Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
MARKUP OF H.R. 5005, THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 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.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the sections of the bill H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, referred to this Committee under House Rule X for purposes of markup and move their submission to the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
[The bill, H.R. 5005, follows:]
80431a.AAB
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.AAC
80431a.AAD
80431a.AAE
80431a.AAF
80431a.AAG
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.AAH
80431a.AAI
80431a.AAJ
80431a.AAK
80431a.AAL
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.AAM
80431a.AAN
80431a.AAO
80431a.AAP
80431a.AAQ
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.AAR
80431a.AAS
80431a.AAT
80431a.AAU
80431a.AAV
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.AAW
80431a.AAX
80431a.AAY
80431a.AAZ
80431a.ABA
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ABB
80431a.ABC
80431a.ABD
80431a.ABE
80431a.ABF
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ABG
80431a.ABH
80431a.ABI
80431a.ABJ
80431a.ABK
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ABL
80431a.ABM
80431a.ABN
80431a.ABO
80431a.ABP
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ABQ
80431a.ABR
80431a.ABS
80431a.ABT
80431a.ABU
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ABV
80431a.ABW
80431a.ABX
80431a.ABY
80431a.ABZ
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431a.ADA
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the sections will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of presenting a statement.
On June 6th of this year, President Bush proposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security to bring together vital preparedness, law enforcement and emergency response functions that are currently scattered among numerous departments and agencies of the Federal Government. On June 18, Majority Leader Armey introduced the President's homeland security proposal as H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Today's markup is an important step in bringing this urgent project to fruition. Today the Committee on International Relations will markup the provisions of the Homeland Security Act that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. We will then submit our recommendations on these provisions to the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
The most important provision of the Homeland Security Act that falls within the Committee's jurisdiction is section 403, which would transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security all responsibility for enforcing and administering the laws relating to processing of visa petitions at United States diplomatic and consular posts abroad. Those responsibilities are currently vested in employees of the State Department, including the Secretary of State and consular officers who are members of the Foreign Service. Section 403 provides that the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be exercised through the Secretary of State. Section 403 further provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate some or all responsibility for visa processing to any officers and employees of the Federal Government.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I strongly support this provision of the President's homeland security plan, and today, Mr. Lantos and I will offer an amendment to clarify and reinforce the provision. Our amendment will address concerns expressed by some who believe the President's proposal does not go far enough. These critics have suggested not only giving the Secretary of Homeland Security exclusive authority over the visa process, but also requiring Homeland Security personnel to do the actual adjudication of all visa applications at all of our embassies and consulates—over 12 million applications per year.
In my view, this proposal is well intentioned but ultimately self-defeating. It would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy, and would cause enormous practical difficulties in our embassies and consulates abroad. Even more important, it would risk overwhelming Homeland Security personnel with non-Homeland Security functions, and thereby making it difficult or impossible for them to perform their central mission.
Our amendment will provide for a compromise on the issue of visa adjudication by Homeland Security employees. The amendment will explicitly authorize the assignment of Homeland Security employees in U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad. Rather than assume all visa processing functions; however, these employees will concentrate on identifying and reviewing cases that present homeland security issues.
Under our amendment, Homeland Security officers at U.S. Embassies and other overseas posts would train consular officers, ensure their access to appropriate information, coordinate the gathering and analysis of intelligence-related information on threats to homeland security, and review individual visa petitions that present homeland security issues. This arrangement will preserve the essence of the Administration's proposal; the sensible division of labor under which Homeland Security officers will be allowed to concentrate on Homeland Security functions, while helping to ensure that security concerns will be central to key decisions made abroad.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our amendment will also address a possible unintended consequence of the present language in the bill whereby certain visa decisions may be subject to administrative and judicial review, which they are not subject to under current law. With over 3 million visa applications denied each year, this change would have enormous implications for our judicial system as well as for the security of our borders. By transferring to the Secretary of Homeland Security exactly these authorities currently vested in the Secretary of State, and by explicitly providing that no private rights of action are created, our amendment will ensure that denials of visa petitions in our overseas posts will continue to be non-reviewable.
