Mr. ALEINIKOFF. We will be putting out formal solicitations for bids by outside experts to help us develop and train and validate tests.

Senator KENNEDY. And when do you expect that decisions will be made on those?

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. We expect the work will be completed by the end of this fiscal year.

Senator KENNEDY. Some of these, I would agree with Senator Simpson, are probably unworthy of being on the exam. You have got some others that are pretty hard, I think-how many changes or amendments are there to the Constitution? You know, I think some people might think about that. You have got. "What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?" "Where does freedom of speech come from, and a basic belief of the Declaration of Independence?"

You can go through and see some that wouldn't really reflect a knowledge, but there are some in here that I think would be challenging for most high school graduates. I understand that the test itself was given to high school students in one particular State and the majority didn't pass it. So I think we are all interested in getting something that is, as you mentioned, going to be reflective of a knowledge of the English language, the ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language, and knowledge of the attachment to principles of history and Government. I think we agree. I think it is worthwhile having assurance that those are the tests that we really have.

Let me just go briefly into what are some of the improvements in the naturalization program. If you can go through those veryyou know, there are a series of those, but maybe you would just touch on them quickly. I understand reference has been made to the FBI. In the transition, there were some mistakes that were made in terms of sorting out those that had a criminal record in the past, but that has, as I understand, been remedied. But maybe you would just go down very, very quickly about what you understand are some of the improvements.

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. I would be happy to do those quickly. First of all, we are now opening our mail and entering data into our systems. When we started Citizenship USA, we discovered that in two of our largest districts there were boxes of files that had never been entered into the data system because we didn't have enough clerks and support staff to do that. So we have gotten on top of our incoming applications and putting them in the system.

We are giving people who now apply receipts that, in fact, their application has been received and that they will be scheduled for an interview. We have established a direct mail process where people, rather than having to come in to the district office and inundate the district local office with files, are mailing their applications to our remote processing centers, where the file is opened and entered into the data system. Sixty percent of our applications now go through direct mail, which relieves a huge burden on the district and on the applicant as well, who doesn't have to wait in long lines to file the application.

We have made significant improvements in our fingerprint process. That is a longer answer I would be happy to give further infor

mation on. We have tightened up the testing entities, as we pointed out. I think, though, actually, the fundamental change under Citizenship USA was increasing the number of adjudicators to handle the incoming flow.

It is a similar solution that we applied to our asylum process. We didn't change the asylum process. We didn't lower the standards. We simply found more people to handle more cases and people were processed in a timely way, as with Citizenship USA. We didn't change the standards or the process. We simply have identified and used more people to handle what was a sea of applications that we received over the last few years.

Senator KENNEDY. OK. There may be some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I thank you very much.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Ted. We have a long agenda. There will be questions I will submit in writing. A later witness will come on to say that the minimum pass rate for the civics exam is 70 percent of the 20 questions asked that we should raise it to 70 percent; that it is presently 60 percent, which is a D-minus, I think, in most high school grading systems in most States. I want to find out if you are going to change that level, and some of that.

Then, for the record, I just want to enter this, and this is not a flash point, but I think it is very important. A person who is not here as part of this first panel on Monday, the subcommittee invited Mr. Doug Farbrother, who is an official with the Vice President's Office of National Performance Review. They have been involved in this; we all know that.

In documents presented to the Congress and are here today, Mr. Farbrother talks about the concern that the Citizenship USA Program would produce 1 million new citizens. This is his E-mail; this is E-mail to the Vice President. Elaine Kamarck-and her name pops up throughout, but it is from Doug Farbrother and it says:

No, sir, the bet was not just about Kelly Girls. I had bet Elaine that INS headquarters would not give their managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Miami enough authority, in general, to make me confident they could produce 1 million new citizens before election day. Unfortunately, I was right. What do you think of that?

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen any of these E-mails. The first I saw them was in a newspaper report yesterday morning, and I must say I was rather surprised and, in one instance, stunned by what I saw in them.

Let me be clear on the role that the National Performance Review office played in Citizenship USA. We announced Citizenship USA in August 1995. We set our goals. We opened up new offices in our major cities. We hired adjudicators. We assigned experienced site managers to those places. In December 1995, we were designated as a reinvention lab by the Justice Performance Review, the part of the Justice Department of the reengineering Government initiative. So we were up and running by the first quarter of 1996, fiscal year 1996.

