<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:21780.wais]
DIVERSITY VISA PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-780 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 15, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia.......................................... 2
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 47
WITNESSES
The Honorable Bruce A. Morrison, Chairman, Morrison Public
Affairs Group, former Member of Congress
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Howard J. Krongard, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Ms. Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, NumbersUSA
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 57
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 58
DIVERSITY VISA PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:04 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Hostettler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. Good afternoon. Today the Subcommittee will
examine the Diversity Visa or ``DV'' program. At this hearing,
we will review the history of the program and its
implementation.
The DV program, part of the Immigration Act of 1990, was
designed to increase diversity in the U.S. immigrant population
by providing visas to nationals of countries that have had low
immigration rates to the United States. Applicants for the DV
program participate in a lottery in which the winners are
selected through a computer-generated random drawing. Annually,
approximately 50,000 aliens enter under the program.
The program is not without its critics however. Some
experts have argued that the program is susceptible to fraud
and manipulation. For example, critics have asserted that it is
common for aliens to file multiple applications for the lottery
to improve their chances of winning. In reviewing the DV
program in September 2003, the State Department Inspector
General found that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent
documents are commonplace.''
Such fraud would be necessary if aliens were to file
multiple applications under various aliases to improve their
chances in the lottery. If selected under an alias, the alien
would have to obtain and use fake documents to support his visa
application. In addition to, and in part because of, concerns
about fraud in the DV program, critics have argued that the
program poses a danger to our national security. As one expert
who testified on this subject last year said: ``The lottery is
ideal for terrorists because it encourages immigration from
those parts of the world where . . . fraud is common, documents
are difficult to verify, and al-Qaeda is very active.''
The lack of restrictions on admissions under the DV program
has also been identified as a vulnerability that could be
exploited by criminals and terrorists. It should be noted in
this regard that almost 1,900 aliens from state sponsors of
terrorism were selected in the DV 2005 lottery. From 1995 to
2003, 18 percent of Diversity Visa recipients were from
countries of concern with respect to terrorism. Further, unlike
other visa categories, aliens who enter the United States under
the DV program do not need familial or business ties to our
country. Such relationships logically make it more likely that
immigrants entering our country have a stake in our country's
success as well as skills to contribute to our economy.
For whatever reason, at least two aliens who have
immigrated under the DV program have been tied to terrorism in
the recent past. Hesham Hedayet, who killed two in an attack at
LAX on July 4, 2002, got his green card under the program. In
an asylum application that he had filed earlier, he had claimed
that he had been accused of being a terrorist, a claim that the
former INS never investigated.
Similarly, a Pakistani national who pleaded guilty in
August of 2002 to conspiracy to use arson or explosives to
destroy electrical power stations in Florida entered under the
DV program. Critics have further complained that the DV program
unfairly moves lottery winners ahead of some family and
employer-sponsored immigrants. Family fourth preference
applicants from the Philippines must wait more than 22 years
for a visa, for example, while DV winners can enter right away.
Finally, critics have questioned both the goals of the
program and whether the program even accomplishes its goals.
Last year, former INS Associate Commissioner Jan Ting testified
that ``the lottery is unfair and expressly discriminatory on
the basis of ethnicity, and implicitly, race'' and that it
``does not serve and is inconsistent with the priorities and
best interests of the United States as otherwise expressed in
our immigration laws.''
We will explore these issues with our witnesses today. I
turn to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for
purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this oversight hearing on the Diversity Visa program
which is better known as the Visa Lottery Program. I want to
thank you again but also point out that I have introduced
legislation which the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, has co-
sponsored. It has now more than 30 co-sponsors. It is
bipartisan. I am pleased that it has several Democratic co-
sponsors, including Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South
Dakota, who has agreed to be the lead Democratic co-sponsor. We
are hopeful that this oversight hearing will lead to action
being taken on this program, which I think is a security risk--
it is discriminatory. It is unfair to many immigrants who
follow the lengthy process based on either having a family
relationship or based upon having an offer of employment, a job
skill that is needed in the United States. All of that is
thrown aside by this program where millions of people submit
their names. It is put into a computer with a very skimpy
amount of information, and then 50,000 lucky people have their
names drawn each year.
We have given hundreds of thousands of these visas away.
The State Department's Inspector General has identified this
program as a national security risk. We have seen instances
where people who have entered this country under the Visa
Lottery Program have committed terrorist acts, for example at
the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles a few years ago,
resulting in the deaths of two people on that occasion.
So it is my hope that we will hear today about this program
and whether or not there is any justification for a program
that ignores the fact that people from more than a dozen
countries are not permitted to participate in this program.
