Segment 1 Of 2     Next Hearing Segment(2)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
80–431PDF
2002
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

HEARING AND MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

INCLUDING MARKUP OF

H.R. 5005

JUNE 26 AND JULY 10, 2002

Serial No. 107–110

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/internationalrelations

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
JIM DAVIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member
GROVER JOSEPH REES, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian
MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Marc Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affiars, U.S. Department of State

    The Honorable George Lannon, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Prepared statement

    The Honorable Marc Grossman: Prepared statement

MARKUP

    Markup of H.R. 5005, To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes

Text of H.R. 5005

Amendments to H.R. 5005, Offered en bloc by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations, for himself and the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

Amendment to the Amendments to H.R. 5005, Offered by the Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas

APPENDIX

HEARING

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey: Prepared statement

    Questions for the record, as expressed by Members to Under Secretary Marc Grossman during the hearing, together with answers submitted for the record

MARKUP

    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Prepared statement

    The Honorable Jo Ann Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

    Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Today's hearing will examine the functions and activities of the State Department that bear most directly on the domestic security of the United States.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, will make important changes in the way in which these functions and activities are carried out. As introduced, this legislation would transfer to the new Department of Homeland Security authority over the process by which visas for admission to the United States are granted and denied. Yet the legislation would also preserve the role of the State Department, at least for the time being, as the institution whose employees do most of the work on the front lines. It is hard to know in advance how any new arrangement will work, and this is particularly true of an arrangement in which responsibilities will be divided between an established institution and one that has not yet come into existence.

    But this Committee has a responsibility to report the sections of H.R. 5005 that are within our jurisdiction in the form most likely to achieve the goals of the legislation. The evidence we hear today will enable the Committee to fulfill this responsibility.

    The proposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security has often been described as a response to the failure of existing institutions. However painful it may be to look back to the days and weeks before September 11th and wonder what we might have done differently, we must recognize that virtually all of the agencies charged with protecting our national security and public safety could have done better—and, by doing better, might conceivably have averted the tragedy. But we simply cannot allow an enterprise of this magnitude to be about assigning bureaucratic blame—or, even worse, about inflicting bureaucratic punishment. On the contrary, the Homeland Security Act must be about providing for the future.

    Before we build and empower new institutions, before we demolish or weaken old ones, let us learn as much as is humanly possible about exactly what needs to be done, so that we can be sure the new structure will be one that works.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the case of visa processing, the first thing to understand is that the United States currently issues approximately six million visas every year. The overwhelming majority of these are non-immigrant visas, mostly for tourists and business travelers. Even if we were prepared to cut this number in half—at great sacrifice to the U.S. economy—we would need an institution or institutions capable of adjudicating millions of visa applications. These institutions would need to subject any application that presents even a hint of a threat to national security or public safety to the strictest possible scrutiny. At the same time, these institutions would be required to address fairly and efficiently all the other questions that go into determining whether each of those millions of applications should be granted or denied.

    The sheer magnitude of these tasks strongly suggests that the Administration's proposal is a wise one. In order to protect our borders from terrorists and other evildoers, the Homeland Security Department must have a role in the visa adjudication process. However, if the Secretary of Homeland Security were forced to build a new structure from scratch to adjudicate those millions of visa applications—or to cobble one together from bits and pieces of other agencies—it is hard to know how he would find time to perform any of the other essential functions which this legislation confers upon him.

    So we need the Department of Homeland Security in this process, but we need the State Department as well. The question to consider is whether or not the legislation can be fine-tuned to ensure that each institution will have responsibility for what it does best.

    I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide some estimate of the number of visas, out of those millions of applications, which present security issues. Even if the number is in the tens of thousands—or even if it is in the hundreds of thousands—this would leave millions of applications in which the questions to be adjudicated are traditional consular issues, such as whether the applicant is likely to overstay his visa or to become a public charge. Can a structure be devised that will ensure that Homeland Security officers get a close look at every application that may present security concerns, and that consular officers continue to adjudicate all other applications, so that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to focus its time and energy primarily on homeland security?
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I know the Administration must be devoting considerable thought to this question, and I hope our witnesses will be able to share some of these thoughts with us today. Their testimony will enable the Committee to report legislation that will appreciably enhance the safety, and therefore the freedom of all Americans.

    I now yield to the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, Representative Tom Lantos, for any opening remarks he would choose to make.

    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me state at the outset that there are probably no two Members of Congress leading a Committee who have been as united and as supportive of the President's goal in defeating terrorism globally, than the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this Committee, and it is in that spirit that this hearing is conducted.

    Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend you for calling today's hearing on the Administration's plan to create a Department of Homeland Security. Congress must respond quickly and decisively to the President's call, and today's hearing will facilitate this critically important initiative.

    In the aftermath of September 11th, our Committee had the responsibility of ensuring that the President received all the powers he needed to conduct the war against global terrorism. Together, you and I managed a 9 1/2 hour marathon session on the House Floor and ultimately approved the resolution with just one dissenting vote.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our Committee and this Congress, in its consideration of the proposed Department of Homeland Security, will again give the President the powers and authorities that he needs. I am confident that our President will have the same bipartisan support wall-to-wall that he has had in the fight against terrorism.

    The political will to create a new Homeland Security Department exists in Congress, but we must structure the Department correctly; otherwise, America's security will end up suffering. The new Homeland Security Department must make it easier for our nation's law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel to fight terrorism, not spark years of disputes in which those who battle terrorism will fight each other.

    The State Department has been an interesting test case, Mr. Chairman, of how difficult it is to integrate different entities. As we all know, we have recently been through the integration of the United States Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State. It was a horrendously complex undertaking, and I hope we learned from this experience. As a matter of fact, although the experience was horrendously complex and difficult, all three agencies basically shared a very similar culture. In creating the Homeland Security Department, we have the task of combining agencies and departments across the full spectrum of our government with profoundly different cultures, and the task will be excruciatingly complex.

    The specific issue before us today is whether the new Homeland Security Department, the State Department, or a combination of the two, should be charged with issuing visas to millions of foreigners who visit our country each year. With over six million non-immigrant and 400,000 immigrant visas granted annually, how the issue is resolved will greatly affect the resources which both Departments will have to devote to this issue, the role of the U.S. Foreign Service, and our national interest.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Administration has proposed that the Department of Homeland Security be responsible for issuing visas, but that this power be exercised through the Secretary of State. This proposal, and I hope Under Secretary Grossman will elaborate on this, sounds rather peculiar to me; because what it tells me is that there is really no change, which, of course, is the formula I personally would favor. This is a very complex undertaking.

    A junior foreign service official, serving at a faraway Embassy, is clearly under the authority of the Ambassador. He relies on the whole structure of that large Embassy. He needs the guidance and advice of more senior officers at the Embassy, and to say that it is the Homeland Security office that will do the issuance of the visa, I think is a fiction. It is the Department of State that will continue to do so and, at some level, there will be some liaison.

    We are told by the Administration that the personnel who process visa applications, often first-tour foreign service officers and contract employees, will continue to work for the Department of State. But, we have many questions as to how this proposal will work and we hope Under Secretary Grossman will be able to answer that today. Who will set the policy to determine who gets a visa and who doesn't? What issues, other national security, will be considered when considering an application? And which agency will have the resources to carry out the task?

    Some in Congress have also discussed the concept of moving all of the State Department's Consular Services Bureau to the Homeland Security Department. Such a move, in my judgment, would be a profound mistake. The Consular Services Bureau handles countless tasks, completely unrelated to Homeland Security—from helping Americans in jail, to dealing with international child abduction cases, to facilitating international adoption matters. These important missions would get lost in a new large department and, at the same time, dilute its central function of focusing on real threats against the United States.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I look forwarding to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. It is not mandatory that Members make an opening statement. I just thought I would announce that rule. It is an entitlement—no, it is not an entitlement. It is by leave of the Chair. But, I will entertain opening statements——

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman?

    Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Reminding everyone that brevity is the sole of eloquence. Yes, ma'am?

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am so happy you said that before it got directly to me.

    Chairman HYDE. Well, whatever that means, I agree with the gentlelady.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. That means thank you.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. And I do have a statement that I would like to submit for the record.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    The need to protect American lives and property against future terrorist attacks, from both domestic and international sources, has never been clearer or more pressing.

    Unfortunately, the last 10 months have taught us that our security and intelligence-gathering mechanisms have not performed as well as many of us had hoped. Many serious deficiencies and problems, including lack of leadership, departmental overlap and redundancy, and ineffective intelligence sharing, were known even prior to September 11.

    Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we act—and act boldly—to correct these problems. But it is equally imperative that we do so thoughtfully, deliberately, and responsibly.

    The plan before us today is a bold one and its implications for the proper running of various governmental functions are far-reaching. The proposed Homeland Security department would transfer the resources, personnel, and missions of numerous departments and agencies throughout the federal government and employ nearly 170,000 people with a budget of more than $37 billion. Meanwhile, the process developed for the consideration of this unique new government agency is itself unusual.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Therefore, as we work to create a national framework to enhance and streamline our security and intelligence-gathering apparatus, we have a greater responsibility to ensure that the remedies we seek to enact are consistent with our democratic values and do not create more problems than they seek to solve. Specifically, accountability, through continued public and congressional oversight, and safeguards against threats to our civil liberties must be integral to this process.

