

that we talked about when we were planning CIPRIS and SEVIS 

earlier, is perhaps at ports of entry special lines that would say 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

23 

welcome, students and scholars, come over here and scan your documents through this line, at the major ports, so that there is a welcome rather than a suspicion implied. 

Whether or not that is the intent, that is the way that people 

sometimes see their experience coming in. In addition to that, just 

the fact that we are raising the fees sends a message. People hear 

about money, and they hear about fee raises. I mentioned in my 

comments that we are going to get a call from the BBC, and we 

will, we will get those calls at Duke, we will get them all over the 

country, when these fees go up and this information goes out. 

The message that gets out is a very short one. We are talking 

about media here, so the message that goes out is the U.S. has just 

doubled the fees for an international student or scholar to come to 

America. The next thing we get is a call saying why have you doubled the fees? They do not want to hear the discussion we are having here today on why that happens. 

What they hear is that the U.S. is now making it harder for 

those international students and scholars to get here. Then, after 

they arrive, in general, they must pay that SEVIS fee again if they 

go out and come into a different program, they graduate, they return. So some way to make that fee perhaps a lifetime fee or a tenure fee would help offset the negative feelings. 

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF INCREASED FEES

Mr. PRICE. Well, that does segue into what I would like to ask, 

and I am sure other members will elaborate on this, so maybe you 

can answer briefly and elaborate later. You have I think taken a 

reasonable stand here today on the fee question. You have made 

it clear that it is a serious matter to increase the fee on students 

or on institutions, and you have just now stressed the kind of negative signal that it sends. 

You have also said, as I understand you, that if the fees are to 

be increased we need to make sure that there is a commensurate 

improvement in the services rendered. Now, ICE says that they 

want to use the increased fees to expand enforcement efforts, to 

hire new support personnel to serve as liaisons to academic programs and to create a new database to replace the one currently 

used to track foreign students and exchange visitors. 

So what about those proposed uses of these revenues? One, given 

your experience with the Student Exchange Visitor Program today, 

will it be beneficial for ICE to hire field liaisons to work with academic programs? Two, what kind of relationship do you maintain 

with the compliance officers who enforce exchange visitor and student visa regulations? What impacts do you see for expanding this 

function? Do you believe it is possible for ICE to do so without disrupting academic programs? Three, what about the database? From 

your experiences with the initial deployment of the database, what 

improvements would you suggest so that the new system works 

properly upon its initial deployment? 

Ms. COTTEN. I would like to know more about the mission of the 

liaison officers. As I mentioned earlier, once a school is certified 

and then moves on to recertification a lot of that work is done. So 

for colleges and universities this would to some degree be an exercise. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

24 

If the liaison officers can help us solve problems where student 

requests are lost, where we have data that conflicts at social security, at CLAIMS, at SEVIS, those kinds of things, liaison officers 

who could be available and problem solving would be a tremendous 

benefit. 

If the purpose of the liaison officer is primarily to help us do certification and recertification, certainly new schools getting initial 

certification need a lot of help, and we think that would be appropriate. I do not know what the statistics are, and perhaps we can 

hear later from ICE, on how many applications they are getting to 

do initial certifications. 

I think with recertification, certainly for colleges and universities, there is a question of how much that would be needed. In 

terms of the database, we would like to see the database improved 

and to see articulation among the databases improved because we 

have students who, for example, cannot get social security cards because the data has not done its migration from one database to another, they cannot be identified, they maybe do not get paychecks 

for a month or more. 

This happens with students and with scholars. So in those areas 

of liaison, and database, and the ability to see better data, certainly 

we would like to see better information in the systems that serves 

the purpose of improving international student, scholar experiences, that would be very useful to us, and individuals in areas, liaison officers, who could improve that experience as well would be 

truly a benefit. We are just not sure of what that means right now. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

INTEGRITY OF THE STUDENT VISA PROCESS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. In the 

upgrade of SEVIS, so-called SEVIS II, is a recognition that there 

is a mutual interest in security that ICE I think is hoping to leverage in its upgrade to the SEVIS II system. 

In that, no university or college that is sponsoring foreign students and scholars wants to be seen as an enabler of terrorism or 

criminal behavior because certainly an abuse of the student visa 

program would almost certainly result in stricter controls, and 

higher costs, and all of that, so we all have a mutual interest in 

seeing that the program runs well. 

The SEVIS II system demands that participating students and 

scholars comply with specified data requirements and that schools 

meet the standards for hosting international students. The school 

recertification proposal within SEVIS II will probably provide the 

strongest means by which ICE can maintain the integrity of all 

schools. By the way, the latest count I have heard is there is 9,248 

approved schools. 

So the need for recertification I think is evident. According to 

ICE they have investigated some schools that after acquiring certification knowingly accepted foreign students who failed to attend 

classes. 

In some cases, host institutions have assisted ICE in maintaining 

the integrity of nonimmigrant students; the highly publicized story 

in 2006 of the 11 Egyptian students who had received student visas 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

25 

to study in the U.S. but never showed up on campus or attended 

classes. 

In that case, Montana State University reported their absence 

through SEVIS, ICE agents were able to follow-up on investigations. So do you agree that there is a mutual interest both from the 

schools’ point of view and from a security point of view that the 

student visa program needs to be clean as a houndstooth, so to 

speak? 

Ms. COTTEN. I absolutely agree that the schools ought to operate 

with the interest of the security of the United States in mind. 

There is no question of that. To the extent that schools are not 

doing that, then I think we need to deal with those schools. When 

one talks about whether a student has appeared or is attending 

classes, currently in SEVIS we are required to report that a student has arrived and reported to class. 

We do this every semester and we do it each semester for students who are continuing, such that those students who either are 

not reported as present or have reported as not showing up, that 

information goes back to ICE so they will have that information 

from our schools each and every semester. 

That is a different discussion, though, than whether they are attending classes and what that may mean. Certainly, at a place like 

Duke, in general, we do not take attendance at classes, and this 

is true for foreign students and for domestic students. At colleges 

and universities the expectation is that you will attend classes as 

an adult and that you will appear for exams and so on. 

So we are not taking roll call as you might do in third grade. The 

expectation would be that the students would make reasonable 

progress towards their degrees. Certainly, if they are failing their 

courses, if they flunk out of school, they are reported to SEVIS as 

having done that. 

At the graduate level, if they are really not appearing and not 

functioning, normally their graduate advisers would be in touch 

and there would be involuntary withdrawals or recommendations 

that they move on to less rigorous programs. Again, we would 

make those reports in SEVIS. So certainly it is a partnership between the schools, and ICE and DHS to keep this program, as you 

said, as clean as a houndstooth, and I think it should be. 

We do need to talk about what that means, and what the expectations are and what the realities are. 

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF SEVIS II

Mr. ROGERS. Could you briefly and concisely, even tersely, tell us 

what you think about SEVIS II, what you know about it, good, bad, 

indifferent? 

Ms. COTTEN. I was privileged to be part of a stakeholders meeting last July in the development of SEVIS II. We have great hopes 

for it in the educational community, and there were a number of 

people from the educational community at this meeting. So assuming that it can do what we have heard that it can do we think that 

there can be great benefit for everyone in a new, more vigorous, 

more robust, more flexible SEVIS II system. 

What we would like to see as part of that system is more movement towards reporting by the schools and less with adjudications, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

26 

particularly, for example, in the optional practical training area. 

Where there is now adjudication, we would prefer to see notification from the schools. So I think there is great hope, but I think 

we need to be careful of where it goes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez. 

ESTIMATES OF STUDENT POPULATIONS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank 

you for being here. Let me make a couple of comments, and I want 

to ask you some questions. I know you have asked for some monies 

for cyber-related securities, which let me just reinforce at least 

from my perspective how important I feel about that, because I 

know you have money laundering that is occurring and a couple of 

other things in terms of fraud, and I wanted to just reinforce that, 

and I want to be able to, at a later date, come back, but I wanted 

to ask you, regarding the student—one of the things that I wanted 

to ask you, and maybe the second witness might be the most appropriate one, but I had heard the number of Saudis, that there were 

some 22,000 Saudis that had come in as students. 

Are you familiar with that? Do you have any information on that, 

in terms of how that came about, or? 

Ms. COTTEN. Thank you for that question. In terms of numbers 

of students and scholars from the academic perspective, I think the 

Institute for International Education would have those numbers. In 

terms of immigration issues, I cannot speak to that, and I would 

leave that to Assistant Secretary Myers. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Who does the assessment of those students as 

they come in? Is it the FBI, or who checks them out? 

Ms. COTTEN. What we understand from our students and scholars, certainly from the academic community’s perspective, we 

would send a document to the student, and then that student or 

scholar would go to the embassy, and through the application process there, fingerprints, biometrics and so on, there would be a security clearance at that end, and again, Assistant Secretary Myers 

can speak to the details of that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay, but she would be more appropriate for responding to those questions? 

Ms. COTTEN. And then at the port of entry, there would be another review. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Who determines the percentage of nations in 

terms of who is allotted so many students, or that kind of thing? 

Is there a formula? 

Ms. COTTEN. Very good question. Different schools have different 

goals. There is no national limit or—at least at the F–1 student/ 

scholar level. Certainly for immigrant visas, that is true, but not 

for the student and scholar visas, and so you will find different institutions generally have different working relationships, so they 

may have built a very good working relationship with a school in 

Saudi Arabia, for example, and they bring in a lot of Saudi students, or they have a joint program with another country, as Duke 

does. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

27 

We have a medical school that is a Duke medical school in Singapore, so we tend to have a lot of exchange with Singapore and also 

with China. So it is not—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So that is generated by the institutions, not by 

any formula that we might have that you might be aware of? 

Ms. COTTEN. Yes. The people who come, the numbers and the 

home countries, and whether they are students or professors or researchers, are generally the result of what the institution believes 

is important for that institution. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Do you know of any problems that we might 

have had, as it relates to students, in terms of difficulties as it 

deals to securing, making sure that we have appropriate, you 

know, who would have that data? And anybody, for example, found 

that is questionable that we would have to deport, or the number 

of students that have applied and that we have denied? 

Ms. COTTEN. Applying at the embassies and denials, that I think 

would be Department of State information on who has come in 

with documents from our school but they have been denied a visa 

stamp. Port of entry information, I think, would come from Homeland Security, and again, Assistant Secretary Myers can speak to 

that. We can tell you at our schools that, for example, every year, 

we have a few students to whom we offer admission and they cannot get visas. 

They generally cannot prove that they intend to go home, so it 

is the non-immigrant intent, as far as we know, the non-immigrant 

intent issue, not the security issue, that prevents them from coming. We do deferrals hoping that they can have a little more time 

to get visa stamps and they are still denied, but the reasons for 

those are not made known to us, generally. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. One last question, if I can. I was under the impression that prior to 9/11, we brought in some, you know, this is 

not necessarily students, but like 300,000 professionals under a 

certain visa. Do you know the number of students that have actually come in and how it has changed from 9/11 to now? 

Ms. COTTEN. I am sorry, I do not have that information memorized, but the IIE Open Doors report tracks that every year, and 

that information is available in terms of students, scholars, professors, researchers, Fs and Js, and it is broken down in multiple categories, by country, by field of study, by whether they are graduates or undergraduate students. So that data is available. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay, but you do not know right off, in terms 

of whether there has been any major dramatic change? 

Ms. COTTEN. I think what we have seen in general, certainly just 

after 9/11, there were issues with people being afraid to come. We 

have seen the numbers climb again, although not as quickly as 

they were climbing before 9/11, and what we have seen is not that 

the numbers are dropping, but rather that our market share is 

changing, and so the number of students available to come to the 

U.S. or elsewhere is high enough that we are still increasing, but 

other countries are also pulling students away from the U.S. 

Mr. PRICE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

28 

Mr. PRICE. We do have this IIE data, which we will insert at this 

point in the record, that will indicate the trends the gentleman is 

inquiring about. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

29 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 43385A.015
30 

Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. I have no questions of this witness. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Serrano. 

SECURITY REVIEWS IN THE STUDENT VISA PROCESS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sometimes members are pretty sure that we know how a lot of 

these things work, only to be embarrassed in public in admitting 

we do not, so help me here. Someone is sitting somewhere in 

France, for instance, and wants to attend Duke. They decide over 

there that they want to attend Duke. Does our State Department, 

our government get involved before Duke does, or does it happen 

at the same time, or is it Duke that lets the State Department 

know or the Immigration Department know that this student is applying for Duke? 

Ms. COTTEN. Very good question. Normally what will happen is 

that students will choose the schools to which they would like to 

apply, as any domestic student would. So they might apply to only 

one school in the U.S., they might apply to several, they might 

apply to schools around the world. Duke receives those applications 

and then we review them in the competitive manner and we make 

our selections. Once we have admitted a student, only then are we 

permitted to issue the I–20, which is the document saying that 

they can come to the U.S. in F–1 status. 

So no one in the government, generally, would know about them 

at the application stage or at our review stage, but once we have 

done the admission and we have determined that that student 

needs a visa to come to the U.S., we would then issue the I–20 out 

of the SEVIS system, which would notify the federal government 

that Duke has admitted the student and that we have verified that 

they have adequate funding, that they are admitted competitively, 

that they have the background to come to Duke, and then that information, in theory, would go into the Homeland Security system 

and would then be available to the Department of State and to the 

consular officers abroad. 

We would then mail the document, the I–20, to the student, who 

would then take that, along with their ID information to the embassy, get the visa stamp and the passport, the embassy would do 

the appropriate security checks, they would then board a plane and 

come to the port of entry where their identity would be verified 

again, and after coming into the port of entry, they would report 

to the school, and upon reporting to the school, we would notify 

through SEVIS that they had indeed arrived and reported to the 

school as expected. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. I am the easiest person in Congress when 

it comes to letting people come into the country. It gets me in trouble for saying that, but it is true. But yet, from what I hear from 

you, I have to ask the question, at what point do we find out if the 

person is a security risk to the nation? 

Ms. COTTEN. In theory, that would happen first at the consular 

post, because the consular post would do an initial security background check. The student, any applicant for a visa has to fill out 

a list of—— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

31 

Mr. SERRANO. That is prior to you knowing that they are applying? 

Ms. COTTEN. No. They would apply first. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. 

Ms. COTTEN. And we would admit them based on their academic 

credentials. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Ms. COTTEN. That is what we know. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Ms. COTTEN. So we would do the admission and we would send 

them the document saying that academically, they are ready to 

come to the U.S. They would then take that documentation to the 

embassy or consulate to get their visa stamped, and they could not 

get the visa stamp until they had passed whatever security reviews 

were appropriate. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Kilpatrick. 

TRENDS IN FOREIGN STUDENT ENROLLMENT

Ms. KILPATRICK. Good morning. You have been very instructive. 

Thank you very much. I come from Michigan, so Duke University 

and the Blue Devils have always been a burr in our side, but we 

like you. Go Blue too. So we like you. It has been very competitive 

over all these years. 

I want to ask a couple questions in terms of a trend as it relates 

to what is happening in terms of admissions at the university. I see 

your chart here. If you were to just gauge at your university over 

the last decade, have foreign admissions gone up or down and at 

what percent, if either? 

Ms. COTTEN. Foreign admissions have gone up, and I think that 

would be true at many universities across the U.S. There were 

some difficulties after 9/11, but I think in general, if you would look 

at a decade, at the last 10 years, we have certainly seen admissions 

go up. At Duke, I would say in that time we have gone from maybe 

6 percent of our population up to close to 10 percent of our student 

population being international. We have certainly seen the shifts 

that everyone has seen in terms of countries. 

Duke has a lot of students from China and Korea. We also have 

our share from Canada and Australia and so on, but you will see 

those trends across the U.S. in terms of the kinds of students who 

come here, and then what we see as well Duke, and I have to say, 

every school has its own reasons for why its trends appear the way 

they do, and Duke has been working on undergraduate financial 

aid, which has certainly increased the number of applications that 

we get from international students and scholars, so that they now 

have financially the opportunity to come to Duke as well—— 

Ms. KILPATRICK. University-based financial aid? 

Ms. COTTEN. Yes, university-based because they are not eligible 

for federal taxpayer financial aid, and we just got a $20 million 

grant from the Karsh family specifically devoted to undergraduate 

financial aid for international students. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And are the Karsh family alumni? 

Ms. COTTEN. Yes. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Okay. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

32 

Ms. COTTEN. So we will expect then to see some shifts in trends 

in terms of the kinds of students that might not have considered 

us in the past because of the financial problems, that we may now 

see excellent students from families who can really take back a different view of America. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. I see. And you mentioned China and India. 

What are your top three countries who wish to come to Duke? 

Ms. COTTEN. I would say right now our tops are probably China, 

India, and then it starts to sort of drift off after that. A fairly large 

Korean population, certainly the English-speaking countries, if you 

bunched them all together, you get Canada, Australia, the UK. 

POST-EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS

Ms. KILPATRICK. And do the students tend to go back to their 

countries after they have completed the Duke education? 

Ms. COTTEN. Excellent question. I think you will find across the 

country that those students who are in the sciences will very often 

stay and do optional practical training. They have at least a year 

after they graduate to work in the U.S. and do optional practical 

training. I believe that there is consideration now at Homeland Security and in ICE to expand that to perhaps 29 months. I think 

many students do choose to stay for a period of time, and some 

will, in the sciences and in computer work and so on, will choose 

to stay and make careers here, but we also find that they like to 

keep contacts at home. 

We are seeing a global student, not just the international students, but our domestic students as well, and we are starting to see 

a population of students graduating who think of the world as 

where they work, and who will stay but also travel back and forth, 

build relationships. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Global students, good word. 

Ms. COTTEN. Yes, global students. 

PURPOSE OF SEVIS FEE INCREASE

Ms. KILPATRICK. That is a good word. And then lastly, the fee increase, the 100 percent increase. Are you recommending none, or 

that we do some part of that, or decrease it, or give us a little—— 

Ms. COTTEN. Well, if we could have it for free, we would take it 

for free. [Laughter.] 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Okay, that is not an option. That is not an option. 

Ms. COTTEN. No problem. We do understand that the law itself 

mandates a kind of self-payment in the SEVIS system. We would 

like to see no increase because it does send a very negative message. If we have to see a fee increase, we would like to send that 

message along with, as I mentioned in my testimony, a list of advantages that comes with that, that it is a one-time fee or a 10- 

year fee, that students do not have to pay later for optional practical training, that that is something that the schools would manage, that there would be other benefits, the ability to look at their 

own files, those kinds of things that we could say to students, it 

is going to cost more, but we are giving you so much more for it. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. I see. 

Ms. COTTEN. That would help us sell that a lot easier. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

33 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

COMPETITION FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We sit here in 

the Homeland Security Committee and sometimes forget that the 

first line of our national security is a well-educated electorate, and 

I think the pot of gold that the United States has for the world is 

our higher education system and the fact that we attract the best 

and the brightest minds in the world that want to come and study. 

I am also watching developments abroad, for example, Singapore. 

They are trying to rob our seed corn by providing easier access and 

better accommodations for other countries around the world, and if 

we do not pay attention to this issue, we are going to lose that special ability to be the creative country. So I am very interested in 

how we make sure that our institutions of higher learning, and I 

represent six of them, have access to students from around the 

world. What we hear when we travel is kind of a mixed message. 

As to constituent work, I get nothing but sort of ‘‘dum-dum’’ 

problems by individuals that are trying to come into this country. 

When we go abroad, the answers from the embassies are that we 

process these things very rapidly. They just told us, interestingly, 

about a third of the documents for student visas are falsified in the 

host country, and they really do not have legitimacy. You have to 

get assurance that the students have paid all their fees. 

Well, some of these schools here in the United States are very 

expensive. And I wonder about this return assurance. How can you 

determine an 18, 19-year-old student’s plans? The only way we tell 

when we give visitors visas is that they have to be rich. We do not 

allow poor people in this country. It seems the only exception of allowing poor people in this country is in academia, and I wondered 

how we do that, because are there scholarships involved and is 

there a turning away a lot of students. Lastly, in your opinion, do 

you think we are only taking in rich students? 

And I would hope that what you might do in your professional 

association is that—wherever we travel abroad, and I always bring 

this question up—is that everything is working fine. However, in 

my district office in California, there is not a day that goes by that 

I do not get a call about some foreign lecturer who is stuck at the 

airport and being told to return because when they were a student 

at Berkeley in the 1960s they participated in an antiwar rally. 

They have been in the country a half a dozen times since then, but 

now they are going to be sent back; or, that student cannot get 

here in time for the semester to begin because we had the paperwork stuck in the consulate. 

And so I think we need to have kind of a report on what I call 

the ‘‘dum-dum stuff’’ that is going on out there that prevents students from getting in here that should be here, so that you can do 

your business of trying to best educate students, regardless of 

where they are from in the world. 

Ms. COTTEN. I appreciate that summary of the experiences of our 

students and scholars, and I think that when you go to the embasmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

34 

sies and consulates and say, how are you doing, what are you 

doing, they certainly are making best efforts, I think, to review 

properly, to let people in properly. At one time, students were waiting many, many months, as were the J–1 scholars, just to get interviews, because right after 9/11 there were mandatory interviews, 

and many consulates were not set up to accept interviews because 

they had not done it for years. You know, London had not been 

doing interviews for a very long time. 

But the Department of State has advised consular posts that F– 

1 students and J–1 students and scholars should have priority 

interviews, so they are getting interviews earlier. I understand 

from the Department of State, and I would recommend that you 

talk with them, that they are in the future probably not going to 

require in-person interviews for extensions, but I think the kinds 

of concerns that you are hearing from people individually have to 

do with the non-immigrant intent issue, where a student will come 

in and they will not say no, your visa is denied; they will say, well, 

we cannot give it to you now. We need to have more information 

that shows that you will go home again. Come back when you can 

give us more information, and at some embassies, that is, come 

back in X number of weeks. We will not see you tomorrow. We will 

only see you X number of weeks from today. 

So I think the non-immigrant intent issue is one of the most denial/delay problems that we see, and the inability to show non-immigrant intent. 

You are quite right that an 18-year-old in the U.S., certainly, 

their intention when they go to college is not to come home and live 

with mom and dad. Their intention is to go out into the world, and 

it is nearly impossible for an 18-year-old to show that they have 

a business that they own back home. 

Mr. FARR. How many students do not show up at the beginning 

of the semester because of delays in the embassy? I mean, is it a 

common percentage that do not get there when classes start because of a backlog? 

Ms. COTTEN. I can say at Duke that we probably have maybe 

half a dozen every year that have difficulties of some kind. Some 

get resolved and some do not. Different schools have different experiences. At Duke, we have only the 1,900 or so F–1 population. 

There are schools in the country that have many thousands of F– 

1 students, and of course, their numbers of denials and delays 

would be much higher. 

Also, at Duke, the population that is coming to us, frequently 

they have contacts at home. They have families with businesses. 

They have, you know, dad who says, when you get your MBA you 

can come back and work in the family company, and so different 

populations of students will have different experiences. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

SEVIS TRAINING FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize 

for being late, but we have three hearings going on at the same 

time. It is my understanding that much of what I wanted to dismstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

35 

cuss this morning has already been asked, so this is a follow-up 

question on an issue that I believe has already been covered. 

As you know, educational institutions across the country recognize the importance of SEVIS, but they have indicated to me that 

the program is very burdensome and that DHS is not providing the 

training to university staff who use the system. What kind of training are universities currently receiving from DHS as part of this 

program, and how do you feel that this training could be improved? 

Ms. COTTEN. Thank you. Homeland Security has put a great deal 

of information online for schools to access, so for example, if I am 

training a new advisor in my office, that information is available 

to go and read, but it is generally not in-person training. It is online materials. Organizations like NAFSA: Association of International Educators provides direct, in-person workshops and sessions at their regional and national conferences, and they try to do 

that when they can in cooperation with Homeland Security, but 

those are generally professional association workshops on how to 

manage the government system. They are not workshops presented 

by the government. 

So much of the training that someone receives in how to manage 

the reporting part of SEVIS happens either online or through the 

professional associations. There is a slightly different approach 

when you are looking at managing the hardware/software database 

side of it, and a different group with which to work, and I cannot 

speak in depth about database management, but certainly, that is 

a different part of the concern in terms of SEVIS: will our systems 

talk to their systems, and how well will they talk to each other, 

and can we get data across as we need to? 

And I mentioned in my testimony that when SEVIS first started 

accepting batch submissions, Duke had the dubious distinction of 

bringing the whole national system to a halt because we sent too 

many batch requests at the same time, and the system did not 

know how to handle that many requests at once. So those are little 

glitches that we have tried to fix over the years. We would like to 

see SEVIS II look carefully at the hardware/software side of this, 

in terms of making that flow with what institutions already have 

in place, because we are already managing huge data systems on 

our own campuses for various reporting purposes; to report to the 

Department of Education, to report for financial aid. 

So we already have those in place, and we would like to be sure 

they articulate. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. COTTEN. The folks at Homeland Security, I think, have done 

a good job of coming to stakeholders, and they have held stakeholder meetings with institutions from a number of—different 

kinds of institutions; the four-year colleges, the major research institutions like Duke, small community colleges, things like that. So 

there has been ongoing communication. I think we are still concerned on the academic side that the security issues, generally, will 

take precedence over some of the enhancements that we would like 

to see on the academic side. 

In particular, the J program has not been incorporated into 

SEVIS quite so well, I think, as the F–1 program, and the difficulty 

ongoing that we see is that regulations and the computers do not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

36 

necessarily track each other, and we are getting regulation by computer, such that the academic community is trying to do the academic part of reporting, and the system will not accept our reports, 

or will not let us do what the regulations say we can or we must 

do. 

So we would like to certainly see an improvement in that regard. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Are you working towards that? 

Ms. COTTEN. We are certainly working with Homeland Security 

on that. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and thank you, Ms. Cotten, for very helpful testimony. We appreciate your coming here today and we will, 

I am sure, benefit in many ways from not just the very specific suggestions you made about your relationship with ICE, but also some 

of the broader issues involving our attempt to be a welcoming country for students and researchers from abroad. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the Chairman yield briefly? 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to compliment the witness. We hear a lot of 

witnesses testify before us in Congress. You have been very effective and very helpful in helping us understand this process, but 

you have been very, very effective. We appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

INTRODUCTION OF MS. MYERS

Now let me call forward Assistant Secretary Julie Myers, the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ms. 

Myers, we appreciate your patience. We obviously had, to begin 

this hearing this morning, we had a witness and a topic that attracted a lot of interest and a lot of questions, so we are a little 

bit later in bringing you on than we had hoped to be, but I think 

it was time well spent, and we certainly appreciate your presence 

here today. I will ask you, if you will, as usual, to summarize your 

testimony in five or six minutes and then let us explore further in 

questions. 

We will put your entire statement in the hearing record. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you so much. 

[Microphone not on.] 

OPENING STATEMENT—MS. MYERS

Ms. MYERS [continuing]. With our foreign students, and in the 

development not only of the SEVIS system, but the pre-SEVIS system, and how instrumental she and many other institutions have 

been as we work to see how we can improve the compliance of students, encouraging foreign students to come into our country. 

It is my privilege today to appear before you this morning to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I want to thank the Committee for its support of ICE during the past four years. Because 

of your support, we are leveraging the broad authorities by aligning 

them with the risks that face the nation today. Our risk-based approach extends from interior immigration enforcement, in which we 

are prioritizing criminal aliens and fugitives, to the application of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

37 

our Customs frauds authorities to prevent the importation of tainted commodities and counterfeit pharmaceuticals. 

This risk-based approach shapes our methods to target drugs and 

other contraband smuggling with financial authorities and international partnerships, and it means we will continue to work to 

thwart the illegal export of weapons and sensitive technologies. 

The people at ICE have a tremendous responsibility. The work that 

they do each day is difficult and often dangerous, yet I can think 

of nothing more important for a public servant than to help safeguard this great nation and to protect its citizens. 

I am proud to state for the record that ICE employees carry out 

their mission with great care, extraordinary compassion, and 

unrivaled commitment. ICE has made progress in immigration enforcement through innovation and more effective internal oversight. With the Committee’s support, ICE is transforming the way 

we identify and go after individuals who pose a threat to our communities. In particular, thanks to the Committee’s support, we are 

aggressively developing an ambitious plan to identify, prioritize, 

detain and remove from the United States all criminal aliens in 

federal, state and local custody. 

We are also working more cooperatively than ever with our state 

and local law enforcement partners through ICE’s ACCESS program. Unfortunately, some of the most dangerous criminals and sophisticated criminal organizations are not behind bars. For this 

reason, ICE has developed robust initiatives to enforce our immigration laws in the interior. Initiatives include programs that specifically, target child predators and gang members; ensure compliance on the part of those who visit the United States for school or 

simply to tour; and to target alien absconders, fugitives who have 

failed to comply with a lawful judicial order to leave the country; 

as well as focusing on dismantling the infrastructure that supports 

illegal immigration, such as illegal employment and fraudulent document trade. 

While the immigration enforcement initiatives I described most 

often relate to people trying to come into this country, another key 

risk we guard against involves efforts to take sensitive technology 

and arms out. In Fiscal Year 2007, arms and strategic technology 

investigations resulted in 188 arrests, 178 indictments, and 127 

convictions for export-related violations, more than any other U.S. 

federal law enforcement agency. 

One undercover operation resulted in guilty pleas by six individuals; to charges of weapons and ammunition, money laundering, 

and material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. 

Other dangers are less obvious. Traditional customs fraud in many 

cases constitutes serious and unrecognized public health risks. 

Take for example Operation Guardian, an ICE-led operation where 

we worked with CBP, the FDA and the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission to investigate imports of substandard, tainted and 

dangerous products from the People’s Republic of China, PRC, and 

other countries. 

The operation to date has resulted in the seizure of more than 

59,000 tubes of diethylene glycol and bacteria-laden toothpaste 

bound for the U.S. markets, and the initiation of several joint U.S.- 

PRC investigations. Diethylene glycol, by the way, is a toxic chemmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

38 

ical used to make antifreeze, and this is just one of many similar 

investigations involving tainted goods which would otherwise be on 

store shelves just waiting for purchase by American families. 

As I mentioned, our risk-based approach also shapes our methods to target drug and other contraband smuggling. With only 25 

percent of our special agents authorized to conduct drug smuggling 

investigations, we seized 1.3 million pounds of marijuana and 

227,000 pounds of cocaine. This kind of approach, focusing on risk 

and going after the money, has resulted in some real results. Since 

2003, ICE has seized more than $600 million in cash and monetary 

instruments, and more than $580 million worth of real property, 

vessels, aircraft, artwork, vehicles and jewels. 

FPS has also intercepted 760,000 prohibited items and stopped 

3,000 people from entering federal buildings. Many of the requests 

included in the FY-2009 budget today directly support these priorities, and they are discussed in greater detail in my statement I 

have submitted to the Committee. I want to thank the Committee 

for all the support it has given ICE, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

39 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 43385A.016
40 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 43385A.017
41 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 43385A.018
42 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 43385A.019
43 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 43385A.020
44 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 43385A.021
45 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 43385A.022
46 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 43385A.023
47 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 43385A.024
48 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 43385A.025
49 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 43385A.026
50 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 43385A.027
51 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 43385A.028
52 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 43385A.029
53 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 43385A.030
54 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 43385A.031
55 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 43385A.032
56 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 43385A.033
57 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 43385A.034
58 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 43385A.035
59 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 43385A.036
60 

ID AND TRACKING OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Ms. Myers, and we will begin 

with questions. I am sure we have a lot to explore. I want to initially raise the issue of how ICE is identifying and tracking criminal aliens for eventual deportation, both what you have done and 

what you intend to do in this area. We are talking about criminal 

aliens held in custody, in penal custody. There are an estimated 

600,000 criminal aliens in prison. Thousands more are sentenced 

every year. 

I am worried still that many of these are remaining unidentified, 

although I know you have begun to work on this challenge. It appears, though, at the rate you are going it will take four to five 

years to find them all, to have a truly comprehensive system. Data 

that ICE provided our subcommittee staff last summer clearly 

showed that there was a lot of work left to do, and the latest data 

we have from the ICE TECS system show that criminal deportations increased only 7 percent from 2005 to 2007, while non-criminal deportations over the same period increased nearly 60 percent. 

Now, as you well know, the 2008 appropriations act provided 

$200 million for ICE to improve and modernize efforts to identify 

and remove aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, 

and who may be deportable, and to remove them from the United 

States once they are judged deportable. The 2008 act requires you 

to submit a plan to the Committee describing the strategy that ICE 

will develop to identify every criminal alien at the prison, jail or 

correctional institution at which they are held, the process ICE will 

use in conjunction with the Department of Justice to remove every 

criminal alien judged deportable, the methodology ICE will develop 

for identifying and prioritizing for removal criminal aliens convicted of violent crimes, and finally, the activities, milestones and 

resources necessary for implementing the strategy and process to 

remove criminal aliens judged deportable. 

Now, this report is due to the Committee, as you know, on March 

25. I have a few questions about it now. First of all, how far along 

are you in developing this plan? Will we have it by the March 25 

deadline? What are the major challenges you have identified so far? 

How are you going to fix them? And then finally, the money. We 

provided $200 million for you to begin to implement this plan, and 

this is $200 million beyond the request, $200 million, so to speak, 

in new money, to begin to implement this plan, and allowed the 

funding to be used in 2008 and 2009 because we felt the program 

would begin slowly in 2008. 

However, we also required in law that the 2009 budget identify 

the resources and staffing necessary to continue the identification 

and removal of criminal aliens. So I am surprised that this 2009 

budget contains no additional funding for this important activity. 

So I hope you could tell us about that, but first, if you will, please 

let us know how far you are along in developing this plan, and also 

addressing the underlying challenge. 

ICE STRATEGY REPORT REQUIREMENT

Ms. MYERS. Certainly, Chairman, I want to thank you again for 

your support and all the support of your staff over the past two 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

61 

years as we have worked to increase the number of criminal aliens 

that we identify in correctional institutions. In fact, I think we 

have made some good progress over the past two years, although, 

as you note, there is much work still to be done. One of the things 

that we are doing is charging a significantly higher number of 

criminal aliens in prisons today than we were yesterday and than 

we were last year. All those aliens may not get out of prison tomorrow, but when they do, they either have gone through the immigration process or are going through the immigration process, and will 

be deported. 

In fact, back in 2006, we issued charging documents on 57,000 

criminal aliens in federal, state and local institutions. In Fiscal 

Year 2007, we issued 164,000 charging documents on aliens incarcerated in federal, state and local institutions, and anticipate 

issuing over 200,000 charging documents in fiscal year 2008. Over 

the past two years, we have looked at a couple of things as we have 

divided up the problem, and have used the $200 million and the 

impetus of the strategic plan that the Committee has so wisely encouraged us to develop as a way to move forward in a more transformational way. 

Over the past two years, we first looked at where some of our 

biggest gaps were, and of course, the first gap was with respect to 

federal institutions. We did not have full coverage at all federal institutions, but fixed that back in the middle of 2006 with our deport center, which screens every federal inmate in the Bureau of 

Prison’s custody. We next realized that we needed to have a full 

and comprehensive understanding of all federal, state and local institutions in the United States so that we could begin to target our 

resources based on risk and to make sure that we were using our 

limited resources in the most effective way. 

So we developed a tiered system identifying all 4,492 institutions 

and ranked them into four tiers based on risk. It is still very primitive, and we are now at version 2.0 of our risk assessment, but it 

helped us, particularly with the 30 teams the Committee gave us 

last year, to make sure we are using those teams in the highest 

priority areas. Now, with respect to the strategic plan, we looked 

at how we could transform what we are doing to make sure we can 

meet my goal and the Committee’s goal of identifying every single 

alien and every single institution even if that alien is there only 

for a very short time. 

We realized that what we really need to do is take what we have 

done on risk and leverage the interoperability initiatives that are 

going on with the FBI, and see how we can use technology where 

we may not have people stationed full-time to identify aliens, and 

that is what our plan is going to do. It is going to show how we 

will use interoperability to identify aliens in institutions where we 

may not have a full-time presence, and then use that to then 

prioritize them based on several risk categories. We will prioritize 

aggravated felons down to those who may have committed more 

minor criminal offenses. 

We are working very hard on this program. Jason Foley, our Director of Budget, has been temporarily assigned to this full-time 

and we are looking to hire a program manager to really take this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

62 

program and make sure that it will succeed even beyond the time 

that I am at ICE. 

I think in terms of some of the challenges that we face, we do 

face getting the interoperability moving as quickly and as effectively as we would like. I think we have had some great cooperation from FBI SEGIS and US-VISIT at DHS, who really have 

owned interoperability for DHS. But we are now asking to use 

interoperability in a much more aggressive way than we were a 

year or two ago, and that is going to be challenging. I think that 

is going to be an area to push. 

I think we are also going to have some challenges even getting 

the 200,000 aliens we have currently identified out of jail. As the 

rate of criminal aliens increases, there are some difficulties with 

ensuring that we can remove those people and also figure out how 

we are not going to unduly burden the immigration courts, our 

prosecutors, et cetera. That is why we are looking at some innovative approaches such as Rapid Repat, which is a program we developed based on successes in New York and Arizona where you take 

nonviolent inmates who are eligible for parole—of course, it depends on the state—you give them some extra good time for agreeing to cooperate with their removal. This saves the state money in 

prison costs, as many state prisons are overcrowded. It also saves 

the federal government money. So those are the kind of innovative, 

and transformative things we should employ in order to make this 

program succeed. We are going to get the report to you on the date 

it is due, but probably not much before. We are working very hard 

on it, Mr. Chairman. 

PRIORITIZING INCARCERATED CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will look forward to getting that report, and 

also to working with you to make sure this happens. Am I correct 

in assuming that there is no higher priority for your agency in 

terms of deportation than incarcerated criminal aliens? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, there is no higher priority—one of my top priorities is certainly incarcerated criminal aliens, But some of the 

most serious criminal aliens are actually out on the street, and so 

that is also a very high priority for me. We need to make sure that 

we are identifying those individuals and targeting, but absolutely, 

identifying incarcerated criminal aliens is something that has got 

to be a top ICE priority. It has been, and it is going to continue 

to be. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, that does raise the question about whether 

there are competing priorities that are somehow making this effort 

proceed less expeditiously or less efficiently. I mean, is the rough 

estimate that we came up with that it is going to take four or five 

years at this rate to have a truly comprehensive program, is that 

still accurate? Are we able to improve on that? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, certainly, we are seeking to move as quickly 

as we can. I think that where the challenge is for us is in how we 

can move interoperability most quickly, and how we can make sure 

that there is a framework that supports that interoperability. That 

is where the challenge for us is, but we are strongly committed. We 

have dedicated our best people to this effort, and we are going to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

63 

make this a success for this Committee and for the American people. 

Mr. PRICE. What about the time frame that we are looking at? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, you know, it is obviously going to be challenging. As you have seen, we have almost tripled the number of 

criminal aliens that we have charged already. You know, those people are getting out and we are trying to get them home as quickly 

and effectively as we can. There is certainly going to be a challenge, Mr. Chairman, and what I would propose is as we continue 

to finalize the report with our other interagency partners, we continue to come up and brief you, before and after March 25, so that 

you are ensured that it is a timeframe that meets with your approval. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the question I am trying to get at, though, is 

what are the most significant obstacles we face here? Obviously, 

this is a big challenge and it is a big problem, and it is not acceptable to have people who we know are capable and willing to harm 

our citizens, it is not acceptable to have those people back out on 

the streets, and what I am trying to grasp is to what extent the 

problems are technical, and you talk about the interoperability 

issues. 

