[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-135
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JULY 24, 2012
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 2
WITNESSES
Waldemar Rodriguez, Deputy Assistant Director, Transnational
Crime and Public Safety Division, Homeland Security
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government
Employees
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
Laura Lichter, President, American Immigration Lawyers
Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 35
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud
Detection and National Security Directorate, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services....................................... 43
AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, Gowdy, and
Lofgren.
Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Andrea
Loving, Counsel; Emily Sanders, Professional Staff Member;
(Minority) David Shahoulian, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; and
Gary Merson, CIS Detailee.
Mr. Gallegly. I call to order the Subcommittee and welcome
to the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and
Enforcement. I especially want to welcome our witnesses and
thank you all for joining us here today.
I am joined by my colleague from California, the
distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren,
and we will start the hearing with an opening statement and
then we will allow Ms. Lofgren to have her opening statement.
Unscrupulous notary publics, immigration consultants, and
immigration lawyers have increasingly utilized fraudulent
tactics to obtain immigration benefits for their clients.
Unfortunately, this type of immigration fraud is usually
identified after the fact, when an immigrant has already
fraudulently obtained the benefit.
In order to combat this fraud, on June 9, 2011, the
executive branch unveiled a multi-agency nationwide immigration
service scams initiative. As part of the initiative, the
Department of Justice works with ICE and USCIS investigators to
secure convictions--with sentences up to 8 years in prison and
forfeiture and restitution of over $1.8 million--for those who
commit fraud on the immigration system as legal
representatives.
But what of the immigrants who receive the immigration
benefits based upon fraudulent applications? On its ICE Web
site, ICE boasts of numerous instances where Homeland Security
investigations charged, and the Department of Justice has gone
on to prosecute and convict, attorneys committing fraud. In one
of the largest cases in immigration fraud history, Earl Seth
David and his law firm submitted fraudulent claims to labor and
immigration authorities concerning tens of thousands of
immigrants sponsored for immigration benefits. David pled
guilty and faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. To
date, the government has identified at least 25,000
applications submitted by his firm.
In another example, Maryland lawyer Patrick Tzeuton was
convicted of conspiracy to prepare false asylum applications,
immigration fraud, and obstruction of official immigration
proceedings. Tzeuton prepared over 1,100 asylum applications,
many of which are believed to be fraudulent. In support of
these applications, he and his assistants submitted fraudulent
supporting affidavits such as fake medical certificates
demonstrating that an immigrant had been beaten and tortured in
Cameroon. So far, of the 1,100-plus cases he handled, only 40
have been identified for further action by ICE and referred to
USCIS. Tzeuton was convicted in 2009. None of the immigrants
involved have been removed as of this date.
The jury is still out on whether DHS makes a concerted and
vigorous effort to go back and revoke immigration benefits
after attorneys have been found to engage in fraud. In some
instances, DHS has apparently revoked thousands of benefits. In
other cases, little seems to have been done, even where
attorneys were convicted years ago and DHS boasted of
uncovering the fraud. Clearly, how DHS responds to the David
case will be the acid test of its commitment.
Immigrants who obtain benefits by fraud with the assistance
of counsel make a mockery of our immigration system, which is
the most generous anywhere in the world. We must hope that at
the very least when DHS proclaims that it has uncovered
immigration attorney fraud, it will conduct a thorough case-by-
case review of immigrants that that attorney represented.
At this point I will yield to the gentlelady from
California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is an important one. Immigration fraud
undermines the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. At the
same time, it harms innocent victims, delays adjudications for
legitimate individuals and employers, and can cost the
government significant resources. Immigration fraud, especially
when committed by members of the Bar, is deplorable and it has
no place in our system.
One of the fraud schemes mentioned by the Chairman we will
discuss today was massive. That is the fraud scheme of New York
attorney Earl Seth David, who may have submitted as many as
25,000 fraudulent applications and petitions, according to the
U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York.
USCIS, ICE, the Department of Labor, and the U.S. Attorney's
Office should be commended for identifying, investigating, and
successfully prosecuting this fraud. But work needs to be done.
As we will hear today, USCIS is reviewing the immigration cases
connected to the David fraud scheme to ensure that benefits
were properly granted, and USCIS will continue to take action
to revoke or rescind those that were not.
I oppose fraud, and earlier in this Congress I introduced
the Student Visa Reform Act to address fraud in our student
visa program. That legislation would require that colleges and
universities be fully accredited before they can accept and
enroll foreign students. If enacted, my bill would go a long
way toward ending large-scale immigration fraud schemes
recently uncovered in various institutions throughout the
country. I want to thank Chairman Smith for working with me on
this bill and for his efforts to have the bill considered on
the House floor.
Based on what we learn at this hearing, we may very well
need to work together to address fraud in other areas as well.
For example, USCIS may need additional authority to conduct
site visits or audits in questionable cases. When conducted in
an efficient manner that is not redundant or overly burdensome,
site visits and audits can be effective tools to combat fraud.
I will work with my colleagues and USCIS leadership to explore
this and other means to ensure the continued integrity of the
immigration system.
While we seek ways to prevent immigration fraud, I do want
to sound a cautionary note and provide a bit of context. The
immigration fraud we discuss today is significant, but we must
keep in mind that USCIS adjudicates some 6 million immigration
benefits applications and petitions annually--the vast majority
for qualified and legitimate individuals and employers.