Finally, our amendment would provide that the Secretary of State may deny any visa application which the Secretary has reason to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy or security consequences for the United States. This language would be substituted for a broader authority in the introduced version of H.R. 5005, which states that the Secretary of State may deny a visa if he deems it ''necessary or advisable in the national interests of the United States.'' We felt ''national interests'' was too broad.
We will also offer an amendment which addresses section 302, regarding the transfer of certain programs from the Department of Energy. The amendment will strike a clause relating to certain assistance programs designed to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation abroad. Under this section, certain parts of the Department of Energy, including the Nuclear Assessment Program which, among other things, is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling incidents, would be moved to the new Homeland Security Agency.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition, section 302 includes a clause which would transfer to Homeland Security certain assistance programs to the former Soviet Union relating to protecting nuclear materials there, which are currently part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Administration representatives have told this Committee that this language is no longer necessary because the final decision has been made to not transfer those programs. Therefore, the amendment will make the correction so that the assistance programs are not transferred.
We intend to offer these amendments to section 302 and 403 en bloc. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support the President's proposal for overseas visa processing as perfected by the amendment Mr. Lantos and I will offer.
By retaining a role for consular officers in adjudicating the millions of applications presenting no security-related issues, the President's plan will allow Homeland Security officers to perform their Homeland Security mission. By authorizing the presence of Homeland Security officers in our overseas posts to identify and deal with homeland security issues, our amendment will ensure that the President's plan works as intended.
I now recognize, with great pleasure, the Ranking Democratic Member on the Committee, Representative Tom Lantos, for any opening statement he may wish to make.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first commend you for scheduling today's markup on the Administration's plan to create a Department of Homeland Security.
Congress is moving expeditiously to address this wide-ranging proposal creating a huge new department that consolidates dozens of governmental functions. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend you on the remarkably bipartisan approach with which you and your staff have approached this critically important project.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the aftermath of September 11th, our Committee had the responsibility of ensuring that the President received all of the powers he needed to conduct the war against global terrorism. And today we will again demonstrate to the world that the Congress and the President stand shoulder to shoulder in the war on terrorism. I do not believe there is a Committee of Congress in either House which has displayed the degree of bipartisanship that, under your leadership, our Committee has.
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 the millions of foreigners who visit our country each year.
There are about 10 million nonimmigrant visa applicants, and 600,000 immigrant visas processed annually. It is difficult to understand how some in Congress believe that an entirely new visa bureaucracy could be created in the Homeland Security Department without a substantial reduction in our national security.
If I may digress for a moment. The morning newspapers are filled with the outrageous story of a bribery scheme at a facility in Qatar in issuing visas. Apparently an employee was selling visas at $10,000 apiece. I hope that the full weight of our laws will be brought down upon him and he will be punished with the severity that this horrendous crime merits. But I think it is very naive to assume that transferring the function from the Department of State to the newly established department can eliminate all such potential future outrages.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of State has some of our government's finest civil servants, trained in over 60 languages, with decades of experience in dealing with foreign cultures. Their continuation in the foreign service is predicated on carrying out their responsibilities successfully. If they don't, they don't get promoted and will be forced out of government service all together.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe that the current system can be improved, particularly through providing additional resources for the Department of State to allow more detailed interviews of visa applicants. But I do not believe that we need any fundamental changes in the structure of adjudicating the issuance of visas from the one that currently exists.
The President and the Secretary of State have agreed that the policy functions relating to visas needs to be centralized in the new Department of Homeland Security. I support the Administration's proposal, although it needs considerable clarification. We will be offering, you and I, Mr. Chairman, an amendment which will clarify and refine the Administration's proposals.