There are, I am sure, some formidable technical issues here. Is 

this something that just simply cannot be speeded up with the devotion of enough effort and resources? Are we dealing with a kind 

of intractable set of problems here or is this something that is 

going to yield to our best efforts? 

Ms. MYERS. I think we are going to be successful with our best 

efforts. I will say, there are some technical and logistical problems 

that we need to make sure we work through. For example, in my 

home state of Kansas, we currently have five or six ICE agents 

that cover the whole state. There are obviously many more jails 

than that in the state of Kansas, and so those are the kinds of challenges we face. 

Certain parts of the state may only see an alien come through 

the doors of their jail, every other week, so we need to determine 

how we use technology to make sure we are using our resources 

the most effective way possible. I want to assure you that we are 

working very hard on the strategic plan, we are on version 27 right 

now. We have been working to get something that the Committee 

will be happy with, and you can see that this is a top priority of 

mine. I do not want my successor to have to deal with this problem. I want it to be an issue where we are moving forward in a 

proactive manner so that we can tell the American people, yes, we 

have solved this problem as you would expect. 

2009 FUNDING LEVELS FOR CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. PRICE. And you are confident that the resources we have provided for 2008 and 2009 are sufficient, and is there anything we 

need to know about the omission of further funding from the 2009 

request? 

Ms. MYERS. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the timing of your generous $200 million was after the President’s budget 

for 2009 then had been developed. Certainly, there are high numbers of aliens that will be coming in kind of year after year. We 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

64 

will need to be working with you to make sure we get the right 

amount of money as we roll this initiative out and become most effective. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, it is true the omnibus was late in passing. It 

is also true that the requirement was included in the House bill, 

and if there was any sure bet one could make, it would be that that 

would be in the omnibus. 

Ms. MYERS. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. You know, so we will be wanting to monitor very 

carefully the funding requirements here and what the needs might 

be. 

Mr. Rogers. 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ICE AND STATE CORRECTIONAL AGENCIES

Mr. ROGERS. Well, this is a forbidding task that you are up 

against here. There are some 5,050 federal, state and local detention facilities nationwide. My understanding is you have established some sort of relations with 2,000 of those—correct me on any 

of this—and I would assume that most of those 5,050 facilities are 

local, as opposed to being federal or state. 

Ms. MYERS. That is right, and we actually have some relationship with every single one of the facilities in this country. However, 

the relationship may be just knowing who the ICE duty agent is 

and who to call, as opposed to actually having kind of a presence 

in the building or a standard protocol for sharing information. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, since most of these are probably county jails, 

city jails, holding facilities, what have you, how are you going to 

make contact with those county jails, and how are they going to determine whether or not some prisoner they have in their jail is in 

fact an alien? 

Ms. MYERS. Currently, we have made some contact with all 

state, local, and county jails. Of course, in some, we actually have 

a physical presence or we have an agreed-upon relationship, but in 

others we have just made contact through a letter and the ICE 

point of contact. 

I think what we are seeking to do in the areas where we do not 

have full screening, and want to get to is full screening of all 

aliens, is we are going to prioritize based on risk, criminal risk, 

starting with the most dangerous criminals first. We will look to 

see how we can leverage the IDENT/IAFIS interoperability; so that 

when they bring someone into their custody, they can run their information, and share it with us electronically through our databases. We would use our databases to determine whether or not 

the individual is illegal. 

So that is our goal: to get to a place where we are using technology, as opposed to having to have an agent or DRO officer go 

over there and do the interview in the first instance. Of course, we 

will have to do an interview and things later on, but it would be 

helpful to leverage technology to get through some of the first steps 

when they do not really know where to go. 

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. ROGERS. But are you planning at some point in time in having biometric identification of the prisoner? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

65 

Ms. MYERS. Yes, the interoperability is designed to encompass 

the biometrics, and sharing of biometric information. We absolutely 

are interested in using that, and we think that that is really the 

only way that we will get to the goal that you, the Chairman, and 

the Committee have set, in terms of identifying criminal aliens. 

One thing I will say, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rogers, 

is that we do think we are going to have to prioritize based on risk 

of the particular alien, and based on what a particular state’s interest is. 

Some states or countries may only be interested in identifying 

aggravated felons, and that is the same sort of issue we deal with 

right now with certain sanctuary cities and other things. In some 

places, they may be interested in identifying and making sure 

every alien down to those who are arrested for a traffic ticket are 

moved through the ICE process. We are going to have to take that 

into account, and it will certainly affect the budgeting for this proposal in the out years. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, what is in it for the county jailer? Why should 

they fool with all of this, because there is nothing in it for them, 

is there? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, it gets that individual off their streets permanently and back to their home country, and so you are certainly 

right that there may be some jails that do not want to deal with 

us. Indeed, we dealt with that up in New Jersey over the past year; 

and we have had similar issues in other places. So certainly, there 

may be challenges; but generally speaking, correctional institutions 

at all levels have been more interested in working with us, particularly to remove the worst criminals. When you think about someone who commits rape, murder, and violent activities, most individuals are going to want to get them off the street of their community 

and get them sent back home if they are here illegally. 

APPREHENSION OF AT-LARGE FUGITIVES

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we obviously wish you well in this regard. 

This is a high priority for all of us, but I do want to make the point 

that we should not let this or anything else interfere with the apprehension of at-large fugitives who are criminal aliens. Many, 

many more of them on the streets than are behind bars, right? 

Ms. MYERS. That is right. 

Mr. ROGERS. And assumedly, if they are dangerous criminal 

aliens, they can certainly do the public harm being at large, as opposed to somebody locked behind the bars. 

Ms. MYERS. That is absolutely right. Just a few weeks ago, we 

arrested, in Congressman Farr’s district, an individual that had a 

number of criminal convictions including rape, escape from jail and 

other things. We got that individual off the streets of Salinas and 

are sending him back home. So those are dangerous criminals that 

are out there in the streets, but we absolutely have to do a good 

job in the jails as well. 

2009 BUDGET FOR BED SPACE

Mr. ROGERS. Well, quickly changing complete points here, let me 

ask you quickly about the money in the budget request for 2009 for 

detaining illegal aliens on a daily basis that you apprehend. You 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

66 

have requested monies for 1,000 additional beds, daily beds, on top 

of the 2008 level, so that the total bed space supported in your 

budget request is 33,000 beds, as opposed to 30,500 for 2007. Is 

that sufficient to allow you to keep away from catch and release? 

Ms. MYERS. Yes, it is. In fact, there were about 180,000 referrals 

from CBP to ICE in Fiscal Year 2005. There were less than 50,000 

in Fiscal Year 2007, and so CBP and the Border Patrol have really 

noticed a drop in apprehensions across the border. We are continuing to use more and more of our bed space for the 287[g] program, mainly arrests referred to us from jails, the CAP program, 

the jail program itself, and other interior enforcements. 

Certainly, we have to use our beds as efficiently as we can, and 

we will continue to work on initiatives and things to reduce the 

amount of time individuals spend in our custody. 

CONDITIONS AT DETENTION FACILITIES

Mr. ROGERS. Well, and what about the conditions at those facilities? Are they humane? 

Ms. MYERS. Ranking Member Rogers, I think we have taken a 

number of steps over the past two years to ensure that those who 

are in our custody are treated appropriately. Under my leadership, 

we have developed a detention field inspection group which goes 

out and does spot inspections of various facilities. This is an independent arm under the Office of Professional Responsibility. We 

have developed family residential standards, new family residential 

standards. We have add to our 40 largest facilities quality assurance specialists, people whose only job is to make sure that the facilities live up to the ICE detention standards. Finally, we have actually hired additional private contractors that are doing inspections for us. It used to be a collateral duty within DRO, but now 

we use the Nakamoto Group and others to do inspections for us, 

to make sure our facilities are living up to ICE detention standards. But as you note, we have grown considerably in the amount 

of bed space we utilize over the past couple of years. 

I want to make sure that every facility, that we are meeting the 

ICE detention standards and the new ICE performance-based 

standards that we are developing over this next year in every facility. 

FINES LEVIED AGAINST EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

Mr. ROGERS. You proposed—well, the Secretary and Attorney 

General Mukasey announced the other day a 25 percent increase 

for fines levied against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. 

That is the first boost, I think, in probably a decade or so. What 

do you think about it? 

Ms. MYERS. I think it is long overdue, and so I am pleased that 

they are increasing the fines by 25 percent. I think that will be 

useful for us. One of the things that we have found is that the civil 

fine process was actually also very cumbersome, and very difficult 

to proceed through. We are looking internally to see how can we 

streamline procedures to make that easier to fine the egregious employers that are knowingly hiring illegal aliens. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

67 

I still think for the really egregious ones, for the ones that hire 

illegal aliens as their business practice, the best deterrent, if they 

are not going to comply, is pursuit of appropriate felony charges. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you 

very much for the work that you have been doing. Let me indicate 

to you that I represent part of the legal sector that had that catch 

and deport, and I was wondering how that is going and how we 

might be able to kind of implement that a little quicker or a little 

more in some of the other areas, and the role that you have been 

playing in that area. 

Ms. MYERS. Do you mean Operation Streamline? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do not know what you call it. It is where you 

just catch them and deport them, and that has brought down the 

numbers, you know, is that Operation—there are so many operations out there, Linebacker and a whole bunch of others. This one 

has been working pretty good in that area, and the numbers have 

decreased. 

Ms. MYERS. Right. You know, I think there are two kind of related things. We have ended the practice of catch and release all 

along the southern border and the northern border, including in 

your area, as well as all other areas along the southern and northern border. We will be able to continue to maintain that practice 

where non-Mexican aliens are not released into society with the 

money that we are seeking for Fiscal Year 2009. 

With respect to Operation Streamline, which I believe has also 

been going on down in your area, that is a program that is basically full prosecution for individuals who enter without inspection. 

And the Border Patrol really is in charge of that, working with the 

Department of Justice. And they are looking for targeted areas 

along the southwest border where that might make sense. 

They have seen that apprehensions have dropped significantly in 

certain areas where they have done Operation Streamline. I know 

in the Yuma sector, for example, where they have done it, they 

have seen other crime drop as well. So, I think that they are seeing 

some positive, although limited pilots, from this program, and I 

know both the Secretary and the Attorney General are interested 

in using it in a responsible way given the limitations on doing it. 

VISA ISSUING AUTHORITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. And it has worked, and I know it includes 

federal judges and others, and so let us know what we might be 

able to do to expedite that. 

Secondly, we had a question earlier about I know we have been 

having about half a million students come in every year up to 600, 

close to 600, a little less than 600,000 students. What do we do on 

international students from a homeland perspective? And that was 

specifically in terms of assessing them as they come in. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

68 

Ms. MYERS. Well, in terms of assessing them as they come in, the 

primary responsibility for that is with the State Department 

through the visa issuance. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So Homeland Security does not play a role 

there? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, we do in the locations where we have a visa 

security unit or in some other kind of limited locations. But generally speaking—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Did you have any role in assessing those 20 

something thousand Saudis that came in under a special program 

under the Administration? 

Ms. MYERS. We have had some role in those, but it depends on 

the particular location. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What role did you all have on those? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, we work with the State Department, who has 

final, visa issuing authority. We also can look after individuals 

come in if there is a problem. That is really where our responsibility lies. And then in a particular example that you give, if we 

had heard that there was fraud or something else, then we would 

go back and look at the visa applications or other things and try 

to see what that is. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Were you engaged in that particular project with 

the Saudis? You said you were. And did you find any fraud or anything? 

Ms. MYERS. I guess I am not sure what I can say in an open setting here. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. 

Ms. MYERS. So maybe if I could provide to you an offline answer 

here. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Okay, I understand. Yes. No problem. 

Okay. Was that kind of unique, that specific program for the 

Saudis, or is that something that occurs with other nations? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, I think certainly the broader scholarship program is somewhat unique, although other places do have scholarship programs kind of with the Saudis. Our role at ICE usually focuses on students after they get here and how we track them. 

Therefore, one of the things we have done from the DHS perspective, as you heard Ms. Cotten talk about, is look to improve SEVIS 

and move to SEVIS II, which is our IT system that allows us to 

track foreign students. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Have you overall just found in that area, 

is there a need for us to—you know, you said you only get into it 

after they are referred to? I guess the FBI is the one that sends 

you the cases or what? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, the State Department is responsible for the 

visa issuing process. We are responsible when the individuals are 

here. So we develop investigations and leads on our own when individuals are here in this country, working of course with other federal agencies. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Does the FBI have a role in that? 

Ms. MYERS. They do. It would depend on the particular kind of 

case. If the case appears to relate to terrorism, then the FBI might 

have a role in a particular investigation. We work very closely with 

them not only on the JTTF but on other cooperative ventures. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

69 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. 

Ms. MYERS. But I do think the overall program does need to be 

improved and moved to kind of the next generation. One of the 

things that we have a problem with in our IT system is that it is 

paper-centric versus person-centric. You heard Ms. Cotten talk 

about the I–20s that they send to every accepted student. You 

know, if you do not want to take chances, you might apply to several schools, so you get several I–20s. Currently our systems track 

it by the I–20s, not by the person who comes in. 

Those are the kinds of things we are moving to do. We are making SEVIS II biometric-based and also working to try to ensure we 

have the interoperability that Ms. Cotten and others have talked 

about with the other school institutions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Myers, I 

appreciate the direction you are taking the Agency, and I want to 

reinforce what the Chairman and our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, pointed out, that the apprehension and deportation of these 

criminal aliens is an absolute top priority for all of us, which is 

why you saw the strong funding commitment from this committee, 

and we will continue to do that. 

And also to thank my good friend, Ciro Rodriguez. He and I are 

working arm in arm along with Henry Cuellar on the border, and 

Ciro is exactly right. Operation Streamline we believe is the winwin solution that we are looking for, Mr. Chairman. It is not something ICE is directly involved in. The crime rate has dropped 76 

percent in Del Rio. The illegal crossings are at the lowest level they 

have been since they kept records in 1973. So it is a great success, 

and it is simply enforcing existing law in the local communities. We 

are very supportive of it. So I will be working with you, Ciro, on 

that. 

I just returned from a trip, and I know Ciro has got to run, but 

I want to say that I just returned from a trip to Laredo in order 

to visit with them, talk to them about what they needed in the Laredo sector to continue to expand Streamline. They had begun to 

roll it out there in the Laredo sector right next to Del Rio. And I 

want to in particular bring to your attention, Secretary Myers, and 

compliment your ICE agent, a special agent there in the Laredo 

sector, Janice Ayala, who just left apparently, and Agent Todd 

Perseghian, who were singled out to me for me to compliment them 

and make sure that you knew what a great job they were doing in 

working with the local law enforcement authorities and just have 

absolutely bent over backwards to work with the Webb County 

Sheriffs’ Department. So you have got a great team there working 

on the Texas border. 

And all of us in the delegation, this is literally a bipartisan effort. All of us in Texas on the border are working arm in arm, and 

Streamline truly appears to be the solution that we are looking for, 

the win-win solution that then allows everything else, Members, all 

of the problems we have got with immigration sort of melt away 

once that border is secure, and Streamline is working beautifully. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

70 

One problem I want to bring to your attention and ask about, 

and I am going to be focusing on this very heavily with my colleagues both in this subcommittee and in my Department of Justice subcommittee, is the lack of prosecutions in the Tucson sector. 

In the Del Rio sector, everyone that is picked up that has entered 

the United States without an inspection is prosecuted just as you 

would expect the local sheriff or police department when they make 

an arrest, you have a 100 percent prosecution rate. State police 

picks somebody up, a 100 percent prosecution rate. In Del Rio, they 

are picked up, a 100 percent prosecution rate. That is the point of 

Streamline. In Laredo, there is about a 75 percent prosecution rate 

as they ramp this thing up. 

When I went to Tucson, I discovered that the Border Patrol when 

they make an arrest that even if you are carrying up to 500 pounds 

of marijuana that you have a 99.6 percent chance of never being 

prosecuted. It is dumbfounding. In the Tucson sector, they are literally releasing because the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute them. 

Ninety-nine point six percent of all the people arrested by the Border Patrol are released because the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute them. So we will be talking a lot about this in this subcommittee and in my other subcommittee. 

I know that you are picking people up both in the jails, but also 

we really want you to focus on picking them up off the street. The 

Chairman and the Ranking Member are exactly right. We want to 

get these dangerous criminal aliens off the streets as well. Can you 

talk to me about what has been the prosecution rate among those 

criminal aliens that you pick up off the street, those that you 

present to the U.S. Attorneys? 

For example, in Arizona, that Arizona U.S. Attorney, apparently 

it is not just Border Patrol members. When the FBI makes an arrest and presents it to the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, she does not 

prosecute the overwhelmingly majority. It is DEA. It is FBI. It is 

ATF. Are your officers having trouble getting the U.S. Attorney in 

Arizona to prosecute? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, certainly, Congressman, I think that as federal 

agencies, we all want more of our cases to be accepted, and I think 

that your work in ensuring that they have resources so that they 

can take as many of the cases as possible would be terrific. There 

is no question that not every case we want to have accepted is accepted. One thing we are doing that is a little bit different than 

Streamline, but that the U.S. Attorneys on the southwest border 

have appeared to embrace, is doing a U.S.C. 1326 prosecution in 

the jails: getting and identifying the worst of the worst in jails who 

have previously been deported and having them prosecuted per 

U.S.C. 1326 again. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that entry without inspection? 

Ms. MYERS. No, that is reentry after deportation. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, got it. Okay. And that is a felony? 

Ms. MYERS. That is a felony. It is up to 10 years for these aggravated felons we are going after. U.S. Attorneys are very interested 

in those; and we started that in L.A., and now the other U.S. Attorneys in the southwest border are very interested in that. It keeps 

them off everyone’s streets for a longer period of time. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

71 

Mr. CULBERSON. What percentage of those cases you present to 

the Arizona U.S. Attorney are prosecuted? 

Ms. MYERS. You know, we just started that in Arizona, so I will 

have to get back to you on the precise number. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. What percentage of cases presented to prosecutors along the Southwest 

border are prosecuted? Provide by sector and/or state. What was the prosecution 

rate of criminals picked up off the street? (Culberson) 

Answer. ICE does not track prosecutions, however, ICE works closely with U.S. 

Attorneys and state and local prosecutors nationwide on a wide variety of cases. The 

following statistics reflect ICE Office of Investigations (OI) criminal arrests for FY 

2007 for the listed Special Agent in Charge offices located along the U.S. Southwest 

border. OI presents criminal arrests to federal and/or state prosecutors for action 

in all program areas. 

FY2007 SAC office Criminal 

arrests Indictments Convictions * 

El Paso, TX .......................................................................................... 2,435 1,882 1,704 

Phoenix, AZ ......................................................................................... 1,641 623 770 

San Antonio, TX .................................................................................. 1,588 1,172 1,155 

San Diego, CA ..................................................................................... 2,318 1,147 1,842 

Fiscal Year Total ........................................................................ 7,982 4,824 5,471 

* Indictments and convictions may be comprised of arrests from previous years. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. MYERS. But I think they are excited. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes. 

Ms. MYERS. And I am a former prosecutor, so I am sympathetic 

on the resource constraints of it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, this is not resources. The U.S. Attorney in 

Arizona actually sent out a memo to members that said we will 

only prosecute the following list of cases, and they actually told the 

Border Patrol we will not prosecute anybody that carries less than 

500 pounds of marijuana. They sent that out on September 14. I 

asked the Border Patrol how long did it take for all the loads to 

come in at 499 pounds. They said about 48 hours. It is absurd. It 

is a .39 percent prosecution rate. It is not resources, it is policy 

that they are going to let everybody go. 

We have submitted a request. I really would like to know if you 

could, I know you do not have it on the tip of your tongue, what 

percentage of those cases that you present to the U.S. Attorneys on 

the southwest borders are being prosecuted sector by sector. 

Ms. MYERS. Absolutely. 

ICE AGENT—HOUSTON JAIL

Mr. CULBERSON. And then finally if I could quickly ask that the 

Houston jail, the Houston jail I understand will not permit an ICE 

agent in the jail to actually look at people that are being brought 

in for booking. Do you know anything about that? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, I think we have made some progress recently 

with Houston after an unfortunate tragedy, the murder of a police 

officer by an illegal alien out on the streets. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you still do not have an agent in the Houston jail. 

Ms. MYERS. I do not believe we have an agent currently in the 

Houston jail. There are a lot of places where we get good informamstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

72 

tion where we do not have a physical body. I will have to get back 

to you on the particulars with—— 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Is there an ICE agent in Houston jails? Is Houston actually preventing 

ICE from getting into the jails? (Culberson) 

Response. Through our Criminal Alien Program, ICE has staff onsite in the Harris County jail and conducts daily visits to the jails in Galveston, Fort Bend, Montgomery, and the Lynchner State Jail as well as a full-time staffing in the state prison in Huntsville. ICE is not currently prevented from responding to Houston jails. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But the Harris County jail we do. And it is just 

city by city, Mr. Chairman, and it is something else we need to 

work on to make sure that our local facilities are working with ICE 

so you can do your job. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MYERS. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

being here today. I want to follow up on the Chairman’s request 

on this report due to us. As I understand, you have a $4.7 billion 

budget. You are the second largest law enforcement agency in the 

United States. You are not the Customs and Border Patrol, but you 

are an enforcement agency. And as I read the law, your highest responsibility in the law is to remove the criminal undocumented 

person from this country, is that not correct? 

Ms. MYERS. Certainly finding and prioritizing criminal aliens as 

well as our Customs responsibilities are our top priorities. 

Mr. FARR. So how many officers do you have? How many people 

are authorized in your department to do background checks on people? 

Ms. MYERS. Do you mean how many people in—I am sorry. Just 

to clarify, you mean how many people working on the—— 

Mr. FARR. It is not just an officer with a weapon. It is you have 

people that otherwise could be doing background checks and detaining people for individuals being undocumented. 

Ms. MYERS. Our Criminal Alien Program is actually run through 

Detention and Removal, and we had 89 teams in Fiscal Year 2007. 

We are going to have 119 teams this year throughout the country. 

Mr. FARR. Will that include the teams that issue warrants, or 

that follow up on warrants? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, some of those might be warrants in jails, but 

separately we do have fugitive operations. 

Mr. FARR. So just the total number of people that could do this 

in your department. 

Ms. MYERS. About 7,000 people on the Detention and Removal 

side. 

Mr. FARR. Seven thousand people? Well, if your highest priority 

is to remove those that have had criminal activity, why is it that 

you cannot just check every single jail in the United States? You 

have people already, so to speak, ‘‘in the can.’’ You do not need to 

go out and chase them around the street and find them. They are 

there. They are behind bars. I think that there is a little bit of suffering of delusional esteem here because you talk about how you 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

73 

are a great compassionate agency, and yet I do not know anybody 

in law enforcement locally that respects you. 

I certainly have had complaints from the churches and groups 

that reach out to immigrants for the way people have come in on 

warrant chases, officers just finding somebody standing in the 

wrong place and asking them for their papers and deporting them, 

parents who have young children. 

There is a real problem here. I appreciate what you did in Salinas, but you did not go in there and initiate that. That was a Gang 

Task Force that called you when they were doing a gang raid, and 

fortunately you could remove this person. But you did not initiate 

that. You were there as an assistant as part of the task force. 

What my local law enforcement tells me is that you are not coming in and removing these people even though we would like them 

to. 

So it seems to me with the resources you have and the requirement in the law that there is no reason in the world that you cannot be checking every single jail in this country, not just those that 

have been convicted of crime and are sent to state prison or sent 

to the county jail for less, a misdemeanor action, but why you just 

cannot check every one of them all the time. It seems to me that 

that would be a no-brainer. 

Ms. MYERS. Well, I appreciate very much your concern for criminal aliens in jail, Congressman Farr, and I share your concern on 

that. As I have shown in my previous testimony, I think we have 

made tremendous progress. Not all criminal aliens are currently incarcerated. We also have a responsibility with respect to enforcing 

the immigration laws for individuals who are out on the streets, 

targeting transnational criminal organizations so fewer people can 

come in and commit other crimes, and also for enforcing the immigration laws for fugitive absconders. 

Mr. FARR. But what I see in my district, frankly, is more arresting babysitters or deporting them, not even arresting them. Sending them letters saying report to the INS station, and they voluntarily go because they do not want their children to see them be 

arrested. I have had a lot of people tell me that these things happen. 

And obviously with the raids that you have had with warrants 

looking for people—the cast of people you rounded up in the Santa 

Cruz raids did not even have warrants out for them. They were 

just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So what happens is the 

public image of you becomes one of not this compassionate law enforcement agency but essentially a Gestapo-type agency that is 

not—— 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman Farr, we are not the Gestapo, and I 

will not listen to you call our agents and the people who work 

every day—you did that last year to me. 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Ms. MYERS. I thought that was inappropriate, and I will not 

allow you to call us the Gestapo. 

Mr. FARR. And I told you last year where I got that term was 

from one of your agents who told me that is the way people think 

of her. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

74 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman Farr, I share your concern. I think we 

have made a number of strides. I think Congress is in the best 

place to change the law if someone wants to change the law. 

Mr. FARR. But why not just do the work? That is already in the law. The point is I do not think an agency with a $4.7 billion budget you are doing what the law requires, which is to go into those 

jails. You ought to have 100 percent coverage. 

Ms. MYERS. Well, Congressman Farr, I appreciate very much 

your comments, and I look forward to your feedback as we submit 

the report and as you see the kind of the progress that we have 

made. I also look forward to your continued support for comprehensive immigration reform, which will allow us as an agency to focus 

on things you think are appropriate if the law is changed. 

But I will say that the men and women of this agency have a 

very difficult job. The men and women of this agency work hard 

day in, day out under very difficult circumstances—no-win circumstances really when you think that there are 780,000 state and 

local law enforcement officers and less or about 16,000 ICE employees. We have very difficult jobs, and I think they do that with distinction and great honor. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. I wish to disassociate myself from the characterization of ICE agents as Gestapo-like. That is not called for here, Mr. 

Farr. And I for one want to disassociate myself from that kind of 

characterization. These are proud, hard-working people. 

Mr. FARR. I appreciate that and I know that. I am just telling 

you that there is a very ill public opinion in the counties that I represent about ICE. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Serrano. 

ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AND ALIEN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Myers, public opinion is important, and so I want to give you a perception that 

a lot of people have, and maybe you can help me, and I mean this 

sincerely, understand why we have it. We have a lot of folks in this 

country who are here undocumented. I happen to be one of those 

members of Congress who think that that is not the worst thing 

in the world, that our country could always use immigrants in any 

way, shape or form, and we have been through that before. 

But the perception I get and the perception most people get, good 

or bad, is that most of our focus is on the southern border and 

therefore are Mexicans. Yet if you look at the nation, Mexicans 

make up a part of the undocumented but not the whole body. If you 

look at New York City, you find large amounts of people undocumented who are not Mexicans. 

Why do I get the perception that most of the focus of our federal 

government is on keeping Mexicans out and almost looking the 

other way on other people coming in? 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman Serrano, I certainly regret if there is 

any perception with respect to a focus on any particular ethnicity 

or background. Certainly, at ICE, we are only focused on criminal 

aliens of all types and on Customs violations. But I would say one 

thing that might lead to this perception would be that the staffing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

75 

along the southern border for the Border Patrol and other agents 

is significantly higher than staffing in other parts of the country. 

So, in interior parts of the country, as I mentioned earlier, in my 

home state of Kansas, you have five or six agents in the whole 

state. And so the enforcement action that is going in Kansas is considerably less than the enforcement action that is going on in certain southern border areas in areas where there are large numbers 

of Border Patrol agents and the like. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, for instance, whenever I get a chance, I bring 

up the issue of the territories either in a positive way or in a way 

that it has to be brought up, and we know that on a daily basis, 

there are people who get to our territories, especially the ones closest to us, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and then they just 

get on a plane and end up in one of the 50 states. And it would 

appear to people that the enforcement—and again, for the record, 

I am not one who is demanding enforcement because I do not have 

a problem with people coming into my country, right? If I was not 

born in a territory, I probably would be trying to find a way to get 

into this country too, but I did not have to do it that way. 

Yet the perception still continues to be, not even the perception, 

the action that you see, the reporting on TV, what you read in the 

newspapers all seems to be focused on getting folks coming across 

the border into the United States from Mexico, so therefore, I think 

it is not improper to feel that it is directed at Mexicans. So I guess 

my question is, do you feel that we are balanced in the resources 

we put into looking at other folks entering through other parts of 

the country other than the Mexican border? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, certainly, Congressman Serrano, it is very important to ICE, who has a mission not only for transnational 

crimes but also interior enforcement. ICE ensures that our interior 

areas of the country are fully staffed, and that we look to the 

northern border and to risks for visa overstays, not only for student 

violators but for others who come on other types of visas. The core 

part of our mission is making sure that we really attack all those 

transnational threats and that we do so in an appropriate manner. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

VICTORIA ARELLANO’S DEATH

I would like to discuss two other issues I believe also feed into 

the negative perception of ICE. As you know, Victoria Arellano died 

in ICE custody at the San Pedro processing center in July of 2007. 

According to accounts by detainees who witnessed the events leading up to her death, ICE did not respond in a timely manner to 

numerous and increasingly desperate requests for urgent medical 

attention made by Arellano and her fellow detainees as her condition continued to deteriorate in the weeks prior to her death. 

According to a Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, which 

was released in January of this year, ‘‘The U.S. failed to ensure 

that detainees with HIV/AIDS received medical care that complies 

with recognized standards for correctional healthcare. Medical care 

and facilities operated or supervised by ICE is delayed, interrupted 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

76 

and inconsistent to the extent that it endangers the health and 

lives of many detainees.’’ 

What were ICE policies for responding to requests for medical attention from detainees at the time of Victoria Arellano’s death, and 

what changes and safeguards have been put in place so that ICE 

personnel respond in a timely manner to provide the services that 

are needed? 

Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman, let me first just say it is an absolute tragedy when anybody dies in ICE custody, and we work very 

hard to make sure that the medical care—last year we spent about 

$100 million for medical care of individuals in our custody—is firstrate and that the Division of Immigration Health Services provides 

the kind of medical care that is needed in a timely manner and 

does so in appropriate ways. 

We have taken a number of steps, although there were already 

procedures in place that provide for certain cross-checking. If there 

are requests, they need to be responded to in this amount of time 

and cross-checked. The doctors at the Division of Immigration 

Health Services are the ones responsible kind of for making those 

determinations. 

We have done some things over the past year to improve our program overall in terms of detention, including in the medical arena. 

One of those things was the creation of the Detention Field Inspection group, which goes out and looks at not only the conditions of 

our facilities overall but also on the medical care side. We have our 

quality assurance specialists located in 40 of our largest facilities 

who are able to respond to kind of particularized needs if they feel 

that their forms are not being processed quickly enough or that 

their care is not being attended to. 

Every individual who comes into ICE custody goes through a full 

screening within 14 days, and we have diagnosed conditions for I 

believe over 28 percent of individuals that come into our care. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Were these quality controls in place at the 

time that Arellano died? 

Ms. MYERS. Some of those quality controls were in place and 

some of them were just coming into place, because one of the things 

I have spent a lot of time on in this agency is improving the overall 

quality of care for individuals in our custody. 

One additional thing that I think will continue to address this— 

and of course her case is in litigation, so I cannot talk specifically 

about that—is that we are moving all of our ICE detention standards to make them performance-based standards. Performancebased standards will better ensure that the IGSAs and others who 

are then held accountable for making sure the medical needs are 

met have a higher bar to meet and that it is clear to them. Currently those performance-based standards are out for comment 

with the NGOs right now, so we are working with them in a collaborative manner to make sure that this updating will be done. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Are there medical experts that are also reviewing these new policies to give you feedback? 

Ms. MYERS. Yes, they are. And then, of course, there also are 

separate policies from the Division of Immigration Health Services 

that they have and monitor on their own, but for the ICE standards, certainly there are. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

77 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Another issue of concern is that according 

to CBP, approximately 10 percent of all undocumented persons 

that are apprehended along the southern border are unaccompanied children. In accordance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention Act or the Flores settlement in the Homeland Security Act, these minors are to be transferred to the Office of Refugee Settlement within three to five days, given access to counsel, 

not held with adults or adjudicated delinquents, nor are they to be 

prevented from going through a process of expedited removal. 

However, my office has been getting reports from very reputable 

immigrant rights organizations that each of these protections has 

been repeatedly violated. Can you explain why we are still seeing 

situations where this is occurring and why children are not being 

expedited through the process so that they are under safe conditions as required by law? 

Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman, at ICE, we have been working with 

ORR and CBP to try to streamline the movement of any of these 

unaccompanied minors from CBP to ORR. Sometimes there are situations where ORR does not have housing kind of in the local area; 

they are not able to accept them; the flight is not available, et 

cetera, et cetera. We are putting together a book of best practices 

to ensure that our role, which is really this little transportation 

link—is not holding them in the CBP cell, which is done obviously 

by CBP, nor is it dealing with them on the ORR side—is as smooth 

and streamlined as possible. We are trying to shorten any amount 

of time that we have any involvement so that it can be as smooth 

as possible from CBP to ORR. 

We have made some good progress on that over the year. I think 

in very short order we are going to be able to show some more significant progress there because it is not in ICE’s interest to have 

custody of these individuals for any amount of time. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Well, I really hope that there is going to be 

some real focus on these children and also that ICE agents receive 

training so that they are more sensitive to these detainees and 

their specific needs. Because in many cases we have been talking 

about criminal aliens, but in this particular case, we are talking 

about children. I think that there needs to be some sensitivity or 

professional training so that there is a clear understanding by 

those who work in your agency. 

Ms. MYERS. I believe that part of the reason that Congress put 

unaccompanied minors into the care and custody of ORR is because 

they wanted ORR to actually handle this very sensitive class of 

cases, and so at ICE, we are trying to reduce—down to virtually 

nothing—the amount of time that we are transporting them—in 

that we are not holding them initially. We are just transporting 

them, and so that is why we are trying to reduce that time so that 

these sensitive cases, these unaccompanied minors, can be in the 

custody of ORR as quickly as possible. 

STUDENT EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I realize that we are under some time 

pressure here, but I would like to hold a brief concluding round of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

78 

questions, and I will try to set a good example myself here in abbreviating my questions. But I do want to touch on a couple of 

things, and then all of us of course will submit additional questions 

for the record. 

I want to go back to the first witness we had this morning and 

the Student Exchange Visitor Program just for a moment, Ms. 

Myers, and then turn to the Federal Protective Service. You heard 

Ms. Cotten’s testimony and you understand the position she articulated, that the new fees are not going to be welcomed in any case, 

but if there are to be new fees that there needs to be a clear benefit 

articulated which will justify them. 

And I just would appreciate your confirmation that the suggestions that Ms. Cotten raised about the kinds of benefits that would 

be valued, streamlined travel for students, improved databases and 

student access to SEVIS records, liaison officers who are responsive 

to both educators and students, coordinated federal reviews with 

other departments, those kinds of benefits that could potentially 

come. And maybe we are talking here about some improvements in 

departmental policy and practice but also some things that would 

cost money and that could conceivably benefit from the fee increases you are talking about. 

I wonder if you could commit to taking a very close look at those 

kinds of recommendations and to include them in the fee rule, I 

mean, not just a vague promise, a future promise, but to the extent 

you can possibly make it quite explicit in the rule itself where the 

money is going to go and what the benefits are going to be. 

Ms. MYERS. Certainly, Chairman, I did think that Ms. Cotten’s 

testimony was very useful and very enlightening in terms of the 

needs of the academic institutions. We are trying to work as close 

as we possibly can to make sure we take into consideration their 

needs—the stakeholder needs—in terms of upgrading our IT infrastructure, making sure the liaisons will be as helpful to those 

schools as possible, and really providing as much value as we can. 

I will commit that we will work as closely as possible not only with 

Duke but with all the other academic institutions. 

There are a few things that Ms. Cotten wanted to do that may 

be a bit out of our control in terms of controlling data streams from 

the Social Security Administration or other things, but we are absolutely going to do whatever we can do to upgrade SEVIS, making 

it more useful on the school side. 

Mr. PRICE. I think that is important, because some of these 

changes are needed regardless of any connection with fee increases. 

And also to the extent there must be fee adjustments, the negative 

signal they send would be mitigated I believe by some concrete 

demonstration of the payoff. 

Ms. MYERS. Well, we will try to make sure it can be as concrete 

as possible to provide that help. The fees have not been raised 

since 2003, and of course, we are mandated to do SEVIS as a feefunded operation. You know, tuition at many schools, including 

many private institutions, has gone up considerably more over that 

time. We are mindful of any implication that any fee raise might 

have, and we want to make sure we roll it out in the most responsible manner. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

79 

Mr. PRICE. Well, and of course, this does not cancel any need for 

a justification of those increases, but I think the demonstration of 

benefit is important. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Federal Protective Service is supposed to protect federally 

occupied buildings, but a recent GAO report highlighted how 

changes in the agency have left it unable to complete its mission. 

As I said earlier, the report’s authors determined that the capabilities of FPS have deteriorated so substantially that the federal facilities that it is charged to protect face a ‘‘greater risk of crime or 

terrorist attack.’’ 

Now we dealt with this in the 2008 bill. The Appropriations bill 

for the current year requires you to staff FPS with at least 900 police officers and 1,200 total employees and mandates that security 

fees charged to agencies for FPS programs be increased to fund 

this growth. However, this is not reflected in your 2009 budget request. It reflects only 950 personnel at the agency for 2009. Now 

I understand that you now are planning to increase these and hire 

additional personnel at FPS in 2008, as required by law. 

I want to confirm that that is correct and ask you when the increased fees will be put into effect. When the new officers will be 

hired. When we will also then get a budget amendment that shows 

a more realistic estimate of how this program will be funded in 

2009. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on the language 

in the Appropriations bill, we are indeed raising the rates both for 

Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009. I anticipate that the letter 

informing the customers of the raise in rates for 2008 will be going 

out in the next week or so. We are currently moving that through 

final clearance here, and then we will begin the process of hiring. 

If we do not have an announcement out, I believe we are going to 

have an announcement out in the next week or so, and we are 

going to move very aggressively to try to get these individuals on 

board to have the 950 law enforcement personnel. Many of them 

are going to be inspectors with police authority, so they will not 

necessarily be police officers only. 

But I do think that the committee’s review of FPS has been very 

helpful. The move from GSA and the lack of that funding which 

they had really relied on for so many years has been very, very difficult, and so I think that the committee’s support here has been 

very helpful, and I look forward to a stronger FPS. 

Mr. PRICE. I think maybe you misspoke or maybe I did not hear 

you correctly. You are committing to the 900 police officers? 

Ms. MYERS. It is 900 law enforcement personnel, so they will be 

inspectors who have police training. They will not be hired as police officers only, so they will be able to do both duties. I believe 

under the language, it was 900 law enforcement personnel, which 

these inspectors would qualify as. 

Mr. PRICE. Right. And then we would anticipate 1,200 total employees as opposed to the 950 that is included in the budget we 

have now. 

Ms. MYERS. That is right. That is right. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

80 

287[G] PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. Let me quickly and briefly talk about 287[g]. 

Ms. MYERS. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am a strong believer in that. The federal personnel that you have, although the second largest in the federal 

government, is still a drop in the bucket, frankly, compared to the 

number of illegals in the country estimated from 12 to 15 million. 

So the only way we are ever going to be able to have a chance to 

stop that flow and cut off the magnet that are the jobs that are in 

this country for people seeking work is to enlist the aid of local police, state and local police, and 287[g] provides the training to allow 

them to assist you in that work. What do you think about 287[g], 

and is there enough money in your budget request to engage more 

local officials in the work? 