Additionally, although some immigrants are complicit in
fraud, some are unwilling victims. Some may have been truly
eligible for immigration benefits but nevertheless charged
exorbitant legal fees or left to wait months or even years for
applications that were never properly filed. Some were taken
advantage of and are now paying the price as their hopes of
becoming permanent residents or U.S. Citizens are delayed or
even shattered. So we must consider such victims when we decide
how to move forward. To allow immigration fraud to irreparably
harm vulnerable innocents who are in fact eligible for
immigration benefits would only add insult to injury.
We have a distinguished panel, including government
officials from ICE and USCIS here today, and I look forward to
hearing their testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
At this time we will go to our panel of witnesses. Our
first witness is Mr. Waldemar Rodriguez. He currently serves as
the Deputy Assistant Director for Homeland Security
Investigations' Transitional Crime and Public Safety Division.
Prior to this assignment, Mr. Rodriguez served as DAD for HSI
Domestic Operations, acting as Assistant Director for the HSI
Workforce Management Division and as the Unit Chief for HSI
Workforce Management Staffing Solution Unit at the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. Rodriguez began his law enforcement career in 1991 as a
police officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department. In 1997,
Mr. Rodriguez entered the Federal service as a Special Agent
with the Office of Inspector General, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and then transferred to the former U.S.
Customs Service as a Special Agent in 2001. Mr. Rodriguez holds
a Bachelor of Arts Degree in social services from the
University of Turabo and a Master's Degree in public
administration from the University of Puerto Rico.
Welcome, Mr. Rodriguez.
TESTIMONY OF WALDEMAR RODRIGUEZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION, HOMELAND
SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT (ICE), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE's efforts to
address large-scale immigration benefit fraud, our
investigation into the Earl David Law Firm, as well as our
efforts to investigate benefit fraud facilitators in general.
Benefit fraud undermines the integrity of the legal
immigration system. In most cases, it involves the knowing and
willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a petition or
application to gain an immigration benefit. Fraudulently
obtained benefits enable an alien who would otherwise be
declined a visa or other immigration benefits to enter or
reside in the United States and live in our communities under a
guise of legitimacy. Large-scale fraud facilitators, such as
those found in the Earl David law firm, have the potential not
only to provide access to illegally obtained benefits and
documents but to provide coverage for those engaged in criminal
activity.
Benefit fraud is complex and challenging to investigate and
often involves sophisticated schemes and multiple
coconspirators. These cases can require substantial resources
and time to investigate and prosecute. USCIS refers suspected
fraud to the ICE Benefit Fraud Units, or ICE BFUs, for all
conspiracies as well as individual violators when certain
criteria are met. Once the fraud referral is received by the
ICE BFU, the BFUs vet and potentially refer the suspected
instances of fraud to the appropriate Homeland Security
Investigations office, or HSI.
The memorandum of agreement between USCIS and ICE on the
investigation of immigration benefit fraud was signed in
September 2008, to formalize this referral process. This MOA
defines the roles and procedures that enable both agencies to
focus resources on taking action against criminal
organizations, fraud facilitators, and corrupt attorneys.
HSI directs most of its antifraud efforts to the HSI-led
Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces, or DBFTFs. There
currently 19 DBFTFs nationwide working in collaboration with
our Federal, State, and local partners. DBFTFs combat the
criminal organizations that exploit the United States
immigration system and investigate individuals who violate
criminal or immigration laws who may pose threats to national
security or public safety.
While HSI is responsible for investigating the criminal
aspects of those schemes, it also plays a role in preventing
unauthorized applicants from obtaining and retaining benefits
through fraud. HSI recognizes that in investigations of large-
scale benefit fraud, the work does not end with the prosecution
of the attorney, facilitator, or preparer. To that end, the ICE
BFUs supply USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security
Directorate, or FDNS, with its case findings on the completion
of the criminal case. HSI and USCIS have agreed that HSIs will
initiate removal proceedings when applicable on subjects who
were criminally prosecuted. USCIS pursues administrative action
on the remaining beneficiaries of fraudulent applications
identified over the course of the investigation.
This process is aided greatly by FDNS, a major partner in
our DBFTFs and a significant contributor in the identification,
investigation, and prosecution of these large-scale fraud
schemes. Our HSI field offices regularly coordinate on a local
level with their respective FDNS partners regarding benefits
suspected to have been obtained fraudulently. This gives USCIS
the opportunity to take necessary administrative action on
these cases. By implementing criminal and administrative
remedies and educating the public on these efforts, we seek to
prevent the identified broad conspiracies from continuing,
ensure the profits are eliminated, and deter others from
perpetrating these schemes.
The Earl David law firm case is just one example of the
work HSI, FDNS, and our DBFTF partners have accomplished since
the task force was established. HSI recognizes the importance
of ensuring that all aspects of a benefit fraud investigation
are addressed as it specifically pertains to the people who
receive a benefit to which they were not entitled. We have
identified best practices and are evaluating how to
institutionalize these practices across the board, using our
existing budget and resources.