    This proposal represents a positive response to the need to address the primary deficiencies in our current state of anti-terrorist preparedness—chiefly the lack of leadership and coordination. However, many questions still need to be answered and clarifications need to be made.

    Most relevant for this Committee is section 403, which proposes to transfer control over immigration and naturalization laws relating to the functions of diplomatic and consular officers in connection with the granting or refusing of visas from the Department of State to the new Department of Homeland Security. How will this transfer affect consular ''non-reviewability''?

    Exactly what is meant by the Secretary of Homeland Security's ''exclusive authority'' over the granting or refusing of visas and how this will be exercised ''through'' the Secretary of State is also unclear. Will one Secretary be able to direct the employees of another?

    In addition, how will the transfer of visa authority affect non-security related consular and diplomatic functions (e.g., reunification of families, admission of those with specifically-needed skills, opportunities for cultural and educational exchange, facilitation of trade and tourism, commerce and diplomacy)? Will the Secretary of State, to whom will be ''delegated'' non-security related visa authority by the Secretary of Homeland Security, be subordinated to the Secretary of Homeland Security?
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, these are some of the many matters that will require clarification in the coming weeks. While I appreciate that the Administration has requested (and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have agreed) to move consideration of this bill along an expedited timetable, it is essential that we do so in a manner that is both deliberate and responsible.

    There is simply too much at stake for the American people for us to forego serious and thoughtful consideration of the many critical changes offered by this bill.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. You are more than welcome to speak it or put it in the record. All Members' opening statements will be made a part of the record without objection. Mr. Gilman?

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by your advice and be brief.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for continued leadership, as this Committee does its part to help reform our national security infrastructure. The President's proposed creation of a Department of Homeland Security is the most significant transformation of the U.S. Government in over a half a century.

    Homeland security starts abroad. The men and women staffing our embassies and consulates, who handle many critical immigration law enforcement responsibilities, including issuing visas and passports, serve as our front line defense against terrorists. We need to make certain that the men and women who will be making visa decisions, no matter who they report to, have the information, discretion, and motivation necessary to make certain that America excludes terrorists and their supporters, while welcoming its friends and those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The precise future locus of responsibility for visa decisions has raised some concern among our colleagues on the Government Reform Committee, on which I serve, and on the Judiciary Committee. We welcome this distinguished panel, who are here today to testify before our Committee regarding this important issue, and we will be listening carefully. We hope they will advise us on how best to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?

    [No statement.]

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman does not have an opening statement. Mr. Leach?

    [No statement.]

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is very cooperative. Ms. McKinney?

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am also very cooperative and I would like my statement to appear in the record.

    Chairman HYDE. It certainly will.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Chairman HYDE. In extra heavy print. The gentlelady from Miami has no statement. The gentleman from Boston, he has no statement. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you; make a note of that. Mr. Schiff?

    [No statement.]

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Does anybody else have a statement that—Mr. Royce's will go in the record. Thank you.

    [The information referred to was not available at time of printing.]

    Chairman HYDE. Very well. I'm now pleased to introduce our distinguished witnesses. It is a pleasure today to welcome the Honorable Marc Grossman, who was confirmed by the Senate in March of 2001 as Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Ambassador Grossman has been a career foreign service officer since 1976. During this span, he has, among other assignments, been Director General of the Foreign Service, Director of Human Resources, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. He has also served previously as Deputy Director for the private office of the Secretary General of NATO, political officer at the U.S. Mission to NATO, Deputy Special Adviser to President Carter, and in other assignments within the Department of State. Ambassador Grossman earned his B.A. from the University of California and a Master of Science in International Relations from the London School of Economics. We look forward to hearing you today, Ambassador Grossman.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We, also, welcome today the Honorable George Lannon, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. Mr. Lannon is a 26-year veteran of the Foreign Service and is a consular specialist. He served in several countries, including Mexico, Lebanon, and El Salvador. Mr. Lannon will not be making a statement, but will be available for questioning.

    We are pleased to have both of our witnesses today and I would ask you to summarize your statements within 5 minutes, give or take. Your full statement will be placed in the hearing record. Ambassador Grossman, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFIARS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Lantos and others, I am very pleased to be here to testify this morning and be part of this conversation about the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.

    If I might say, Mr. Chairman, taking from your opening statement, I certainly appreciate your comments. I hope that at the end of this conversation, and I hope at the end of the work that you do, you will find, as you said, this to be a wise proposal and something very much worth supporting. I think, Mr. Chairman, the object here is, as you said, to make sure that we are looking after and protecting the safety and freedom of all Americans. That seems to me a very good way to look into this, and I very much appreciate your invitation here. I appreciate your comments.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    To Ranking Member Lantos, I also want to say that I appreciate especially your point, as you said, that this has been a Committee which has not only supported the President and supported the Department in the global war on terrorism, and that it is in that spirit that we have this hearing. It is certainly in that spirit that we arrive here.

    Two other points, if I could, before I make my statement, to the Ranking Member and also to Mr. Gilman. I think our object here is to make sure that we are focused, as the Chairman said, on safety and freedom of American citizens. And, therefore, the focus on the creation of the Homeland Security Department seems to me absolutely crucial. And I hope, Congressman Lantos, in this conversation, we can tell you that we do not find this particularly peculiar. We believe that given what happened on the 11th of September and given the need to focus carefully on issues of law enforcement, issues of protecting the United States, that the proposition the President has made to the Congress is one that is not peculiar, but indeed worth supporting. And we believe we can make this work.

    The Chairman said, you know, ''Is there a structure we can find?''. I believe the answer to that is yes, and I would be glad to answer further questions on this.

    The other question, as Congressman Gilman and Mr. Lantos talked about, is this issue of culture. If I could just say that from our perspective, the issue here is whatever different cultures existed in the past, the culture that has to exist now in the executive branch, seems to be a culture, as the Chairman said, that focuses on the safety and freedom of American citizens. And that means everybody has to change. It means we have to change, other people have to change, and I think the President's proposition for this issue and creation of the Office of Homeland Security shows a way forward.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, if I might take the opportunity in my statement, I hope to answer some of the questions that you posed and that the Ranking Member posed. I thank you, very much, for inviting me to this hearing. As you both said, this is the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.

    Let me be absolutely clear that the Department of State supports the President's proposal and specifically section 403, which transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security control over the issuance and denial of visas to enter the United States. From my perspective, September 11, 2001 brought a vigorous, a determined, and an effective response from the people in the Government of the United States. But as the President said in his transmittal of this bill to the Congress, we can do better. And I believe, in fact, we must do better, and that is one of the reasons that we so strongly support the President's proposition. I believe the President's proposition shows the way ahead. As we do everything in our power to protect our country and its people from terrorism in the United States, the Department of State has been, and will continue to be, fully committed to this effort.

    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, you both said that we have got a lot of important work ahead, and we have no more important work than the protection of Americans at home and abroad. Let me give you some statistics, Mr. Chairman, that you were looking for. On any given day, about three million private Americans are abroad. Americans abroad give birth to 44,000 children that the State Department documents as American citizens; 2,000–3,000 Americans are arrested every year in other countries. They need to be visited. They need to be helped. They need to find their way through a foreign legal system. Some 6,000 Americans abroad die every year, and about half of those families ask that the bodies be returned to the United States.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We search for, and we assist in the search for, almost 40,000 Americans abroad, who are lost or whose families lose contact with them and are concerned about them when they are living and traveling abroad. When a plane crash overseas happens, it is State Department officers who are often the first people on the scene to help those families and parents and survivors. One-hundred-and-fourteen thousand Americans study abroad, a number that has gone up 10 percent a year for a number of years. And our passport offices at home and abroad issue almost seven million passports to our fellow citizens.

    Who does this work? And Mr. Gilman said, who is on the front line of America's offense or defense here? Why are they drawn to this career? How do they help us get to where we want to be? And very much, as the Chairman asked, what is the State Department's value added here?

    My answer to that question, over my career and some of the things that I have done, is that our Foreign Service employees and our Civil Service employees are drawn from the very best talent in the United States. And what motivates them? What motivates them is patriotism, the desire to promote and protect and defend the United States of America, curiosity about life abroad, and desire to serve their fellow citizens.

    One thing that is very interesting to me is over the past year, and certainly since the 11th of September, the number of people who are taking the Foreign Service exam, who want to join the Foreign Service, has grown in very large numbers. Eight thousand took the exam in September of 2000. Almost double that number took the exam in September 2001. Our officers learn languages. They learn about the cultures, and they get prepared for what I think you would agree can often be a very, very dangerous job abroad.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The amount of work, Mr. Chairman, that you asked about on our visa lines is—the only word I can use is staggering. Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2001, the Department of State adjudicated nearly 10.5 million non-immigrant visa applications at 196 posts. Out of this total, we issued about 7.5 million visas, or 71 percent of the applications. And we also handled 628,000 immigrant visa cases.

    The Department has committed nearly 75 percent of its total of 880 overseas consular officers to the visa adjudication process, either officers, who are doing the work directly, or supervisors. Applications are reviewed in every case by American consular officers. Our name check system is consulted in every case. Documents are verified and, very often, the applicant is personally interviewed by a consular officer.