Ms. MYERS. Ranking Member Rogers, I think 287[g] has been a 

terrific force multiplier. We currently have 38 entities which have 

signed memorandums of agreement with ICE. That is up from only 

two before I started at ICE. So I think using it strategically, we 

can really make a difference. Of course, whenever we partner, we 

have to make sure that we have the necessary detention facilities. 

If individuals are apprehended, we have to make sure we have the 

ICE resources on the back end of the removal process to support 

that. But I do think it is a critical program. 

One other thing that we developed is the ICE ACCESS program, 

which looks at the broader services that ICE can offer. Sometimes 

we are finding that particular communities had narcotics or foreign-born gang problems, and they said they wanted 287[g] when 

they really wanted someone to help them with their foreign-born 

gang problems. So we are looking, under ICE ACCESS, to do that. 

I do think that the $12 million proposed for 2009 will allow us 

to strengthen the 287[g] program in particular, targeted places. We 

are making sure we roll this out very deliberately, that we are 

doing audits of the program, so that we can make sure that these 

authorities are being used in a responsible manner. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, congratulations on the improvement in 287[g]. 

As you say, you have signed 38 agreements, 10 more pending; 78 

more localities that have requested info seeking agreements. You 

have trained, so far, 630 state and local law enforcement officers 

in that program, ranging in states from California to Arizona to 

North Carolina. 

So thank you for the work that you have done so far with 287[g], 

and I wish you Godspeed in that program as well as all of the others. I think you are doing a great job down there. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

HUTTO FAMILY DETENTION FACILITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. Let me go back to the 

same question that Lucille had asked that I wanted to follow up 

on. I know that I have been, and you have been also, at the Hutto 

facility of the families. That was last year, so can you let me know, 

in terms of what has been happening there? Have we established 

any different types of strategies, or has the number increased? I 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

81 

know we have several facilities there that are family related, where 

the entire families are there. 

Ms. MYERS. In terms of the Hutto facility, we are actually now 

using part of the facility for noncriminal females. The estimates 

that the Border Patrol initially provided about families that would 

be coming in that would need to be housed in Hutto—it did not appear that the numbers kind of matched those initial estimates, 

so—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So they have dropped. 

Ms. MYERS. It has dropped, and, of course, that is consistent with 

the overall drop in apprehensions kind of across the southern border. 

In terms of the Hutto facility specifically, we have developed 37 

residential family standards, and these standards will apply not 

only to Hutto but to Berks. They were developed working with the 

ACLU in the context of the lawsuits against Hutto and working 

with other NGOs who also had an ability to provide input into 

what those standards need to be. 

Long term, I think we are looking at whether or not Hutto is 

structurally the kind of facility that would make the most sense for 

this particular population noncriminal families. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We had another facility that was similar in another part of the country. What is the situation there? Have those 

numbers dropped there, too? 

Ms. MYERS. No. The Berkes facility can house about 87 people 

or so; it has always been a very small facility, and that facility has 

remained full. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you also, in regarding the issue of 

cyber security, I know we have been working on that. From a department perspective, I noticed you asked the wrong person in 

terms of the $5.7 million. That is, at least, I see a very small number there in terms of protecting the computers from money laundering and that kind of international fraud that occurs. 

Do you see a need for us to beef up on that? What is the situation when it comes from cyber security? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, certainly, ICE’s cyber security request is only 

part of the Department’s cyber security request. ICE focuses on 

cyber crime, crimes that are committed over the Internet, including 

child predators as well as counterfeit pharmaceuticals. 

This year, the president’s proposed budget for 2009 provides 

funding for the first time since ICE has been created for some of 

the key, core Customs authorities that we have. So, certainly, I 

would welcome very much the Committee’s support for that. We 

are seeing more and more crimes being committed over the Internet and computers being used to facilitate all kinds of crimes. So 

it is important that our forensic agents and our cyber crimes center 

remain up to date with the latest changes in technology. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. One of the biggest problems we had with 9/11 

is one agency not dialoguing with the other. How, working with the 

FBI and others, as it deals, for example, on cyber security? Do we 

have some kind of structure set up? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

82 

Ms. MYERS. We work very closely, not only with the FBI but with 

the Secret Service, which also has a related role in cyber security. 

They have their Electronic Crimes Task Forces, and we work with 

other law enforcement agencies as well. 

In terms of the FBI, one of the best ways, I think, that we engage with them is through our participation on the JTTFs, or the 

Joint Terrorist Task Forces, where ICE is the largest participant, 

other than the FBI. The more sensitive terrorism or sensitive immigration cases are often worked through the JTTFs. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I just want to emphasize the importance of having the exercises because there is nothing worse than, and I will 

not mention the community that they talk about what a great facility they have, what great things they are doing, and then when 

something happens, it falls apart, and, you know, we had a similar 

situation occur, unless some exercises take place where you go out 

there and go through that training. So I just wanted to emphasize 

the importance of that. Okay? Thank you. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. 

287[G] PROGRAM

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a follow-up to 

Secretary Myers on the 287[g] program, in particular, with respect 

to the Houston Police Department, Houston is the fourth-largest 

city in the United States. I want to confirm what you said earlier. 

It is your understanding that the City of Houston has prevented 

ICE from putting an agent in the Houston City Jail. 

Ms. MYERS. It is my understanding, and I would like the opportunity to follow up with you in writing on this—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. MYERS [continuing]. We do not currently have an agent in 

the jail. Whether or not we have been prevented, I think, is something I want to make sure I clarify. 

Mr. CULBERSON. My office checked, and I checked, and Houston 

will not let your folks in. So that is a problem they face. In a lot 

of these jails, ICE is prevented from coming to the Houston Jail. 

I know that is a problem, and I would be happy to try to help you 

with that. 

Your memorandums of agreement that you have with 38 state 

and local agencies; you have got 78 agencies that have requested 

to participate in the 287[g] program. That is an immediate force 

multiplier that would—a dramatic difference in helping you deal 

with the problem that you face with the large number of criminal 

aliens out there, yet you all have only asked for $2.67 million for 

the program. 

I know that, for example, the Houston Police Department has 

also refused to participate in the 287[g] program, which is really 

dangerous. The Fort Dix terrorists—I think two or three of the Fort 

Dix terrorists—where is my note on that? Three of the Fort Dix 

terrorists had received up to 19 traffic tickets, but because they got 

the tickets in sanctuary cities where the city either will not participate in 287[g], they will not ask the question. You never knew 

about it. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

83 

How can this Committee help you expand the ICE program? You 

all are only asking for $2.67 million. There is obviously a tremendous demand among local agencies to try to help you with it, and 

that is an immediate way to be a force multiplier. 

Then, as a final note, my office has found 4,000—we checked 

with local—my friends in the state legislature where Ciro and I 

came out of and Henry—my friends in the state legislature in 

Texas and then also in Louisiana. We checked the board, and we 

found 4,000 vacant beds available in private facilities today that 

you could contract for, that the Marshals could contract for. 

So two questions. One, what do we need to do to help you expand 

the 287[g] program, in particular, to make sure you have got that 

full-force multiplier available for you? 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman, I believe that the request for 2009 

was $12 million, but—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. You asked for $12 million. 

Ms. MYERS. I certainly think your point about making sure we 

have enough money to manage this program appropriately—one of 

the things that we want to do in 2009 is make sure that, as this 

grows significantly, and as 287[g] beds are actually taking up a little more than a quarter of our entire bed space, that we are really 

doing it kind of in targeted areas. 

So I hired Jim Pendergraph, who is the former sheriff down in 

Mecklenburg County, to be the head of our Office of State and 

Local Coordination. He will make sure that we are doing this in 

a coordinated way and to also make sure—it is very important that 

we protect civil rights and civil liberties and that we do not engage 

in any racial profiling—we are doing the training and auditing for 

this program. 

So based on that, this request was allowed to be kind of a reasonable request, knowing that our agency had made substantial 

progress over the past couple of years. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I was just going to ask, how many new officers, 

new agencies, will the $12 million allow you to bring in? 

Ms. MYERS. Each request actually can cost more than $12 million, so the $12 million is dedicated towards training and IT items 

because running just one 287[g] program averages about 17 and a 

half million dollars a year. It primarily includes beds, ICE oversight, and other things. We want to make sure that we expand 

287[g] in places that are primarily jail institutions or places where 

the task forces kind of would make most sense. 

The $12 million is also designed to help us with the new training 

facility that we are working to get up and going. One of the issues 

we have had is making sure we get training in the right places. It 

requires state and locals to be training from four to six weeks, depending on the program. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I do not follow you. How could one 287[g] program cost you $17 million? They are different from area to area. 

Ms. MYERS. That is the average. That is the average of what it 

costs in terms of—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. In Houston, I can see that, but in, for example, 

Marfa, Texas, out in the West Texas sector, you are not going to 

have the same. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

84 

Ms. MYERS. We will continue to look at the averages as the numbers grow, but that is what has been the average. When you think 

about the fact that a quarter of our bed space is 287[g] bed space, 

and then you want to make sure, are these aliens the highest-priority criminal aliens, or determinine if their aliens are from jails 

that might be higher-priority criminal aliens that we could use 

with the beds that Congress has given us—So we are just trying 

to manage this in an appropriate manner. I appreciate very much 

the Committee’s support, and I want to assure you that we will use 

every bed that has been allocated to us by Congress. We will spend 

every dollar towards that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We found 4,000 

beds for you that are vacant, and I would be happy to show them 

to you. 

Ms. MYERS. That would be great, but the issue for us, of course, 

is the money and not actually having a vacant bed in a particular 

location. It is having to be able to fund that number of beds 

throughout the year. If they will give them to us for a discount, we 

might have a deal. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Serrano. 

LUIS POSADA CORILLES

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Myers, I am 

going to ask a question that I asked last year, but there are new 

developments since then. 

Luis Posada Corrilles is a known terrorist in the Western Hemisphere. He boasts, and he has been accused, of blowing up a Cuban 

airplane carrying the whole Cuban Olympic fencing team of teenagers. He was accused, and he has given interviews taking credit 

for blowing off, exploding bombs in two Cuban hotels to fend off 

tourists. 

He came into this country a couple of years ago undocumented, 

and, notice, I use that phrase for even people I do not like—undocumented. He was held not on terrorist charges, which was an 

outrage, but on immigration charges. He eventually was released. 

Is his release final? Is he a free man, walking in Miami, as he 

is now, or does he still have pending business before immigration 

authorities in this country? 

Ms. MYERS. Well, Congressman Serrano, first of all, let me just 

say, I share your frustration. We were very frustrated by the result 

of the district court case and the inability to proceed on the kind 

of criminal charges that we were interested in bringing. We also 

fought the release of Mr. Posada and lost that, and so that was the 

release. 

I will have to follow up with you on the current status of the immigration proceeding there. I just do not have that with me on the 

top of my tongue. I certainly share your frustration. Unfortunately, 

that case is not the only one of those kinds of cases where we have 

a situation where there is a very bad person in this country, and 

then we are not able to prosecute him or her for the crimes they 

have committed. We are not able to then send them home, for one 

reason or another. That is a growing problem for us, and it is a 

source of frustration when people see these individuals out in the 

community. So I certainly share your concern. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

85 

Mr. SERRANO. But this is encouraging, believe it or not. So you 

are saying that your agency made an attempt before the court perhaps to say this person should not be released, should be held. 

Ms. MYERS. There was a district court proceeding, which we lost 

early on, and I believe, and we will respond to you in writing, but 

I believe that when the immigration judge ordered this person released, that we had opposed that. Our lawyers in the Immigration 

Court had opposed that, but I will have to get that back to you in 

writing to make sure I am precisely accurate. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

86 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 43385A.037
87 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 43385A.038
88 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. And I would like you, in that letter, if you 

can, to tell me if your concern, or what you presented, was that he 

was here undocumented, illegally, or the other accusations made 

against him, escaping from a Venezuelan jail after he was being 

held on charges there, and so on. In other words, I would like to 

know if you are saying, Do not release him because he has broken 

the immigration law or because you were concerned that he, in 

fact, was what he all claim he is: a known terrorist. We will call 

him a criminal for your purposes. 

Ms. MYERS. I will absolutely get you all of the details. I remember, as a prosecutor myself, whenever you were trying to push for 

detention, you obviously throw in whatever you can, so I am sure 

it was a pretty aggressive case, but we will get that to you in writing. 

Mr. SERRANO. So, for the record, you folks were not in favor of 

having this man released. 

Ms. MYERS. That is my recollection, but I did not review that in 

preparation for today’s testimony, so I want to make sure I am absolutely correct, but that is my recollection, that we opposed that. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. I want to first thank you for the response to Mr. 

Serrano’s question. I think that is the kind of priorities that we are 

talking about and really being up front about being consistent with 

prosecuting those criminals. 

In this report, you identify the prisons, jails, and correctional institutions in which every criminal alien could be held. Do you know 

how many institutions there are? 

Ms. MYERS. Our count is slightly different than the Justice Department’s count because I think for some institutions that are connected, we might consider as one versus they considering it as two. 

Our count is 4,492. 

Mr. FARR. It is 4,492. Let me ask you how you are going to approach this. It says, in the report and in the language of your bill, 

that no funds were made available to improve or modernize efforts 

to identify and remove aliens who may be deportable. 

Here is where my issue has been. Our local law enforcement, 

even in the section of the city that I represent, has never not supported removing undocumented people who are in jail. I have never 

heard any kind of protection. Where the protection usually comes, 

and it is not recognized by the Federal Government anyway, is in 

the raids. People get very upset about that. They get upset about 

the raids, not the inspections. 

So I wondered if this language on who may be deportable means 

that people who may be in local jails could be removed because 

they do not have documentation. They are there. I know you 

prioritize it to violent crimes and to those kinds of issues, but 

would we clearly expect that once we identify these 4,492 institutions that could possibly have deportable persons, that we might be 

able to follow through on that? That is the question. 

Local law enforcement; they do not want to be ICE. They want 

to be local law enforcement. They will collaborate with you, and, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

89 

as you mentioned in your testimony, as you have with the Gang 

Task Force in Salinas, trying to prevent crime, removing those 

undesirables in the community. We can use ICE for that, and I 

would really appreciate it. I have never heard anybody complain 

about that. In fact, they applaud that, and I applaud that kind of 

activity. 

What I am wondering is, in identifying these 4,492 institutions, 

whether you are going to have the personnel to be able to go in and 

do those checks. 

Ms. MYERS. Well, Congressman Farr, on your first point, I will 

say that, as surprising as it is, sometimes when we do identify 

criminal aliens in jails, there is community concern about that. I 

would point you to some issues that happened in Irving, Texas, 

where people were concerned that individuals that were arrested 

for very minor crimes were turned over to ICE, and there was a 

lot of community concern. So, actually, even when you are talking 

about the jails, sometimes there is particular community concern. 

What we have done with the almost 5,000, 4,500 jails is look at 

where the gap exists. We have covered many of them with full 

screening right now. We have all of the federal institutions covered 

with full screening, all of the state institutions, and then a large 

number of county institutions that have a lot of turnover. 

So we are looking for the gaps by identifying the places we are 

not, then trying to figure out how can we use technology, and 

where we need to have a full-time presence based on the number 

of criminal aliens that would be there. It makes sense to try to use 

technology because, in some states, they may only have a couple of 

hundred criminal aliens coming through parts of their jails in a 

particular year, and it would not make sense to dedicate a full 

FTE. 

So you have another alternative. The other alternative we are 

looking at is using this interoperability technology, which would 

allow the local jails, where we do not have a presence, to share biometrics and other information with us and to do this electronically 

so that we can then prioritize. I still think we would be prioritizing 

based on the most serious criminals first. 

That is our goal, and that is where I think the plan is heading. 

It is due about a month from now, so it still has some work to do, 

but I do think it is transformational in the way we are thinking 

about it. I am very sorry to hear that we do not have a great relationship with the state and local law enforcement in your area, and 

I hope that this kind of thing can help build a better bridge. 

Mr. FARR. It is because the raids have removed people. Parents, 

for example. I have had one situation in my district where two parents of young children got removed, and what local law enforcement were talking about was, one, they did not know you were 

coming in; two, the fallout, the cop cars with the lights going and 

people entering buildings; if they called the local law enforcement 

and said, ‘‘What are you doing? Why are you taking Jose ́ Serrano 

away?’’ 

Mr. SERRANO. I was born a citizen. Okay? 

Mr. FARR. And some people are. Then ICE does the checks and 

finds out because, in America, we do not walk around with a citizenship card in this country. Nobody in this room has an ID on 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

90 

them that can tell that they are an American citizen, unless they 

are carrying a passport or a birth certificate. 

So it is that fallout. I think if, indeed, you want to be a compassionate agency, and I hope so because I think we want to respect 

law enforcement, then that fallout also has to be considered. What 

happens to those children? There is an impact on their school that 

their parents are gone, and they are panicked. 

I get the calls about what happens in the aftermath, and that is 

where, I think, the follow-through has to be, part of interoperability 

with social services at the local level. Who is going to go to the 

schools if we have a disaster, and a child is hurt or injured or 

killed? They do counseling in the schools. What about when a kid’s 

parents are removed? What if the kids are American citizens, and 

the parents decide they want to keep the children here because the 

schools are better here? 

So that is the kind of holistic intervention that I hope is intended 

here. It sounds like it from your remarks of wanting to be a compassionate agency, but the fallout has not led to people thinking of 

you as that way. 

Ms. MYERS. I would say that one thing that is difficult for us, 

too, is the fallout we have seen from the other side, and the fallout 

from a lack of immigration enforcement over a long, extended period of years. So there were people who were here illegally and who 

were ordered removed but just decided to flout the immigration 

judge’s orders and decided they were not going to go. I do not have 

to worry about it, and then, when ICE did come, you know, the outrage—‘‘How dare you come, even though I have already been 

through the immigration system, and I have already been removed?’’ 

I believe we take extraordinary steps, in terms of sole caregivers, 

to make sure that sole caregivers can be with their children where 

appropriate, particularly in the context of oversight enforcement, 

but it is a difficult thing. 

Just last week in Minnesota, on Tuesday in Minnesota, a school 

bus was hit by an illegal alien, an illegal alien who had worked in 

a meat-packing company and then a cabinet company, and she hit 

the school bus. Four kids died, a nine-year-old and, I think, two 13- 

year-olds and another young child. That individual was someone 

we might have encountered if we had done an oversight enforcement action. First, she told us she was from Puerto Rico. Then she 

told us she was from Mexico. Then we discovered actually she was 

from Guatemala. 

So these issues are very, very difficult. We are very hopeful for 

comprehensive immigration reform, if not in this Congress, in the 

next one, and we will seek to do the job to the best of our ability. 

Mr. FARR. I will close on this, just a statement. I represent the 

most successful agriculture in the United States, not a drop of subsidies, $3 billion in—it is harvested by the largest farm worker 

force in the United States. Three-quarters, maybe 80 percent, are 

undocumented. If you remove those people, you shut down agriculture. 

So this is the fear that is going on, and they are not people that 

are just migrant. They are there all of the time, they are being paid 

better wages than a Wal-Mart employee, better benefits than a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

91 

Wal-Mart employee. They are paying their taxes. They are binded 

by law. Yes, they are undocumented, but they happen to be harvesting the food that people are praying over. 

So there is a sense of how you do this without trying to destroy 

the whole economic workforce that is essential to America as well. 

I think that is Congress’s responsibility, to do comprehensive immigration reform, but, at the same time, I think it is your responsibility, as the lead enforcement agency, to not just do raids and indiscriminate removing of people. 

That is why I am very interested in concentrating on where they 

are already locked up, as in our prisons and jails, and even those 

that may be perpetual in those jails, coming in all of the time, you 

may not get convicted, but they certainly have that criminal streak. 

So I appreciate it, and I will work with you on it, and I look forward to your report. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Myers, for your testimony this morning. We look forward to working with you as we put the 2009 budget together. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

92 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 43385A.039
93 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 43385A.040
94 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 43385A.041
95 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 43385A.042
96 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 43385A.043
97 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 43385A.044
98 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 43385A.045
99 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 43385A.046
100 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 43385A.047
101 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 43385A.048
102 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 43385A.049
103 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 43385A.050
104 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 43385A.051
105 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 43385A.052
106 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 43385A.053
107 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 43385A.054
108 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 43385A.055
109 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 43385A.056
110 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 43385A.057
111 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 43385A.058
112 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 43385A.059
113 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 43385A.060
114 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 43385A.061
115 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 43385A.062
116 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 43385A.063
117 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 43385A.064
118 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 43385A.065
119 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 43385A.066
120 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 43385A.067
121 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 43385A.068
122 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 43385A.069
123 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 43385A.070
124 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 43385A.071
125 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 43385A.072
126 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 43385A.073
127 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 43385A.074
128 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 43385A.075
129 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 43385A.076
130 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 43385A.077
131 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 43385A.078
132 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 43385A.079
133 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 43385A.080
134 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 43385A.081
135 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 43385A.082
136 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 43385A.083
137 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 43385A.084
138 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 43385A.085
139 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 43385A.086
140 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 43385A.087
141 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 43385A.088
142 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 43385A.089
143 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 43385A.090
144 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 43385A.091
145 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 43385A.092
146 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 43385A.093
147 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 43385A.094
148 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 43385A.095
149 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 43385A.096
150 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 43385A.097
151 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 43385A.098
152 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 43385A.099
153 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 43385A.100
154 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 43385A.101
155 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 43385A.102
156 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 43385A.103
157 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 43385A.104
158 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 43385A.105
159 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 43385A.106
160 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 43385A.107
161 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 43385A.108
162 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 43385A.109
163 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 43385A.110
164 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 43385A.111
165 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 43385A.112
166 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 43385A.113
167 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 43385A.114
168 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 43385A.115
169 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 43385A.116
170 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 43385A.117
171 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 43385A.118
172 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 43385A.119
173 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 43385A.120
174 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 43385A.121
175 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 43385A.122
176 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 43385A.123
177 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 43385A.124
178 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 43385A.125
179 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 43385A.126
180 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 43385A.127
181 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 43385A.128
182 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 43385A.129
183 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 43385A.130
184 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 43385A.131
185 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 43385A.132
186 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 43385A.133
187 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 43385A.134
188 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 43385A.135
189 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 43385A.136
190 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 43385A.137
191 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 43385A.138
192 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 43385A.139
193 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 43385A.140
194 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 43385A.141
195 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 43385A.142
196 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 43385A.143
197 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 43385A.144
198 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 43385A.145
199 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 43385A.146
200 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 43385A.147
201 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 43385A.148
202 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 43385A.149
203 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 43385A.150
204 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 43385A.151
205 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 43385A.152
206 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 43385A.153
207 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 43385A.154
208 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 43385A.155
209 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 43385A.156
210 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 43385A.157
211 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 43385A.158
212 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 43385A.159
213 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 43385A.160
214 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 43385A.161
215 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 43385A.162
216 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 43385A.163
217 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 43385A.164
218 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 43385A.165
219 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 43385A.166
220 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 43385A.167
221 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 43385A.168
222 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 43385A.169
223 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 43385A.170
224 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 43385A.171
225 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 43385A.172
226 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 43385A.173
227 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 43385A.174
228 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 43385A.175
229 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 43385A.176
230 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 43385A.177
231 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 43385A.178
232 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 43385A.179
233 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 43385A.180
234 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 43385A.181
235 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 43385A.182
236 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 43385A.183
237 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 43385A.184
238 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 43385A.185
239 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 43385A.186
240 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 43385A.193
241 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 43385A.194
242 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 43385A.195
243 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 43385A.196
244 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 43385A.197
245 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 43385A.198
246 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 43385A.199
247 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 43385A.200
248 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 43385A.201
249 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 43385A.202
250 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 43385A.203
251 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 43385A.204
252 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 43385A.205
253 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 43385A.206
254 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 43385A.207
255 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 43385A.208
256 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 43385A.209
257 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 43385A.210
258 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 43385A.211
259 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 43385A.212
260 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 43385A.213
261 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 43385A.187
262 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 43385A.188
263 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 43385A.189
264 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 43385A.190
265 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 43385A.191
266 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 43385A.192
(267) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008. 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES: LEGAL 

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROCESSING 

WITNESSES 

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

JONATHAN ‘‘JOCK’’ SCHARFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

TIM ROSADO, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. This morning we welcome before our subcommittee 

Dr. Emilio Gonzalez, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or CIS, along with Deputy Director Jock Scharfen 

and Acting Chief Financial Officer, Tim Rosado. We look forward 

to discussing with all of you the budget area and policy issues that 

confront your agency. 

The subcommittee has already met with your counterparts from 

Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agencies responsible for ensuring that people obey 

our country’s customs and immigration laws. Today we will discuss 

the more upbeat topic of legal paths to U.S. residency and citizenship, along with your plans for improving CIS’s services to all of 

its customers. 

CIS’s core mission is processing applications filed by those pursuing the legal path to U.S. residency and citizenship. During our 

hearing last year, I congratulated you on having effectively eliminated CIS’s backlog of immigration applications. 

This past summer, however, CIS received a record number of applications, including twice as many filings as is normal in the 

months of July and August, just before the CIS fee increase went 

into effect. All of this new work means the application backlog has 

more or less returned. 

You recently estimated it will take 18 months to process these 

naturalization applications instead of CIS’s stated goal of under six 

months. I know you share our concern about this situation, and we 

would like your advice on what this subcommittee can do to help 

you expedite processing times. 

In January I led a delegation of Members to the Middle East and 

spoke firsthand with the staff of the U.N. High Commissioner for 

Refugees, as well as with Save the Children and other refugee assistance organizations in Jordan. One of CIS’s most important roles 

is the efficient processing of refugee applications so that vulnerable 

individuals can be given the opportunity for a better life in the 

United States. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

268 

While I laud the Administration’s expansion of the Iraqi refugee 

quota from 7,000 in 2007 to 12,000 in 2008, I am concerned by estimates that there are two million displaced Iraqis throughout the 

Middle East with concentrations in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. 

Of course, we hope that most of these Iraqis will be able to return to a peaceful and stable Iraq, but we also need to make sure 

that we are doing enough to help those whose displacement from 

their homes is, to a significant extent, a consequence of U.S. policies. We have a particular obligation to those who have worked 

with our personnel in Iraq and may be in danger for that reason. 

CIS plans to improve services to its customers by transforming 

its business processes and modernizing its information technology 

systems. A successful transformation will mitigate many of the 

delays and processing problems that plague CIS and essentially 

eliminate paper-based adjudications. 

In the CIS reprogramming request that the subcommittee approved last month, however, we learned that the business transformation project carried funds forward from last year because it 

could not award contracts critical to its work. Hopefully this does 

not indicate a slipping timeframe for the transformation effort, and 

we will want to hear from you about the status of that effort. 

CIS is also responsible for maintaining and promoting the EVerify system, which allows employers to check the immigration 

status of new hires. Your budget requests $100 million for the EVerify system, a hefty increase from the $60 million provided by 

Congress for the current year. While enrollment in the system is 

growing, I have questions about the rationale for a 67 percent increase for E-Verify, given that the current 55,000 subscribers use 

only about five percent of the system’s capacity. Your budget also requests $50 million for a REAL ID data system hub, which will allow state departments of motor vehicles to 

cross-check drivers license applications against federal and state 

databases. I understand CIS may have some technical expertise in 

this area, but I wonder if this is really a responsibility we should 

ask CIS to take on since your plate is already rather full. 

So we have a lot to discuss. Dr. Gonzalez, I will ask you to give 

us a five minute summary of your testimony. We will enter the rest 

of your written statement in the hearing record. 

Before you begin, however, I yield to Mr. Rogers for any comments he cares to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr. Gonzalez and our other guests from CIS. 

Today we are here to examine the mission and modernization of 

CIS and how the 2009 budget request helps the agency meet its 

current challenges. CIS’s role in our immigration system ranges 

from processing millions of immigration benefit applications to 

processing thousands of Iraqi refugees overseas, no small chore by 

anyone’s estimation. 

It was just four years ago that CIS was suffering from the same 

affliction confronting ICE, something I like to call an INS hangover. At that point CIS was facing an enormous backlog of immigration benefit applications, and its IT systems were still mired in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

269 

not the 20th century, but probably something more like the 18th 

century. 

After lots of pushing from this subcommittee and substantial direct appropriations to augment fee collections, CIS got closer to 

meeting the six month benefit processing goal only then to face bureaucratic problems with the FBI’s background checks. 

Unfortunately, this showed us that even if you plan your work 

and work your plan, you still get stuck in some areas sometimes, 

but in spite of these recent setbacks there are some bright spots 

as CIS has surpassed its goals in important areas. 

Now 43,000 American employers have the ability to determine 

whether their employees are here legally through the rapidly improving E-Verify system. This is an important step in addressing 

illegal immigration and enhancing our national security. Participation in this voluntary program has increased nearly fivefold, far exceeding the goal of even its ardent supporters. 

In addition, the long-running IT transformation and the modernization of CIS’s business systems are beginning to reach a level 

of maturity, but this is against a backdrop of being tasked to shepherd the IT infrastructure for implementation of the REAL ID Act, 

something that dramatically expands CIS’s core responsibilities. 

So what I would like to learn today is whether CIS has the right 

systems and the right infrastructure to meet its current responsibilities, as well as its expanding mission areas. I would like also 

to know how this 2009 request moves CIS forward into the 21st 

century, improves customer service to those who lawfully seek citizenship and provides the capabilities to tackle the REAL ID implementation. 

As you wrap up your final year as director, Dr. Gonzalez, I would 

like to hear from you that you are leaving CIS stronger, more responsive, more dependable than when you found it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Dr. Gonzalez, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EMILIO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers and other Members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify about our fiscal year 

2009 budget request, as well as several issues important to USCIS 

and to the subcommittee. 

First let me begin by thanking the Members of the subcommittee 

for your continued strong support of USCIS and its programs. Our 

appropriations have been absolutely critical to helping reduce our 

application backlog, moving forward with transformation efforts, 

expanding E-Verify and, most recently, addressing the FBI name 

check backlog. I will briefly touch on the status of some of these 

important issues in my testimony today. 

As you know, we implemented a new fee structure last summer 

after an exhaustive year-long fee review and rulemaking process. 

$2.5 billion of our $2.7 billion budget request is funded through fee 

resources. Ensuring that we efficiently use resources is a critical 

priority for this agency. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

270 

In these efforts I am proud of the hard work and dedication of 

USCIS personnel who completed more than 6.2 million applications 

and petitions in fiscal year 2007. However, as all of you know, during June, July and August of last year we received in excess of 

three million applications and petitions for immigration benefits, 

nearly 1.4 million of which were naturalization applications. 

Such volume in just a few months is unprecedented in the history of immigration services of this nation. This surge is in reality 

good news. Those who apply for immigration benefits demonstrate 

a sincere desire to participate fully in our country’s civic life. 

However, as Members of this committee and President Bush 

have expressed, I do not want to see our backlog increased or delay 

applicants from receiving the benefits they are entitled to. With 

these goals in mind, USCIS remains committed to providing services as expeditiously as possible. Because of the quick review and 

approval of our surge-related reprogramming by the subcommittee, 

we have a plan in place to accomplish our pending work quickly. 

Two adjudicator job announcements provided a combined pool of 

more than 31,000 applicants for base fee rule and surge positions. 

As of February 17, we have made more than 940 selections from 

this group. We have hired 450 new permanent full-time adjudicators since the beginning of this fiscal year. 

We have also garnered interest from more than 200 retirees interested in becoming reemployed annuitants. In addition to hiring 

efforts, we have enhanced our basic training program to ensure 

that those new employees are job ready upon graduation. 

Leveraging information technology resources, we plan to expand 

automated processes for certain applications where individuals are 

already qualified and in the USCIS database. We are also modifying appropriate administrative procedures, centralizing the intake of naturalization applications to a lock box and the 

preprocessing of these applications to the National Benefits Center. 

By making such adjustments, more adjudicator time will be 

available to adjudicate cases, thus enhancing their ability to make 

sound decisions to detect possible fraud. 

In recent months we have also made significant progress on the 

FBI name check delay in terms of our policies, plans and operations. With this subcommittee’s support, we have committed $14.5 

million to the FBI to expand their contract workforce and ensure 

that steps are taken to resolve pending name check cases. 

More than 200 contractors are paid for and have been trained to 

handle the USCIS workload. This is up from a handful a contractors and FBI employees last year. Seeking to extend and expand 

this contractor workforce in fiscal year 2008 through most of fiscal 

year 2009, we are finalizing a separate $20 million appropriation 

plan that will soon come before this committee. 

Highlighting some of the good news, I would like to now mention 

our progress in building national support for E-Verify. To date, 

more than 55,000 employers have signed on to this voluntary program with about 1,000 new employers joining every week. Participants are able to instantly verify the employment eligibility of their 

new hires in 93 percent of the cases we handle. Of those seven percent who receive a mismatch letter, less than one percent is contested by the new hire and questioned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

271 

The E-Verify infrastructure is well equipped to handle future growth and expansion, and our $100 million request for fiscal year 

2009 will help us sustain a compliance and monitoring program 

and make targeted system improvements, including enhancements 

such as the expansion of the photo tool to include State Department passport photos. 

Finally, given our mutual strong interest in the Iraqi refugee situation, I want to mention what we are doing to step up efforts to 

meet the Administration’s target of admitting 12,000 Iraqi refugees 

to the United States this fiscal year. 

I currently have more than 20 employees in the region performing Iraqi processing and many others in Washington devoting 

substantial time to this effort. To accomplish this goal, we know we 

must work aggressively to complete at least 16,000 interviews by 

early this summer. By the end of this month we expect to have 

completed more than 8,000 Iraqi interviews for the year. 

I will add, sir, that I too visited Iraq and Jordan in November 

and met with our folks, and they are an incredibly dedicated group 

of professionals out there. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee, and I look forward to working with you on these and other 

matters critical to our immigration system and the operation of 

USCIS. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

272 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 43385A.214
273 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 43385A.215
274 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 43385A.216
275 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 43385A.217
276 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 43385A.218
277 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 43385A.219
278 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Dr. Gonzalez. We appreciate 

that report and will now ask you a few questions. 

IRAQI REFUGEES

I will start with the matter of Iraqi refugees, with which you 

closed your statement. You referenced the goal of 12,000 to be admitted in this fiscal year, and you referenced the number of interviews, I believe 18,000, that you thought would be relevant to accomplishing that goal. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We are going to do 16,000 interviews. 

Mr. PRICE. Sixteen thousand. I am sorry. I would like to ask you 

a couple of questions about the status of that effort and also some 

impediments that may stand in the way. 

As I said, Representative Rogers, other Members and I traveled 

to the region in January, met in Amman, Jordan, with staff from 

the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, with Save the Children 

and other groups working on this issue. We did hear some concerns 

about the level of CIS, the personnel, the number of personnel appointed to this effort. 

I do not know if you are still following this so-called circuit rider 

system where you have 60-day periods where CIS comes in with a 

team and conducts interviews. It appears that this is a significant 

task for the current fiscal year, and it is not clear that the level 

of staffing, the pacing of the interviews, is going to get us there. 

So I wonder about that circuit rider model. 

I know you are conducting interviews in Jordan, in Baghdad, 

probably other places. You had trouble getting the access you needed in Syria. I wonder if you could just reflect on the current deployment of your personnel, where they are, the extent to which that 

level of deployment and access is going to get the job done. 

IRAQI REFUGEES—CIRCUIT RIDE MODEL

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, thank you for the question. We do use a circuit ride model. It is a model that works. 

I will tell you that we go to Amman, Jordan, as an example to 

interview cases once we are told that those cases are interview 

ready by the OPE, the overseas processing entity. We are ready to 

interview any case that comes before us, but it is a rather, and I 

am sure you were briefed on it, laborious process—the intake, the 

actual preparation of the case file, the interview process, the approval process. 

Then the OPE then schedules the appropriate level of training, 

medical exams, flights. They have to do some work back in the 

States as to which immigrant advocacy group or NGO will take 

those immigrants and to what city, so there are a lot of moving 

parts in that process. 

But I will tell you that from our perspective we have interviewed 

8,000 people in the first half of this fiscal year. We will interview 

another 8,000 by the end of the third quarter with our expectation 

that we will have 12,000 cases approved by the end of this fiscal 

year to come in the United States. 

The staffing is where we need it to be. We actually have an additional 15 FTE positions that we are going to augment our refugee 

corps with, but we are also using members of our asylum corps so 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

279 

it is not so much staffing. It is the opportunity to interview a case 

once it is made interview ready for us. 

We have interviewed on a very, very limited basis in Iraq proper, 

and we have also, as you mentioned, gone into Syria, not without 

some difficulties and some restrictions in working there, but our 

folks have interviewed individuals in Saudi Arabia. They have 

interviewed them in Cairo and Istanbul. 

So the process works, and we are very, very confident that we 

will be able to reach our goal of admitting 12,000 individuals by 

this fiscal year. 

MATERIAL SUPPORT RESTRICTION

Mr. PRICE. When we were in Amman we heard a good deal about 

the laws and regulations under which you operate, particularly the 

material support issue. 

The immigration laws, as one would expect, that govern CIS’s 

admittance of refugees bar the agency from approving those who 

have rendered material support to terrorist groups. However, we 

understand that there has been some ambiguity in applying this 

restriction. 

In some cases it has applied to people who have been forced to 

pay ransoms to terrorist kidnappers. Of course, that is not an uncommon event in Iraq. Sometimes, the kidnap victims must collect 

money from friends and relatives to pay ransoms. They are classified as terrorist fundraisers and there are even stricter prohibitions 

on their immigration. 

I know that you have been concerned about this and have attempted to address it to some degree. I wonder if you could fill us 

in on what you are doing to waive these so-called material support 

prohibitions in cases where they should be waived and whether you 

have the authority that you feel you need to exercise these waivers. 

We would like to get to the heart of this issue. We know it has 

been a matter of concern, and if there is a need for the Congress 

to make a legal change we would like to know about it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There have been problematic cases in the initial 

processing of this refugee population. However, we have now within the last month or so approved 233 Iraqi material support cases. 

Included in those cases are some of these duress cases that you described. 

Out of those cases that we have reviewed and interviewed and 

adjudicated, there have been 10 denials and 233 approvals on the 

material support cases. On the cases where there have been the 

duress involved, I believe, and I will have to check this, but there 

may be approximately 70 cases involved where there was some sort 

of duress out of those Iraqi cases. 

So in looking at this workload of Iraqi refugees, sir, we have been 

making progress on the material support cases. I believe that as of 

this morning when we went and took a look at the material support cases we had about 70 cases still waiting to be processed, but 

we think that that has been a good progress made on those cases. 

Mr. PRICE. Do you feel the criteria you are working with are sufficiently clear, and also have you been able to communicate what 

those criteria are to the agencies you are working with, to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

280 

NGOs, to the U.N. High Commission, others who are dealing with 

these refugees at an early point in the process? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Right now we are still working with the State 

Department in clarifying some of these issues—for instance, some 

of the combatant issues—and we will be able to answer that question more confidently in a few weeks when we finish up the processing of going through the new process with the State Department, sir. 

And so I would like to be able to get back to the committee on 

that about whether or not we would need any new authorities. We 

are working out the new procedures with the State Department. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. USCIS states it will get back to the committee on whether or not any 

new authorities are needed in conjunction with the State Department on refugee 

processing. 