Along with USCIS, we will continue to work on these and
other benefit fraud initiatives to ensure the integrity of the
legal immigration system. ICE is committed to working these
important cases and recognizes the significance of addressing
the fraudulent beneficiaries identified through our criminal
investigations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time
or later.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. A particular thank-
you for keeping an eye on the lights.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. You heard the bells go off a few minutes ago.
What that means is in about 8 minutes we are going to start
voting. I think we have two votes. I would like to come back
and finish this hearing. And, hopefully, we won't keep you
waiting too long. If you can stay with us for another half hour
after we get back, we can probably wrap this up. But we will
probably be out for about a half hour.
Our next witness, Ms. Sarah Kendall, is the Associate
Director for the Fraud Detention and National Security
Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
USCIS. In May, 2012, Ms. Kendall joined USCIS directly from the
National Security staff, where she served as the Director for
Border and Interior Enforcement since January, 2010.
Ms. Kendall received her Bachelor's Degree in international
affairs and Spanish from Trinity University in 1989. She
received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Houston Law
Center in 1996.
Welcome, Ms. Kendall.
TESTIMONY OF SARAH M. KENDALL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FRAUD
DETECTION AND NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Ms. Kendall. Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on behalf of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services on the processes for reviewing cases
associated with attorneys and preparers convicted of
immigration fraud.
Created in 2004, the Office of Fraud Detection and National
Security was promoted to a directorate by USCIS Director
Alejandro Mayorkas in early 2010 to further reflect the
prioritization of our agency's mission to help safeguard our
Nation's security and to protect the integrity of the legal
immigration system. As the newly appointed Associate Director
of FDNS, I maintain oversight responsibility for USCIS's fraud
detection and national security efforts. I am eager to lead the
directorate and I am excited about the mission and work of
FDNS, which spans the USCIS priority areas of fraud and
national security.
FDNS is responsible for managing procedures and policies
governing our fraud work, prevention work, and national
security threats. FDNS performs administrative investigations
designed to ensure consistent detection, documentation, and
prevention of immigration benefit fraud.
USCIS's process for combating fraud involving attorneys and
preparers includes close collaboration with our partners at ICE
and our law enforcement agencies. We regularly apply what we
have learned from these relationships through information
sharing, investigation, and training.
As Director Mayorkas testified before this Subcommittee on
February 15, USCIS has undertaken significant steps to protect
the integrity of the Nation's immigration system and to help
safeguard our Nation's security. We take careful note of fraud
indicators, patterns, and schemes, as we did in the David Law
Firm case. This allows us to strengthen our standard operating
procedures and reduce program vulnerabilities.
I would like to take a minute to reiterate for you just a
few of these proactive measures and provide a short list of
what is already detailed in my written testimony on USCIS's
current progress and prioritization in the area of antifraud
enhancements.
Since 2010, FDNS has increased the number of officers,
analysts, and staff by approximately 25 percent and allocated
new FDNS positions in field offices and service centers to
strengthen coordination and collaboration with our front office
and front line employees. USCIS and ICE have prioritized
attorney and preparer fraud as one of the priority case types
that is referred to ICE for criminal investigation and USCIS
and ICE work closely together to successfully manage such
cases.
USCIS has issued recent NTA guidance to all field offices
that instructs that when there is a finding of fraud in any
case, the NTA will be issued and the matter will be referred to
ICE. USCIS has worked with the Department of Justice, the
Federal Trade Commission, and State and local authorities to
launch the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative
and we are members of the Sentinel Law Network. We have
established guidelines for the eligibility of attorneys and
other representatives who practice before us. We have
implemented and improved antifraud training programs nationwide
to provide adjudicators with new skills for fraud detection,
referral, and the use of fraud indicators.
We have launched fraud reporting tools to begin delivering
fraud bulletins in real time to agency personnel. We have
implemented the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprise,
commonly known as the VIBE, to enhance our ability to verify
key information about suspected sponsoring employers,
organizations, or companies.
Earlier in the process, we have performed 17,000 site
inspections under the Administrative Site Visit and
Verification Program. Finally, we have enhanced our oversight
verification efforts through collaboration with the Department
of State and enhanced information sharing for asylum fraud
initiatives.
The fraud improvements I have detailed in my testimony
today allow USCIS to more swiftly recognize and address fraud
in the immigration system. I want to assure the Subcommittee
that USCIS and its FDNS Directorate take every measure to
ensure that the agency deters, detects, and responds
aggressively to immigration benefit fraud.
On behalf of USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas and all of
our colleagues at USCIS, I thank you for your continued support
of the work of FDNS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you
information on the status of our program, and I look forward to
responding to your questions.
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kendall, thank you very much for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. With the panel's patience, we will have two
votes, and I will do everything possible to have us back by 3
o'clock. I really do appreciate your patience, something that
we have no control over.
The Committee stands in recess until we return from this
series of votes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gallegly. Calling the Subcommittee back to order. Thank
you very much for your patience. It seems inevitable that we
end up having votes right in the middle of our hearings, but we
have got to keep America going.
Our next witness is Mr. Chris Crane. Mr. Crane currently
serves as the President of National Immigration Customs
Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government
Employees. He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent
for the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, better known as
ICE, at the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior
to his service at ICE, Chris served 11 years in the United
States Marine Corps. Semper fi and welcome.
TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member
Lofgren. In preparation for my testimony, I spoke with ICE
attorneys, Citizenship and Immigration Service employees and
supervisors, and ICE employees and supervisors. All voice
strong concerns that immigration fraud is widespread and
ignored by the Federal agencies tasked with enforcing United
States immigration laws.
As a rule, when fraud is suspected or confirmed, no action
is taken against the alien involved or their attorney. While
fraudulent claims are common during court proceedings, not all
private attorneys engage in fraudulent activity and not all
aliens engage in fraudulent activity. Typically, the same
attorneys engage in fraudulent activities again and again.
ICE attorneys allege that supervisors and judges openly
discuss these fraudulent activities but take no action. Some
private attorneys blatantly lie to ICE, making fraudulent
claims from being deported. Employees I spoke with are not
aware of any private attorney being investigated or disciplined
for attempting or succeeding in preventing the deportation of
an alien through fraudulent and false claims made to ICE.
The CIS adjudicators and field supervisors expressed
similar concerns. Both indicate that CIS supervisors are aware
that fraud occurs daily, but no action is taken. One employee
attending a CIS town hall meeting reported that managers told
CIS employees at the meeting that if 50 percent of the
application for benefits is fraudulent, it should still be
approved, showing the extent to which fraud is accepted by
managers in the field. CIS employees report that aliens and
their attorneys frequently lie during interviews to obtain
benefits, but disciplinary action is not sought, no action is
taken to stop future fraud, and the alien's application is not
impacted. CIS adjudicators and field supervisors claim that
training for fraud prevention is not provided and training
requests are ignored. One CIS supervisors stated, ``It's as if
they don't want employees trained in fraud detection.''
Similarly, most employees don't know how to report
suspected fraud by private attorneys for investigation. Veteran
CIS and ICE employees all indicated that reports to supervisors
regarding suspected fraud by private attorneys resulted in no
action and that as employees they did not know how to file
reports of fraud outside their chain of command.
As immigration fraud is a crime, it is no surprise that
many aliens who receive status through fraud often commit
crimes after receiving lawful status. These criminal activities
often result in investigations by ICE. If an investigation
indicates the alien or attorney engaged in immigration fraud,
supervisors direct officers to ignore the fraud, officers are
told that once lawful status is granted to an alien, even
though violation of law was involved, no action will be taken
to revoke the alien's status unless that status is revoked
based on new convictions.
Likewise, no action is taken against private attorneys
involved. Employees maintain that ICE and CIS will only take
action in cases involving large-scale fraud or the media. One
CIS supervisor confirmed it is the unwritten policy of CIS that
once lawful status is granted it will not be revoked, even when
known that the status was obtained through fraud.
As a rule, there is no consequence to private attorneys or
their clients who engage in fraud, even when reported by CIS
and ICE employees. Attorneys who are suspected of fraud
continue to practice in immigration courts and CIS offices. As
one ICE attorney stated, Why play by the rules when there is no
consequence for violating the law?
Employees believe that CIS has become a production line
with a singular purpose of approving as many benefits
applications as possible, ignoring fraudulent activities.
Resisting these practices results in retaliation by managers.
Private attorneys arrested for fraud often continue to
represent aliens inside government facilities. One attorney was
arrested following grand jury indictment for obtaining
fraudulent visas for as many as 5,000 clients. Released on
ankle monitor pending trial, the attorney was permitted to
enter CIS facilities and continue representing aliens seeking
benefits. A CIS employee arrested for the same crime would of
course be prohibited from entering the CIS offices altogether.
It is alarming that fraud has become an accepted practice
within our immigration system. In post-9/11 America, it is
concerning that employees are not trained to detect fraud,
employee reports of fraudulent activities are ignored, and
agencies have not adopted zero tolerance policies to stop
fraudulent activities.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Crane.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Our next witness, Ms. Laura Lichter, is the
President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, or AILA. She has been an elected member of AILA's
leadership for over a decade and has served as the
association's top liaison to key immigration enforcement
bureaus of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice. Ms. Lichter is AILA's liaison to the
American Bar Association Commission on Immigration and serves
on the Federal Bar Association's Immigration Law Section
Advisory Board. Ms. Lichter recently served on the Homeland
Security Council's task force on ICE's Secure Communities. She
is also former chair of AILA's Colorado chapter.
Ms. Lichter is the founder and managing partner of Lichter
Immigration and Immigration Practice. Miss Lichter received her
undergraduate at Swarthmore College and her JD from the
University of Colorado School of Law.
Double welcome to you this afternoon, Ms. Lichter.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA LICHTER, PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Lichter. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Lofgren, for inviting AILA to testify on this extremely
important issue.
As many of my co-panelists have testified today, terrible
harm results when unscrupulous individuals prey on the
ignorance of others, falsely claiming that they can help people
comply with our complicated immigration laws. The financial and
human cost to these victims is enormous, as is the cost to
integrity of the immigration system and the legal profession
itself.
AILA takes criminal or ethical violations quite seriously.
But we are a voluntary bar membership organization. Our members
must be licensed and in good standing in order to be part of
our organization. But attorney discipline is the unique
province of the State Bar and the Disciplinary Council for the
Executive Office of Immigration Review and the Department of
Homeland Security. Neither DHS nor EOIR have the authority,
unfortunately, to effectively go after these criminals, and
this Federal inaction needs to be addressed.