    You asked, Mr. Chairman, how many people get interviewed; how many would likely be security threats. During Fiscal Year 2001, more than 68 percent of our posts interviewed 50 percent of their visa applicants. That does not mean they are all security risks, but those are the people who people wanted to see in front of them to check their information. Experienced consular supervisors reviewed issuances and refusal, our anti-fraud units monitored attempts of deception, and only then was a visa issued.

    I want to say that from my perspective, this idea that is out and about—that consular work is only done by people who stamp visas, by only the most junior people, and only those who are disgruntled—from my perspective, anyway, misses the entire point. That charge made by those people, to me, does not get it.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I think the majority of people in the State Department, and I would say a majority of the people in the Foreign Service, recognize the value to their further careers of a knowledge of foreign society, knowledge of immigration work, and ability to help American citizens abroad. That most officers move on to other jobs in their careers, seems to me, not a negative, but a testament to our career service. Those who do stay with the consular function, one of the five core competencies of the Foreign Service, make a huge contribution to the representation of the United States abroad. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I have found most heartening in the past year is that the number of people who are choosing consular affairs as their specialty coming into the State Department has risen dramatically, and it is now the third most chosen of the five specialties.

    Mr. Chairman, I hope you would allow me, for the record, to put in some examples of how, in real life, people have used their expertise to protect the United States. I have four or five of those I would like to put into the record.

    The 19 terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11th, entered the United States on legally issued visas and proceeded on their deadly mission undeterred by any U.S. authorities. We have to ask the question why. Why did we not recognize who they were and what they planned to do and refuse these visas? Because, there was no way, without the identification of these people as terrorists, either through law enforcement or intelligence channels and the conveyance of that knowledge to consular officers abroad, for their intentions to be uncovered. The identification by intelligence and law enforcement and the sharing of that data with consular officers abroad remains the key to fighting terrorism with visa policy.

    We have come a long way in a short time, and many new things have happened, including the very great help we have received from the Congress and the U.S. Patriot Act and a number of decisions the President has made. But one of the most important reasons, I believe, to support the President's proposition in this area of homeland security is to make sure that the right information is collected, and the right information goes to our consular officers abroad.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    One more point, Mr. Chairman, and then I will stop. In creating this new department, with its very proper focus on homeland security and its very proper focus on law enforcement, it is also important to recognize, as you did in your opening statement, that visas have an important connection to the foreign policy of the United States. The United States uses visa policy to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortions and sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and punishing enemies of democracy around the world. These priorities will continue to inform our policy, and the Secretary of State will support the Homeland Security Department to advance them.

    Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions in this conversation. Thank you, sir.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grossman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFIARS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting my comments on the most extensive re-organization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.

    The Department of State supports the President's proposal. September 11, 2001 brought a vigorous, determined, and effective response from the people and government of the United States, but, as the President said in transmitting his bill to Congress, also the knowledge that we can do better. The President's proposal shows the way ahead as we do everything in our power to protect our country and its people from terrorism. The Department of State has been and continues to be fully committed to this effort.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The State Department has no more important work then the protection of Americans at home and abroad. On any given day, about 3 million Americans are overseas. Americans abroad give birth to 44,000 children whom we document as US citizens; 2,000–3,000 Americans are arrested each year in other countries and need to be visited, helped, and their cases monitored. Some 6,000 Americans die each year with 2,000 families choosing to have their loved ones' remains sent back to the US for burial.

    We search for and assist over 40,000 Americans abroad whose families have either lost track of them or become alarmed about events where they are living or traveling. When a plane crashes overseas our officers help parents, spouses, and children cope with the tragedy and navigate a foreign bureaucracy. 114,000 Americans study abroad every year; this number is going up by 10% annually. Our passport offices at home and abroad issued 7,000,000 US Passports to our fellow citizens last year.

    Who does this work on what Secretary Powell likes to call the first line of America's ''offense''? Why are they drawn to this career? How does what they do help protect us at home and abroad? What is the State Department's value added?

    Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service employees of the State Department are drawn from among the best talent in the U.S.. They are entering motivated by patriotism, curiosity about life abroad, and a desire to serve their fellow citizens. More Americans than ever are taking the Foreign Service written exam: 8,000 took the exam in September of 2000, 13,000 in September of 2001 and 14,000 in April of 2002. Our officers learn foreign languages, prepare to live in some of the least hospitable parts of the world, face grave danger (as the Africa bombings of 1998 and the bombing of Consulate in Karachi witness)in order to protect Americans.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The amount of work on our visa lines is staggering. In Fiscal Year 2001, the Department adjudicated nearly 10.5 million non-immigrant visa applications at 196 posts. Out of this total, we issued visas to over 7.5 million people or about 71 percent of applicants. We also handled 628,000 immigrant visa cases.

    The Department has committed nearly 75 percent of the total 880 plus overseas consular officers to the visa adjudication process, either as officers providing direct interview services on a regular basis or as the managers of this function. Applications are reviewed in every case by American consular officers. Our name checking system is consulted in every case, documents are verified and often the applicant is personally interviewed by a consular officer. During FY–2001, more than 68 percent of posts interviewed at least 50 percent of their visa applicants. Experienced consular supervisors review issuances and refusals, anti-fraud units monitor attempts at deception and only then is a visa issued. People who say that consular work is only done by ''visa stampers'' or disgruntled junior officers who all want to be Ambassadors don't get it.

    The majority of Foreign Service Officers recognize the value to their careers of the knowledge of a foreign society, its people, and the complex web of US immigration law and regulations gained in doing consular work. That most officers move on to other specialties within the Foreign Service is a testament to our career pattern and the variety of work we do overseas, but the career track of consular officers is one of the five core competencies of the Foreign Service. I find it heartening that an increasing number of people joining the Foreign Service are choosing to do consular work as their specialty. Consular is now the third most popular choice for new candidates, following the political and public diplomacy cones.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Here are some real-life examples of the value-added I describe:

 Consular Officers in two different posts refused student and tourist visas to Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who allegedly conspired with Zacarias Moussaoui and the 19 9/11 hijackers. They believed him to be an intending immigrant and therefore ineligible under the law.

 A female visa applicant in Manila was closely questioned by a consular officer, who elicited information substantiating her ties to the Abu Sayyaf Group. Her visa was refused for involvement in terrorist activities.

 A consular officer in Germany thought the multiple visa applications of a retired refugee from Kosovo odd: how could this man spend so much time in the US, even with his generous pension? Looking more deeply into the case the consular officer found that the man was getting welfare benefits in Germany and the US, and was a member of an alien smuggling ring that had moved 2,000 aliens into the US, and was involved in gun-running and counterfeiting.

    The nineteen terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 entered the United States on legally issued visas and proceeded on to their deadly mission undeterred by US authorities. Why did we not recognize who they were and what they planned to do and refuse those visas? Because there was no way, without prior identification of these people as terrorists through either law enforcement or intelligence channels and the conveyance of that knowledge to consular officers abroad, for their intentions to be uncovered.

    Identification by intelligence and law enforcement and the sharing of that data with consular officers abroad remains the key to fighting terrorism with visa policy. We have come a long way in a short time towards the comprehensive data sharing we must have to prevail in this area of the war against terrorism. Executive orders and The USA Patriot Act now require such sharing, and our files on potential terrorists are far better now than they have ever been in the past.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The new Department of Homeland Security will assure consular officers timely access to the best data the US Government keeps on terrorists. A better flow of information is another reason to support the President's proposal.

    In creating the new Department, with its proper emphasis on homeland defense and law enforcement, it is important to recognize that visa policy plays a vital role in foreign policy concerns of the United States. For example, the US uses visa policy to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and in punishing the enemies of democracy around the world. These priorities will continue to inform our policy and the Secretary of State will support the Homeland Security Department to advance them.

    Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ambassador Grossman. If I may ask the first question. Under the Homeland Security Act, as introduced, the Secretary of Homeland Security is granted broad supervisory authority over all visa processing. Some Members of Congress have felt that the entire operation should be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security, because of the sensitivity of people coming in and out of our country.

    My own view is a compromise between the State Department handling these millions of applications, as they do now, but having an official or an officer of Homeland Security present at the missions where the visas are issued, to attend to security issues. That person would be available for reviewing an applicant, guidance as to what to look for, resolving questions in dispute, but dealing with homeland security issues. The Administration of these millions of applications would stay with the State Department, but there would be present—physically present in the field at each mission, a security officer from Homeland Security, to take care of those issues.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    That, it seems to me, would provide the element of security necessary without interfering with the enormous job of dealing with this mountain of paperwork and applications.

    Your comment, please.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I would say a couple of things.

    First, I think we ought to start all of these answers, or certainly I will anyway, by recognizing what I tried to say in my statement, which is that we have got to change the way we do business after the 11th of September. That is what we want to do, and that is why we are supporting the President's proposal. I think it makes the right balance between the guidance and the direction that would come from the Department of Homeland Security and the Administration through the Secretary of the visa process.

    As to your suggestion, I think as we go along, we would take ideas and suggestions from the Chair, from any other Member, and I certainly would take one from the Chair of this Committee. My initial reaction is that we ought to figure out whether we can achieve the same goals that you seek, Mr. Chairman, through rapid communication. I, for one, would be a little bit worried about sending someone from Homeland Security to all of our missions overseas, because you then add one more person to the mission, and maybe create a security problem.