I obviously strongly support our joint amendment and I ask all of my colleagues to do so. Our amendment will include a proposal to authorize the new Secretary of Homeland Security to assign employees of the new department abroad to address particular security concerns relating to visas, and to coordinate more effectively the intelligence gathered abroad so that it gets to the right agency and officials without delay.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wise compromise, particularly given the fact that there are those who want to go much further than the President, including proposals in our body to move the entire visa function to the new department.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the thoughtful compromise embodied in the Hyde-Lantos amendment, and I want to thank you for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of our Committee.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. The Judiciary Committee is marking up this same bill at 10. We have nine Members of this Committee who also serve on Judiciary. So with the indulgence of the Committee, we will eschew opening statements and move right along.
I have two amendments at the desk. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc and be considered as read. All Members have copies of the amendments in front of them. Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc and considered as read.
In my opening statement, Mr. Lantos and I have described these two amendments. The first amendment is to section 302 relating to nonproliferation matters.
The amendment to section 403 relates to organizational changes regarding visa issuance. I believe these are appropriate amendments, and my understanding is the White House supports the inclusion of these amendments in our recommendation to the Select Committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
80431b.AAB
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431c.AAB
80431c.AAC
80431c.AAD
80431c.AAE
80431c.AAF
Chairman HYDE. And so I ask Mr. Lantos if he has any remarks he wishes to make on the amendments. Mr. Lantos.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to commend you for your leadership on this issue. My understanding is that your staff, my staff, and the White House will continue working on some technical details of the proposal, but I fully support your recommendation and I urge all of our colleagues to do so on a bipartisan basis.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Are there any amendments to the amendment? I go to Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment to H.R. 5005 offered by Mr. Paul. At the end of section 403(b)——
[The information referred to follows:]
80431d.AAB
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
80431d.AAC
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment——
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, is this an amendment to your amendment?
Chairman HYDE. Yes. An amendment to the amendment. Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you. Originally I had an amendment that would have called for a blanket visa denial of student visas and diversity visas to citizens of those countries designated as promoting state-sponsored terrorism or a country designated as not fully cooperating with the U.S. antiterrorism effort.
I think this is very important because it would deal with the precise problem of individuals who come into this country. Unfortunately, it was not to be made so that I could offer and get accepted a blanket visa denial.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is exactly what we did in World War II. We didn't have German citizens coming in and we didn't have Japanese citizens coming in. We targeted the individuals that were so important. But, nevertheless, we have been able to, with the help of staff, rewrite this amendment to at least make a strong point along the way.
Instead of the blanket denial of visas, we are going to require that a specific process for more scrutiny of each individual coming from these countries be carried out by the Secretary of State. And I think this will serve to protect us to a larger degree. It will not solve all of the problems, obviously. But, the main reason why I am doing this is that I do think that we are dealing with probably the most important part of the reform coming about since 9/11. It is dealing with the individuals that cause the crimes and the terrorism.
When I look at a lot of the things that we have done since 9/11, it concerns me a whole lot because so much of that has been directed toward the privacy and the civil liberties of many Americans. The whole idea of searching and monitoring children and grandmothers and pilots makes so little sense compared to this.
So I think it is the dangerous immigration that is key to making our country more safe and more secure. I understand this will be accepted, and I appreciate that very much. And it will make the point. It will help. But, quite frankly, I think we should just deny visas to these countries until we get a better understanding of what is going on. And I think that is really the essence of the amendment. I don't have a whole lot more to add to that, and I hope that it will be accepted.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The Chair is pleased to tell the gentleman from Texas that our staff and Mr. Lantos's staff have reviewed and worked with your staff, and we are prepared to accept the amendment. Unless there are further discussions—Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that I think the amendment as drafted would allow this, but I just wanted to clarify. Should a person seek refugee status for fear of persecution from the government of a country that is on the terrorists list? As I understand it, this amendment, if accepted, will require review by the Secretary, but it would allow a situation where that person could end up being granted refugee status after the special review imposed by this requirement; is that correct?
Mr. PAUL. That is my understanding. That would be the purpose of the review. Otherwise, it would be a blanket prohibition.
Chairman HYDE. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment to the amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. PAUL. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I did have another amendment, but I understand that it would be ruled out of order. But if I may be permitted, I would like to just mention it, because I think it too is very, very important. And it emphasizes a point that we have been in denial of—and that is dealing with Saudi Arabia. I know it is not politically correct to do anything or mention Saudi Arabia for various reasons, which I won't get into right now.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, I think there is a very specific reason that we do not. But just think about it—among the terrorists—15 out of 19! Currently people with Saudi passports can get into this country pretty easily.
Now, my amendment really wasn't that harsh. It didn't deny passports and entry to Saudis. It was only a sense of Congress resolution that Saudi Arabia be designated not fully cooperating. Now, that is an excellent category, and it is one that I am attracted to because it makes a point that a country should be watched, but it isn't that onerous. It doesn't impose boycotts, it doesn't impose embargoes, it is not nearly like designating a nation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
But, it does mean that we wouldn't sell weapons to that particular country. It would make the point that we don't think that they are cooperating enough. There is pretty good evidence for this. Of course, the large number that had passports who committed the terrorism, most of the ones, or many of the ones in Camp X-Ray right now have Saudi passports.
The regime, we do know, did establish and funded some of the terrorist schools. We also know that most likely the funding for the terrorists came through the Saudis. And yet, we don't want to deal with that.
And I think we are missing something there. I am disappointed that we couldn't just have a sense of Congress resolution to say that we should watch Saudi Arabia more carefully, because I think this would have helped. This to me is very minimal. I would have hoped that a resolution could have passed. And some day I think we will be forced into this decision.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When you think of the serious complications of our foreign policy by putting an air base in Saudi Arabia—for instance, I mean, why just stick our thumbs in their eyes and further alienate individuals that may not want to be alienated? And my purpose was to make that point, that we certainly can have friendly relationships, and that is what my goal is. That is why I like this category, because it doesn't close the door. It doesn't close off trade, because I am in favor of that.
It also distracts from the intense interest in putting more regulations on the American people. I want to watch for the bad guys. I don't want more regulations and violations of civil liberties here at home. I want to watch those individuals. And I think Saudi Arabia deserves more attention. I hope in the future that we can pay more attention. I will look for the opportunity to bring this up once again. And I yield back to the Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. I want to point out that Mr. Paul is not offering this amendment, so if we could abbreviate the discussion, that would help us move along.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will respect your request to conclude this session. So I will just speak for a moment. Several of the things that my friend from Texas said I fully concur with. And I merely need to advise him that the definition of what is politically correct is changing daily.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Several of us have very severe concerns about the failure of Saudi Arabia to cooperate with us in our policy in the region. We have made our objections clear along many lines.
Our Subcommittee dealing with this region held a hearing on Saudi Arabia, during the course of which harsh criticism of Saudi Arabia was presented by several Members of our Committee.
So I think that the gentleman is onto something significant. Saudi Arabia would not exist today had we not sent a half a million American troops into the region. The House of Saud would be a villa on the French Riviera. And I think it is important to realize that some of us are outraged at a country where half of its citizens, its women, are denied the most fundamental human rights.
So political correctness has changed, as I am sure my friend from Texas understands. And speaking for this side of the aisle, we will be very happy to look at amendments and resolutions involving Saudi Arabia. This has been a one-way relationship for too long. It is an outrage that the most modern, up-to-date military facility in the region apparently would not be made available for our use in case hostilities were to arise in that region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to inquire as to a portion of the amendment dealing with section 302. In the Committee analysis, it mentions that this section pertains to a proposal to move from the Department of Energy a nuclear assessment program which, among other things, is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling incidents, to the new Homeland Security agency, along with portions of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
I understand from the analysis the Administration has decided to no longer move these programs to the new department, and that the amendment follows through on that decision not to transfer the program.
The question I have is, why has the decision been made not to transfer those programs? It seems, on first blush, that nuclear bomb threats, extortion plots, and nuclear smuggling incidents are a quintessential part of the homeland defense mission. I wonder if I could inquire of the Chair what the policy rationale was for not transferring those to the new agency?
Chairman HYDE. I am informed that the language that was available was overbroad and ambiguous and generally unsatisfactory. So that was one reason why the change was made, but the intent was to transfer research programs, but not on-the-ground activities.
In any event, it is very complicated. There were good and sufficient reasons. But the most readily available was that the language was inappropriate. The idea will still be worked on.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SCHIFF. I don't know if there is anyone present from the Administration who may be able to delineate what aspects of the nuclear threat would be under the roof of the new agency and what aspects would remain under DOE.
Mr. BERMAN. Is there anyone from the Administration here?
Chairman HYDE. Everything is being transferred except foreign assistance programs. Foreign assistance programs are not being transferred. Everything else is.
Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the Nunn-Lugar programs will not be transferred? And I think appropriately so.
Chairman HYDE. That is right.
Mr. BERMAN. But the issues raised by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, regarding smuggling into this country—what was that list you read initially?
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time. The Committee analysis says the Nuclear Assessment Program, which among other things is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling incidents, would be moved to the new agency.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Nunn-Lugar is separately identified in the analysis as something else that would be moved. But the Administration has now decided, according to this analysis, to move neither of those programs.
Chairman HYDE. That is correct.
Mr. SCHIFF. The analysis seems to indicate it is broader than foreign assistance, unless I don't understand what foreign assistance encompasses. If we are moving the assessment of nuclear bomb assessments, extortion plots and nuclear smuggling incidents out of the new Homeland Security Agency, it seems like we are leaving a fairly gaping hole in what that agency would do.
Chairman HYDE. The intention of the Administration, I am informed, is to move research programs to the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of information, Mr. Chairman. Is the Administration not aware that we are marking this bill up today?
Chairman HYDE. I am not sure what the Administration is aware of. I don't get daily communiques as to the scope of their knowledge. Are you being critical that there is no one here? Maybe they just don't choose to identify themselves.
Mr. ACKERMAN. That is very understandable, Mr. Chairman. But it would be helpful to this Committee to know that first they were invited; and second, that they are in attendance or that they have refused to attend, because the gentleman from California asks very important questions to which this Committee is entitled to learn the Administration's point of view as to why this is being done in a major reshuffling of our government.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Well, as a practice in this Committee, at least under this Chairman, we don't take people from the audience and ask them questions without laying a very strong foundation. I would say that we never do it.
The Administration is transferring research programs and not anything else.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that our joint staffs contact the Administration at the conclusion of this hearing and we obtain the necessary information and distribute it in writing to all Members of the Committee before the close of business today?
Chairman HYDE. You are seeking an explanation as to what the Administration wants to do?
Mr. LANTOS. Exactly. And its reasons for doing that.
Chairman HYDE. We will try to get that as quickly as we can and have it reduced to writing.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Any further discussion?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Berkley of Nevada.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But my comments have already been made by others.
Chairman HYDE. Not half as well, I might add. All right.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I just want to express the fact that I share Mr. Schiff's concerns. It is not under the jurisdiction of this Committee, but in my other Committee, the Commerce Committee, I am going to be introducing an amendment. I think that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should be under the umbrella of the new Homeland Security.
I am very concerned about security at nuclear power plants, particularly a power plant in New York not far from the New York metropolitan region. I think when we are talking about nuclear security, it does not make sense to have part of it under Homeland Security and part of it left out. I think it all ought to be taken as one.
So I just wanted to identify with Mr. Schiff's concerns and say that I hope we revisit it. And when the package is ultimately out there for voting, I hope that there will be more of a consistency than there is now.
Chairman HYDE. I might comment that I agree with the gentleman. I think it is a very reasonable request. And we will get that information.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Are there any further amendments to the Hyde-Lantos amendments en bloc? If not, the question occurs on the amendments en bloc, as amended by the Paul amendment.
