U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–282 PDF 2008

NATURALIZATION DELAYS:

CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND SOLUTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 17, 2008

Serial No. 110–64

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 17, 2008

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 5

WITNESSES 

Mr. Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director, United States Immigration and Citizenship 

Services, accompanied by Jonathan Scharfen, Deputy Director for Domestic 

Operations, and Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

Mr. Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected 

and Appointed Officials Education Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43

Mr. Fred Tsao, Policy Director, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee 

Rights 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 59

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61

Ms. Rosemary Jenks, Government Relations Director, Numbers USA 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 67

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

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

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

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

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ... 6

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ... 7

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 126

(1)

NATURALIZATION DELAYS:

CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND SOLUTIONS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman, Jackson 

Lee, Ellison, Conyers (ex officio), King, Goodlatte, Gohmert, and 

Smith. 

Staff Present: Blake Chisam, Majority Counsel; Andres Jimenez, 

Staff Assistant; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

Almost 1 year ago, this Subcommittee held its first hearing of the 

year to discuss the proposed immigration fee increase. Just like our 

hearing today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director 

Gonzalez was our witness. At that time we discussed, what was described by the Director at the time, the need for an unprecedented 

88 percent increase in immigration fees, including a 59 percent increase in the citizenship application fee. We were told at that time 

that this fee increase would solve several problems at USCIS, specifically a 20 percent increase in efficiency in adjudication of immigration and naturalization applications. 

As you know, I was not pleased last year about the tremendous 

fee increase, especially for families attempting to naturalize. I was 

particularly concerned that the justification for such a large fee increase was based in part upon a poorly devised technology transformation plan. My staff and I spent the rest of the year working 

with you, Director Gonzalez, to try to address these concerns including helping to arrange volunteer assistance from Stanford University Computer Science Department and the Stanford School of 

Business. 

Today I have not yet seen a satisfactory transformation plan, and 

instead USCIS is projecting a naturalization application increase in 

adjudication time of up to 18 months, up from what was usually 

less than 6 months just before the fee increase was implemented 

in August. If the fee was supposed to help the agency, I cannot understand why we are in a worse place today. 

2

I have heard the explanation that the sharp increase in naturalization applications was unforeseen, but I can’t understand how 

it was not foreseen. Just last week I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze and report on the connection between fee 

increases and surges in naturalization applications. 

Their preliminary report suggests not only that fee increases 

may have led to a spike in naturalization applications, but that 

several other factors in the past have caused surges, all factors 

that could have and should have been foreseen last year. I just can 

not understand how an agency whose mission it is to adjudicate applications have not done these types of analyses to prepare for increases in naturalization applications far in advance of implementing a fee increase, especially since it took CRS only a few days 

to do so. 

If an analysis of this type was done, it is even more inexplicable 

why a work plan was not put in place sooner to prevent this tremendous new backlog instead of waiting 4 months after the fee increase to finalize the plan. 

I have also heard the explanation that there was no way for the 

agency to have foreseen the high level of increase in naturalization 

applications. Unfortunately, it appears the work plan for any size 

increase, small or large, was not even finalized until long after the 

implementation of the fee increase. 

I have asked repeatedly how it is that this Congress can help to 

provide the resources you need, Director Gonzalez, to manage this 

naturalization increase. In response, I immediately introduced a 

bill that garnered bipartisan support to assist you in hiring annuitants. I only wish the agency had sought that authority when you 

proposed your fee increase, again in what should have been a foreseen surge in naturalization applications. 

I understand you have space and capacity issues. I wish the 

agency had raised this issue with us long ago. I am more than willing to do whatever I can to help with this and whatever other resource you may need to address this new backlog. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

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

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

Welcome back Director Gonzalez. Almost one year ago, this subcommittee held its 

first hearing of the year to discuss the proposed immigration fee increase. Just like 

our hearing today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director 

Gonzalez was our witness. At that time, we discussed what was described by the 

Director at that time the need for an unprecedented 88% increase in immigration 

fees, including a 59% increase in the citizenship application fee. We were told at 

that time that this fee increase would solve several problems at the USCIS, specifically a 20% increase in efficiency in adjudication of immigration and naturalization 

applications. 

As you know, I was not pleased last year about the tremendous fee increase, especially for families attempting to naturalize. I was particularly concerned that the 

justification for such a large fee increase was based, in part, upon a poorly devised 

technology transformation plan. My staff and I spent the rest of the year working 

with you to try to address these concerns, including helping to arrange volunteer 

assistance from the Stanford University computer science department and the 

School of Business. 

Today, I have not yet seen a satisfactory transformation plan and instead, USCIS 

is projecting a naturalization application increase in adjudication time to up to 18 

3

months, up from what was usually less than six months just before the fee increase 

was implemented in August. 

If the fee increase was supposed to help you Director Gonzalez, I cannot understand why we are in a worse place today. I have heard the explanation that the 

sharp increase in naturalization applications was unforeseen, but I cannot understand how it was not foreseen. 

Just last week, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to analyze and 

report on the connection between fee increases and surges in naturalization applications. Their preliminary report suggests not only that fee increases may have led 

to a spike in naturalization applications, but that several other factors in the past 

have caused surges, all factors that could have and should have been foreseen last 

year. 

I simply cannot understand how an agency whose mission it is to adjudicate applications had not done these types of analyses to prepare for increases in naturalization applications far in advance of implementing a fee increase, especially since it 

took CRS only a few days to do so. If an analysis of this type was done, it is even 

more inexplicable why a work plan was not put in place sooner to prevent this tremendous new backlog instead waiting four months after the fee increase to finalize 

the plan. 

I have also heard the explanation that there was no way for the agency to have 

foreseen the high level of increase in naturalization applications. Unfortunately, it 

appears the work plan for any size increase, small or large, was not even finalized 

until long after the implementation of the fee increase. 

I have repeatedly asked how it is that this Congress can help to provide the resources you need to manage this naturalization increase. In response, I immediately 

introduced a bill that garnered bipartisan support to assist you in hiring annuitants. 

I only wish that the agency had sought that authority when you proposed your fee 

increase given what should have been a foreseen surge in naturalization applications. I understand you have space and capacity issues. While I wish the agency had 

raised this issue with us long ago, I more than willing to do whatever I can to help 

with this and any other resource you may need to address this new backlog.

Ms. LOFGREN. At this point, I would recognize our distinguished 

Ranking Member, Congressman Steve King for his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have often spoken at naturalization ceremonies to welcome new citizens as full-fledged 

members of the American experiment in democracy and our constitutional Republic. And I do that to stress the importance of 

learning English and assimilating into American life and culture. 

And I point out that I joined the Director at a naturalization ceremony at the Old Executive Building on a Friday before the Fourth 

of July of 2007. It was a memorable day. We should most definitely 

encourage assimilation and naturalization. 

I was troubled to learn of one of this Subcommittee’s hearings on 

assimilation last year that the number of naturalizations has actually decreased over the last several decades. In the years before 

1970, 82 percent of immigrants were naturalized; however, that 

number fell each subsequent decade to the point at which from 

1990 to the year 2007, only 13 percent chose to naturalize. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has seen an enormous 

increase in the number of immigration benefit applications over the 

past several months. Many of those applications are for naturalization. In fact, it is my understanding that 1,059,793 naturalization 

applications are currently pending. Once an application is pending 

for 6 months it is considered backlogged, so many of those pending 

applications will soon be considered backlogged. 

The surge in applications can be attributed to several factors, including the recent immigration benefit fee increases, the upcoming 

elections where there have been some hard pushes by a lot of organizations to increase the naturalization, and the acceptance of an 

4

enormous number of employment-based adjustment of status applications. USCIS has the responsibility to process immigration benefits applications, including naturalization applications, in an efficient manner. 

But let me strike a cautionary tone. In a rush to naturalize, we 

at all costs cannot witness a repeat of the Citizenship USA debacle 

of a decade ago. What was Citizenship USA? Let me quote from a 

statement that Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith made in 

1997 at an investigative hearing and I quote. ‘‘Citizenship is the 

greatest honor this country can bestow. No award, medal, or commendation surpasses the simple dignity conferred when a former 

alien gains the privilege to say ’I am a citizen of the United States.’ 

this privilege is sought by millions of people around the world. It 

encompasses the right to travel freely, to hold almost any public office, and to petition for the immigration of relatives. Most importantly, it empowers a new citizen with the right and responsibility 

to vote and actually shape the future of our Nation. Among the 

many difficult challenges faced by the Immigration Service, none is 

more important than making sure that this honor is bestowed only 

on those who deserve it.’’

And I continue to quote from Lamar Smith’s statement. ‘‘Citizenship USA was the Clinton administration’s initiative to promote 

naturalization to process new applications. We are here today because, despite assurances to the contrary, more than 180,000 aliens 

were naturalized without having received complete background 

checks, resulting in the naturalization of substantial numbers of 

criminal aliens. As stated in yesterday’s Washington Post ‘—this is 

a decade ago,’ yesterday’s Washington Post, and I quote from it—

‘The failings of the Citizenship USA have triggered one of the most 

damning indictments ever leveled at the Immigration Service that 

it has cheapened U.S. citizenship.’ ’’

And continuing with Lamar Smith’s quote, ‘‘The failures of Citizenship USA are an insult to the hardworking and law-abiding immigrants who truly earn this honor. It sullies them and cheapens 

their achievement. These failures also legitimize the residency of 

criminals in our community and endanger public safety. There is 

nothing wrong with encouraging naturalization or urging newly 

naturalized citizens to vote. There is everything wrong with overlooking criminal background checks, naturalizing criminals, endangering public safety and then concealing the extent of the problem.’’

In the district that I represent, we have individuals who were 

naturalized in the hurry-up process over a decade ago, called Citizenship USA. They have said to Representatives, elected Representatives, that they understood that part of their obligation was 

to go to the polls and vote for Bill Clinton. That motive is brought 

into question by those examples that I know of in the area that I 

represent. And I just bring that up not as an indictment of past 

history, but we need to learn from past history. And of all the 

things that we do here and we discuss, this is a surprise event in 

a way that numbers are greater than anticipated, USCIS needs to 

ramp up to deal with this. But the applications need to be verified 

and their legitimacy and their background checks need to be done 

thoroughly so that citizenship is not devalued and so that the election that is upcoming in 2008 doesn’t have a negative pall cast over 

5

it, that the integrity of every vote in America is measured equally. 

And that is my interest in this and, I believe, also the interest of 

Mr. Gallegly who asked me to mention his name with regard to 

these statements. 

And I look forward to the testimony, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. King. 

I would now turn to the Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, the Honorable John Conyers, for any opening statement he 

may wish to make. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren. This is a very 

important hearing, and because you have covered literally the 

same points that I made and that I would have made in my opening statement, I just want to put mine in the record and make this 

observation. I go to a lot of swearing-in ceremonies in Detroit, and 

the excitement and the thrill of family seeing people sworn in to 

citizenship is moving to me. I go there for that purpose. And then, 

right outside the hearing room where the naturalization process is 

being completed, are registration places. You can register immediately after you are sworn in. And that is so exciting and so important. 

And so I come here with the spirit that informs this Committee, 

is that this is really an important hearing, and I am so glad that 

you called it. 

Now, three things. One, it is great to be bringing back the retirees, but I have already been told we need about 3,000 more, and 

my friend, Dr. Gonzalez, who is leading this off—and we are good 

friends, we are going to find out how good friends before the year 

is out because we have all got to perform together. He was in Detroit when we dedicated our new building, or new Immigration 

building, now, of course, a larger part of Homeland Security, and 

this isn’t the most difficult Federal task we have ever faced. I 

mean, look, we need a lot more people and we need them fast. 

Secondly, we need the fine counsel at the Department of Homeland Security to waive the gift rule. I mean, come on, how come 

one local government can’t donate things to the Federal Government? We don’t need to go to the Supreme Court to figure that one 

out. 

And then, finally, there is the FBI name check issue in which 

here we have got the Federal Bureau of Investigation going over 

name by name, by hand, in all their dozens of offices, trying to figure out who is who, and how do we get to the name checks, and 

who is on the terrorist watch list. And it becomes a big cumbersome operation when all we have to do is recommend to our 

friend, Robert Mueller at the FBI, digitize your files, my man. That 

is all you have to do. 

Now, the fact that it hadn’t been done before won’t help us now. 

But we have to expedite this process. We can’t have people waiting 

who paid their dues, anxious to go, ready to become citizens, and 

we are saying, well, we are looking to see—we have 14 guys with 

the same last name all over the U.S. and it will take a couple 

months to figure this out, if this is the right one or the wrong one. 

Let’s get organized. And we don’t even have to have a hearing 

with the head of the FBI to have this kind of meeting. The ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
6

woman can call him in and we can all meet with him and say, look, 

speed it up. Do the best you can and let’s get this over with. So 

I thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

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

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

JUDICIARY

The failure of the Department of Homeland Security to plan for a surge of naturalization applications has placed us in a situation in which over a million deserving 

people will have their dream of American citizenship put off. 

As a Committee, we have grappled with the immigration issue over the last year. 