They are the folks who are on the longest waiting list, people
from Mexico for example, China, India, the Philippines, other
countries around the world, excluded from the program because
they do not meet the criteria and are facing even longer
waiting periods as a result of that, and then watch somebody
come into the country with no particular job skills, no
particular family reunification issue, nothing other than
putting their name into a computer, having it drawn out and
skipping ahead of people who have specific job skills to offer
this country, skipping ahead of people who have very close
family relationships, for example, people who are permanent
residents of the United States and petitioning for their spouse
or their children to be able to join them. All of them are
discriminated against under this program and cannot enter the
country in the rapid fashion that those who participate in this
Visa Lottery Program do. It has become a cottage industry for
fraudulent opportunists. It is simply based on pure luck and,
as I indicated earlier, threatens the national security of the
country.
I have a lengthy opening statement which I will not share
with you in detail but rather simply ask be made a part of the
record. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, all Members' opening
statements will be made a part of the record.
At this time, I will introduce the panel.
Bruce Morrison is chairman of the Morrison Public Affairs
Group which he founded in 2001. He advises on financial
services, housing finance, privacy and immigration issues. From
1983 to 1991, Mr. Morrison represented the Third District of
Connecticut in the House of Representatives. While in Congress,
he served on the Committee on the Judiciary where he chaired
this Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Immigration.
After leaving Congress, Mr. Morrison served from 1992 to
1997 on the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. Mr. Morrison
is a graduate of Yale Law School and holds a Bachelors degree
in chemistry from MIT and a Master's degree in organic
chemistry from the University of Illinois.
Howard Krongard serves as the Inspector General for the
Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In
this position, he acts as an independent reviewer and evaluator
of the State Department's operations and activities
domestically and abroad in 163 countries. From 1996 to 2005, he
was of counsel to Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, an
international law firm, and, before that worked for several
legal and financial firms. Mr. Krongard graduated from
Princeton University, where he majored in history and served as
class president. He also graduated with honors from Harvard Law
School.
Mark Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for
Immigration Studies, a research organization in Washington,
D.C., that examines the impact of immigration on the United
States.
Mr. Krikorian, who frequently testifies before Congress,
has published articles in the Washington Post, the New York
Times and the National Review, among other publications. Mr.
Krikorian hold a Master's degree from the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy, and a bachelor's degree from Georgetown
University.
Rosemary Jenks is the director of government relations for
NumbersUSA. She has been active in immigration since 1990,
acting as an independent immigration consultant and as director
of policy analysis at the Center For Immigration Studies. Ms.
Jenks, who has testified before the House and Senate
Immigration Subcommittees, has written several articles and
journals and co-authored two books. Ms. Jenks received her J.D.
From Harvard Law School and B.A. in political science from The
Colorado College.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for once again being
here today. You will notice we have a series of lights. And
without objection, your full opening statement will be made
part of the record. If you could summarize within the 5-minute
time period we would be much appreciative.
Mr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE A. MORRISON, CHAIRMAN,
MORRISON PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
it is a pleasure to be here, and I thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering questions
about the origin of this program, if Members have them, having
been involved in its specific creation.
I would also like to note at the outset that it is
important to look at this program as a piece of a much larger
immigration enterprise. Some of the comments that have been
made in opening statements would suggest that this program is
supposed to carry within it all of the other goals of our
immigration system, and it is obviously just one piece; and at
that, in numerical terms, a small piece of the overall
enterprise. So I look at it more in terms of what it is
supposed to accomplish.
The idea of self-selected immigration is an old idea in
American immigration. And in fact, for most of our history,
immigrants came on a self-selected basis. And it was only in
more recent times that sponsorship became the driving force for
who would come. And even when sponsorship was given its central
role in the 1965 act, the nonpreference category was created
with the expectation that there would be significant numbers
who would continue to come on a self-selected basis.
Unfortunately or otherwise, just one of the consequences of
the large numbers of people who began to come under the 1965
act, the nonpreference category was soon unavailable and then
eliminated. In the 1980's, various attempts were made to
reinstate some kind of a program that looked to other sources
rather than those who were sponsored by family or employers.
And it ultimately gave rise to the diversity program as part of
the 1990 act. Of course, that act did not just enact this
program. It did significant things with respect to family
immigration and with respect to employment-sponsored
immigration. It was a piece of a whole, and it ought to be
looked at that way.
Obviously, if you are concerned about immigration, you
think we have too many immigrants coming, you do not like our
immigration system, Diversity Visas would be on the list of
things that you might want to eliminate. On the other hand, if
you think our immigration system on the whole, while it needs
fixing in various ways, is a statement of success by the
country, the number of people who aspire to come here and
contribute to our success as a country and who in fact do
contribute, then you would have a different reaction, I think,
to this program.
