Prepared Statement for the Record of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

House Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement

"Safeguarding the Integrity of the Immigration Benefits Adjudication Process"

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Congressional oversight is often an overlooked function for members of Congress.  It's not always glamorous and it's a lot of hard work.  However, it's an important responsibility for the legislative branch that helps our government work more efficiently for the American people.

I commend the House Judiciary Committee for having a hearing today to discuss the shortcomings of our immigration benefits adjudication process. Oversight of this process is crucial to ensuring that our immigration system works for all people, including foreign nationals who wish to live and work in the United States.

The Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in January of this year entitled, "The Effects of USCIS Adjudication Procedures and Policies on Fraud Detection by Immigration Services Officers."  The report provides an insightful look through the eyes of agents on the line.  The Inspector General issued this report after I expressed concern about fraud detection efforts by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

While I have long been interested in fraud prevention and rooting out abuse in many visa programs, I jumped into the benefits adjudication process in the fall of 2010.  Immigration officers in the field reported to me that they were being subject to pressure to approve applications and petitions because that was the message of managers in headquarters.  Many officers felt intimidated and pressured.  Some were being relocated.  Some were being demoted.  The stories were similar, and it appeared that people in Washington were preaching a "get to yes" philosophy when it was apparent that the answer should have been "no."

In September of 2010, I wrote a letter to USCIS Director Mayorkas.  I was unsatisfied with his response to issues that whistleblowers brought up to me.  Since he refused to answer the allegations, I took the issue to the Secretary and the Inspector General.  I told the Secretary that, after many interviews, the evidence suggested that Director Mayorkas was fostering an environment that pressures employees to approve as many applications as possible.

According to several USCIS employees, Director Mayorkas was less concerned about fraud and more about making sure officers were looking at petitions from the perspective of the customer. Some said that USCIS leadership expressed a goal of "zero complaints" from "customers," implying that approvals were the means to such an end.  The Department of Homeland Security conducted a human capital survey where USCIS scored low because employees felt pressured by upper management to approve applications. Many said that USCIS leadership "cultivated a culture of fear and disrespect."

So, the Inspector General agreed to investigate.  He said that the "integrity of the benefit issuance process is vital," inappropriate pressure on the adjudications process must be avoided.  Nearly 52 percent of respondents in their survey said that USCIS policy is too heavily weighted toward promoting immigration.  The fact that a quarter of the immigration service officers surveyed felt pressure to approve questionable applications is alarming.  There are all kinds of pressure, including from supervisors and outside attorneys.  There's also pressure to approve in order to meet agency performance goals.

It's no secret that USCIS officers have been judged on quantity, not quality of their work.  For many years, adjudicators have felt pressure to approve so many cases in an hour or a day.  Moreover, according to the Inspector General, 90 percent of respondents felt they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits.  The Inspector General said that "the speed at which immigration service officers must process cases leaves ample opportunities for critical information to be overlooked."  Adjudicators are more apt to approve a petition because it takes less time, and they fear getting behind if they have to put a lot of effort into a case.

I applaud the Director for initiating new performance measures so that there's more focus on fraud and security.  However, like the Inspector General noted, many employees will continue to feel as though their work hinges on numbers.  Despite the new measures, immigration service officers and supervisors are concerned that production remains the focus.  They feel this way because of "the perception that USCIS strives to satisfy benefit requesters in a way that could affect national security and fraud detection priorities."  The new performance measures may not be perfect.  They may need to be massaged.  I hope the Director takes comments of agents into consideration as this issue evolves.

Unfortunately, however, I am concerned that the agency is not taking seriously the Inspector General's recommendation to develop standards to permit more time for review of case files.  In fact, USCIS did not concur with this recommendation and said that additional time is not the solution to addressing national security and fraud concerns.  Director Mayorkas should reconsider the department's initial response to this recommendation and create an environment that ensures a thorough and complete analysis of all applications.

