|
1.
|
Funding for Immigration Services Ombudsmen
|
The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 would appropriate $6.685 MILLION for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
The committee report accompanying the House bill notes that this would be $250,000 less than the amount the Administration requested and $214,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 2009 for that purpose.
|
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would appropriate $6.685 MILLION for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
The committee report accompanying the Senate bill notes that this would be $250,000 less than the amount the Administration requested and $214,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 2009 for that purpose.
The report defended the Committee's decision by noting that "[f]unds are decreased below the request due to the delay in filling full-time permanent positions within this office."[1]
|
The conference agreement appropriates $6.685 MILLION for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
|
|
2.
|
Direct Appropriations for Refugee and Asylum Adjudications
|
The committee report accompanying the House version of H.R. 2892 notes that the measure would directly appropriate $100 MILLION in fiscal year 2010 for refugee and asylum adjudications, which is $106 MILLION less than the Administration requested and $206 MILLION than was appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2009.
Language in the House committee report precludes USCIS from using those funds until it publishes a new final rule implementing a new schedule of fees for immigration applications.[2]
|
The committee report accompanying S. 1298, the Senate version of H.R. 2892, notes that the Committee rejected the Administration's proposal that refugee and asylum adjudications be funded by a direct appropriation of $201 MILLION rather than by continuing the current practice of assessing a surcharge on fees paid by applicants for other immigration services.
Language in the Senate committee report indicates that the Committee was directing the Department of Homeland Security "to submit a reprogramming within 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, to reflect the continuation of these activities as fee funded."[3]
|
The conference agreement directly appropriates $50 MILLION for refugee and asylum adjudications.
|
|
3.
|
Direct Appropriations for Military Naturalizations
|
The committee report accompanying the House version of H.R. 2892 notes that the bill has rejected the Administration’s request that military naturalizations be funded through directly appropriated funds. Instead the Committee stated its expectation that the $5.1 MILLION cost for military naturalizations should be borne by seeking a reimbursement from the Department of Defense.[4]
|
The committee report accompanying S. 1298 notes that the Committee supports the Administration’s request that military naturalizations be funded through directly appropriated funds. In approving the request, the committee report notes that the Committee "supports appropriations to support those men and women serving this Nation in the military and has included $5,000,000, as requested, for military naturalizations."
|
The conference agreement directly appropriates $5 MILLION for military naturalization adjudications.
|
|
4.
|
Immigration Integration Programs
|
The committee report accompanying the House version of H.R. 2892 notes that the bill is providing $11 MILLION for the promotion of legal paths to U.S. citizenship and outreach to immigrant communities in fiscal year 2010.
The committee report notes that this would be an increase of $9.2 MILLION in fiscal year 2010 compared to the $1.9 MILLION that was provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2009, and that it is $1 MILLION more than the Administration requested.[5]
|
The committee report accompanying S. 1298 notes that the Committee has rejected the Administration's request for $10 MILLION for immigrant integration programs, opting, instead to continue funding at $1.2 MILLION, the amount provided in fiscal year 2009.
In support of the committee's position, the committee report states, "[t]he Committee notes that the current year grant applications are still being evaluated and that the 2009 funds have yet to be awarded. The Committee does not recommend the $10,000,000 requested in the budget for a new immigrant integration activity. The Committee notes that the Office of Citizenship Services has long provided admirable services to assist those individuals seeking to become U.S. citizens or otherwise legally adjust their status and will have $6,400,000 of carry forward balances to continue these efforts. This makes a total of $7,600,000 available for immigrant services and integration grants."
|
The conference agreement appropriates $11 MILLION “to expand immigrant integration and outreach efforts that promote legal paths to U.S. citizenship.”
|
|
5.
|
Basic Pilot/E-Verify Program
|
The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 would appropriate a total of $162 MILLION for the Basic Pilot/E-Verify Program, $50 MILLION more than the Administration requested.[6]
In addition to appropriating funds for the E-Verify program, the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 would extend the program for three years and make reforms to protect the Social Security Administration.
The committee report accompanying the House version of H.R. 2892 notes that the most recent audit of the system “shows an unacceptably high rate of individuals falsely identified as ineligible to work.” It noted that “[o]f particular concern is the report’s conclusion that nearly 1 in 10 naturalized citizens is reported by Basic Pilot/E-Verify as non-work authorized.” The report strongly urges USCIS “to update and publish regular Basic Pilot/E-Verify accuracy and performance audits, so that Congress and Administration policy makers can remain informed of the system’s strengths and weaknesses.”