The question ultimately is, has this program worked? And I
think within the terms of its creation, the answer is yes. It
was not intended to create diversity in the immigrant stream as
a whole. It could not have possibly done so at the 50,000
number. It was intended to add another channel which would be
opened to those who would not get to come, those countries
which would not get to send immigrants under the family and
employment programs because of the nature of how they work. And
looked at in that way, the people who are coming to our country
from different quarters of the world because of the Diversity
Visa lottery, has demonstrated it is a different mix. And some
of those things, I think, are important to focus on.
For most of our history, Africans were not able to
immigrate to the United States. They came as slaves, or they
hardly came at all. This program has opened the door to African
immigration. I think that is a very good contribution to our
country and to an understanding in our own population that the
doors of this country are open to people everywhere in the
world as long as they follow the rules and as long as there are
numbers available. This is a legal immigration program. It is
not a program of illegal immigration. It ought to be judged in
those terms.
Another major source of people coming under this program
now is Eastern Europe. Congress passed laws in the 1970s
insisting that the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union let people migrate. And people were not allowed to
migrate to the United States, and special programs had to be
created at that time to allow people to come. This program has
opened the doors to countries from the former Soviet Union. And
many of the immigrants are coming from there. Once again, a
statement that we meant it when we said those people should be
able to migrate.
There is no question that the IG has identified weaknesses
in the program, and I think has made certain recommendations
that ought to be considered for improving the program. But
improving the program is different from abolishing it.
One last thing I would say is that the statement that this
program is likely to be the source of a terrorist threat seems
to me to be falling into the trap of seeing terrorists
everywhere. The fact is that our 9/11 hijackers all got here
using nonimmigrant entry opportunities. We have so much more
important work to do in protecting the country by doing the job
of screening people properly, of using intelligence information
effectively, trying to manipulate a lottery seems to me to be a
very low priority exercise for terrorists. They have much more
direct ways to threaten us. That is where we ought to be
focusing the terrorist concern.
If you do not like the program for all kinds of reasons,
because of numbers, because of who it is, because of where it
comes from, because you think everybody ought to be sponsored,
I think those are legitimate debates. I think the introduction
of terrorism into the debate kind of deflects the matter away
from what ought to be focused upon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce A. Morrison
Chairman Hostettler, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the diversity
visa program. As you know, I served as a Member of Congress from the
Third District of Connecticut from the 98th Congress through the 101st
(1983-91). Throughout my tenure in the House, I served on the Committee
on the Judiciary. From 1989 to 1991, I was Chairman of this
Subcommittee.
As the author of the House bill that became the Immigration Act of
1990, I was present at the creation of the diversity visa program. In
my opinion, the Program has served the purposes for which it was
created: providing a counterbalance to the concentration of source
countries for immigrants that results from family and employment-based
immigration; and creating an avenue for legal immigration from abroad
for those without pre-existing family or employment relationships in
the United States.
CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM
For almost 50 years prior to 1965, U.S. immigration was governed by
a set of country quotas that discriminated against source countries
that had contributed relatively fewer natives to the U.S. population
recorded in the 1910 census. The Immigration Act of 1965 sought to
reform this situation through equal national quotas, family
reunification principles, employment sponsorship, and a non-preference
category for those lacking a family or employer sponsor. Like many
major legislative initiatives, not all the consequences of the Act were
anticipated.
Among these consequences were:
<bullet> Elimination of the non-preference category, due to
over-subscription of higher preferences.
<bullet> Growing backlogs in both family and employment
preference categories, due to inadequate numbers of available
visas to meet the demand.
<bullet> Increasing concentration of source countries driven
by family relationships, demographic trends, geography, refugee
flows, and past migration patterns.
The Immigration Act of 1990 sought to address these issues in a
variety of ways. For instance:
<bullet> Family visa availability was increased, especially
for spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents
(LPRs).
<bullet> Employment visa availability was increased,
especially for higher skilled workers.
<bullet> Transitional and permanent diversity visa programs
were created to augment the entering population with self-
sponsored immigrants drawn from countries with relatively lower
participation in the family- and employment-sponsored programs.
Demand to immigrate still outstrips the supply of visas, a
continuing testament to the lure of the American Dream, but the
intended priorities of the 1990 Act have shaped the immigration of the
past 15 years.
THE DIVERSITY VISA--WHY HAVE IT?
Those who do not much like immigration will certainly not like the
diversity visa program. It is grounded in the belief that immigration
has contributed to the strength of the United States. It seeks to
address some inherent weaknesses in relying solely on sponsorship of
families and employers to provide our new immigrants.