We have learned that there are a number of areas of agreement. For instance, there 

is consensus that citizenship should be encouraged and eased for those who have 

played by the rules, and that immigration policy should encourage assimilation and 

participation in American culture. 

There is no more important participation than the vote. All of us who are honored 

to attend naturalization ceremonies are struck by how seriously new Americans 

take that responsibility, and how excited they are to be able to cast their ballot. 

When the naturalization fees were raised last summer, the only reasonable expectation was that there would be a surge in citizenship applications. That has happened in every prior fee increase. And that’s exactly what happened this time. But 

there was little planning to deal with the increase in applications, and where there 

was planning, there was no urgency to implement the plan until long after the applications were submitted and the backlog was created. 

Moreover, we were told by the Department of Homeland Security that if we went 

along with their 70% fee increase last year, we would see immigration applications 

adjudicated 20% faster than they were early in 2007. At the time, naturalization 

applications were being adjudicated within six months on average. 

Now we have almost a million-and-a-half people who trusted that they would be 

able to become United States citizens and participate in the life of this Nation within six months, only to find out that they will be delayed by up to eighteen months, 

many say even longer. 

Many of these people applied for citizenship because they wanted to become full 

contributors and participants in the United States of America. But as a result of 

these delays, they will have to wait and miss the most important action a citizen 

can take in a democracy—a vote in this year’s Fall elections. 

Transparent and efficient immigration procedures are a civil rights imperative, especially when other core constitutional rights are implicated. While we work on the 

one hand to make sure that protections are in place to prevent voter suppression, 

we have to also be on guard against a back-door disenfranchisement of new citizens. 

This year, we will be paying close attention to activities that impede the ability 

of marginalized communities to go to the polls. In past elections, we’ve seen people 

excluded because of photo-identification laws and even just because there were too 

few voting machines in minority precincts. 

We expect that the Department of Homeland Security will spare no effort to close 

this naturalization backlog and end this disenfranchisement.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, is able 

to attend, he will also be invited to make an opening statement. 

In the interests of time and moving to our witnesses, I would ask 

unanimous consent that the statements of all other Members be 

submitted in the record within 5 legislative days and, without objection, all opening statements will be placed in the record. The 

Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IM- MIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Madam Chair, thank you for organizing today’s hearing on Naturalization Delays: 

the Causes, Consequences and Solutions. The growing delays in processing and completing naturalization applications has become a critical issue that, unfortunately, 

7

appears to be getting worse—not better. In my area, the Los Angeles office of U. 

S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received over 185,000 applications for naturalization in the first 9 months of 2007. I’ve been told that by the end of 2007, the 

office in Los Angeles had approximately 145,000 applications pending, the largest 

number in the country. A 22% completion rate is not sufficient to me. 

Unbelievably, in a period of unparalleled technological advancements, the Department of Homeland Security’s agency responsible for approving citizenship requests, 

is actually getting slower and slower at processing applications. Granted, there has 

been an increase in the number of applications, but still, with the technology available in so many other areas, I do NOT understand why the average processing time 

is taking three times longer today than previously—what used to take less than 6 

months, now takes up to, or, exceeds 18 months. 

Just a few days ago, the New York Times published a very eloquent editorial, 

called ‘‘Refugees in the Cold.’’ It highlighted the plight of refugees—from places like 

Iraq, Vietnam, and Somalia—who have lost limbs or their eyesight during violent 

surges in their old homelands. They have managed to build productive lives here 

in the United States, but because of DHS’ failure to see the surge of citizenship applications that would be coming, too many of these refugees are now stuck in what 

the New York Times calls, and I quote, ‘‘a bureaucratic trap’’ by a ‘‘notoriously hapless citizenship agency’’ that has failed to complete the necessary background checks 

in time to meet the ‘‘palsied bureaucracy’s inflexible deadlines.’’

No one at Homeland Security planned properly or sufficiently for the surge in applications that was expected to occur when the new fee increases were announced. 

Once again, DHS failed to prepare for the predictable. While we continue to clean 

up from the results of poor preparation in the Gulf Coast, we now have to fix the 

staggering backlog of naturalization applications. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for joining us today and look forward to your testimony as we consider the most timely and effective way to fix the dreadful backlog 

of pending applications for naturalization.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

I thank the Chairwoman for convening this hearing to discuss the naturalization 

backlog. These delays have had a significant impact on our communities, and I am 

hopeful that the testimony before this Subcommittee will help us find solutions to 

quickly resolve the processing delays. 

In mid-2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services raised the processing fees 

for naturalization applications from $400 to $675—nearly a 70 percent increase. The 

fee increases placed a significant burden on many families that wanted to take steps 

to adjust their status and become American citizens. At that time, many Members 

of Congress raised concerns that the fee increase would hinder the naturalization 

of legal immigrants and their integration into American society. 

It is not surprising that in the months leading up to the fee increase, the number 

of naturalization applications filed with USCIS grew tremendously, and consequently, so too did the application backlog and the waiting times for applicants. 

Between the end of Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007, the number of naturalization applications increased 96 percent, from 473,467 to 926,864. 

This dramatic increase in pending naturalization applications is incredible, but it 

also is predictable and could have been avoided. The USCIS has announced several 

steps that it is now taking to resolve the backlog. In his testimony before the Subcommittee today, USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez notes that the agency has begun 

hiring 1,500 new employees. They have also identified 700 retired employees to rehire. 

Given the estimate of 16 to 18 month processing times for applications filed after 

June 2007, it is laudable that the USCIS has taken steps to reduce the naturalization backlog. But these steps are too little and too late. It still isn’t clear to me why 

the agency didn’t take steps sooner to address the potential backlog. Even with the 

new hires, there will be months between when employees are recruited, hired, fully 

trained and are able to make a dent in the application backlog. 

Further, the delays are only exacerbated by the lengthy processing times for the 

FBI name checks of applicants. USCIS must coordinate better with the FBI to expedite these applications and impose a strict deadline on the FBI for the completion 

of background checks. Some applicants wait years for the name checks to be completed. In a recent lawsuit, an application for naturalization has been waiting nearly 

8

five years for completion of the FBI name check. These delays are unacceptable, and 

I am a cosponsor of legislation that seeks to reduce FBI name checks to no longer 

than six months. 

In my district in Southern California, I have heard numerous horror stories about 

endless waiting times for naturalization applications and the FBI name checks. I 

have had to hire additional caseworkers to assist my constituents navigating the bureaucratic naturalization process. I have heard too many stories from constituents 

that have told of the impact the application fee increase had on their family when 

they had been saving up to submit an application for citizenship. These stories are 

all the more devastating when they share their excitement about voting in the upcoming Presidential election—a fundamental step for a new citizen—and their sadness when they learn that their application may not be processed in time. 

Through the debate over comprehensive immigration reform in recent years, it is 

clear that we all strive to encourage legal immigration. Any additional burdens, 

such as endless application processing times and significant fee increases, will only 

deter legal immigration. USCIS must examine all possible options to reduce the naturalization backlog, including the technological enhancements and the infrastructure modernization, which were components of the justification for the fee increase. 

When the agency made its final announcement of its fee increase, it reaffirmed 

its commitment to reduced processing times and cited a processing time goal of five 

months. The agency must seek to meet that goal and its commitment, and report 

to Congress on its performance. 

I thank the Chairwoman again for convening this hearing on this important subject matter.

Ms. LOFGREN. We will now go to our witnesses. Our first panel 

consists of Dr. Emilio Gonzalez who is the Director of the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Prior to his confirmation as Director in 2007, Dr. Gonzalez served as the Director for 

Western Hemispheric Affairs at the National Security Council and 

completed a distinguished 26 years’ service in the U.S. Army. 

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

South Florida in Tampa, his master’s degree from Tulane and the 

U.S. Naval War College, and doctorate in international relations 

from the University of Miami. 

With Dr. Gonzalez is Mr. Scharfen and Mr. Aytes as staff. They 

are not witnesses, but we are going to ask them to come forward 

and sit as resources to Dr. Gonzalez on technical issues to help respond to questions if there are technical issues that he wants to 

confer with them upon. 

So we would turn to you now, Dr. Gonzalez, for your opening 

statement. As you know, your full written statement will be made 

part of the record. We do ask that your oral testimony consume 

about 5 minutes. And when your 5 minutes is up, the red light will 

go on as a warning to you. So we invite your testimony at this 

point. 

TESTIMONY OF EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED 

STATES IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY JONATHAN SCHARFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

DOMESTIC OPERATIONS, AND MICHAEL AYTES, ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR FOR DOMESTIC OPERATIONS 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member 

Smith, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in dialogue and answer your questions about the dramatic increase in 

applications and petitions received at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the summer of 2007 and how we intend to 

manage the resulting workload. I would like to invite USCIS DepVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
9

uty Director Jonathan Scharfen and Associate Director for Domestic Operations, Michael Aytes, to join me at the able. 

Today I am here to testify about our naturalization workload, 

and I want to do several things. First, put that workload into context for U.S. background; second, share with you what we have 

done already to manage the workload; third, share with you what 

we plan to do; and lastly, share with you what we will not do. We 

will not compromise integrity or national security in the name of 

productivity. 

Last summer we received an unprecedented number of applications and petitions for immigration benefits. In June, July, and August alone, USCIS received over 3 million filings compared to 1.8 

million applications and petitions filed in the same period during 

the previous year. This was a sudden surge of significant magnitude. We received 1.4 million naturalization applications last 

year, 400,000 in July alone. Every application we receive is unique 

and every case we handle deserves special attention. These are not 

just number on a chart. These are people’s lives in our hands. 

USCIS employees understand that those who seek immigration 

benefits are demonstrating a desire to enter into our communities 

and enjoy the freedom and opportunity our Nation can provide. We 

applaud their commitment and their interest. We are committed to 

providing immigration services and benefits to eligible applicants 

as expeditiously as possible. Our goal is to implement the most immediate solution to this current processing delay without short-cutting our commitment to immigration integrity and national security. 

Monitoring the situation in real time, USCIS was quickly able to 

respond to the increased volume and implemented steps to manage 

this new workload. As an agency, our first priority was to accept 

filings and provide applications with proper receipt notices as 

quickly and as efficiently as possible. We accomplished this by expanding work hours, adding shifts, and detailing 84 additional staff 

members to our service centers. We also hired additional contract 

staff. 

As early as June of 2007, we were able to inform the public on 

the receiving process. And thanks to a committed corps of our service center employees, we were able to meet our commitment to 

process employment authorization cards for individuals within the 

90-day regulatory requirement. 

Building on the foundation of the new fee rule, we refined our 

human capital processes to more efficiently hire new employees, 

train them and get them to the front lines. In the past, we had resources to bring on and train one class of 24 students at a time. 

This year we will be able to conduct six classes of 48 students concurrently on a rolling basis. 

USCIS is currently in the process of hiring 1,500 new Federal 

employees, of whom 723 will become adjudicators. In addition, we 

will bring on over 1,700 more Federal and contract employees to 

address the workload surge. In October of 2007, vacancy announcements for new adjudicators attracted more than 10,000 candidates 

in only 6 days. Last week the Office of Personnel Management approved our request to rehire experienced annuitants to further bolster our workload with temporary staff. This authority will help us 

10

meet our hiring goals upon which our current production plan is 

based. 

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairwoman for introducing legislation to support the USCIS hiring of 

retired annuitants. When we forwarded our request to OPM we 

made sure that they were aware of the actions Congress had taken 

in support of this effort. 

We will couple our staffing with more traditional methods of 

managing a large workload by asking current staff to continue 

working overtime in shift work and detailing employees to areas 

that have been most heavily impacted by the surge. By maximizing 

the use the overtime early in the year, we will boost productivity 

with existing employees while we work on bringing on the new 

hires. 

In addition to people, we are focused on technology. As part of 

our efforts to transform the agency from a paper-based environment to an electronic environment, we have identified technological 

initiatives that will have a lasting and positive impact. However, 

these and other combined efforts will prove worthless should we 

forsake integrity and sound decision making in favor of productivity over national security. 

Since its inception USCIS has operated under a business approach that emphasizes integrity as an overriding consideration in 

processing, reviewing, and adjudicating applications and petitions. 

Our decision-making process today is more robust and thorough 

than it has ever been, an approach we believe to be consistent with 

our obligation to individual applicants and the Nation as a whole. 

And since I am out of time, I will stop right there and leave the 

rest for the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you very much, Dr. Gonzalez. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMILIO T. GONZALEZ


ETG-1.eps
12


ETG-2.eps
13


ETG-3.eps
14


ETG-4.eps
15


ETG-5.eps
16


ETG-6.eps
17

ATTACHMENT


Poster-1.eps
18


Poster-2.eps
19

Ms. LOFGREN. We will now go into the time when Members have 

an opportunity to pose questions to you, and I will begin. 

I understand from you and your staff that the agency signed an 

MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding, with the FBI last year to 

address the background check issues, and that it was anticipated 

that the improvements in the business processing aspects with the 

FBI and the additional staff and the like would result in a 40 percent improvement on the backlog, but that, in fact, it didn’t turn 

out that way and that you are continuing to work with the FBI to 

try and improve this backlog situation. 