As was noted in the record, USCIS has the necessary legal authority to exercise 

material support exemptions for cases in which material support was provided 

under duress to an undesignated (Tier III) terrorist organization, as defined at section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), among the 

Iraqi applicants. The typical pattern we see is that an Iraqi refugee has paid ransom to rescue a kidnapped family member. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (CAA) amended the Secretary of 

Homeland Security’s discretionary authority (as well as that of the Secretary of 

State) not to apply certain terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, beyond just 

the material support ground, to aliens who would otherwise be inadmissible. The 

use of this amended discretionary authority requires action by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, and USCIS has presented to DHS certain categories of cases 

for which USCIS believes a discretionary exemption would be appropriate. 

There are some provisions of the CAA that do not require Secretarial action prior 

to implementation, including the provisions that name ten groups that are not to 

be considered terrorist organizations under the INA based on any activities committed prior to CAA’s enactment. USCIS adjudicators have received preliminary 

guidance on the application of these provisions, and they already consider cases 

under this provision of the statute. Formalized guidelines and instructions have 

been drafted and are in the clearance process. 

At the same time, DHS is committed to establishing a process in consultation 

with the Department of State (DOS) for re-presentation to USCIS of cases previously denied refugee status that may benefit from the new legislation’s automatic 

relief provisions. 

USCIS has recently issued instructions to the field to withhold adjudication of the 

case when an existing exercise of the Secretary’s exemption authority is not available with respect to a particular alien who provided material support to a terrorist 

organization, but the alien is otherwise eligible for the benefit. Cases will not be 

held, however, where there is no statutory authority to exempt the material support, 

such as those involving the provision of material support to a designated terrorist 

organization not under duress. 

Mr. PRICE. I think we do need to know that because there have 

been reports, as I am sure you realize, that the counsels for CIS 

and State have been unsure how to interpret certain aspects of the 

law, including the law as amended in the foreign operations appropriations bill last year. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. But I do think we will get back to you on the remaining outlying issues, sir. 

But I do want to just stress that as to the duress cases we were 

able to get some guidance that we were comfortable with to move 

a number of those cases, so I do see that as progress, sir. 

SPECIAL VISAS FOR IRAQIS EMPLOYED BY THE U.S. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Finally let me ask about the special interest visas also of course pertaining to Iraq and particularly to Iraqis 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

281 

who were employed by the U.S. in that country and now are under 

threat or are perceived to be under threat because of that connection. 

The 2008 Defense Authorization Act increased from 500 to 5,000 

the number of Iraqis who could apply for special visas starting in 

fiscal 2009. Now, this is not going to happen all at once. It will 

take some time to implement it. 

What is your timeframe for publishing regulations, establishing 

the processes for dealing with these 5,000 slots in 2009, and how 

does this intersect with the regular program that you have been 

describing? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. There are some significant differences between 

the two. The most recent law, for instance, applies just to Iraqi refugees whereas the interpreter program, the earlier program, applied to the Afghan as well as the Iraqi populations. 

As well as there are some time differences with the second law 

picking up, as I understand it, in fiscal year 2009 and also having 

an extra step involved in criteria regarding threats to the individuals involved whereas the first law for the interpreters did not 

have that criteria involved in it. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

282 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 43385A.220
283 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 43385A.221
284 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 43385A.222
285 

We are taking a look at that as we speak, sir, comparing the two 

statutes and coming up with guidance on that. There are significant differences between the two of them. We will be providing 

guidance on that and getting back to the committee with our interpretations of the two laws and how we would provide guidance on 

that, but that is an ongoing effort as we speak, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Of course, it is not just an administrative issue. There 

is also a question of how many potentially eligible people there 

would be who want to apply and whether 5,000 is a good estimate, 

as well as whether it is a reasonable number for you to process in 

an orderly way. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. And we will address that as well, sir, when we 

get back, when we finish with our analysis of the two laws, sir. We 

are doing that in conjunction with the State Department. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Chairman Price, USCIS states it will provide a number 

of how many potentially eligible people in Iraq who might want to apply for special 

interest visas; whether 5,000 is a good estimate, and whether it is a reasonable 

number for USCIS to process in an orderly way. 

Insert for the Record. USCIS defers to the Department of State (DOS) for any estimate of anticipated demand for special immigrant visas under section 1244 or 

whether 5,000 is an appropriate estimate. Our experience with the section 1059 interpreter program has been that demand has been substantially in excess of authorized numbers. Because the numbers, time frame and eligibility criteria for section 

1244 are different, as well as dependent on future conditions in Iraq, that experience might not carry over to the section 1244 program. As USCIS processes millions 

of immigrant application and petitions every year, we do no anticipate that 5,000 

is an unreasonable number for USCIS to process in an orderly way under this program (noting, however, that the initial burden to determine legibility is borne by 

DOS’s Chief of Mission, Baghdad, rather than by USCIS). 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

FBI AND CIS BACKGROUND CHECKS—APPLICATION BACKLOG

Mr. ROGERS. Back to the immigration application backlog. You 

say that one of the main problems is the FBI’s slowness in doing 

the background checks. Does CIS do some of the background checks 

yourself? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We do conduct security checks, sir. The FBI name 

check is part of the greater security process. 

Mr. ROGERS. So only they can do the name check? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We do some name checks through our own systems, but we go to them as a federal law enforcement agency to 

see if there is information that they hold that we do not. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. If I could interject, sir, they own the documents. If I could just for a minute, they have a paper-based system just like our system that they want to transform. They do first 

a computerized check on systems that they own and operate, and 

then they go out when necessary to do a paper check. 

They have over 200 offices in which these FBI records could reside at. They do a call on them. They get brought up, and they 

have a very laborious, manpower-intensive process in those instances when a paper file has to be brought up and reviewed. So 

it is there. That is their system of records. They have a program, 

a national name check program that they run. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

286 

What we do on the front end is we do some of their IBIS checks 

and text checks that we can do electronically, wants and warrants, 

as well as taking the fingerprints and submitting the fingerprint 

check to the FBI. Those generally clear within 24 to 48 hours. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But to put it in perspective, since last week—as 

of last week—the FBI owns 365,000 of our files. 

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot hear you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The FBI has 365,000 name check backlogs of ours 

as of last week. 

Mr. ROGERS. Backlog? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you say that at first the FBI does the computer check, and then you say if necessary they go to the paperwork scattered around 200 sites. What would trigger that secondary search? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. If the name is identified, for instance, as the subject to an ongoing criminal investigation then they would want to 

get the record from the office where the investigation is being conducted. 

Mr. ROGERS. What percent of those cases would they do that in? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. It is a small percentage of cases. Normally it is 

approximately 98 percent of the cases can be cleared and the remaining two percent or less end up having to have a more in-depth 

name check. 

Mr. ROGERS. So 98 percent of the cases that they check can and 

are done by the computer only? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Approximately, yes, sir, that are cleared. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is practically all of them. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. Because of the numbers that we are 

dealing with, if you have a small accumulation of positive hits on 

the name check—in other words, there is some type of indication 

that you want to follow up on; for instance, someone is, like we said 

before, subject to the investigation—and there is a slowdown in 

that process that can accumulate for a while. 

We had also earlier on asked for a number of the name checks 

to be rerun, and that request has still yet to work itself through 

the system. That is the backlog which we are trying to work 

through. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But before that, sir, about 95, 96, 97 percent of 

our cases clear the FBI in that initial six month period. 

But it is, as you said, when you start talking about the volume 

that we handle that two percent, if it is backlogged, starts to add 

up and before you know it you have the size of a small city of people that are involved, people whose lives are at stake, people who 

are flooding you with constituent mail wanting to know the status 

of their case. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you are working with the FBI to streamline the 

process, right? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. You have touched upon that, but I need to know 

more about what you are doing and what they are doing. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, just resource-wise, and I will let Jock talk 

about the specifics because since we identified this as a huge problem for us I detailed my deputy to work hand-in-hand with the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

287 

Deputy Director of the FBI to come up with a solution, but resource-wise we have put $14.5 million into the FBI so that they can 

go out and hire additional contractors. 

Before we were just a client, as they have many others in the 

federal government. We put our money in so that they could go out 

and hire people. They now have I believe close to 220 people that 

they have hired that will only work on our files and that we have 

trained them to look at things that we are most interested in. 

We are also going to ask for $20 million for additional support 

for this effort because we want to be able to clear all of these backlogs, some of which go back four years, by the way, to a point 

where it should not take more than 60 days on average to get all 

of these done. 

So resource-wise we are working with them. Process-wise we are 

also working with them to instruct the FBI on those things that 

are most relevant to us. We look at different things than they do. 

I will go ahead and let Jock get into the details of it, but we have 

a constant communication with the FBI. We met regularly at the 

highest levels. Our Acting Deputy Secretary at DHS has met with 

his counterparts, and they understand the gravity of this situation. 

This is not only having a great cost in human lives because people’s lives are at stake here, but it is also costing my agency. It is 

costing my lawyers a great deal of time. The lawsuits that we get 

are incredible. The time my attorneys have to spend on these cases 

basically keeps them from doing anything else, quite frankly. 

So with that, I will defer to Jock. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. We have been working with your staff, 

sir, about how we were going to spend the additional $20 million 

that was appropriated for the backlog elimination, and there is a 

business plan. As a matter of fact, we just finished up commenting 

on it I hope for the last time. We are pushing it now forward back 

to the FBI to let them take a look at it one more time and then 

up to DHS and OMB. 

What is most important about that work plan, sir, is for the first 

time—I believe for the first time ever—there is a work plan with 

a calendar that shows when the FBI will clear certain categories 

of pending FBI name checks, so what they have done is they have 

broken down the pending name checks into groups of, for instance, 

the ones that are older than four years, ones that are older than 

three years, ones that are older than two years, one year, working 

down towards a goal that we would end up being down to first 

down to a six month wait and then down to 90 days and then finally our goal is to have it down to 30 days. It has to be down to 

30 days. 

If we are going to work down the processing time for naturalization cases, under the fee rule our ultimate goal is to be at a sustainable processing time of five months for naturalization cases. In 

order to achieve that we have to have a 30-day turnaround for FBI 

name checks. 

That schedule we hope we will be able to give to the committee 

sooner rather than later. We will also be able to then give that out 

to the public so that the public can see the work plan that we will 

be working to in conjunction with the FBI. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

288 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the arrangement with the FBI that you have 

described, has that been reduced to writing? Is there a written—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. We will be giving that to you. It is in 

draft form right now. We will be providing that to you, sir, and to 

the committee. 

Mr. ROGERS. When can we expect it? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think within weeks, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, would you say that the FBI backlog is the 

main reason for application backlog? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. No, sir, I cannot say that. There is an accumulation of cases that we were going to have to work through with or 

without the FBI backlog being a factor. 

Mr. ROGERS. And what do you mean, work through? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Well, we normally receive, as you know, sir, we 

average about 700,000 naturalization applications a year. We received 1.4 million. That is pushing up our process time for a naturalization case. 

IMMIGRATION APPLICATION BACKLOG

We were saying 16 to 18 months processing time. The Director 

was just informed yesterday that that process time is going to be 

14 to 16 months, which is already an improvement, and that is because of the different process changes that we have done, the hiring that the agency has done, the overtime that is being worked. 

The Director just went out to Baltimore on Saturday to observe 

overtime work on the naturalization cases that were going on in 

Baltimore because we have front loaded our overtime, and we will 

be paying additional overtime to work this naturalization backlog. 

But the way we measure that backlog generally, sir, is on a processing time. We were on seven months before the surge. We 

thought we were going to be at 16 to 18 months. Today we can say 

the processing on average is going to be between 14 to 16 months, 

and we are working hard to do better than that as well, sir. 

That is independent, to get back to your original question. That 

is independent of the FBI name check. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But that has to do with the surge that we got last 

year. When we start talking about those cases that have been held 

up for one, two, three, four, five years that is a direct result of the 

FBI name check. 

APPLICATION FILING SURGE

Mr. ROGERS. Finally, what caused the surge last year? Why all 

of a sudden did you have these millions of applicants? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, a couple of things actually. One, we increased 

our fees in late July, so obviously a lot of people wanted to get in 

under the old price. 

Secondly, a lot of immigrants rights groups were out getting people to apply, and they had very successful campaigns. 

Lastly, I think the whole issue of the immigration debates last 

year. You know, we have millions—probably about eight million— 

people in this country that are legal permanent residents that 

could become citizens if they just applied, and they have not. 

So I think a lot of those folks saw the debates going on, which 

touched them, and they decided that rather than to be observers 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

289 

of the U.S. political process they wanted to be participants. So all 

these things came to a head so that in July, our numbers were 360 

percent higher than July of the previous year just in that month. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

IMMIGRATION APPLICATION BACKLOG

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I just want to say I think the increase in 

fees was a big factor. I know that it was in parts of my district because it went up so high. 

It is my understanding that there are roughly about one million 

applicants that you still have to process. Is that the correct number? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We got 1.4 million for naturalization. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. 1.4 million? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. How many of those do you think will 

complete the process by October, because I know there are a lot of 

folks who are hoping that they will be able to become citizens in 

order to participate in the November election. Do you have a sense 

of how many you will—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. It is our expectation that, for example, those that 

applied in May and June will have their applications finished by 

the end of the fiscal year. Those that applied in July, I would say 

a fair number. 

It is really hard to gauge in statistics or percentages because 

each case is individual and you really never know the content of 

a case. Some cases will be very smooth. In fact, I have been to naturalization ceremonies recently where we have already naturalized 

people that have applied in July. It is all going to depend on the 

case. 

It would be very difficult for me to give you a precise or exact 

number as saying X percent of 1.4 million will in fact be citizens 

by the beginning of the next fiscal year. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So you do not have any sense of it at all? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Only in general terms. Again, the fact that we 

are already doing cases that applied in July tells us that we are 

on track, but the problem we have is that our work is retail so you 

have some large urban areas—I will tell you L.A., Miami, New 

York, perhaps Chicago—where because they do have large immigrant populations the filings were highest. 

You have other areas in the country where there is a negligible 

surge, and obviously there will be little, if any, effect on those applications compared to the other ones. Again, it would be very difficult for me to give you a precise number at this point. 

MATERIAL SUPPORT CASES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I want to go back to the issue that was 

raised by the Chairman with regards to the applications that have 

been denied for permanent residents and family unification. 

I have been told that the denial letters that are being issued not 

only fail to mention the possibility of filing a motion to reopen the 

cases, but they pretty much indicate instead that there is no possimstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

290 

bility of appeal. Is that true? If it is not, do you have a copy of what 

is sent out? 

This is the information we are getting from some fairly reputable 

organizations that say these things are happening. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Are you talking about denial for citizenship or for 

legal permanent resident? 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. For legal permanent resident or family unification, having to do with the same issue that was raised by the 

Chairman with regards to some of these groups from Afghanistan, 

for example, that have been denied application. 

They are saying that in that information there is no information 

about the appeal process. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. In fact, the letter indicates that there is no 

other—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. This is material support cases you are talking 

about? 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay. Go ahead. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will get back to you, ma’am, on the form that 

we are using, and I will look into that and get back to you today. 

This is the first time that has been brought to my attention 

about the adequacy of the notice of denial to an applicant in this 

group of applications. I will look into it. I will get back to you 

shortly today. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Rep. Roybal-Allard, USCIS states it will provide explanatory information relating to denial letters that fail to mention the possibility of filing 

a motion reopen a case and that indicates instead there is no possibility of appeal. 

Insert for the Record. Only unfavorable decisions on certain applications and petitions may be appealed. While the regulations do not generally provide appeal rights 

on denied Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Forms 

I–485) or Applications for Family Unity Benefits (Forms I–817), such applicants are 

generally affordable the opportunity to file a motion to reopen or reconsider the denial decision under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. As a matter of practice, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) does not routinely advise applications whose adjustment of status applications have been denied of their right to file a motion to reopen 

or reconsider. However, USCIS will begin providing notice of the opportunity to file 

a motion under of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for cases denied under terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds. 

Additionally, applicants for adjustment of status who are placed in removal proceedings can renew their applications for adjustment de novo before an immigration 

judge. Immigration judges, however, do not have jurisdiction to exercise the Secretary’s authority to exempt support or other terrorist-related inadmissibility 

grounds. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Or perhaps you could also call my office so 

they can give you more information on that. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Okay. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

SECURITY OF CIS PROCESSES

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Director Gonzalez. I appreciate your service to the 

country. If I could, I wanted to focus on something that just continues to concern me. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

291 

I know that the entire mission of Homeland Security, certainly 

your mission, is to protect the United States against terrorists coming into the United States, to make sure that you are guarding the 

only other door that they can come in through. 

The Border Patrol, of course, is protecting our borders, and it is 

your responsibility to make sure they are not coming into the ports 

of entry or using our visas, green cards, et cetera, to enter the 

United States to come here to hurt us. 

I noted that of course the statute that creates Homeland Security, the statute that created CIS, pointed out that was your primary responsibility. I am quoting from a committee report the year 

before last, and this has been consistent with this committee’s approach that, quoting from the committee report: 

‘‘The committee is concerned that DHS agencies are not placing 

top priority on their homeland security missions, but are in some 

cases giving more weight to less urgent legacy activities. It is the 

duty of each officer and employee of each element of the Department of Homeland Security to protect the homeland of the United 

States, including by ensuring that potential terrorists and criminal 

aliens do not enter the United States.’’ 

We directed the Secretary to ensure that CIS in particular—‘‘The 

committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure 

that the policies and procedures of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and every other element of DHS are consistent with 

that duty.’’ 

The reason I mention that is I am really struck by the fact that 

in your entire testimony here today I only see the word security 

twice. There is no discussion of protecting the United States 

against terrorists. Your entire focus of your testimony here, and of 

course we want to make sure that people are coming here legally 

and want to become productive American citizens, that we want to 

make sure that they can get here in an expeditious way. 

Certainly we in Texas know better than anywhere the need for 

a labor force that people can come into the U.S. and we will help 

you with that, but I am frankly appalled, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Rogers, by the fact that the entire thrust of this testimony, and I 

am looking at the third paragraph here. 

Your testimony, Director Gonzalez, is that we expect to improve 

customer service and efficiency. You are clearly referring to the foreign national applying for the privilege of entering the United 

States, the foreign national applying for the greatest privilege ever 

created in the history of the world. 

I am just struck. I mean, the customer is my daughter. The customer are the people of the United States. I just think your focus 

is all wrong. I would welcome the comments from my colleagues. 

I know that we are all concerned about the backlog, but I am just 

frankly—I have to tell you—deeply disappointed and concerned. 

When I visited the CIS offices a couple years ago, and we have 

had several meetings, Director, and you have I know recognized. 

We talked, for example—Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rogers, I know I 

brought this to your attention—in the Houston CIS office they are 

actually giving out movie tickets, free dinner coupons and movie 

tickets, to employees that crank through the most applications. It 

is just a real concern. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

292 

And then I read in the paper that you are on the brink of, and 

I would like to ask first and then address my bigger concern, a policy that you either have adopted or are about to adopt that we are 

going to start giving out green cards to people before you run the 

background check? 

There is an old Islamic I think saying I read in a wonderful book 

that he who waits 40 years for revenge is in a hurry. Osama bin 

Laden is not going away. These guys are patient, and you guys are 

talking about cranking through the applications as far as you can 

to improve customer service and efficiency? 

Clearly an honest person that wants to come here and work, 

Godspeed to him. We want to help him get in, but frankly if we 

have to wait a little longer to make sure that we are keeping 

Osama bin Laden and his cousins out of the United States we 

should do it. 

Talk to us about this green card policy. I frankly think this is 

just nuts to let a foreign national get a green card before you run 

the background check. It is unbelievable in an era when we know 

they are trying to sneak in and kill us. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, let me back up, sir, if I may, and I will answer that question for you. 

Security is in everything we do. Security over—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is not in your testimony anywhere. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, everything we do. Every one of my employees 

hears it regularly from me and my leadership. Security is second 

nature. Security is in everything we do. We do not sacrifice security 

for productivity. We do not sacrifice safety for productivity. It is a 

mantra of this agency. 

Our employees are told in any which way and form that if ever 

that is the case they should contact me or my deputy directly, so 

from our perspective everything we do, every file we touch, every 

interview we conduct, to include the Iraqi refugee interviews, 

which, if I could, is more comprehensive than any other interview 

that we do for refugees anywhere in the world. 

Security is job one in this agency, and it is the reason why we 

are a member of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And your background would support that. You 

come from a long security background. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. My background is in national security, 

and we as an agency have inculcated this culture of security in our 

agency. So the fact that we are talking about issues such as budget 

and E-Verify does not negate the fact that security is paramount 

to everything we do. 

Getting to your case with the FBI, we do not issue a green card 

without conducting a security check. What we have decided to do 

is give the FBI 160 days to look at a file of individuals who have 

been in this country in some cases many, many years, and if there 

is no derogative information over and above the files that we have 

checked, because we also run our own checks. We also run FBI fingerprints. We run IBIS checks. We do the gamut. 

If after six months we cannot find any reason why we are not 

giving an individual an opportunity to become a legal permanent 

resident we will take that on and we will give them that green 

card. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

293 

NAME CHECKS

Mr. CULBERSON. Even if the background check has not been performed? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, there is a difference between background 

checks and—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. The name check. 

Mr. GONZALEZ [continuing]. What we are talking about is name 

checks. In over 99 percent of the cases the FBI name checks that 

are returned to us have no indication of adverse or derogatory information. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, the Chairman has been patient with my 

time. If I could just very quickly point out that this is only dangerous, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, because you are granting 

the benefit without a full check, number one. 

But, number two, you are shifting the burden of proof to the 

United States to disprove that this individual is a potential threat. 

The burden today is on the individual applying to enter the United 

States. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, and I take your point. These individuals have 

been here many, many years. We have gone through extensive 

searches and background checks in the past. 

What we are doing is we are trying to give these people the status that we believe they deserve, knowing full well that if for some 

reason they fall into that one percent of the cases where there is 

something adverse we can take that away, and it is only for a 

green card. It is not for citizenship. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you will be issuing green cards to individuals 

without running a name check or a background check on some of 

these people? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We will be—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is your policy now is to issue the card if 

within six months the customer, the foreign national—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And again that makes me nuts. Who are your 

customers? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, we work for the United States of America. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. But the customer are our kids—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. And the citizens of the United 

States, not the foreign national applying for the greatest privilege 

ever created in the history of humanity. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I agree. It is the—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman briefly yield? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. Please. I have taken too much time. 

Thank you. 

SECTION 543 OF CURRENT YEAR BILL

Mr. ROGERS. I would remind us all that Section 543 of the current year bill, Section 543 says: 

‘‘None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by 

USCIS to grant an immigration benefit unless the results of background checks required by law to be completed prior to the grant 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

294 

of the benefit have been received by USCIS and the results do not 

preclude the grant of the benefit.’’ 

So by law you shall not grant benefits unless all the checks required by law to be completed prior to that have been done. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It seems like this policy is in violation of that 

explicit statutory requirement. 

Mr. PRICE. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I want the witness to be able to respond. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Can we talk about that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes. We are aware of that provision, and we believe that our policy is consistent with that. 

What we have done here is a weighing of the different risks that 

we operate under. One of the things here that we have not been 

talking about is the number of lawsuits and the courts where we 

have been sued on the delay in the granting of a benefit. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The statute is explicit. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. And we believe what we are doing is consistent 

with that statute, sir. The operative comment there is required by 

law, and it is not clear which of these name checks are required 

by law. 

There are a number of checks that are being done here. One, you 

are doing the IBIS text check, which is being done in all these 

cases. Two, you are doing the fingerprint check. Three, you are 

doing the name check. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But the statute says all. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. The name check is 180 days. It is still being 

done. In the event that something comes back that would have 

been derogatory we will then put the individual into removal. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But that is not what the statute says. The 

Chairman has been very patient with me. I will come back, but the 

statute says all and it does not say derogatory. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. And it is not clear when you take a look at that 

whether or not the FBI name check is required by law or whether 

it has been our policy to do that. 

It has been our position, and we can get back to you in writing 

on this to confirm it, but that has not been the requirement by law 

so we are in compliance with that statute. 

Mr. PRICE. I remind the gentleman that we spent a good bit of 

time on this committee formulating the provision you refer to, and 

the words by law are in there for a reason, and it has to do with 

the kind of requirements that Mr. Scharfen is talking about. 

I do think it would be helpful to the committee for you to follow 

up with the precise statement of the kinds of information that are 

available to you and are being reviewed, the kind of checks that 

are being conducted before the six month period expires and the 

basis on which you then will temporarily grant this green card. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I appreciate the opportunity to do that, sir. It is 

a precise issue, and I would like to be able to answer it precisely—— 

[The information follows:] 

Questions. USCIS states it will provide as follows: 

a. In response to Rep. Culberson—confirmation that it is in compliance with statutory requirements of Section 543 of the FY 2008 DHS Appropriations Act. 

b. In response to Chairman Price—a precise statement of the kinds of information 

available to and being reviewed by USCIS, the kind of checks that are being conmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

295 

ducted before the 6-month period expires, and the basis on which USCIS temporarily grants green cards. 

c. In response to Rep. Rogers—a statement of what USCIS is required by law to 

do. 

Insert for the Record. USCIS policy now authorizes the grant of adjustment of status where the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days 

if the individual is otherwise approvable and the FBI fingerprint check and TECS 

(also referred to as TECS/IBIS) biographic-based check have been completed. The 

question has been posed whether this policy is consistent with section 543 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, which reads: ‘‘None of the 

funds made available in this Act may be used by [USCIS] to grant an immigration 

benefit unless the results of background checks required by law to be completed 

prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by [USCIS] and the results do 

not preclude the grant of the benefit.’’ For the reasons stated below, USCIS policy 

is fully consistent with section 543. 

Section 543 applies to ‘‘background checks required by law to be completed prior 

to the grant of the benefit’’ (emphasis added). While USCIS has authority to conduct 

what background checks it deems necessary to determine whether an applicant for 

adjustment of status has met his or her burden of demonstrating that he or she is 

admissible as an immigrant and that adjustment of status should be granted as a 

matter of USCIS discretion, including an FBI name check if USCIS deems it appropriate, there is no statute or regulation that specifically requires an FBI name check 

(as opposed to other checks). 

Mr. ROGERS. If the Chairman would briefly yield on that point? 

Mr. SCHARFEN [continuing]. With the assistance of our counsel, 

both departmental and agency. 

Mr. ROGERS. It would be helpful if that included, and perhaps it 

was meant to be. If it included the things that are required by law 

that you do. It is just a matter of research. Could you include that 

as well? 

NATURALIZATION PROCESS

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. 

Mr. PRICE. And it is true, is it not, Mr. Scharfen, that when it 

comes to naturalization we are talking about the full process, including the full FBI check being—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Required before the grant of naturalization? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. That is correct. What is being done here 

is just in the green card if there has been a six month wait. At that 

point the green card is issued. The FBI name check is continued 

to be done, however, in each one of those cases. 

We will monitor that, and when we complete that name check if 

any of those then have derogatory information, then we would take 

the steps necessary to put that individual into removal action. 

If I could just add two more things, Mr. Chairman? One, this is 

consistent with other practices within the Department of Homeland 

Security. Our IG had recommended that we be consistent within 

the Department and so we are making our process consistent with 

what, for instance, ICE does with its green card cases as well. 

The second thing I would like to point out is that as a manager 

and as a leader of an agency the Director and I have to be able 

to take a look at competing interests and ensure that national security is improved in all instances. 

In this instance we believe national security is going to be improved by this process because what is not going to be done, what 

frees us up, is from a number of lawsuits that are draining our 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

296 

legal abilities and our legal resources, excuse me, to draw them off 

from other cases. 

We just simply cannot manage the number of lawsuits we have. 

We were sued almost 6,000 times. There has been a 1,000 percent 

increase in lawsuits in mandamus cases. The majority of those 

cases have been FBI name check cases. 

We just cannot maintain that litigation workload, and we made 

this policy change in full consultation with the Department of Justice. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will look forward to that more precise statement about the procedures you are following—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. And the kind of rationale that you have 

adopted. 

Dr. Gonzalez, I appreciate your statement about how security is 

at the forefront of your concerns every day and the fact that a 

given word is omitted from a formal statement is not really relevant to that overall perspective that you bring to the job. I think 

we all want to be assured of that, and I appreciate your assurance. 

I would also remind us all that this year’s bill, the fiscal 2008 

bill, expanded the CIS Fraud Detection Office with the agreement 

and cooperation of the Director. The fiscal 2008 bill also expanded 

the field office budget for security reviews, both of these items in 

the 2008 bill, which presumably we agree will improve that ability 

to assure security. 

APPLICATION BACKLOG

Just finally on this backlog issue, I want to expand on the answer you were giving to Mr. Rogers, Dr. Gonzalez, about the staffing implications of this or what the relevance is of the measures 

you adopted in dealing with the earlier backlog. 

In 2005 and 2006 you eliminated what was actually a much larger backlog of work in part by temporarily assigning staff at your 

service centers to processing applications. I wonder if you are doing 

that now or plan to do it now. 

Are there other lessons learned from the past backlog that could 

be applied to this one, maybe applied more quickly than you have 

done so? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. Thank you. We are obviously moving 

work around. We are detailing people to those offices where there 

is greatest need. We are tapping into other resources. 

As Jock just mentioned, I spent Saturday in Baltimore at our 

district office there on a weekend to see not only adjudicators but 

asylum officers, individuals from our appeals office all working together to work through some of these naturalization cases. So we 

do have a work plan. We are hiring over 2,500 people this year. 

Over half of them are adjudicators. We are putting them in those 

places where they are most needed. So we are taking all necessary 

steps to address the surge. 

Each naturalization applicant has to be interviewed, and it is 

something that we will never abdicate. We will never outsource, 

and as a result, we have to have the trained immigration officers 

on board to be able to conduct those quality interviews and see 

whether someone is in fact worthy or eligible for U.S. citizenship. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

297 

So we are bringing these people on as quickly as possible. We are 

detailing them to the offices that are in most need. We are enhancing our processes. We are using our lockbox in Chicago more forcefully. 

So we are doing process changes, and we are—because this is 

manpower-intensive work, we are ramping up our Immigration Officer Corps to the point where we will be able to work our way 

through this and through future surges. I am sorry, the second half 

of your question, sir? 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM EARLIER BACKLOGS

Mr. PRICE. Well, just in general, are there other lessons learned, 

particularly in terms of deploying personnel, rotating personnel, 

whatever, lessons learned that might apply in this instance? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, our folks are doing God’s work every day. 

They are volunteering. We have an Asylum Corps that is volunteering to help on weekends in their off time. Each office has a 

work plan that they have established to get themselves through the 

fiscal year and beyond. We keep our offices and we monitor those 

work plans regularly, understanding that we are not going to sacrifice security for productivity, but nevertheless, whenever we see 

that there is an office that, for whatever reason, may be falling behind and needs more resources, then we will take that on. 

But again, this is a function of resource management, resource 

deployment. Luckily, we have the financial resources that we need 

to get this done. It is the manpower and technology that we are 

going to ramp up now to make sure that we continue to be consistent in offering the individuals that come before us a transparent and fair—— 

MANPOWER NEEDS

Mr. PRICE. Well, that was my next question, to what extent this 

is a resource issue and to what extent your present manpower and 

the way it is deployed are sufficient. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, sir, we have, as we mentioned, we have a 

plan to hire over 2,500 people this year. Where we do have a bottleneck, for lack of a better term, is in our training. You know, we 

cannot just go out and hire an immigration officer off a newspaper 

article and put him to work the next day. We have to take those 

individuals, we have to—obviously, trying to get anybody on board 

in the federal government can be a challenge. 

Once we get those individuals and they have passed their background checks, we schedule them for training. To give you an example, last year, we only trained four classes of 24 people in a 

whole year. This year, starting in January, in the first week of January, we are churning out a class of 48 people every week. We are 

going to probably train somewhere upwards of 1,200 adjudicators 

this year, which is huge. To do that, we even had to move to a new 

facility to be able to accommodate our needs. 

So when you talk about resources for additional personnel, my 

concern would be that, while we have this plan in place to address 

the surge, we can have all the resources to do it. If we had additional resources to go out and hire X number of individuals, two 

things would happen. One, we may very well have a front-log of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

298 

people having to wait eight months before they can even be 

trained, and secondly, once we go through the surge, we may actually have excess capacity of too many employees to do the work 

that we have after we work our way through the surge. 

When we were able to increase our fees last year, it gave us the 

resources that we need, because we know that a lot of our work is 

cyclical, and some years will be higher than others, and it allows 

us to adjust. So what we did not want to do is, if we did have the 

additional money, go out and have to hire X number of additional— 

200, 300 additional people, and then find out that 24 months from 

now, a lot of these offices would be overstaffed and underworked. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we do have these short-term needs. I appreciate 

fully what you are saying about training, however. It is not just a 

matter of bringing warm bodies onto the scene; it is a matter of—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And if I may, sir, that is actually—you know, 

when I first got here, some of the biggest criticism that we got is 

that people did not like the caliber of the officer they were meeting, 

or the training was inadequate, and we have gone out of our way 

to not only bring more officers on board, but at the same time, we 

have created a new, more robust training program. So we are actually increasing the numbers, and we are enhancing the training so 

that when that officer gets to the field, he or she will be able to 

start work day one, and not have to wait for a subsequent trainup or apprentice program, if you will, to start working. 

And it is a challenge because the absorption capacity of our agency is one that will dictate how many people we can bring in, how 

many people we can train. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, there too, if you could furnish for the record a 

bit more precise account of this ramp-up in training capacity—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Chairman Price, USCIS should provide a more precise 

account of the ramp-up in training capcity for its officers and personnel. 

Insert for the Record. USCIS has significantly expanded its capacity to train a 

high volume of new Immigration Officers in a learning environment that is studentcentric, accessible, and technology-rich. USCIS has completely reinvented its BASIC 

Training program, to include a revised 6-week residential classroom portion at a 

training facility, 1 week practical training at a national office, and 2 weeks of practical training at selected representative USCIS field offices so that graduates are 

job-ready when they complete the training. The core learning objectives of the Academy’s programs are follows: Build immigration expertise, foster a culture that honors public service, emphasize the significance of national security and public safety, 

underscore the human consequence involved in every USCIS decision, and cultivate 

the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct. 

Our goal is to train nearly 1,200 new officers in this fiscal year and an estimated 

1,600 officers cumulatively through the remainder of this calendar year. This rate 

is more than ten times the number trained in previous years. Cohorts start almost 

weekly with approximately 48 students each. The USCIS Academy currently is on 

pace to average more than 130 BASIC training graduates per month. Each of these 

graduates is prepared to contribute immediately as a member of the USCIS workforce. 

USCIS has procured additional training space in Dallas, Texas to accommodate 

the BASIC training needs of its expanded workforce under the fee enhancement 

plan as well as the surge response plan. Previously, this training has been conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA. 

However, the volume of new adjudications officers who need training could not be 

accommodated at FLETC. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

299 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. And how that is responsive, or the ways 

in which that is responsive to the situation you are facing. 

Mr. Rogers. 

TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. And another big part of the problem, I think, is— 

and I think you agree—is you are still tied to the paper process, 

manual paper process. There are as many as 55 million so-called 

alien files. A file is established for each alien seeking benefits. 

Fifty-five million files are stored in the National Records Center in 

Missouri and have to be physically transported to the hearing officer to permit review or process. 

I know you established in 2004 a Chief Information Officer position to try to integrate process and technology improvements into 

the way you do business, the so-called, is it called e-filing? By the 

end of 2008, you plan to expand e-filing for citizenship applications, 

accept and deposit fees electronically and improve other citizenship-related processes, and you plan to award a large system integration contract this summer. Have I accurately stated where we 

are? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. The transformation solution architecture 

contract will be let sometime probably in the late summer. It is 

about a $3.5 billion project. We do have a Transformation Program 

Office, and we also have a CIO. Technology is something that we 

have to take very, very seriously, but we also have to do it right. 

We cannot afford, like other federal agencies that go out and spend 

hundreds of millions of dollars on technology, and then when they 

turn on the switch, the lights go out. 

So what we are doing is we are taking a very measured approach, one, to enhance our existing systems, while at the same 

time looking beyond, through our Transformation Program Office, 

to completely revamp the way we do business, our business processes, and use technology to increase efficiencies and securities. 

Jock, you want to give me the details there? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. The Transformation Program is going to 

take our business and move it from a paper-based system into an 

automated system, and it is going to do it into different pieces, 

breaks it down into four different parts of our business. You were 

right, sir, to say that the first part of the business would be the 

citizenship part of the business, and that would be the first section 

that would be put through the Transformation Program. We are 

looking to do that in FY 2009. 

We would institute that and implement the Transformation Program for citizenship in FY 2009, and then the following year, we 

would do the immigration side of the business. The last years, the 

outlet years, we would do humanitarian, and then the last years 

would be the non-immigrant portion of the business, sir, completing 

the Transformation Program by 2013. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I have seen some of these files and, let me say 

it again, there is 55 million of these files stored in Missouri, and 

if some action is needed to be taken on one of those cases, that file 

has to be transported, shipped, to wherever the hearing is taking 

place. Some of those files are this thick, are they not? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And bigger. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

300 

Mr. ROGERS. Or bigger. I mean, they are kind of like huge, heavy 

volumes of paper, and it seems to me that the electronic business 

that you anticipate would do more than anything else to speed up 

the processes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, one of the things that we are doing now, for 

example, we do scan on demand. When a sister agency needs a file, 

we will just scan it for them. By the way, it is closer to 100 million 

files that we own. That does not make you feel any better, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROGERS. I feel worse than I did before. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But a large number of those files, I will tell you, 

they are my files, they are my dad’s files, so the historical files are 

some that we are probably not in that much of a hurry to digitize 

as we are the ones of individuals that we are working cases on 

now, so—— 

Mr. ROGERS. So what percent of that 100 million are subject to 

being called up? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, well, you know, we get 6 million applications 

a year. Some of those are adjustment of status or they may have 

existing files that we will add to. I can get you that number, but 

it is a huge number of files. People, for example, who are here 

under TPS, they have a file. I think we have already scanned most 

of the Temporary Protective Status folks’ files, because we know we 

will be working on those again. So what we are trying to do is literally, to most degree, work backwards, and the most current files, 

be able to start digitizing those, and then understand that there 

are going to be tens of millions of files out there that, other than 

for genealogical reasons or historical reasons, there really is no 

sense of urgency to get those digitized. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, in addition to trying to catch up with the huge 

surge that you have been under, just applications, now the Department and the Congress is giving you huge new responsibilities; the 

E-Verify program, REAL ID, are enormous undertakings. Are those 

new responsibilities going to cause you trouble in carrying out your 

core responsibilities in terms of what we have been talking about? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, sir. We have an entire section made up of 

verifiers in fact, and we are already planning with our own budget 

processes to create verification centers throughout the United 

States to help the employer participants. As we mention, we have 

55,000 employers right now that use E-Verify, and we are increase 

to a tune of about 1,000 a week. We calculate that by the end of 

this year, we will have 150,000 employer on-board, and by FY 

2009, some 350,000. 

We have the technology to handle this. It is a very successful 

program. I will tell you that a large percentage of the program 

comes from Arizona, because it is mandatory there, but it is something that does not detract from our day job, if you will, because 

we have a very, very competent staff, and we have the very latest 

technology that allows us to do this in a very efficient way. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I do not want us to underestimate or underrelate how important E-Verify is. Regardless of what you think 

about ‘‘shutting down the border,’’ quote, closing off, preventing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

301 

people from coming here, we will never succeed in that regard, in 

my judgment, until we shut off the magnet that draws them here, 

and that is the economic betterment that they want to achieve, and 

the only way I think that we can do that is to punish employers 

in this country that offer jobs to illegals, and the only way that 

they can be prosecuted, in my judgment is if we, the government, 

furnishes the employer a foolproof way for them to check whether 

or not an applicant for a job is an illegal alien, and with this system in place, the E-Verify system, there is nothing to prevent an 

employer from calling that number and verifying whether or not a 

person is legal or not, correct? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. As long as they have registered for the 

program, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And so for those who have registered, and you say 

you have got how many now? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. 55,000. 