* Sponsored immigration inherently leads to concentrations of
nationalities among new immigrants mirroring those who have come most
recently.
<bullet> The pre-1965 de jure discrimination in favor of the
nationalities of longest presence in the country has been
replaced with a de facto discrimination in favor of the
nationalities most recently arrived.
<bullet> Both source countries from an earlier era--especially
Europe--and for which there never was an era of free
immigration--especially Africa--are beneficiaries of the
diversity category.
<bullet> Most employment-based, and many family-sponsored,
immigrants are already in the country. The diversity program
opens the door to those abroad to find a legal channel to
immigrate.
<bullet> The bulk of immigrant flows will always come from
those places of close proximity, long immigrant history, or
large population. However, the principle that all nationalities
are welcome, subject to available numbers reflecting overall
legislated limits, is at the heart of the definition of
America. We are a nation defined by allegiance to democracy,
human rights and equal opportunity, rather than a particular
race, ethnicity, or religion.
<bullet> The broader the mix of nationalities that comes to
define America, the better equipped America becomes to
understand and relate to the diversity of the world abroad.
There is no better antidote to the challenges of globalization
than to attract the ``self-selected strivers'' from every
corner of the globe.
In sum, the diversity visa is a pro-immigration program that
underscores the reasons to support immigration--in manageable and
managed numbers. It balances the limitations of a structure based only
on family ties and established employment.
THE DIVERSITY VISA--HAS IT WORKED?
The diversity visa program has done what it set out to do, and most
of the objections to the existence of the program could as easily be
leveled at other aspects of our immigrant and nonimmigrant admissions.
<bullet> One need only glance at the chart on page 3 of the
CRS Report (Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, Updated April
26, 2004) to see the contrast between source regions for
diversity immigrants and those arriving through family or
employer sponsorship.
<bullet> This program has marked the first time in our history
that Africans have been able to immigrate by choice in
significant numbers.
<bullet> During the Cold War, we berated the Warsaw Pact
countries for denying emigration rights to their citizens. The
diversity visa has actually allowed immigration from this
region to resume.
<bullet> The need to administer the program has actually given
rise to significant innovations in visa processing, such as the
National Visa Center's consolidation of immigrant file
processing and fee collections, and the application of facial
recognition screening, that have benefited the immigration and
security system as a whole.
<bullet> When there are far easier means to acquire immigrant
and nonimmigrant visas, or to enter with no visa at all, it is
absurd to think that a lottery would be the vehicle of choice
for terrorists. Security is important and attention should be
focused on where the greater risks actually occur.
<bullet> Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but this
one program does not significantly affect it. Opening legal
doors for those not in the country rewards those who use legal
channels. It is the ease of unauthorized employment that is at
the heart of our illegal immigration problem.
<bullet> Fraud is a potential problem in all programs that
provide significant benefits. The remedy is to take steps to
reduce the fraud, not eliminate the program.
Overall, the diversity visa program has provided benefits to the
country in keeping with the principles that supported its creation. The
focus should be on eliminating the weaknesses.
THE DIVERSITY VISA--CAN IT BE IMPROVED?
The real debate here is one of values--do we believe that the
nation benefits when we show the whole world a path to join our two-
century long project of building a nation based on democratic
principles? Of course, the invitation is limited by our capacity to add
people, by our need to protect our security, and by the necessity to
select those who can contribute to our national well being. But all
these goals can be pursued better with the diversity visa than without.
<bullet> Terrorists come from many places and carry many
passports, not all legitimate. While little will be lost by
excluding natives of the ``state sponsors of terrorism'' list,
barring them will gain us little in the way of protection. It
is the effective screening of individual applicants for all
visas that needs attention.
<bullet> While it seems unlikely that the lottery seduces
illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S., especially after the
expiration of Sec. 245(i) of the INA, a simple remedy would be
to eliminate the right to adjust status on the basis of a
diversity visa. This would require processing abroad, which
would eliminate those with significant periods of unauthorized
presence from eligibility. Further, it would be consistent with
the emphasis on using the diversity visa to attract immigrants
from abroad, rather than those already in the U.S.
<bullet> New technology appears to address the multiple
application abuse, and broader sanctions, including permanent
exclusion form the program and application of the
misrepresentation inadmissibility standard, are within the
power of the State Department to implement.
<bullet> There is a basis for enhancing the skill requirements
for eligibility and to provide standards for meeting them.
<bullet> It is hard to get exercised about uncovered costs of
under $1 million annually. While collection of a small
application fee might have some advantages, it hardly seems
worth the administrative burden. A small increase in the fee
for successful applicants seems much more viable.