Along with that, I know, for example, in my own district, companies that have key employees that, some of these people have waited years and are now bringing mandamus actions in Federal Court 

to require the FBI to either say yes or no, you know, after 4 or 5 

years. I am wondering where we are with the FBI. What is anticipated in terms of backlog reduction? And also how many lawsuits 

have been brought against the agency because of the FBI name 

checks? What is the status of those lawsuits? How many are still 

pending? And if you can just give us a glimpse into the future of 

that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. The FBI name check 

issue is one that has concerned me, quite frankly, since I started 

in this job. And the reason it is so concerning is because even 

though the FBI is responsible for conducting these name checks, 

when an applicant delivers their packet to us, we are the face of 

the U.S. Government. They look to us to adjudicate their file. A lot 

of times it is very difficult for them to understand, well, we gave 

it to another agency to work on. 

My deputy, Jonathan Scharfen, came on board in July of 2006, 

and, recognizing the criticality of the FBI name check issue, because it touches everything we do—it touches our legal department, 

I get sued 500 times a month. I can tell you, I can break that down 

how many of those are mandamus. My legal—Office of Chief Counsel spends an inordinate amount of time defending me in court. A 

lot of judges out there are very frustrated with the number of immigration cases they have to hear. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know how many there are in terms of on 

the FBI check per se? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We have had over 5,000 lawsuits filed last year 

and 80 percent of those involve name check issues. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Wow. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. In addition to, I might add, this affects our agency because of the FOIA requests. Our agency, USCIS, is responsible for about 80 percent of the outstanding FOIA requests that 

the Department receives, because folks are frustrated and they figure if they can’t get an answer one way they will get an answer——

Ms. LOFGREN. So the picture I am getting is, although it is handed off to the FBI and it is they who have not provided the information, not you, this is gumming up the works for your agency as well 

because of FOIA lawsuits. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The net effect is that we are the ones on the front 

lines and we are the ones who have to deal with it. The point I was 

getting to is when I brought Jonathan Scharfen as my deputy, I 

20

wanted to elevate this as high as I possibly could, and Jonathan 

has been charged since day one with engaging the FBI and working with them to come to an agreement on how best we can move 

these files while not sacrificing integrity or security. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Nobody is suggesting that, but we want this to be 

done efficiently and promptly. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. And if I may, I would like to defer 

to Mr. Scharfen, who has actually been running this day by day 

and was instrumental in crafting and moving forward that MOA 

with the FBI. 

Mr. KING. Madam Chair, just a point of inquiry. As the witnesses 

speak, may I ask a question of the Director on the record? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. KING. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Thanks you, Mr. Director. The FBI name check 

process, as you understand we have been working with both the 

FBI and with this Committee to ensure that we start to implement 

first some process improvements and also some resources, plussing 

up the resources on that. 

As to the process changes, we did enter an MOA that looked at 

the type of cases that were being reviewed between the FBI and 

the USCIS, came to an agreement based on both efficiency and national security grounds that we were comfortable on and ventured 

that MOA. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, ma’am, it has not produced the numbers on the current workload that we expected. 

However, it has shown some benefits in terms of this surge. What 

we have not seen is an increase in the numbers of FBI name 

checks since this surge work. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I can see my light is on. I will take the privilege 

of the Chair to go over slightly. We may want to have the Director 

come in, and you as well, because the FBI needs to explain what 

they are doing as well, and why the files have not been digitized. 

Just briefly, as the Ranking Member was talking about how moving it is to go to these citizenship hearings, I remembered a swearing-in in San Jose, and a little girl who must have been about 7 

or 8 years old, literally doing cartwheels after the ceremony and 

saying yea, Mommy, you are now an American like me. 

It was such a precious moment and that is really what is at 

stake there. All these people who want to be Americans, and it is 

so important that those who are eligible be able to join us as Americans here today. And that is why this hearing is being held. So 

I will stop now and recognize the Ranking Member for his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And picking up with that 

theme, I would note remarks made by the Director in the Old Executive Office Building to those who were recipients of citizenship 

that day and he pointed out the window and said, look out the window of that house next door—that is the White House, by the 

way—and the occupant of that house after this day is no more 

American than you are. 

You couldn’t do that in another setting in America, and that is 

something I will always remember. 

Director, I appreciate your testimony, and I take you back to my 

opening remarks about Citizenship USA. I would ask are you 

21

aware, are there any staff people that you have today that were involved with Citizenship USA back in 1995 through 1996 era? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you for the question. If I could just regress 

a little bit, Madam Chair, nobody takes naturalization more seriously than I do. I am a naturalized citizen and, in fact, in a lot of 

the ceremonies I conduct, when I read the oath it is a copy of the 

oath that I signed when I was 12 years old. And it is the immigration file that I had pulled out, and it is the same oath and I, too, 

get very moved. So we take our work very, very seriously and that 

is why we are putting forth the effort that we are doing to address 

this. 

Sir, with regard to Citizenship USA, the answer is yes. Quite 

frankly, that was about 10 years ago, 12 years ago. Much of our 

staff today was around when Citizenship USA happened. I will tell 

you that one of the things that we did, quite frankly, is as soon as 

we started working on our plan to address this backlog, is I pulled 

out the report from the IG in the Department of Justice on just 

what went wrong with Citizenship USA. We read it, we passed it 

around, we had our senior staff read it. And the issue was, there 

were really grave mistakes that were committed in Citizenship 

USA in an effort to move files, to move people to naturalization. 

And we wanted to make sure that those were not repeated and we 

wanted to sensitize our leadership that there is a right way of 

doing things and a wrong way of doing things, and we are not 

going to sacrifice quality and we are not going to sacrifice security 

for the sake of production. The results of that IG investigation, sir, 

are very damning back then, and we want to make sure that we 

do not repeat that. 

Mr. KING. And yet, Director, you are under significant amount 

of pressure to be able to deal with this backlog that is a bubble on 

the graph as I look at it. 

And now a little bit about workload from my private-sector life, 

and when I see an annual workload there, I try to figure out how 

I am going to do an equivalent amount in each week and month 

to be able to arrive at that goal. Because I want to avoid the idea 

of putting on a temporary staff and then laying off that temporary 

staff and adjusting to that as if it were an emergency. I would 

rather be able to swallow that incrementally. 

How can you level that thing out and get that done in that fashion? And I think I would take it to this other question which is—

in my remarks I took it back to the 13 percent that asked for naturalization in more recent years, and I understand those numbers 

have jumped up dramatically. That is why we are here. But what 

has been the patience level of lawful permanent residents in the 

process toward citizenship? Can you tell me what the average number of years that one will wait before they actually apply for citizenship and want to move ahead? Five years is the statute, but is 

it 10 or 12 or 20; what do we normally see? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, we don’t have that level of detail on that information. I can tell you anecdotally that a lot of people applied for 

citizenship this past summer who had been legal permanent residents for quite some time. And I will add—and I will be very, very 

frank with you—this is a good thing. That people want to be citizens of this country is a marvelous thing. We have to do our part. 

22

But they have done their part. And the fact that folks want to no 

longer be observers of the American scene but be participants in 

the American scene should be applauded. And I say what I mean 

because everywhere I go and I give a speech for a naturalization 

ceremony, I encourage people to become citizens. That is the only 

way your voice will be heard. 

Mr. KING. I am very well aware of that, Director, having witnessed that myself, and I appreciate that sentiment and share that 

with you. Also in my opening remarks, I mentioned about 180,000 

who were naturalized during that citizenship USA process that 

probably should not have been. 

Do you have any information on the numbers of those people 

that would have had their citizenship revoked, and could you speak 

about how difficult the citizenship revocation process is? And would 

you in fact agree it is, for practical purposes, irreversible? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is the agency responsible for revocation of citizenship. It 

is extraordinarily hard to take citizenship away from an individual 

once it has been granted. I will defer to Deputy Director Scharfen 

here for more details on that. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir. We don’t have the numbers of how many 

were denaturalized from that process. There were a number of proceedings that were initiated. However, as the Director pointed out, 

it is a very difficult process and it is incumbent on us to get the 

process right on the front end, and that is why we have the naturalization quality procedures in place that were born of that 1996 

experience. And that does two things: One, it sets in procedures 

that have to be followed very carefully in all the naturalization 

process for our adjudicators; and then there is a quality control on 

top of that where you have quality control officers and supervisors 

checking off the naturalization process to ensure that those procedures are being implemented. And those procedures range from 

doing the security checks properly to making sure that the A file 

is collected properly. And that it is done very carefully, according 

to these procedural checklists that the officers work from. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I will submit a couple of questions for the 

record. And I yield back to the Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The Chairman of the Committee has 

asked that we recognize our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Luis 

Gutierrez, for questioning. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Subcommittee Chairwoman and the 

Chairman of the full Committee for this opportunity to ask questions. First of all, I want to express to Dr. Gonzalez that I believe 

that he has a commitment to helping people become citizens of the 

United States and the rights of immigrants here in this country, 

and that that is not in question. Many times, maybe we shouldn’t 

have to make those clarifications, but I think that is an important 

one. And whatever differences we have on this issue are differences 

of policy and of priorities maybe sometimes, but certainly not personal commitment. And I thank him for all of the hard work that 

he and his staff does. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank all of the community-based organizations that helped to generate this 1.4 million 

new citizenship applications. It really was a community process. 

23

What a wonderful process in America where people take time out 

that are citizens of the United States to help others engage in this 

wonderful process. And without them we would not be here. We 

want to continue to encourage them and to continue to encourage 

the linkages. 

Having said that, I also want to say that this hearing is about 

how we help the people become citizens of the United States, how 

we quickly and efficiently grant them citizenship of the United 

States of America after they have made that application. I think 

it does absolutely no good to continue the demonization of immigrants by returning back to issues that happened 10 years ago, to 

continue to talk about citizenship and in the same vein talk about 

criminals becoming citizens when we know that is not happening 

today. It does no good. It continues the process, and that indeed 

that massive increase in those that have applied to become citizens 

of the United States has a direct correlation of the actions of this 

very Congress of the United States in demonizing those immigrants in the kind of xenophobic anti-immigrant attitudes that the 

Congress the United States has taken. And I am proud that those 

immigrants that can come forward, that can defend themselves, 

that can become naturalized, have done that. What a great process. 

That is the American process. But let’s not demonize them for 

doing the right thing, for incorporating themselves into our great 

American system. I think that is wrong. 

I didn’t come here this morning to attack anybody about what 

might have gone wrong. That is pretty good for headlines, pretty 

good for the media, and might make us feel all self-worthy here 

today, but in reality it won’t help one single person obtain American citizenship. And in this case, yeah, I would like them to become American citizens before the next election. I would like them 

to become American citizens in a quick, timely fashion because 

they did pay twice as much. Immigrants are paying today twice as 

much to become citizens because the financial resources were put 

forward. 

So, Dr. Gonzalez, I heard in your testimony that, on average, you 

receive 700,000 applications for citizenship on an annual basis. Is 

that correct, Dr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And last year you received 1.4 million? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Correct. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So you received 100 percent increase in the number of citizenship applications in your department. 

I understand that 60 percent of that 100 percent increase, 6 out 

of 10, happened in 1 month, the month of July. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. 400,000. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Of the 700,000, so approximately 60 percent 

happened at the very last—in the very last month. 

Now, I would like to say the following because I know the time 

is running out. That is, if you could put in writing to us what were 

the steps that you took as a department to be ready for what you 

anticipated as an increase. You knew it was coming, you could see 

it coming, because there was already 300,000 more. And you knew 

that last month was going to add—you know, everybody is going 

24

to come, many people are going to come at the very end to do 

that—what kinds of steps you took to make sure? 

And secondly, I am very, very interested, because time is of essence here, what are the steps that this Subcommittee, under the 

able Chairmanship of the gentlelady from California, can take to 

help address getting people through the naturalization process? 

And lastly, I would encourage us to call the FBI to stop talking 

about memos of understanding and memorandums of understanding, and stop calling simply the Director of Citizenship here, 

and call the FBI before this Subcommittee and find out why is it 

that they are failing miserably, miserably, in adjudicating these 

names. Because, Mr. Gonzalez has said—and we recognize it—it is 

a big problem. 

So I would hope that the next time, with the same vigor and the 

same energy and the same vocation that we make sure that Mr. 

Gonzalez does his job, that we make sure that the FBI is doing its 

job, because if we do not hold both departments accountable we 

will have failed in our task to meet our goal and our responsibility 

and our commitment to those immigrants becoming citizens in a 

timely fashion. And I thank Dr. Gonzalez. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By unanimous consent, the gentleman is given 1 

additional minute so the Director may answer. And I would note 

for the record, as I indicated previously, it is my intent to ask the 

FBI to come forward and provide some insight into what they are 

doing to correct and digitize their files. 

Mr. Gonzalez, do you want to briefly respond to Mr. Gutierrez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, first, for your kind words about not 

only my commitment to citizenship, but my entire agency is committed to citizenship. Our 16,000 Federal employees and contractors all share the same goal, which is a transparent, effective and 

efficient Immigration Service within a security framework. 