    These are things I would like to talk about with you. But, I think for the moment, what we have got is a pretty good balance between the direction that we would receive and our consular officers would receive from the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Secretary of State, and I think we can achieve this. But, as I say, I am very, very glad to have an idea from the Chairman.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Lantos?

    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing has a very special flavor, Mr. Secretary, because we clearly all share the same goals and objectives. And my questions relate to your envisioning what will unfold on the ground and my understanding of what is unfolding on the ground. Let me just mention two items—or three.

    All cabinet secretaries are equal by definition; but if there ever was validity to the concept of primus interpares, first among equals, then the Secretary of State historically in the American governmental structure is the number one cabinet secretary. I have difficulty envisioning my good friend, Tom Ridge, issuing directives to my good friend, Colin Powell. And I have difficulty comprehending how the American people would view this bizarre relationship. We recognize that this is merely a sort of administrative and bureaucratic sleight of hand, Ridge passing on the responsibility to Powell and Powell then making a new system for issuing visas, because certainly the system has to be dramatically restructured, in view of security.

    I have infinitely more confidence in the Department of State doing it with people who have lived abroad for their whole career, who understand foreign cultures, who speak the language, etc., etc., etc. And my feeling is—and you served as our distinguished Ambassador to Turkey—if I would be the lone Homeland Security guy assigned to Ankara, presumably not speaking a word of Turkish, never having been to Turkey, trying to prevent visas being issued to people who should not be getting visas, it would be a pretty overpowering responsibility. While tightening within the Department, the issuance of visas in Turkey, maybe I should say Saudi Arabia, where I think the most outrageous pattern has existed for far too long, I would feel much more secure having Colin Powell and you, with years of experience behind you, deal with this.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Tom Ridge was a colleague of ours and then governor of Pennsylvania, and I do not know which people he would find to assign to this. Would they go to the Foreign Service Institute? Would they have language training? Would they have training in culture? Would they then be restricted to one place? I mean, take the Balkans. You would need linguistic training in a dozen-and-a-half languages, some of these very complex languages. How would you handle this?

    My own concern with respect to the visa issue, if it has any focus, is the use of foreign nationals in issuing visas. As you know better than I do, Mr. Secretary, in many of our embassies, the majority of the work, in some cases the bulk of the work, is done by not nationals of the United States. We are in a new era, and some of the insanities that we see unfolding even today reflect the fact that security was not the prime consideration prior to September 11, and now it is. Yet our top agencies dealing with this matter are still farming out translation of documents to people of questionable security clearance or qualifications. Those are the issues we need to worry about.

    And I truly think we will move on whatever legislation is proposed, probably unanimously. This is not a contentious issue, but it is an issue where not all the wisdom is in the possession of the Administration. Some of us have considerable experience with embassies and with foreign cultures and foreign societies. And this bureaucratic sleight of hand that Tom Ridge is in charge, assuming he will be the new cabinet officer and he delegates some things to Colin Powell, who then works under Ridge or cooperates with him, this is a sort of a fiction that I have some difficulty dealing with. I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on some of these matters.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. GROSSMAN. Congressman Lantos, let me try to answer all of your questions, because we have also given this a huge amount of thought. First, I think we have to recognize, and we all have to admit, that the structure that was in place before the 11th of September was a structure designed to bring as many people as possible to the United States, who met certain criteria. We were asked by the tourism industry, we were asked by the education industry, we were asked by many of your offices to bring people into the United States. And that is fair enough, and that is what we were doing before the 11th of September. I think we ought to just admit that out in the open.

    After the 11th of September, as you said, whereas security was not previously the foremost requirement, it is now. And so, we have to do what you said in your opening statement, which is to change the culture of what it is that we are doing, absolutely. Our people bring to this job tremendous skills; they bring to this job skills that nobody else has.

    But the question now is, how do they focus their skills, and on what do they focus those skills? And I would submit to you, sir, that the job we all have in changing this culture, in both executive branch and legislative branch, is to make sure that the skill, the desire, and the patriotism that people bring to their job is now focused not on the job pre-9/11, but on the job post-9/11, which is making sure that security is uppermost.

    I would say to you, Mr. Lantos, that all of the positives that you listed about our experience—languages, culture, understanding—all ought to be turned to the ability to better protect the United States of America and how to do that. I would say that what you are calling a bizarre relationship, I think actually has the possibility to turn out to be exactly the right balance.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    When the Secretary has talked to me about this, after his conversations with Governor Ridge, after thinking about this a lot, he said exactly what you said about the Congress and the Administration. Nobody any longer has a lock on all wisdom in this regard. State Department does not have a lock on this wisdom. The new Department of Homeland Security might not, other areas might not. But, we think, and I know the President thinks, and I believe the Secretary thinks, that it is time now, given 9/11, to give the authority and the responsibility for issuing regulations, for carrying out the Immigration and Nationality Act, for setting standards, for issuing standards, to the Department of Homeland Security, so that it is absolutely clear what our objective is.

    And I think this can work. That is why section 403 talks about working through the Secretary of State, so the Secretary is informed, so he continues to hire, promote, and train the people who are doing this work. But, I think all of the pluses that you put out there, which I appreciate, now need to focus on the question of homeland defense.

    I would also agree with you, sir, that we do need, all of us, to make sure that our Foreign Service national employees, the vast majority of whom, I believe, do a very, very good job, that they need to be part of this culture change as well.

    Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?

    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your excellent testimony.

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Following up on the questions that have been asked, as you can see, we really have a difficult time understanding the mechanics of how this process will actually work. Under the previous Administration, there were instances where the FBI had objected to or had concerns about particular individuals seeking visas to enter our country. Yet, the State Department essentially vetoed the FBI and approved the issuance of the visas.

    Under the structure that this bill seeks to create, if our intelligence and law enforcement agencies raise objections or concerns about the issuance of visas to these individuals, who would make the ultimate determination? The Secretary of State, as Mr. Lantos was asking? The new Secretary of Homeland Security? And what does section 4(3)(a)(1) of the bill actually say when it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have exclusive authority, through the Secretary of State? It is really very difficult for us to get a grasp on that. So, essentially, what would be the relationship between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the new Department or Bureau of Information Analysis, and the State Department, regarding the issuance of visas?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, ma'am, let me see if I can answer that question as clearly as I can. First, this is a little bit, in a sense, like a confirmation hearing, in the sense that since we have not done this job yet, I do not know how to answer your question about how exactly the mechanism will work. There is no Department of Homeland Security. So, we have to find a mechanism, and we will find that mechanism in carrying out the law.

    I also believe that the sectional analysis, which the President sent up with the law, really has got this clearly defined, extremely well defined, about what the responsibilities are. But it is hard to say, because there is no Department of Homeland Security yet.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In specific answer to your question, it will be the Secretary of Homeland Security who will make the decisions about the issuance and denials of visas. And I kind of tripped over that sentence a couple of times, too, in reading that. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the—and then number one and number two—exclusive authority, and then the authority to delegate. So, in the proposition that you make, which is if there is information from the FBI, if there is information from the CIA, it will be the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to make that decision.

    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am sure that there will be some follow-ups to that. Let me ask you about the Visa Express Program. Why did you suddenly and abruptly drop the name Visa Express from the program that you had in Saudi Arabia, where Saudi nationals and third country nationals living in Saudi Arabia submit visa applications to travel agents. Why did Secretary Ryan not mention the program, formerly known as Visa Express, in his testimony before the Senate in October?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I apologize—I do not know the answer to the second question, but I would be glad to come back to you. I think that people decided that the name Visa Express was completely giving the wrong impression. It gave the impression that this was someway around the normal visa process, which indeed it was not. Visa Express in Saudi Arabia and in other countries in which we use it, is a way for consular officers to be able to focus on the hardest cases. It is a way to get your passport into the Embassy. We have not subcontracted the visa function to travel agents. These decisions are still all made by Americans under the law.

    So, I think it was a smart thing. And, again, I go back to the point I made to Congressman Lantos, which is that before the 11th of September, of course, what did everybody want? Everybody wanted people to come into the country as quickly and easily and politely and efficiently as possible. And I think after the 11th of September, calling it Visa Express just gives absolutely the wrong impression.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of observations and then a question. The first observation is that I think there is a general recognition in this country and I think the law recognizes that there is no absolute right to come into this country, that the standards of rights and due process and carrying the burden for denials does not apply in the context of issuing visas in the way it might apply to a whole variety of benefits and privileges for U.S. citizens. And that is seen by the fact that a consular decision is non-reviewable in a court. And the second point, I guess, is that we would be foolish not to rethink policies and processes after September 11th, given what has transpired.

    But, I just want to throw out a concern. I hope it is just an abstract one, but I am interested in your reaction. You point out correctly that visa policy plays a vital role in foreign policy concerns to the United States and you cite visa policies to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and sterilization, and forcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and punishing the enemies of democracy around the world.

    But, there have been times in our country's history where we used our visa policies to enforce policies which were not so wise or sensible. There were times when we denied visas to people based on sexual orientation. There were times when we denied visas because someone was an outspoken opponent of atmospheric nuclear testing. There were times when we denied visas 40 years after a person had expressed sympathies for one side or the other in the Spanish Civil War.

    We cleaned up a lot of that in the early 1990s. I remember in the good old days, when the democrats were in the majority, in the State Department Authorization Bill, we made a lot of changes, got rid of a lot of this. Now, we are giving very, very broad authority to deny visas. Tell me what is wrong with the current authority that the Secretary of State now has to decide when—he or his designees decide when and when not to issue visas. Why do we need to broaden that authority further, and risk the fears of absolute discretion leading to slipping back into sort of abusive and intolerant practices, which do not serve foreign policy or security interests?
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I will give you a personal answer. The personal answer is that I think all of the examples you have cited, and there are many, many more, as well, are important and worth remembering. And it is also worth remembering how many of us either are children or grandchildren of immigrants, or immigrants ourselves. And I do not necessarily think that the answer here is what is wrong with the current system, other than to say, as Congressman Lantos——

    Mr. BERMAN. No, the current authority.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. No, but it is, as we have been talking about since the 11th of September, it seems to me that there needs to be a change in culture. There needs to be a change in presumption, if you will. There needs to be a change in what it is—on what criteria people are making these decisions. And the idea that you would move this authority, as the President wishes to do, to a Secretary of Homeland Security, I think sends the message to everybody that the idea is different; that what we are interested in is different. And I think that is an important thing, sir.

    Mr. BERMAN. Well, I take your point quite seriously. You have made it several times and it is worth making. I just wanted to perhaps throw out some concerns.

    I am curious about the situation under this new organizational chart, where the Secretary thinks that American foreign policy interests are served by not granting a visa to someone. At least in the old days, if there was a dispute between the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, the President or the National Security Advisor would decide that dispute. Here, it looks to me like the Secretary of State, in this particular area, is a bit of a supplicant. Can I persuade the Secretary of Homeland Security, or whatever this new department is going to be called, to grant this visa, notwithstanding the regulatory processes, and if I cannot, what do I do? Am I going outside the chain of command, if I want to raise this directly with the President? Just perhaps speak to that.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, again, as I tried to answer the Congresswoman from Florida's question, because there is no Department of Homeland Security yet, it is speculative. But, I know from talking to Secretary Powell that he believes that the language that is in this law—through the Secretary of State—is the right place to be. He believes that from his perspective, it keeps him informed, it keeps him in line with what he could consider to be his troops, and it gives him all of the opportunity that he needs to make the kinds of points that you say, if that situation were to arise.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman?

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the criticisms of the current visa issuance process is that screening for security is not a top priority; that there is too much emphasis on customer service and that there is too much pressure to show the host country that we welcome visits by their countrymen. Do you think security concerns have been overshadowed by efforts to be customer friendly? And I pose that to our good Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Mr. Lannon.

THE HONORABLE GEORGE LANNON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. LANNON. No, security is, I think, the prime issue on any visa issuance. Security checks are required before a visa will be issued. They cannot be overcome. They have to be done. They are run through the name check system. We take this very seriously. It is only done by an American. A visa cannot be issued over refusal, without being checked by somebody else, to make sure that it was done correctly. So, I think security is and remains the prime factor in the issuance of a visa, regardless of what the host country nationals or the host country thinks about it. If a person is ineligible for security reasons, they will not be issued a visa.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Lannon, let me address a further question. The Consular of Affairs issued all 19 of the hijackers of September 11th valid visas for legal entry into our nation, is that correct?

    Mr. LANNON. That is correct.

    Mr. GILMAN. In fact, didn't you renew some of those individual visas not long before the September 11th attack?

    Mr. LANNON. Yes, I know at least one was issued in June 2001.

    Mr. GILMAN. Does this make the case that the system really needs revision and maybe some other authority ought to take charge of the process?

    Mr. LANNON. No. I think it makes the case that we need the information in the lookout system that would enable us to deny that visa based on the new information that may have been available.

    Mr. GILMAN. What prevents this from having that information in the lookout system?

    Mr. LANNON. Well, in the past, there have been issues of just timeliness of getting information from the law enforcement, intelligence community into the system. We have various ways of doing it; but, sometimes, they are just too slow. I think we look to the Department of Homeland Security to speed this process and ensure this information is put into the system.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GILMAN. Is that being taken care of now?

    Mr. LANNON. Well, because of the Board of Securities Act, we received the NCIC information from the FBI. We are in the process of integrating that information into our systems. Since September 11th, we have seen a marked increase of the information flowing in from the intelligence community into the system, as well. So, since the Patriot Act and the Board of Securities Act, we have seen increasing information coming into our lookout system.

    Mr. GILMAN. So, we would not be confronted with this kind of a problem in the future, based on that revision?

    Mr. LANNON. I hope not.

    Mr. GILMAN. I hope not, too. Can you, please, describe the consular training program? Does it train people to detect suspicious behaviors that reveal motivations of the individual, particularly with an eye on possible terrorists?

    Mr. LANNON. We have a 26-day course at the Foreign Service Institute, where they go through basically the law. It covers three main segments: Immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas, and American citizen service. There is some interviewing techniques training. But, it covers the law. The problem, I think, is what does a terrorist look like; how do you discover one without other information. I think one of the things about the 19, they are rather unremarkable. They were middle class people. They did not look like anything. It is very hard to train someone to discover a terrorist. Again, this is why we look to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, who are looking at who these people are, to provide us with this information, so we can get it into our systems, to give the consular officers the tools they need when a person applies for a visa.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Lannon——

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman, your time is up.

    Mr. GILMAN. I thought I had 1 more minute remaining, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. You do. You have 42 seconds, I am sorry.

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lannon, one more question. What percentage of these applicants are actually interviewed by a U.S. consular officer?

    Mr. LANNON. We think it is hard to extrapolate it. We do not have an exact figure, but we think it is 50 percent or more, probably no more than 60, but around 50 percent worldwide.

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I add one sentence, please?

    Chairman HYDE. Surely.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I feel a little bit badly that perhaps I should have listed the examples in my statement. But, Mr. Gilman, for the record, I put in, with the Chairman's permission, three or four examples of where consular officers, using their intuition, using their knowledge of the host country, actually did find people who turned up for a visa: In two case, terrorists; in another case, someone who was running a huge alien smuggling ring. So, we do have these, and I submit these examples for the record, with the Chairman's permission.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Delahunt?

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Ambassador, I think your numbers were about 10 million applications and 7 million non-immigrant visas that are issued per year. Does that mean that there are 3 million visa applications that are denied?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Correct.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. What is the basis? I never realized that it was that proportion. That means almost 30 percent that are denied.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, of course, it is worldwide. In some countries, and we do not have to go through each one, but in some countries, that proportion is considerably higher, obviously. But the law, as it is currently written—and again, we can only speculate about how it would be enforced in the future—but the law, at the moment, gives consular officers a whole range of possibilities for denying visas.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. How many of those three million, if you know, were denied based upon security concerns?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I think we would have to check. But, I would like to come back to you.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I think that—I think that would be informative.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. It is very important. We should have that number. We will come back to you.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was the Chair that indicated that there are some that would put the entire consular function under the aegis of the Homeland Security Bureau. Does the Administration have a price tag on that particular proposal or suggestion?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. No, sir, because the Administration does not support it. We have not done any of the work to find out how much it would cost. But, as I said——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Has there been any conversation about what the cost might be?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Only speculative. I mean, as I said in my——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. What is the speculation?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. No, I am saying only speculative, in the sense that it would cost a lot of money. But, if you——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Are we talking a billion?
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I have no idea, sir.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. But I would be glad to come back to you. Again, if you take what I said in my statement, the numbers of births, deaths, other kinds of consular services, those are things that I know the Secretary believes we ought to be doing, because the Department of Homeland Security should focus on homeland security. And where the Secretary wants to be is totally in support of the President and Tom Ridge on this.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask you this question: How does this proposal impact—would it impact at all the Visa Waiver Program? I mean, if our purpose now is to protect American citizens and, clearly, that is it, and, as you say, there has been a shift in presumption, how many nations are under the umbrella of the Visa Waiver Program, and do we have adequate security indicators or precautions to discover those that might harm our national interest? And I will follow up with another question: In situations where individuals would have dual passports, dual nationalities, one of which would be issued by a nation that was part of the Visa Waiver Program.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I do not know the answer on dual nationals, but we would be glad to take that. On the question of the Visa Waiver Program, it goes back actually to this whole conversation. Of course, the Visa Waiver Program was, as you say, designed to make it easier and more customer friendly to get into the United States. That presumption should change.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But I would say, Congressman Delahunt, that even before the 11th of September, people looked very, very carefully at the security issues that had to do with the Visa Waiver Program. For example, a number of countries have never gotten in, because they cannot control their blank passports. There are periodic reviews——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that, Ambassador. But, I am thinking, for example, an individual from Great Britain. Presumably, they qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. I do not even know what the population of Great Britain would be, at this point; but, presumably, there are Commonwealth nations where their citizens would be entitled to a British passport. And, yet, what kind of screening filtering device would we have?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. All good questions. I would like to come back to you. And, of course, the Visa Waiver Program would then be under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, and I am sure whoever takes that job will look quite carefully at it.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I can appreciate the fact that you do not have some ready answers here on what it would look like in the mechanisms. Presuming that the legislation passes, it is going to be a work in progress and it really will be incumbent upon both Departments, as well as Congress, to exercise its oversight and to really follow it.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Green?

    Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you can see we are all supportive of many of the concepts you outline, but we are struggling with just how this would work, and I have some basic understanding questions in that area. Does the Administration's proposal mean that one Secretary will be able to direct the employees of another Secretary? That seems to be the implication here. And, if so, how do you see that working?
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I was waiting for another question. The way we see this working is, is that all the authorities that are currently with the Secretary of State for issuance and denial of visas will transfer to the Department of Homeland Security; that the Department of Homeland Security will issue regulations and directions about how that process should be carried out. And as the law says, the Director—I'm sorry, the Secretary of Homeland Security may or may not wish to delegate some of that authority back to the Department of State or someone else in the Federal Government.

    The reason Secretary Powell and Governor Ridge wanted to make sure, and the President agreed, that it said, ''through the Secretary of State,'' is so that these regulations would not be issued directly from the Department of Homeland Security to consular officers abroad. It would go through the Secretary, so he is informed.

    Mr. GREEN. I guess I do not understand what you mean by ''through the Secretary.'' In other words, you promulgate regulations. You in essence physically carry them over to the Secretary of State, who then physically passes them along. What does that mean when you say, ''through the Secretary of State''? I still, as a basic question, do not understand how that would work.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. In a sense, I would agree with your proposition. It means physically that if the Secretary of Homeland Security were to decide on issue x or y—that we should change the way that we are issuing visas or we should look more specifically at a category of people—he would promulgate that change in whatever form that he wished. It would then come to the Secretary of State, and we would, through the Department's communications, through the Department's training, through the Department's apparatus, convey that to our people.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I mean, this happens all the time. We get instructions and we get changes and we get impulse from all kinds of cabinet agencies. So, I know——

    Mr. GREEN. When you say it happens all the time, I understand there may be communications between the agencies; but, if the Secretary of Homeland Security makes a policy change, makes a regulatory change, and then passes it to the Secretary of State, what if the Secretary of State disagrees?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, again, I would say, as I answered a question before, the Secretary of State has talked to me about this, and he certainly believes nobody after the 11th of September has got a lock on all wisdom here. We do not want to be in that attitude. We want to be supporting what Governor Ridge and the future Secretary of Homeland Security are going to do. But, you know, if the Secretary of State is informed of what is going on and has concerns about it, I am sure he would find a way to raise them.

    I think the focus right now should not be on that part of it, with all due respect, sir. It ought to be on the transfer of these authorities, the focus on security, homeland security and law enforcement. And we believe, I know Secretary Powell believes, that that will be the vast, vast majority of the work that gets done. Again, when he has talked to me about this, we do not even talk about the cases where there is going to be disagreement, because, as we have said to the Chairman and Ranking Member, it has got to be a culture change here.

    Mr. GREEN. Again, I think we all agree with you, in terms of the purposes of this legislation. But, I think, as we look back on September 11th and the systems in place before September 11th, many of us have concerns that the system is far from seamless. And my concern is that the process that you have outlined also does not appear to be seamless. It appears to be multi-staged, with one stage building upon another. And if there is a breakdown in any part of the process, then this ''seamless'' model breaks apart. I think that is the concern that we have, that we all want to address.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Under this proposal, as it has been outlined, who is responsible for staffing and managing U.S. passport offices?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. The State Department, sir.

    Mr. GREEN. So, the State Department is responsible for staffing and managing. Homeland Security is responsible for developing the policies and regulations. See, the concern I have is that as the President outlined this concept of clear lines of authority and accountability. I am not sure that as it has been outlined here, it quite meets those objectives.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff?

    Mr. SCHIFF. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher?

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, very much. Ambassador Grossman, how many visas did you say? It was seven million visas issued a year?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir, in Fiscal Year 2001.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. And of those visas that are issued, these are non-immigrant visas; is that correct?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Of those seven million non-immigrant visas, how many do not return back to their home country?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I will get you that information. I do not have that information.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is pretty important——

    Mr. GROSSMAN. It is, absolutely.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Fact, isn't it?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, could you give me a guess?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I cannot. I apologize.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not even anything in the ballpark here? A million? Two million? Three million people? Five-hundred thousand?
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Oh, I am sure that is too low.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, am I.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I mean, part of this, to go back to the point that Mr. Green was making, is this is one of those seams that I believe the Department of Homeland Security can stitch up, because, right now, you have immigration——

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope so. My guess is we are talking about millions of people who overstay their visa, and that that is a large number of illegal immigrants in our country.

    Now, when you are checking people before you grant a tourist visa or whatever, a student visa, is there a greater background check given to someone who wants to immigrate into this country, than is given to someone who wants a tourist visa? Is there more attention paid——

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, there is more attention paid to security, medical background, all those things.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. So, if someone comes in and they have overstayed their visa, if they want to stay here permanently, we are actually saying that there is going to be less of a check on someone than if they have immigrated from overseas.

 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. GROSSMAN. I think, sir, and I am going to sound slightly bureaucratic here; but, I think, sir, that the change of status that would occur in the United States if—of course, the responsibility belongs to the INS and they make the same kinds of checks, health and background security—if they are going to let them immigrate.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. They do make the same—they cannot—right now, they do not change the authority, do they? They have to go home for that. So, you are just postulating that the INS would make that same thorough check.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, for someone, who is here——

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Someone, who is here illegally, who overstayed their visa, tourist visa, and you just told us that the immigrant visa is much more extensive background——

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I am sorry, I misunderstood. If they are here illegally, absolutely.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. But, there are large numbers of people, who change status legally, and I was just trying to say that they get the same check as a legal immigrant.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us note that the background check is much more thorough for immigrant visas and from what I have been told by consular officers, that the INS people here do not have the same intelligence background and resources available to them as our people overseas do. In fact, Mr. Lantos made it very clear that he wanted the real specialist to be able to look into these requests. And, of course, it is the Administration's position, I believe, to make sure that under 245(I), that people, who are here legally, do not have to return back to their home country.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    How many student visas do we issue?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I will have to get that exact number for you.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. A million? Two million?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I do not think it is that many, but——

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Five-hundred thousand? All right, you do not know. Let me ask you this: You think we should be concerned about students being given visas from Iran or Iraq or Communist China, who are going to be educated in schools and being trained how to do very technical things, like make atom bombs?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Absolutely.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, good. Do you think we have a policy now that permits that?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. We have checks certainly in place.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. You believe that right now, students from Communist China, from Iraq and Iran are not granted visas to participate in graduate studies that would permit them to obtain the skills necessary to build weapons? Let me suggest, sir, that you better study your——
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. No, there is a clearance procedure in place, it is called the Mantis Program, wherein there are certain disciplines and certain countries that submit student visa applications that are cleared through an interagency process.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, let me just suggest that I think that we have people from those countries, especially from Communist China, who are being trained in very technical scientific training in this country, that can be utilized, maybe it is not directly here on how to make a bomb, but it gives them all of the physics and everything necessary to go back to their home countries and produce weapons of mass destruction.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez?

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. As one of the Members sitting on the Select Committee that is going to determine the final draft of this, I have some serious concerns about what I have heard here today and how I read the legislation. So, let me try to pursue them with you.

    First of all, for the record, as a senior State Department official and representing Secretary Powell, are you telling the Committee affirmatively that the Department supports all of the reorganization as it relates to the State Department, as is outlined in the President's legislation?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Now, I read, on page 16 of the legislation, which is primarily the focus of what we have been talking about, section 403, the visa issuance, it says,

''Notwithstanding the provisions of section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other law, the Secretary''—

referring to the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security—

''shall have exclusive authority''—

and I am going to omit the next few words—

''. . . to issue regulations with respect to administer and enforce the provisions of that act and all other Immigration and Nationality laws relating to the functions of diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, in connection with the granting or refusal of visas, and the authority to confer or impose upon any officer or employee of the United States''—

which I read to mean, beyond the State Department, in any other department of the Federal Government—

''with the consent of that agency to serve in the functions and pursuit thereof.''

    Now, what that says to me is that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the exclusive authority to do all of these things, notwithstanding the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the State Department, in my mind, as I read this, becomes a functionary of the Secretary of Homeland Security, except for the one caveat where the Secretary of State can, assuming that there is no problem with the Secretary of Homeland Security, still deny someone a visa for other interests that the State Department has. Is that a fair statement? Is that your understanding of the legislation? A yes or no will suffice.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, it is my understanding of that legislation.

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay. Now, if that is the case, I listened to your response to Mr. Berman, that when you describe, well, what we are doing here, saying what criteria, what presumption, that the idea is different in terms of how we are going to approach the issuance of visas. How is it then, if this law is passed as is, assuming that the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgates new visa issuance guidelines, focusing mainly on homeland security, and maybe, in some respects, conditioning under the guise of security a whole host of stated provisions within the law as to what our immigration policy is, how do we continue to pursue our traditional foreign and domestic policy objectives, such as reunification of families, admission of those with much needed skills in this country—for example, computer engineers. Unfortunately, I hope we get to the day soon where every American is going to fill those jobs; but the reality is that the industry needs far beyond what we create—opportunities for cultural and educational exchange, facilitation of trade and tourism. We just spent enormous amounts of money in the airline industry to keep it alive. How is it, under those provisions, which traditionally have been under the Secretary of State, that if the new criteria, the new presumption that the idea is different, how do we preserve all of those particular goals?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Menendez, thank you, very much, for that question. Let me answer it in three ways. First of all, to go back to the previous answer I gave, you asked me to give a yes or no answer about whether that was my understanding. With a little bit more time here, I think you are using—you can use it if you want—the idea that somehow the Secretary is a functionary in this, and I think that understates his role, because he still is the hirer and the promoter and the trainer of all the people who are out there. So, I think it is more than a functionary's role. But, I do not disagree that the authority belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The second point is when you ask how are we going to do all the old things, if there is the new presumption and the new idea, I would answer your question by saying that nobody is saying that this new presumption of security after the 11th of September is the only thing that we are going to do, but that it now has to play an extremely important role in the decisions the Secretary for Homeland Security is going to make. And so, when you talk about cultural exchange, the reunification of families, businesses getting the right people to come and do our work, these are issues that, of course, will have to be dealt with; but it's necessary that the security and the law enforcement part of this become a bigger part of the pie, if you will.

    The only quibble I would have with you, sir, is that I would not say that these are new things and, therefore, the only things. They are new things which are additive to the challenges we already have as a country.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Grossman, in 2001, under the Visa Waiver Program, 17.1 million visitors entered the United States from 29 countries. In February, Argentina was removed from the list, leaving 28 approved countries. In addition, 44,500 stolen blank passports from the Visa Waiver Programs are unaccounted for; they are stolen. Earlier you responded that the presumption should change. Can you tell us what reforms are being contemplated? Are those reforms likely to be chilled, paralyzed, or go nowhere because of reorganization?

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    As you know, we went through reorganization a few years ago—and I was then a part of that as the Co-Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee—it seemed like some things got crowded out. I am wondering, since this far exceeds the seven million or so who go through the normal route, or whatever we want to call it, of having an interview, what is the deal here?

    Secondly, let me ask you: Based on your statement, there is about a 30 percent refusal rate. What percent of those refusals are later issued visas due to a reapplication?

    Finally, what criteria do consular officers use to grant visas without interviews? Even in a case where the applicant looks good on paper, wouldn't consular officers be in a far better position to evaluate whether the applicant presents a security risk if they had the opportunity to observe his or her demeanor and extemporaneous answers to the sorts of questions that would be asked in an interview?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. Let me see if I can answer all of those questions. First of all, on the Visa Waiver Program, certainly, since the 11th of September, this program has gotten more scrutiny. As you say, we have taken a country off of it. We have also sent teams out where we have concerns: Loose passports, for example, people, who don't look after their passports. So, I think people in the Consular Affairs Bureau and our Diplomatic Security Service are much more focused on the Visa Waiver Program.

    Second, obviously, I cannot speculate about the future, but for me, personally, I would think that the Visa Waiver Program would be among those things that the new Secretary of Homeland Security would look at first. And I would not say, Mr. Smith, that this was something that would be pushed aside in any reorganization, because, as you say, the numbers are high. And to be fair, there is a lot of interest in this Committee and in the Congress in the Visa Waiver Program, both pro and con. We get plenty of letters from people who want more countries to be put into VWPP, not less.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I would ask Mr. Lannon to talk on the issue of reapplication. But, let me talk on your fourth point, which is, you know, wouldn't it be better if we could interview everybody, and how is it that we make these decisions. In a perfect world, I think you would still try to strike a balance. You would have to do a risk assessment. A businessman from Britain or France or Italy or Brazil, who has been in and out of the country for a period of years, who works for an American company, who has got a 10-year visa, who is an investor in the United States, who has shown over time that he lives by our laws and he is the kind of person we want to have in the country. No, sir, I do not think that you would gain much, other than probably, you know, an interesting conversation, from talking to that person.

    The second point I would make is that which Assistant Secretary Lannon made earlier. The key thing here is information coming from our law enforcement agencies, from CIA, from FBI, and getting it to the person at the point of attack, at the person who has to make that decision. And as I said in my statement, it seems to me this is one of the biggest reasons for being in favor of the President's proposal, to bring all these things together.

    And, third, again, we have talked about this a couple of times during this hearing, if you actually tried to interview everybody, the enormity of it and the capacity, you would not meet your security goals, I do not believe, sir. You certainly would not meet other goals that people on this Committee, such as Mr. Menendez are interested in, in having people come to the United States.

    We have to have the best regulation, the best information, the best trained people and make sure they have the wherewithal to carry out their jobs.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LANNON. That 30 percent rate is the adjusted rate. That is not to say someone a year later could apply and get one; but, generally, that is the adjusted rate, where the person that came in initially was refused, was told to bring back something else, and then brought it and was subsequently issued. That represents the adjusted rate.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Davis?

    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I am a little concerned about how general your comments have been today on the recurring question about the integrity of the visa process, and, in fairness to you, I know this is a very tough issue. But, I think we need to resist the temptation to assume that just because we move this function to this new department, we have solved the problem, that we have thoroughly understood what the problem was and what the causes were, as distinguished from the symptoms. This issue about information sharing between the consular officers and the INS at the point of entry, as well as all of the agencies that contain this very sensitive information is too important not to get it right and it is unforgivable if we do not.

    Now, my impression from conversations with a number of people involved in this, including Mary Ryan, is that there are a couple of problems. One has been an attitudinal issue and as you have described, there has been a change in culture. And it has been my impression that after September 11th, that lookout list suddenly became a lot more lush.

    My concern is whether we need to institutionalize something to make sure attitudes do not lapse over time back to where they were. The second issue is a resource issue and that has to do with whether there is sufficient confidence in the security, the sanctity of the INS database, the people that have access to it—I know that is not your issue—and State, whether there is sufficient trust and confidence in that database and the people that have access to it among all the law enforcement and intelligence community, who jealously guards that information. And it seems to me, particularly at the INS, because this all runs together, there are some resource issues there about getting their information infrastructure in tact.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I just want to urge you to work with us on the function and the end result and the bottom line, and not just how we connect the boxes and where the line of authority and line of communication are. I would be interested in any comments you might have.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. I think all of that is advice well given. I think that I particularly agree with you and we certainly, Assistant Secretary Lannon and I, are not here to tell you that if you move the authority for the visa process from over here to over here, all problems are solved; definitely not. There is still a huge amount of work to do. I think the work that has been done since the 11th of September, as you say, has been good, but there is still a lot of work to do and a lot of culture to change.

    I guess I would say to you, secondly, Mr. Davis, which is to say that, to me anyway, if you want to continue to pursue this culture change, I say the way to do it is to create a Department of Homeland Security, because for the legislative branch, for the executive branch, people have to pay attention. It is not business as usual. This is the largest reorganization since World War II, and I think it is called for, I think it is right, and I think it will change attitudes. I hope it will, because, as you say, the culture has to change.

    Third, obviously, as you rightly say, we will not comment on the INS question. We are doing a huge amount to try to protect the security of our data, and not just the security of the data in the consular world, but the security of all of the data at the State Department. And I believe that, again, changes, certainly since Secretary Albright started us on this path, certainly since Secretary Powell, since the 11th of September, you will find a much tighter degree of control on all of the information at the State Department now, and I think that is a good thing. Is there more to do? Absolutely. But, I appreciate your raising this.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. DAVIS. Let me just close and this may be more of a subject for the Intelligence Committee. I think we need to understand how many names are added September 11 and why they had not been added sooner, because I think that tells us something about the magnitude of the problem. I am not suggesting it had anything to do with September 11th. I think that is clear. This is about prevention in the future. And I think that gives the cause and helps us enact a permanent change.

    I support the creation of the Department, Mr. Ambassador. That is not the hard part. The hard part is getting the function right. Thank you.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I agree with that, and we will be glad, either open or in a classified way, to try to get you the information you asked for.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach?

    Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a distinction between processes and policies. And it strikes me that you have got a pretty good balance on your homeland security bill and you have got, I think, the only credible basis for giving some authority to that State Department over the basic policies, although I would hope the Department would have some input as policies are made. But when one thinks it through, we are creating this large department and it presumably will have some people. It does not take that many people to come up with the policies. To implement the policies does, however. And you are now the implementing department and the Department of State, to my knowledge, has made no indication that given this greater degree of scrutiny that is being required by the American people, that you need another soul, individual, people.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And I think I would like to ask you to think that through and to make some recommendations to this Committee. This Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of State and its people and you are now being given substantially upgraded responsibility. And it is minor that there is a little bit of policy being transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. It really simply means for the President of the United States that is a non-people intensive effort. Implementation is a totally people intensive effort, and it is going to be a lot harder.

    The second thing on policy I would like to stress is that the Department of State's major issue, with regard to homeland security, is to have good policies. All of these processes to protect homeland security are fairly minor, if we have lousy policies.

    And so, I would only stress, from the brief experience we have all had in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror, that this is a pretty good time to assert American leadership; but American leadership is only going to be accepted if we put a lot of attention on the listening pretty attentively to the news of some other people. It is impressive how some other people have in their societies in place more assertive techniques at looking at individuals in their societies than we do, and that the number of helpful breaks that come from potential terrorists have largely come through processes implemented by other countries abroad, sometimes with the assistance of the United States. But, my impression, it is not trivially at their own initiative.

