Lofgren Questions Secretary Chertoff on USCIS Fee Increase

Sends Letter Seeking Further Explanation after Hearing Testimony

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff today seeking clarification of his testimony on the proposed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) immigration fee increase.

On Friday, Secretary Chertoff testified at a Homeland Security Committee Hearing that the proposed USCIS fees would supplement the significant cuts to USCIS funding in the President’s FY08 budget, and that without a fee increase, border security and technological upgrades at USCIS would suffer. Rep. Lofgren responded that applicants’ fees should not be used for enforcement purposes.

The text of Rep. Lofgren’s letter to Sec. Chertoff is below:

February 13, 2007

The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Chertoff:

In a Homeland Security Committee hearing on Friday, February 9, 2007, I questioned you regarding the budget allocation for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In my role as the chair of the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am concerned about your response and would like clarification.

Under the President’s 2008 budget for the Department of Homeland Security Gross Discretion Budget Authority, Citizen and Immigration Services is allocated $30 million. This represents a decrease from $182 million in FY07 and $114 million in FY06. During the hearing, I asked you if you would be prepared to move towards a request for appropriation for appropriate needs if the recent proposed fee increase for immigration applications fails. You answered, “That would be a problem. My understanding is that Congress has always mandated this fee.”

I would greatly appreciate clarification of your statement as Congress has simply authorized, not mandated, the collection of fees to cover the costs of immigration application processing.[i] In fact, as you know, DHS has received appropriations in the past for this program, most recently $182 million in FY07. Such appropriations belie your explanation of a mandated fee recovery.

I am also concerned about your response to my question about the significant drop in funding you requested for FY08. You stated that the drop in the USCIS budget was due to the proposed fee increase of 66% for processing naturalization and immigration applications. You stated, “If the fee were blocked, then we would have a big hole in the budget. That would be a big problem for this Congress because you would have to find a significant chunk of money. Either we would have to go back to the days of backlog, or we would have to decide to hire fewer Border Patrols or have less technology.”

I would appreciate a clarification of your statement. USCIS immigration application fees cannot be used for enforcement purposes.[ii] Yet you suggested that without a fee increase, USCIS may not be able to fund additional Border Patrol agents, despite the fact that Congress has been steadily funding this for the past several years without a fee increase.

Please provide me with clarification on your understanding of fee collection by USCIS, why the USCIS budget was cut and for what purpose the increased fees amounts will be used. I look forward to working with you to ensure that changes in the fee structure are reasonable and that USCIS is able to adequately have its needs met under the 2008 budget.

Sincerely,
Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress

[i] The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for the collection of fees at a level that permits, but does not require, USCIS to collect fees that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization services, including the costs of providing similar services without charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. INA 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).

[ii] This revenue remains available to provide immigration and naturalization benefits and the collection, safeguarding, and accounting for fees. Id. at 1356(n).