We did see this coming, and we did make plans, and, as you 

mention, will be more than happy to get you these later. But as we 

saw an increase throughout the year, say from January through 

May, June, the increase was manageable, and it was an increase 

that did not affect our processing times. And what we did not anticipate, and I will be very honest with you, is a 350 percent increase in 1 month. 

The issue for us is not one of resources to address this. The issue 

for us, quite frankly, is one of capacity. 

And I will get back to you those steps that we are taking to address the capacity issue, because every single file is an individual, 

it is a family, and they are all very, very different. And we are required to interview every single individual that applies for citizenship. That is not something that we will not abdicate, we won’t 

subcontract, we won’t outsource; that is our inherent responsibility. 

So the issue then becomes how do we get more professional immigration officers into the pipeline to the front lines to be able to 

address all of these waiting files. And those are the actions that we 

have taken. And I am actually very proud of the fact that our employees have stepped up throughout the country to try and address 

this. 

Although you see graphs like that, I will tell you that our work 

is retail. There are some cities where the surge was astronomical. 

25

There are some where it was negligible. So I think that as we look 

at this from a global perspective or national perspective, you are 

going to find that in those cities where the populations are high 

and the filings were massive, those folks could expect a longer wait 

than in cities where, quite frankly, the wait is negligible. But I 

will, sir, get those questions to you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Director Gonzalez. 

We will now turn to our colleague from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 

his questioning. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I really appreciate your having this hearing. I was hoping we would have more 

of these in the last Congress, and I appreciate the chance to do this 

now. 

One of the things—and I appreciate the Director calling me yesterday so we could talk before this hearing, and additional information that is provided my office this morning—but one of my concerns has been as I talk to people who would try to utilize the immigration service, it sounds like they have got more success with 

Third World countries’ Immigration Service being more efficient 

than ours. 

We had one case in which we had a Belgian company that wanted to open a plant in my district, and they were going to hire all 

East Texans for the plant, except they just wanted their manager 

to be from Belgium. And after over a year of trying to get something done so we could get the manager in from Belgium, so we can 

get East Texans jobs, they just hit a brick wall. I have talked to 

their immigration attorney in New York. He said that they were 

told if oh, gee, you are tired of the delay, if you will pay another 

$1,000 on top of what you have already paid, we will expedite it. 

That moves it along. So they paid $1,000. Some months later they 

said what happened to the expedited procedure and were told, Oh, 

well, it did expedite one part; but if you will pay another 1,000 they 

will expedite another part. And so they paid another 1,000 and 

eventually after they had been held up for the extra fees, we got 

a manager and we hired some East Texas folks who were out of 

work. 

When I talked to the ombudsman for the Immigration Service at 

the end of last year and saw in his report—and I know, Director, 

you disagree, from what you said yesterday, with some of the findings, but his indication was that whereas the President at one 

point had said, I believe it was like 1 hundred million more into 

the Immigration Service to move things along, that by delaying the 

processing of applications and taking much longer, that actually 

the Immigration Service was able to generate an additional $300- 

to $350 million, if I recall accurately. I haven’t found that graph 

yet. But I would just like you to address that, the additional fee 

issue that may have arisen by delaying applications, get your response to that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

First of all, I would like to, for the record, take issue with the 

ombudsman in accusing this agency of essentially sitting on files 

for the sake of generating revenue. That is clearly not the case. It 

doesn’t happen, to my knowledge. In fact, when those comments 

26

are made, I take it personal and my staff, rightfully so, is offended 

by that. 

That having been said, when we came back and we testified last 

year regarding our fee increases, one of the things that we mentioned was the fact that even though our fees were going up an average of 66 percent across the board, we were writing into those 

fees any additional delays that we would have, so that an individual would not have to come back and get another work authorization or have to refile. 

So essentially, once the new fee structure came in, any delays 

would be—any cost in delays, would be absorbed by this agency. So 

I am not—if this is still a comment being made by the office of the 

ombudsman, I would venture to say that it is done with inadequate 

data. 

I don’t know if my colleagues would like to comment as well. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I think that covers it. I think the new fee rule 

takes that issue out of play, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. By the way, can we have a second round of questions? There are not many of us here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think, given the number here, that will be a good 

idea. We do have a second panel but we should have plenty of time 

to get to them. 

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the ombudsman’s recommendation, page 

62 of the latest response—and by the way, the material I was forwarded was a response to the 06 report rather than the latest information that we have from 07. But anyway, one of the things 

they mentioned on page 62 was a problem of lack of communication 

between the headquarters of CIS and the field offices, and also a 

problem with the losses of paperwork when things were transferred. 

I have another issue in my district where a man, sister and 

mother, had been in the U.S., been citizens for years. He has had 

an application pending for over 10 years. Just over halfway 

through that process, he was told the paperwork was lost. Just resubmit the paperwork, which was apparently a mistake, because 

he started from all over again with a new number rather than continuing with the other number. And we are told that his case 

should come up for adjudication some time this year, hopefully not 

too long. But in the process, he had to pay additional fees. 

So even though I don’t know that the ombudsman was saying 

that there was an intentional delay to increase fees, that appears 

certainly to be one of the results. 

Some people have interpreted some of our concern about illegal 

immigration as meaning we don’t wants immigration. We do want 

immigration. It is the strength of this country. I think the melting 

pot is a great concept that has really made us strong. But it has 

got to be legal. But then again, we need a CIS that moves applications, that doesn’t make us look like a Third World country. And 

I would like your comment on the issue of losses of paperwork, lack 

of communication between headquarters and field offices, and what 

may be done to improve that. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, sir, I will take them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Gentleman is recognized for an additional minute 

so that he may respond. 

27

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will be very quick, sir. First of all, as to the paperwork, that is always going to be a problem with an agency that 

does between 6 million and 7 million transactions a year, when it 

is still a paper-based agency that is still using mail to mail different folders and files around the country. The whole purpose of 

the transformation program is to transform the agency from a 

paper-based system to an electronic system. And one of the benefits 

to that will be that you will have better accountability, better 

speed, and better recordkeeping. 

We have over 100 million records in this agency that we have 

gotten in different parts of the country that we manage in our 

records facilities. On top of that, you have the annual flow of documents coming in that are paper-based. We are going to move away 

from that in the next 5 years during our transformation process 

and move to an electronic digitized system, and that should help 

that significantly. 

As to the speed of processing applications, first, under the new 

fee rule, there is no financial benefit to the agency on delaying of 

any type of application processing of the application. 

Second, also with the transformed procedures, the speed with 

which we process those applications should be increasing. 

As to communications, let me just answer it in terms of our current challenge here with the naturalizations. I can assure you, sir, 

that we have been having routine and recurring meetings with our 

field managers on the challenges that we face with processing the 

naturalizations. Mike Aytes here has a meeting, I believe next 

week, with his production managers, who are his regional and service center directors, and they are going to be talking about just 

these sorts of things, about the processing times and the challenges 

that the ombudsman spoke about. 

Finally, in terms of communicating with the public, we have a 

robust program where we have been trying to get out the word 

about the processing delays, both in Web sites and in large phone 

calls with our different stakeholders, which the ombudsman has 

been a part of as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. At this point, the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, is recognized 5 minutes. 

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

full Committee for being so kind as to yield. 

Dr. Gonzalez, as a Member of Congress, we encounter casework 

in our district offices. And as a result of some of the inefficiencies 

that my constituents experience with your department, I would say 

85 to 90 percent of the casework that comes into my district office 

are people who have inquiries about the status of their immigration applications; 85 to 90 percent of every problem that constituents bring to my office is immigration-related. And I applaud your 

effort that you take this work seriously and want to help reduce 

the backlog. 

But so long as I have been a Member of Congress and have 

served on this Subcommittee, which has been 6 years now, we have 

had the problem of backlog. And we seem to talk a lot about the 

inefficiencies and talk about the challenges. And yet through various initiatives we try to work, Congress tries to work to help give 

the tools that are necessary to help reduce that backlog, and yet 

28

the waiting times keep getting longer, not shorter. And I find that 

incredibly frustrating because I am the one that has to deliver 

news to the constituents that we just don’t know why it is taking 

so long. 

In June of 2007, CIS ombudsman Khatri issued an annual report 

to Congress, and included in that report were several recommendations to the agency of how to reduce the backlog. I am interested 

in knowing if you read that report. Did you? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I did. And we have responded to that report. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So what types of recommendations that were included in the report, if any, has the agency implemented? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay, first off, I will get to your first point and 

then I will defer to my colleague, Mike Aytes. 

I understand the frustration when you have casework on immigration. If you look at this from a macrolevel, we as an agency are 

able to satisfy our applicants within the respective time periods 

that we tell them about 95, 96, 97 percent of the time. Regrettably, 

because of the volume we encounter, that 3 or 4 percent of people 

that have problems adds up to a fairly large universe of folks. 

Many times the waits that you are talking about are waits—and 

without seeing an individual case, because this is individuals we 

are talking about here—it is hard to say whether it is a problem 

with us, whether it is a problem with another agency. It may very 

well be a problem with that individual, whether there is paperwork 

missing from their file. There are a lot of moving parts in processing an immigration file. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I understand it is very complex. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. It is so complex we need immigration lawyers for 

it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And I understand that. But that shouldn’t be an 

excuse for the types of waits that people are experiencing. These 

are just—we called late last night the office: Just give me some of 

the current casework we have got. 

I will give you one case. Constituent originally filed for naturalization in October of 2005. She passed her civics and English 

exam in February of 2006. All of her friends who applied for naturalization after her have already been sworn in as citizens. Her 

case is still pending. And every 6 months she gets notices to get 

her fingerprints taken over, because they expired. 

That is the second question I have. Why do fingerprints expire, 

and why do they have to keep resubmitting them? 

There was an issue where her mother was sick, and this particular constituent is from Taiwan, and she was afraid to visit because she was afraid she might miss a notice of her swearing-in 

ceremony. 

And I have seven or eight just that they pulled off the top of the 

stack last night, similar types of circumstances where people have 

been waiting since 2004, 2005, 2003, you know, other than, well, 

the system is complex and, well, we have to wait for something. 

Can you understand why, as a Member of this Subcommittee, I 

have been here for 6 years and heard about the backlogs and the 

waits are getting longer, why that is particularly disturbing? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I would agree with you that there is no excuse 

for an unnecessary delay. Again, from what you just told me and 

29

not seeing this file—and I would be more than happy to take it 

from you and if you give me more details we will look into it—it 

could well be that this person has already been interviewed and 

they have already passed the citizenship and English test. It may 

well be that it is hung up in another aspect of the process, being 

a name check. 

With regards to the fingerprints, we are addressing that. We are 

creating a biometric storage system now as part of our transformation program where we will store fingerprints. Fingerprints 

don’t change unless people want to physically alter them. This is 

an issue we are addressing. 

I will have my deputy, Jonathan Scharfen, address other details. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I see we have—the light is on, ma’am—but what 

we can do is two things. The Director is correct; we have as part 

of our transformation program a program that we hope will start 

showing results by this summer. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Can I get that in writing? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. We will get youa letter on describing the program 

on the FBI check. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will be having a hearing on the FBI name 

check, if I may interrupt before recognizing the——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I realize my time has expired. Many of these people have their background checks completed and there is still a 

delay. With that, I will yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. This is a great hearing. I 

want to first point out that my dear friend, the Ranking Member 

Steve King is sounding very good today. This is his good day on immigration. If you have heard him, he can really hit some good high 

points. And I am glad we are looking at this, Steve, in a very constructive way. You are on the top five list of people who are considered to be the leaders of criticism about immigration in general. 

But I have got Judge Gohmert working with me, and we are continuing the process of keep hope alive. 

Now here is the problem that is developing, Dr. Gonzalez. You 

have heard us all. Every time there is a fee increase, there is a 

bump in citizenship applications. You don’t have to take Statistics 

101 to figure that out. So LULAC, SCIU, NALEO, all those citizenship drives that alert you. So we know this thing is coming. And 

all I want you to know is that we have got to get to the bottom 

of this. I want you to review my opening remarks very carefully. 

They didn’t have your name on them. But I need you to think 

through this thing in the detail that is characteristic of this Committee. And let me tell you this, this is not going to work. Talking 

about, it is not an issue of resources but an issue of capacity. 

Now, if this isn’t an issue of resources, I don’t know a resource 

shortage when I see it. We are real short, and we have got to do 

something about it real quickly. That is the whole thrust of us all 

coming here today. And so I need you to put your thinking cap on, 

bring all your sharp men and women together here and let’s get 

about this thing, because you need some resource help like nobody 

else I know of in government. So let’s get going on that please. 

30

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Jackson Lee was 

next. I don’t know if she is in the—oh, Ms. Jackson Lee has reappeared and is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me acknowledge the importance of this 

hearing to Dr. Gonzalez is that we are talking about legal immigration. And I have listened to my colleagues as I have had a number 

of meetings, and I will discuss a wide range issues that don’t seem 

to appreciate that the difficulties that we are having and the difficulties that are being addressed have to do with people lining up 

to engage in the process legally. And I think that should be reaffirmed. I too want to acknowledge a number of groups who participated in naturalization ceremonies in my own community of 

Houston, Texas, which remains a very large highly diverse community and with a sizable immigrant population. The naturalization 

ceremonies are teaming. 

