The following information was provided subsequent to the hearing: IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Detention and Deportation Program Detention Budget Status in 1989 and 1990 The Detention and Deportation program shifted fourth quarter Alien Travel, Detention and Welfare funds (ATD&W), $11 million, to fund the South Texas Project. Since funds must be available for ATD&W purposes, it will be necessary to reprogram funds to meet alien detention program requirements. The reprogramming action will not adversely impact any of the Service's programs or functions. At this time it is anticipated that the need for a special effort in South Texas will diminish steadily and will be phased down and eliminated by 1990. In addition to base budget resources, the 1990 budget for the Detention and Deportation program contains an increase of 130 positions, 65 workyears and $9,275,000 to staff and operate two new facilities, Oakdale II in Oakdale, Louisiana, and the Terminal Island SPC in San Pedro, California. However, there are required program decreases of 199 positions, 43 workyears and $4,022,000. If the South Texas project is closed and another emergency situation does not arise, by prudent management and greater emphasis on productivity, the Detention and Deportation program will be able to perform its functions with the available resources. Mr. NELSON. Well, as I say, within the administration we are now debating the current impact and the projected impact of this increased detention costs, and we are reviewing the numbers and the situation and the policy implications. That is going on at the present time. Mr. MORRISON. Do you expect that that is going to be an internal shift of funds, or is it going to require a supplemental appropriation? Mr. NELSON. Well, that is one of the debates that is going on. We believe it will probably require a supplemental. Mr. MORRISON. What is the time frame on that? When might we expect to receive it? Mr. NELSON. I don't know that. That is, the discussions are going on. I can't give you a time frame. Obviously, from our point of view, we hope it moves along fairly quickly on a determination of what the administration policy will be. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck. For fiscal year 1990 we are not anticipating any increased detention cost due to the South American situation we are experiencing now on the southern border. Because as the year progresses, the plan that we have in place now, we are anticipating that problem to be for the most part resolved. We don't anticipate any additional funding needed on the southern border where you and I visited recently, because we think that problem will be taken care of. That is our projection. Mr. MORRISON. By the end of this fiscal year? Mr. Buck. By the end of this fiscal year. Mr. MORRISON [continuing]. The numbers will be back down to pre-existing numbers? Mr. Buck. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRISON. OK. Following on that, there was a recent newspaper report-this was in USA Today on April 7, 1989-saying that there was an INS proposal for some change in the method of making asylum determinations at the border. The committee has requested access to that document, which apparently has in one way or another found its way into the hands of at least one member of the press, and to date we have been denied that access. Could you please explain what that proposal is, and whether there is such a document, and what the status of it is, and whether you would be willing to provide it to the subcommittee? Mr. NELSON. Happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. First of all, that concept as related in that article certainly has been around for a while. I believe that is similar to something Mr. McCollum has talked about in the past, and currently you have had other Senators and Congressmen from particularly Florida and Texas that have been interested in that approach among others, a similar approach to requiring asylum applications in the firsthand or to be filed in Central America or whatever. I mean, those are concepts. We are looking at those. I have not seen any document. They are in the discussion process. We certainly have not submitted anything. When we have something ready to submit and reviewed internally, we certainly will submit it. But there is nothing now. I think that news report probably did pick up the fact that yes, of course, we are thinking about those concepts. That has been, i believe, discussed openly at the last hearing you had on Central American issues among other locations, so there is nothing unique. I think the thought that there is some document that lays it out, as I say, if it is it is strictly in a work process stage and discussion stage to be looked at. But those concepts we think definitely deserve a hard look by the Congress and the administration, and at such point as we have something we will be submitting them. But there is nothing finalized. I have not seen any paper. I am not aware that there is a paper in the sense of a specific. There might be some working paper situation, I don't know. Certainly they are at the premature discussion stage, as this kind of issue ought to be, and be analyzed very thoroughly. Mr. MORRISON. What is the time frame on receiving some kind of input on that? The subcommittee has certainly planned to hold extensive hearings during the summer on the Refugee Act and on asylum as it relates to the Refugee Act. Could we expect that we would see something growing out of this process? Mr. NELSON. Well, I would hope so. Of course, the whole idea for the executive branch is to get our own thoughts and ideas formalized as soon as we can so we can