Mr. ROGERS. Employers? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. You are gaining a thousand a month? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. A week. 

Mr. ROGERS. A week. Four thousand a month. Well, for those 

people, if they are caught employing an illegal, they cannot claim 

they did not know. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Correct. We give them the tools for them to make 

an informed decision as to the immigration status of their employee. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is what I am saying. They cannot claim in a 

criminal prosecution that they could not have known that this person was an illegal. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If I could, just to follow up, sir, we keep enhancing E-Verify constantly, to include photos now. We downloaded millions of photos, so if an individual comes to you with a legal permanent resident card to apply for a job, we can actually download to 

your human resource office the exact same photo that is on his 

card to your office, and you can look at both. Our match rate is 93 

percent of the time, there is an instant verification. 

Only about less than 1 percent of the people ever reclaim a mismatch, which means that the other 5 to 6 percent of the individuals 

simply realize that they are not authorized to work, and at that 

point, they either go away or the employer tells them that they 

need to get right with the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. ROGERS. What motivated these 55,000, and 4,000 a month, 

what is motivating them to sign up with E-Verify? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. With the exception of the ones in the State of Arizona, which are mandated to do it, folks are doing it because they 

want to. They want to understand that they are hiring the right 

people. This is a voluntary program, so nobody is, unless you live 

in a state where it is mandatory, nobody is holding a gun to their 

head, but they understand that this is an opportunity for them to 

have that additional check, besides whatever else an individual 

presents as proof of eligibility, to use. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

302 

It is very, very simple. It costs nothing, and you get a response 

in nanoseconds. I mean, I have actually known how to use the system and I have done it myself and if I can do it, anybody can do 

it, and the response comes back literally in one to two seconds, and 

you can even actually put in my wrong Social Security number and 

it will tell you, you have got a bad Social Security number, and it 

gives you a list of what you need to do to get right with the law, 

and it also gives you a list of your rights and the responsibilities 

of the employer. 

Mr. ROGERS. When you get an inquiry, an E-Verify request on a 

given name, what do you run that against? What do you check? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Social Security Administration database, and 

part of the enhancements that we are doing, because as I mentioned, less than 1 percent of the people can successfully reclaim 

that it was a mismatch, but a lot of times that has to do with the 

fact that maybe they used to be a legal permanent resident and 

now they are a citizen, and they did not tell Social Security that 

they are citizens. That is a mismatch because the records are not 

updated. 

So an individual is given a printout, literally a computer printout, of what he or she needs to do to rectify that mismatch, and 

they have X number of days, I think it is—eight days, excuse me. 

I have my E-Verify expert here. They have eight days with which 

they can go back and fix their situation. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The reason I launched earlier about customer service is that has 

been a hot button with me since I first visited a CIS office in Houston, discovered they literally were giving rewards to people for 

cranking them through, and I understand your background, Director Gonzalez, and appreciate that, and understand your focus on 

security. It is very distressing to me to see your testimony focus on 

customer service, and I do hope that we will continue to see you 

focus on the fact that the customers are the U.S. taxpayers, and 

your job is to make sure that—national security is your—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You will not see any parties or golf tournaments 

on my watch, number one, and—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are not giving incentives to employees to 

crank them through? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We are not partying hard to get the numbers out. 

In fact, what I told my—I will be very honest. What I told my employees is, do the work, and let me take the javelins and the head 

shots, and get out there, and if somebody has a problem with the 

pace or if somebody has a problem with what you are doing or how 

you are doing it, tell me, but we are not going to let anybody influence them doing the right decision. 

SECURITY

And again, getting back to your point on security, security is second nature. Security, I believe that our folks understand that it is 

instinctive in what we do. We look at everything through the prism 

of security. We have established a very, very robust security apparatus with our Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

303 

We hire security specialists, fraud specialists, intelligence officers. 

I will tell you that we have the best security specialists the federal 

government could get their hands on. 

GREEN CARD PROCESS

Mr. CULBERSON. Let me if I could ask about and follow up on it, 

make sure I understood, because I want to make sure I understood 

the procedure you are following. Someone applies for a green card. 

A green card, of course, gives a foreign national the ability to travel 

without restriction to the United States. They can sponsor relatives 

to come in for legal status, so the green card has been described 

as sort of the Holy Grail of terrorist documents. 

You are issuing green cards to individuals before the FBI name 

check is complete if nothing else negative has popped up and they 

have been waiting six months. Is that correct? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That is correct. I would just add that those individuals who have applied for a green card, they are being given 

travel documents and work authorization documents under the law 

already, so when we take a look at what we have—when we did 

our analysis here, we did not see this as changing the security status quo in that regard. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And your decision was based in part on the 

number of lawsuits, 1000 percent increase in lawsuits—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. A number of factors we considered was one, the 

amount of lawsuits that we had and our ability to defend those in 

trying to make decisions—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Has any court ever ruled against you and ordered you to expedite the process? Have you ever had a court 

order—— 

Mr. SCHARFEN. We had some—it was upheld on appeal. 

Mr. CULBERSON. By an appellate court. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will give you some recent cases. These were not 

appellate cases, to my knowledge, but there were some district 

court cases—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. A district court order that has been appealed is 

not final. My point is that—and this really strikes me as just not— 

this just is dangerous, it seems to me, in an era when we have got 

terrorists trying to sneak in, if you are issuing a green card to an 

individual before all the security checks are done, I believe it is a 

violation of federal law, it puts the nation at risk, and it does not 

make any sense, and I just think it is dead wrong, and intend to 

vigorously oppose that policy and see you reverse it. 

It just is not, I think, it just defies—it defies good sense for you 

to allow an individual—because then the presumption, the burden 

shifts to United States. We have got to disprove that this guy is 

entitled to access to the United States, whereas the burden is now 

on the foreign national. It is a shift in the burden of proof, is it 

not? That individual has now got a benefit that you have to take 

away from him. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think that the standard of proof is the same. 

That individual—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But they have got a right, they have got a benefit that they did not have before that you are going to have to 

prove a compelling reason to take it away from him. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

304 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That individual could have—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. They can sue you. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That individual could have appealed it, been before an IJ in either event, sir, and in either event, the standard of 

proof as I understand it is the same. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It just does not make sense. I have got a brief 

amount of time. Forgive me. Let me ask also if I could, because my 

time is going to be—the Chairman is very patient with me and I 

appreciate it very much. The adjudicators, I know in the Houston 

office, still do not have full access to all of the criminal databases. 

It is my understanding that an adjudicator interviewing somebody 

cannot still access a lot of the criminal justice databases that they 

need to to run background checks. 

Can you talk to me about that? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will have to get back to you about the particular 

conditions at Eastern. That is the first that has been brought to my 

attention, sir, but I will look into that. All of our adjudicators 

should have access. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Rep. Culberson, USCIS states it will provide explanatory 

information on the particular conditions at Eastern relating to adjudicator access to 

criminal databases. 

Insert for the Record. All Adjudicators at the Houston office have access to all 

USCIS databases used for conducting required background/security checks. This includes IBIS, FBI Name Check and FBI Fingerprint systems. 

In addition, the Houston district office has several officers who have access to 

commercial systems, such as Lexis/Nexis and Choicepoint. Not all officers have access to these commercial systems at their individual workstations due to licensing 

issues. However, all officers are aware of the availability of these systems and can 

access them via those officers who do have direct access. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We are nearing the end here, but I do 

have some E-Verify questions of my own here, following up to some 

extent on those raised by Mr. Rogers, and would like to explore 

just, in the first place, a couple of things that are puzzling about 

this program and the way it is going that I hope you can clear up. 

Director Gonzalez, it is fair to say, I believe, that your statement 

gives a very upbeat account of E-Verify. You say ‘‘the mismatch 

rate for DHS information on work-authorized individuals is currently less than 1 percent.’’ 

As you know, though, there are some anomalies within some of 

these overall positive figures, and a recently completed assessment 

of the E-Verify systems, which employers use to validate the employability of these new hires, it shows that naturalized citizens 

face a 700 percent greater chance of being denied work authorization as compared to green card holders. Statistically speaking, 

nearly 1 in 10 naturalized citizens will have their work eligibility 

put on hold by the E-Verify system. 

Now, the figures, for the record, of the green card denial rates, 

are 1.4 percent, but the naturalized citizen denial rate is almost 10 

percent, 9.8 percent, and I understand that this problem results 

from data miscommunications between the CIS and the Social Semstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

305 

curity Administration databases. Even so, it seems peculiar, and I 

wonder how you explain the error rate and what is being done to 

resolve it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I do not think it is data—I think a lot of it has 

to do with the fact that many times when naturalized citizens go 

through E-Verify, and again, without knowing the individual case, 

they may not have informed the Social Security Administration 

that they were in fact a naturalized citizen. The Social Security Administration may have them as a legal permanent resident. That 

will then cause the system to say, hey, there is something here because this person is claiming citizenship when, according to maybe 

the Social Security, they are not. 

One of the things that we are going to be implementing very 

soon, probably at the end of this month, beginning of next month, 

is to balance our CLAIMS 4 computer system, which handles all of 

our naturalization database, with E-Verify, so we can actually 

check it first before we can send out a mismatch letter. We can see 

that this person was, Emilio Gonzalez was in fact naturalized last 

month, but perhaps he did not tell Social Security Administration, 

but we know that he did, so we can update that and we can—— 

Mr. PRICE. Well, why would not you do that notification in the 

first place? Why should that be up to the individual citizen to—especially if this is not working very well, if there is a lot of slippage, 

is this the best system, where the burden is on the individual to 

make that notification? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Believe it or not, I have asked that question 

many times, and I would like to say that we are headed in that 

direction, and there ought to be a system where we could automatically download naturalizations into the Social Security database. I 

am not quite sure why we cannot now, and I do not know if you 

want to talk to that, Jock. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. That was the subject of interagency discussions, 

sir, and the best I can say at this point is that we have not been 

able to reach that. However, by, I believe, the end of the month, 

the CLAIMS 4 database will be available to this E-Verify system, 

and so that is our information, sir, and so I would see that as a, 

functionally, equivalency of that. The system now will be able to 

catch those individuals who we are missing now. 

In other words, we will know which individuals have been naturalized but for some reason are not getting their Social Security 

numbers. They will come up in our CLAIMS 4 database, and I believe those numbers that you just quoted will be much improved. 

Mr. ROGERS. If the Chairman will yield? I will be brief. 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. 

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, Social Security has their own rules that 

they have to abide by on who gets onto their database, and I am 

sure one of those rules or laws is that the individual person has 

to, him or herself, apply or to notify somebody. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Sir, I do not know if that is a rule or a practice 

or a policy—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The Social Security Administration is very sensitive to who accesses their mainframes and so forth. We are trying 

to mitigate that by doing our part at the front end and making 

sure that if you have got a mismatch because it says you are not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

306 

a citizen, but we know you became a citizen last month or last 

week, then we can remedy that internally, but there is still going 

to be some individual responsibility that you have to take to go 

there and fix your account with Social Security. 

PAYMENTS FROM CIS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me ask more generally about Social Security 

Administration’s database. In 2007, CIS paid Social Security $4.8 

million to improve that agency’s databases and clean out the Social 

Security records of people whose employment eligibility had been 

denied by the E-Verify system. I understand you do not yet have 

an agreement signed with Social Security for 2008, but I assume 

you will be paying at least that much, if not more, to the agency 

this year as part of your $100 million E-Verify request for 2009, 

$21 million would go to the Social Security Administration. 

So we are asking to fund data cleanup and IT system enhancements at Social Security. What do you estimate? How much investment does the Social Security database require? Is CIS going to 

have to pay for all of it? When is the database and its records going 

to be cleaned up enough to eliminate the mismatch errors that 

delay people’s work eligibility? You focused on a fairly obvious 

problem here this morning. I do not know how widespread the 

other problems may be, but it does seem to be a problem that is 

not going away quickly. 

Mr. ROSADO. Yes, we did reimburse them for that amount in 

2007. We do not know how much of that money they have spent 

so far, but in general, we are reimbursing them for their mismatch 

rate work, so the work that they do. That is generally what we reimburse them for, is their resolution of the mismatches. So in 

terms of system improvements and system enhancements, we do 

not have a full estimate of what they need and we certainly have 

not agreed with them yet on that. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, how do you formulate these agreements, 

though? I mean, you must have some longer-term view of what this 

database needs to look like to be serviceable from CIS’s point of 

view. This is not, I would hope, a totally incremental process where 

year to year you are identifying a few more items. What does the 

overall prospect look like here? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will have to get back to you on that question, 

Mr. Chairman. I do not have that answer at this point, but we will 

look into it and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Chairman Price, USCIS states it will provide information 

on what capabilities the SSA database needs to service USCIS requirements and an 

overall plan for achieving that level of service. 

Insert for the Record. USCIS is committed to working with the Social Security Administration to determine service requirements to support the processing environment for E-Verify queries as the program grows. We are in still in discussion with 

SSA on appropriate service level agreements for long term growth, but in the short 

term we are confident that SSA’s database, NUMIDENT, is able to handle projected 

query volume based on a series of load testing exercises that were conducted in the 

summer of 2007. 

USCIS is also working with SSA to improve data accuracy in NUMIDENT by updating records for naturalized citizens. This effort will further reduce the number 

of E-Verify tentative non-confirmations (TNCs) for naturalized citizens, thus reducing the instances of ‘‘walk-ins’’ to SSA offices for naturalized citizens. The actual 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

307 

data exchange for updating records will begin in FY 2009, but in May 2008, USCIS 

will deploy the inclusion of naturalization records as part of the initial E-Verify 

check, where a person’s full citizenship status will be checked before a mismatch 

is issued, and any out of date or incorrect citizenship record that SSA has on file 

will not prevent immediate work authorization for employees in a majority of these 

cases. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. I am surprised you do not have at least a 

ballpark answer because this has been a recurring item. It is something we are being asked to fund again. What is the rationale for 

the 2009 funding, for example? 

Mr. ROSADO. For? 

Mr. PRICE. Social Security database operations. 

Mr. ROSADO. I think it is mostly a ballpark estimate and just a 

placeholder because we are still working with them to figure out 

what we are going to fund with them, in terms of what we are 

going to do for them, versus what they will do. So I will get you 

an answer. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Chairman Price, USCIS must provide the rationale for 

the FY 2009 funding request for SSA efforts to resolve mismatches. 

Insert for the Record. Since SSA has not received appropriated funding for EVerify, USCIS has traditionally reimbursed SSA for labor costs associated with resolving ‘‘tentative non-confirmations’’ (TNCs) in SSA field offices. These costs include salaries and overhead for SSA field office employees who resolve mismatches 

in the field, and salaries and overhead for SSA employees who staff the SSA tollfree number to answer calls from employees and employers. 

USCIS and SSA have not yet reached a final agreement for reimbursement for 

FY 2008 and FY 2009. In FY 2007, USCIS reimbursed SSA $4.8 million for this 

work, and $343,000 for EV-STAR. For FY 2008, USCIS budgeted $4.2 million, which 

is based on estimates of query volume and employer registrations in FY 2008. For 

FY 2009, USCIS has budgeted $6 million as a planning estimate. 

The downward trend in budgeted and reimbursed amounts during FY 2007 and 

FY 2008 despite query and employer growth is due to program improvements and 

greater accuracy in query projections. The proportion of TNCs and thus ‘‘walk-ins’’ 

to SSA for case resolution is declining due to system improvements to correct typos 

and improved data matching. For FY 2008, SSA reduced its estimated ‘‘fallout rate’’ 

(the percentage of employees who follow up with SSA after a TNC is issued) to less 

than 2 percent because of a new initiative to match SSA TNCs for citizenship with 

USCIS naturalization records. Query and employer growth estimates have also improved as the program’s growth continues to stabilize and USCIS can better estimate projected growth based on states that are passing mandatory E-Verify laws. 

By FY 2009, USCIS expects that the SSA reimbursement amount will increase primarily because of continued program growth. 

E-VERIFY SYSTEM INVESTMENTS

Mr. PRICE. All right, we certainly do need more information on 

that. One last question on E-Verify. Last year, this subcommittee 

appropriated $60 million for E-Verify. That was twice the amount 

asked for in the budget. This year, though, you are requesting $100 

million for the program. However, we understand the database 

itself is only operating at 5 percent of its projected capacity. I am 

not quite sure what that figure means, but nonetheless, that is the 

figure that is out there. 

Even if your enrollment rates climb quickly, and you anticipate 

they will climb quickly, by the end of 2009 you would have enrolled 

fewer than 15 percent of U.S. employers with five or more employees, so that does raise the question why this rather major increase 

in investment at a time that there appears to be a certain unused 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

308 

capacity. Or are we asking the wrong question? I just want to know 

what the reason is for that increased request. 

Mr. ROSADO. Sir, most of the money that is to be used for EVerify in 2009 is associated with staffing increases they are going 

to put in place for compliance monitoring activities, so the majority 

of that money that is needed is to sort of annualize that cost from 

2008 to 2009, in terms of staffing for compliance monitoring. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I think it is fair to say we do need a little more 

information on that. 

Mr. ROSADO. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. What are these compliance monitoring people going 

to be doing? What would justify an increase of that magnitude? 

Mr. ROSADO. Only about $15 million would be used for sort of 

system enhancement. 

Mr. PRICE. So you are saying that the increase is not related directly to system capacity? 

Mr. ROSADO. Not all of it, correct, yes. If we talk about the system in terms of the broader concept of all the folks involved in the 

operational concept in terms of compliance and monitoring, so the 

system as a whole, yes, it is associated with that. If we are talking 

sort of IT enhancements, it is not mostly about the IT enhancements to the capacity, in terms of to handle the number of queries. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We clearly do need a more detailed justification of that request. 

Mr. Rogers, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. ROGERS. Briefly on that topic, you are asking 17.2 million 

above your 2008 level for E-Verify. Is that because of this huge new 

numbers of employers that are part of the system? 

Mr. ROSADO. No, sir. Most of that increase has to do with, again, 

annualizing the compliance and monitoring activity for sort of the 

long-term vision of the organization in terms of employer relationships across the country. There is a portion of that that is related 

to sort of the fraud work in terms of the enhancements, the $17 

million in terms of technological enhancements with passport photo 

work and the current enhancements to the photo tool, those types 

of activities. 

It is not directly related, necessarily, to the amount of workload 

in terms of the number of queries. 

EMPLOYERS SERVED BY E-VERIFY

Mr. ROGERS. Did I hear you say that the members, or the 55,000 

employers that are now part of the system, that that is roughly 15 

percent of the members you anticipate? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think the total number of employers out there 

is about 7 million. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am sorry? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Seven million. 

Mr. ROGERS. What? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Employers. Potential—if we had every employer 

in the United States, it would be about 7 million. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, how many people can this system that you 

have now take care of? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The system that we have, I guess if you want to 

call it the bandwidth, for lack of a better term—— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

309 

Mr. ROGERS. Would you mind using the microphone? I am having 

trouble—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I am sorry, sir. We created a system that would 

allow us to exponentially absorb employer applicants. So we could 

very easily ramp up—I mean, if you were to tell me that we would 

have 7 million applicants tomorrow, that would be a chore, but we 

can very easily ramp up exponentially to where we need to be, and 

then we can absorb as many people as—you know, like I said, we 

are getting a thousand a week now. 

That does not really change how fast a response comes back 

when you put in a query because we have the technology in place 

now to continue to absorb thousands and thousands of new employers. 

E-VERIFY MISMATCH RATES

Mr. ROGERS. Well now, my numbers do not agree with what has 

been said here. Correct me on these. My numbers say that 93 percent of the inquiries come back immediately with a match. Five 

percent come back with no match, and only 2 percent are considered errors or mismatches, and usually that mismatch is due to a 

married woman having changed her name and then failed to notify 

Social Security. What is wrong with the numbers I just gave? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think they are pretty accurate, sir. I do not see 

anything wrong with that. We do have about a 5 percent, I believe 

it is 5 percent of people that, for whatever reason, they do not 

match, and then they either go away, the employers say, get your 

stuff in order, go to the Social Security Administration, and then 

they never come back, but your numbers are fairly accurate, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, help me again. The $17.2 million above 2008, 

put that in real words for me. What is that for? 

Mr. ROSADO. A specific spend plan will be developed with that $15 to $17 million, but at least 15 would go to IT enhancement. 

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot hear you. Use the microphone, please. 

Mr. ROSADO. I am sorry. At least $15 million of that 17 will go 

to system enhancements that—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell me what that means. 

Mr. ROSADO. Mainly tied to fraud detection type of activity, 

meaning photo tools, bringing passport photo tools into the system, 

expansion of the current photo tool system, so ensuring that employers can check the photos of the folks who are getting their 

names checked in the system against the documents that they 

hand the employers. 

Mr. ROGERS. What else? 

E-VERIFY SPEND PLAN

Mr. ROSADO. So those are the main enhancements, but a detailed 

plan with the remaining portion of those enhancements would have 

to be developed. 

Mr. ROGERS. You are going to get us the spend plan? 

Mr. ROSADO. We can get you a more detailed spend plan, correct, 

sir. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. In response to Rep. Rogers, USCIS states it will provide a spend plan 

for the $17.2 million requested for IT enhancements. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

310 

Insert for the Record. USCIS estimates that with carryover and new appropriations, the program will use approximately $31 million to support IT operations, 

maintenance, enhancements and upgrades. The estimated spend plan for the 

Verification Information System (VIS), the technology that supports E-Verify, is as 

follows: 

[$ in millions] 

Spend plan for IT FY 2009 

VIS Contract (O&M) ........................................................................................................................................ 2 

VIS Contract (Helpdesk, Security, Data Center, Training, etc.) ..................................................................... 11 

Naturalization data exchange 1 ...................................................................................................................... 6 

Photo Tool Upgrades (DMVs, DOS, AAMVA) 2 ................................................................................................. 4 

Other Enhancements (electronic Form I–9, monitoring and compliance, registration, and other enhancements 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 31 

1 The Naturalization data exchange is an effort to update citizenship status for SSA records with USCIS data in an effort to reduce data 

mismatches for naturalized citizens. 2 The Department of State (DOS) data sharing initiative is budgeted for $2 million, and will also include labor costs for system enhancements. The DMV photo pilot is estimated to cost approximately $2 million and involves procurement for services with the American Association 

of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 3 The development of an electronic Form I–9 for the E–Verify system is estimated at $1.4 million. Other enhancements will include the reengineering of the E–Verify registration process ($3.8 million), establishing a compliance tracking and monitoring system for the E–Verify 

Monitoring & Compliance division ($2 million), among other initiatives. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, we are going to need that, because you are 

talking gibberish with me now. I want some details. Will you get 

us the spend plan for the $17.2 million? 

Mr. ROSADO. We will. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and with that we will conclude the hearing. We appreciate all of you being here and your testimony. We 

will look forward to following up with you and collaborating as we 

put the 2009 bill together. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. The subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

311 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 43385A.223
312 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 43385A.224
313 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 43385A.225
314 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 43385A.226
315 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 43385A.227
316 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 43385A.228
317 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 43385A.229
318 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 43385A.230
319 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 43385A.231
320 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 43385A.232
321 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 43385A.233
322 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 43385A.234
323 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 43385A.235
324 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 43385A.236
325 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 43385A.237
326 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 43385A.238
327 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 43385A.239
328 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 43385A.240
329 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 43385A.241
330 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 43385A.242
331 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 43385A.243
332 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 43385A.244
333 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 43385A.245
334 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 43385A.246
335 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 43385A.247
336 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 43385A.248
337 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 43385A.249
338 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 43385A.250
339 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 43385A.251
340 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 43385A.252
341 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 43385A.253
342 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 43385A.254
343 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 43385A.255
344 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 43385A.256
345 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 43385A.257
346 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 43385A.258
347 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 43385A.259
348 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 43385A.260
349 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 43385A.261
350 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 43385A.262
351 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 43385A.263
352 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 43385A.264
353 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 43385A.265
354 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 43385A.266
355 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 43385A.267
356 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 43385A.268
357 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 43385A.269
358 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 43385A.270
359 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 43385A.271
360 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 43385A.272
361 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 43385A.273
362 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 43385A.274
363 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 43385A.275
364 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 43385A.276
365 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 43385A.277
366 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 43385A.278
(367) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 

2009 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESS 

HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Mr. Secretary, welcome to you. It is a pleasure to have you 

testify before the subcommittee today. And we thank you once 

again for your dedicated service to our country. 

Our hearing today is the culmination of a series of 14 hearings 

that this subcommittee has held over the past two months. Those 

hearings have informed many of the questions that we will have 

for you, Mr. Secretary, today. We will also ask questions about several of the announcements the Department has made within the 

past few weeks, including the waivers for fence construction, the 

border security expenditure plan, the criminal alien deportation 

plan, and the revised no match employer regulatory filing. But first 

let me say a few words of the overall 2009 budget request for the 

Department of Homeland Security that you submitted in February. 

I know that you have been a strong advocate within the Administration for your department’s priorities, and I do appreciate that 

you were able to secure some additional funding for important initiatives. But as you might expect, I feel the budget falls short in 

a number of areas, many of which we will discuss today. 

For fiscal year 2009 you ask us to appropriate $38.8 billion. That 

is only $97 million more than we appropriated for the current fiscal 

year if we include emergency funding. That is an increase of only 

two-tenths of 1 percent, well below the rate of inflation. Such a flat 

budget fails to address many of the nation’s continuing and unmet 

homeland security needs. 

Turning to more specific policy issues I am particularly concerned that your budget once again proposes drastic cuts for first 

responders, transit and port grant programs, this time by $2 billion, 49 percent below this year’s level of $4.15 billion. This subcommittee hears over and over again from outside experts about 

the need for greater support from the Federal Government for state 

and local first responders, including the critical need to ensure the 

interoperability of communications. On top of this we have the cost 

of meeting the unfunded Real I.D. mandate, currently estimated by 

your department to be $1 billion in 2009. Any argument that this 

funding should be cut must be made in the context of the dynamic 

threat environment we face and the unmet needs that remain. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

368 

The Administration has touted an increased border enforcement 

budget but the proposed funding level is not an increase when considering the emergency funding for border enforcement that was 

appropriated in the 2008 Omnibus Bill. In reality, the combined 

funding for Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Visit, that combined funding would actually decrease by $8 billion in 2009 under the budget you propose. 

I am also concerned, Mr. Secretary, that your border and immigration budget will provide no additional funding to identify and 

remove criminal aliens who have been judged deportable. It seems 

to me that this should be your first immigration enforcement priority. But a look at this budget and the history of the last four 

years gives the impression that it is not. Your testimony highlights 

how DHS has increased worksite apprehensions by 816 percent 

from 2003 to 2007. Over that same period, removal of aliens with 

criminal convictions increased only 16 percent. 

Your budget proposed to repeal the legislative language we included in the 2008 Appropriations Act allowing Customs and Border Protection officials to convert to law enforcement status. Now, 

we have heard consistently from DHS staff how important this authority is to ensure retention of these critical officers who are in 

all but title law enforcement officers. Just last week a senior Customs and Border Protection official sat in the seat you are sitting 

in now and praised this initiative, describing it as ‘‘one of the most 

critical things facing our workforce that needs to be followed 

through on.’’ I would be interested to know, Mr. Secretary, if you 

agree with that assessment. Your budget proposes only $153.9 million for aviation explosive 

detection systems. That is a 48 percent reduction from 2008, in 

part because you propose a new passenger surcharge to fund these 

systems on the mandatory, not the discretionary, side of the budget. Now, we have only made a dent in the $5 billion in funding 

needs in this area so I doubt whether the Appropriations Committee can or should reduce funding here, even if the authorizing 

committees were to act on the passenger surcharge proposal and 

Congress was to enact it, which as you know are uncertain prospects. 

Mr. Secretary, we all want a strong and effective department 

that protects the country and is a wise steward of taxpayer dollars. 

We realize that we have to be smart about the solutions we deploy 

to build a more secure nation. That is why we ask in the 2008 Appropriations Act for your department to provide the committee as 

part of the Secure Border Initiative Expenditure Plan an analysis 

of each proposed fencing segment compared with other alternative 

means of ensuring operational control. We received the Department’s expenditure plan last week but the alternative analysis was 

conspicuously missing and, of course, we wonder why. 

Finally, I believe we can agree that central to the Department’s 

ability to adequately protect the country is a strong FEMA. Based 

on the Inspector General’s report last week there is truly work left 

to be done as four of the nine key preparedness areas were lacking 

in progress. Within the coming months we expect that you will use 

the additional funding we provided to make significant improvements in these areas. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

369 

Mr. Secretary, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize that this 

is likely your last appearance before this subcommittee. You have 

only nine more months to implement your priorities. Perhaps that 

is both a blessing and a curse since we know of the long hours and 

intense effort that this job requires of you. Of course, you will not 

be surprised to know that we have some ideas about what we 

would put on your ‘‘to do’’ list for these last nine months and we 

would like to hear from you about what is on your short list. 

Before proceeding with your testimony, which we will ask you to 

summarize as usual and, of course, it will all be printed in the 

record, before proceeding I want to recognize Mr. Rogers for his remarks. I also want to point out that because this is our last currently scheduled public hearing for the year this could well be Mr. 

Rogers’ last such hearing as Ranking Member of this subcommittee. I personally want to thank him for his leadership and 

his colleagueship. This has gone on a long time but on this subcommittee it particularly involves his role, his outstanding role as 

the founding chairman of this subcommittee and for the current 

Congress as Ranking Member. 

RANKING MEMBER ROGERS OPENING STATEMENT

So, Mr. Rogers, we would be happy to hear from you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

those nice words. This subcommittee is a hard-working subcommittee. It has had a tough chore, one of the tougher chores I 

think in the U.S. House over these last five years because of the 

difficulty of the problem we found ourselves in after 9/11 and then 

the response of the Congress to create this subcommittee and the 

simultaneous work with a brand new department that was being 

born. So it has been a tough chore but I have enjoyed every minute 

of it, especially my association with the Chairman who I think has 

done an outstanding job as the new chairman of this subcommittee. 

And I look forward to working with him the balance of the year 

and perhaps I will stay on the subcommittee. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I am convinced that despite the 

daunting challenges facing our country, despite the constant threat 

of natural disasters, despite the all too real and persistent danger 

of violent extremism around the globe this great nation is unquestionably safer and more secure today than it was before 9/11. And 

that is in no small part due to the laudable efforts of thousands 

of DHS employees on the frontlines and the resolve with which you 

have approached your job as Secretary over the last three years. 

I think your job is perhaps the toughest job in Washington. It is 

certainly the most thankless job in Washington. But you have handled it superbly. I cannot imagine the three years that you have 

gone through being constantly aware that it would be your efforts 

or the lack of your efforts that the safety of millions of Americans 

are depending on. So I thank you for the responsibility that you 

have shouldered and are shouldering even as we speak. You have 

made great progress in the department. We have a ways to go but 

we have come a long way under your superb leadership. 

So as you make what is perhaps your final appearance before 

this subcommittee I want to first thank you for your service. We 

should all recognize that while there is certainly much more work 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

370 

to be done, tremendous progress has been made under your watch, 

including some noteworthy successes. Let me just mention a few: 

Aiding in the disruption of several terrorist plots. 

Ending the flawed practice of catch and release on the border. 

Hardening our critical infrastructure. 

Integrating the IDENT and IAFIS databases, across the FBI and 

all other agencies so that we can better serve the public. 

Strengthening the controls in our seaports and ports of entry. 

Layering the security framework across all modes of transportation from passenger aviation to seaborne cargo. 

Acknowledgement of these achievements is in order. From this 

side of the dais I have watched as DHS has labored through the 

largest federal reorganization in more than a half century. This 

task, creating the third largest cabinet agency within the government, with a complex mission of protecting and preparing our 

country and responding to threats and disasters while simultaneously facilitating legitimate travel, legitimate immigration and 

trade. This has certainly presented many challenges for both the 

Administration and the Congress. 

So as I think about the expectations for a maturing department 

I must remind myself that DHS is in fact only five years old. But 

I am the last person to make excuses for the Department. Failure 

is not an option. We cannot tolerate poor performance or inaction 

in an area of such criticality. 

Since this subcommittee was formed we have stressed results. 

And that mantra has continued under Chairman Price’s leadership. 

As I reflect upon these early formative years I believe DHS’s fundamental struggle has been with finding the proper balance across all 

its functions: balancing legitimate commerce with security, balancing privacy concerns with appropriate information analyses, 

balancing federal roles with the responsibilities and obligations of 

state and local government, and balancing finite resources with 

competing priorities that range from border security and cyber security to disaster response and marine safety. 

Which brings us to today and a discussion that I believe will 

transcend your budget request for 2009. I see this hearing as an 

opportunity to not only look back upon these early years but also 

to take stock of where the Department is today, and perhaps most 

importantly, discuss how prepared the Department is for the future. And as we look to the future I want to offer a note of caution. 

As we have discussed the missions of medical preparedness and 

cyber security over just this past week, tasks with leadership responsibilities that are more like a labyrinth than a chain of command, I am concerned about accountability. As the old saying goes, 

if two people are in charge no one is in charge. And if three people 

are in charge, well, I believe they call that a bureaucracy. 

While the mission of Homeland Security is not confined to the 

Department of Homeland Security, there must be clear lines of responsibility for all critical security functions, especially as we approach the transition to a new administration. It is extremely important for DHS to have a strong foundation when you depart, a 

foundation that allows the Department to rise above and beyond 

traditional hurdles and jurisdictional infighting. This and future 

Congresses and presidents must not allow typical bureaucratic inmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

371 

ertia which so often grips and expands government to take hold. 

I hope this subcommittee and your successors at the Department 

will all strive to help DHS to mature into what it was initially conceived to be: a nimble, effective organization that successfully interacts with the private sector and across the government to realize 

the security this great nation both needs and deserves. 

Mr. Secretary, I sincerely appreciate you being here today before 

us. As we have always in the past, we look forward to a candid discussion of the issues. No one wants to see you succeed more than 

this subcommittee, I think this member especially. It has been a 

pleasure working with you these years. We have many more 

months to go but this being a grand occasion to say how much we 

appreciate your work I wanted to seize that opportunity. Thank 

you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Rogers. 

I really am delighted to appear here in my fourth appearance 

testifying with respect to a presidential budget in what I believe 

will be my last appearance on budget testimony. It is a good opportunity for me to say that I cannot imagine a better group of partners in preparing to enhance the security of the homeland than the 

partners on this subcommittee. Both in hearings and more often informally we have had the opportunity to talk through some tough 

issues. The guidance, advice and wisdom from this subcommittee 

has been very valuable in helping shape the Department. 

I think the public should be proud of the work of this subcommittee in being tough but fair stewards of the public purse, 

making sure that we are efficient, that we are responsible and that 

we are disciplined in how we spend money. And also in being creative advocates for the kind of security that, as Ranking Member 

Rogers said, does balance our civil liberties and our prosperity and 

our economic needs with the very important need to protect the 

country against all kinds of disasters, whether they be manmade 

or natural. 

So at the risk of sounding like it is the last day of school and 

this is the last exam, I do want to say that it is a great opportunity 

to reflect back on how far we have come. Of course there is a lot 

more to do but I think that the fact that we have not had a successful attack in this country is a testament to the work that all 

of us collectively have done across the government and also at the 

state and local level in strengthening homeland security. It is not 

cause to hang up our cleats and get off the playing field, but it is 

cause to kind of redouble the effort as we continue to move forward. 

As we turn to the budget, and if I just may summarize, I believe 

that the President is presenting a sound, fiscally responsible budget to advance the Department’s most critical priorities and to give 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

372 

our 208,000 employees the tools that they need to continue to do 

the superb job they are doing. 

In all we are requesting $50.5 billion, which is a $3.2 billion increase over base in our total funding for fiscal year 2009. That is 

a 6.8 percent increase over the base of the previous year and a 62 

percent increase since our creation nearly five years ago. I am sure 

we will get into the details in discussion during the course of the 

hearing but I know that this subcommittee knows as well as anybody, better than most, the difficult tradeoffs one has to make in 

putting together a budget. There are many fine initiatives that one 

could always fund at a greater level but you would have to then 

sacrifice funding for something else. And because this subcommittee has had the experience, as I had, of trying to get all this 

to fit within a reasonable budget overall, and also to recognize that 

other departments have their budget needs, I think you will appreciate that we have struck a balance that I think is sensible, robust, 

and does promote homeland security. 

Let me talk about a little bit of our progress in what I consider 

to be the five major goals that this Department has. First with respect to protecting our nation from dangerous people who want to 

come in: 

At the border itself as of the end of last month we have built over 

313 miles of fencing, including pedestrian and vehicle fencing, at 

the southwest border. I might add that is by a factor probably tenfold as much as we had built during all the prior history of Border 

Patrol activities. We are now over 15,800 Border Patrols as of 

March 15. 

As Ranking Member Rogers mentioned, we have sustained the 

ending of the old pernicious catch and release system for coming 

up on two years now. And we have seen positive metrics. Apprehensions are down 20 percent if you look at fiscal year 2007 compared to the prior fiscal year. And in the first quarter of this year 

they continued to go down. 

There was a fairly compelling article on the front page of The 

Wall Street Journal today that talked about the dramatic increases 

in the interior in deporting people who are here illegally as 

overstays. I think a number of media sources, even those that are 

frankly not necessarily hospitable to the Administration, have acknowledged, whether they like it or not, that we are having a real 

impact on the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. 

For fiscal year 2009 we are requesting a $3.5 billion budget figure for the Border Patrol which is an increase of about half a billion dollars. This will allow us to continue to train and equip new 

agents, getting us up to 20,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009. In 

addition, we are requesting $775 million to continue to move forward on SBI which is our total package of technology and tactical 

infrastructure with which we have made great progress. 

At the interior I am delighted to say we had a record year last 

year with respect to criminal arrests: 863 criminal cases brought, 

which is more than in any prior year, resulting in 482 convictions. 

Among the examples I can give was the sentencing to approximately 10 years in prison of a CEO of a company that was systematically violating the immigration laws. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

373 

We are requesting a total of $1.8 billion to again enhance ICE 

custody operations, allowing us to expand detention beds so that 

we can detain and deport those who we catch who are here illegally. In addition, we are requesting an increase of $311 million for interior enforcement-related activities, including fugitive operations, 

the criminal alien program, support for state and local anti-illegal 

immigration initiatives, anti-gang initiatives, and worksite enforcement. 

We are requesting $100 million, an increase for $40 million, for 

the E-Verify automated system of employment authorization, as 

well as the reauthorization of that program. This is a very popular 

program. It has essentially been gaining new companies at the rate 

of 1,000 a week. We are up to over 58,000 companies that use the 

program. It is a tool that allows those who want to obey the law 

to make sure that they are capable of obeying the law. 

The next goal we have is protecting the nation from dangerous 

goods. And again, just to survey very generally. We are now scanning close to virtually 100 percent of containers coming into this 

country at the southern border and at our seaports. And we are 

over 90 percent with respect to our northern border. We have expanded our container security initiative overseas. And we have 

launched our overseas scanning secure freight initiatives with 100 

percent radiation scanning at three pilot ports outside the country, 

including in a port in Pakistan. 