And complementing that process are organizations like the 

League of Women Voters who are there, ready to provide an opportunity to express yourself through the election process. And they 

are registering people to vote. And I did not hear the entirety of 

my good friend from Iowa’s comments, but I hope we can applaud 

the fact that people are being naturalized, albeit we are here to discuss the delays, and I will raise those questions, but they are also 

registering to vote. Rightly so. They are doing the paperwork. They 

have documentation, and they have the best documentation, which 

is the immediate document that says, you are now a citizen. So I 

am not sure how we are in conflict when citizens register to vote, 

albeit they may have a different name, a different faith or they 

may be a recent citizen. We want to applaud that. 

The second thing I want to acknowledge is, Dr. Gonzalez, we 

need, in spite of the waning hours of this Administration, we know 

that the President just spent a good week in the Mideast to regain 

some status on the whole question of the Mideast peace process. I 

think he needs to spend some time in the Nation’s cities and States 

who are suffering under the lack of action by this Congress, and 

the need for the utilization of the bully pulpit on the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. It is of high priority, and I want 

to see a White House engaged. 

I frankly believe that all things are possible, and I say that because the evidence of what is happening today and the delays is 

partly a recognition that one, people clamor for citizenship, and 

two, those who are undocumented for a variety of reasons would, 

in fact, engage in the process if we had a process. I might, in fact, 

ask you that question as to whether or not the Administration is 

still committed to comprehensive immigration reform, is my first 

question, recognizing that I had hoped you won’t take up a lot of 

time on the question of border security because that is a given. My 

question is, are they still committed to the idea and the concept of 

finding a way to have people access legalization? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. I think the President is pretty much on the record as having backed immigration 

reform. He spent a great deal of political capital trying to move immigration reform. I count myself among those that was very disappointed when we didn’t achieve immigration reform. In fact, I 

found myself in a situation where I was speaking to about 500 HisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
31

panic leaders, and 5 minutes before I was supposed to speak to 

them, immigration reform crashed. And here we had 500 people expecting me to talk about immigration reform. 

It is one of the worst days of my life. Whether this is going to 

be resurrected, I can’t answer that. I genuinely believe that we cannot sustain as a Nation some 12 million people that are in this 

country illegally. That number may be higher, that number may be 

lower. But if we use the number of 12 million people, that is the 

population of Belgium or the population of Ecuador if we want to 

use our hemisphere. 

By not engaging in immigration reform, I think we do a disservice to this country because you can’t have this many people living in our midst and we don’t know who they are, we don’t know 

what they are doing, we don’t know what they look like, we don’t 

know what their pasts are. And we don’t know—most of them, I 

would say, a large number of them are probably hard-working people, but some of them may not be. So I would hope that immigration reform is something that will be resurrected. Proper immigration reform. And I say proper because it can’t be all things to all 

people. 

And a personal level, because I do take this very seriously, and 

I was involved in the discussions, we need to be able—and I may 

be philosophizing here but you gave me the opening. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask the distinguished Chairman for me to 

at least put two sentences on the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Gonzalez, I don’t want to cut you off. I 

know this is passionate. Did you want to finish your sentence? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What I was going to say is, I think it is going to 

take effort from the executive, and it is going to take effort from 

this body because I don’t think we can wait 2 or 4 years to address 

the issue of those individuals who are living amongst us who are 

beyond the law or who are outside of the legal statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We needed that statement. Let me just quickly make these two points. And I know that if we have a second 

round, you may answer them even in my absence. I have a security 

briefing that may be occurring. But we cannot overlook the crisis 

of the FBI watchlist. I know the Chairwoman is going to have that. 

I am presently dealing with a mountain of cases of doctors who are 

here, trying to serve our communities who have been in limbo now 

for 5 or 6 or 7 years. That is the first thing. The second is, the 

delays are intolerable. And what I will encourage you to do, and 

I understand you may be looking at it, is to build capacity. 

Let us go to the historically Black colleges, Hispanic serving colleges, let’s recruit people on the ground that can be trained, that 

can make the dream come true, which is, this is a government that 

works. People who access the system in the legal way should not 

be punished, should not be the victim of their own commitment to 

legalization. And that is what is happening with these extensive 

delays. And I hope that you will take that offer up. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. We will now go 

to a brief second round. And I will begin. 

32

Dr. Gonzalez, in the past—it is only this last year, I can say this, 

that I have served longer in local government than I have served 

in the Congress. And I recall when I was in local government, the 

county really did care about all of the people who lived in the county, U.S. citizens, legal residents, and people trying to get their residence. And from time to time when there were huge backlogs, we 

offered the then-INS assistance. We gave space for free to the INS. 

We actually had a little back and forth at the time, we provided 

clerks from the court who had actually background checks that the 

INS employees didn’t even have to assist the agency to get their 

job done because we were so frustrated with the delays. It is my 

understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from accepting help or space at a free basis from others, including local government, because of a gift rule that didn’t exist 

with the Department of Justice. Is that still true? And what do we 

need to change so if the school district wants to donate the school 

auditorium for a swearing in ceremony, you can accept the donation of that auditorium? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you for the question. It is not that the Department is not allowing us. One of the things that we have gone 

to the Department for is the ability to use say the university, nonprofit organization, a city hall or a city municipal government. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Sure, can you do it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. To give us classroom space so we can interview 

people on weekends, on nights. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Whether it is swearing in or office space. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. For us it would be with naturalizations is not 

have to do it in the same building but we could do shift work. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Does a gift rule prohibit you from doing it? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We as an agency are not allowed to accept those 

types of facilities. 

Ms. LOFGREN. What do we need to do to change that? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, the Department is already in the process of 

putting together a proper policy memo which will allow not just our 

agency but all the other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to accept that sort of support. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I am talking to Secretary Chertoff on another matter in about an hour. Maybe I will raise this with him 

in addition to the other matter we are talking about. 

I want to talk about how we can work together being individual 

Members of Congress and your department—to make this work 

better. Before Christmas, I gave you a memo that was prepared by 

a lawyer on my staff in San Jose, pointing out that the information 

officers in the San Jose office was giving incorrect legal advice to 

people who were seeking information and further will no longer 

give information to congressional offices. 

I haven’t yet gotten an answer to that. I am raising it here today 

in the hopes that I will get an answer. But the point I am making 

is that all of our offices, are pulling in the same direction. I have 

case workers, Mr. King, everybody has case workers trying to sort 

through the facts. In fact, I have hired three immigration lawyers 

in my office, all of whom you know are experienced in this. I have 

one who taught the course. I mean, they go and correct the misinformation that is given by information officers who don’t know the 

33

law. So how do we work together, if our staffs can’t get access to 

the information obviously with the permission of the applicant, 

then we can’t help solve problems and make sure things go well. 

How do we work better in that regard, Dr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I can’t address the issue of that individual you 

just mentioned. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is not an individual. It is me. It is my office that 

will not get information. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Exactly. Your office received erroneous information from——

Ms. LOFGREN. Not just once. I mean, multiple times, dozens of 

times. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. At the agency level—and not to address that particular individual or that particular office. But we are in the process right now of making major investments in our training program. We want to not only recruit the very best individuals, we 

want to train them to the very best of our abilities. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Our time is almost up. If a congressional office—

I mean, the individual, whether it is a citizen checking on you 

know their spouse or whatever the matter is, they called and now 

they get—the information office they can’t get any information. So 

in desperation, they call the congressional office. And if we are 

given the same access to information as the person making the inquiry, which is nothing, then they are going to sue. And so you are 

going to have instead of 500 lawsuits——

Mr. GONZALEZ. We are very familiar with lawsuits. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You are going to have a lot more. It would be a 

lot smarter for the Department to say, okay, if you have got a written release from the applicant because we have privacy issues and 

you have got an office that is trying to sort through this in the best 

interest of everyone to provide the facts and the information and 

then we can help bring this to a resolution, wouldn’t that be a good 

idea? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I would be more than happy to sit with you personally, or have my staff and your staff get together and see how 

we can put our heads together and try and find an adequate solution, yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I would welcome that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. King, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I listened to the questions asked by the gentlelady from Texas, and Director, your response to the question about whether you support and endorse the 

Administration’s comprehensive immigration reform policy and 

your answer, as I recall, was that you are concerned that this Nation needs to do something within the next couple of 3 years. We 

can’t afford not to. 

Conceptually, and I think I am there at least with that analysis. 

But my question then arises out of that response as I consider that 

the technical part of your job wouldn’t be dealing with what policy 

might be coming out of it, but what the policy that actually you are 

charged with enforcing. 

So I would have to ask you, does that philosophy that you 

espouse here before this Committee that you share with the PresiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
34

dent of the United States, as I understand it, does that affect the 

way you do your job? And how is that viewed by the 16,000 employees at USCIS, as they carry with them a certain philosophy, how 

does that affect their work, does it affect the way do you perform 

your job at all? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. My opinions on the need for immigration reform 

reflect the President’s in that because we are part of Homeland Security, I view immigration reform, any immigration reform through 

the lens of Homeland Security. Do we need to do something about 

12 million illegal people here? Yes, we do. It is not my position to 

decide what we do. It is something that needs to be worked out 

through the executive, through the legislature. But I genuinely believe that having that many people here that we don’t know anything about is not a good thing. It is not a good thing. 

Now we can argue about what the remedy is, but I would venture to say that on a personal level, the status quo is not acceptable. Now with regard to my employees, do understand that by definition, all of my team that my employees deal with are, in fact, 

legal. So we are a player in the immigration reform legislation or 

we were because we would inherit and we would have to process 

anybody who were legalized. But people who come to my office for 

benefits are, in fact, here legally. And if they are not or we find 

out through a data check that somebody is in our office, even 

though they may be legal, but there may be an outstanding criminal warrant for them, we detain them. 

Mr. KING. By definition, they are here legally but they may not 

be here legally because they could have fraudulent documents that 

got them to that point, to be in your office. But that is not really 

my point so much—well, it is part of it and is encompassed in it. 

But the thing I am more interested in is that I have never been 

able to understand the rationale of the Administration or the people who advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, and it is 

a very polite name that has been advocated that way. How this Nation is safer when you legalize 12 million or more people that are 

crossing the border under restraints and concern about being 

caught in the process who now would have more opportunities to 

cross the border, not less, because they could cross legally and illegally if they are legalized. 

And if we move people through the process and grant them a z 

visa or whatever we might, to give them temporary status here, to 

let them get in line for a permanent status, how is the Nation safer 

when we make people who would not have a background check 

done on them in the early stages of this of the z visa side? How 

is America safer if we legalize people without knowing about their 

background? And if we have 4 million people coming across this 

border in a given year illegally, that huge human haystack of humanity, and in it are the needles that would be criminals, drug 

dealers, those elements, terrorists, that we are concerned about, 

how is America safer by legalizing the hay and presuming that the 

needles will emerge if we legalize the hay because we will be legalizing some of the needles as well, will we not? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The border issues you mentioned is not something we involve ourselves with. But the issue of immigration reform at large—and we could talk about this forever is—again, and 

35

I will say that the Administration, the President expended a great 

deal of political capital in trying to move the ball forward in trying 

to address a problem that to this day is not being addressed. We 

can disagree as to what the processes may be. 

We could disagree as to what the qualifications might be. I certainly don’t advocate nor have I run into anybody that has advocated an amnesty program because an amnesty program is something that I don’t think anybody would support. We have to be 

able—and this is something that we carry with us—coming to the 

United States and being a citizen or being a resident, this isn’t like 

going to a retail outlet and paying your money and saying, I want 

something now. It is a process. And we have to be able to tell people no if they don’t qualify. And if we can’t tell—even if it is a minority of the people no, then how do we tell the majority of the people who are truly deserving yes? I genuinely believe that something 

needs to be done——

Mr. KING. I thank the director. I will ask for an additional 15 

seconds. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

Mr. GONZALEZ.—needs to be done with regards to immigration 

reform. Do I have all the answers? No. But it is clearly—I think 

that the status quo is unacceptable. And I think that if we come 

back 4 years from now and have a hearing like this on immigration 

reform, then the numbers will be much higher. 

Mr. KING. I will just conclude with a definition of amnesty and 

that is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with 

the objective of their crime, and I think that policy does constitute 

amnesty. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, I would like to add to the 

record the report from the Congressional Research Service on their 

analysis of the trends and would note that no one is saying you 

don’t have the right to say no. The problem is, when you don’t say 

yes or no for an extended period of time, there is a problem. I 

would recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 

her second round. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

And you are absolutely correct. I think Dr. Gonzalez captured it in 

his, I think, very important statement in my earlier question. But 

the point is, is that rules allow to you say yes or no. Framework 

allow to you say yes or no. And I take issue with my distinguished 

friend from Iowa simply to suggest that a framework that has people penalized for their present status, but then gives them an opportunity to access legalization is not in the true sense of the word 

rewarding people for their crime. 

And I believe that the status of being unstatused is still a civilian or a civil issue unless you have perpetrated a criminal act. And 

so you can be deported not criminally, but you can be deported for 

failing to comply with the rules of immigration. And I hope we can 

decipher that so we can move forward. 

I want to focus on the testimony that you had that indicated how 

often you have been sued and over 80 percent of those cases were 

FBI watchlists. And my question, if you can specifically speak to 

the causes of that delay and on average, how long do these name 

checks take? And how can we get the FBI to expedite the process? 

36

But in the course of your answer—and I have three questions. I am 

going to lay them on the record now so that you can quickly answer 

all of them. What is the relationship that your agency has with the 

FBI? How can we help facilitate that better even though we may 

haul them in here to this hearing, you won’t be sitting at the table. 

So how can we extend an olive branch that says, we believe in 

security but we want to see this process work so that doctors or 

nurses and people who are here to try and be contributing are not 

delayed? The other question is for those who applied for naturalization in 2007, do you expect that you will finish your work in 2008? 

And would you answer my question that I gave you at the end of 

my statement in terms of outreach, what are you doing to expand 

your recruitment and to build capacity so that possibly you would 

answer the former question about getting the job done in 2008? 

And I, again, thank you for your work as well. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, ma’am. I will start backwards. We do 

have—we do have an outreach program. We advertise our positions. We received 10,000 applications for adjudicator positions that 

we advertised in a period of 6 days. We are reaching out to historically Black and Latino colleges and universities to ensure that we 

maintain a very healthy, diverse workforce within our agency. 

With regards to the naturalization applications and whether 

those individuals will be—the individuals that applied last year 

will be naturalized this year in a very general term, and I will turn 

it over to my deputy for specifics. It is really going to depend on 

where they file. And it is going to depend on how clean their file 

is. 

Again, it is very, very difficult to look at all these applications 

as one and say, well, we can do this in x number of months because 

they are not all the same—there are a lot of moving parts. And 

each individual application is very, very, very unique. Now, there 

are some cities where we received a deluge of applications. There 

are some cities where we didn’t. 

So again, this is retail work. I can tell you that we are working 

these as quickly as possible. I would be remiss if I told you definitively that by such and such a date, we will have approved x number of cases because that would be dishonest. And I don’t think 

that we want to go to a position where we are going to require our 

employees a quota system where you have to do this many cases 

because that would just invite cutting corners. 

We want to make sure that we continue our processes, that we 

continue being secure, that we continue to promote quality and assurance that the work that is being done is being done within the 

framework of homeland security. I will defer to my colleague——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My time is running out. So I want you to get 

to the FBI and other questions. 

Mr. SCHARFEN. Yes, ma’am. As to the FBI name check, our relationship with the FBI has been a close one recently as we have 

tried to work together through this shared problem with the FBI. 

We have had meetings between the deputy secretaries and the deputy director of the FBI. We have worked through to reach an agreement on the MOU about the way in which we would do the files 

searches. But the bottom line is that the FBI has an antiquated 

paper-based system that they are only beginning now to transform. 

37

And so we have to manage an old system. What that means is that 

unfortunately to a large degree, we have to throw manpower—people at the problem. And that is being done now. For instance, the 

FBI has hired 221 contractors to date and also has increased their 

full-time employees by 20. They used to have 20 full-time employees working this issue for us. Today they have, as I said, 221 contractors working it and 40 full-time employees working it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I think that is outrageous not 

to blame the witnesses, but contractors already send nightmares in 

terms of security, and I hope that we can address this question 

head-on. I think it is an abomination. I thank the Chairwoman for 

yielding. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you again, Madam Chairman. I would like 

to follow up on that a bit. One of the concerns has been that I have 

had has been the security clearance of the benefits adjudicators 

and director. We had discussed that briefly yesterday. And it continues to be a concern. And the information that we are provided 

indicates that—of course, since 9/11, things are gotten tougher in 

making sure that adjudicators, those who are checking the name 

or seeking name clearance and reviewing those files had adequate 

security clearance and that, as I understand from the information 

we have been provided today, that employees, perhaps over 3 years 

have been grandfathered in to be allowed to review the name check 

system and that newer employees are being required to have the 

security clearance. 

But you know, and I so much appreciated the comments in your 

introductory remarks that although we do want a streamlined process so we don’t appear to be the worst of the third-world immigration services, at the same time we can’t afford to lose security. The 

MOU with the FBI was mentioned. But I had been concerned, and 

apparently there is a basis for it that we have had people that 

should not be utilizing the name check system potentially in adjudicator status, reviewing those and making adjudications. 

So I want to know what kind of security efforts have been made? 

And hopefully, redoubled. 

Mr. AYTES. Sir, if I may, Customs and Border Patrol Agency 

which manages Tex, the system that you are referring to, did, after 

9/11, raise their standards for security clearances. We worked with 

them. We incorporated them——

Mr. GOHMERT. You don’t disagree with the need to raise the security? 

Mr. AYTES. Not at all, sir. We incorporated those standards for 

all of our new hires and we have worked with them to work out 

a plan where over 3 years we will raise the security level of all of 

our existing folks who have access to that system. But all of the 

employees who had access to that system today had the necessary 

security clearances at the level that CBP had previously required. 

So this is an issue of raising standards and applying those standards to our existing workforce as quickly as we can rather than on 

unqualified employees having access to records. 

38

Mr. GOHMERT. Anybody else want to add anything on that? 

Okay. I noted in the ombudsman report, there is a reference to 

work-at-home challenges. And in view of the problems with taking 

computers home that we saw with the Veterans Administration, it 

kind of scared me to see that even though we have taken up the 

issue in this Congress about, you know, some businesses should 

have that flexibility. It may be that some government functions can 

be done just fine from home. But when we are talking about this 

Nation’s security, it concerns me to hear there may be a work-athome program. Is there a work-at-home program where important 

security information, private information is taken to people’s 

homes? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. We do have a work-at-home program, sir. And I 

will get back to you with regards to the specific security arrangements that are applied to that working arrangements. But I know 

that we have them. We have discussed it. And one of the offices 

that just within the last couple of weeks, we were discussing just 

this issue and our information technology chief information officer 

has also, I believe, looked at this issue. But we will get back to you 

with details about that, sir. It is an issue——

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it certainly concerns me, and I would like 

to know more about it because I have a real problem with the security-sensitive situation of taking work home. Just seeing my time 

is about to——

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? I will grant by unanimous consent an additional minute for him to yield. 

Since the agency, as I understand it, is not yet there technologically, so you could have a secure either biometric or passwordsecured telecommute, would it be true that if there is a work-athome program, employees are taking paper files home? 

Mr. SCHARFEN. I will have to get back to you on that issue. That 

can be the case, ma’am. But it is a limited program, and we will 

get an answer to you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and he has an 

additional minute. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you for that very intuitive question. Well, 

just in conclusion, one combined question here. But there has been 

a recommendation by apparently not just the ombudsman but 

many others to provide clearer instructions, provide information on 

the actual rejection criteria, use less legalese, particularly in the 

quest for additional information, and that if there is a checklist 

that service centers use to make sure that all information is properly in, that the checklist be provided to people as they make applications. 

Now we have had hearings in the past year on possibly reduce—

or increasing the fees. And I think the Chair and I have had disagreement. I don’t have as much problem increasing fees if we can 

do it in such a way that we cut out the legalese, allow people not 

to pay $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 to attorneys that may not actually be 

needed. But if we can streamline that process where they can apply 

without an attorney, pay a little more money to get it done through 

the system, I don’t have a problem with that. But with regard to 

these recommendations, what if anything is being done? 

39

Mr. AYTES. Sir, we absolutely agree on that score. And we have 

a group of folks who are looking at all of the instructions for our 

application forms with the idea being to focus them more toward 

individual customers. Right now there are a combination where if 

you are filing for a particular benefit, the instructions may be the 

same on the same package as for another customer who is seeking 

something else. 

We are going to focus them, make them far more specific and incorporate checklists of the kinds of documentation that needs to be 

submitted not only to have your case accepted, but to have your 

case adjudicated. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We may be able 

to further explore these issues later. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for not 

being here for the testimony. And I gather that a number of the 

questions I had have been asked and dealt with. 

One issue I just wanted to—I don’t know if I am asking in response, although following up on a specific individual might be useful. But this is someone from my district. He files his naturalization application in February of 2006. After much effort, he learns 

that he was part of the name check backlog and was advised by 

your agency that they could do nothing to speed things along. 

The problem was with the FBI. But then when we called the 

FBI—oh, and when he called the FBI, he was told that they only 

work on the name check cases prioritized by your agency. In other 

words, you had a situation of each agency putting the blame on the 

other agency. In this case, the individual had gone through and received a security clearance before applying for naturalization for 

the purpose of government employment. 

Now I am unaware of a process for that, but that is what he says 

he did. So he got his security clearance, according to him, but he 

hasn’t been able to get through the FBI for the background check 

for naturalization. It would seem to me that a security clearance 

background investigation would be even more rigorous than a background check for naturalization purposes. And he believes the 

thing that caused his name—the reason there was a name check 

at all was because he had applied for a security clearance. 

And of course, he still hasn’t gotten any date for a naturalization 

hearing. He hasn’t been approved. And I am wondering if off the 

top of your head you have any reaction to the anomaly here of 

somebody being security cleared but can’t get his FBI background 

check through for a naturalization. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I am not familiar with the process of granting a security clearance to someone who is not a citizen. But I 

would be happy to look into it. If your staff could get me the file, 

I would be more than happy to take a personal interest in it and 

get back to you. 

Mr. BERMAN. I would be grateful if you would. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. And it appears there are 

no further Members here. So we will thank the director and his 

able staff for being here. We look forward to working further with 

40

you on these issues. And we will now ask the second panel to come 

forward. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to reiterate our willingness to work with you and your staff on issues on 

mutual interest and how we can move these matters forward. I appreciate your patience today. Thanks. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. All right. Let’s ask the second panel 

to come forward. And as you do, I will introduce you. 

First, I am pleased to welcome Arturo Vargas, the Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 

Officials Education Fund. Prior to joining NALEO, Arturo Vargas 

was vice president for Community Education of Public Policy of the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or otherwise known as MALDEF. He has been included in Hispanic Business Magazine’s list of 100 Hispanic influential people twice and 

has been named one of the 101st most influential Latinos, three 

times three times by Latino Readers magazine. Arturo holds a 

master’s degree in education and a bachelor’s degree in history and 

Spanish from Stanford University, from my neck of the woods. And 

he is from Los Angeles, born in El Paso Texas. 

Next, I would like to introduce Fred Tsao, policy director for the 

Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights. Mr. Tsao 

provides technical support, training and presentations on immigration-related topics to service providers, immigrant community organizations and others who work with immigrants. Fred practiced 

law at the Rockford Office of Prairie State Legal Services where he 

worked after receiving his law degree from the University of Michigan. A native of Chicago, Fred is the son of immigrants from China 

and has had a life long concern about immigration issues. 

And it is also my pleasure next to offer Rosemary Jenks for 

Numbers USA. Ms. Jenks has worked on immigration issues since 

1990. Prior to her work with Numbers USA, she spent 2 years as 

an independent immigration consultant, providing research and 

legislative analyses to immigration reform organizations around 

the country. Before that she was Director of Policy analysis at the 

Center For Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think 

tank. Ms. Jenks received her JD with honors from Harvard Law 

School and BA in political science from the Colorado College. She 

is a member of the Virginia State Bar. She also serves on the board 

of directors of the 9/11 families for a secure foundation. 

As you know, your written testimony will be made part of the official record. We would ask at this time that you provide oral testimony that consumes about 5 minutes. When the red light goes on, 

we will let you know and ask that you wrap up. And we will begin 

with you, Mr. Vargas. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS EDUCATION FUND 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you Chairwoman Lofgren, Members of the 

Subcommittee. It is actually great to see my birth State and my 

home State so well represented on the dais this morning. 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss naturalization delays and their impact. For the last decade, 

41

we have been at the forefront of efforts to promote U.S. citizenship 

and to assist legal permanent residents with the naturalization 

process. A year ago, along with our national partners, we launched 

our national Ya Es Hora !Ciudadania!, (It’s time, citizenship!) campaign to inform, educate and motivate eligible permanent residents 

to apply for U.S. citizenship. And as Dr. Gonzalez testified earlier 

this morning, the agency has received about 1.4 million applications in 2007, nearly a doubling of applications over the previous 

year. And there are several factors that contributed to this increase. 

First, newcomers are strongly motivated to pursue U.S. citizenship because of the opportunity it confers to become full Americans 

and to participate in civic life. Our campaign strengthens and sustains the momentum of the increased naturalization applications. 

The USCIS’s July 2007 increase in the fees to start the application 

process also contributed to a dramatic growth in naturalization applications. During the months proceeding the fee hike, the monthly 

number of applicants grew significantly. The USCIS’s application 

backlog began to grow steadily as well, and applicants started to 

experience longer processing times. 