AILA itself does not investigate or discipline its members.
Only a State Bar can revoke the authority to practice law. Loss
of membership in a voluntary Bar Association, on the other
hand, has no impact on the authority to practice law and,
ironically, only impacts the attorneys' access to resources
that would help make a better lawyer.
If an AILA member is suspended or disbarred or convicted of
a serious crime such as immigration fraud, AILA takes immediate
action to suspend that member. Over the past 10 years, AILA has
removed from membership for ethics violations an average of six
attorneys per year. That is an average of .0005 percent of our
membership.
When there is a complaint, we make sure that the victims
know where to bring that complaint and what action they can
take, whether or not that perpetrator is an AILA member. AILA
takes its professional obligation to educate its members quite
seriously. We also strive to educate the public. We have a
dedicated Practice and Professionalism Center. We provide
hundreds of hours to CLE each year. We have launched in recent
years two websites, one in English, one in Spanish, that are
entitled stopnotariofraud.org that identify how to bring
complaints against unscrupulous practitioners whether they be
admitted members of the Bar or simply posing as members of the
Bar or notarios or immigration consultants.
Despite these efforts, a handful of attorneys do engage in
fraud and the effects of that fraud can be devastating. We
condemn that unethical and illegal practice and remain
committed to doing what we can as a Bar Association to end that
practice.
For our part, when AILA members identify victims of fraud,
we try to assist those victims to pick up pieces by screening
those files, providing free consultations, trying to organize
pro bono representation or reduced fees to those victims.
This is a serious problem, but I would urge this Committee
to widen the scope beyond simply looking at immigration
attorneys. As many of my co-panelists have mentioned today, the
issue is not simply limited to licensed members of the Bar. It
is notarios and other unscrupulous people who fill the vacuum
that is created by a lack of adequate resources for indigent
and low-income individuals. On AILA's part we try to provide
pro bono, reach out through clinics, we have a military
assistance program, and we also sponsor citizenship days to
make sure that we can actually bring good information out into
the community.
I urge the Committee to realize that many of those
implicated in these fraud schemes are in fact victims. They
might not have understood that they weren't eligible for the
benefit they sought. They might not have been terribly well
educated. They may not have been able to read the applications
or even seen the applications that were submitted on their
behalf. They may have even been compelled to sign a blank form
that was later submitted with inappropriate information on it.
Weekly, I see people in my office who have been misled by these
consultants or bad attorneys simply because they went into some
place and a guy in a suit told them, ``Look, this is how we do
it. Don't worry. You paid your money. I can get you status.''
I would suggest that given the complexity of immigration
laws, that it is quite reasonable for people to be duped by
those situations. Once people find out that they have been
victimized, what do they do? Frankly, often not much, mostly
because they are worried. They are scared. They are
undocumented. They may not have much trust in the system if
they come from a country where lawyers part of the problems,
where there is real corruption. Unfortunately, our State and
local bar authorities say this is not a priority. We don't see
much action by them. Frankly, notarios are hard to find and
harder to prosecute.
Finally, I would urge the Committee not to confuse the
question of eligibility or technical issues with actual fraud.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Ms. Lichter.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lichter follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Rodriguez, in your testimony you got into
quite a bit of depth of the concerns of fraud. Do you believe
that ICE and USCIS effectively share information and
collaborate with each other in an efficient manner and how high
a priority does ICE place on providing resources to immigration
fraud investigations?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I do believe we have excellent
cooperation and exchange of information, and that is evidenced
by the number of cases that are before the Subcommittee in
which if not all, most there have been significant FDNS
participation. In terms of resources, just looking over a 3-
year snapshot, consistently our case hours, basically converted
to FTEs, have increased at a rate of over 20 percent. 2010, 446
FTE hours; 2011, 543 FTE hours; and by the third quarter of
this fiscal year we were already reaching 369. So I do believe
that the outcomes of our efforts are there. They are part of
the record. In this hearing specifically the cases show the
importance that we give to these cases and we have prosecuted
cases that are completely, or that are extremely sophisticated
in those schemes and very hard to break and we have done that
effectively time and time again.
Mr. Gallegly. What kind of information is provided to USCIS
by HSI with respect to the instances of fraud and what kind of
actions might USCIS take in response?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, speaking about the type of information
that we would provide, any information from cooperating
defendants, information we might have obtained through proffer.
The information can be generic in the sense of we find
boilerplate language, but it can also mean this company that is
referenced in these applications are shell companies. They do
not exist. And we have testimony to that effect and we provide
them with a memo for inclusion to the file so that they can
follow up with their proceedings.
Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kendall, how many bogus green card
petitions did Attorney Koortzky, who used the power of attorney
to sign petitions, how many were approved by DHS and how many
of those petitions were revoked and how many aliens who had
revoked actually been removed?
Ms. Kendall. I am sorry.
Mr. Gallegly. The first question is: How many of these
petitions were approved by DHS? The second question is: How
many petitions were revoked: And of those that were revoked,
how many actually were removed?
Ms. Kendall. In which case?
Mr. Gallegly. Where Mr. Koortzky used the power of attorney
to sign petitions.