With respect to protecting critical infrastructure we have completed the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and we have 

completed the 17 sector-specific plans. We released and are beginning to implement the chemical security final rule. And we have 

added additional layers of security to aviation, most notably demonstrated a couple of weeks ago when one of our new capabilities, 

our behavioral detection capability, resulted in the detection of the 

components of an explosive device that someone was trying to 

check into a commercial aircraft in Orlando, Florida. This is exactly 

what the American public expects us to do and we are producing 

results. 

With respect to IED prevention and protection against improvised explosive devices, if you look at all of the agencies, across the 

entire Department, we are requesting $1.3 billion, an increase of 

over $350 million, including $1.1 billion for TSA explosive detection 

technology, $50 million for science and technology development, 

and additional monies for training of transportation security officers and our Office of Bomb Prevention. Included in this, I might 

add, is an increase of $15 million for additional behavior detection 

officers that will do exactly what our officer in Orlando did a couple 

of weeks ago in preventing explosive materials from getting on a 

commercial airliner. 

Additionally, with respect to cyber security we are requesting 

$293 million, an increase of $83 million, to further deploy our Einstein system and to move forward on the President’s national strategy against cyber threats. Of course, as you know, that is only a 

small part of what the government as a whole is intending to devote to this because much of this will be in other agencies which 

have classified budgets. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

374 

With respect to emergency response, which is our fourth goal, we 

have made a lot of progress although we still have more to do with 

respect to FEMA. We have issued our national response framework. We have filled the senior positions with experienced emergency managers. And we have responded effectively over the last 

year to a significant number of disasters, including last year’s very 

effective response to California wildfires. We now have 60 mobile 

disaster recovery centers. We are transitioning from a temporary 

emergency workforce to a core cadre of several hundred leaders 

who can be there as full-time employees and around whom we can 

build a surge capability. And we are continuing to work on a robust 

system for evacuation, sheltering and housing. 

As a consequence, we are requesting $164.5 million, an increase 

of over $64 million, for FEMA’s Vision initiatives to continue to bolster emergency preparedness and response capabilities. And we are 

requesting $2.2 billion, which was the same as our request last 

year, for grants to state and local governments. 

One last area I would like to turn to before I conclude is the 

issue of our management and operations, with our fifth goal being 

to strengthen the capability of the Department to function as a mature operation. I have seen a huge amount of progress in our ability to plan, train and exercise together as a single department. But 

to get this job done and to get it institutionalized we are long overdue to have a headquarters that allows us to bring together all the 

principal component elements of the Department in one place as 

opposed to being scattered all over the Washington Metropolitan 

Area. As a consequence, we have requested $120 million to consolidate Coast Guard Headquarters, DHS Headquarters and component mission functions at St. Elizabeth’s. I think when we get this 

job done we will not only have a more efficient and a more mature 

department but we will actually wind up saving money over the 

long run. 

I can tell you from personal experience that continuing to limp 

along with what we have at the Nebraska Avenue Complex where 

my office is currently located, where we have bursting pipes on a 

regular basis and we need to constantly go back and prop up a declining infrastructure, in the end that is the least efficient way 

from a fiscal responsibility standpoint and from an efficiency standpoint to run the Department. 

So with that let me again thank this committee for its engagement, its partnership, its wisdom and its oversight. I look forward 

during my remaining months to continue to work with you to deliver until the day we turn over the keys for the very best Department of Homeland Security to the people of this country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are told that some 

votes are going to be called on the Floor in a few minutes, including one, as it turns out, to recognize and honor your department 

on its fifth anniversary. So I suppose that is appropriate given the 

circumstances. We regret though that we are going to have to interrupt this hearing. We will try to minimize the interruption and 

we will try to move the questions right along. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

375 

BORDER FENCE WAIVERS

And I will start with a question about the waiver authority that 

you have recently exercised. On April 3 you published your intent 

to waive 37 laws on construction of fencing or tactical infrastructure. Now, you have exercised this discretion three times before for 

smaller projects in California and Arizona, but this is a different 

order of magnitude. You have proposed to apply this to 470 miles 

of the southwest border through two blanket waivers. So a couple 

of questions. 

One has to do with the mileage that you are talking about. As 

of March 1 you need to complete only 367 additional miles of fencing to reach your declared goal of 670 miles total. So why does this 

waiver cover 470 miles? Are you simply covering your bases for 

anything you might conceivably want to build? Or are we to understand you have not settled on which 360 miles to build? Why 470? 

Secondly, this is a major, this is a major exercise of this waiver 

authority which goes beyond what many of us I think anticipated. 

You said you are committed to environmental responsibility. We 

want to know just what that means. That you are going to conduct 

reviews, you say, where no construction has begun? That you will 

continue to work closely with the Interior Department and others 

to design and implement environmental and other mitigation efforts despite having waived your obligation to do so? So what does 

this mean, have you instructed your staff to use a certain process 

for doing this? Does that process involve local consultation? Does 

that process involve coordination with other federal agencies 

charged with environmental responsibilities? 

What if that process takes a while? What if it is not just a snap? 

Or is there any chance that this would prevent you from constructing the mileage of fencing you want to construct where you 

want to construct it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted 

to answer the question. Let me deal with the first question. 

You are correct that the 470 miles we identified for the waiver 

is more than we need to get to the 670 mile goal. That does not 

reflect an uncertainty about where we want to build; it reflects two 

possibilities. First is a possibility that we may retrofit existing 

areas that are a vehicle barrier as pedestrian fencing. That would 

not be additional mileage although it would convert vehicle barrier 

fencing into pedestrian fencing. And that would require a brand 

new engagement of all of these regulatory requirements. So we 

wanted to be able to have the option if we retrofit to include that 

in the mileage for which the waiver was issued. 

Secondly, we do have contingency miles. In the event that some 

unanticipated difficulty or delay comes up with those miles that we 

have identified are our highest priority for this year, there are 

other miles that would be a lower priority that might be carried 

forward in future years which we would nevertheless get a start on 

if it turns out for reasons that we cannot anticipate that the priority mileage cannot be accomplished. 

But let me step back and put this in a larger context. As you 

know, not only in 2005 but again in the Consolidated Appropriations Act earlier this year Congress mandated that I get 370 miles 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

376 

of pedestrian fencing done by the end of this calendar year. I take 

the mandate seriously, as I do take the mandate to get 700 miles 

of fencing in total done, recognizing that I—and thanking Congress 

for giving me flexibility about exactly what kind of fencing to use 

and whether the rest of this fencing can be vehicle barriers or not. 

In order to accomplish this goal, however, we sat down and looked 

at all of the mileage that needed to be covered and we considered 

the fact that with respect to the pedestrian miles we are going to 

be building we have already completed interim environmental assessments or interim environmental impact statements. 

BORDER FENCE CONSULTATIONS

We recognize that if we were to engage in each of the individual 

regulatory elements that are currently required under these multiple statutes it would be unquestionably impossible to come close 

to meeting Congress’ mandate to get this mileage done. So recognizing I think in substance the vast majority of this mileage has 

already been analyzed for environmental and other considerations, 

recognizing that in terms of consultation we have held—we have 

contacted almost 600 landowners, we have had over 80 meetings 

with state and local officials, we have had town halls, we have had 

open houses—and after carefully considering what the alternatives 

would be, as I set forth in some considerable length in the statement that I issued when I granted the waiver, I believe the waiver 

will allow us to complete the mandate without materially sacrificing the substance of the environmental and other protections 

that are called for by the various statutes that I have waived. 

To give you a couple of examples: In Hidalgo County the local officials came to us and said they needed to rebuild their levees to 

protect themselves from floods. We worked out an arrangement 

where we could combine our objectives, and we could work with 

them so they could rebuild the levee in a way that would protect 

against floods and satisfy our need for barriers. Having achieved 

that consensus, which was a direct result of consultation, I wanted 

to move forward not only to build our fence in time but because the 

community needs to rebuild its levee in time to avoid the possibility of flooding. So that is one example of how I think we have 

worked cooperatively. 

I have directed in writing that we continue for those areas where 

we have not done an environmental analysis to complete the analysis before we do any substantial building, to engage with the local 

community and to consult, and to make modifications as we have 

done historically where we need to do so in order to mitigate environmental harm. But in the meantime we can begin the preparatory work, the surveying, the contracting, the ordering, all of 

which needs to get done to live up to this commitment that we 

have made to get 370 miles done by the end of the year. 

Mr. PRICE. I am sure, Mr. Secretary, we will return to this in the 

course of this hearing. 

I, of course, am aware that you are working with a congressional 

mandate. It is also true that Congress has granted you flexibility 

in the way you address this mandate. And Congress has also said 

that it does matter how you do this in terms of local consultation, 

in terms of a detailed expenditure plan, a justification and so forth. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

377 

So we will continue in this vein. There are many interrelated questions that I do think we need to raise. 

Mr. Rogers. 

MERIDA INITIATIVE

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am sure we will come back to this repeatedly. But let me switch topics for a moment and ask, I want to 

know about the Merida Initiative. I know it is a multi-agency effort 

and it is a multinational effort to try to control what flows across 

that border with Mexico, especially drugs. I know that is not your 

primary purpose in being there, other agencies do that, but it has 

to be a joint effort. 

I am alarmed at the seeming war that is going on across that 

border in places between thugs in Mexico and Border Patrol and 

other U.S. agencies on our side and repeated incursions by those 

insurgents on the Mexican side onto U.S. soil, especially the drug 

cartels. And it is not just a local thing anymore. In my district in 

Kentucky the law enforcement people tell me that the biggest 

source now of methamphetamines in rural east Kentucky is from 

Mexico. It formerly was local-made products. Now it is cheaper apparently to import it from the drug cartels in Mexico across that 

border. And I understand the Merida Initiative will give us a cooperative effort with Mexico especially to try to bolster their side of 

law enforcement of the border with our agencies on the U.S. side. 

Can you help me understand it better? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, Congressman, you have accurately 

captured what the situation is with one—I would make one correction. Actually I consider the interdiction of dangerous drugs to be 

our highest priority at the border. We actually have the responsibility at the border to keep not only people out who should not be 

coming in, but things that should not be coming in. And part of 

what I tried to communicate in connection, frankly, with the fencing issue is that it is as important or maybe more important to me 

to have the fence to keep the drugs out and the criminals out as 

it is to keep out just the other illegal migrants. 

We are seeing in Mexico, as you have properly observed, the 

major pathway for getting methamphetamine into the United 

States. We are seeing increased violence along the border, both directed at our Border Patrol and directed at the local authorities in 

Mexico. This is a direct consequence of the success we are having 

in cracking down on illegal businesses. 

I know you know this because you were a prosecutor. I certainly 

know this from my years as a prosecutor. When you crack down on 

illegal organized crime activities those criminal businesses fight 

back because this is their lifeblood. That is why when you are not 

enforcing the law there is very little violence; everybody is very 

happy to get along and get their ill-gotten gains. But as you crack 

down you start to see a spike in violence. They fight among themselves and they fight with us in order to preserve their organized 

criminal activities. 

We are dealing on our part of the border with the enhancement 

of the Border Patrol and the building of fencing and other tactical 

infrastructure as well as some investigative things we are doing. 

We are doing what we need to do to protect ourselves against viomstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

378 

lence and criminals coming in. But to really crack these organizations the Mexicans have got to attack the problem at its source. 

The good news is the president of Mexico is more committed than 

any I have seen in history to getting the job done at considerable 

personal risk to himself and his top leaders. They are retooling 

their enforcement system. They are using the military. They are retooling their judicial system. We need to help them. We need to enable them to do the job not only on their northern border but also 

to help them do it on their southern border. It is very much to our 

benefit for them to do that job properly. 

And let me finally indicate as we look down the road we have 

to worry about what is going on in the rest of Latin America. We 

have MS–13 which is a highly organized, dangerous criminal gang 

with thousands of members in the U.S. and is active in Central 

America where they really have their home base. We have President Chavez who just relying on open source information has enabled the FARC, which is a terrorist drug organization. All of these 

incipient threats are threats to our part of the continent. And a 

strong Mexico is a very important partner in making sure those 

threats do not materialize in our country. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, at a hearing yesterday the ATF director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms director, called the Mexican government’s efforts to stop smuggling and gun trafficking ‘‘heroic’’, that 

the president and the government are really cracking down in Mexico on those who are smuggling, weapons, drugs, guns, people into 

the U.S. Would you agree with his characterization of their efforts? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. And unfortunately there have 

been assassination attempts on senior leaders which just underscores that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, for example, I am told that many Mexican 

sheriffs are being assassinated if they do not take bribes to protect 

the organized crime. The chief of police in Palomas, Chihuahua, 

Mexico, recently turned himself in to Border Protection officials in 

New Mexico requesting asylum due to a claim of credible fear from 

cartel threats. 

I am told that there have been instances where the gang have 

come on American soil with weapons and had shootouts. 

Is all of that accurate? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is accurate. We have seen an increase in 

violence on our part of the border but, frankly, nothing like what 

we have seen on the southern side of the border where we have 

seen ambushes of public officials by these gangs and gangs who are 

as equipped as a military force could be. 

Mr. ROGERS. So briefly and quickly, this initiative is ongoing. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are awaiting congressional action to 

fund this initiative which I think would really put our current efforts working with Mexico on turbochargers. And there is not a 

minute to wait to get this done, to get the funding. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it is urgent. And I congratulate you for putting it together. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Kilpatrick. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

379 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. The fence issue continues to be 

something we will discuss, and I am going to leave that a further 

round, I will not have time on my first round here. But Homeland 

Security we always talk about it is really hometown security too. 

And it cannot work unless the partnership of local and state government and the Federal Government and your agency are actively 

working together. Throughout the budget that is before us today 

the Safer Grant Program, the Fire Grant has been cut 50 percent 

and took out the Metropolitan, you all took it out, we are going to 

put it back, the Metropolitan Medical Response System. And even 

the State Homeland Security Grant Program cut by 79 percent. 

Why, how, and how effective with what you are doing around the 

borders and otherwise will your job be, and I come from a border 

state, Canada, one of our friendly neighbors, northern border always underfunded, understaffed all of that in my opinion, we have 

had that discussion, but the local communities across the country, 

and certainly in Michigan as well, the Fire Grants, the Safe 

Grants, as well as the State Homeland Security Grant Program 

those are paramount to how they take care of their own locales as 

well as interact with the Federal Government, how do you justify 

that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, Congresswoman, what we have 

done, and this is consistent with past years—we try to target 

homeland security grants on what truly are homeland security activities. For example, in the area of State Homeland Security 

Grants, although our proposed number is below what we requested 

last year in the general category, which as you know is not a riskbased category, there are some minimums. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Absolutely. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We then suggested taking, adding additional money for Real ID grants and Buffer Zone Protection grants. 

So actually it is more a question of targeting the money on a risk 

basis as opposed to putting it in kind of a lump sum and then distributing at least part of it on a fixed formula state by state. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And I would support doing that. We had that 

discussion last year as well. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And I appreciate that. 

On the issue of the SAFER Grants, I think it is just a kind of 

plain out philosophical issue. We believe that what the Federal 

Government ought to be investing in is capabilities, that means 

equipment, it means training. And of course once you have provided the equipment—and I think we have provided over $20 billion of grants over the last several years—once you have provided 

the equipment you do not provide the same equipment every year. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Agree with that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. What we tend to resist though is grants 

like the SAFER program where it is essentially paying people’s salaries, paying for personnel costs. We do it for two reasons. First of 

all, that is really a classic state and local function. Secondly, it is 

a very bad idea I think from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

380 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Okay, let me make the case because my time is 

going out. And I understand exactly where you are coming from. 

With limited resources and a war that we never should be in and 

all that is going on with that you do not have the money that you 

need to secure the nation, we believe that. 

At the same time local communities where real people live who 

send their taxes to you to do what you need to do deserve, need 

and must have some internal investment as it relates to this area. 

I too believe that it has to be prioritized in terms of risk. And I 

think we had that and went through much of that last time when 

we talked. But to rule them out—and I agree, salaries, some of 

those are good, equipment, they have to have it. To buy it over and 

over, no, that is not it. But rather than blanketly say they do not 

need it I would much rather see a cooperation and a partnership 

with your agency and those local communities because they have 

real needs. And those dollars that are sent here that you spend as 

you see, but I also think they should go back. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I saw you raising up. I will continue that 

one. 

CONTAINER SCANNING/SCREENING

One other thing. We had testimony the last week or two from the 

World Shipping Council and others that 5 to 10 percent of the containers are being inspected. You just said 100 percent from the 

southern border and 90 percent from the northern border. Why the 

discrepancy? Which is right? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. What I said was virtually 100 percent are 

being scanned, meaning they are going through radiation scanning 

equipment as a mechanical matter. 

Secondly, we analyze all the containers that come in, we screen 

them all in terms of the manifest, what we know about the shipper 

and the destination. 

What we do not do 100 percent of is physically open every container. And that is I think what the discrepancy is. I think the 

Shipping Council when they talk about inspection I think they 

mean a physical inspection as opposed to a scanning or a screening. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. So that is a big discrepancy there. I think we 

need a better feel on what actually happens. We do not expect you 

to open all, I do not think they do. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think you would want me too. I 

think it would be a disaster. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. No, absolutely not. We think the radiation, 

being able to see inside and the technology you use is probably fine. 

But the difference in what they say. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that, I think the inspection that 

they refer to is physical opening. When I talk about scanning I 

mean passing the container through radiation scanning equipment. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. I have been through them. I have seen them 

done. I have seen the big machines that do that. They led us to believe it was something less than that. I think we ought to clear 

that up. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Okay. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

381 

VIOLENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, good 

to see you, glad you are here. Hope this is not too painful. Your 

job is pretty painful as it is. 

I have got to go back to the Texas border or the Mexican border 

from the Arizona, New Mexico and California included. When I was 

down on the border the Border Patrol reported to me, this is about 

a year ago, maybe eight months ago, that they were fired upon regularly from the Mexican side of the border. We now see what is 

very courageous as far as I am concerned on the part of the Mexican government they have sent troops to at least Nuevo Laredo 

that I know of for a fact, and they have had a fairly intense gun 

fight in Nuevo Laredo with the Mexican troops. 

These cartels we have seen what they did in Colombia, and it is 

the same people. We have seen what they did in southern Mexico. 

We know what they are capable of doing. And they can fight warfare just about as good as regular army troops. And they obviously 

demonstrated that in Nuevo Laredo. Now, as Mexico attempts to 

drive them out they are driving them in our direction, okay. And 

they are going to cross the border into Texas or Arizona or New 

Mexico. But in Nuevo Laredo at least they will cross into Texas. 

My first question, I do not know the answer to this and I would 

like to know it, by some kind of international treaty, why when 

fired upon can law enforcement officers not fire back into Mexico? 

That is a question I would like answered first. 

Then secondly, if they start across into Texas, I do not know if 

everybody has all been down to that border but if you are right 

there at Laredo, yeah, there are a lot of folks there, but if you get 

about 20 miles upstream or 20 miles downstream from Laredo 

there is not anybody out there but people sneaking into the country 

and a few people riding horses. It is real wide open country full of 

a lot of things you do not want to step on. And so out there they 

could be in 30 miles before we even knew they were in there. I 

want to know what the confrontation and fire back policy would be 

upon people who invade our country into the State of Texas both 

from the Federal Government, and if the Federal Government does 

not do it is there anything by treaty that would prevent the state 

government fighting back? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will try to give you a general answer. Let 

me caution by saying I am not, I do not have all my law books with 

me so I do not want to be giving legal advice here. But the general 

rule is this: in fact in order to engage in self defense or to protect 

themselves the Border Patrol are entitled to discharge their weapons. You know, there are rules of engagement. You should start 

where possible with non-lethal force but if necessary you use lethal 

force. 

We have sometimes done that across the border. If fired upon 

from across the border, our agents have shot back across the border. I am not aware of any treaty that prevents that. Our preference is to have the Mexicans actually address the problem on 

their side of the border. And we have actually built some protocols 

so that when something happens we can contact the Mexicans and 

they come in. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

382 

But, you know, at bottom if our agents are fired upon and they 

need to protect themselves they are entitled to do it and they can 

fire back. That is certainly also true within the United States. And 

we want to make sure they have the capability to defend themselves. 

I hate to keep going back to the fence, but part of the reasons 

we are putting fencing in some areas is precisely in order to be a 

force protection measure, to protect the Border Patrol. I had the 

unhappy circumstance a few weeks ago of being with a family of 

maybe the first agent during my tenure who was deliberately killed 

by smugglers. He was run over by a vehicle. If we had vehicle barriers that were effective in that area that vehicle would not have 

come across. 

So I take everything we are doing, fencing, virtual fencing, enhancing the Border Patrol; I take it very seriously as a protection 

measure in addition to an anti-crime measure. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, it seems to me I am confused because I was 

told by more than one agent that they, after telling me a story 

about a female agent who had been shot in the hip and was under 

fire from across the border and they basically had to crawl in under 

fire and pull her out and not fire any shots across the border. And 

they were under specific orders not to return fire and so agents had 

to crawl in and pull a wounded female agent out under fire north 

of Laredo. 

Now this was a year-and-a-half ago, okay. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am subject to being corrected on the law 

but I know of at least a couple of occasions where we have had 

agents fire back. They try to use non-lethal force and that, I believe 

that is appropriate as a first resort. 

Mr. CARTER. I agree with that. I believe that our law enforcement policies are appropriate policies. But also our law enforcement policy is once you are fired upon you return fire. And I do 

not think an invisible border ought to be any barrier to returning 

fire, especially in a circumstance where at least my experience on 

the Texas border is we are outgunned about, you know, 90 to 1 because they are using automatic weapons and we are using handguns. 

Thank you for your answers. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez. 

BORDER FENCE WAIVERS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Secretary, I do 

not think we have had a chance to meet. I have been on the committee for a couple of years. This is my second year. And I am Ciro 

Rodriguez and I represent the longest U.S.-Mexico border district 

in the entire country, some 785 miles. My district has more than 

half of the Texas border and approximately one-third of the entire 

southern border, including six land ports of entry, and 13 different 

Border Patrol stations within three separate Border Patrol sectors. 

Border issues, especially those dealing with border fencing are 

extremely important to my folks, who are U.S. citizens on the border that feel the same way you do about illegal immigration. They 

agree that we have to stop illegal immigration. In the Texas delegation I have worked in a bipartisan way with Senator Kay Bailey 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

383 

Hutchison on provisions that would require DHS consultation with 

community members before the construction of any fencing. 

Mr. Secretary, I wrote you a letter in January after the President 

signed the omnibus spending measure that included consultation 

language and asked for a response from you regarding how DHS 

would be proceeding. Last week I contacted your office and I have 

a copy of the letter; but I still have not gotten a response from you. 

I find that extremely troubling, especially after hearing about your 

decision to waive over the 30 provisions from the Homeland Security Subcommittee bill provisions. I understand you have the authority to seek waivers from enacted bill language. Nonetheless 

that does not mean you have to exercise that right, especially as 

it relates to sensitive and volatile matters associated with private 

property that will be impacted by fencing. 

Do you honestly believe that waiving 36 provisions of law without having met with local experts, community leaders and members of Congress like myself is consistent with the spirit and intent 

of the law? Unlike the Department of Homeland Security, I have 

had community meetings and I think in all honesty that you have 

been misinformed by your own people. I have conducted meetings 

and I know the agency took credit for them. And so, as we proceed 

on this issue, no one, no one knows better than people who live on 

the border how to prevent and stop illegal immigration. 

I understand the need for some fencing, and I am not against the 

use of barriers. I have had a chance to tour the border and there 

is no doubt a need for car barriers. But there is a serious need for 

dialogue and compromises with local communities and private 

property owners. 

You know, I have to admit that the DHS approach reminds me 

of the Administration’s attitude towards Iraq. We went in there no 

matter, and use a unilateral approach. Regarding fencing I really 

believe that when you have to do it you have got to do it. But in 

this case I think that we can go a long way by reaching out to local 

communities and officials along the border, in addition to U.S. citizens that own private property on the border. 

Regarding fencing, according to the Chief of Border Patrol, they 

only have two to three minutes to respond to illegal immigrant 

crossings. I think that you are way behind in terms of developing 

technology that guarantees Border Patrol officers more than just 

three minutes to respond to border incursions. 

I am concerned about meetings where DHS dictates to communities what they plan to do, such as build a fence through a golf 

course in Eagle Pass, or by an an elementary school in Roma, TX. 

BORDER FENCE CONSULTATIONS

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can just briefly respond on differences of 

recollection or differences of perspective on a particular meeting. I 

know there have been a lot of meetings and I know there has been 

a lot of outreach. And the proof of the pudding is on some of them 

where I have been involved I have actually seen that we have 

modified our plans when the community comes up with a reasonable alternative. 

For example, there was—I think it was Laredo, some part of Laredo—we wanted to build a fence and they persuaded the Border 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

384 

Patrol that cutting the cane and putting some technology up would 

do a good job. And we were persuaded. 

In Hidalgo County the county officials, the county judge and officials came to us and said, Look, here is an alternative. 

Cameron County is now for the first time beginning to engage 

with us about an alternative. That is good. And we are always open 

to alternatives that achieve our results in a way that are more palatable to the community. I will tell you though sometimes people 

say that we have not negotiated and we have. And I know there 

is a court case now where some individual has claimed that we did 

not communicate with her. And the evidence has shown time and 

again efforts were made and she rebuffed them. That is not a failing on our part of consultation; that is a failure on the part of the 

individual who, for whatever reason, chooses not to engage and 

then complains that we are not engaging. 

So what I have noticed which I guess maybe is grounds for optimism is that as the communities realize we are serious there is 

now a greater willingness to come forward. So I am—you know, my 

direction, and I believe it is being executed is, to continue to talk 

even as we are moving forward. 

But I do want to conclude by saying this: not only is there a congressional mandate on building the fence—and we build it, of 

course, you know, where we think it is appropriate to build—but 

we have made a commitment to the American people. I lived 

through the comprehensive immigration reform debate and my 

take-away from that was the reason we failed was that we could 

not convince the American people we were serious about dealing 

with the enforcement problem. They became cynical about 30 years 

of promises that were made and then when their back was turned 

we never carried it out. And if it is the last thing I do in this job 

I am going to with every fiber of my being and totally within the 

law and in a reasonable way live up to the commitments that we 

have made to the American people. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for coming. I want to particularly compliment you on your 

Chief of Staff Chad Sweet doing a superb job. He has been very, 

very supportive and helpful in working with me and other members of the committee. And I want to echo my good friend Ciro 

Rodriguez’s comments, and he and my good friend John Carter, the 

other Texans on the subcommittee, Chet Edwards, we have all 

been working arm in arm on a very serious law enforcement problem on the southwest border. It is bipartisan. Ciro is exactly right 

that the communities along the river support enforcing the law. 

Who does not if you have kids, you own a business, you have a 

home, it makes a big difference when the laws are enforced. 

And it has been my sincere privilege to work with Ciro. We were 

elected together in 1986 to the Texas House and have been good 

friends every since. And we have found, Ciro and I and Henry and 

our friends, in particular Ciro and Henry, a win/win situation for 

you, Mr. Secretary, in Operation Streamline, the zero tolerance effort that has been so successful in Del Rio and Laredo, the overmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

385 

whelming—the support of the local community has been overwhelming. The results have been dramatic, as you know, in the 

Tucson, excuse me, in Del Rio, Laredo and Yuma where the zero 

tolerance operation Streamline Program is in effect. They are enforcing existing laws with existing personnel and some modest increase in resources. And the local community is just thrilled with 

it. And the results have been dramatic. 

In Del Rio, Ciro, I know that you are familiar with these as well, 

they have had a 76 percent drop in the crime rate. In Del Rio they 

have seen the lowest level of illegal crossings since they started 

keeping statistics in 1973. And there are vacant beds, Mr. Secretary, the Del Rio sector has plenty of vacancies in the beds because as the criminals and the illegal alien populations figure out 

that the law is enforced in Del Rio they just do not cross there. 

There is an initial surge in demand for bed space and then it drops 

off. 

In fact, my staff and I have found that, and as you know, I have 

devoted a lot of time and thought to this and I do my best to do 

my homework, and we have identified 8,000, 8,000 vacant private 

prison beds that are available today between Louisiana and California. And those beds cost about $56 a day. That is about 

$448,000 a day if you were to use those beds and about $13.4 million a month. And I cannot think of a better use for your money 

than using them. 

What I am leading up to, and I take it at your word you said 

I know you are law enforcement, you are a former judge, you are 

a committed law enforcement officer and I take it at your word 

that before you leave this office you want to fulfill the promise of 

the Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to 

enforce our laws and secure our borders. But I have to tell you it 

is, you know, not happening and the evidence does not support 

that. 

The statistics you have given us on the end of catch and release, 

for example, only apply to people who are from countries other 

than Mexico. And people that are from countries other than Mexico 

make up less than 12 percent of all the arrests that are made on 

the border. 88 percent of the people arrested on the border are 

crossing illegally from Mexico. In fact, in the 12-month period 

1,057,000 of the 1.2 million arrested on the border, 1,057,000 were 

from Mexico. 

Now, if you set aside the OTMs and the early release folks that 

are no longer being released early, what is essentially happening 

then in every sector other than Del Rio, Yuma and Laredo the folks 

that are crossing illegally from Mexico, whether they be carrying 

drugs or weapons, are essentially being turned loose. Now, the Border Patrol is only catching maybe one in four. That means about 

3.6 million people entered the United States successfully between 

October 2005 and September 30, 2006, plus about 1 million from 

Mexico who are just released and not incarcerated or prosecuted. 

So I have to tell you it is, you know, not working. The border is 

not secure. That means that about 5 million people every 12 

months are entering the United States illegally without any fear of 

being prosecuted, which is just unacceptable. And those are just 

facts. I mean just look at the numbers and they are there. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

386 

And the Chairman has been generous with his time and a vote 

has been called but let me just walk you through quickly the in 

particular how serious a hemorrhaging we have in Yuma. I mean 

the entire border about 5 million people just walk in every 12 

months successfully, get past Homeland Security. So I applaud you 

for trying to achieve the goal but it is not being done. And in Arizona, in Tucson in particular, Mr. Secretary, where I visited in 

early February going out to try to help them implement Operation 

Streamline, I was dumbfounded to discover that of the people arrested by the Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector 99.6 percent of 

all the people arrested by the Border Patrol will never be prosecuted, including drug smugglers carrying less than a quarter ton 

of dope. You have a 99.6 percent chance of never going to jail if you 

are arrested in Tucson. 

So it is not working. You have a success story in Operation 

Streamline. And I want to ask will you please work with Ciro and 

me and my friends on this committee to put Operation Streamline 

in effect from Brownsville to San Diego? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If I can just answer the question, Mr. 

Chairman. Let me first say I cannot substantiate some of the figures of flow that you have stated here, so I do not want to have 

my silence taken as somehow agreeing with it. I will tell you with 

respect to catch and release we do not have catch and release for 

Mexicans because Mexicans are deported and returned to Mexico. 

And that is what we do with non-Mexicans. 

As far as the use of Operation Streamline is concerned, I agree 

with Operation Streamline. I think it is a very good program, and 

we are working to get it expanded across other parts of the border 

because I do agree with you it has a great deterrent effect. I should 

observe that I cannot spend other agencies’ money; I have to spend 

mine. What I think has been the constraint on rolling Operation 

Streamline out is once you take people into the criminal justice system, which is a Department of Justice budget issue of course, you 

have to have not only prosecutors to prosecute the cases and jail 

space to house the individuals that are convicted, you need to have 

judges to try the cases. 

We are working with the Department of Justice, and I think it 

is part of the money that was enacted in the 2008 comprehensive 

budget package—I think there was money given to DOJ to allow 

them to expand their resources and get the personnel involved in 

order to deal increasingly with this problem by bringing criminal 

cases. And obviously most of the individuals who are apprehended 

are committing misdemeanors. An illegal entry is a misdemeanor. 

But even that works. 

So I agree with you it is a good program. I think thought I want 

to—I do not want to leave a misimpression about what the definition of ‘‘success’’ is. I spent a lot of years prosecuting cases. There 

is no place in the United States of America where 100 percent of 

the people who commit crimes wind up going to jail. There are always decisions prosecutors make based on the seriousness of the 

crime and the priorities. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But nor is there anyplace where 99.6 percent of 

them go free as they do—— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

387 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. But I have to say that by definition 

everybody who enters illegally has committed a misdemeanor. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Versus a little gentlemen. 

Mr. PRICE. Gentlemen, time has expired and we do have other 

members waiting for questions. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Please finish your sentence, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I was going to say I endorse the idea of 

Streamline because I think it is an effective tool to prosecute some 

of these cases. I think, however, to suggest that 100 percent of the 

cases will be prosecuted criminally is not likely to happen without—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is not what Streamline does. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

BORDER FENCE

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, 

for being here today. 

I am constantly reminded that we talk a lot about the border. 

And without understanding how big the border is, we have trouble 

getting a mental picture. We were told last year that the border is 

longer than is the distance between the Capitol and the city of San 

Francisco. Do we have a figure for the border, in mileage? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is about 1,900 miles in the southern border, I think it is obout 5,000 in the northern border and then you 

have the coasts which are also a border. So I think we are talking 

about, you know, literally 7,000. 

Mr. FARR. So, out of 1,900 miles, you are waiving laws on construction, as you pointed out, of 470 miles. How much of that is on 

military land? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Some of it is on military land as it goes 

through the Barry Goldwater Range. A lot of it is on Department 

of Interior land when you get into Arizona. I think—— 

Mr. FARR. Are you doing pedestrian fences in those very rural 

areas? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, we are not. We are generally doing vehicle barriers. But we need to do the same waiver for vehicle barriers; it is the same legal issue. We are doing vehicle barriers in 

rural areas. We are doing pedestrian fences generally where we are 

dealing with a metropolitan area or a town where there is major 

infrastructure. 

Mr. FARR. You are not doing pedestrian fences on the military 

lands in the Barry Goldwater Range? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There we did a pedestrian fence because 

the Barry Goldwater Range had an unusual problem. The entry of 

individuals on foot caused the range to shut down its training activities. 

Mr. FARR. As it did in Utah and Nevada too. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. So the Department of Defense had a 

more rigorous requirement for—to step back, usually when people 

enter on foot in an area that is rural we have a defense in depth. 

We can intercept them inside the country and so we are satisfied 

with that amount of tactical infrastructure. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

388 

Mr. FARR. So we had to build a fence so the military could carry 

out their military training. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. The Goldwater range. 

Mr. FARR. Why was that fence not on their dime? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we actually shared the money with 

them. 

Mr. FARR. I see. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think they put a lot of—they kicked 

money in and they kicked labor in through the National Guard or 

through some of the forces. 

Mr. FARR. Well, what I am concerned about, as the Chairman 

pointed out, is the disrupting of cross-border migration patterns. I 

think that is very important and, as you know, a concern to an 

awful lot of people. In building a pedestrian fence in that rural 

area, it is going to require an awful lot of manpower to keep it 

open. Have you factored in all that additional cost? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, the Goldwater fence is built. It is I 

think 36 miles. And that was factored in and DOD has assumed 

the obligation to make sure they contribute to the maintenance 

and, you know, repair of the fence obviously because it is necessary 

for their protection of their activities. 

Mr. FARR. Is there an intent here to build a fence across the entire 1,900 miles? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. No. The intent is to build by the end 

of this year 670 miles. And I think there probably is some, you 

know, some additional mileage.—I would say probably around 50 

or 75 miles that would be built in out years. The idea is to have 

a natural or physical barrier of some kind across the southwest 

border, recognizing that in Texas the river is a barrier in many 

good places. We have some areas in California and Arizona where 

there are mountain ranges and that is a pretty good natural barrier. But the rest of it we will have some kind of a barrier in place. 

It is not going to all be pedestrian fence, but it is going to be pedestrian fence in areas where there is a town or an urban area and 

vehicle barrier in more remote areas. 

Mr. FARR. So about 30 percent of the border line will have a 

fence and about 70 percent will not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is about right, yes. 

Mr. FARR. And that will be sufficient to stop the trafficking? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Not in and of itself. But combined with the 

fact that we are doubling the Border Patrol, we are putting up 

four, we have now four unmanned aerial vehicles, we are going to 

have 40 ground-based radar systems. We are using a whole range 

of different tools. All of that combined, yeah, is exactly what we 

need to get that border under control. Plus, I might add, consistent 

tough interior enforcement to attack what is drawing people in. Because obviously you want to deal with all elements of the problem. 

You do not want to just do it right at the border. That is important 

but other things you have to do address the interior. And we want 

to make sure we are addressing that too. That is part of our strategy. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

389 

MEXICAN SIDE OF BORDER FENCE

Mr. FARR. In discussing these border improvements, has any consideration been given to trying to also improve the Mexican side of 

the border? When you have sewage treatment problems, if you 

have problems on one side it is going to affect the other side, the 

same is true for air quality problems. You just talked about law enforcement in Mexico being very collaborative. It seems to me we 

are fortifying one side of the border with, incredibly, almost a militaristic approach, with all of the unmanned vehicles and aerial vehicles and all the other technology, but are we doing anything to 

improve the quality of life on the Mexican side? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first of all, again I am straying a little bit outside of my department but, (A) we want to work and we 

are working closely with the Mexicans to help them enforce the law 

on their part of the border. I agree with you though, law enforcement is necessary but not sufficient. That is why I happen to believe—maybe it is unpopular these days, but I happen to believe 

NAFTA is actually a good thing for our security because by increasing the ability of the Mexicans to make their economy vibrant that 

actually keeps people in Mexico who should be working in Mexico. 

So I actually would argue NAFTA is a good thing for the border. 

Mr. FARR. Your department is not doing anything to help infrastructure on the Mexican side. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. That is outside of our authority. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We do have to go to a vote. I would like to 

give Mr. Edwards—— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I can come back. 

Mr. PRICE. You can come back. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. If you can—— 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I will do it very quickly. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Keep yourself to a brief question then we 

will resume after the votes. 

MATERIAL SUPPORT

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Secretary, I would like to raise two 

issues very quickly with you. Recent Washington Post articles have 

highlighted the case of an Iraqi refugee in the U.S. who had been 

denied legal permanent residence by DHS because of his past involvement with the Kurdish Democratic Party, a group that at one 

time worked to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. His application was denied even though he was employed by the U.S. 

Army as a translator during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And he now 

works as a training contractor for the U.S. Marine Corps. After the 

Post article was published you exercised your exemption authority 

and this individual will soon have a Green Card. 

This subcommittee has heard many stories like this one. And last 

year Congress modified how DHS adjudicates material support 

cases so that common sense prevails. What is the CIS schedule for 

publishing new policy guidelines or federal regulations to implement the revisions Congress enacted last year? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You are absolutely right that the law 

changed at the end of the year to allow us more discretion to give 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

390 

waivers. CIS issued an order freezing all current pending cases 

where people were seeking to have Green Cards but were being denied under the old rule. We are now in the process of reviewing 

those cases. 

This particular case you talked about had actually been adjudicated between the time the law changed and the time the guidance went out. But CIS has now gone back and made sure that everybody who is in the pipeline is frozen if they have been disqualified based on that, on the old law. So we are not going back 

through it under the new law. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. And when will you be publishing these new 

guidelines? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not know how it is going to be published. I do not know exactly in what form it is going to be published. I know that as of the end of last month we had exempted 

about 5,000 individuals because of the change in law. I do not know 

whether it requires a regulation or just a guidance and then we 

deal with these cases individually. 