<bullet> Additional steps to fight document and credential
fraud are certainly worth considering.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer your questions and
those of other Subcommittee members at the appropriate time.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Krongard.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HOWARD J. KRONGARD, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF
GOVERNORS
Mr. Krongard. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
regarding the Office of the Inspector General's work on the
State Department's Diversity Visa program which is administered
by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which I will refer to for
simplicity as CA.
As you likely know, the Senate just recently confirmed me,
and I am recently new as the Inspector General. But I have been
briefed on the OIG's work that resulted in our September 2003
report entitled, Diversity Visa Program, and on the testimony
given here on the subject in April 2004 by then-Deputy
Inspector General, Ambassador Anne Patterson.
Although OIG has not conducted another comprehensive review
focused on the DV program, OIG monitors consular activities as
part of tracking compliance with our report, conducting routine
post inspections, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with CA
regarding DV issues.
When our people are present at DV posts, the inspectors
observe and inquire about revisions in the program's
implementation. For example, one of our consular inspectors
just recently visited the Kentucky Consular Center where DV
applications are processed in conjunction with a broader
inspection of CA. It was actually focused on the executive
office of CA. Our 2003 report made eight recommendations, and
all of those and our understanding of CA's responses are
addressed in my statement for the record at more depth. Suffice
it to say that OIG considers seven of the eight recommendations
as closed or in the process of closure, and the one that is
open related to multiple filings.
I should also point out that OIG's field work for the
September 2003 work was conducted when the DV program was
paper-based and applications were processed by hand. In
November 2003, CA introduced an electronic filing process for
the DV program, which is better known as the EDV program,
requiring electronic application to be sent through the
Internet. This permits computer screening of all principal
applicants, spouses and children for violations of DV
application rules. Therefore, the recommendations in the report
were based on technologies and statistics that have been
substantially modified, well before the introduction of program
tools, such as computer data mining to detect duplicate
entries, improved facial recognition technology, the use of
electronic DV applications filed exclusively via the EDV
program, and the recent increase in the DV fee, which is levied
on winners at a level that we believe covers the full cost of
the program.
Now with respect to the multiple applications, our review
identified a significant number of duplicate applications in
the DV program based on a completely paper process at that
time. Currently, the penalty for duplicate entry is
disqualification for the year that the duplicate submission is
detected. It does not disqualify someone for future years. OIG
recommended that CA propose changes to the Immigration and
Nationality Act to bar permanently from future DV lotteries all
adults identified as filing multiple applications. Under
section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
persons are ineligible for a visa based on fraud or willful
material misrepresentations.
CA raised several concerns and amongst others were with the
fairness and enforceability of the recommendation because it is
difficult to prove that duplicate applications were either
willful misrepresentations rather than inadvertent or were
actually made by the applicant rather than by someone else to
discredit or penalize the applicant. This recommendation
remains open between OIG and CA. OIG flagged this
recommendation again in a more recent review concerning the
Consular Fraud Prevention Program, and we will continue to
review the recommendation in light of improvements, new
technologies and also any actions that the Congress may take.
Let me conclude on the fee issue. We think the fee issue is
taken care of. So let me not address that and go to some
conclusions. During the recent visit to the Kentucky Consular
Center, our consular inspector determined that, with the
electronic filing of DV applications now in its second year,
all DV enrollment applications are checked for duplicates using
anti-fraud technology. Duplicates found at this step are
disqualified. Winning entries selected from the remaining
applications are then checked for duplicate enrollment using
facial recognition technology and biographical data comparison.
However, the potential for fraud does not end with
identifying duplicates. The Kentucky Consular Center flags
fraud indicators for adjudicating officers to address when
winning applications are further processed in the field.
Although EDV has not stopped duplicate filing, it has made
identifying duplicate applications easier and helped the
adjudicating officers have more effective interviews. As a
result, CA is able to identify an increasing number of
duplicates. OIG believes that continued advances in technology
will increase detection of duplicates but will not stop them.
In closing, OIG believes that the process of complying with
the recommendations of our 2003 report, CA has strengthened the
program. We will continue to monitor the program as we inspect
their management of consular operations and individual posts
abroad to oversee and assist the State Department in improving
border security and program management.
Thank you, sir, and I welcome at the appropriate time any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krongard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard J. Krongard
Chairman Hostettler, Representative Jackson Lee, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the Office
of Inspector General's (OIG) work on the State Department's Diversity
Visa program, which is administered by the Bureau of Consular Affairs
(CA). As you likely know, the Senate confirmed me last month as the new
Inspector General (IG). Although OIG has been without a permanent IG
for the past two years, OIG has been a valuable contributor in reducing
fraud in visa and passport applications and strengthening the nation's
border security.
I have been briefed on OIG's work that resulted in a September 2003
report entitled Diversity Visa Program (ISP-CA-03-52). I also have been
briefed on the testimony delivered on this subject in April 2004 by
Ambassador Anne Patterson, who was OIG's Deputy Inspector General at
the time, and on actions taken by CA to address OIG's recommendations.
In her testimony, Ambassador Patterson stated that OIG would
examine how vulnerabilities in the program will be fully addressed.
Although OIG has not conducted another comprehensive review focused on
the Diversity Visa program, OIG monitors consular activities as part of
tracking compliance with our report, conducting routine post
inspections, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with CA concerning
Diversity Visa issues. When present at Diversity Visa posts, OIG
observes and inquires about revisions in the program's implementation.
For example, last month one of our consular inspectors visited the
Kentucky Consular Center, where Diversity Visa applications are
processed, in conjunction with a broader inspection of CA. Our 2003
report made eight recommendations, and today, I will review those
recommendations and our understanding of how CA responded.
BACKGROUND
In fiscal year 1995, Congress established the Diversity Visa
program that authorized up to 50,000 immigrant visas annually to
persons from countries that were underrepresented among the 400,000 to
500,000 immigrants coming to the United States each year. Most
immigration to the United States is based on family relationships or
employment. Diversity Visa applicants, however, can qualify based on
education level and/or work experience. This program commonly is
referred to as the ``visa lottery'' because the ``winners'' are
selected through a computer-generated random drawing. If ultimately
selected as a lottery winner, like other immigrant applicants, they are
subject to all grounds of ineligibility related to adverse medical
conditions, criminal behavior, and other factors. If deemed eligible on
those grounds, they need only to demonstrate that they have the
equivalent of a U.S. high school education or possess two years of work
experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of
training or experience within the five-year period immediately prior to
the application.
Originally, the Diversity Visa program was one of many immigrant
visa functions assigned to the National Visa Center at Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. In October 2000, Diversity Visa processing was moved to a
newly remodeled site at Williamsburg, Kentucky, known as the Kentucky
Consular Center. This alleviated overseas missions of many clerical and
file storage responsibilities. In November 2003, CA introduced an
electronic filing process for the Diversity Visa program, known as the
E-DV program, requiring electronic applications to be sent through the
Internet. This permits computer screening of all principal applicants,
spouses, and children for violations of Diversity Visa application
rules.
OIG's fieldwork for the September 2003 report was conducted when
the Diversity Visa program was paper-based and applications were
processed by hand. Therefore, the recommendations in the report were
based on technologies and statistics that have been significantly
modified--well before the introduction of program tools such as
computer data mining to detect duplicate entries, improved facial
recognition technology, the use of electronic Diversity Visa
applications filed exclusively via the E-DV program, and the recent
increase in the Diversity Visa fee levied on winners at a level that
covers the full cost of the program.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
OIG's September 2003 report identified eight recommendations to
strengthen the Diversity Visa program. Specifically, OIG recommended
that CA:
<bullet> propose legislative changes to the Immigration and
Nationality Act to bar aliens from states that sponsor
terrorism from the Diversity Visa program;
<bullet> propose legislative changes to the Immigration and
Nationality Act to bar permanently from future Diversity Visa
lotteries all adults identified as filing multiple
applications;
<bullet> issue standards for determining whether foreign high
school educations are comparable to U.S. high school
educations;
<bullet> prepare an annual report on regional and worldwide
Diversity Visa trends and program issues;
<bullet> determine whether antifraud field investigations are
useful in Diversity Visa cases;
<bullet> request authority to collect fees from all persons
applying for the Diversity Visa program;
<bullet> determine how the Diversity Visa fee could be
appropriately devoted to antifraud work at overseas missions;
and
<bullet> conduct workload studies to determine whether a full-
time visa officer position and a language-designated telephone
inquiry position should be established at the Kentucky Consular
Center.
OIG considers seven of the eight recommendations as closed or in
the processes of closure. One that is open, related to multiple
filings, is discussed below.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Aliens from States that Sponsor Terrorism
Section 306 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-173) generally prohibits issuance of nonimmigrant visas
to aliens from states that sponsor terrorism unless the Secretary of
State judges that such aliens pose no risk to national security. OIG
noted that no parallel restriction exists for immigrant visas,
including those resulting from the Diversity Visa program. To date,
this legislative double standard persists.
OIG recommended that CA propose legislative changes to the
Immigration and Nationality Act to bar aliens from states that sponsor
terrorism from the Diversity Visa program. OIG continues to believe
that the Diversity Visa program contains significant risks to national
security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists
attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as
permanent residents. However, CA expressed concern with permanently
disbarring aliens fleeing oppressive regimes of states that sponsor
terrorism. For example, aliens fleeing oppression from Cuba, Libya,
Syria, and Iran would be ineligible to apply for a visa via the
Diversity Visa program if this recommendation were strictly
implemented.
Under current conditions, consular procedures and heightened
awareness generally provide greater safeguards against terrorists
entering through the Diversity Visa process than in the past. Consular
officers interview all Diversity Visa winners and check police and
medical records once applicants begin the actual visa application
process. CA now requires all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants
to be fingerprinted. This allows consular officers to run visa
applicant fingerprints through U.S. databases of criminals and
terrorists in about 15 minutes. It also means that if an applicant
applies for a nonimmigrant visa using one name and later applies for a
Diversity Visa under a different name, the fingerprint system will help
to identify him as a fraudulent applicant. OIG closed this
recommendation based on acceptable noncompliance.
Persons Filing Multiple Applications
OIG's review identified a significant number of duplicate
applications in the Diversity Visa program based on a completely paper
process at the time. OIG took issue with the unfair advantage that
multiple filers had for becoming winners and their additional
administrative burden. Despite program restrictions against duplicate
submissions, CA detects thousands of duplicate filings each year.
Currently, the penalty for duplicate entry is disqualification for the
year that the duplicate submission was detected.
OIG recommended that CA propose changes to the Immigration and
Nationality Act to bar permanently from future Diversity Visa lotteries
all adults identified as filing multiple applications. Under Section
212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act persons are
ineligible for a visa based on fraud or willful material
misrepresentations. There is no legal precedent or legislative
authority for finding an applicant ineligible based on a clerical
review. Therefore, CA raised concerns with the fairness and
enforceability of the recommendation because it is difficult to prove
that duplicate applications (1) were willful misrepresentations rather
than inadvertent, and (2) were actually made by the applicant rather
than by someone else to discredit or penalize the applicant.
This recommendation remains open between OIG and CA. OIG
recommended this again in a more recent review concerning the Consular
Fraud Prevention program.\1\ OIG will continue to review this
recommendation in light of improvements and new technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See OIG report, Management Review of Visa and Passport Fraud
Prevention Programs (ISP-CA-05-52), issued in November 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards to Determine High School Equivalency
OIG recognized that the worldwide managerial direction for the
Diversity Visa program needed tightening for adjudicating visa
eligibility based on educational requirements. At the time of our
review, some posts indicated that they had not evaluated local school
systems to determine their equivalency to a U.S. high school degree and
could not locate any Department cable or e-mail guidance on educational
determinations. Embassies and consulates responsible for adjudicating
third-country national applications described documents as unreliable
and nearly impossible to check. Officers did not know third-country
documents quite as well as their host country documents and typically
could not determine the reliability of those documents.
OIG recommended that CA issue standards for determining whether
foreign high school educations are comparable to U.S. high school
educations. In 2004, CA began purchasing and distributing copies of the
handbook, Foreign Educational Credentials Required for Consideration of
Admission to Universities and Colleges in the United States. At that
time, CA indicated that all Diversity Visa-issuing posts abroad would
eventually receive this reference book, which translates and
standardizes foreign educational credentials. Recently, CA distributed
the reference books to all Diversity Visa-issuing posts. OIG considers
this recommendation as resolved and intends to close it once formal
instructions for using the books are established.
Annual Report on Diversity Visa Trends
In reviewing the work at several posts, OIG identified challenges
that consular officers face in adjudicating applications. At the time
of OIG's fieldwork, all missions were asked to comment on the Diversity
Visa program, if relevant, in their annual Consular Package
submissions. OIG observed that consular officers reported data.
However, CA did not prepare and disseminate analyses on the Diversity
Visa regional and worldwide trends. For example, although the Consular
Package's annual statistics report provided useful issuance information
by nationality and eligibility, this data was not reviewed and
summarized for managing the program.
OIG recommended that CA prepare an annual report on regional and
worldwide Diversity Visa trends and program issues. As a result, CA
issued summary reports in September 2004 and February 2005; therefore,
OIG closed this recommendation.
Antifraud Field Investigations
Fraud is an ongoing major program issue. Antifraud activities are
generally dominated by nonimmigrant visa fraud cases. Our 2003 review
determined that many embassies and consulates with significant
Diversity Visa issues did not routinely refer problem cases to their
antifraud units. In fact, although every mission has a designated Fraud
Prevention Officer, some missions have no separate antifraud units. CA
was unable to document a strategy for overcoming the fact that certain
countries' records, including school records, are under such poor
control that their passports, identity documents, and vital records are
unreliable for visa purposes, despite complaints of several embassies.