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that I have those exact
statistics at my fingertips.
Mr. Gallegly. Could you provide those to the Committee in a
reasonable amount of time for part of the record of the
hearing?
Ms. Kendall. It would be my pleasure to do so.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Fine.
Mr. Crane, in your testimony you paint a pretty grim
picture of pervasive fraud throughout the system. You state
little action is taken, even when there is known fraud. To what
level does the fraud have to rise, in your opinion, before any
official action is taken, based on your statement?
Mr. Crane. I think generally speaking it does have to be of
a very large scale. There has to be a large number of
individuals involved in it and it has to be something that
probably is going to be to the scale of hitting the newspapers,
making the news.
Mr. Gallegly. Do you think that increased enforcement and
punishment against private attorneys would help deter pervasive
policies?
Mr. Crane. I absolutely believe that is the case, but I
think that we need to do something at the ground level with the
employees to encourage them to do their jobs. These are law
enforcement officers. Let them to do their jobs. Give them the
time that they need to do the investigations. Give them a
process to report these instances to and give them a way of
controlling individuals that come into their offices and commit
fraud.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield to
the gentlelady, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
that in some cases we are doing too much and in some cases not
doing enough. This is part of the concern I have. We had a
hearing a while ago about the use of requests for evidence. And
I have a concern about when that is triggered. My understanding
is that additional review is triggered if two or more of the
following indicators are present: Less than $10 million in
revenue, less than 25 employees, or the company is less than 10
years old. Well, that is a startup. Startups aren't frauds per
se. That is my district.
So I don't understand why that would be the indices. And
yet I have seen requests for evidence to the largest employer
in my district--not to say whether or not the petition should
be approved. I mean, that is a separate issue. Does the company
exist? Well, yeah. They have 50 buildings. Or, requests for
financials from Microsoft or a request from the former prime
minister of a major European country for evidence of his past
employer--the country he ran. Those are things that are just
crazy. And yet there are some things out there that really
should be investigated.
What are you doing to try and get the remedies applied to
the problem areas and not bug the non-problem areas?
Ms. Kendall. Thank you. We are always conscious as an
agency of our obligation to make sure that we are managing our
programs in a rational and data-driven way. When we implemented
the VIBE, one of the best options that the VIBE brought into
our organization was the ability to have third-party
information brought into the adjudicative process. This allows
us to have a better quality way of verifying information so
that we can reduce the number of unnecessary RFEs, for example.
In addition to which, for example, we are doing an internal
review in our site visit program to see how we can be more
efficient in the way that we use site visits so that we are not
unnecessarily burdening those that have been subject to site
visits and perhaps we are being more fiscally responsible in
reducing the number of site visits. Bundling, for example, if
we can do multiple visa verification processes in one visit of
a location as opposed to visiting the same location over and
over.
Ms. Lofgren. That is very helpful. Whether or not the visa
should be issued to a specific person is a separate issue.
Whether the employer exists, you can find that out.
Ms. Kendall. So we are always conscious of our obligation
to improve our processes, find more ways to be more effective
with the resources we have, and to work with communities of
interest within the immigration world to be effective, and we
are always interested in suggestions and concerns from the
public. For this reason, we have a very proactive and
aggressive means of soliciting comments from the public, and we
are interested in any ideas the Committee has.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, you heard Mr. Crane's
testimony and it included pretty extravagant assertions made
about fraud in the agency. Now I am mindful that Mr. Crane is
president of his union, which we respect, but he is not
representing ICE trial attorneys or HSI agents. Do you have
comments on the assertions that he made as someone who actually
is in charge of this?
Ms. Kendall. USCIS is absolutely committed to an
adjudications environment which combats, detects, deters fraud
in our process. We have an obligation to the American public to
ensure the integrity of the immigration process. Director
Mayorkas came to this Subcommittee in February of 2012 and
expressed completely our obligation and commitment to getting
to the correct answer in every adjudication that we undertake.
This is reflected in the fact that our primary and first
strategic objective at USCIS is national security and fraud
detection. This is reflected by Director Mayorkas' elevating
fraud detection and national security to full directorate
status in 2010, making it on par with the adjudications
directorate within the agency.
From 2010 forward, in the last 2 years, he has increased
and the agency has invested 25 percent increases in personnel
at the front line agency level to make sure that our
adjudication staff is able to more effectively combat the fraud
and national security threats that we find in our immigration
beneficiaries stream.
Further, we are currently implementing, in addition to the
basic training on fraud that we do for every incoming employee
in the agency, we are right now implementing fraud training for
all existing employees that covers fraud indicators, how to
better work with existing FDNS personnel, how to better
understand FDNS processes, including a statement of findings,
which is the fundamental document that records our
investigative processes. We anticipate that that will be
finished nationwide within the adjudications corps I believe in
early fiscal year 2013.
We have further inculcated into our standard operating
procedures requirements of referral of fraud cases from the
adjudications to the FDNS side of the house to make sure every
adjudicator in our agency knows where fraud is to be referred
and can be trained on how that can be done.