Mr. PRICE. Perhaps they could respond to that question for the 

record. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. When will/did USCIS publish new guidelines for material support 

cases? 

Response. USCIS does not believe that promulgation of federal regulations is required to implement the statutory changes enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA). USCIS has already issued interim instructions on the application 

of the ‘‘automatic relief provisions’’ of CAA and adjudicators are processing cases accordingly. In addition, USCIS anticipates that in the near future formalized and updated guidance will be issued to all adjudicators. Similarly, procedures for the exercise and implementation of the Secretary’s authority not to apply certain terroristrelated grounds of inadmisssibility, as amended by CAA, does not require the promulgation of federal regulations. Notices of future exercises of the Secretary’s authority under this provision will be published in the federal register, and USCIS will 

issue implementing instructions made available to the public. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PRICE. Subcommittee will reconvene. I told Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Secretary, that we would be making certain that you had 

the full range of questions she had hoped to ask so that you can 

do a timely response. 

Mr. Edwards. 

CONTAINER SECURITY

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for your public service and your leadership in protecting our 

country and our families. I respect your service greatly. I would 

like to ask about radiation detection screening of ship containers. 

I believe you testified that approximately 98 percent of ship containers are screened for radiation purposes once they are here in 

U.S. ports, is that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What number would that be for ship containers 

that are sent through radiation detection screening at foreign seaports before they come to the U.S.? Is that less than five percent? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

391 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It probably is. We have started a pilot program under Secure Freight, and we have got three ports now that 

are engaged; one is Southampton, one is Honduras and one is a 

port in Pakistan. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right. And at those three ports you are screening 

100 percent shipping containers bound for the United States, is 

that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How is that working in those three ports? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not have a final conclusion. I think it 

has got some logistical challenges in terms of both the capability 

of the individual countries to support what we are doing and some 

of the architectural issues. I cannot give you a definitive answer, 

but we should get a result on that pretty soon. 

Mr. EDWARDS. All right, and perhaps we can get lessons learned 

from that, but what I would like to ask you is if we can do 100 percent screening for nuclear devices at those three ports and if it 

works reasonably well, why are we only at five percent or less for 

ship containers coming in from foreign seaports? 

Obviously your goal, our goal as a country would be not to find 

out there is a nuclear device once it is sitting in the Port of Los 

Angeles or the Port of Houston. We would like to know about it before it is shipped to our country. Is there any kind of game plan? 

Do you have any goal that within the next five years, X percent of 

shipped containers will be screened before they leave foreign ports? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot give you a percentage. I can tell 

you there will be at least three constraints that we are going to 

have to deal with. One is going to be some countries may choose 

not to participate. We cannot make another country do this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask you about that just in the limited 

time I have? Do we allow other countries to decide whether they 

are going to screen their passengers before they get on an airplane 

in Singapore to fly into the United States? Can they choose not to 

screen passengers for weapons or bombs? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We could deny landing rights if we were 

not satisfied with the screening. And I suppose we could say to another country, ‘‘If you do not do this, we will deny you shipping.’’ 

I will tell you that I think the consequences of that to our economy 

would be disastrous. We would be cutting off our face to spite our 

nose. So that is one constraint. 

A second constraint is that the physical architecture of some 

ports do not lend themselves to doing this, and there are two characteristics. Some ports depend on the actual ground on which they 

are built, for some the background radiation creates a challenge. 

But more important than that, for a port that is a major 

transshipper, we do not currently have the technology that allows 

you to scan when you are moving from one ship to another ship. 

So that is an architecture constraint. 

The third constraint, I have to be honest, is I do not know that 

it makes a lot of sense to do this in every port. For example, we 

are doing it in the Port of Southampton, but the chances that a nuclear bomb is going to be loaded on a ship in Britain and sent to 

the U.S. I would say is about as remote as any threat I can think 

of. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

392 

On the other hand, what we are doing in Pakistan makes quite 

a bit of sense because I think Pakistan is obviously an area where 

if there were to be a nuclear bomb or something of that sort loaded, 

you know, that would certainly be a place we would think about. 

So what we would like to do I think eventually is look at is there 

a way to do this by risk? 

Look at those ports where there is a higher risk, albeit still a low 

risk, and focus on those and work with those countries to see that 

they will agree to let us do this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would respect the fact with limited resources in 

implementing a program we ought to go to the highest risk ports 

first, although I would suspect if one were a terrorist that person 

would look for the weakest link in the chain link fence, so I am not 

sure I would agree with the idea that there are some ports because 

they are in friendly countries we should not have to consider that. 

I know we would not be happy—if I went to the Washington Airport, I know you would not change the policy to allow for convenience of flight that we only check five percent of the passengers getting on airplanes. I will finish with this. 

It seems to me that if it is worth the inconvenience, and economic disruption, whatever problems are caused, the cost, to check 

100 percent of passengers getting on commercial airline flights, 

then perhaps we ought to be more aggressive in getting beyond 

two, or three, or four percent of sea containers that could well 

someday, God forbid, contain a nuclear bomb. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with you we should take it seriously. I do believe we should do foreign deployment of this in a 

risk-based way. I would add one other thing: I want to look not 

only at containers, but to be perfectly honest, the way I would get 

a nuclear bomb into the United States if I had one and I was a terrorist is I would rent a private jet and I would put it on the jet 

and I would just blow it up. 

The good news is we are addressing that as well. We have got— 

a measure is moving forward ultimately to do exactly this kind of 

radiation scanning for foreign private planes before they enter U.S. 

airspace. So we are very tuned in to this. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. If you could just follow-up with written in 

answer to the question is there any kind of a goal over the next 

five or 10 years what percent of ship containers would be checked 

for nuclear devices? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

393 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 542 43385A.279
394 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 543 43385A.280
395 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

CBP SECONDARY INSPECTIONS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Secretary, a recent GAO report stated that Customs and 

Border Protection conduct secondary inspections on 20 percent of 

charter passengers arriving from Cuba at Miami International Airport, more than six times the inspection rate for other international 

arrivals, even from countries considered shipment points for narcotics. 

According to GAO, these inspections, ‘‘have strained CBP’s capacity to carry out its primary mission of keeping terrorists, criminals 

and nondocumented immigrants from entering the country at 

Miami International Airport.’’ Would you agree that for the nation’s 

sake it would be better to follow perhaps suggestions of the report 

for CBP to devote more of its time and energy to keeping terrorists 

and drugs entering the country than searching for cigars from 

Cuba? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not want to get on the subject of cigars. You know, I have not seen the particular report, and I do not 

know the CONOPS for the operational plan that affects the way 

they do secondary inspections. I will be happy to find out about it. 

I mean, I think generally we put people into secondary inspections 

based on the risk. 

Obviously, terrorists are the thing we are most concerned about, 

but any kind of illegal smuggling is something we do have as part 

of our responsibility. As to the specifics of the number or how that 

has been derived, I will have to get back to you on. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. How does CBP determine how many people to put into secondary inspections (based on the risk) relating to charter passengers arriving from Cuba at 

MIA. (‘‘As to the specifics of the number or how that has been derived, I will have 

to get back to you [Mr. Serrano].’’) 

Response. At Miami International Airport (MIA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regularly encounters Cuban nationals arriving on scheduled flights, 

as well as seasonal charters from Havana, Cuba. A significant number of the Cuban 

arrivals at MIA are subject to National Security Entry Exit Registration System 

(NSEERS) registration based solely on Department of State (DOS) lookouts. 

Pursuant to requirements within the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice initiated NSEERS, which requires certain nonimmigrant aliens to register with 

the U.S. Government upon arrival and departure from the United States. Current 

procedures require CBP officers to refer NSEERS registrants for secondary processing upon application for admission to the United States, and require NSEERS 

registrants to report for departure verification and processing upon departure. The 

NSEERS secondary processing requires the collection of biometric and biographic information. Nonimmigrants required to register include citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, 

Sudan and Syria, as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) in the Federal Register; and other who have been designated by 

DOS or DHS in accordance with 8 CFR 264.1(f)(2). 

Mr. SERRANO. I would appreciate that. I would just comment 

that I hope in getting back to us you also keep in mind, and while 

I understand that Homeland Security is a big department and you 

have a huge task in front of you, that we do not allow our war on 

terror to get muddled in this area in our failed policy towards 

Cuba. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

396 

You know, you say to me I do not know some of things that we 

will put in place, and I accept that, but probably it has something 

to do with the fact that it is Miami and that there are some politics 

there that dictate that probably you are under pressure, not you 

personally, but they over at the border there are under pressure to 

do more about people coming from Cuba than any other place. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not want to speculate about it. I mean, 

it may just simply be that history has shown there is a lot of cigars 

being smuggled in. Although I feel quite competent to discuss cigars at length, I think I probably do not want to waste the Committee’s time by doing that, but I will find out what the specific 

CONOPS is. 

Mr. SERRANO. I understand, and understand that this Committee 

would never feel that it is a waste of time to discuss good cigars 

or Mambo CDs or anything like that that we can have invading us 

from Cuba. Baseball players, you know, that kind of thing. The 

New York Times recently ran an item about how CBP is targeting 

Amtrak and Greyhound traffic to passers near the northern border. 

CBP PROCEDURES ON IMMIGRATION STATUS

I understand that this is part of your mandate to inquire into 

anyone’s immigration status within a reasonable distance from any 

external boundary, and that is how it reads. What is the procedure 

your agents follow when they ask people for their papers on the 

train? How do you define a reasonable distance in the case of these 

recent incidents, such as train travel from New York or Chicago? 

Does there have to be a stop within a certain distance of the border or do the tracks merely have to pass within a certain distance? 

Finally, and I know I am giving you a few questions in one here 

because of time constraints, do you know if we have detained people who declared that they were U.S. citizens? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. With respect to the train program, there is 

authority to ask people about their immigration status. There is 

authority both at the border and there are some authorities even 

inside the country. I would not want to in the context of the hearing try to give a definitive answer as to what the legal requirements are, and so I will get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. What are the legal requirements relating to procedures CBP agents 

must follow when they ask people for their papers on a train? (i.e. How does DHS 

define a reasonable distance from an external boundary before it will check for US 

citizenships or travel documents?) 

Response. The authority for Border Patrol agents to board and search passenger 

trains is found in 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3) (INA § 287(a)(3)) which provides: 

Immigration Officers have the authority without a warrant: ‘‘within a reasonable 

distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for 

aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway 

car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle . . .’’ 

In 1957, Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

further defined the statutory limit of ‘‘reasonable’’ as within 100 air miles from the 

border (See 8 C.F.R. 287.1(b)). This regulation permits the expansion of more than 

100 air miles in unusual circumstances by Chief Patrol Agents in conjunction with 

the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Additionally, 8 USC 1225(d)(1), (INA 235(d)1)) confers the authority to board and 

search conveyances. That section confers such power upon immigration officers who 

have reason to believe that aliens are being brought into the United States upon 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

397 

the conveyance to be searched and places no limitation as to the distance between 

the conveyance and the external boundary of the United States. 

The overall goal of the Border Patrol’s National Strategy is to establish and maintain control (Operational Control) of the border using the right combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure. The National Strategy recognizes that control of the border cannot be achieved by merely enforcing at the line and therefore 

includes a substantial defense-in-depth component. Some of our enforcement actions 

will take place away from the physical border, at transportation hubs, interior 

checkpoints, and lateral from these checkpoints. Further, the Strategy contemplates 

denial of transport modes used to move or transit illegal aliens, wherever they are 

located in the United States, in order to interdict illegal migrants before they reach 

their ultimate destinations i the interior of America. 

I am not aware that this program has yielded a situation where 

we have arrested or tried to deport a person who is an American 

citizen. Obviously, when you have the authority to stop and ask 

questions, and the standard for exercising that authority is a very, 

it is a pretty low threshold, you will obviously sometimes find people, you may ask a question, then they will turn out to be American citizens, and that is fine. 

As to whether anybody through this program has been actually 

detained for an extended period, I do not know the answer but I 

will get back to you on it. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Have any Americans been detained for an extended period and if so how 

many? 

Response. Over the past five years, ICE has never knowingly detained an American citizen for an extended period to our knowledge. In 2007, ICE did detain a 

United States citizen who falsely claimed to be a citizen of a foreign country. This 

case involved Thomas Warziniack, who was incarcerated at the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) facility serving a sentence for criminal impersonation 

and possession of a controlled substance. During his interview with ICE officers, Mr. 

Warziniack claimed to be a citizen of Russia, born in St. Petersburg on September 

1, 1960, who last entered the United States in the late 1960’s without permission. 

Mr. Warziniack was placed into ICE detention on December 18, 2007. When he appeared before the immigration judge the following month, he asserted U.S. citizenship, and at a subsequent immigration hearing, he produced a copy of a Minnesota 

birth certificate, which ICE authenticated. ICE thereafter released him immediately 

from detention and asked the judge to dismiss the case without prejudice. 

ICE has taken steps to ensure this does not happen again and is currently reviewing its policies and procedures to determine if even greater safeguards can be put 

in place to prevent the rare instance where this event occurs. 

Mr. SERRANO. Please. I would appreciate it. Just one last comment. They do a pretty good job at Amtrak. I can attest to that. 

I take Amtrak every week, and I travel to New York and New Jersey, members of Congress, and I was the only one who was asked 

for ID seven weeks in a row. Must be my blond mustache. Thank 

you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You are welcome. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Fattah. 

REAL ID

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Secretary, your department just finished with 

the rule on REAL ID. It appears that it would cost states about 

$3.9 billion. This year alone almost $1 billion has been the cost to 

our states on REAL ID. Now, the budget that is being proposed 

has, if you make some assumptions about it, about $150 million for 

REAL ID. 

That is, if states were to use 20 percent of all of their Homeland 

Security grants for REAL ID, you know, you could get to the $150 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

398 

mark, but it is in a budget in which those grants have been cut 

78 percent. So I am trying to figure out whether the states are on 

board in terms of compliance and whether all the states, you know, 

have signed on to an extension of the whole REAL ID effort. 

If you could help the Committee with that, that would be useful. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, with respect to the money, this 

is a dramatic cut in the cost because of some changes we made in 

the rule and response discussions we had with the states. We are 

estimating over about a 10 year period $3.9 billion which comes out 

to about $8 a license. The $1 billion in the first year, I have heard 

that estimate from the states. Frankly, it surprises me. I doubt you 

would need to spend $1 billion. We have also got I think $50 million in the proposed budget for 

CIS to complete the process of a hub that would allow the states 

to do some of the checking that they need to do. All of the states 

have now been granted extensions, at least one with some conditions that the state is committed to doing this year. 

Some states have state laws that prevent compliance with REAL 

ID, but what they have represented to us is that they have on their 

own completed about 90 percent of what they need to get there. So 

obviously that, you know, I think we are well underway with this. 

I know that there is controversy. I know that the governors would 

like to have it fully funded by the Federal Government. 

I think we have dramatically cut the cost, and I think, frankly, 

having a driver’s license that complies with REAL ID will be a benefit to the citizens of the states. So I suspect this debate will be 

ongoing for a while, but I am pleased to say that I think we are 

actually in real life pretty far down the road to being able to get 

these out. 

Mr. FATTAH. I have a question on a different subject, but I do want to just finish this. You said you do not think it will be a $1 

billion in 2008, for instance. Have your people done a cost estimate? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We relied on information provided by the 

states. I cannot dispute it, but I cannot necessarily validate it. I 

think that if the states were to come and say we want to have more 

money, obviously that will have to be supported with a spend plan 

to explain exactly how they would spend the money. 

We got kind of a general figure that the states provided us. I 

think the $3.9 billion I am comfortable with. It is just the $1 billion 

in one year I am not completely sure I can validate. 

Mr. FATTAH. If your offices could provide the Chairman more information on the cost estimates, that might be useful to us. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

399 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 43385A.281
400 

SECURE PASSPORTS

Mr. FATTAH. My second question and my last question has to do 

with the new passports. There seems to be some controversy that 

the firm that has been retained to do I guess this computer chip, 

for lack of a better term, inside the new passports is a nondomestic 

firm and that the work is going to be done in Singapore. 

It just seemed that the production of American passports, the notion that we would be doing that in some place other than the 

United States, especially to the degree that we are doing it, for security purposes, it would seem that we would want to have complete control over the process. So if you could respond to that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. On that one, I will have to actually refer 

the question to the Department of State because it is their contracting and their process. So I think in terms of explaining exactly 

how they are doing it and what the security features are, they are 

probably the better source, but I will convey that. 

Mr. FATTAH. I understood that this was a collaborative effort. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We both have a joint interest in the program, but the actual process of producing passports is a State Department function. 

Mr. FATTAH. So the security features will not—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we have to be satisfied with the security features, but the process of actually assembling and manufacturing is a State Department function, and then they manage the 

contract and they have to actually execute on it. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. I will not belabor, except my understanding is 

that the nature of the security feature is a process out of your shop 

and that it was therefore determined it could not be done domestically, and that is why it is being done by a Dutch firm that is actually contracted in Singapore to get this work done. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think maybe the best way to do this is for 

me to just send you something. Between the Department of State 

and my department, we will answer the question. We will figure 

out a way to. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

401 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 43385A.282
402 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 43385A.283
403 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 43385A.284
404 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. We will look forward to your response to both of Mr. 

Fattah’s questions for the record. 

BORDER FENCE CONSULTATION

Mr. Secretary, I want to turn to the border security fence again 

for structure and technology, BSFIT expenditure plan. Before I do 

that, I want to underscore for just a minute the importance of Mr. 

Rodriguez’s line of questioning about the consultation requirement 

with respect to border infrastructure. 

Mr. Rodriguez cited several examples and can cite several more 

of border communities, various stakeholders, who do not feel that 

the consultation process has been adequate or complete. I gather 

from what you have said you are not necessarily saying that it has 

been, that this is an ongoing process, but I want to just make sure 

of that. 

We do have stakeholders here who should be consulted. Our appropriations bill last year, as you know, required that. So we do 

need perhaps some clarity about how you are defining consultation, 

as required by the law, and to what extent you regard the required 

consultation as completed. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I cannot generalize. I think consultation 

means that we have an obligation to consult with everybody who 

is affected with this. Consultation does not mean that they have to 

sign off on it because some people disagree. 

Mr. PRICE. Nobody is talking about a veto right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the vast majority of the people actually we have contacted have not raised issues about consultation, 

and I think the door is still open to consult. I do know of some instances where people have taken the position that we did not consult and it turns out we have delivered letters, we have asked them 

to call us and they are not responding, and so I consider a consultation to be giving people an opportunity to consult and a reasonable 

consultation. 

As I said, I mean, some people, even now if they want to come 

forward we are willing to listen and consult. I have to balance, 

though, to make sure that it does not become a delaying device. 

BSFIT

Mr. PRICE. All right. Let me turn to the expenditure plan. In the 

case of complex investments, such as the secure border initiative, 

we do require the Department often to provide expenditure plans 

to demonstrate that thought and planning have gone into the proposed use of funds. 

The 2008 Appropriations Act requires your Department to submit a BSFIT expenditure plan that includes, among other things, 

information on the cost of per fencing segment and compares the 

proposed fencing to other means of achieving operational control, 

something quite basic to an investment decision of this magnitude. 

It also requires GAO to review the plan before you can obligate 

$650 million. GAO has reviewed the plan and reports that only half 

of the legislative requirements are fully met. For example, the 

spending plan does not link funding to secure border initiative objectives, does not show how funding is allocated to the highest primstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

405 

ority border security needs, does not include an alternatives analysis and does not include the cost of per fencing segment. 

I hope it is clear that these are not mere quibbles. We are not 

playing gotcha here. We are talking about requirements that have 

substance and have importance. It is an important question, and 

I want to pose it to you today. Why are these elements not included, and what kind of plans do you have to correct these deficiencies? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the report in 

front of me. I am quite confident we can supply all the necessary 

information, but I do not know whether GAO felt what we presented in the document was insufficient, and so I am sure we will, 

as is not uncommon in this case, get back and resolve any outstanding discrepancies. 

I have no doubt, because I have been involved in the process myself to some degree, that there has been careful analysis of the alternatives because the basic principles about where fence makes 

sense are strategic principles that we have testified about here, we 

have discussed at length. 

So I will, you know, make sure that we adequately respond to 

the issues that GAO has raised. I want to, you know, satisfy everybody. I think the material is there. We need to make sure it gets 

properly documented. I do not know, by the way, what the date of 

the GAO report is. 

Mr. PRICE. The GAO report is pending, as I understand it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It has not been—— 

Mr. PRICE. It is not yet in published form, but it is apparently 

ready to bring out. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. All right. Since I have not seen it, it is a 

little hard for me to—— 

Mr. PRICE. That is right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will certainly respond because we have 

done a lot of work in this area, and I want to get the Committee 

what it needs in order to validate this. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. That is very important to us as well. All I 

can say is if this information is readily available it is not available 

in the report, and that is of course what counts. So we need to 

make certain that the requirements have been met. 

Mr. Rogers. 

MURDER OF BORDER PATROL AGENT

Mr. ROGERS. Did I hear you earlier in your testimony, you referred to a border patrol agent that was killed on the border, and 

he was run over apparently by a vehicle. What were the circumstances? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am going to be a little careful because I 

believe we are seeking to extradite the individual who did it who 

was apprehended, by the way, with the cooperation of the Mexicans. So I am going to be a little circumspect, but here is what happened. Recently, there was an agent, Agent Aguilar, who was in position I think in the Yuma sector just on the California side of the 

California, Arizona border. 

They were engaging in an operation to intercept smuggling, and 

a smuggler in a vehicle was trying to run away from the Border 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

406 

Patrol back into Mexico and in an effort to lay down a device they 

put on the road to basically cause punctures in the tire and slow 

down the truck, and also to make sure innocent bystanders were 

not injured, the Border Patrol agent, Agent Aguilar, was run 

over—he was a fairly experienced agent—by the smuggler. 

The smuggler then disappeared into Mexico. The same day I 

spoke to my counterpart, the Mexican Secretary of Public Safety, 

and they immediately began to cooperate with us. They identified 

the individual who is alleged to be the driver, the perpetrator. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the point I wanted to make was if you had 

vehicle barriers in place or the fence in place the officer would not 

have been killed. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe that to be the case. 

Mr. ROGERS. So we are talking about the safety and security of 

a lot of American law enforcement officials, are we not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is absolutely right. 

Mr. ROGERS. Not to mention the civilians on both sides of the 

border. So that is the reason that you are hurrying to build that 

fence, is it not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Exactly. 

Mr. ROGERS. Not to mention the fact that the Congress has said 

build the fence. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is also true. 

Mr. ROGERS. And furnish you the money. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. And enacted laws that allow you to waive certain 

requirements so that you can proceed. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. The Congress can repeal that waiver law, can they 

not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It would be unwise, but you are correct, as 

well. 

Mr. ROGERS. I mean, they can do it. If the Congress has the will 

to stop the fence they can repeal the waiver law. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And that would stop the fence. 

Mr. ROGERS. But in the meantime, as long as that law is there 

you have exercised your rights, we have furnished you the money, 

we have told you to build the fence and it would save lives, so get 

on with it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Which we are doing. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. That sounded like a crescendo. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it was, but you know, Wagner provided several of those. It is sort of like what Mark Twain said about Wagner’s music, it is really better than it sounds. Quickly, TSA budget. 

For years we had a cap of 45,000 FTEs, employees, screeners, for 

the airports. Last year, we took that cap off. Against my vote, but 

nevertheless, we took it off. 

TSA SCREENING STRATEGY

Low and behold, TSA is exceeding that former cap, they are 

above the 45,000, as I figured that they would. Now, there is a reason for that cap, that we put it on at the very outset of that program. It was to try to force the bureaucracy to bring in machinery 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

407 

at airports which can more efficiently and more capably find bad 

things that people are trying to get onto an airplane, screening machines, both for checked baggage and for carry on. 

I have been to many airports, as have you certainly and others 

have, who still have the old sniffer machines in the lobbies of the 

airports getting in the way of people using the lobby, but more importantly, not very efficiently finding bad things. Number two, it is 

very labor intensive. If we would put machines in place of those 

sniffer gizmos we could cut back on the numbers of employees we 

have, get the machinery out of the lobby and more efficiently find 

bad things. 

That was the purpose of the cap, and it worked because for all 

those years we were increasing the numbers of machines in airports and reducing the number of personnel screeners in mediumsmall airports. Now, in the proposed budget not only are we seeing 

a request for monies that would exceed the numbers of employees 

that we formally had limited TSA to, but we are also seeing a decrease in the amount of money requested to put machines in the 

airports. 

So it is a double-edged sword cutting the wrong way, in my judgment, and I wonder what you think about it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we agree that getting the machinery that will give us a better capability is the desired end state. 

I have to say a couple of things, though. I am disappointed to tell 

you that a lot of these machines are not, they do not deliver what 

they promise. We have not yet found a machine I think that has 

really taken us forward in a significant way. 

We are continuing to work with some machines. There are some 

things that we are doing with magnetic waves, for example, that 

are very promising, but they are not there yet. The problem has 

been compounded by the fact, and here I wanted to be careful what 

I say publicly but it is illustrated by the London airline plot, that 

we are now dealing with a wide variety of types of explosives, including liquid explosives, and that has made the technological challenge greater. 

The third point I would make is that part of our decision to increase personnel is that we are changing the mission. We are moving not only from having people sit there with the machines and 

look at the bags, but we are using document checkers and behavioral detection officers, and a big chunk of the money that we are 

asking for in the increase is to promote these alternative programs. 

By way of example on the behavioral detection officers, two 

weeks ago in Orlando Airport one of these officers saw an individual behaving in a suspicious way. Before that individual’s bags 

even entered a screening machine the officer arranged to have the 

individual surveilled, opened up the bags and found in the bags all 

of the components for an explosive device, including liquid explosives, BBs, a pipe and other materials. 

It was not an assembled device, and this is obviously now a 

criminal case so I cannot say very much more about it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, let me interrupt you. I disagree that the machines that are on the market that can be placed in airports are 

inadequate for the purpose. I think they are perfectly adequate. In 

fact, that is why we have them there, and they are working. So the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

408 

machines that can be procured are available, effective and I think 

needed. 

I still say we have too many screeners in the small and medium 

airports working on old swab machines that are labor intensive and 

ineffective. There are machines that can be bought to replace all 

of that, right? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And we are currently testing some of those. 

Mr. ROGERS. But in your budget request it does not reflect that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Part of it is of course this passenger surcharge to allow us to put more machines in. I think the budget request reflects where we want to be, given the existing state of technology, including the technology we are testing. We want to make 

sure before we make a substantial investment in current technology that we can identify emerging technology, put the money 

into that. 

I think a longer discussion would be finding a way to capitalize 

these investments so we do not simply buy machines that get obsolete, which is maybe outside the scope of this. But I think what we 

are doing is taking a balanced approach, both to proceeding with 

acquiring new equipment but also to making sure we are putting 

the personnel in place in a variety of missions, not just swiping, 

that have proven to be very good for security. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

BORDER FENCE CONSULTATION

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I know in earlier 

comments that I made I indicated to you that I had sent you a letter and that I had not received it. I want to personally thank you. 

As of 11:29 a.m. today I received it, so I want to thank you for the 

quick response. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Great. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. One, I want to reemphasize the lack of communication between CBP and local residents. Let me give you an example. In Eagle Pass, Texas, I met with the border patrol and they 

told me they were willing to consider options to do this, about 

building fencing in a floodplain, because that would be wise and 

prudent. 

Then I go to the community, and the community tells me, no, 

they do not want to do that. This is an example of poor communication. 

So I just want you to reach out to the Eagle Pass community because it would be beneficial. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am delighted to hear that. I think, look, 

we are very happy to clear up the misunderstanding. I think our 

model of the best outcome is what happened in Hidalgo County 

where the community, and we, agreed on a solution that achieved 

both of our objectives. That is great. We want to continue to do 

that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know that there are some hearings that are 

scheduled on the border regarding the flood areas. I have one other 

little sector out there that people are concerned about. The river 

creates a situation where we have some pipelines and dikes where 

water flows through there and fencing would impact that area as 

well as the flood plain. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

409 

MURDER OF BORDER PATROL AGENT

Now, I just want to follow-up on one other thing. You mentioned 

the situation with the border patrol agent getting killed. We do not 

want that to occur. Can I just ask you, did that happen at an official crossing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the actual occurrence was on a road 

that was headed into Mexico, but I do not know. I believe, and I 

cannot be sure about this, that was not a road that led across the 

border. It was a road that ran I think parallel to the border where 

this occurred. I do not know exactly how the person fled, but I believe they did not flee through a port of entry, they fled between 

ports of entry. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. My only argument is that for us to get 

smart about that, and if that was at an official crossing then the 

fence would have been helpful, barriers would have been helpful, 

but an official crossing, as you well know, we use other forms of 

items to stop people from crossing illegally. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. No question. When someone 

crosses at an official crossing then we do not build the fence. Obviously, we have other means. Or if somebody crosses between ports 

of entry, a fence and barrier do help. If they cross at a port of entry 

then it does not help. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right, right. What I do not know is how the 

person fled. What I am saying is if you are coming in with a vehicle 

smuggling between the ports of entry, that is what a barrier stops. 

FEMA PREPAREDNESS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, I know one of your agencies, 

FEMA, and I know you inherited a lot of these agencies that had 

problems before. I just want to see if you have any recommendations as to what do we do in the future? You know, regarding experiences associated with Hurricane Katrina. I had a personal situation with a tornado in Eagle Pass, and the town experienced numerous difficulties. 

What do we need to do there in order to be more responsive to 

our constituencies? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I do not know the specific issue in 

Eagle Pass. I have monitored pretty close in the last couple of 

years, talking to the local officials frankly how they feel FEMA’s 

response has been in emergencies, and I have gotten very positive 

responses. In fact, some are pleasantly surprised. Obviously, the 

most well-known is the wildfires in California last year. 

I was out in, I think there were some tornados in Tennessee I 

was at late last year, and the governor told me he was very pleased 

with the response. I recognize sometimes under our standards, depending on the size of the disaster, federal funding may not be 

available, so there is always going to be some level of disappointment if people do not get money from the Federal Government. 

I think the larger lesson is first of all, the importance of planning 

and preparation. 

We have done a lot in that area with respect to not only our own 

components supporting FEMA but with respect to getting DOD, 

which is now much more closely aligned with us. We have gone 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

410 

from what was at the time of Katrina a very, very cumbersome 

process for getting requests satisfied to one now where we have literally hundreds of assignments that are prearranged that we can 

just turn the switch and DOD is there right away with additional 

resources. 

So that is all to the good. We do have some additional challenges, 

particularly in dealing with long-term recovery, in which I think 

we really should ask whether the process of long-term recovery 

maybe belongs in a different agency. And once you get past the 

emergency and you are into years of reconstruction, and this is 

part of the White House Sessions learned report, that is an issue 

we should explore. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for 

your response. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While you are looking at 

that long term recovery, you might look at base closures as being 

a separate entity, too, from the Department of Defense. I will not 

argue that we need entities that really know how to do economic 

development reconstruction. They should not be in emergency response, and they should not be in the Department of Defense. That 

is not a bad idea. 

MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY

As I told you earlier, I am co-chair of the Congressional 

Travelism and Tourism Caucus, and I have some travel and tourism questions. You know, one concern of this caucus is that we 

have the worst entry process for an international citizen to navigate. We are the hardest country to enter. 

In fact, last January, the Sunday Times of London wrote a piece 

entitled, ‘‘Travel to America; No Thanks’’ encouraging Britains not 

to travel to the U.S. to avoid the spirit crushing, frosty reception. 

These negative perceptions have hurt our ability to attract overseas visitors and thereby, are having a negative impact on the California and the U.S. image abroad. 

I know that, following the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, 

Congress put money towards creating these model ports of entry; 

and we have appropriated $40 million to hire 200 new CBP officers 

at our airports. 

The program was to expand beyond the pilot of Washington Dulles/Houston International to the 20 top international inbound airports. Can you tell the committee which of the 20 airports DHS has 

designated as model airports? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it is a joint thing with the State Department. I will have to get back to you on what the next phase 

of this is with respect to the other airports. 

I do know that we have been pursuing the pilot in Houston and 

in Dulles. I know we have been hiring additional border inspectors 

to make sure we have better capability to deal with the flow. 

We have also talked about some other measures we might try to 

make the experience more pleasant, recognizing that we have actually seen, I think, a steady increase in the number of travelers. 

Sometimes these news articles in the foreign papers, you know, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

411 

they have got their own motives for writing them. But I will get 

back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Please provide what the next phase for creating model ports of entry, 

particularly with respect of our airports. 

Response. The following 20 airports have been designated as Model Ports: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago (O’Hare), Dallas/Ft. Worth, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, JFK, Las Vegas, Miami, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, 

San Francisco, San Juan, Sanford, Seattle and Washington-Dulles. 

Through our pilot Model Ports at Houston and Washington-Dulles, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) has implemented a number of measures to make the 

entry process more streamlined, user-friendly and understandable. Model Ports include improved signage and a new CBP video that contains practical information 

about the entry process including how to complete entry documents. It is broadcast 

to arriving travelers in English, French, German and Spanish. In addtion, CBP is 

researching additional languages to further accommodate international travelers. A 

new ‘‘Welcome to the U.S.’’ brochure has been published to further explain entry requirements for international visitors. 

CBP is working in partnership with airport authorities, airlines and the travel industry to identify wasy to more efficiently move people throught the entry process. 

This includes measuring customer satisfaction (surveys), wait times and processing 

times. CBP is updating its annual professionalism training, and is working on professionalism training for new CBP officers upon their return from the CBP Academy. In addition, CBP is developing Customer Service Standards for all CBP officers 

that cover areas including phone etiquette and greeting passengers. CBP has allocated funding for a recognition program to reward employees who demonstrate daily 

acts of professionalism. Passenger Service Managers (PSM), the public’s single point 

of contact for passenger service issues, will be found at Model Ports beginning in 

the summer of 2008. PSMs were designated at the 20 Model Ports in April 2008, 

and will be trained at the end of June 2008 in Washington, DC. 

The Global Entry trusted traveler program will allow for expedited CBP clearance 

of preapproved low-risk air travelers and will be piloted at the John F. Kennedy 

International Airport, Houston-George Bush Intercontinental Airport and the Washington-Dulles International Airport in June 2008. CBP began accepting applications 

for the program on May 12, 2008, and began interviews at CBP’s Trusted Traveler 

Programs Enrollment Centers on May 28, 2008. 

Mr. FARR. Well, we have a lot of dignitaries visiting us, and we 

have had comments from parliamentarians of other countries about 

how difficult it is to enter this country. So there are anecdotal stories heard here on the Hill quite often. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know it is a challenge. It is a mixed challenge. Some of it is the architecture of the airports themselves. 

There are things we can do. I have talked to the Commissioner 

about the need to make sure that people are being polite, and that 

we are fully manning the lanes when we have busy times. 

We are discussing some other things we might do to actually 

make the experience a little bit more tolerable. So we are definitely 

pursuing this, and I will get back to you on the additional airports. 

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. The Visa Waiver Program, you have really worked 

with the State Department and others to get this program up and 

going again. Do you expect that the memorandum of understanding 

on the Visa Waiver Program will be signed next week with South 

Korea? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think we have a plan for South 

Korea next week. I know we signed a number of agreements with 

Eastern European countries. We are working with South Korea. I 

do not have a date when it is going to be signed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

412 

I should caution that under the statute, the signing of the agreement is an important step, but it does not complete the process. 

There are other things that have to happen. 

Mr. FARR. Yes, I understand. I have some questions about Chile, 

Brazil, and Taiwan, but I will wait for another round. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you; Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, do you want to discuss some Presidential politics? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Actually, no. 

ADMINISTRATION TRANSITION

Mr. SERRANO. I am only kidding. But let us discuss Presidential 

transition. The department will undergo its first transition next 

January; and if there is a department that has to be able to have 

a smooth transition, it has to be your department. 

I am concerned especially about the political appointees who 

have knowledge in the great work that they do for the agency. Is 

the agency ready to deal with this, and have you entertained the 

possibility of once we know who the nominees are—Republicans 

know who the nominees are, but we are still trying to figure it 

out—you know, meeting with them; again, I repeat, if there is ever 

an agency that needs to keep the nominees up to date, even before 

the election. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely; let me say that I fully agree 

with you. Starting back some months ago, we identified the issue 

of a smooth transition as a critical thing we had to do this year, 

because we are a new department and because experience shows, 

not in this country but in other countries, that sometimes people 

will try to exploit a transition in order to carry out an attack. 

So let me give you some idea of what we have done. We have 

built a succession plan that puts into place at every significant 

component an experienced career person to step in and take the 

acting leadership of the component, once the political appointees 

leave. 

That means that even as the new President is populating the Department with his or her folks, there will be somebody there, and 

there will be somebody there afterwards. Because we have generally tried to get the number two and number three spot in each 

of the components to be the career spot. We have tried to really increase the number of high level career spots. 

Secondly, we have tried to reduce to writing a lot of the doctrine 

and policy we have developed over time; and we have worked with 

the Council for Excellence in Government and the National Association of Public Administration to actually put together good transition plans. 

One of these I have said I would like to do, once we have candidates identified, is not only meet with them but encourage them 

with the Homeland Security people who are working with them, 

not only to become informed about what we are doing; but actually 

after the election to participate in a tabletop exercise. 

So hopefully the people who would have the responsibility on 

January 20th or 21st of next year would at least have seen, in a 

simulated way, what it is that they might be facing as early as the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

413 

next day. So we have all of that underway in accordance with the 

plan, and I have my deputies personally supervising that. 

The last element of this which I will encourage the Senate to 

do—and I know the House cannot do much about it—is to act 

promptly on the next President’s nominees. I was in office at the 

Department of Justice on 9/11. But there were not many of us who 

have been through the confirmation process. It certainly was not a 

good situation to be in. We should not be there again. 

Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for that answer. It seems to me, from 

what I hear, that there is something in place, and something very 

good in place. 

You know, you wonder, at times, if during a transition, our enemies may think that we are not together; we are not in place, if 

you will. 

I often wonder why no one wrote about the fact that September 

11th in New York was primary day. You know, one target was the 

Executive or Legislative Branch, which never took place. One target was the financial center. That was New York City. Then there 

was the Pentagon, the military target. 

Well, one thing that one wrote about was that they also disrupted on that day our electoral process. Because we had a serious 

election going on, and that was stopped about 11:00 a.m., and then 

re-run two weeks later. Every police officer in New York was at the 

polls that day, as you know; not that that would have probably 

made a difference. But I am glad to hear that you have got things 

in place to deal with that; thank you. 

DHS HUMAN CAPITAL

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we will undertake a final 

round of questioning. I believe we have time to do that before a 

vote, which will be called a little after 1:00. 

I am going to pick up on Mr. Serrano’s theme of transition in a 

couple of respects. First, with regard to political appointees and the 

practice that sometimes takes place, prior to changes in Presidential Administrations, where political appointees will burrow in, 

so to speak. In fact, there is a term called burrowing in or 

transitioning from an appointed person to a civil position within 

agencies. 

We understand that at least one former TSA political appointee 

has now been non-competitively appointed to a career position in 

DHS. That seems to be a clear case of burrowing in. I wonder if 

there are more cases like that, that you know of or can anticipate? 

Then more broadly speaking, I am aware you have signed an 

interchange agreement to ‘‘facilitate the movement of TSA employees into competitive civil service positions.’’ 

Under this interchange agreement, a TSA employee who was not 

competitively selected can move into a civil service position at another Federal agency after one year, without being competitively 

selected for that position. 