The Inspector General also recommended that USCIS develop a policy to establish limitations for managers and attorneys when they intervene in the adjudication of specific cases.   This recommendation was made because it appeared that certain high-ranking employees at USCIS headquarters were inserting themselves into specific cases, and in one case, putting pressure on adjudicators to approve an application when the individual clearly wasn't eligible.    The report also discusses how private attorneys and other parties contacted USCIS managers or attorneys to request a review of a case that an immigration service officer had denied.  The perception for many officers was that outside attorneys had too much influence in the process.  While the Director of USCIS does not support special treatment for complainants, it's concerning that the agency did not fully concur with the recommendation to issue a policy that ends any informal appeals process and the special review of denied cases.

Overall, this report is eye-opening.  The Inspector General discussed the adjudications process with many officers in the field, and brought these issues to light.  He made many thoughtful and serious recommendations that should not be ignored.

Unfortunately, despite what the Inspector General has reported, there are still nay-sayers.  People within the agency want to discredit the research and findings of the Inspector General.  I'm told that some aren't taking this report seriously.  That's why leadership on this issue is crucial to enacting any true reform.

In 2008, I was glad to hear the president-elect talk about making this the most transparent government ever.  Unfortunately, up to this point, this administration has been far from transparent.

And, it's clear that for the current administration, the rule of law is more about perception than reality.  They've circled the wagons, made denials and generally been non-responsive to constitutionally proper inquiries by members of Congress.

Since the founding of our country, our immigration laws have been a source of discussion.  We were born a nation of immigrants.  We have welcomed men and women of diverse countries and provided protection to many who flee from persecution.

We have been a generous nation.  Yet, we have seen our country face many challenges.  During these struggles, it is important for lawmakers to bear in mind that the policies we make should benefit our country over the long term and that we must be fair to current and future generations.

People in foreign lands yearn to be free.  They go to great lengths to be a part of the United States.  It's a privilege that people love our country and want to become Americans.  At the same time, however, we must not forget one great principle that our country was founded on.  That is the rule of law.  We want to welcome new Americans, but we need to live by the rules that we've made.  We cannot let our welcome mat be trampled on and we cannot allow our system of laws to be undermined.

For years, USCIS has seen themselves as a service-oriented agency.  They strive to make their customers happy.  Unfortunately, this "get to yes" culture is a direct contradiction to our number one priority of protecting the homeland.  USCIS must do more to ensure that fraud, abuse, and national security are a higher priority than appeasing its customers.  It is going to take a strong-willed and determined leader to change this culture.

Reform shouldn't be a bad word.  It should be embraced so that immigrants continue to feel welcomed in America and receive the best service possible when trying to navigate the bureaucratic process.

Again, I commend the committee for discussing the integrity of our immigration system, including our benefits adjudication process.  With constant vigilance, we can root out fraud and abuse, and enact reforms that will be meaningful for future generations of new immigrants.

-30-

Floor Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley

"We Must Stop the Spread of Synthetic Drug Use"

Delivered Wednesday, February 15, 2012

In the fall of 2010, I came to the floor to speak about my growing concern of synthetic drug use in this country. Specifically, I raised concerns about a popular new drug known as K2 or Spice after a constituent of mine, named David Rozga, committed suicide. David killed himself shortly after smoking a package of the drug he and some friends bought at a local shopping mall. At the time, David's death in June 2010 was one of the first deaths associated with what was a new and very dangerous drug craze.  Now, nearly two years after David's death, the use of synthetic drugs like K2 has exploded and is becoming a major problem across the country.

In 2009, the American Association of Poison Centers reported only 13 calls concerning synthetic drug use. In 2010, over 1,300 calls were made to poison centers about synthetic drugs. Last year, there were over 12,000 calls to poison centers regarding synthetic drugs. The Monitoring the Future survey, a survey of high school youth, asked students for the first time last year if they ever tried synthetic drugs. Roughly one in nine high school seniors responded that they had used synthetic drugs in the last year. These numbers are an astonishing increase in just two year, and this illustrates how rapidly the use of these drugs has come on the scene.