All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendments are agreed to. The question occurs on the motion to submit the recommendations of the Committee on H.R. 5005 favorably to the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion to submit the recommendations of the Committee to the Select Committee is adopted.
Without objection staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. The Committee stands adjourned with the thanks of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
JUNE 26, 2002
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the implications of legislation we will be considering shortly that is vital to our national security. I would like to thank Under Secretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary Lannon for coming before this Committee to provide testimony and answer questions as to how the new Homeland Security Department will impact security with respect to our embassies and consulates overseas.
Under Secretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary Lannon, the directions you give and the many staff that work for you in our embassies throughout the world are the first line of defense in the War on Terrorism. The prevention of future attacks on our nation may hinge on the success of the State Department in denying visas to potential terrorists who wish to destroy our country.
While those who serve America abroad at our embassies are first in the line of defense, they are also many times the most susceptible to attack, as we saw even before September 11th through the 1998 bombings that occurred at our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I was the prime author of PL 106–113, the Embassy Security Act. Signed into law in 1999, this legislation helped strengthen security requirements at our embassies. The new Department of Homeland Security is designed to protect Americans in the 50 states and US territories, but can it also help ensure greater protection for Americans at our embassies?
This Congress has already passed legislation to strengthen our immigration system by mandating the creation of an entry-exit system that will require the implementation of technology upgrades, the sharing of information between agencies through a common database, and the bio-metric screening of visas. While full implementation of these measures will take time, we must make absolutely certain we do everything possible to root out terrorist threats attempting to enter our nation today.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I was pleased with the Attorney General's announcement earlier this month requiring the rigorous registration and fingerprinting of nationals entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya. Some have said immigration and travel should be cut off completely from nations that pose serious threats to our national security. We must remember nationals from these nations may be fleeing persecution and seek refuge in our nation and I believe that people from any nation should be given the opportunity to enter our nation after thorough, careful screening.
I am afraid, however, that the Attorney General's announcement did not go far enough. While the governments of Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya are vehicles for terror themselves and may have many terrorists residing within their borders, nation's which are our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have extremist factions within their borders who are eager to inflict great harm on the United States. We all know that the majority of the September 11th terrorists were not from Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran, but rather Saudi Arabia.
Undersecretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary Lannon, I know that our embassies are inundated with millions of visa requests each year and that programs such as Visa Waiver Programs and Visa Express are designed to help facilitate what might otherwise be an insurmountable work. However, our national security must come first and foremost and should be considered above all else. I have grave concerns that these programs, as currently carried out through US consulates, offer tremendous loopholes for those who wish to harm our nation to enter it.
I hope testimony is presented here today as to how the Department of State, in conjunction with the newly forming Department of Homeland Security, will work to close these loopholes as quickly as possible. I also hope the CIA, FBI and INS are and will continue to get crucial information concerning potential threats to officials at our embassies. The safety and well-being of the American people depends on it.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD, AS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS TO UNDER SECRETARY MARC GROSSMAN DURING THE HEARING, TOGETHER WITH ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Question:
Out of 7.5 million visas granted, how many people overstay?
Answer:
We refer you to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for further information on this issue. Under Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General and Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service are responsible for issues dealing with aliens who arrive at and enter the United States.
Question:
Please check into these threats that are being made against Americans who are Falun Gong of Chinese extraction.
Answer:
The State Department takes seriously any allegation that foreign diplomats are abusing their status in the United States. Falun Gong representatives have been in contact with us regarding their allegations, and we have urged them to file charges with local police following any incidents of alleged harassment. We have facilitated their direct contact with appropriate officials at the Civil Rights divisions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The State Department is not aware of any case where Chinese diplomatic or consular personnel have been detected conducting activities incompatible with their diplomatic status. The United States Government will take strong measures if concrete evidence emerges of official misconduct by Chinese diplomats.
Question:
How many visas are denied annually based on security concerns?
Answer:
Under Section 212 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), consular officers decide to refuse visas on several ground related to security concerns, including suspicion of terrorism, sabotage, espionage, technology transfer, other criminal activity, attempted violent overthrow of the United States government, Nazi war crimes, and genocide. The law requires a report only on denials based on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity. Every three months, the Consular Affairs Bureau submits a report to Congress of the number of visas refused for terrorist reasons. The most recent report we submitted to Congress for the period March, 2001 through February, 2002 shows that sixty-six (66) individuals had been refused visas because of terrorist activities.
Question:
How much would it cost to move the consular function from the DOS to the HST?
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Answer:
The FY 2002 DOS budget estimate for the consular function is $573.58 million. This pays for all consular activities: visa services, passport services as well as American Citizen Services. This funding covers the cost of operations and salaries of all domestic and overseas staff (including Foreign Service Nationals). Included within this budget estimate is $284.488 million for overseas visa services.
We do not have an estimate of the one-time cost to move the visa function out of the State Department. An estimate of this cost could not be developed without considering these factors:
Consular activities are integrated within the Department's worldwide operations, infrastructure, and management systems at more than 220 visa issuing posts in more than 160 different countries, 16 passport facilities domestically, and within the Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Consular activities include:
— responding to non-immigrant visa requests from foreign tourists, students, business people, investors and government officials;
— responding to immigrant visa demands in accordance with U.S. immigration laws;
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
— providing routine and emergency assistance overseas to American citizens in distress;
— keeping American travelers and the U.S. travel industry aware of dangerous situations abroad through Consular Information Sheets, Travel Warnings, and tips to travelers;
— adjudicating passport applications for the millions of U.S. citizens wanting to travel abroad; and
— the Border Security Program—with major initiatives to strengthen U.S. border security through improvements in consular systems and programs through information, infrastructure, connectivity, human resources and document integrity.
Question:
How are dual-nationals naturalized in a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country treated by VWP?
Answer:
Any dual national who has been naturalized in a VWP country and travels to the United States on his or her VWP-country passport is treated the same way as native-born citizens of a VWP country.
Question:
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
How are people who enter on the VWP screened?
Answer:
Most nationals of countries under the visa waiver program (VWP) do not apply for visas at Embassies or consulates abroad and are therefore not screened by U.S. consular officers. INS Inspectors admit passport holders from VWP countries; we refer you to the INS for specific questions on their screening procedures.
Not all nationals of VWP countries are eligible to travel to the U.S. without a visa. For example, if they have previously been refused visas, have criminal convictions, have previously been deported, or have ever been members of a terrorist organization, they may not travel under VWP. These residents of visa waiver countries must apply for visas at our consular sections abroad. These applicants are screened by U.S. consular officers, who make determinations on their applications following the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Question:
Why didn't Mary Ryan mention the program formerly known as ''Visa Express'' during her testimony October 17, 2001?
Answer:
Assistant Secretary Ryan was asked to testify on visa security and technology. The program formerly known as ''Visa Express'' was simply a visa application tool—a means to deliver documents to the Embassy—and had no bearing on visa adjudication or security.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At many posts, travel agencies and other third parties distribute visa application forms and submit to the Embassy completed applications on behalf of their customers, with supporting documents for subsequent screening by U.S. consular officers. Internal security concerns raised by long lines of visa applicants were one important factor considered when these application programs were established. This program acts as an important security measure by regulating the number of applicants on the Embassy compound.
Third parties, whether they are travel agents, courier services, or a national postal service, have no roles whatsoever in the visa process beyond delivering the application materials. The decision on whether to issue or refuse a visa is always made by American consular officers.
Question:
How many student visa are issued annually?