So I wonder how many people might be involved in this kind of 

transition. From the data given to us by TSA, there are several 

thousand TSA employees who were not competitively hired. But 

they are eligible to be non-competitively selected for career slots at 

other Federal agencies. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

414 

That, of course, is not desirable; or would not seem to be desirable. I doubt it is what you are aiming to achieve. So I wonder if 

you would consider, would you support a change in this policy to 

make it only apply to employees who began working at TSA after 

a competitive selection; or who were transferred from other Federal 

agencies to TSA, after having been competitively selected at their 

original agency? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the reason 

there was originally a lot of non-competitive hires is that as they 

were standing up, a lot of people went very quickly for TSA. Then 

there were transfers, because you would move to DHS. 

I would have to reflect on that, to be honest. I do not know what 

the numbers are or what the statistics are, what the composition 

is of those people who became non-competitively selected to TSA 

when it was first stood up. Many of them did come from other 

agencies, where they had originally been competitively selected. So 

I would have to look at that issue. 

On the issue of so-called burrowing, I do not know the particular 

individual you are talking about. There is no concerted policy to 

move people who are political appointees into career slots; nor am 

I aware of any great interest in those people doing that, and I have 

not heard a great expression of interest. 

What we have done is moving the career people into high ranking slots. As we have taken people who are long time career civil 

servants in the agency, and we have promoted them and moved 

them up, I think that is a positive thing to do. 

You know, our nominee for the Under Secretary for Management, who is currently Deputy Under Secretary Elaine Duke, I 

think, is a career civil servant with many, many years of experience. 

So we are committed to populating the leadership, you know, as 

appropriate, with career civil servants. On this particular issue of 

TSA, I will have to look at it. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I think on the ‘‘burrowing in’’ question, I trust 

our disposition is clear; or at least my dispositions are clear. 

On the other question, I understand that TSA employees were 

hired under special circumstances. By the same token, this should 

not become a reason for bypassing competitive hiring or the normal 

civil service procedures. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say one thing. In general, we do 

want to encourage people in DHS to have experience in multiple 

components. This is kind of the equivalent of what DOD now does 

under the Goldwater-Nichols Act. 

So on the one hand, I am going to want to make sure that we 

are continuing to make the career paths for people who are committed to being career employees; and not only a track path for 

them, but one that broadens their experience in the Department. 

So we achieve the kind of joint capabilities that we now have in 

DOD. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, well, we will look forward to your reflections 

on this, and your advice as to what ways this policy might be adjusted. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

415 

CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVAL

Let me finally ask you about a matter of some importance to this 

committee. It is something that I think, if it is done right, it can 

count as a major cooperative achievement. 

Our Appropriations bill last year provided $200 million for ICE 

to make sure that it was identifying and removing all criminal 

aliens held in penal custody in the United States and who are 

judged deportable. 

We also required ICE to submit a plan for how this money would 

be used. We got the first draft of that plan from ICE two weeks 

ago. Just yesterday, we received a revised plan addressing the concerns that we had had with the first draft. I am sure you are aware 

of this. 

We are pleased that ICE is working with us on this issue, since 

we believe it ought to be a priority for the agency to remove every 

deportable individual who has been convicted of a serious crime. 

Whatever other debates we might have about immigration policy, 

surely this we could agree on. We made a $200 million appropriation, a downpayment on doing this. 

Now there still are some questions, as I indicated in my opening 

statement, about where this ranks among your department’s immigration enforcement priorities. Work site enforcement increased by 

856 percent since 2003. But the removal of criminal aliens has increased by only 16 percent over the same period. 

So I wonder, first of all, if you share my concerns about criminal 

aliens avoiding deportation; and then I am interested, of course, in 

the implementation of the plan that we are discussing. 

The plan that DHS submitted spreads the $200 million over the 

next two years, with only $25 million used this year for IT investments mainly, and then $175 million in 2009 on actual removal efforts. 

Now the plan estimates it is going to cost upwards of $2 billion 

to $3 billion annually to identify and remove every criminal alien. 

So it is not clear, on the face of it, why more funding has not been 

requested in 2009 to accelerate this initiative. The ICE plan estimates it will take three and-a-half years to remove just the most 

violent criminal aliens in custody; those convicted of crimes like 

murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault—three anda-half years. 

Do you really believe we should wait that long? How long is it 

going to take before the department can guarantee that every alien 

convicted of crimes and judged deportable is removed? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think first just let me just put it in 

perspective. We appreciate the $200 million. We have requested in 

the budget over and above that in 2009, $189 million. That would 

be additional, and that is about $10 million more than was enacted 

in 2008 and about $50 million more than was enacted in 2007. So 

we are on the upswing. 

With respect to the CAP program, my statistics tell me that in 

fiscal year 2006, we removed 67,000 people. Last year, we removed 

164,000 people. That is a huge increase. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

416 

To date, and we are now, I guess, only about part way through 

the fiscal year, we are at 91,000 which is already more than all we 

did in 2006. 

The constraint here will be the following, and I think the plan 

makes it clear we want to prioritize: We will need to have an IT 

capability that networks us not only with the federal prisons and 

the state prisons, but with the county correctional institutions all 

over the country. 

As that capability gets built, and part of that will be the operational procedures that the individual states and localities put into 

effect to implement their side of this—as that gets built out, we 

will then have more and more people to deport, and that will result 

obviously in increased expenses. 

So I think that the idea is to scale this up, but to scale it up in 

a way that matches what we envision participation in the program 

to be as we roll it out, and as we engage more and more of the 

state and local correctional authorities in this process. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we are talking here though about actual deportation. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Mr. PRICE. There is no question the IT piece is important. But 

your own plan estimates it is going to cost $2 billion to $3 billion 

to identify and remove these criminal aliens. The 2009 money that 

we provided does not approach that. 

This three-and-a-half year timeframe for the most dangerous 

criminals seems fairly relaxed. So I just do not understand the absence of a request in 2009 to get going on this. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think our priority is, first of all, to start 

with the most dangerous criminals and work our way down to the 

least dangerous. 

The second reason: As I said, I think given the fact that we are 

almost halfway through or maybe actually halfway through this fiscal year, and given the money that already has been given to us 

by the appropriations, we have got no wait; plus, the money we are 

asking for, which is an increase, I think we are in good shape to 

get where we need to in an expanded fashion. 

If it should turn out in 2009 that we need more money, because 

we can do it more quickly, and some of this depends upon cooperation with our partners, then I am sure we can re-visit this; because 

I think we all want to get to the same place. 

We are just trying to balance what we think is a reasonable drive 

path to getting there with all of the other things we are trying to 

accomplish. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will want to work with you as we write the 

bill. Mr. Rogers. 

DHS 5TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we took a break awhile ago to go vote on the 

Floor, and one of the things we voted on was to congratulate the 

department on its fifth anniversary. I am happy to tell you, it carried. It was a little bit like the Senator who was ill at home and 

was sent a get well card by his committee, and was informed that 

it carried eight to seven. [Laughter.] 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I hope we did a little better than that. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

417 

PROGRESS AT DHS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you did. I think there were two or three dissenting votes. But I wanted to use that to close out my part of the 

questioning here, and give you a chance to tell us, to reflect a bit, 

philosophically, on your tenure, where you started and where you 

are, and where you hope to go before you leave here. How have you 

done so far, do you think? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You know, I used the fifth anniversary as 

an opportunity to reflect on that a little bit, too. I think that, first 

of all, looking back in the three years I have had and then where 

the Department began under Tom Ridge, I am remarkably grateful 

to the people of the Department for the job they have done in a 

very short period of time, creating a much more mature department. I think you remember at the time you were Chairman, we 

could barely get responses in on reports and letters. 

Mr. ROGERS. I remember that very well. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that is really largely turned around. 

It is emblematic of the fact that we now have management tools, 

including metrics reporting and planning that are, I think, equal 

to that of most departments, and that is a very long distance in 

terms of our operations. 

I think it is not an accident that we have not had a successful 

attack in this country since 9/11. It is certainly not only DHS. A 

credit for that is shared, not only across the Federal Government, 

but with state government and with some of our foreign partners, 

as well. 

But it reflects that it is much tougher to get into our ports of 

entry now if you are using phony documents, because of the measures we have put in place. It is tougher to smuggle things in the 

ports, because of the measures we have put in place. 

We have planning and infrastructure protection now, which we 

only dreamed about having, some years back. We have got a degree 

of international cooperation on information sharing that was just 

a glimmer in our eye when I came on board three years ago. 

These are all, I think, really positive developments that give me 

the confidence that if we keep doing what we are doing and keep 

challenging ourselves, we will stay ahead of the enemy. 

FUTURE CHALLENGES

What are the things we need to continue to do? I think we need 

to continue to build standards for identity and identification documents at the border and for people who want to get on airplanes. 

We are on track to do that. But there are some people who think 

it is going to be inconvenient or bad for business. If those who want 

to stop making progress prevail, we will then find ourselves slipping backwards. 

I think we need to continue to work with FEMA, to particularly 

get them focused on the issue of emergency management. As I said 

a little bit earlier to Congressman Rodriguez, in terms of planning 

and capability for emergencies, FEMA is light years ahead of 

where I found it when I came on board shortly before Hurricane 

Katrina. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

418 

But I will also tell you that the burdens that have been placed 

on the agency have expanded dramatically to include major reconstruction efforts, including efforts that may be years ultimately before they are concluded; efforts that require sophisticated case 

management; communities that are in distress, require a lot of 

medical attention, and require essentially urban redevelopment. 

I am taking the somewhat uncharacteristic position of a cabinet 

secretary in suggesting that some portion of the domain in my department maybe does belong in another department. 

This was an issue which Fran Townsend put in her White House 

lessons learned from Katrina; once the emergency was over, and 

once we have dealt with the urgency of action, in those rare occasions when we are re-constructing a city or re-constructing part of 

a city, and we are talking about re-developing housing, re-developing medical capabilities, and case management for people who 

have a whole lot of problems apart from the disaster. 

There may be other parts of the Government that are better 

equipped, through the capabilities of the people and the capabilities 

of the Department itself, to take a hand-off of that and continue 

to move it forward. 

I guess I would say the final issue was this. I know there are 

some people who believe that to talk about terrorism and to talk 

about the threats we face, which I think are just Al Qaeda; but 

they are Hezbollah. It is international organized crime. It is what 

is going on in South America with the FARC, and what Venezuela 

is doing to kind of enable the FARC. 

All of these things—I do not think talking about these things is 

fear mongering. I think the press reporting of what is going on in 

London, the trial that is revealing what occurred in August of 

2006, is a very vivid recollection of what we are facing. 

That does not mean I suggest we need to be hysterical. I think 

that the country should have a calm and deliberate, but nevertheless serious, attitude about these threats. I know this committee 

takes that view. 

I think as long as we continue to be transparent about the 

threats we face, disciplined about using risk as a way of addressing 

those threats, I think we will be in a very good place over the next 

five years. 

But if we allow ourselves to get distracted, or allow ourselves to 

get exhausted by thinking about this, which I know the members 

of this committee will not do, then I think I would hate to see us 

in another five years, being in a place where there is another 9/ 

11 Commission, and everybody says, why did the Government lose 

its focus after the terrible events of 9/11 and everything that has 

happened in the world since then? 

So I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to kind of sum 

up, and once again, to really thank this subcommittee. I think the 

American public, if they knew not only just the public interchange, 

but the private interchange we have had on these issues, we would 

feel very good about the Government. 

We do not always agree. But I have never left a discussion or 

meeting without feeling that it has helped me understand better 

what I need to do, and I hope I have been able to convey the same 

to you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

419 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that summary. 

That was enlightening. 

Reflecting back to actually before there was a department, when 

Tom Ridge was the White House Advisor to the President on Internal Security, and we were trying to debate about whether or not 

to create a new department and, if so, what would be in it, or 

would it be better to do some other way to get at homeland security; those discussions from that point on until this moment were 

dealing with things we had never done before as a nation. We have 

never had to protect our bridges and tunnels and nuclear power 

plants and cyberspace and so forth, because there was no threat to 

us. Yet, now we find all of those things threatened, plus a lot more. 

So you have been a pioneer. You have occupied that chair at the 

department much longer than anyone else has, and you have 

brought it a long way. It has been a really tough chore. We understand that; 22 agencies that had to be uprooted from their former 

location and thrown together under one umbrella, and get along 

and organize and be a machine. 

That has been an extremely struggle. You have got 204,000 or 

so employees now. But you have had to plow new ground and do 

things that we had never done before, and put some sort of policy 

behind that and make it work. This subcommittee has been having 

to do the same thing. We were plowing new ground up here, as 

well, trying to run things. 

So I want to congratulate you on the department’s five years of 

life, and your third year, more or less, as the head of that agency; 

and say that we have disagreed many times along the way. We 

have agreed most of the time along the way. But I do think that 

the department is functioning a heck of a lot more smoothly than 

it was a year or two ago, when we were hammering you for reports 

and threatening you with everything, almost to the day. 

So congratulations on bringing us this far, and I want to wish 

you good luck for the remainder of your tenure and your life. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And I appreciate the privilege of working 

with you. I know we will continue to work together informally, and 

I look forward to continuing to see you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for that statement, and you, 

too, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Farr. 

U.S.-VISIT EXIT RULE

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congress mandated that by June 30th, 2009, the Department of 

Homeland Security would collect departure information on all 

international visitors, using a biometrics program. 

U.S. Visit announced several months ago that it intends to issue 

a proposed rule outlining its plan to collect the biometric exit information, but no such rule has been published in the Federal Register. Could you find out when they are going to do that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will be happy to answer that. This is 

going to come out very shortly. I want to be very clear. We are very 

strongly committed to getting this done, and it can be done as of 

2009. But I am going to make a prediction to you. The airlines will 

go ballistic over this. I am sure you felt it on Capitol Hill. They 

have been very vocal in opposing this biometric exit rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

420 

[The information follows:] 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is establishing biometric exit procedures under which most non-U.S. citizens who currently provide biometrics upon entering the United States will also provide digital fingerscans before leaving the 

United States by air or sea. 

On April 24, 2008, DHS took a significant step toward implementation of biometric exit procedures by publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register. This began a 60-day public comment period. DHS welcomes feedback on 

this proposed regulation so that formal comments can be considered in the rulemaking process. 

Following the public comment period and a comprehensive review, DHS will publish a final rule outlining the new requirements and the date on which they will 

take effect. 

Mr. FARR. Opposing any effort to force them to collecting the 

data? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, it is not only that. But they oppose 

it because they feel that anything that slows the flow of people in 

the airport, like by making them spend five seconds putting their 

fingerprint on a machine, is bad for their business. 

This is going to be an area where I am going to argue vigorously 

that while we may be prepared to entertain different models for 

achieving this, I do not think we should compromise on the end result. We have the capability under current technology to capture 

the biometric fingerprint of everybody who leaves through an airport. If we have the willpower to do it, it will get done, and I am 

committed to doing that. 

Mr. FARR. Okay, as long as everything works. It is when it does 

not work that—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you it works coming in, because 

U.S. entry works terrifically. So this is an area where it has proven 

itself and I do not think we have to speculate. I am committed to 

moving it forward. The rule will come out very soon. 

TRAINING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

Mr. FARR. I want to follow up on what Mr. Rogers was asking, 

and also what Ms. Kilpatrick indicated. I am very pleased with the 

work you have done with the Naval Postgraduate School in setting 

up a Master’s degree program in Homeland Security for the nation. 

I represent Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. We have had 

seven or eight Presidentially-declared natural disasters. So all the 

issues and all the discussion is all about first responders. 

The reports to this committee last year was that first responders 

are first responders, whether it is to a natural disaster or to a terrorist disaster; and that you really have to have the local infrastructure so that first responders are well trained. 

So much of the discussion about Homeland Security has just 

been about almost 100 percent focused on terrorism, and so little 

discussion or dialogue about really what, as Ms. Kilpatrick points 

out, are threats to hometown security. 

GANG VIOLENCE

One of the issues that I think ought to be included in your department is gang violence. In some areas, it is increasing at a staggering rate. In many instances, it is transnational gangs involved 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

421 

in drugs, smuggling, and so on. This is a significant Hometown Security threat. 

OPERATIONAL COORDINATION

Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation released an in depth report indicating that within your 

office, you disbanded the operational integration staff that once existed. Sort of as the Joint Staff helps provide integration among the 

military services in DoD, an equivalent organization, modified to 

meet the unique challenges of DHS could be equally valuable for 

providing centralized guidance on strategic priorities, planning, 

and operational development across the DHS agencies. Do you 

have any views on that recommendation? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, I strongly support and we are implementing the idea of having an increased and enhanced operations 

coordinations staff. With the military, we call it J–3 and J–5 combined. 

This is something that is not only useful in our own department 

for joint planning, but useful at the federal level on an inter-agency 

basis for joint operations. 

We used exactly this during the wildfires last year in California 

to help us integrate with the Interior Department, the Agriculture 

Department, which had the fire fighting assets; and then FEMA, 

which had the response assets. 

Mr. FARR. But so much of that also is driven by the capability 

of on-ground. You could not find a better first responders than the 

California rural wildland fire responders. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. I mean they are the experts. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. They are outstanding. So it was a happy 

marriage between federal coordination and a well coordinated state 

response. 

Where this has to go is, not only do we have to therefore continue to build our plans, we have a series of plans at the federal 

level for kind of the 15 major types of catastrophes including, I 

fully agree, natural disasters and not just terrorism. But we have 

got to continue to work with the states so that their plans are integrated with ours. 

California happens to be kind of at the leading edge of doing that 

kind of work with us. Florida is very good, as well. New York is 

very good. There are other states that we need to help a little bit 

more. 

But I think I totally agree with that vision. In addition to which, 

I completely agree and I am going to try to make the point this 

year publicly that while terrorism is our number one focus, it is not 

our only focus. We are an all-hazards agency, and we need to be 

able to look beyond just the threat of the moment to the threat of 

the next year or the next decade and even the next century. 

That includes trans-national organized crime gangs. I mean, we 

are not police, but part of our border strategy and our outreach has 

to be to focus on MS–13. You know, these gangs are criminal now. 

But if you look at the FARC, it is easy to see how they could migrate into becoming more than criminal. They could become ideological. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

422 

That is why I think it is exactly right that we be looking, you 

know, obviously at this year, but really five years out. I think that 

things you have highlighted are just dead right in terms of where 

we have to be headed. 

Mr. FARR. I hope you will continue to support or sustain those 

investments you have made in the educational studies that created 

the California Homeland Security Consortium. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will. I think that is very important, 

building a framework for what we are doing. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you; thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Farr. Mr. Serrano. 

VENEZUELA AND THE FARC

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you; I would just like to make a statement, 

based on a comment you made. But first, let me tell you that I join 

the other members in thanking you for your service. 

I am not saying goodbye to you, because we do not know who is 

going to be President, and that person may ask you to stay on. 

Both parties have candidates running who say they are bipartisan 

in nature, and no one has ever asked you if you are a Democrat 

or a Republican. That is not important to me. 

I sat on the committee for many years since its inception and 

saw you answer some tough questions. We have not always disagreed, but I have a lot of respect for your service and for the great 

work you have done in most of the areas which we agreed on. It 

was only that immigration part that was given to your agency that 

we had problems with. I do not know why they gave it to you. But 

sometimes I think it is better now than when it was by itself. 

But you did make a comment that I think, just for the general 

debate and for information, it reminds me of something. When 

Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers was my 

Chairman and I was Ranking Member, on the last day, she still did 

not tell me that there was anything wrong with our Cuba policy. 

The next day that she left the State Department, the first statement that she made was that our Cuba policy was all wrong. 

You said what Venezuela is doing with the FARC. I have an advantage over some folks, and that is that I buy a cable package in 

New York that allows me to see stations in Latin America in real 

time. They are not state-owned stations. For the most part, these 

are stations that attack Bolivia and Korea and Morales and Chavez 

and so on. 

But they also tell me how they feel about us. Their sense was 

that Chavez was negotiating with the FARC as only he could have, 

to a point where some folks in this country and a lot of folks in 

Miami, anti-Castro folks in Miami were nervous that he might run 

away with the Nobel Peace Prize. 

So Areva put a stop to those negotiations where the FARC was 

considering releasing all the hostages and becoming a political 

party. Somebody had to screw that party up. 

I think if we continue to demonize people that are elected to public office that we do not like, it is not going to make our situation 

better. 

Now I will make probably the wildest statement of it all. If we 

continue to make political life miserable for leaders in Latin Amermstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

423 

ica and we, in fact, accomplish disrupting their governments, the 

panic in those countries would only mean people fleeing north. If 

you think you have an immigration issue today, just think of what 

happens if Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, and others where 

we do not like the leadership, run into turmoil. 

So I am not here promoting Mr. Chavez or Mr. Morales. But they 

are not accidents of history, Mr. Secretary. They are the result of 

a couple hundred years of suffering by a lot of people. 

That is why, on the other hand, Secretary Powell, on his last day 

before our committee, he told both Mr. Rogers and I, this country 

has to get used to one thing; that in Latin America, people are 

electing more people who look like themselves. In the process, they 

come with an agenda that may sound anti-American. But it is pronative people and people of color. Thank you for your service. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. I guess 

the only thing I will say on the comment I made is, there is a New 

York Times piece that ran in the last couple of weeks that laid out 

some of those issues of the relationship between Chavez and the 

FARC. The Times article speaks for itself. 

U.S. RELATIONS WITH LATIN AMERICA

I do agree with you about one thing. I have tried to do this, and 

we have talked about it a little bit with Mexico. Many people think 

that our focus in this department is only on the Middle East and 

what is going on in South Asia. We have an equal focus with what 

is going on in Latin America. That is not because we want everybody in Latin America to agree with whatever the United States 

does. That is not realistic for a whole lot of reasons. 

But a healthy Latin America is good for the United States. Because among other things, it is the best incentive for people not to 

come in illegally. What is very important is that we be engaged 

with Latin America in a constructive way. 

You know, our closest obvious neighbor in this respect is Mexico. 

But we are also working with Central American countries to try to 

help them, for example, with their governance. I mean, they face 

MS–13, as well. In a small country, MS–13 is a much more powerful problem than it is in a big country. 

So I look forward to continuing to work during my time here on 

a strategy for strengthening the rule of law of Latin America, 

strengthening the economics of Latin America, strengthening our 

friends in Latin America and, you know, accepting disagreement, 

as long as that disagreement does not turn into some kind of effort 

to actually injure Americans. 

Mr. SERRANO. I understand; and very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in 

finishing up, a healthy Latin America is one where my country, 

this country, has to understand that if you elect people who have 

never been elected before, coming from communities that have 

never been elected before, you have to understand that their rhetoric, their approach, is going to be different. 

Hugo Chavez did not have a pair of shoes until he was 13 years 

old. He has dark skin and curly hair. That is not the kind of leader 

they used to elect in Venezuela. He comes with an agenda that is 

more dramatic. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

424 

Morales is the first Indian elected in a country that is 90-something percent Indian. His agenda cannot be the same as in the 

past. 

We need to understand that; and our bottom line should be, you 

got elected. You did not take over by power. You got elected. Let 

me talk to you before I try to overthrow you. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, we will conclude, again with our thanks, 

Mr. Secretary. The subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

425 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 608 43385A.285
426 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 609 43385A.286
427 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 610 43385A.287
428 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 611 43385A.288
429 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 43385A.289
430 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 43385A.290
431 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 43385A.291
432 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 43385A.292
433 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 43385A.293
434 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 43385A.294
435 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 43385A.295
436 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 43385A.296
437 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 43385A.297
438 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 43385A.298
439 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 43385A.299
440 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 623 43385A.300
441 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 624 43385A.301
442 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 625 43385A.302
443 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 43385A.303
444 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 43385A.304
445 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 628 43385A.305
446 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 629 43385A.306
447 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 630 43385A.307
448 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 631 43385A.308
449 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 632 43385A.309
450 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 43385A.310
451 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 43385A.311
452 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 43385A.312
453 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 43385A.313
454 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 637 43385A.314
455 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 638 43385A.315
456 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 639 43385A.316
457 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 43385A.317
458 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 43385A.318
459 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 43385A.319
460 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 43385A.320
461 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 43385A.321
462 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 43385A.322
463 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 43385A.323
464 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 43385A.324
465 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 648 43385A.325
466 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 649 43385A.326
467 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 650 43385A.327
468 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 43385A.328
469 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 43385A.329
470 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 43385A.330
471 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 43385A.331
472 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 43385A.332
473 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 43385A.333
474 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 43385A.334
475 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 43385A.335
476 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 43385A.336
477 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 43385A.337
478 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 43385A.338
479 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 662 43385A.339
480 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 43385A.340
481 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 43385A.341
482 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 43385A.342
483 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 43385A.343
484 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 43385A.344
485 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 43385A.345
486 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 43385A.346
487 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 43385A.347
488 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 43385A.348
489 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 43385A.349
490 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 43385A.350
491 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 43385A.351
492 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 675 43385A.352
493 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 43385A.353
494 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 43385A.354
495 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 43385A.355
496 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 43385A.356
497 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 43385A.357
498 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 43385A.358
499 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 43385A.359
500 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 43385A.360
501 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 43385A.361
502 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 43385A.362
503 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 43385A.363
504 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 43385A.364
505 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 43385A.365
506 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 43385A.366
507 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 43385A.367
508 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 43385A.368
509 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 43385A.369
510 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 43385A.370
511 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 43385A.371
512 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 43385A.372
513 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 43385A.373
514 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 43385A.374
515 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 43385A.375
516 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 43385A.376
517 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 43385A.377
518 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 43385A.378
519 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 702 43385A.379
520 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 703 43385A.380
521 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 704 43385A.381
522 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 43385A.382
523 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 43385A.383
524 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 43385A.384
525 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 43385A.385
526 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 43385A.386
527 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 43385A.387
528 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 43385A.388
529 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 43385A.389
530 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 43385A.390
531 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 43385A.391
532 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 43385A.392
533 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 43385A.393
534 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 43385A.394
535 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 43385A.395
536 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 719 43385A.396
537 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 720 43385A.397
538 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 721 43385A.398
539 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 722 43385A.399
540 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 723 43385A.400
541 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 724 43385A.401
542 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 43385A.402
543 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 43385A.403
544 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 43385A.404
545 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 43385A.405
546 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 43385A.406
547 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 43385A.407
548 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 43385A.408
549 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 43385A.409
550 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 43385A.410
551 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 43385A.411
552 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 43385A.412
553 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 43385A.413
554 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 43385A.414
555 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 43385A.415
556 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 43385A.416
557 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 43385A.417
558 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 43385A.418
559 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 43385A.419
560 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 43385A.420
561 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 43385A.421
562 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 43385A.422
563 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 43385A.423
564 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 43385A.424
565 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 43385A.425
566 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 43385A.426
567 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 43385A.427
568 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 43385A.428
569 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 43385A.429
570 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 43385A.430
571 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 43385A.431
572 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 43385A.432
573 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 43385A.433
574 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 43385A.434
575 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 43385A.435
576 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 43385A.436
577 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 43385A.437
578 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 43385A.438
579 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 43385A.439
580 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 43385A.440
581 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 43385A.441
582 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 43385A.442
583 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 43385A.443
584 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 43385A.444
585 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 43385A.445
586 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 43385A.446
587 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 43385A.447
588 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 43385A.448
589 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 43385A.449
590 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 43385A.450
591 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 43385A.451
592 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 43385A.452
593 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 43385A.453
594 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 43385A.454
595 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 43385A.455
596 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 43385A.456
597 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 43385A.457
598 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 43385A.458
599 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 43385A.459
600 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 43385A.460
601 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 43385A.461
602 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 43385A.462
603 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 43385A.463
604 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 43385A.464
605 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 43385A.465
606 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 789 43385A.466
607 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 790 43385A.467
608 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 791 43385A.468
609 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 792 43385A.469
610 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 793 43385A.470
611 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 794 43385A.471
612 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 795 43385A.472
613 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 796 43385A.473
614 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 797 43385A.474
615 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 798 43385A.475
616 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 799 43385A.476
617 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 800 43385A.477
618 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 801 43385A.478
619 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 802 43385A.479
620 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 803 43385A.480
621 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 804 43385A.481
622 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 805 43385A.482
623 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 806 43385A.483
624 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 807 43385A.484
625 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 808 43385A.485
626 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 809 43385A.486
627 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 810 43385A.487
628 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 811 43385A.488
629 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 812 43385A.489
630 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 813 43385A.490
631 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 814 43385A.491
632 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 43385A.492
633 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 43385A.493
634 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 43385A.494
635 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 43385A.495
636 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 43385A.496
637 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 43385A.497
638 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 43385A.498
639 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 822 43385A.499
640 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 43385A.500
641 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 43385A.501
642 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 43385A.502
643 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 43385A.503
644 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 43385A.504
645 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 43385A.505
646 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 43385A.506
647 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 43385A.507
648 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 43385A.508
649 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 832 43385A.509
650 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 43385A.510
651 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 43385A.511
652 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 43385A.512
653 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 43385A.513
654 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 837 43385A.514
655 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 838 43385A.515
656 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 839 43385A.516
657 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 840 43385A.517
658 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 841 43385A.518
659 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 842 43385A.519
660 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 843 43385A.520
661 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 844/1400 43385A.521
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Chertoff, Hon. Michael ............................................................................................ 367 

Cotten, Catheryn ..................................................................................................... 1 

Gonzalez, E.T ........................................................................................................... 267 

Myers, J.L ................................................................................................................. 1 

Rosado, Tim .............................................................................................................. 267 

Scharfen, Jonathan ‘‘Jock’’ ...................................................................................... 267 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: IDENTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF 

CRIMINAL ALIENS, STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM 

FEE INCREASES 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 3 

Statement of Ms. Catheryn Cotton, Director, International Office, Duke University ................................................................................................................... 5 

Balancing Security and Student Needs ................................................................. 22 

Anticipated Benefits of Increased Fees .................................................................. 23 

Integrity of Student Visa Process ........................................................................... 24 

Anticipated Benefits of SEVIS II ........................................................................... 25 

Estimates of Student Populations .......................................................................... 26 

Security Reviews in the Student Visa Process ...................................................... 30 

Trends in Foreign Student Enrollment ................................................................. 31 

Post-Education Opportunities for Foreign Students ............................................. 32 

Purpose of SEVIS Fee Increase .............................................................................. 32 

Competition for International Students ................................................................. 33 

SEVIS Training for Academic Administrators ...................................................... 34 

Introduction of Ms. Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement .......................................................................................... 36 

Opening Statement of Ms. Myers ........................................................................... 36 

ID Tracking of Criminal Aliens .............................................................................. 60 

ICE Strategy Report Requirement ......................................................................... 60 

Prioritizing Incarcerated Criminal Aliens ............................................................. 62 

2009 Funding Levels for Criminal Aliens .............................................................. 63 

Relationships between ICE and State Correctional Agencies .............................. 64 

Biometric Identification of Criminal Aliens .......................................................... 64 

Apprehension of At-Large Fugitives ...................................................................... 65 

2009 Budget for Bed Space ..................................................................................... 65 

Conditions at Detention Facilities .......................................................................... 66 

Fines Levied Against Employers of Illegal Aliens ................................................ 66 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 67 

Visa Issuing Authority ............................................................................................ 67 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 69 

ICE Agent—Houston Jail ........................................................................................ 71 

Criminal Alien Program .................................................................................. 72, 88, 208 

Enforcement Priorities and Alien County of Origin ............................................. 74 

Victor Arellano’s Death ........................................................................................... 75 

Unaccompanied Children ........................................................................................ 77 

Student Exchange Visitor Program...................................................................... 77, 236 

Federal Protective Service ...................................................................................... 79 

287(g) Program................................................................................................. 80, 82, 215 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Hutto Family Detention Facility ............................................................................ 80 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 81 

Luis Posada Corilles ................................................................................................ 84 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 92 

Management ..................................................................................................... 92 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 101 

Detention ........................................................................................................... 194 

Child and Family Detention ............................................................................ 205 

Alternatives to Detention ................................................................................. 206 

Legal Orientation Program .............................................................................. 208 

Criminal Alien Program ................................................................................... 208 

Fugitive Operations Teams ............................................................................. 210 

Worksite Enforcement ...................................................................................... 213 

State and Local Assistance/287(g) Program ................................................... 215 

ICE Investigations ............................................................................................ 218 

Visa Waiver Program Enforcement ................................................................ 223 

Visa Security Units .......................................................................................... 224 

Federal Protective Service ............................................................................... 224 

Construction ...................................................................................................... 230 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program ......................................................... 236 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 240 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 242 

Culture of Insensitivity .................................................................................... 242 

Training of those Charged with Detainee Medical Care ............................... 245 

Oversight of those Charged with Detainee Medical Care ............................. 248 

Training of those Charged with Minor Detainees ......................................... 249 

Ooversight of those Charged with Minor Detainees ...................................... 251 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 252 

Jail Checks ........................................................................................................ 252 

Sweeps ............................................................................................................... 254 

Gangs ................................................................................................................. 255 

Workplace Raids ............................................................................................... 256 

Detention Facilities .......................................................................................... 257 

Database ............................................................................................................ 258 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers ...................... 261 

Detention and Removal Operations ................................................................ 261 

Worksite Enforcement ...................................................................................... 264 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES: LEGAL IMMIGRATION 

AND REFUGEE PROCESSING 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 267 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 268 

Statement of Mr. Emilio Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ......................................................................................................... 269 

Iraqi Refugees .......................................................................................................... 278 

Iraqi Refugees—Circuit Ride Model ....................................................................... 278 

Material Support Restriction .................................................................................. 279 

Special Visas for Iraqis Employed by the U.S. ...................................................... 280 

FBI and CIS Background Checks—Application Backlog ...................................... 285 

Immigration Application Backlog ....................................................................... 288, 289 

Application Filing Surge ......................................................................................... 288 

Material Support Cases ........................................................................................... 289 

Security of CIS Processes ........................................................................................ 290 

Name Checks ........................................................................................................... 293 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
Page

v 

Section 543 of Current Year Bill ............................................................................ 293 

Naturalization Process ............................................................................................ 295 

Application Backlog ................................................................................................. 296 

Lessons Learned from Earlier Backlogs ................................................................ 297 

Manpower Needs ..................................................................................................... 297 

Transformation Program ......................................................................................... 299 

e-Verify.................................................................................................................. 300, 304 

Security ..................................................................................................................... 302 

Green Card Process ................................................................................................. 303 

Payments from CIS to Social Security ................................................................... 306 

e-Verify System Investments .................................................................................. 307 

Employers Served by E-Verify ................................................................................ 308 

e-Verify Mismatch Rates ......................................................................................... 309 

e-Verify Spend Plan ................................................................................................. 309 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 311 

Management ..................................................................................................... 311 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 328 

Backlog Processing ........................................................................................... 331 

FBI Name Check Backlog ................................................................................ 333 

e-Verify/Basic Pilot ........................................................................................... 334 

Refugees/Material Support .............................................................................. 336 

Adoption Processing ......................................................................................... 338 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 341 

Process for Referring Cases to USCIS ............................................................ 341 

Motions to Reopen Immigration Cases ........................................................... 341 

FBI Name Check Backlog ................................................................................ 343 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 358 

Swearing-In Ceremonies .................................................................................. 358 

e-Verify .............................................................................................................. 359 

Backlog .............................................................................................................. 361 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Robert Aderholt ............ 362 

Christian Minorities ......................................................................................... 362 

e-Verify .............................................................................................................. 362 

Family Reunification ........................................................................................ 363 

Naturalization Test .......................................................................................... 363 

Collaboration ..................................................................................................... 364 

Refugee Admittance Test ................................................................................. 365 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET 

REQUEST 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 367 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 369 

Statement of Mr. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 371 

Border Fence Waivers.......................................................................................... 374, 382 

Border Fence Consultations................................................................ 376, 383, 404, 408 

Merida Initiative ...................................................................................................... 377 

Homeland Security Grants ..................................................................................... 378 

Container Scanning/Screening ................................................................................ 380 

Violence at the Southwest Border .......................................................................... 381 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 384 

Border Fence ............................................................................................................ 387 

Mexican Side of Border Fence ................................................................................ 389 

Material Support ..................................................................................................... 389 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Container Security ................................................................................................... 390 

CBP Secondary Inspections .................................................................................... 395 

CBP Procedures on Immigration Status ................................................................ 396 

REAL ID ................................................................................................................... 397 

Secure Passports ...................................................................................................... 400 

BSFIT ....................................................................................................................... 404 

Murder of Border Patrol Agent .............................................................................. 405 

TSA Screening Strategy .......................................................................................... 406 

FEMA Preparedness ................................................................................................ 409 

Model Ports of Entry ............................................................................................... 410 

Visa Waiver Program .............................................................................................. 411 

Administration Transition ...................................................................................... 412 

DHS Human Capital ............................................................................................... 413 

Criminal Alien Removal .......................................................................................... 415 

DHS 5th Anniversary .............................................................................................. 416 

Progress at DHS ...................................................................................................... 417 

Future Challenges ................................................................................................... 417 

U.S.–VISIT Exit Rule .............................................................................................. 419 

Training for First Responders ................................................................................ 420 

Gang Violence .......................................................................................................... 420 

Operation Coordination ........................................................................................... 421 

Venezuela and the FARC ........................................................................................ 422 

U.S. Relations with Latin America ........................................................................ 423 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 425 

Secure Border Initiative—Waiver Authority .................................................. 425 

Re-issued SSA No-Match Regulations ............................................................ 426 

National Applications Office ............................................................................ 428 

Preparedness Grants and Risk ........................................................................ 429 

Grants Pipeline ................................................................................................. 430 

Secure Border Initiative—Apprehensions ...................................................... 431 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and Readiness .................... 431 

US–VISIT Exit .................................................................................................. 432 

Investment Management Process ................................................................... 433 

Departmental Operations ................................................................................ 435 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 605 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 608 

Material Support Waivers ............................................................................... 608 

Detention Standards ........................................................................................ 609 

Transit Security Grant Program ..................................................................... 610 

Interoperability Plans ...................................................................................... 613 

Worksite Investigations ................................................................................... 615 

TWIC Card Enrollment Delay ......................................................................... 617 

Hawaiian Cruise Rule ...................................................................................... 620 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 622 

Waiver Question ............................................................................................... 622 

Disrupting Habitats, Wildlife Mitigation, Public, and Private Land ........... 624 

Design or Development of less Disruptive Security Systems ....................... 625 

Effectiveness of and Need for Pedestrian Fencing in Non-Urban Areas ..... 625 

Impacts of Pedestrian Fencing on Wildlife Migration Corridors .................. 626 

Waiver ............................................................................................................... 628 

Border Buffer Program .................................................................................... 629 

Compliance with Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 ............................................................................................................ 630 

NPS Issues ........................................................................................................ 635 

Jail Checks ........................................................................................................ 641 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
Page

vii 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr —Continued 

Detention Facilities .......................................................................................... 642 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems ........................................................................... 644 

e-Verify .............................................................................................................. 645 

Naturalization Backlog .................................................................................... 647 

Proud to Be an American Citizen Act ............................................................. 648 

Local INS Office ................................................................................................ 650 

Model Ports of Entry ........................................................................................ 651 

International Registered Traveler (USPASS) ................................................ 652 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative ........................................................... 653 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Chaka Fattah ............... 654 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Robert Aderholt ............ 655 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable John Culberson ............ 657 

REAL ID ............................................................................................................ 657 

Cyber Security .................................................................................................. 658 

Information Sharing Security .......................................................................... 659 

Project 28 .......................................................................................................... 660 

Æ 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING