Page 1 TOP OF DOC72–612 PS
2001
INS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 15, 2001
Serial No. 21
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCMARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TODD R. SCHULTZ, Chief of Staff
PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCJULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah, Vice Chair
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
LORA RIES, Counsel
CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff
LEON BUCK, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
MAY 15, 2001
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable George W. Gekas, a Representative in Congress From the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
WITNESSES
Mr. Kevin Rooney, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Ms. Peggy Philbin, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Bishop Thomas Wenski, National Conference of Catholic Bishops
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Roy Beck, Executive Director, Numbers USA
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement of Mr. John R. Lacey, Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress From the State of Utah
Organizational Chart of the U.S. Department of Justice
Organizational Chart of the Executive Office for Immigration Review
Congressman Cannon Questions for the Record
Answers to Congressman Cannon Questions
Mr. Roy Beck
Mr. Kevin Rooney
Ms. Peggy Philbin
Congressman Conyers Questions for the Record
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCAnswers to Congressman Conyers Questions
Mr. Kevin Rooney
INS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George W. Gekas [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. GEKAS. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the Committee will come to order.
By dint of the rules of the House and those that are mimicked by the Subcommittee rules, a hearing quorum consists of two Members; and the fall of the gavel signifies our intent to begin each hearing and each session of this Committee on time. Sadly, I must recess now until the second Member should appear.
During that time, you have a choice. I can repeat some Shakespearean sonnets or sing old barber shop melodies. We will forego both for the time being and recess until a second Member should appear. We stand in recess.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess.]
Mr. GEKAS. The time of recess has expired by reason of the appearance on the working quorum of a Member in the name of Lamar Smith of Texas, former Chairman of this Committee.
The purpose of this hearing, of course, is an oversight of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and its accompanying entities and personnel and other items.
There is no American living who is not aware of the massive problems we are experiencing with immigration—legal immigration, illegal immigration, the status of documented and undocumented workers. The list can go on and on with the variety of vexations that accompany our immigration policies or lack of policies.
While we listen to the testimony today we should keep in mind that indeed the administration and its budget offering contemplates an increased number of dollars to assist the completion and the beginning of some work; and one of the questions that will emanate from this hearing will be, will that be enough? Will that funding be enough? Or, on the contrary, is pouring additional money into projects which seem to have gone unheeded or unsatisfactorily serviced in previous months and years, would that be just throwing good money after bad?
The number of questions and the problems are as wide as the imagination. But we are constrained and we will be very patient in listening to the points of view of the witnesses and then subject them to as much relevant questioning as we can muster on the various subjects to which we have made some reference.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will begin by offering the gentleman from Texas the privilege of making an opening statement if he so desires.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do not have an opening statement, but I am looking forward to the answers to the questions we might have for our witnesses today.
I would like to thank you for having this hearing and for your active interest in all the subjects you mentioned in your comments just a minute ago. As you pointed out particularly, the INS has gotten a dramatic increase in their funds over the years; and we want to make sure we and the taxpayers of America are getting our money's worth. With this new administration I happen to think we are off to a very good start; and I think there are a lot of priorities we are going to be hearing about today that are going to be welcome news for those of us who care about immigration but care about all aspect of immigration, that is, not only processing legal grant immigrants more quickly but also enforcing those laws on our books on those who come into our country illegally.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing; and I, like you, look forward to hearing the testimony.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the former Chairman.
We turn to the panel with brief introductions with the distinguished membership of this panel and announce the presence of even more than we expected by reason of a hearing quorum, the gentleman, Mr. Cannon, a Member of the Committee.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first witness will be Kevin Rooney, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, now Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice. He comes to this panel after a long time of service to the Nation. He comes from Palmer, Massachusetts, and is a graduate of St. Mary's Seminary and University and Georgia Washington University School of Law.
He is quite well versed as we gained not only from public pronouncements and actions over the years but for purposes of this Chair's acquaintance with a lengthy consultation that we held in advance of this meeting today.
He is joined at the witness table by Peggy Philbin, the Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review in the Department of Justice. We, too, met but only just briefly before the hearing has begun; and we find a long list of credentials on the part of Ms. Philbin as well which will become a part of the record as we introduce the introductory material into that record.
They are joined by Bishop Thomas Wenski, the Auxiliary Bishop of Miami. He is testifying on behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration.
I think I should note that the Bishop's presence here is emblematic of what I think is the experience of most Members of Congress, that within almost every district, and particularly those that deal with immigration, that the local Catholic entities have been involved in every phase of immigration problems just like the ones we said in our preamble, legal immigration and the application for status, and dealing with illegal immigration as well and all the attendant problems. So it is appropriate that the Bishop be here today as a witness.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They are joined by Roy Beck, the Executive Director of Numbers USA, which entity has been very helpful to some, some would say. Some would not say that. But that is the temperature of controversy. But we will be looking forward to his views as this meeting unfolds.
We will begin promptly by saying for the record that the written statement of each of the witnesses will be made a part of record without objection and that each individual is asked to reduce that written statement to, as humanly possible, 5 minutes. We will begin in the order in which they were introduced by starting with Mr. Rooney.
But right before we start we will enter an additional statement into the record. The Subcommittee, as part of its claims jurisdiction, oversees the operations of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. In lieu of appearing today, the Commission submitted a statement for the record detailing their current functions. Without objection, the Commission's statement will also be made a part of the record.
[The material referred to follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LACEY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this statement on behalf of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission as part of your committee's Department of Justice authorization hearings.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission came into existence on July 1, 1954, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954. It operated as an independent Executive agency until October 1, 1980, when it was transferred by Public Law 96–209 (22 U.S.C. 1622a) to the Department of Justice as a separate agency within the Department.
The Commission's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001 is $1,105,000. It is important to note, however, that most of the statutes under which the Commission has conducted claims programs have provided for a 5-percent deduction from the lump-sum settlement funds, to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, to defray the administrative expenses of conducting the programs. Over the years of its existence, the Commission's budget appropriations have amounted to some $37 million but the deductions have totaled over $40 million. Consequently, the funding of the Commission's operations has come at little actual cost to the taxpayer.
The Commission's primary mission is to adjudicate claims of United States nationals against foreign governments, as authorized by Congress, following referral by the Secretary of State, or following government-to-government claims settlement agreements. Such claims have resulted from:
Nationalization or other taking of property by foreign governments
Damage to or loss of property caused by military operations during World War II
Maltreatment during confinement by enemy forces as prisoners of war or civilian internees
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCLoss of liberty and damage to body or health due to confinement in Nazi concentration camps
In all, the Commission and its two predecessor commissions have administered a total of 44 claims programs involving some 17 foreign countries in which more than 660,000 claims have been filed and awards granted in excess of $3 billion. The Commission's most recently completed programs have involved claims against Germany, Albania, and Iran.
The Commission consists of a Chairman and two part-time Commissioners, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serve for fixed three-year terms. The Commission currently has a total of 11 authorized permanent employee positions. In addition to those of the Chairman and Commissioners, it has four attorney positions and four administrative support positions. The Commission currently maintains only the minimum level of staffing and physical resources needed to carry out its current responsibilities, but it must maintain the capability to effectively initiate new claims adjudication programs or begin other claims-related work in the event there are international or domestic developments requiring it to do so.
The Commission expects to continue being called upon to respond to requests for information from its Cuban Claims Program in support of the Department of State's continuing implementation of Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act. Under that provision, the State Department is charged with denying entry into the United States of officers and other senior employees of foreign entities found to be trafficking in properties formerly owned by U.S. nationals.
Under the authority given the Secretary of State in 1999 to refer claims to the Commission for preliminary evaluation, the Commission is also expecting a possible referral of certain categories of outstanding claims of U.S. nationals against Iraq. In addition, the Commission will continue to register and collect the names and addresses of potential claimants and conduct other preliminary planning in order to be ready to begin adjudicating these claims.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of its responsibility with respect to prisoner-of-war claims, the Commission must also maintain the capability to provide information from its records on World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War era claims to veterans and their families seeking to qualify for benefits under various state and Federal programs, including medical benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Lastly, the Commission continually assists with and advises on a variety of international claims matters, coordinating with the Departments of State and Treasury, international organizations such as the United Nations Compensation Commission and the International Organization for Migration, and foreign government officials and agencies, including, most recently, officials in the governments of Poland, Germany and Croatia. It also receives numerous requests from Congressional offices and the public for information and advice on completed claims programs and proposals for new claims legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement on the Commission's behalf. I will be happy to answer any questions which you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. GEKAS. We will begin with the clock beginning to run on 5 minutes with Mr. Rooney.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN ROONEY, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cannon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and provide an overview of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's operations in the context of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2002.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In recent years, this Subcommittee's strong support has allowed INS to reverse decades of neglect. We have become one of the fastest growing Federal agencies and, even more important, one of the most improved. Our $5.5 billion budget request for fiscal year 2002 will enable the agency to build on the solid foundation we have laid together and further strengthen the Nation's immigration system.
Although the record resources we have received were desperately needed, the real key to INS's improved performance has been the coherent, comprehensive strategies developed for both enforcement and for services. These strategies ensure that our resources are deployed in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Our proposed budget, which is 10 percent higher than the current funding level, continues support for these strategies.
INS's enforcement strategy is aimed at building a seamless web that extends from our borders to the Nation's interior. The entire enforcement web is anchored by border control which has been and will continue to be our focus. Enforcement efforts at the border are designed to both facilitate the legal flow of people and products into our Nation and prevent illegal immigration and the smuggling of drugs and other contraband.
To move closer to our goals in fiscal year 2002, we are seeking 570 Border Patrol agents. These new agents, plus an additional 570 that the Administration has promised for the next fiscal year, 2003, will complete the 5,000 agent increase authorized by Congress in 1996. We are also asking for $20 million for intrusion detection technology, which has a force multiplying effect.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCWe plan to deploy the bulk of these resources along the Southwest border, particularly in Arizona and eastern California. We want to replicate the recent successes that we have had elsewhere, including San Diego where illegal entries have been reduced to their lowest level in 25 years.
Enhancing enforcement between our ports of entry is not enough, however. This must be coupled with similar efforts in the ports at the border and in the Nation's interior. INS has been doing this, and our fiscal year 2002 budget request will allow us to continue strengthening port activities by providing $50 million for 417 new immigration inspectors.
The budget also earmarks $26 million for upgrading various automated information systems, including the database that the inspectors use to prevent criminals, suspected terrorists and other inadmissible individuals from entering the country.
INS recognizes that without an effective detention and removal program, however, detecting and apprehending deportable aliens becomes little more than a training exercise, lacking in credibility and producing few results. We have worked diligently to enhance our capacity to detain and remove deportable aliens, especially criminal aliens; and the results have been dramatic. Last year for, example, we removed 70,427 criminal aliens, more than double the 1995 total. Our budget request will allow us to build on this record of success by providing an additional 173 positions and $89 million for detention and removals.
The aggressive approach taken to fulfill our enforcement responsibility has been adapted through the delivery of services. Our focus has been rebuilding a service structure that was woefully inadequate to handle the skyrocketing demand for immigration benefits, a demand fueled by both changes in immigration law and record-level legal immigration.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Preliminary figures indicate that we welcomed more newcomers since 1999 than in any other decade in U.S. history. This helps explain why between 1993 and 2000 INS received more applications for citizenship than in the previous 40 years combined.
The rebuilding, though, is far from complete, but I can assure you that considerable progress has been made. Last year, for example, we completed 24 percent more benefit applications than we did in 1999. As a more meaningful measure for those applicants who have languished in line, we completed 430,000 more applications than we received last year.
The need to complete reconstruction of the service structure couldn't be clearer. Based on receipts to date we project that by the end of this fiscal year we will receive some 9 and a half million applications and petitions for benefits. That is 50 percent more than we received last year and 80 percent more than in 1999.
Currently, we are implementing the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, the LIFE Act, which was signed into law in December. We estimate that the agency will receive nearly 4.5 million LIFE Act-related applications by the end of fiscal year 2003. In fact, we are already feeling the impact of this law. It is the chief reason why we received more non-naturalization applications in March than in any other month in more than a decade.
As if this weren't enough, the Administration has proposed establishing a universal 6-month standard for processing all benefit applications and petitions within 5 years. To meet this goal, it has pledged its support to a $500 million initiative to fund new personnel and enhanced technology and to make customer satisfaction a priority.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Would the gentleman attempt to bring it to a summary close?
Mr. ROONEY. Absolutely.
We have included in our budget $100 million for this initiative.
It has become clear to me, Mr. Chairman, during the 7 weeks that I have served as Acting Commissioner that INS is moving along in the right direction; and I look forward to working with you and the Members of the Subcommittee to maintain this momentum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GEKAS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rooney follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN ROONEY
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide an overview of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) operations, accomplishments and challenges in the context of the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request. This INS budget request builds upon the accomplishments that have been achieved with strong congressional support. The resources Congress has provided have enabled INS to meet new challenges and strengthen the Nation's immigration system. They have resulted in improvements in how we enforce immigration laws and how we deliver services to our customers.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INS has already demonstrated over the past several years that when the agency is provided with resources and employs coherent strategies, it can achieve dramatic results. These accomplishments include
illegal entries in San Diego reduced to a 25-year low;
effective management of detention growth—6,000 to over 19,000 beds in 7 years;
removed 362,000 illegal aliens in the past 2 years—126,000 criminals;
from 1993 to 2000, received and processed more applications for citizenship than during the previous 40 years combined;
reduced pending naturalization applications from 2.2 million in February, 1999 to 716,000 in February, 2001;
nearly doubled the number of permanent employees in less than 8 years; and
computer access within the workforce grew from 20% to 95% in 7 years.
The President's FY 2002 budget for INS continues to support the immigration goals and strategies that the agency has pursued over the past several years. The thrust of INS' FY 2002 budget is to extend the ongoing initiatives aimed at controlling the Nation's borders and maintaining the physical integrity of those borders. INS intends to build on its successful multi-year strategy to: effectively regulate the border; deter and dismantle organizations that smuggle or traffic aliens and narcotics; identify and remove detained criminal aliens from the United States, including terrorists, and minimize recidivism; enhance services and reduce processing backlogs; and reduce immigration benefit fraud and other document abuse. Overall, the FY 2002 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization Service totals $5.5 billion, a 10 percent increase over the FY 2001 funding level. This budget includes $380 million in enhancements to a base funding level of $5.1 billion. The budget will add a total of 1,364 new staff positions, which will allow INS to grow to over 36,200 workyears by the end of FY 2002.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Border Management
In February 1994, INS implemented an innovative, multi-year strategy to strengthen enforcement of the nation's immigration laws and to disrupt the traditional illegal immigration corridors along the nation's Southwest border. Under this bold strategy, new personnel, backed with equipment and infrastructure improvements, are deployed in targeted areas each year, starting with the most vulnerable areas.
This strategy treats the entire border as a single, seamless entity. Enforcement activities between the ports-of-entry are integrated fully with those taking place in the ports, which the strategy recognizes as both vital to the nation's economy and potential entry points for criminals and contraband. As a result, INS has been able to enhance its enforcement capabilities while dramatically reducing waiting times for those trying to cross the border legally. The strategy uses a phased approach beginning in the Southwest until control is achieved nationwide.
Considerable success has been achieved in restoring integrity and safety to the Southwest border by implementing the strategy through well-laid-out multi-year operations, such as Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, Operation Rio Grande in McAllen, and Operation Safeguard in Tucson. The initial phases of these operations typically result in an increase in apprehensions, reflecting the deployment of more agents and enhanced technology. However, as the deterrent effect takes hold, the number of apprehensions declines as the operation gains control over the area.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCRecognizing that protecting the border includes an obligation to protect lives, the Border Patrol launched the Border Safety Initiative in 1998. This is a joint initiative between the U.S. and Mexico, and is now an integral component of our border control strategy. In the past year, Border Patrol Agents have rescued more than 2,500 aliens who were injured, in distress, or victims of violence while attempting to make an illegal entry.
Border Patrol Recruiting and Hiring
In FY 2000, INS experienced record increases in the number of Border Patrol applicants and hires as a result of: (a) a more focused, local recruitment process, (b) the training of 300 Border Patrol Agents as recruiters, (c) intensified advertising, and (d) offering a $2,000 recruitment signing bonus. The enhanced recruitment program was supported in part by $1.5 million included in the FY 2000 appropriation for these efforts. The Border Patrol has been able to attract sufficient numbers of applicants to meet hiring goals through FY 2001. The INS is currently recruiting to ensure maintenance of a qualified pool of applicants for FY 2002 and is currently not experiencing Border Patrol hiring problems.
In FY 2000, the INS implemented Acompressed testing'' at 10 Sectors. This allowed applicants to take the written test and receive results immediately upon completion of the exam. If the applicant passed the written exam, he or she could schedule the oral board examination in 2 weeks. This process is 5 or more weeks shorter than the traditional testing process and has resulted in a 44 percent increase in applicants actually showing up to take the test.
In FY 2000, the Border Patrol trained 300 agent recruiters who participated in over 1,400 recruiting events ranging from campus and military job fairs, to open houses, to booths at local malls. Border Patrol recruiters were encouraged to establish personal contact and feedback with all interested applicants with positive results. We significantly increased advertising and recruitment incentives.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result, in FY 2000, the INS achieved a record number of applicants (an 80 percent increase over FY 1999) due to aggressive recruitment and hiring initiatives to address Border Patrol Agent hiring shortfalls. The increase in recruitment provided the applicant pool with sufficient candidates for an associated increase in hiring. In FY 2000, the INS hired 52 percent more agents than in FY 1999.
During this fiscal year, INS has hired 900 new Border Patrol agents and will hire another 700 by the end of the year. Our training classes are already full through July.
Inspections
The INS' border management and control efforts have made a significant impact on the border. In FY 2000, INS carried out immigration inspections for nearly 438 million travelers at the land borders and nearly 92 million travelers at airports and seaports. In FY 2001, these inspections are projected to reach 450 million at the land border and 98 million at airports and seaports, with continued growth in FY 2002. The INS has set FY 2001 performance targets of 80 percent of land border inspections in 20 minutes or less, and 72 percent of air flights cleared within 30 minutes. The INS will also continue the use of automated systems such as dedicated commuter lanes to facilitate the flow of inspection traffic for low risk travelers.
Border Management—FY 2002 Request
The FY 2002 budget includes an additional 570 Border Patrol Agents and $75 million to support the border control strategy. We would propose that these resources be primarily directed to the Southwest border so as to increase the emphasis provided to the eastern California, Arizona and Texas borders. These new agents, plus 570 in FY 2003, will complete the 5,000-agent increase authorized by the Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996. With these 1,140 additional agents, the total increase of 5,000 Border Patrol Agents will be achieved, and the authorized strength of the Border Patrol will be about 11,000.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The FY 2002 budget also requests $20 million so that deployment of intrusion detection technology, including high-resolution color and infrared cameras and state-of-the-art command centers, will continue. This technology acts as a''force multiplier'' to supplement the new agents and provide continuous monitoring of the border from remote sites. This combination of intrusion detection technology and the increased number of Border Patrol Agents will permit INS to enforce the rule of law and enhance border management over larger portions of the U.S. border. This technology assists agents in determining the source of the''hit,'' including the number of intruders, and if they are visibly armed, thereby increasing agent safety. The Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) enhancement is an important part of the overall strategy for strengthening control of the borders against illegal entry. ISIS will improve remote detection and tracking capabilities, resulting in increased deterrence of illegal border crossing and increased officer safety. Ultimately, it will provide the INS, in particular, the Border Patrol, with the capability to monitor effectively the integrity of the U.S./Mexico and U.S./Canada national boundaries for purposes of border management.
The INS Intelligence program provides strategic and tactical intelligence support to INS offices enforcing the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and assists other federal agencies in addressing national security issues. Intelligence program activities contribute support to preventing the entry of illegal aliens, terrorists and narcotics traffickers; identifying and dismantling alien smuggling operations; detecting fraudulent documents and false claims to U.S. citizenship; and detecting other individuals or organizations involved in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit documents, in application and benefit fraud schemes, and in other related criminal activity. The FY 2002 budget includes 78 positions and $7 million to expand the intelligence program on the northern and southern borders of the U.S.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Infrastructure Improvements
The INS continues to face a number of significant challenges in maintaining its infrastructure during a period of rapid growth. New and expanded facilities are required to support a work force of over 32,000. The Border Patrol's infrastructure needs are most serious and have been and continue to be given priority attention. Since the authorization of the INS Construction Account in FY 1995, the Congress has provided much-needed resources to allow INS to replace, expand and renovate facilities and to enhance border infrastructure. The INS budget request for FY 2002 continues support for critical infrastructure requirements. It includes $75 million for construction projects. This total includes $69 million for Border Patrol and detention construction projects, and $6 million for additional work on the San Diego Border Barrier System and for the enhancement of border infrastructure through the critical direct support of Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) for projects such as fences, roads, and border barriers.
Air and Sea Ports-of-Entry
INS must balance its resources between its goals of detecting those who should not be allowed to enter the United States and managing legal travel across the borders. The FY 2002 budget request includes $50 million for 417 new Immigration Inspectors to staff newly-activated air and sea port terminals, high-growth understaffed gateway ports, and coordinated INS/U.S. Customs passenger analysis units. The request also includes 122 inspection assistants and clerks, along with detention and removals resources to support the significant increases in workloads at high-growth air and sea ports-of-entry. The budget provides for an expansion of the Carrier Consultant Program to enhance airline carrier training and for the increased workload attributable to the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With these resources, the Service will strive to process 77 percent of all commercial flights within 30 minutes, and make strides in streamlining and automating manual processes, improving data integrity, and supporting enforcement requirements. To finance these initiatives, the FY 2002 budget would increase the current airport inspections fee by $1 from $6 to $7 for arriving international air passengers. It would also lift the cruise ship fee exemption, instituting a $3 fee for those passengers currently exempt. The increase is to provide resources to cover more of the true costs of operating the program.
In addition, the FY 2002 budget contains $26 million to expand significant resources for information technology initiatives. Resources are provided to update the National Automated Inspections Lookout System (NAILS), a centralized lookout database that is a compilation of information supplied by automated systems within INS and other federal and local law enforcement agencies. It is a critical system that contains data on individuals who are inadmissible, including criminals and suspected terrorists. The request includes resources to study technology for automated airport inspection alternatives. This budget will provide resources to purchase Live Scan Devices that will send electronic fingerprint submissions to the FBI, develop the Vessel Inspection Processing System (VIPS), and purchase portable workstations to access NAILS at the seaports. The FY 2002 budget will also provide the initial investments necessary to develop an automated entry/exit system as required in the INS Data Management Improvement Act of 2000.
INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT
The INS is focusing strategically on combating illegal immigration within the nation's interior. A comprehensive interior enforcement strategy was developed that creates a seamless web of enforcement extending from the border, and beyond, to the worksite. It seeks to facilitate internal coordination among the various INS enforcement activities and forge closer ties with other federal, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies. The integrated enforcement effort will promote national security, public safety and economic security. The interior enforcement strategy identified five strategic objectives: to identify and remove criminal and other dangerous aliens, deter and diminish alien smuggling, respond to community concerns and build partnerships, minimize benefit fraud and other document abuse, and block access to undocumented workers and remove those located. While each objective is crucial in its own right, highest priority is given to apprehending and removing those criminal aliens who are causing the greatest harm in our communities.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Fraud Activities
The INS has a number of significant accomplishments to report in anti-smuggling and anti-fraud operations. During FY 2000, INS disrupted alien smuggling organizations at source countries, the borders and the interior of the United States. The agency used traditional and non-traditional investigative techniques, cooperation and coordination with the FBI, and broadened use of statutory authorities. The INS presented 7 major cases and 2,520 smuggling principals for prosecution. For example, the''Operation Knight Riders'' investigation involved a large-scale alien smuggling organization that specialized in moving large numbers of undocumented aliens from Central and South America and the Middle East into the United States. The successful completion of this case resulted in 9 criminal arrests and the closure of a major smuggling pipeline. In''Operation Telecom,'' INS investigated and shut down a sophisticated alien smuggling organization that engaged in recruiting and arranging for the smuggling of Chinese nationals from the People's Republic of China. This investigation also involved a law firm that assisted the smugglers by arranging bonds so aliens could be released and returned to the smugglers. The firm also filed fraudulent political asylum claims on behalf of the aliens to ensure that they would remain in the United States.
Quick Response Teams and Community Support
Considerable progress has been made in establishing and staffing the Quick Response Teams (QRTs). In the FY 1999 INS appropriation, Congress provided for the creation of QRTs and directed INS to establish 45 teams with 200 positions. These teams work directly with State and local law enforcement officers to take into custody and remove illegal aliens. Of the 200 QRT officers that have been selected, 193 have entered on duty at their assigned locations. The remaining officers are expected to enter on duty before the end of FY 2001. INS received $11 million for QRT deployment in the FY 2001 budget. INS will be consulting with Congress on deployment of those resources shortly.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Much has been accomplished with the QRTs. During the first quarter in FY 2001, the teams received 2,532 requests for assistance from State and local law enforcement agencies. This figure reflects the largest number of requests received by the QRTs in any given quarter to date. Of the 2,532 requests, QRTs were able to respond to 92 percent (2,317). The response time for 98 percent of all requests was less than three hours. In addition, QRT officers made 2,246 administrative arrests. Of these arrests, 1,214 individuals were voluntarily returned to their respective countries of citizenship. Special Agents deployed at QRT sites presented 171 individuals for criminal prosecution related to alien smuggling, document fraud, and illegal entry.
In addition to the work accomplished by the QRTs, which are generally deployed to the areas where there is little INS presence and emerging illegal immigrant populations, Special Agents and Immigration Agents in the District Offices also respond to the needs of their communities by participating in many interagency law enforcement task forces. In this context, they contribute their immigration expertise to local, state and federal law enforcement operations in which criminal aliens may be involved, including alien gangs, drug trafficking and terrorism.
Detention and Removal
Since the early 1990's, the average daily population of INS detainees has grown from less than 6,000 to over 19,000. This rate of growth was the result of INS' expanded enforcement capability and changes in detention requirements contained in the IIRIRA of 1996. That law requires the agency to detain without bond many aliens during the pendency of proceedings who are subject to removal on the basis of a criminal conviction. The INS is also required to detain aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States for up to 90 days or until they are removed, regardless of the basis for the order and the prospects that their home countries will accept their return. As a result, annual removals in FY 2000 were over 180,000. Over 64,000 of these were criminal alien removals. In FY 2001, we project that 67,000 criminal aliens will be removed from the country.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In dealing with the growth in the detention population, INS has issued detailed standards aimed at ensuring consistent treatment and care for all detainees. The standards will apply to INS' 9 Service Processing Centers as well as contract facilities and state and local facilities under intergovernmental service agreements. In addition to standards for safe, secure and humane confinement, they provide for consistent and expanded access to legal representation, telephones and family visits. The standards are being implemented with a phased approach, beginning first with the INS Service Processing Centers.
INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT—FY 2002 REQUEST
Detention and Removal
In addition to the expansion of INS' more visible enforcement functions, additional funding will strengthen the detention and removal process. It is critical that INS continue to have resources to efficiently house and repatriate illegal aliens encountered both at the border and through enforcement of immigration laws beyond the immediate border area. To that end, 173 positions and $89 million are requested in FY 2002 for detention and removal initiatives in the areas of expanded national transportation, improved health services for detained aliens, increased detention bed space, and improved coordination with U.S. Attorneys. Included in the $89 million is a projected $40 million in Breached Bond/Detention Fund revenue which is anticipated as a result of the temporary reauthorization of adjustment of status provisions of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and $7 million for detention beds to support increases in workloads at high-growth air and sea ports of entry.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCConsolidated Detention Bed Space
To continue to meet the mandatory detention requirements of IIRIRA, the budget request includes $69 million for 131 positions (68 Detention Enforcement Officers, 33 Deportation Officers, and 30 support positions) and an additional 1,607 average daily state and local detention bed spaces. This initiative includes resources to detain, transport and remove aliens.
National Transportation System
The INS uses the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), created in 1995 by INS and the U.S. Marshals Service, to transport large numbers of detained aliens each year, transferring them to detention facilities or repatriating them. The budget includes an increase of $9 million to fund the costs associated with the INS' share of JPATS. This increase, when combined with current funding, will fund additional air movements to transfer or repatriate detainees.
Public Health
The budget includes funding of $9 million to support the increased cost of providing health care for detainees. The INS is committed to ensuring that its facilities are safe and humane, and that adequate medical care is provided to aliens in its custody.
Coordination with U.S. Attorneys
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCThe budget includes 42 positions (28 attorneys and 14 support personnel) to enable the INS to better fulfill its role of providing agency counsel support when immigration-related matters arise in the Federal courts. This critical role involves such efforts as preparing litigation reports when lawsuits arise, and coordinating agency witnesses and evidence. These efforts are particularly crucial now in view of the high level of litigation involving the removal of detained aliens, a substantial number of whom are convicted felons.
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
The INS has improved customer service in various respects. Due to an intense, two-year Naturalization Backlog Reduction Initiative, the INS has made tremendous progress in increasing its immigration services' productivity and customer service. In FY 1999, INS met its first stage goal of completing 1.2 million naturalization applications. In FY 2000, the INS again met its naturalization goal by completing approximately 1.3 million applications while achieving a processing time goal of six to nine months nationwide. In FY 2000, INS also completed 564,000 adjustment of status applications, more than in any other year in the INS' history, and outperformed its national processing time goal. The Service also streamlined the''Green Card'' renewal process, decreasing the processing time significantly from between 12 and 24 months to 90 days. In FY 2000, the INS also reduced the processing time for employment-based petitions from 18 months to 90 days. By transmitting fingerprints electronically to the FBI, the INS decreased the average processing time for background investigation checks from 21 days to one day. The INS enhanced its customer service quality and accessibility by expanding the National Customer Service Center's live, toll-free (1–800 telephone) assistance area across the U.S. mainland, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. All of these accomplishments were achieved within the scope of the overall FY 2000 immigration services workload of 6 million petitions received and approximately 6.5 million completed, resulting in a pending workload of approximately 3.9 million. In FY 2001, the INS continues working diligently to meet its goal of completing 800,000 naturalization and 800,000 adjustment of status applications.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS faces significant challenges in delivering immigration services in the years ahead: (1) eliminating backlogs in all immigration benefit applications; (2) managing and responding to new and changing workloads; (3) ensuring process integrity; and (4) positioning itself for the future. Over the last several years, the INS has seen a dramatic rise in the number of applications and petitions received. The Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000 amendments alone will add an estimated additional caseload of 2.3 million applications and petitions in FY 2001 and 1.2 million applications and petitions in FY 2002 to the current 6.9 million applications received annually, a 26 percent increase over a two-year period. Because this additional workload will strain the existing infrastructure, the INS is exploring new ways of doing business to manage the new workload effectively while continuing to tackle the backlogged caseload aggressively. Premium Processing Service and electronic filing are examples of these new ways of doing business. Besides increased productivity, the INS continues working towards achieving process integrity through its anti-fraud and quality control efforts. Most importantly, the INS strives for excellence in customer service through process reengineering, effective use of technology, and greater accessibility to information and services.
Premium Processing Service
As a result of the overwhelming backlogs in recent years, it has taken INS from 60 days to more than one year to process certain business cases. In order to provide better service to business customers and to begin implementing new ways of doing business that more efficiently manage its workloads, INS proposed a Premium Processing Service for business cases in FY 2001. In the proposal, INS guarantees that businesses that pay for Premium Processing Service will receive an approval, denial, or request for evidence on their cases within 15 days of filing. If INS fails to meet this guarantee, it will refund the fee to the business.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the FY 2001 budget, INS was given authority to charge a voluntary $1000 fee to provide Premium Processing Service for business cases. The INS expects to implement Premium Processing Service in early summer for some applications. The INS estimates that, for FY 2001, the Premium Processing Service fee could generate approximately $25 million in additional revenue. These funds will be used to support the Premium Processing Service on the business cases for which the fee is paid, to detect and deter fraud in benefit programs, and to support backlog elimination efforts. In addition, other INS customers will benefit from the implementation of Premium Processing Service through experience gained from the new business processes and because revenues received in excess of the program costs would be used to pay for infrastructure needs in adjudications and customer service.
Legal Immigration and Family Equity (LIFE) Act
The LIFE Act, which was enacted on December 21, 2000, will have a major impact on INS' service functions this year and for several years into the future. It focuses on six primary immigration benefits. The LIFE Act reauthorized section 245(i) of the INA, providing INS with the authority to adjust the status of certain persons unlawfully in the United States. Eligible individuals had until April 30, 2001 to file a qualifying petition or application with INS or the Department of Labor to sponsor beneficiaries for legal immigration. The Administration supports an extension of this deadline.
The LIFE Act provides for a''Late Legalization'' program that reopens the Legalization Program authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1996. This will allow members of three class action lawsuits—Catholic Social Services (CSS), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Zambrano—to file to adjust status. In addition, the Act expands the existing Family Unity Program to include eligible spouses and minor children of''Late Legalization'' applicants.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Act creates a new''V'' Visa classification for the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents who have been waiting three or more years to immigrate. It also creates a new''K'' Visa non-immigrant classification for spouses and children of U.S. citizens.
Finally, the LIFE Act contains amendments to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) and the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA). The NACARA/HRIFA amendments lift restrictions on waiving certain inadmissibility grounds relating to previous removals and unlawful presence, and eliminate bars to eligibility based on reinstatement of a previous order.
Workload will significantly increase as a result of the LIFE Act. In addition to the residency benefits, all LIFE Act benefits authorize employment for eligible applicants. Prior to passage of the LIFE Act, INS projected it would receive approximately 6,922,000 applications in FY 2001 and approximately 6,847,000 in FY 2002. The Act will increase processing workload by 2.3 million applications and petitions in FY 2001 and 1.2 million in FY 2002, increases of 34 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
Process changes and personnel increases for the LIFE Act workload will be funded from LIFE application/petition revenue. To process the additional workload, a reprogramming notification to increase spending authority of the Immigration Examinations Fee Account will be submitted.
In order to minimize the impact of LIFE Act application processing on the District Offices and Service Centers, V, K and Late Legalization cases will be processed at a temporary facility located near the National Records Center. Applications under section 245(i) will continue to be processed at INS' Service Centers and District Offices, and interviews for Late Legalization Applicants will be conducted at the District Offices.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
On October 28, 2000, the President signed into law the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA). The VTVPA combines two major pieces of legislation: the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is a comprehensive statute that addresses the heinous practice of trafficking in persons through a multifaceted approach that focuses on enhanced prosecution of traffickers, protection of and assistance to victims, and prevention efforts.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act will affect the operation of every component of INS to some extent. The new act amends portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new nonimmigrant classification for victims of severe forms of trafficking—T visas—of which 5,000 are available annually. In addition, it prescribes protections for victims while in Federal custody and provides for the authorization of continued presence for alien victims of severe forms of trafficking in order to assist in the investigation or prosecution of trafficking cases. INS is currently drafting regulations to implement the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2000 continues and strengthens our commitment to ending domestic violence and sexual assault. While VAWA 2000 contains many important provisions, Title V of the Act addresses the particular problems that confront immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. It makes improvements to the immigration relief afforded battered immigrants by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and creates a new nonimmigrant classification—a U visa—for victims of certain serious crimes suffered by vulnerable aliens. This new classification provides a mechanism for crime victims who may be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of the specified crimes to remain temporarily in the United States. The statute also gives the Attorney General the discretion, in certain circumstances, to allow nonimmigrants holding T and U visas to become legal permanent residents.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Immigration Services—FY 2002 Request
The INS is proud of its accomplishment of processing over one million naturalization applications during FY 2000, and plans to continue the quality and timely processing of applications. The INS agrees with Congress that all immigration benefit applications should be processed in six months or less. The President's FY 2002 budget includes $100 million to implement the first installment of the President's five-year, $500 million initiative to process all applications within six months and provide quality service to all legal immigrants, citizens, businesses and other INS customers. These resources will be used for increased personnel, enhanced information technology and other resources to make customer satisfaction a priority. The INS is currently working with the Administration to develop a detailed backlog elimination plan to begin in FY 2002.
Electronic Filing
The INS recognizes that electronic filing will improve customer service and convenience of applying for immigration benefits. Although INS is not yet in a position to make all immigration benefit applications available for electronic filing, INS is committed to making multiple applications available for electronic filing in 2002. The initiative represents another new way that INS is thinking about doing business in order to improve management of its workload while delivering better customer service.
CONCLUSION
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCThe FY 2002 request will provide INS with resources needed to carry out an effective immigration strategy. As you know, this Administration is committed to restructuring and splitting the INS into two agencies with separate chains of command that report to one policy official within the Department of Justice. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this and other important immigration issues. With your continued support, we can add to the improvements that have already been made, address problem areas and continue to ensure the integrity of our benefits processing.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. GEKAS. Let the record reflect that the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is in attendance.
Ms. Philbin.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY PHILBIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. PHILBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Issa.
It is my pleasure to be appear before you today to discuss the functions and organization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR, to highlight some of our recent accomplishments and to outline the President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EOIR was established almost 20 years ago and has three components, each of whose primary function is to adjudicate immigration-related cases. These include the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which overseas all the immigration courts in the United States; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is the highest administrative tribunal dedicated to immigration; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which handles employer-sanction cases, immigration-related employment discrimination and immigration-related document fraud cases. I am proud to say I am accompanied by all three of the component heads here today.
The immigration courts are comprised of 211 immigration judges in 52 courts, with 18 of these courts located in either detention centers or prisons. In addition to holding hearings in our courts, our judges travel to over 100 other hearing locations to conduct proceedings. Many of these proceedings are held in State and Federal prisons as part of the Institutional Hearing Program, or IHP. The vast majority of these cases are in the Federal prison system and in the seven States most affected by illegal immigration—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Arizona, New Jersey and Illinois. This effort is called the enhanced IHP, and last year our courts completed over 13,600 IHP cases.
Overall in fiscal year 2000 the total number of matters received by our immigration courts nationwide was 254,515 cases, a 10 percent increase over receipts in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, 255,194 cases were completed by the immigration courts. Approximately 10 percent of these cases are appealed to the Board, as well as certain decisions of INS officers in a wide variety of proceedings. The Board has received approximately 30,000 cases per year for the last several years, an extremely large volume for an appellate body.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCWhile the Board began with five Board members in 1940, it has grown to its current size of 21 Board members, including a chairman and two vice chairman and a staff of approximately 100 attorneys and paralegals.
In response to the continuously rising caseloads associated with increased INS apprehensions as well as recent legislative developments, the Board has initiated a variety of management and regulatory improvements designed to increase efficiency while maintaining due process guarantees for all.
One regulatory initiative streamlines the Board's procedures by allowing noncontroversial cases to be adjudicated by a single Board member rather than by a three-member traditional panel. This type of decision may be made in three types of cases: one, where the immigration judge's decision was correct; two, where the issues are controlled squarely by legal precedent; or, three, where the issues are insubstantial. This effort, while in its pilot stage, is proving highly successful.
With regard to our component OCAHO, we anticipate that its caseload will likely increase soon due to the settlement of the class action suit of Walters v. Reno, the case which has effectively suspended enforcement of the civil document fraud provisions of section 274C of the INA.
Let me discuss several other initiatives briefly.
Last year, EOIR established a position of nationwide pro bono coordinator to work collaboratively with immigrant organizations, the INS, bar associations, law schools and other groups to improve the level and quality of pro bono representation before the immigration courts and the Board. In its first year, the EOIR pro bono program has begun several successful initiatives, including a pilot program at the Board where case appeals involving detained and unrepresented aliens are matched with pro bono counsel who write and file appeal briefs on their behalf.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, we have begun intensive training programs for a small group of pro bono attorneys in immigration court practice, procedure and advocacy skills, each designed to provide additional access to pro bono representation.
On another front, EOIR has also established a new ''Attorney Discipline'' program to ensure that unscrupulous attorneys are not practicing before our courts or the INS. Forty-four attorneys have been sanctioned in the first 9 months of this program. All have been previously disciplined by their State bars. Some have been convicted of felonies ranging from immigration fraud to witness tampering.
Let me turn for a minute to our budget request. For fiscal year 2002, the President seeks $176.7 million to support EOIR's adjudications programs. This request includes funding for mandatory expenses, such as rent and salary increases, and a program increase of $4.85 million which will funds 59 new positions, including immigration judges and appellate staff attorneys.
The increase requested for EOIR is made in conjunction with enforcement increases by the INS, specifically funds in support of an additional 1,600 detention beds and 570 new Border Patrol agents, which we anticipate will bring 10,000 additional new cases to EOIR.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with the Members and will answer any questions you are may have.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCMr. GEKAS. We thank the lady.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Philbin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEGGY PHILBIN
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee:
It is my pleasure to appear before you to discuss the functions and organization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), to highlight some of the recent accomplishments and goals of our agency and to outline the President's Fiscal Year 2002 budget proposal for EOIR.
EOIR was established in 1983 when the Department of Justice (Department) created the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and its Immigration Courts and combined this function with the existing Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). EOIR is an administrative hearing tribunal, hearing both trial and appellate immigration cases throughout the United States. Prior to the creation of EOIR, the initial hearing function had been previously performed by special inquiry officers at INS. The functional move of cases from INS to EOIR was to ensure impartiality in the immigration adjudication context by having cases decided by a different entity than the one that prosecuted them. In 1984, there were approximately 100,000 cases brought before the Immigration Judges. In Fiscal Year 2000, over 250,000 cases in 52 locations nationwide were brought before EOIR's Immigration Judges and over 30,000 cases were appealed to the Board.
In 1987, a third component, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), was added to EOIR. Administrative Law Judges within OCAHO interpret the laws sanctioning the hiring of illegal aliens, immigration-related employment discrimination and immigration-related document fraud.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EOIR's primary function is to provide a uniform interpretation and application of immigration law, through an adjudication process involving individual cases, and to provide due process and fair treatment to all parties involved.
THE THREE EOIR COMPONENTS AND THEIR MISSIONS
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and the Immigration Courts:
The Chief Immigration Judge provides overall program direction, articulates policy, and establishes priorities for the Immigration Judges. The Immigration Courts are comprised of 211 Immigration Judges in 52 Immigration Courts throughout the United States, with eighteen of the 52 immigration courts located in either detention centers or prisons. Additionally, Immigration Judges travel to over 100 other hearing locations to conduct proceedings.
Immigration Judges preside over ten types of hearings. The most common hearing is a removal hearing, in which INS charges that an alien is unlawfully in the United States and should be removed. However, while almost all hearings include the issue of removability, the outcome of many of these hearings does not turn on this issue, but rather on the issue of relief from removal. Even if an alien is removable, he or she be able may claim asylum, voluntary departure, suspension or cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, registry or a waiver of removability due to criminal activity. Immigration Judges are experts in the many and varied issues of immigration law, and are often called upon to determine such complex issues as derivative citizenship claims or interpretation of state or federal criminal laws as they relate to immigration. In addition to the substantive issues surrounding removability, the Immigration Judges hold bond hearings for eligible aliens. Bond redeterminations are held when an alien in custody seeks release on his or her own recognizance, or a reduction in the amount of bond. The law states that decisions of Immigration Judges are final, unless appealed or certified to the Board.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the most significant activities our judges perform is providing removal hearings for aliens convicted of criminal offenses who are incarcerated in prisons across the United States. Our judges travel to 44 states (and Puerto Rico) and 72 prisons on regular details and currently complete 98 percent of all hearings for incarcerated aliens before their release from prison. Last year alone, Immigration Judges spent 1815 days on these hearings.
The Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) provides the framework for hearings that determine the immigration status of aliens convicted of criminal offenses who are incarcerated in prisons across the United States. In concert with the INS, EOIR has concentrated on the Federal prison system and those in the seven states most affected by illegal immigration: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Arizona, New Jersey, and Illinois. There are also programs in virtually all other states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and selected municipalities. The seven state programs, known collectively as the Enhanced IHP, account for the vast majority of the state program caseload, as well as that of the total IHP. Consequently, Enhanced IHP is a central component of a variety of initiatives designed to expedite the removal of criminal aliens who are found removable from the United States. This involves close coordination with INS, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and state and local correctional authorities.
Due to increasing reliance on INS's administrative removal procedures, where an INS official may order certain criminal aliens removed without a hearing before an Immigration Judge, the number of IHP receipts has decreased by 22 percent from Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2000. For Fiscal Year 1996, the Immigration Courts received 15,685 IHP cases and completed 15,888 cases (which is more cases than they received, due to cases pending from the previous fiscal year). For Fiscal Year 2000, the Immigration Courts received 12,525 IHP cases and completed 13,655 cases.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the most complex areas of immigration law involves asylum. In 1995, the Department completed work on a comprehensive asylum reform initiative, which provided greater avenues for relief for those with meritorious cases, while closing down the loophole of automatic employment authorization for all asylum filers.
Asylum reform has streamlined the procedures involved for processing asylum cases, integrated INS and EOIR processes, and eliminated duplicative adjudications. Asylum reform requires claims that are not approved by INS to be automatically referred to EOIR's Immigration Judges, who conduct full asylum adjudications during the alien's removal proceedings. These regulatory asylum procedures include provisions limiting the INS approval of employment authorization to those aliens who have been granted asylum, or whose applications are not adjudicated within 180 days of the filing date. Consequently, the success of asylum reform largely depends on the ability of Immigration Judges to render decisions within the established time frames. Otherwise, the benefit of work authorization would accrue to thousands of aliens who may not be entitled. Currently, Immigration Judges are completing 90 percent of the expedited asylum adjudications within the 180-day time frame.
The number of requests for asylum from the Immigration Courts has gradually decreased over the last few years. While in Fiscal Year 1996, the number of asylum receipts was 84,293, for Fiscal Year 2000, the number of asylum receipts declined to 51,241, a 39 percent decrease. In Fiscal Year 2000, 60 percent of asylum filings were received in New York City, San Francisco, Miami, and Los Angeles Immigration Courts.
EOIR has coordinated the implementation of expanded programs with the INS to ensure the optimal placement of resources based upon the volume and geographic concentration of detained, asylum, and criminal alien workload. To enhance the implementation of the asylum reforms, EOIR expanded the number of Immigration Judges in many courts and established several new courts. EOIR's computer system has been modified to facilitate the implementation of asylum reform by enhancing case tracking capabilities and by allowing all local and regional INS asylum offices limited access to the system. INS personnel can now access the Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review (ANSIR) system and schedule cases for Immigration Judge hearings immediately upon their decision to refer asylum claims to EOIR. INS regional service centers can now access the ANSIR database and ascertain the status of cases to determine an alien's eligibility for employment authorization. This interactive scheduling system is now available to INS nationwide for all case types.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EOIR has also been active in the regulatory area, publishing regulations that include provisions allowing the use of stipulated removals, thereby enabling the expedited removal of criminal aliens in applicable cases. Regulations also authorize the Immigration Judges to conduct telephonic hearings as well as video electronic hearings, which are particularly effective in providing hearings in remote detention settings.
Finally, INS initiatives continue to have a significant impact on EOIR's caseload. In Fiscal Year 2000, the total number of matters received by the Immigration Courts was 254,515, a ten percent increase over receipts in Fiscal Year 1999. The number of cases completed in Fiscal Year 2000 was 255,194.
The Board of Immigration Appeals:
Under the direction of the Chairman, the Board hears appeals of decisions of Immigration Judges and certain decisions of INS officers in a wide variety of proceedings in which the Government of the United States is one party and the other party is either an alien, a citizen, or a transportation carrier. Board decisions are binding on all INS officers and Immigration Judges unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or a federal court. The Board exercises its independent judgement in hearing appeals for the Attorney General, and provides a nationally uniform application of the immigration laws, both in terms of the interpretation of the law and the exercise of the significant discretion vested in the Attorney General. The majority of cases before the Board involve appeals from orders of Immigration Judges entered in immigration proceedings. The Board has received approximately 30,000 cases per year for the last several years, an extremely large volume for an appellate body. This is a dramatic increase from the number of cases received in the early 1990's. For example, in 1992, the Board received only 12,774 appeals, less than half of the current number of cases now received annually. In Fiscal Year 2000, the Board completed 21,278 cases. While the Board began with five Board Members in 1940, it has grown to its current size of 21 Board Members, including the Chairman and two Vice Chairmen, and a staff of over 100 attorneys and paralegals.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Processing an increasing caseload has been a challenging task in a time of major legislative action in the immigration arena. The Board has provided the principal interpretation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA); the Immigration Amendments of 1988; the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA); the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA); the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA); and the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998. New challenges will include interpretation of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA) and the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act of 2000 (LIFE). These laws have represented the most fundamental restructuring of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) since its enactment in 1952, and have presented a myriad of new issues of statutory construction. The Board's mission requires that national policies, as reflected in immigration laws, be identified, considered, and integrated into its decision process.
In response to the continuously increasing caseload associated with increased INS apprehensions and legislative developments, the Board has initiated a variety of management and regulatory improvements designed to increase efficiency, while maintaining due process guarantees for all parties. A key initiative has been the expansion of the Board to 21 members, allowing the consideration of appeals using multiple panels of three Board members each. Further, Board attorney staff has been restructured into eight discrete teams, each assigned directly to a Board panel. En banc review of cases has been expedited by using a newly created electronic en banc system. These structural changes have greatly improved caseload management, accountability and communication.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCIn addition to its numerous management initiatives, EOIR has continued to improve programs through the regulatory process. For example, the Board's jurisdictional and procedural regulations have been amended to expedite the motions and appeals practice to allow the Board to assume direct control of appellate filings, replacing a cumbersome and decentralized system of filing at local Immigration Courts. Further, the regulations establish time and number limitations on motions to reopen and motions to reconsider. Regulations also allow consideration of appeals using two en banc panels.
A much broader regulatory initiative, called ''streamlining'', to streamline the Board's appellate procedures was also recently implemented. Under these published regulations, noncontroversial cases that meet specified criteria may be reviewed and adjudicated by a single Board Member. The type of case amenable to this ''streamlining'' procedure is limited to the following:(1) where the result reached in the decision under review was correct and that any errors in the decision were harmless or nonmaterial and (2) where the issue on appeal is squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and does not involve the application of precedent to a novel fact situation; or (3) where the factual and legal questions raised on appeal are so insubstantial that three Member review is not warranted. This initiative is currently being implemented through a pilot project, and the results of this project will be used to implement streamlining on a permanent basis. From September of 2000 through April 2001, just over 30,400 cases have been screened for eligibility. Of those, 15,614 were initially placed into streamlining and 6,029—20 percent of those screened for eligibility—resulted in decisions signed by a single Board Member.
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer:
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCThe Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) is comprised of a Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (CAHO) and three Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The ALJs adjudicate individual cases according to the Administrative Procedures Act. OCAHO cases involve: (1) the unlawful hiring, recruiting, referring for a fee, or continuing employment of unauthorized aliens by employers, and their failure to comply with employment verification requirements (employer sanctions); (2) immigration-related unfair employment practices; and (3) immigration document fraud. Complaints under these sections of the Act are brought by the INS, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, or private individuals. All decisions by this office are considered final unless overturned by a Federal court or the Attorney General.
In the area of document fraud, a settlement was recently approved in the class action lawsuit of Walters v. Reno, the case which has effectively suspended enforcement of the civil document fraud provisions of Section 274C of the INA and resulting cases for the past four years. Settlement of the Walters case could increase OCAHO's caseload substantially as INS resumes enforcement of Section 274C, since the coverage of the statute was broadened considerably by amendments to the law in 1996 and because a higher percentage of respondents in document fraud cases can be expected to request an ALJ hearing with the adoption of new procedures included in the settlement.
In FY 2000, OCAHO received 31 cases and completed 122. In addition, OCAHO judges have also been empowered to assist Board panels in the adjudication of Board cases as temporary Board Members, and have adjudicated 7,834 Board cases in this capacity.
Other initiatives:
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year, EOIR established a position of nationwide Pro Bono Coordinator to work collaboratively with immigrant organizations, the INS, Bar Associations, law schools, and other groups to improve the level and quality of pro bono representation before the Immigration Courts and the Board. In its first year, the EOIR Pro Bono program has initiated several successful programs. First, EOIR has forged partnerships with several national non-profit organizations to pilot the Board of Immigration Appeals Pro Bono Project, where case appeals before the Board involving detained and unrepresented aliens are matched with pro bono counsel who write and file appeal briefs. Second, EOIR, in partnership with local bar and pro bono groups, is providing intensive training to small groups of pro bono attorneys in Immigration Court practice, procedure and advocacy skills through role playing exercises with volunteer Immigration Judges in the immigration court. Third, EOIR is looking for ways to develop and expand joint efforts for pro bono representation to unaccompanied minors in INS custody, such as through the Phoenix Pilot Project. Finally, EOIR is assisting in the development and expansion of the use of Group Rights Presentations to INS detainees and other related projects which improve access to legal information and counseling.
While EOIR is interested in providing opportunities for more aliens to have representation before its courts, EOIR also has established a new program to ensure that unscrupulous attorneys are not practicing before its courts or the INS by establishing an ''Attorney Discipline'' program. This program was established to address the growing problem of fraud or malfeasance by attorney practitioners. In the first nine months of this program, EOIR has disciplined 44 attorneys, including 28 who have received final orders of discipline. Sanctions have ranged from suspension to expulsion from practice before the Immigration Courts and the Board. Virtually all of these attorneys previously have been disciplined by their state bars; some have even been convicted of felonies from immigration fraud to witness tampering.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EOIR and INS together have achieved significant success in the processing of detained aliens. As a result of a joint INS-EOIR ''Detained Delays Task Force,'' we have reduced the average detention time from the date an appeal is filed with EOIR to removal by INS by 72.5 days per alien. This has reduced the number of days in detention, resulting in approximately 23,000 detention days available for use to detain other aliens. It has also reduced by 70 percent the number of detained cases pending at the Board for longer than 180 days.
In keeping with our customer service goals, EOIR has established a menu driven electronic phone system (a 1–800 number) which provides ready access to Immigration Court information such as hearing dates, times and locations, status of asylum cases, Immigration Judge decisions and appeal information. This system, provided in English and Spanish, reduces the time required for the public to obtain information and schedules. The system is currently receiving more than 150,000 calls per month.
Further, in January of this year, EOIR produced for the first time a Statistical Year Book, which is available on our website (www.usdoj.gov/eoir). This year book provides the public with caseload data for each of its components, including type of cases, cases by nationalities, language, representation status, and custody.
BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
For Fiscal Year 2002, the President seeks $176.7 million to support EOIR's adjudications programs. This request includes funding for mandatory expenses, such as rent and salary increases, and a program increase of $4.85 million, which will fund 59 new positions, including Immigration Judges and appellate staff attorneys.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The increase requested for EOIR is made in conjunction with enforcement increases sought by the INS, specifically funds in support of an additional 1,607 detention beds and 570 new Border Patrol agents. We anticipate that these INS initiatives will bring 10,000 additional new cases and appeals to EOIR annually.
The Administration and Congress have recognized the importance of coordinating funding decisions that have cross-organizational impact. For EOIR, the importance of this coordination is critical because the volume, types and location of case largely depend upon the enforcement resources and policies of the INS. Similarly, the realization of the INS enforcement goals as articulated by the Administration and Congress, for example an enhanced ability to apprehend, detain and remove increasing numbers of criminal and non-criminal aliens, rely in part on EOIR's ability to adjudicate the resulting caseload in a timely manner.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. I look forward to working with members of the Subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. GEKAS. Let the record indicate that the Ranking Minority Member, Sheila Jackson Lee, is now in attendance.
We will proceed with the Bishop's testimony.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP THOMAS WENSKI, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bishop WENSKI. Thank you.
Our comments on the operation by INS today are offered with respect to the role that INS plays in implementing our Nation's immigration laws, a mission which is challenging and at times controversial. However, as Catholic Bishops, we base our testimony upon the principle that the human rights and dignity of the migrant, immigrant, refugee and other persons on the move should be respected and upheld.
I would like to concentrate on several areas in the short time I have to speak: U.S. Detention policy, family unity and reunification through our immigration system, reorganization of the INS, treatment of the unaccompanied alien minors by U.S. Government and our Nation's border enforcement policy. I thank you for having agreed that the entirety of our written testimony be placed in the hearing record.
First, Mr. Chairman, the Bishops are very concerned that more than 20,000 persons are detained in INS facilities, Federal prisons and local and county jails at any one time, especially when INS has the discretion under the law to release certain detainees. We find this troubling not only because of the financial costs of detaining these individuals but primarily because of the human cost of this policy.
The U.S. Bishops favor the repeal of the mandatory detention laws enacted in 1996. In addition, we strongly believe that INS should release asylum seekers, children and long-term detainees who are no threat to society. We recommend alternatives to detention should be developed for these populations and that all detainees should be provided thorough briefings on their legal rights in our system.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With your permission, I would like to enter into the record three reports on the benefit of alternatives to detention and legal orientation presentations. These reports are explained in our written testimony.
[NOTE: The reports submitted by Bishop Wenski are not reprinted here but are on file with the House Judiciary Committee.]
U.S. Detention policy for immigrants are costly both in human terms and budget terms. We ask the Subcommittee to reconsider our detention policies and support funding alternatives for detention.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we ask that the Subcommittee reaffirm the principles of family reunification as the cornerstone of our immigration policy by authorizing funds to eliminate backlogs and adjudication, examining our family preference system and making section 245(i) a permanent feature of our law. We are encouraged by the President's call for $500 million over the next 5 years to reduce waiting times to 6 months in all relevant categories, but we believe it is insufficient to meet the need. However, we encourage the Subcommittee to scrutinize carefully the administration's budget to ensure that new funds actually are provided to reach this goal and, if necessary, to support additional appropriations.
We also are heartened by the President's call for an extension of the filing deadline for immigrants to make use of 245(i). Congress wisely extended this deadline temporarily in December, but it has recently expired. We echo the President's call for an extension, and we add that access to section 245(i) should be extended on a permanent basis. We think it represents sound public policy and should be extended permanently.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, we ask that you move expeditiously to reorganize the functions of INS, preferably to a structure which separates the adjudications of the enforcement bureau but keeps a strong central authority to oversee both functions. A central authority, ideally a person at a higher level within the Justice Department, would help coordinate the adjudication and enforcement functions and fashion a coherent, coordinated national immigration policy.
In addition, we ask that in any reorganization you carefully consider the financing of any new agency authorizing permanent funding for the adjudication service side of the agency.
We have grave concerns about U.S. Policy toward unaccompanied minors who enter our Nation from abroad. In this regard, we ask you to enact legislation introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein of California soon to be introduced into the House entitled, Unaccompanied Alien Minor Protection Act of 2001. Along with providing important services to kids, the legislation creates an Office of Children Services within the Department of Justice staffed by child welfare experts to provide services to unaccompanied minors, including their placement in appropriate settings.
Mr. Chairman, I close my testimony on an issue which the Bishops have followed with growing concern, our Nation's border enforcement policy. Since 1993, funding for Border Patrol agents has nearly tripled, while since 1995 more than 1,600 migrants have died in deserts and mountains of the American West and Southwest. It is our belief that this one-dimensional policy has not deterred foreign-born persons from trying to enter the United States. On the contrary, it has diminished the human dignity not only of the migrants who attempt to cross into the United States but of the Border Patrol agents who are charged with enforcing the integrity of our borders.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this regard, we ask the Subcommittee to review our border policy and consider other options for stemming undocumented migration, including restructuring our legal immigration system and the promotion of developmental initiatives in Mexico and Latin America.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic Bishops share the interest of the Subcommittee in ensuring that our Nation's immigration system is efficient, fair and generous. We offer these recommendations in the spirit of cooperation and with the desire to work with you to assist the INS in its mission.
Thank you for the opportunities to testify.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Wenski follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BISHOP THOMAS G. WENSKI
I am Bishop Thomas G. Wenski. Auxiliary Bishop of Miami, and member of the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration on the budget priorities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Specifically, I would like to address the vital topics of INS detention practices, including mandatory detention, funding for alternatives to detention, legal orientation for detainees, and the treatment of children; backlogs in the processing of immigration benefit; border enforcement; Cuban/Haitian resettlement; and INS reorganization.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCMr. Chairman, concern for the immigrant and the experience of immigration are both deeply imbedded in Church teaching. The task of welcoming immigrants, refugees, and displaced persons into full participation in the Church and society with equal rights and duties has long been an integral part of the Roman Catholic faith tradition.
The experience of the Church in the United States has provided the U.S. bishops with a special sensitivity to newcomers in our midst. Arguably no other institution in American life has had as much experience dealing with the integration of newcomers as the Catholic Church, especially through her parishes and schools. Since 1976, the bishops have been clear in their affirmation of the Church's solicitude for newcomers:
The Church, the People of God, is required by the Gospel and by its long tradition to promote and defend the human rights and dignity of people on the move, to advocate social remedies to their problems and to foster opportunities for their spiritual growth.(see footnote 1)
It is with these values in mind that I address to you my concerns and the concerns of the U.S. Catholic Bishops regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
INS DETENTION PRACTICES
The Church is deeply concerned about the detention practices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. As the Subcommittee well knows, the number of people being detained by the INS has tripled in the past three years, making INS detainees the fastest growing population in the country. The INS's detention budget is now over $1 billion a year. More than 22,000 persons are currently detained by the INS, and the number is growing.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The financial costs of this detention is staggering. But as great as the financial cost, so too is the human cost of this staggering increase in INS detainees.
The increase in detention is due to a number of factors. First, Congress in 1996 passed a number of laws that require mandatory detention of aliens, including many for whom detention makes no sense. And second, the decentralized nature of INS decision-making makes it impossible for there to be a national policy on detention.