By October, the number of pending applications had increased by 

96 percent from the year fiscal year 2006. We were concerned when 

the USCIS announced the estimate of a 16- to 18-month processing 

time for applications filed after June 2007. According to the Agency, about half a million legal permanent residents submitted applications between June and October 2007, and the estimates are that 

the actual number is actually greater. We have seen that the demand for naturalization assistance has persisted even after the fee 

increased. When the USCIS announced its intention in August to 

require newcomers to replace their legal permanent residency cards 

with no expiration dates, many are choosing to naturalize as an alternative to replacing their permanent residency cards. We estimate that an additional 183,000 applicants would join the more 

than half million affected by the Agency’s announced processing 

delay. This processing delay represents a significant increase over 

waiting times in recent years. 

When the Agency made the final announcement of its July fee 

increase, it reaffirmed its commitment to reducing processing times 

and cited a 5-month processing period as both a goal and one of 

the justifications for the increase. Ironically, many of the newcomers who will be affected by the Agency’s delays are the very applicants who had paid the higher fees. The challenges to addressing 

the naturalization backlog is exacerbated by problems it experiences with the FBI background check process, as has been discussed by this Committee and in its conversation with Dr. Gonzalez. 

The USCIS has announced several actions to address the backlog, as Dr. Gonzalez described in his testimony. However, we understand that the Agency does not believe these measures will have 

an impact soon enough to ensure that most applicants who filed in 

2007 will become citizens in 2008. We believe this raises serious 

questions about why the Agency did not start to take action earlier 

to address the impending backlog. We provided the Agency with 

advance notice about our campaign and the dramatic increase in 

42

applicants we thought it would help produce. In April 2007, when 

many filed their comments on the proposed fee hike, they expressed concerns about the increased applications that they expected before the implementation of the fee hike. We also believe 

that past naturalization increases should have forewarned the 

Agency about the current increase. 

Several times during the past two decades the Agency experienced consistent increases in naturalization applications whenever 

a fee increase was announced and implemented and whenever the 

Nation experienced a resurgence about the immigrant sentiment, 

much like we experienced in 2007. We believe the Subcommittee, 

the USCIS and those of us who work on behalf of our Nation’s newcomers share the common goal of ensuring that all legal permanent 

residents who meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship can have 

their applications adjudicated in a timely and accurate manner. 

We thus recommend the following: The USCIS must develop and 

implement a comprehensive plan to significantly reduce future 

processing times from its current estimates. The Agency must ensure that all qualified applicants who filed in fiscal year 2007 are 

sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. In implementing its backlog 

elimination plan, the USCIS must work closely with national and 

local immigration advocacy and service providers and private businesses that reach the newcomer community. On the national level, 

the USCIS has regular meetings with stakeholders on a variety of 

naturalization policy issues tht have helped the Agency develop 

practical solutions to some of its challenges and have helped the 

Agency gain valuable knowledge about the impact of its policies on 

the immigrant community. 

The USCIS must issue directives to the leadership of its district 

offices to meet regularly with local naturalization stakeholders. The 

Los Angeles USCIS district office is a model of an extremely effective partnership between the office’s leadership and local organizations, and this relationship has actually benefited the immigrant 

community and the district office itself in carrying out its activities. 

The USCIS should work with the Department of Homeland Security to examine whether current policies and the acceptance of gifts 

by Federal agencies from non-Federal sources needs to be streamlined to enable the Agency to use the facilities and other infrastructure provided by State and local governments to assist with the 

backlog reductions, as the Chairwoman mentioned earlier. 

The USCIS and the OMB and Congress must work together to 

ensure expeditious approval of the Agency’s reprogramming request. The USCIS will need to spend more in fiscal year 2007 than 

what was initially approved by Congress to address the backlog. 

The Agency has submitted reprogramming requests to the Office of 

Management and Budget, and this has subsequently been forwarded to Congress. We urge Congress to approve the current reprogramming request as soon as possible. 

Finally, the USCIS and the FBI must institute new policies to 

eliminate the naturalization processing delays caused by the complicated background checks. I think this issue has been thoroughly 

discussed by the Subcommittee with Dr. Gonzalez. And it raises 

the serious question about why the FBI is not complying with timely background checks. 

43

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS


AV-1.eps
44


AV-2.eps
45


AV-3.eps
46


AV-4.eps
47


AV-5.eps
48


AV-6.eps
49


AV-7.eps
50


AV-8.eps
51


AV-9.eps
52


AV-10.eps
53


AV-11.eps
54


AV-12.eps
55


AV-13.eps
56


AV-14.eps
57


AV-15.eps
58


AV-16.eps
59

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Tsao. 

TESTIMONY OF FRED TSAO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS 

COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS 

Mr. TSAO. Good morning, Chairwoman Lofgren, Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Fred Tsao. I am the policy director of 

the Illinois Coalition For Immigrant and Refugee Rights. ICIRR is 

a coalition of more than 100 member organizations throughout Illinois that works to build the capacity of immigrants and refugee 

communities and to advocate for policies that will move immigrants 

and refugees toward full participation in our society. Thank you 

again for this opportunity. 

I am proud to be the son of two naturalized citizens. My mother 

took her oath in February 1964, 1 month before she gave birth to 

me so I was there. My father became a citizen in December 1971 

after 22 years in the United States, including 16 years without 

legal status after barely fleeing the communist takeover of China. 

Both of my parents applied within weeks of becoming eligible. My 

parents understood the value of citizenship. Fortunately, more and 

more long-term legal immigrants are also realizing the importance 

of U.S. citizenship. NALEO’s Ya Es Hora campaign, our own New 

Americans Initiative and other efforts across the country, have 

helped legal immigrants understand how they can improve their 

lives, find their voice and contribute further to this country by becoming citizens. This has been borne out by the rising numbers of 

applications filed all through 2006 and 2007. 

Obviously, immigrants also understand the cost of applying for 

citizenship. The prospect of a 70 percent rise in application fees 

drove many immigrants to file sooner rather than later. In January 

2007 after USCIS made its intentions known, the Agency issued an 

unprecedented 95,000 naturalization receipts. The numbers jumped 

even further when the free proposal was actually published. Starting in March and continuing through July, USCIS averaged 

120,000 receipts each month. Months after the fee increase became 

final on July 30, it was still issuing receipts for applications filed 

in June and July. The result: projected processing backlogs of 16 

to 18 months and would-be citizens who would miss this year’s 

elections through no fault of their own. 

ICIRR opposed the increase as a brick in a second wall, a wall 

that would keep legal immigrants from becoming citizens. We 

warned that such a steep increase would create a surge in citizenship and other applications that USCIS must be prepared to handle and indeed could have seen coming as early as last January. 

We joined thousands of organizations and individuals in filing comments and worked with Congressman Gutierrez and Senator 

Obama on a Citizenship Promotion Act that would, among other 

things, would have frozen the fees. Yet the Agency proceeded with 

the increase, failed to plan well enough for it and got swamped. 

So where do we go from here? We endorse NALEO’s goal that 

USCIS process these backlog applications by July 4 so that these 

applicants can celebrate our Nation’s independence as U.S. citizens 

and vote this November. We are encouraged that USCIS plans to 

rehire 700 retirees and recruit and train more officers. USCIS 

should report to this Committee on its progress not just in addressVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
60

ing the backlog itself but also in implementing its staffing plans 

and other measures, all without diminishing the integrity of the 

process. In the spirit of cooperation, ICIRR is willing to work together with USCIS to solve this problem. 

Meanwhile, USCIS must address the 150,000 applicants whose 

cases are stuck in name check delays at the FBI. Immigrants with 

no criminal record from Russia, India and disproportionately the 

Middle East must wait years for the FBI to confirm that their 

records are clear. Congress has appropriated $20 million to USCIS 

to fix the situation, and we hope that USCIS and the FBI will plan 

wisely and spend these funds efficiently. Both agencies should set 

clear goals and timetables for addressing these delays and should 

report regularly to this Committee on their progress. In closing, 

ICIRR hopes that USCIS will muster the sound management and 

additional capacity it will need to give prompt careful and thorough 

consideration to all of the applicants now in its backlog. 

We hope that this Committee will be watching closely to see that 

USCIS keep the promise of citizenship and full participation that 

our Nation has extended to these hundreds of thousands of aspiring Americans. Thank you again for your invitation and your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsao follows:]

61

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED TSAO


FT-1.eps
62


FT-2.eps
63


FT-3.eps
64


FT-4.eps
65

Mr. TSAO. I should note for the record that we have submitted 

for the record of this hearing a letter addressed to Dr. Gonzalez 

signed by 187 organizations and individuals expressing concern 

about the backlogs and urging immediate action. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that letter will be made part of 

the record. 

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

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will turn now to you, Ms. Jenks. Welcome 

again to our Committee room. 

TESTIMONY OF ROSEMARY JENKS,

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, NUMBERS USA 

Ms. JENKS. Thank you very much Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you to talk about how the growing delays in our naturalization process should be addressed and how they shouldn’t be addressed. My organization, Numbers USA, represents more than 

half a million U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from 

every congressional district, every walk of life across the political 

spectrum. The one thing they all agree on is the value of U.S. citizenship because every time they send a fax or make a phone call 

to their representative from Congress, they are experiencing that 

value directly. We believe strongly that naturalization should be 

the goal of every LPR and the high point of the experience in 

America. Therefore, it has got to be done in a timely way and an 

efficient way but it cannot compromise the integrity of the process 

of citizenship nor can it compromise America’s security. 

Almost 11 years ago, I testified before this Subcommittee about 

the integrity of the naturalization process in the aftermath of the 

Citizenship USA program, which Congressman King mentioned. 

That program is typical of the way USCIS and the INS before it 

addressed backlog reduction. They wait until there is a crisis. Even 

though, as we have heard many times today, the increase in numbers is almost always foreseeable. They wait until the crisis is upon 

them and then they start tying to react. The first thing they do is 

detail employees from one part of the Agency to another even 

though they may not be trained in how to adjudicate naturalization 

applications. Then they start hiring temporary workers. We heard 

that is already in progress. The problem is, again, the training of 

those temporary workers is not always—not usually up to par. 

When those things don’t work, then the typical reaction is to bring 

in an outside consulting firm and reengineer the process. The results are not surprising. The result is chaos. In the Citizenship 

USA program, the results were very instructive. 

The KPMG Pete Marwick review after the fact found that of the 

1,049,872 immigrants who were granted U.S. citizenship under 

that program, 71,557 had FBI criminal records. Of those, at least 

10,800 had at least one felony arrest. There were 180,000 who got 

no background check at all, either because their fingerprints were 

illegible and therefore returned by the FBI and not resubmitted, or 

because their fingerprints were never submitted in the first place. 

That cannot be allowed to happen again. 

In 1996 and 1997, when I was discovering the lengths to which 

INS officials went to meet their processing goals, my primary conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
66

cern was the irreparable harm that was done to the citizenship 

process. Today I am still appalled at the absolute contempt they 

showed for the integrity of the process. But I am more horrified by 

the certainty that the Citizenship USA program gave the highest 

honor that America has to offer to terrorists and their supporters. 

We have proof of that. We were assured after that program that 

the process had been changed. There was no possibility, Commissioner Meissner testified, that someone could become naturalized 

without the FBI background check being done. It simply couldn’t 

happen. Well, it has happened since then. It happened in 2002. 

There was an Office of Internal Audit, then INS, report on how we 

naturalized a known terrorist in 2002. 

In 1998, Congress codified a requirement that the INS—then, 

now USCIS—adjudicators receive an affirmative result from the 

FBI indicating that all background checks, all required background 

checks have been completed prior to scheduling an interview. That 

means that in every one of the mandamus cases that have been 

discussed here and every single one of those cases since 1998, the 

agency broke the law. They broke the law and therefore they are 

being sued. The suits can’t happen unless they do what they are 

not allowed by law to do and schedule the interview before they get 

the criminal check results back. But their own Federal regulations 

state unequivocally that the naturalization interview may not be 

scheduled until they have affirmative results from the FBI. And 

yet, still, we know that it is still happening. 

A March 16, 2006, USCIS internal memo includes a paragraph 

that essentially says that they continue to violate the law because 

of congressional and Presidential mandates on processing times 

and backlog reduction. So because Congress is pressuring them, 

they are breaking the law that Congress set. 

For too long, we have focused on quick fixes, a crisis arises and 

we, you know, scramble to deal with it. We have got to get out of 

that mold. We have to go back and realize that the basic foundation of the process is broken. It needs to be fixed. Without a hightech computer system, they cannot accomplish the goals that we 

would like them to accomplish. Without training, they cannot accomplish the goals. Their personnel policies have to be taught to 

the employees, and they have to all understand that nothing can 

trump national security. And I will leave it at that. Thank you. 