have them introduced by a member or submit them in draft form for discussion with the committee. I think that is the way the process works. So I am pleased to hear that you are considering further hearings on it. These issues are important and need to be addressed. I would like to see it move as rapidly as we can. Similarly, with legal immigration reform, the same idea. These are issues that ought to be moved forward. Mr. MORRISON. I am going to yield to Mr. Smith for his further questions in a moment, but I have one more question about documents. At our hearing in which we looked into what was going on in terms of the asylum applications and the procedures that were being followed in south Texas I asked for the planning documents that had been developed throughout the period from April up through December and then into February that had led at various stages to the decisions about how potential asylum applicants would be treated, particularly who traveled through or by or in conjunction with the Harlingen office. And I was assured at that time that those would be provided. We are still awaiting those documents and there have been indications that maybe they would not be provided. Could you let me know what you have in mind in that regard? Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware that you had requested planning documents all the way back through April, and I am not sure that such documents exist. When we first became aware of the problem, most of the conversation was just that-conversation. There may be some file memos. I don't know that that even exist. Not until late December did we actually begin to put together what I would call a document. We put the document in place and that is what is in place now. We have revised it once. And certainly, if you don't have a copy of that, we will get that to you. Mr. MORRISON. Now what I requested in particular was whatever instructions and documents had been developed prior to the decision which was implemented in December to stop an ad hoc procedure that had been adopted in the Harlingen office of allowing people to file their asylum applications and then move on to another destination to be adjudicated. The Service made a decision to halt that activity in December, and was enjoined from doing so by the court, and what I asked for was everything that was in place, all the planning documents and instructions that were in place prior to that decision in and around December which but for the court order would have been carried out. I am familiar with the document that was issued and implemented on February 21, but I am asking for the documents that relate to the initial decision which but for the court order would have been implemented and carried out. I was assured at the last hearing that those would be provided, and subsequently they have not been provided and I want to know what is going on. We had indications that maybe they would not be provided for some reason. So the question is, where are they and when will we get them? Mr. Buck. Well, again I say I think that the document you are asking for is basically the same one that we are using today. I can use a date of December 15, when we put together a document. That was the date we implemented a plan that then was effected by the TRO. Now we can certainly get you a copy of that, and apologize for you not having it already, if that is what you are looking for. Mr. MORRISON. Well, it is that and any documents leading up to that which were part of the implementation of the plan which was then stayed by the court, not the subsequent modifications or whatever that went on, which we have seen, which is the February 21 implementation. I think that is a February 16 document. We are talking about the November and December activities. I assumed and I asked whether there wasn't such a collection of documents or instructions from that time. And, if you are saying there is and that that is what you are going to provide, we asked for it at the time. I don't think there has been any doubt that this request has been pending. There has been some doubt as to whether it was going to be provided. So am I now being assured that it will be provided, again? Mr. Buck. Yes. We can give you a copy of the December 16th memorandums and work documents that we were using at that time which evolved into the plan that we are using today. Mr. MORRISON. Well, that is what I would ask for, and I would like to have those as quickly as possible. [The information follows:] CO 703.785 SEP 27 1989 Honorable Bruce Morrison Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Committee on Judiciary Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is in response to your request during the March 9, 1989 subcommittee hearing and in a subsequent letter of May 25, 1989 for documents and materials "relating to the Central American asylum seekers in south Texas in the period commencing November 1988 to the present." Specifically provided herewith are the December 15, 1988 decisional memo to Executive Staff and the field offices from Thomas G. Cook. decisions for the "December change which you The "contingency plan" to refer in your letter of May 25 is the February 16, 1989 document which you had in your hand at the March 9th hearing (See March 9 hearing transcript at p. 93). The January document" to which you refer (See March 9 hearing transcript at pp. 93, 106) was forwarded to the Attorney General for review and approval as part of a master plan. As that plan has not yet been approved, we cannot provide it to you at this time. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, James L. Buck Acting Commissioner Reading File Official File Letter prepared by DOJ/OLA-WOLF |