The bishops recommend a number of policy and legislative changes governing the INS's detention practices:
1. First, the Subcommittee take a close look at mandatory detention laws and, wherever possible, make changes to those laws to give the Attorney General more discretion to release INS detainees who are not a danger to society and are not in danger of absconding.
2. Second, the Subcommittee should direct the INS to pursue a program of providing alternatives to detention for those detainees who are not a danger to the community and are not in danger of absconding. Such a program could be funded by a small earmark of current INS detention funds and would save the federal government millions in detention costs.
3. Third, the Subcommittee should direct the INS to fund ''legal orientation presentations'' in facilities housing INS detainees to enable detainees to receive accurate legal information about the forms of relief to which they might be eligible or ineligible. This would have the double benefit of speeding proceedings; identifying those detainees who may actually have relief, including valid claims of asylum; and helping those who have no form of relief available to them understand the reality of their situation.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Fourth, the Subcommittee should enact comprehensive legislation to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in INS custody are treated humanely and not placed in juvenile jails or in adult detention facilities. The manner in which some children have been treated under our current system is nothing short of criminal. Representative Zoe Lofgren, a member of this Subcommittee, is about to introduce legislation that we strongly support on this issue. The legislation will be identical to S. 121, bipartisan children's legislation that was introduced last January by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
Implementation of these recommendations would have the salutary benefit of actually reducing INS detention costs while treating the vulnerable among us in a more compassionate and humane manner.
Alternatives to Detention. Sixty percent of the more than 22,000 INS detainees currently are held in local and county jails. The rest are detained in INS facilities, Bureau of Prisons facilities, and private facilities. In anticipation of the increasing numbers of detainees, the INS has requested over 1600 additional ''average daily state and local detention bed spaces'' and 127 additional detention-related officer and support positions for fiscal year 2002. We are concerned with this requested increase, and would like INS to consider alternatives to detention which are more cost-effective and more humane.
Many of those detained by INS do not present a danger to themselves or their communities and are not a flight risk. Detaining such individuals wastes valuable federal resources that could be put to better use. Detention is not only costly in terms of dollars; it is costly, as well, in terms of human suffering as people are needlessly separated from loved ones. Often, the person in detention is the breadwinner for United States citizen and/or lawful permanent resident children or spouses. In these instances, the individual in detention, the family members, and the communities all suffer.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Church acknowledges and recognizes the right and duty of the government to provide for the public safety and welfare of its citizens. This obligation requires that certain dangerous individuals in removal proceedings should be held in detention pending a resolution of their proceedings rather than permitted to remain in the country at large. But along with this duty should be an obligation to assess whether each individual in detention is actually a threat to the safety of the country. Human rights considerations, respect for basic dignity, and the practicalities of cost and efficiency mandate that individuals in proceedings who are not threats to the public safety should not be detained. Along this vein, we believe that those who are not threats to society and are not flight risks should be released from detention. Of particular concern are asylum seekers and indefinite detainees, both of which are groups which the INS has discretion to release.
In addition to providing a more humane and compassionate response to individuals currently detained, viable alternatives to detention for deserving individuals could save millions of dollars in detention costs and free up costly detention space for more urgent uses. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge you, on behalf of the U.S. Bishops, to earmark at least $20 million from existing funds to support a nationwide program to provide alternatives to detention for individuals who are not a danger to the community and not likely to abscond.
We know that workable alternatives to detention exist. For example, the INS recently funded a pilot project which allowed for the supervised release of more than 500 noncitizens in three categories: asylum-seekers, individuals in removal proceedings due to a criminal conviction, and undocumented persons apprehended at work sites. The results were remarkable. Ninety-one percent of supervised noncitizens in the project appeared in court compared to 71 percent of noncitizens released on bond or parole. Sixty-nine percent of Appearance Assistance Program (AAP) supervised participants complied with final orders of removal compared to 38 percent of a group released on bond or parole. The project showed that supervision costs only $12 per day, as compared to the $61 cost per day for INS detention.(see footnote 2)
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are also other successful models for alternatives to detention including one operated by Catholic Charities in New Orleans that finds jobs, housing and needed counseling for released asylees as well as long-term detainees. Of twenty-five asylum seekers released from this program, only one has been returned to custody since 2000. The INS supports this project and praises the results. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that an article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune on the program be included in the record.
Based on the budget provided for the supervised release pilot ($2 million a year for one site), we project an expansion of the pilot to the ten areas with the largest detention populations would cost $20 million but could provide significant savings in the FY 2002 INS budget.(see footnote 3) We urge the subcommittee to consider providing funding for an expansion of these projects to reduce costs and allow those who are no threat to society to stay out of detention.
Unaccompanied Alien Children. Mr. Chairman, we are particularly concerned about the increasing numbers of unaccompanied minors being held in INS detention. We believe that unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings are deserving of special treatment and that the INS should place as many as possible with family members, in foster care or in privately run shelter-care facilities. Yet a large percentage (approximately 30 percent) are still regularly detained in county or municipal juvenile correction centers, despite the fact that many of these minors have not committed any crime, are not considered flight risks, and do not present disciplinary problems. Detention in these jails greatly impairs the minor's access to counsel, and the inherently harsher conditions of confinement can result in the minor being too demoralized and/or discouraged to seek help or to participate meaningfully in court proceedings.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unaccompanied minors enter the United States under a variety of circumstances. Some seek to reunite with family members, others are asylum seekers who have experienced persecution, some are children who have been smuggled into the country and are at risk of being caught again by smugglers and forced into sweatshop labor or worse. Whatever their circumstances, these children deserve special care. The guiding principle in placing these children in appropriate settings should be the best interests of the child. Therefore, we believe that the care and placement of unaccompanied minors apprehended by the INS should be provided by child welfare agencies experienced in serving the special needs of children. Unaccompanied minors should not be held in any type of secure facility unless absolutely necessary for the child's or society's safety. When used to detain unaccompanied minors, secure facilities should protect these children from potential dangers and separate them from criminal offenders. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a study on the plight of immigrant and refugee children published by the U.S. Catholic Conference's Migration and Refugee Services be included in the record.
Mr. Chairman, we are gravely concerned with the recent transfer by INS of responsibility for unaccompanied minors to the detention and removal division. We believe that this change is potentially a conflict of interest, since those charged with enforcement responsibilities will also be charged with providing child welfare services. In our view, this responsibility should be housed elsewhere, perhaps in the Department of Justice, and staffed by child welfare experts.
This Subcommittee will soon have before it legislation that Representative Zoe Lofgren is planning to introduce that would make comprehensive reforms in the manner in which unaccompanied alien children in United States custody are treated. The legislation will be virtually identical to S. 121, the ''Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001,'' which was introduced in the Senate by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Bob Graham (D-FL). We respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider this issue within the context of your oversight responsibilities, as well as consider this legislation.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Legal Orientation Presentations. In addition to the many other problems faced by individuals in INS detention, these detainees often carry the added burden of being without easy or affordable access to legal representation. Many of the facilities where they are held are in remote locations, far from legal help. Persons in INS detention do not have access to government appointed counsel, and, because most are indigent and cannot afford a lawyer, more than 90 percent go unrepresented. ''Legal orientation'' presentations, which provide detainees with a briefing on their rights under U.S. law, could offer hope to these unrepresented individuals as well as improve efficiencies in the immigration system, help identify detainees worthy of relief, and reduce detention costs.
We cannot underestimate how much is at stake for these individuals. All are in danger of losing their right to live in the United States. They also are in danger of being separated from their families. Some are in danger of being returned to countries where they may face persecution and/or death. Without legal help, most individuals in INS detention are unclear as to what the process before an immigration judge entails, what relief may be available to them or how to pursue it.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), like the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.(CLINIC) try to represent people detained by the INS. Unfortunately, because of restricted resources, most people go unrepresented. NGOs have found that the most effective way to screen people in detention to determine who needs a lawyer is through group legal information presentations.
In the summer of 1998, the Department of Justice (DOJ) funded a modest pilot project, through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, that provided legal orientation presentations to detainees in three sites. The project sought to determine whether informing INS detainees of their rights would have any impact on representation rates, the efficiency of the deportation proceedings, or INS detention expenditures.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The DOJ found that the ''legal orientation presentations'' benefitted detainees in ways that also benefitted the INS and the immigration courts. They enabled detainees to receive accurate legal information before their hearings with the Immigration Judge. They helped detainees expeditiously determine whether they had potential relief available. They also greatly increased the number of individuals represented as the screening agencies could determine which people had strong claims and needed a pro bono lawyer to assist them further. In addition, they helped those without relief to reconcile themselves to removal. Immigration Judges, in turn were able to complete more cases in a summary fashion and benefitted from immigrants who came to their hearings informed about the process and the law. The Department of Justice has found that the above benefits allow the legal orientation program to increase the efficiency of both the INS and the immigration courts.
Such programs could result in substantial savings to the government. The DOJ report recommended the expansion of the project, stating that it improved efficiency, reduced detention