Download Locations:
Summary:
The charging of fees for government services or benefits has long been practice in the United States by the federal government. Such fees have usually been charged as a service cost recovery only to those individuals who have used the service or benefit--so called user fees. More recently, this question has focused on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), which adjudicates immigration benefit applications. As immigration services grow in complexity, questions have emerged concerning what users of feebased services should be obligated to pay for. As related to immigration, the current debate tends to produce two answers to the funding question: (1) an agency should either recover all of its costs through user fees, or (2) an agency should only charge user fees that recover the costs directly associated with providing services or benefits. On May 30, 2007, USCIS published a new fee schedule for immigration and naturalization adjudications and benefits. These adjustments would increase fees by an average of 88% for each benefit. USCIS officials claim that the new fee structure is a necessary step to maintain proper service levels and avoid backlogs. The issue for Congress concerning the proposed new USCIS fees is whether USCIS has enough money to fulfill its mission and, if not, how that gap should be funded. As part of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was directed nearly two decades ago to transform its funding structure to become more fee-reliant. Although the agency has been appropriated several hundred million dollars in the last decade, these appropriations have largely been directed towards specific projects such as the backlog reduction initiative. The vast majority of the agency's funding, however, comes from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions. Consequently, if the agency is to operate in an efficient manner without the buildup of backlogs, agency funding must be sufficient to cover the overhead and adjudication costs. Cost estimates by both USCIS and Government Accountability Office had found that the previous fee structure was insufficient to cover the services' entire operation. How these funds will be raised remains a divisive issue, since there is disagreement over whether such funding should come from fee increases or direct appropriations. Fee increase proponents contend that even under the proposed fee schedule, U.S. immigration benefits are a "good deal" by world standards. Fee increase opponents are concerned about the potential impact of fee increases on lower-income families, and further believe that the push for making the agency entirely fee-reliant has resulted in a backlog buildup and promoted backlog definition changes. The Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 (H.R. 1379; S. 795) would provide for an increase in directly appropriated funds to USCIS. Criticisms of the new fee schedule have taken on a heightened significance in the face of issues such as backlog reduction and comprehensive immigration reform. This report will not be updated.