    I think if we are going to have a Homeland Security Department that works, we are going to have to have a Department of State that is upgraded, itself, both in a leadership and a listening function. I would like to hear from the Department of State on your advice, in this regard, and very substantively.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I mean, I am very impressed that some steps that have been taken by the Secretary in building up the Department of State. I am not impressed that they are as significant as they should be. And I think all of you are going to have to think this through, because, psychologically, it sounds like we are creating a Department of Homeland Security that takes responsibility from the Department of State and, therefore, State is left with lesser needs for upgraded people. And I think it is the reverse circumstance.

    Finally, I would just like to stress that you have got a difficult balance. Obviously, national security requires greater rigor to be applied to the visa review process. But at the same time, the national interest of the United States is and increasingly will be related to how people have an understanding of America. And, interestingly, the visa program for education, for example, is like an exchange program paid for by them. So, it is an economic benefit to the United States. It is, also, a cultural benefit to the United States, particularly with countries that cooperate with us on the war on terrorism. I think one has to be very concerned about not instituting blanket policies for all countries that really should be narrowed to other kinds of countries. And so, I would hope that the Department would weigh in on this issue, as carefully as it can.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.

    Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, so much, for holding this hearing on homeland security. I want to thank Ambassador Grossman for coming. And I want to make this statement, because I think everybody ought to understand the hardships that the Department of State has been laboring under, and I have firsthand experience.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I found the Consular Corps very well trained to identify those applicants that would present problems. There is no problem with what the Consular Corps puts them through. I have seen it. I am pleading for the applicant, in some cases, because she is the babysitter who wants to travel with the American family. So, they do their work well.

    The problem is having the resources to do the job and the follow up. It was just mentioned about function, and I think the function ought to stay with the people who are trained to do it. If the White House is going to make those decisions, I would hope that it would move State Department people, who are trained in the Consular Corps, into that new department. Just passing it through is not good enough. If they are not trained to recognize those aspects and those issues and false passports and papers and so on, like the Corps is, if they do not have some familiarity with the language and the culture and so on, they are going to miss a lot.

    Another point that has to be made, remember, is the terrorist had no records. They were trained to come and melt in with our society. These were not people—even if you traced them back, you would not be able to determine that they were going to be a threat to us.

    Now, we have seen what can happen. It is the follow up, when people are in this country, immigrants, visas and so on, where we need to have the resources to be able to check them out. There was a question asked, how many. Well, how would you know? I mean, you do not have the resources. I was always told that in the State Department, we cannot do it, because we do not have the budget, we do not have the resources.

 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    So, I think that it is incumbent upon the Department of State to recommend to the President that this new agency, department, have new resources, budget. The President said, it would be revenue neutral. It cannot be revenue neutral. You are going to have to have trained people in the right places. You are going to have to have a larger staff. They are going to have to follow up on people, who come and are on time-limited visas, to be sure that they are back in their countries or leaving this country in time.

    So, I want to say just in closing that we need the State Department and its functionaries need to clarify—and we are all frustrated, because we do not know the fine details. We need to have it clarified to us, how all of this is going to be worked out or how it is going to be housed and who will do the work. And we need to, along with it, have a well-defined budget, to be able to do these functions. And so, I would appreciate Ambassador, that you come up with these recommendations to the Secretary of State, who then can take it back to the White House. Thank you, so much, and good luck. I do not envy your position.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey has come up with two additional questions.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. So with great pleasure, I yield to the gentleman.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I just say to our distinguished witnesses, as you know, the December 2001 Office of Inspector General's report on the Visa Waiver Program found that the INS inspectors were not consistently clearing passport numbers against the lookout system. You know the FBI's list of the most wanted people. Can you assure us today that all of these individuals' names and known aliases are in the computer lookout list, so that we do not give them a visa if one or more of them has applied somewhere around the globe?
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Secondly, and this is very important, because it is very timely, when Jiang Jamin, a high Chinese official, visited Iceland, there was a very concerted effort made to preclude Americans, who happened to be Falun Gong practitioners, from traveling to Iceland. Our citizens were being very negatively impacted. I wrote to the officials in Iceland protesting it. A couple of days later—and I am sure you protested as well—they changed it. But, meanwhile, many people did not get their opportunity to have their voices heard.

    We also know that here, in this country, there have been threats against Falun Gong practitioners. And this is part of homeland security, I would think. You know, it is not just who comes in, but who is actually here from the Chinese government, fomenting and making these threats against American citizens who are Falun Gong. But what are we doing about that? And, again, this list here, does the lookout system have them adequately factored into our system?

    Mr. LANNON. This is the FBI list——

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes, the FBI list.

    Mr. LANNON. Yes, those names were put into the lookout system, our lookout system. We did it ourselves.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And their aliases, as well?

    Mr. LANNON. Excuse me?

 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And their aliases, as well?

    Mr. LANNON. Alias, everything. All the information we had and information that is gleaned, as we get it, is put into the lookout system.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that. Mr. Grossman?

    Mr. GROSSMAN. As you say on Falun Gong, we followed this issue closely. We went right to the Icelandic government. We also went to the Icelandic airlines, since they were complacent in this as well. We also, through our Embassy in Reykjavik, did our very best to make sure that our citizens, who were detained there for a short amount of time, knew that we were with them. But I take your point, and it is a very, very important one.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And perhaps you could check into the threats that are being made against Americans of Chinese extraction who are Falun Gong.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I would be glad to.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. It is outrageous.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. I would be glad to.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman?
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I guess coming within this Committee's jurisdiction the biggest effect is a change in the responsibility for who would issue visas. I have, in the last 6 years on this Committee, been more than a little bit critical. We have horrendous delays in issuing of visas. No real success in keeping out those who have killed thousands of Americans. And I have been dealt with more than a little absence of courtesy, whenever I have asked those out in a field to look at a particular case, including one of our consul generals, who called me at 4 o'clock in the morning and then said he did not know there was a difference in time zones. And so, I, at least, cannot see any reason why transferring this responsibility to a new agency would not be an outstanding idea.

    Perhaps, I could ask Mr. Lannon to comment on the delays that we have had in—or what is the level of delay, if somebody comes in, who married an American, say, in the Dominican Republic or the Philippines, how long would it take, in the absence of any security concern, for that person to be given a visa and be able to continue their married life here in the United States? And I realize my criticisms all relate to a prior Administration. I have no criticisms that are now applicable, that I brought to your attention.

    Mr. LANNON. When we get the case, basically, we will schedule an appointment within 30 days. I think where the jam up on the process tends to be with the filing of the petition. And most petitions have to be filed in the United States, so they have to work their way through the INS and then they go to our facility in Portsmouth, where there is a couple of weeks processing there. But, by and large, once we get the case, it is 30 days from the time we actually receive it at post, where we will process it through. That is the American citizen. Also——
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So, if I had a situation where a married couple of no challenge to legitimacy of the marriage, no challenge to the national security, had to live, just because people were too tired to follow the paperwork, for 3 years separate lives, married, with a child, so there is not a lot of doubt as to the legitimacy of the marriage, that would be an unusual case? Because, at the time, I was told, gee, Congressman, why are you calling us; it is pretty difficult.

    Mr. LANNON. For an American citizen or is this a——

    Mr. SHERMAN. No, obviously, American citizens do not need visas to come to this country.

    Mr. LANNON. No, no, I am saying——

    Mr. SHERMAN. For the spouse of an American citizen.

    Mr. LANNON. Spouse of an American citizen. I think 3 years would be very unusual. But, I will add that there were problems that last year, it was at the end of 2000, when Congress passed the law of the K–3 visa, which was to deal with this, because of the backlogs and processing, to allow these people to come to the United States and wait their time in the United States.

    Mr. SHERMAN. If we had a situation where the average wait in the Philippines was 2 years, the average wait in London was 2 weeks, would you transfer personnel, so as to even out the weight, or would you decide that those who married English citizens, should wait only 2 weeks and those who married Filipinos, should wait 2 years?
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LANNON. No, we would move people to deal with the problem. We want to get this done within 30 days, so we would put people out there.

    Mr. SHERMAN. Now, the next issue relates to the economic concerns. I want to assume that your officers have no reason to be concerned about the national security threat and that their only concern is that somebody will not return to their job in India or Guatemala or whatever. So, it is purely an economic situation. Now, if a person had a really good job, you would issue them a visa. But, what is your stand on accepting a performance bond, so that you are given an economic assurance that the person will return?

    Mr. LANNON. Well, the bond itself does not overcome the presumption of 214(b). So, generally, a bond cannot be accepted in lieu of 214(b), the idea that the person will not return.

    Mr. SHERMAN. Shouldn't we have a situation where a bond would play a role in making the 214(b) decision? After all, I mean, you can point to that statute, as if it is a real standard. It is really just whatever the whim of the consular officer is, or the guess.

    Mr. LANNON. Well, it could play a role, but it does not necessarily have to play a role.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, it has.

    Chairman HYDE. I want to thank our witnesses for their excellent testimony. We are at the opening chapter of a long tale, I am sure. But, we are getting started in the right direction. I appreciate your cooperation.

    Mr. GROSSMAN. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity.

    Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]


Next Hearing Segment(2)