In the spring, in February or March 1996, the National Performance Review from the Vice President's office came into our sites and were interested in helping us to reinvent the process, to reengineer the process. We had already started our process, as I said, and set our goals and we were well underway. They made a num

ber of recommendations on how we could change our process, some of which we accepted, but most of which we rejected.

What Mr. Farbrother is referring to here, I think, is a request that headquarters delegate all its authority over the process to the field offices. His view was, I believe, as he expressed it to us, if you just freed up your local field people, they could do the work and get the job done. We thought that was a ludicrous idea.

What we were trying to do was standardize the process. We had a direct mail process, as I have explained it, that required mailing applications to our remote service centers. We were concerned about testing. We were concerned about monitoring. We did not think it was appropriate to delegate more authority and we told them so, and that request did not go forward. So we think he was fundamentally mistaken in his analysis and we did not act upon

it.

Senator SIMPSON. No, but I think it is disturbing because I think any of us, Senator Kennedy or myself—I am not interested in seeing the White House or the INS register people Democrat or Republican. That is a distortion of everything American. If these people are to be naturalized, it is fine to give them a voter registration card, although I have some problems with that one, too, but you don't get them in so you can register them for one party and then politicize your Agency, which I insist has happened, and it has happened without the approval and I think the knowledge of Doris Meissner.

I think she has been hammered from down underneath by political people who quicken the pace of naturalization, who are trying to do things in a way that I don't think is good. I think it is unwise speaking about naturalization in a political manner and I think it taints the INS. So I am concerned that partisan desires may have pushed the INS more swiftly than is prudent. I personally am not concerned about the party affiliation of our newest citizens.

Let me just share this with you. Two days later I have the other E-mail and I will just put all this in the record.

[The information referred to was not available at presstime.] Senator SIMPSON. I would like to quote:

Today, Chris Sale delegated hiring authority to the five cities and increased their budgets by 20 percent. She also streamlined the background clearance process some, but still anticipates a month-and-a-half to two months to get people on board. So it did happen and it was a rather swift response.

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. Well, as I said, there were some suggestions that NPR made to us. One of importance to us was they looked at how long it was taking us to hire people. Our problem was we had a lot of adjudicators we needed to bring on. Because of the budget crisis and the furloughs, we were unable to do that. We were behind in achieving our goals for the year because of that.

NPR looked around and said, gee, you could hire your folks much more quickly if your background check-without changing the standards, if you simply got the FBI to respond more quickly to you on fingerprint checks, you could bring people on in a much shorter period of time. We took their advice on that one and we are glad we did. We have now used that with the hiring of many of our personnel. It was an efficiency in the process without a sacrifice of standards. So on that one, that is correct.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I have taken extra time and Senator Kennedy is certainly entitled to any further, if he wishes. I just wanted to clarify that something is going on and somebody would have to know that something is going on when you get that kind of E-mail floating around in the system.

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. Well, if I could, Senator, I agree with you entirely that the naturalization process cannot and will not and should not be politicized. This is a precious right, as you describe. The Immigration Service went into Citizenship USA knowing the importance of citizenship and respecting that importance. We did not permit it to become politicized and we will not do so.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you can't. It is disgusting in prospect to me as a citizen of the United States, not as a U.S. Senator.

Did you have something to add, Mr. Rosenberg?

Mr. ROSENBERG. I would just say it is also a dangerous precedent for us if that were to occur. Certainly, we were careful from the very beginning to protect the whole nature of the process. It is not to say that there weren't people who had their own ideas on why they might think this was a good idea around the country, but it is to say that the INS did not act on that.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Just briefly, as I understand, Farbrother is a career civil servant and is over in the Pentagon. As I understand it, he is not a political figure, as has been represented to me. The other point is that if they have been doing it for political purposes, here you have the Republican Congressperson in Miami, Representative Ros-Lehtinen, who testified in the House that the new citizens in Miami are registering as Republicans 6 to 8 times the rate they are registering as Democrats. Mayor Giuliani in New York, a Republican mayor, has welcomed and commended Citizenship USA.