These drugs are having a terrible effect on those who use them. Emergency room doctors across the country are reporting increasing cases of synthetic drug users coming to the hospital. My staff heard from one such doctor from upstate New York about what she has seen. Dr. Sandra Schneider, from Rochester New York, reported that users in her ER experienced psychotic episodes, rapid heart rate, very high blood pressure, and seizures. In some cases users, many of whom were in their teens and twenties, suffered heart attacks and strokes, and died as a result. Other cases involved users who tried to kill themselves, harm others, or got into car accidents while high on these drugs.

How did we get here? The people who manufacture and sell these drugs have circumvented the laws to easily sell synthetic drugs online, at gas stations, in novelty stores at the local shopping malls, and in tobacco stores and other shops. Many of the drugs are manufactured overseas in counties like China and imported into the United States. They spray chemical compounds that have not been tested on humans and were not intended for human consumption on dried leaves. They package and market these drugs to appear as legitimate products like incense, bath salts, plant food, and snow remover. They slap a label on these packages stating that the product is not for human consumption to get around FDA regulation.

Over 30 states have passed laws to ban various synthetic drug compounds. The Drug Enforcement Administration has also acted to stop these drugs. Although the DEA has used its emergency scheduling powers to control seven chemical compounds, there are too many on the market now for the DEA to go through the long and laborious process to schedule each and every one. The makers of these drugs know this too well and have altered their chemical formulas, some as little as a molecule, to get around existing state and federal laws.

This is exactly the case in my home state of Iowa. Iowa passed a law last year that banned many chemical compounds; however, the law only listed a specific set of chemical compounds and the drug makers altered their formulas. Recently, two Iowa youths have become victims of the new drugs. One is a Polk County teenager who got into a high speed crash after smoking a product called "100% Pure Evil." This teen had two other passengers in her car. After smoking this product, the driver became agitated and stated she wanted to kill herself. She started driving her car into several trees. When paramedics arrived on the scene they reported that everyone was badly hurt and the driver was vomiting blood. Thankfully, all passengers survived the crash.

Another teen in Central Iowa experienced a near death experience after smoking the same product. This teen purchased the product "100% Pure Evil" at a local store and started convulsing and vomiting shortly after smoking the drug. Once paramedics got this boy to a hospital he fell into a coma. He, however, woke from the coma the next day but had failed to recognize his mother or grandmother at the hospital. Thankfully, this boy has since recovered his memory. Now he suffers occasional anxiety attacks. When the boy's mother told the police about the product and where he got it, she reported that the police told her there was nothing they could do about it because it was not known what was in the product and it may be legal. This product is still being reviewed to see if any compounds fall under Iowa's ban.

Nearly a year ago, I introduced legislation, named after David Rozga, with Senator Feinstein, that bans the chemicals that comprise K2/Spice. We designed the legislation to capture a wide variety of compounds so it would not be so easy to circumvent this law by altering a molecule. In fact, the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy is crafting new legislation, based on the legislation I introduced last year that captures more substances. My legislation was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee last July. It is currently being prevented from consideration by the full Senate by one Senator. The House of Representatives passed its version of the Synthetic Drug Control Act overwhelmingly last December with more than 70 percent of representatives supporting scheduling these drugs.

Many of the opponents of this legislation stated on the House floor that by scheduling these compounds, we are preventing scientific research. That is far from true. Any scheduled substance, even current schedule I drugs like cocaine and heroin, can be researched. Any scientist can apply to be registered by the DEA to research any drug. Just because we are removing the drugs from the store shelves does not mean we can't study them.

It is time for the Senate to take action. We cannot let the will of just one senator obstruct the will of many. I believe if our legislation received a vote and a fair debate, this body would pass it overwhelmingly. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to get these drugs off the store shelves and off the streets. I urge the Senate leadership to allow a debate and vote on this issue. The American people, people like the Rozga family and others who have been victims of these drugs, want to see this poison removed from their communities.

-30-

Since last April, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for documents related to the agency's decision to fast-track the LightSquared broadband wireless project, despite concerns of widespread interference with global-positioning system devices.  The agency has refused to provide any documents.  Now, the FCC is withdrawing the preliminary approval it gave to LightSquared because of interference with GPS devices.  Grassley made the following comment on his inquiry.