The report also expresses the Committee’s strong support for efforts by USCIS “to establish a compliance group to monitor use of the Basic Pilot/E-Verify system and to ensure that companies enrolled in the program are not using it to take inappropriate or illegal employment actions.” The draft report notes that the Committee-approved bill will accommodate the Administration’s request to hire 40 Monitoring and Compliance staff “to ensure the system is not used for prohibited purposes.”[7]
|
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would appropriate a total of $118.5 MILLION for the Basic Pilot/E-Verify Program, $6.5 MILLION more than the Administration requested.
In addition to appropriating funds for the E-Verify program, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would permanently extend the program8]; formally rename it the E-Verify Program; require federal contractors to use the E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of their employees; and permit employers using the E-Verify System to use it to verify the work eligibility of existing employees, not just new-hires.[9]
The committee report accompanying the Senate version of H.R. 2892 includes an extensive write-up on the E-Verify program, defending and expressing support for it. After explaining why it thinks USCIS has made great improvements in the program, the report goes on to state that, "[g]iven the concerns by some of the general public with E-Verify, the Committee urges USCIS to continue to work to enhance the system to further improve performance, to continue its public outreach and education campaign, and to perform a new, independent evaluation of the system during the first quarter of fiscal year 2010."
|
The conference agreement appropriates $137 MILLION to operate the E-Verify system “and further improve its accuracy and compliance rates.”
In addition to appropriating funds for the E-Verify program, Sec. 547 extends the E-Verify program for three years
The conference agreement does not contain statutory language making reforms to protect the Social Security Administration, as was contained in the House-passed version of the bill.
The Conference agreement does not contain any of the policy provisions in the Senate-passed version of the bill.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 2892 instructs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct studies of the E-Verify System that were requested in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892.
|
|
6.
|
EB-5 Regional Centers
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to EB-5 Regional Centers
|
Sec. 549 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would permanently extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program.[10]
|
Sec. 548 of the conference agreement extends the EB-5 Regional Centers program through October 1, 2012.
|
|
7.
|
Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visas Program
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visas Program.
|
Sec. 571(a) of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would extend for three years the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program, extending it through September 30, 2012.
The provision also would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to conduct a study and report on certain aspects of the program.[11]
|
Sec. 568(a)(1) of the conference agreement extends the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program for three years, through October 1, 2012.
Sec. 568(a)(2) of the conference agreement requires USCIS to conduct a study and report on certain aspects of the program.
|
|
8.
|
Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Program
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Program.
|
Sec. 571(b) of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would extend for three years the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program[12], extending it through September 30, 2012.10
|
Sec. 568(b) of the conference agreement extends the Conrad 30 State J-1 Visa Waiver Program through October 1, 2012.
|
|
9.
|
Relief for Widows and Orphans
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to relief for widows and orphans.
|
Sec. 571(c) of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would protect widows, widowers and orphans of deceased U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who are in the family immigration system by allowing widows, widowers and orphans, to immigrate on a family-based visa despite the death of a petitioner.10
|
Sec. 568(c), (d), and (e) of the conference agreement protects widows, widowers and orphans of deceased U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who are in the family immigration system by allowing widows, widowers and orphans, to immigrate on a family-based visa despite the death of a petitioner.
|
|
10.
|
Fencing Along the U.S. Border with Mexico
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico
|
Sec. 560 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would impose a number of restrictions and mandates on the Administration with regard to fencing being constructed along the U.S. border with Mexico.
More specifically, Sec. 560 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 would require that construction of the mandated 700 miles of fencing be completed by December 31, 2010; provide that fencing that does not effectively restrain pedestrian traffic (such as vehicle barriers and virtual fencing) may not be used to meet the 700-mile fence requirement under the law; and provide that funds for fence construction may not be withheld for failure to comply with consultation requirements.
Sec. 560 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 also would impose reporting requirements on the Administration with regard to the construction of fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico.[13]
|
The Senate provision was dropped in conference.
|
|
11.
|
SSA No-Match Letters
|
There is no provision in the House-passed version of H.R. 2892 relating to SSA No-Match Letters
|
Sec. 561 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 provide that none of the amounts made available under the Act may be used to implement changes to the final rule describing the process for employers to follow after receiving a ‘‘no match’’ letter in order to qualify for ‘‘safe harbor’’[14]
|
The Senate provision was dropped in conference.
|