I agree, certainly, with the thrust of Senator Simpson's-but, of course, here you had George Bush appearing in the Orange Bowl 6 weeks before the Republican election the last time out for all new immigrants in Miami in the last presidential election. He wasn't out there, I don't believe, just urging good citizenship. There was certainly a patina of interest in terms of encouraging them to vote in that campaign.

I agree with Senator Simpson that this ought to be done for the reasons that he has outlined—you know, there are going to be enthusiastic people in different places that are going to carry these things on. We are all aware of that. I mean, I used to write people in my own State of Massachusetts every time they became a citizen. I wrote them and congratulated them. My Republican colleague never did. Some would say, well, that is politicization of the process. There are all kinds of ways of doing it and I think all of us want to make sure that it is done in the ways in which it should be done, and that is devoid of as much partisanship as possible.

Senator SIMPSON. I think that is true. I think there is no more moving thing than to go to one of those ceremonies, and you and I have been there. When they turn in their green card and raise their right hand and suddenly they have that piece of paper in their hand and have sworn an oath and allegiance, that is a very moving thing. We don't want to tarnish it, certainly.

I thank you very much. You have been very helpful, very helpful. I will have more questions to submit in writing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleinikoff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF

Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to share with the Committee the recent achievements of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to process the largest number of applications for citizenship in our nation's history in a fair, accurate, and timely manner. At the same time that our border and worksite enforcement and removal efforts have gained public attention and been supported by unprecedented levels of Congressional appropriations, our Citizenship USA program has made the "N" and "S" of INS a reality for over one million fee-paying legal immigrants who have played by the rules and sought, as generations before them, to become United States citizens. We are proud of our accomplishments in the first year of Citizenship USA. We have successfully adjudicated 1.3 million naturalization applications, resulting in 1.1 million new American citizens without reducing standards or compromising the integrity of the adjudication. We have reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and have initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations. We have reached out to local officials, civic associations and community service organizations throughout the country to involve communities in training, assisting and preparing legal immigrants for the citizenship process and welcoming successful applicants as new Americans. By redesigning outmoded processing methods, we have demonstrated that a Federal government agency can respond to an unprecedented workload increase and fulfill its obligation to maintain the public trust. Our efforts have received bipartisan support from Congress and other elected officials.

HISTORY OF CITIZENSHIP USA

Let me briefly review the history of Citizenship USA. Improvement of the naturalization program has been a high priority for Commissioner Meissner from the time she came to INS in October, 1993. At her confirmation hearing before this committee, she expressed her belief about the importance of naturalization for immigrants, for their communities, for the INS and for America. And she stated her intention for the Service to be “much more active * * * were naturalization is concerned."

We designed Citizenship USA to address a particular crisis we faced in fiscal year 1995: a huge and growing backlog of naturalization_applications. In many places, long-term legal permanent residents would apply and pay their fee—naturalization is not paid out of general revenue and then had to wait two to four years to complete the naturalization process. Such procedural delays were and are not acceptable to the INS, to the Congress or to the American people.

By early fiscal year 1995, INS was receiving applications for citizenship at an unprecedented rate, eventually over one million for the year, nearly twice as many as the previous year. By the end of fiscal year 1995, we had over 800,000 pending naturalization applications and only enough staff to adjudicate little more than half that many. The gap between our workload and our capacity was already large and was becoming overwhelming. About 75 percent of the pending caseload was concentrated in five of our 36 Districts: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and San Francisco. As the attached chart shows, increases were everywhere, but were most prevalent in these five districts. (Attachment 1)

Applicants' fees, plus applicable penalties, pay for the entire naturalization program, unless Congress makes specific additional appropriations. Congress did not appropriate funds, but did approve our reprogramming requests to respond to this massive naturalization workload.

In approving our two reprogramming requests, (which were initially targeted to the five districts with the greatest need and later extended to permit temporary hiring in 15 additional districts with smaller, but significant backlogs), provided approximately $80 million in additional spending authority for naturalization in fiscal year 1996.

In his January 16, 1996 approval letter, Subcommittee Chairman Rogers (R-KY) wrote: "I * * * understand that with these additional resources INS intends to reduce backlogs in naturalization and adjustment of status applications so that by mid-summer, eligible persons will become citizens within six months after applying ** I am pleased that the INS is recognizing this significant workload and addressing it in this reprogramming by hiring temporary employees to handle the