Answer:
The Department issued 319,518 Academic Student (F) visas and 5,657 Vocational Student (M) visas in FY 2001, including visas issued to students' spouses and children. In FY 2000, the Department issued 308,044 Academic Student (F) visas and 6,564 Vocational Student (M) visas.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Material Submitted for the Markup Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
JULY 10, 2002
Mr. Chairman, after the shock and the horror of September 11th, I resolved to myself that I would do everything in my power as a Member of Congress, and as a Member of this Committee, to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The Department of Homeland Security legislation we are considering today represents our best and most significant opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. I commend the President for recognizing that only a wholesale reorganization of our government can prevent a return to the tunnel vision, red tape, and petty turf battles that created the weaknesses Al Qaeda exploited to such deadly effect.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you as well for your strong leadership on this and other important issues, and lend my strong support for your Amendment to this bill, which will build upon and enhance the President's legislative proposal.
As all of us know, the central purpose of the President's proposal is break down the barriers that prevented agencies from coordinating and sharing their antiterrorism efforts by centralizing the many different agencies responsible for protecting our nation from people like Osama Bin Laden. However, we must tread carefully. If we act hastily or sloppily, the Department of Homeland Security, which will become our third largest federal agency and employ an estimated 170,000 federal workers, could fall victim to the same problems experienced in other bureaucracies, where too many times tasks overlap and inefficiency runs rampant.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Take the issue of visas, for example. Obviously it will be helpful if people from the Department of Homeland Security could assist the State Department in detecting potential threats when they process visas. But if we're not careful, the Department of Homeland Security could wind up with the responsibility of actually processing 10 million visas a year. They are not equipped or trained to perform that enormous task. And if the Department of Homeland Security tries to take that responsibility on, they will fail, and terrorists will slip through the system.
The Hyde amendment will help protect against this by ensuring that Americans working for the Department of State, and serving at US consulates abroad, work side-by-side with the Department of Homeland Security officials monitoring the visa process. Under the Chairman's amendment, both agencies can work together and share information while still performing their unique and distinct roles.
The overwhelming majority of the 10 million visa applicants do not pose a security threat to our nation. In a very real way, our mission is to find the needle in the haystack. If Homeland Security personnel had to oversee and review each and every one of these applications, it would take energy and focus away from the most pressing security risks. The Hyde Amendment will help protect against this potential problem by ensuring that the State Department maintains a large degree of autonomy to continue to handle the visa screening process, while giving Homeland Security personal the ability to intervene and act when necessary.
Homeland Security officials will still be able to examine visas when they choose to, provide vital intelligence information to State Department personnel when needed, and concentrate their efforts and presence in countries where Al Qaeda operatives are active.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Homeland Security Bill will establish a solid framework for the men and women who protect America in a variety of capacities to serve to their fullest potential. With the Hyde Amendment, this committee can leave a solid mark on this historic legislation. Again, I commend the Chairman for his leadership on this legislation and am hopeful of its swift passage.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
JULY 10, 2002
Mr. Chairman, today we are marking-up what I consider to be a critical piece of legislation. In particular, I believe that H.R. 5005, The Homeland Security Act of 2002, will provide an important and critical comprehensive response to the attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001.
Without a doubt, I believe that we need to reform and modify all of our government agencies to reflect the new demands of our national security. In this sense, I could not agree with the President more that we need a fundamental reorganization of the government to address the needs of Homeland Security.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do have some reservations about the way the President has addressed the visa issuance process with respect to Homeland Security. Today, while I am supporting your amendment, I do believe that I need to flesh out where I believe we should go with respect to visas.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While the visa issuance process is not completely within our jurisdiction, I do believe that what we have to say as a committee is important. In particular, I believe that we should more strongly advocate in the future for wholesale reform of the visa process. In this sense, I do not believe that we, as the House of Representatives, will go far enough in addressing the problems that are present in our current system.
Mr. Chairman, after studying the issue, I am more convinced than ever that what we need is wholesale visa reform, not just nibbling at the edges of reform. I am afraid that this all that we will be able to accomplish now. However, I am supporting your amendment because I believe it to be a significant improvement over the President's.
To accomplish reform, I believe a close examination and reform of the Diversity Visa program is required. Additionally, we must determine what the genuine staffing needs are for visa issuance and oversight, and we must ensure that we have better investigations of foreigners who wish to come to our country.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.