The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]

67

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY JENKS


RJ-1.eps
68


RJ-2.eps
69


RJ-3.eps
70


RJ-4.eps
71


RJ-5.eps
72


RJ-6.eps
73


RJ-7.eps
74


RJ-8.eps
75


RJ-9.eps
76


RJ-10.eps
77


RJ-11.eps
78


RJ-12.eps
79


RJ-13.eps
80


RJ-14.eps
81


RJ-15.eps
82


RJ-16.eps
83


RJ-17.eps
84


RJ-18.eps
85


RJ-19.eps
86


RJ-20.eps
87


RJ-21.eps
88


RJ-22.eps
89


RJ-23.eps
90


RJ-24.eps
91


RJ-25.eps
92


RJ-26.eps
93


RJ-27.eps
94


RJ-28.eps
95


RJ-29.eps
96


RJ-30.eps
97


RJ-31.eps
98


RJ-32.eps
99


RJ-33.eps
100


RJ-34.eps
101


RJ-35.eps
102


RJ-36.eps
103


RJ-37.eps
104


RJ-38.eps
105


RJ-39.eps
106


RJ-40.eps
107


RJ-41.eps
108


RJ-42.eps
109


RJ-43.eps
110


RJ-44.eps
111


RJ-45.eps
112


RJ-46.eps
113


RJ-47.eps
114


RJ-48.eps
115


RJ-49.eps
116


RJ-50.eps
117


RJ-51.eps
118


RJ-52.eps
119

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. [Presiding.] Thank you for your testimony Ms. 

Jenks. 

We now will begin our first round of questioning, and I will start 

with myself. 

Mr. Vargas, my first question is for you. You state in your written testimony that the most recent increase in the last year was 

the third highest in our Nation’s history in terms of applicants. 

Given that fact, do you think that USCIS should have been able 

to anticipate or at least respond better to the increase in the applications for citizenship? 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. Absolutely. In fact, we ourselves saw it coming when the fee increase 

was announced; the kind of debate this Nation was having around 

the role of immigrants, we could have seen this coming ourselves, 

and that is why we met with the USCIS in Los Angeles and here 

in Washington to advise them of the impending increase. 

It was suggested that the increase would be isolated to some cities such as Los Angeles, and states such as California. But in fact 

the opposite occurred. It occurred throughout the country. We believe this should have been anticipated. And as Ms. Jenks said, 

now we are operating in crisis mode. This is not the way to adjudicate applications for citizenship. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. And do you think that USCIS met and 

responded adequately with groups such as NALEO to try to figure 

out which would be the best solutions for trying to cope with an 

increase in the number of applications? 

Mr. VARGAS. I think this is an example where we see some inconsistencies of how the USCIS works with some organizations such 

as NALEO. In Los Angeles we have an excellent working relationship and partnership where we were able to identify local challenges and come up with practical local solutions. We wish that 

this kind of partnership would be replicated throughout the country, including Illinois and Texas and Iowa and New York so that 

the USCIS could benefit from the experience of local service providers. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So I am assuming that NALEO, among many of 

the other groups that helps with citizenship applications, sort of I 

would assume, would be in a good position to understand what 

some of the longest delays tend to center around and could provide 

helpful advice in terms of how USCIS could sort of tighten up their 

operations in order to address some of those concerns that you see 

over and over again. 

Mr. VARGAS. That’s right. And, in fact, sometimes we actually 

end up suggesting to applicants that they do exactly what you experience, Congresswoman, and refer to their Members of Congress. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you for that. We do receive quite a number 

of inquiries in my office as a result. Thank you. 

Mr. Tsao, did I pronounce that correctly? 

Mr. TSAO. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. As you heard earlier from my questions I have 

many examples of constituents who have waited 2, 3, and even 4 

years for their naturalization process applications to be approved. 

And these people have done everything that has been asked of 

them. They have turned in all the paperwork. They are not missing 

120

anything. They have passed their English exams. They have, you 

know, their civic exams, and yet they are just waiting and waiting 

and waiting. 

I am interested in hearing what are some of the consequences 

that you have seen as a result of the backlog of immigration cases 

that haven’t been cleared. 

Mr. TSAO. Thank you, Representative Sa ́nchez. We in Chicago 

have seen quite a number of cases that have experienced delay. 

Many of these delays, unfortunately, have to do with the name 

checks. And these are gentlemen who have been waiting months, 

if not years, for their names to clear. These are people without 

criminal records. They have never had any trouble with the law, 

and yet they are in this situation where they have to keep waiting. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. How does that realistically impact them in their 

day-to-day lives? 

Mr. TSAO. Certainly quite a number of them would like to travel 

back to their home countries as U.S. citizens, without any possible 

obstacles of returning back to their countries. There are a number 

of situations where we have refugees and asylees who are elderly 

or disabled, who are reaching the end of their eligibility for SSI 

benefits, and they would like to become citizens. This is the income 

that supplements the support they get from their families and from 

their communities. And yet, because of the current 7-year bar, if 

they are not able to accomplish their citizenship within 7 years, 

they will lose that support. As I understand, there is legislation 

that would address this issue pending before this Congress. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. My last question is for all three of the 

panelists, and I am going to pose a hypothetical question to you. 

If USCIS were a corporation and Dr. Gonzalez were the CEO of 

that corporation, do you think—this is your personal opinion—that 

based on the work performance and the outcomes of what the agency has produced, do any of you believe that that corporation would 

still be a growing oing concern and in existence at this point? Mr. 

Vargas. 

Mr. VARGAS. I think the shareholders would have some serious 

questions about the management of the agency. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Tsao. 

Mr. TSAO. I would feel the same way, yes. 

Ms. JENKS. It would have gone bankrupt years ago. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I think that is a sad commentary on 

the status of the backlog and where we are. And with that, my 

time has expired, and I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

King of Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am amazed at the naivety 

of everybody’s response to that question. They have a monopoly. Of 

course, they wouldn’t have gone bankrupt. That is one of the things 

we need to bring into a lot of different aspects of government is 

competition. And that makes us all better. That is my little point 

of my philosophy. 

I turn, if I could, first to Mr. Vargas. And as I read through your 

testimony and consider that presentation, you talk—you write in 

your testimony that USCIS must take swift and effective action to 

ensure that all the applicants can realize their dream of U.S. citizenship, and a recommendation was by July 4th of 2008. 

121

What would be the highest priority of USCIS’s job? Is that it as 

you define it? 

Mr. VARGAS. I think the highest priority is to provide a quality 

service for a reasonable price. And when they testified before this 

Committee last year, when we discussed the fee increase, that was 

exactly the point that I was making; that if you are going to ask 

more financially of these applicants in addition to everything that 

an applicant does, learn English, follow the rules, take the test, 

demonstrate their loyalty and faithfulness to this country, that 

they should receive a reasonable service. 

The July 4th is just a goal, sir. 

Mr. KING. I understand that. But could you incorporate into that 

philosophy the level that you put on our national security and on 

the background check side of this? That seems to be absent from 

your testimony. 

Mr. VARGAS. I don’t think national security should be compromised in any way. We also believe, though, that we could 

achieve these goals simultaneously of ensuring our security, ensuring integrity in the process, and also making sure that applicants 

seeking citizenship are treated fairly. 

Mr. KING. Fair enough. And as I go to your point about the FBI 

and the 90-day deadline, what would you recommend would be the 

result at the end of 90 days if the FBI doesn’t complete the background check? 

Mr. VARGAS. I think that is an excellent question for the FBI 

when it is called to appear before this Committee. 

Mr. KING. You wouldn’t make a recommendation as to what that 

consequence might be? There wouldn’t be an implication in your 

testimony that the process should go forward, that the application 

should go forward. 

Mr. VARGAS. I think there should be a report from the FBI, either to the applicant or to this Committee, as to why a 90-day 

check cannot be achieved. 

Mr. KING. We are in agreement all the way down through this 

testimony, through your response to my questions I should say, up 

to and including that our national security shouldn’t be compromised, but we need to find ways to make government efficient. 

And I agree with the substance of that testimony. 

And I would turn to Ms. Jenks and your testimony. It seemed 

that you had more to say when that clock ran out. 

Ms. JENKS. Always. 

Mr. KING. I do know that. I would ask you about the political dynamic that brought about Citizenship USA, and if you might draw 

some comparisons between that time and this time now in 2008. 

Ms. JENKS. There are quite a number of comparisons, which worries me. Of course, Citizenship USA was created because there was 

a huge backlog due to the fact—well, several factors, but one of 

them, the biggest, being that the aliens who were given amnesty 

under the 1986 act had just become eligible for naturalization and 

had applied, rightly so, in large numbers. 

There was also welfare reform and green card replacement programs going on. That all drove more immigrants to apply. This was 

entirely foreseeable and yet still the INS waited until they were in 

a crisis and they had a massive backlog, and then they started deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:17 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\011708\40282.000 HJUD1 PsN: 40282
122

tailing employees from one part of the agency to another, which we 

heard this morning is already happening at USCIS. And then they 

started hiring temporary workers, which we heard this morning 

has already started happening at USCIS. And then, when none of 

that worked, and there was still a lot of pressure from Congress, 

from the applicants and from the White House, because an election 

was pending, then they brought in an outside consulting firm that 

reengineered the process. And the shortcuts that always seem to be 

taken when any of these processes is reengineered is the security 

part of it because that is what takes the longest. Inevitably it is 

the security checks that take the longest. 

Mr. KING. Also has USCIS, have they gained more security clearance and more investigators or have they lost them in the last couple of years, to your knowledge? 

Ms. JENKS. They have lost them. I don’t know that they have—

they may still have two actually law enforcement authorized people 

there. I think that is it. 

Mr. KING. The dependency is on the FBI and their level——

Ms. JENKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. I make a point here, Ms. Jenks. If there were 10 million people who want to come into the United States and we let 1 

million people in a year, the average wait would be roughly 10 

years. And we get concerned about lines, but the truth is that we 

have more applicants than we actually have slots for, and that is 

part of this equation; would you agree? 

Ms. JENKS. Absolutely. And that is not going to change unless 

Congress changes the overall immigration law. The fact is that this 

is an agency that is going to face crisis after crisis after crisis after 

crisis if we are going to deal with it in that way. 

So until Congress steps in and exercises a firm oversight authority and essentially forces them to step back and fix the underlying 

system, get the IT system up—how long have we all been hearing 

that they are going to become a digitized agency? And today we 

heard, well, in the next 5 years we are supposed to go—move out 

of using paper. Well, we have heard it over and over again. When 

is it going to happen? It has to happen. You cannot build a strong 

building on a weak foundation. It won’t work. 

Mr. KING. But completing interviews prior to a background check 

would be a waste of human resources that could be better used, 

and I conclude that as a message to be given to this panel as well. 

And I thank you and all the witnesses for their testimony. Thank 

you. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

I would just like to close with a couple of comments rather than 

questions. First, I think it is important that we not pose, really, the 

false question of either we have to have insecurity or inefficiency, 

because you can have both security and efficiency; and that is, I 

think, what we are all striving for here today. 

Secondly, there is no quota on how many people who are eligible 

to apply for citizenship get to be become Americans. It is only all 

the people who are eligible and who want to be Americans get to 

do that. So I think that it is important to state that. And we benefit from that, we all agree on that. 

123

Thirdly, you know, with 5,000 lawsuits being filed—and I think 

all the Members here probably have run into it, where people are 

tearing their hair out; it is 2, 3, 5 years and you can’t get a yes 

or no. I mean, you cannot get a yes or no. 

And finally a lot of things are at stake here: whether you can 

apply for your spouse, whether you can take the job you have been 

offered at a defense firm. Many things. And so if we can’t get this 

under control, more lawsuits are going to be filed, more agency resources are going to be directed toward dealing with that, and it 

is a spiral downward. So we have to get this done. 

We had a workshop on information technology last fall, and I 

was the only Member who was able to come, regrettably, but I 

think we might actually do a hearing on that, because I think there 

is total agreement wherever you are on the philosophical issues of 

immigration, we have to have an adequate system here. And we 

don’t. And that is really also the problem with the FBI, that they 

are still creating paper files in 2008, it is just unbelievable. It is 

unbelievable. And it is not secure. 

If you have to chase down files on agents’ desks all across the 

country, I mean, it is a problem for applicants for naturalization. 

It is a disaster for managing caseloads in terms of protecting us 

from people who want to do us harm. So we really have to move 

into the modern age. 

And I am hopeful that one of the things we can work together 

on as a Committee—even we don’t agree on everything having to 

do with immigration—is to work together on a bipartisan basis on 

efficiency and getting these systems to work and having an agency 

that we can be proud of. 

So a lot of people don’t realize that the witnesses are volunteers 

here today. We do thank you for coming to share your expertise for 

all you have done not only today but for our country. 

And at this point, we would invite Members to submit additional 

written questions. We have 5 legislative days to do that, and we 

will forward the questions to all the witnesses. And if we do have 

questions, we would ask that you answer them promptly. And for 

the record, the record will remain open for 5 legislative days. And 

we thank you again and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(125)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

126


5.eps
127


6.eps
128

f


7.eps
129


8-1.eps
130


8-2.eps
131


8-3.eps
132


8-4.eps
133


8-5.eps
134

f


8-6.eps
135


9-1.eps
136


9-2.eps
137


9-3.eps
138

f


9-4.eps
139


10-1.eps
140

f


10-2.eps
141


11-1.eps
142


11-2.eps
143


11-3.eps
144


11-4.eps
145


11-5.eps
146

f


11-6.eps
147


12-1.eps
148


12-2.eps
149


12-3.eps
150


12-4.eps
151


12-5.eps
152

Æ


12-6.eps