Further, through my testimony I have explained, but I will
reiterate this because it is important to understand this, in
every opportunity given built antifraud measures into our
programs and we look aggressively to improve those programs at
every opportunity. We have built the Administrative Site Visit
and Verification Program, which this year completed 17,000 site
visits, which is about compliance, not ``I gotcha'' culture but
compliance with our existing site visit, which is 2,000 more
site visits than last year's program.
We have increased our international information sharing on
fraud for asylum cases. We have implemented a nationwide
antifraud training for adjudicators, which I have just
mentioned. We have basically built MOAs with ICE, in which the
three priority case types--preparer, attorney, and interpreter
case fraud--is a priority, which is separate from conspiracy
and multiple conspiracy fraud.
And finally, we have made sure that referral of NTAs to
ICE, because of fraud, is a priority.
These are the priorities of the agency. I believe that they
speak for themselves, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for your testimony. Some of that I think I heard a couple of
times and so I have got that soaked in. But I have a question
for Ms. Kendall, and that is that some in this country would
advocate that we really shouldn't have borders, that if you
just let the supply and demand of the labor markets determine
the flow of people, that people have a right to go anywhere in
the world they would like to go and work and earn a living and
provide for their families, et cetera. So I just would point
out that that philosophy does exist in this country and other
places around the world.
If that were the public policy of the United States of
America, would there be anything for USCIS to do?
Ms. Kendall. If there were fraud involved in that, there
would be a job for FDNS, sir.
Mr. King. Could I point out that if there were completely
open borders, without any restrictions, there wouldn't be any
fraud. So is your answer there wouldn't be anything for USCIS
to do if we didn't have immigration laws?
May I ask the witness to answer yes or no to that?
Ms. Kendall. Sir, I don't have a clear answer, beyond I
don't know----
Mr. King. Well, I think that is the does the Sun come up in
the East question for USCIS, actually.
Ms. Lofgren. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. King. I would be happy to yield.
Ms. Lofgren. I think that, number one, and I appreciate the
gentleman yielding, I am not familiar with the individuals who
are recommending no borders, but certainly it is the U.S.
Immigration and Citizenship Service. And so individuals who are
applying for citizenship, if we didn't have immigration laws,
we would still have people applying to become U.S. citizens.
Mr. King. Reclaiming my time.
Ms. Lofgren. I think obviously the witness is a little
flummoxed by the hypothetical, and I think I understand why.
Mr. Gallegly. It is the gentleman's time.
Mr. King. Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady from
California who is well versed in these type of questions and an
immigration attorney in her own right whom I respect. I think
it is important for us to ask these kind of questions because
each time we go to work during the day there has got to be a
purpose, and that purpose is that Congress writes laws, and
then we direct the executive branch to carry out those laws,
and looking again, reviewing the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez, it
says that a benefit fraud involves, I quote, ``the knowing and
willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a petition or
application to gain an immigrant immigration benefit. Types of
benefit fraud include employment-based fraud, asylum fraud, and
marriage fraud.''
And as I read that and I listen to the testimony, I began
to wonder, and I pose this question again to you, Ms. Kendall,
if the President's memorandum that was issued by Secretary
Napolitano dated June 15th which sets up four classes of people
and directs USCIS to issue work permits, if that is implemented
into place, is there going to be more or less reason for
benefit fraud to come before USCIS?
Ms. Kendall. I am not in the position to discuss the
particulars of the deferred action memorandum and program that
will flow from it today.
Mr. King. Okay, thank you, Ms. Kendall.
Ms. Kendall. I can----
Mr. King. I understand that you are not in a position to
answer those questions. I will just answer it for you that if
somebody is between the ages of 16 and 30 and there is no
reason for marriage fraud if you can claim that you have been
in the United States for 5 years, went to school, et cetera. So
I would submit that we are going to see a lot more fraud, a lot
more document fraud, a lot more fraud from people that want to
qualify under this selective amnesty program that the President
did his press conference on June 15th that is the subject of
this memorandum, and we are here discussing fraud, and every
time that we see some form of amnesty, we see a tremendous
amount of fraud that is associated with it. I might take the
1986, for example, that the numbers tripled on what were
anticipated. We are looking with this memorandum of 800,000 to
1.4 million, and that likely will triple, and I will go on
record as saying that is more likely than those estimates being
accurate.
But I turn to Mr. Crane and ask him, do you anticipate that
there will be a significant amount of fraud associated with
this memorandum of June 15th?
Mr. Crane. Absolutely I do as well as employees in the
field on the CIS and ICE side. I think from CIS managers that I
have talked to in the field, there is some discussion at CIS
headquarters that this is going to be done through the service
centers, which would mean that the interview process would more
than likely be taken out, so people would just basically be
sending their applications to an individual, they would be
approved, there will be no interview process, and that is going
to open the doors wide open for fraud in multiple different
ways, one of them being that that fraud is not going to be
detected, those trends are not going to be detected until it is
all over. I mean, we are dealing today, CIS and ICE, with the
fraud that took place back in the 1980's, we are still dealing
with that today. So absolutely employees in the field are very
concerned that this is going to result in widespread fraud.
Mr. King. Have you seen any direct effect of this
memorandum to date?
Mr. Crane. I have not, sir. In terms of fraud I have not.
Mr. King. I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Mr.
Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kendall, do you know who will be charged with
investigating to determine whether or not the June 15 memo is
applicable for those seeking, I think the word the
Administration uses is ``deferred action?'' Whose
responsibility will it be to determine whether or not those
factors have been met?
Ms. Kendall. USCIS I believe is the responsible party for
adjudicating those requests, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. So whose resources will be consumed determining
whether or not all of those qualifiers are met in terms of age,
the absence of any serious misdemeanor or felony convictions,
education, whose responsibility is it to expend the resources
to determine whether or not those qualifying conditions have
been met?
Ms. Kendall. I mean, beyond the basic idea that USCIS has
been determined as the agency that will adjudicate the deferred
action requests----
Mr. Gowdy. Well----
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. I am not in a position to discuss
the particular program details, although I am part of a team of
leaders at USCIS that is integrally involved with program
development for the deferred action program, particularly----
Mr. Gowdy. I am probably missing something because I
thought the reason for that memo was because you want to direct
your resources other places, and then it just struck me when
the Secretary was here last week whose resources are going to
be consumed determining whether or not the memo is applicable
or not?
Ms. Kendall. I can address the issues of attorney preparer
fraud, that is what I came to talk about here today, sir. I can
address only those issues for today's hearing. I am part of a
team of professionals who are preparing the deferred action
program, consistent with what is expected in that memo. I can't
offer any further details, as that program is in development at
this time.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Crane, if my notes are correct, you said
half the information, that adjudicators were told that as long
as half the information contained in an alien's application for
benefits is true, the application should be approved?
Mr. Crane. That is what one supervisor allegedly told their
employees, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Half just doesn't seem like that much. Fifty
percent is an F on the test in South Carolina. Trust me, I
know, from firsthand experience, a 50 is an F.
Mr. Crane. One question can mean the difference between
having legal status and not having it. So for 50 percent to be
fraudulent, it is completely unacceptable. I mean, one question
is not acceptable on an application for status in the United
States.
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Lichter, can you talk to me about punishment
for attorneys who engage in fraud, the full panoply of
punishment. You mentioned the Bar can suspend you or disbar you
I suspect. Some States the Supreme Court handles sanctions
against attorneys. Are there any criminal statutes that would
be applicable to attorneys who engage in fraud, pervasive or
otherwise?
Ms. Lichter. And my general disclaimer is I am an
immigration attorney, not a criminal defense attorney.
Mr. Gowdy. That is okay, I am sure you are aware of what
can send you to jail and what cannot.
Ms. Lichter. Right. And framing----
Mr. Gowdy. You don't do homicide cases, but you know you
can't do that, so----
Ms. Lichter. Correct. As a practical matter, I think most
attorneys are going to run afoul of the ethical restrictions in
their Bar long before they trip any criminal sanctions, and if
the Bar----
Mr. Gowdy. Are there criminal sanctions?
Ms. Lichter [continuing]. If the Bar is doing their job,
that person's license to practice law would be revoked.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gowdy. I will be happy to.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just note we had a situation in my
county where there was a member of the Bar who was defrauding
people. We took it to the district attorney, they prosecuted
them for theft.
Mr. Gowdy. Under State law?
Ms. Lofgren. Under State law, and he did time.
Mr. Gowdy. Good. Punishment for those--you used the term
``victims,'' that may be the appropriate phraseology in some
instances, and ``co-conspirators'' may be the appropriate
phraseology in some other instances. Again, what is the full
panoply of consequences for those who--not victims, not people
who were taken advantage of, but people who were just willing
to circumvent the system and go to attorneys in an effort to
have fraudulent documents prepared, what is the full panoply of
consequences for those people who are not attorneys?
Ms. Lichter. Well, as a practical matter, the consequences
that are faced by the true bad actors are, unfortunately,
almost exactly the same as for the true victims of these scams.
Certainly criminal proceedings might be appropriate in certain
circumstances. By and large most people who find themselves on
the wrong end of an application are finding themselves
permanently barred from ever adjusting their status or ever
finding a path toward citizenship. We have a very unforgiving
system, and my biggest concern with some of the seeking out of
fraud is not trying to take enough time to understand that we
have probably more victims here than true co-conspirators.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman. I am going to take the
privilege of the Chair and ask one last question of Ms.
Lichter. As an immigration lawyer and as someone who is well
known across the country as an immigration lawyer, can you tell
me what you understand the statute for the penalty for either
manufacturing or using a counterfeit document for immigration
purposes, what the penalty is in the statute?
Ms. Lichter. It again is going to depend on whether
somebody is prosecuted under a State law or under Federal law.
Mr. Gallegly. I am talking about Federal law.
Ms. Lichter. Honestly, I do immigration civil defense, so I
know that if somebody has a particular conviction the first
thing I am going to look to see, is this a bar to
admissibility, is this a ground of removability? And then I am
going to take my analysis from there.
Mr. Gallegly. Well, I would just advise that you may take a
look at the 1995 law and see that the penalty for
counterfeiting a document for this purpose or the penalty for
using such document is exactly the same as counterfeiting
currency or using counterfeit currency. See, we all leave today
a little more learned.
With that, I appreciate all of the witnesses' testimony,
and I would ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses which will be forwarded and ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as you can so the answers will be made a
part of the record of the hearing. Without objection, all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit any additional
material for inclusion in the record, and with that the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]