OIG recommended that CA determine whether antifraud field
investigations are useful in Diversity Visa cases. CA responded by
canvassing the top ten Diversity Visa posts in the summer of 2004 to
collect information on Diversity Visa fraud prevention strategies.
Based on this survey, CA prepared and sent to the field in October 2004
excellent guidance on Diversity Visa fraud prevention strategies and
tools. Therefore, this recommendation is closed.
Making the Diversity Visa Program Self-Financing
Unlike other visa applications, the current Diversity Visa
processing fee is collected only from applicants selected as winners.
Millions of applicants, therefore, pay nothing to participate in the
program, and traditionally, the U.S. government has paid all costs not
covered by the Diversity Visa fee. Under the paper-based Diversity Visa
system, CA determined that charging a small fee for registration was
impractical, not cost effective, and not likely to serve as an adequate
deterrent against multiple registrations.
Due to program costs significantly exceeding revenues, OIG
recommended that CA request authority to collect processing fees from
all persons applying for the Diversity Visa program. In response, CA
revised the Diversity Visa surcharge, effective March 8, 2005, from
$100 to $375. This processing surcharge is imposed on winners of the
Diversity Visa program. Although only charged to winners, the fee will
be sufficient to cover all program costs. In view of this, OIG is
closing this recommendation.
Diversity Visa Fraud Prevention
At the time of our 2003 review, OIG determined that CA could do a
better job identifying all costs associated with the Diversity Visa
program from overseas posts, especially with regard to the cost of its
fraud prevention efforts. OIG recommended that CA determine how the
Diversity Visa fee could be appropriately devoted to antifraud work at
overseas missions.
In fiscal year 2004, the budget for the Diversity Visa Program was
$4.287 million, of which just over $1 million was attributed to anti-
fraud activities worldwide. To underscore the importance of the
Diversity Visa program, in future allocations, CA intends to emphasize
the need to include fraud expenses in their Diversity Visa funding
requests as a separate item. OIG considers this recommendation as fully
implemented and, therefore, closed.
Expertise for Strengthening the Diversity Visa Administrative
Processing
When OIG began its review of the Diversity Visa program, there was
no antifraud officer position at the Kentucky Consular Center. This
lack of expertise made reviewing applications for fraud implications
overwhelming, especially under the old paper-based system. Moreover,
the Kentucky Consular Center had been receiving inquiries from
Diversity Visa applicants to discuss their applications. As a result,
OIG recommended that CA conduct workload studies to determine whether a
full-time visa officer position and a language-designated telephone
inquiry position should be established at the Kentucky Consular Center.
In response, CA established and hired a fraud prevention manager
and two assistants for the Kentucky Consular Center, thus eliminating
the need for a full-time visa officer. OIG believes that Diversity Visa
fees can fund these positions. However, with regard to the language-
designated telephone inquiry position, CA determined that no
predominating language exists among Diversity Visa applicants, other
than English. CA believes that the Public Inquiries division
sufficiently handles stateside inquiries received by telephone, letter,
and e-mail as well as providing Diversity Visa information on the
Department's web site. Posts abroad handle case-specific inquiries.
Therefore, CA believes that language staffing either at the Kentucky
Consular Center or at the National Visa Center is unnecessary. In light
of these actions, OIG closed the recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
During her visit last month to the Kentucky Consular Center, our
consular inspector determined that, with the online filing of Diversity
Visa applications now in its second year, all Diversity Visa enrollment
applications are checked for duplicates using anti-fraud technology.
Duplicates found at this step are disqualified. Winning entries
selected from the remaining applications are checked for duplicate
enrollment using facial recognition technology and bio-data comparison.
However, the potential for fraud does not end with identifying
duplicates. The Kentucky Consular Center flags fraud indicators for
adjudicating officers to address when winning applications are further
processed in the field. Although E-DV has not stopped duplicate filing,
it has made identifying duplicate applications easier and helped the
adjudicating officers have more effective interviews. As a result, CA
is able to identify an increasing number of duplicates. OIG believes
that continued advances in technology will increase detection of
duplicates but will not stop duplicate electronic filings.
In closing, OIG believes that in the process of complying with the
recommendations of our 2003 report, CA has strengthened the Diversity
Visa program. OIG will continue to monitor the program, as we inspect
CA's management of consular operations and individual posts abroad, to
oversee and assist the Department in improving both border security and
program management.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I welcome your questions and those of other
members.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Krongard.
Mr. Krikorian.
TESTIMONY OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
invitation.
I am afraid that my comments will not be as interesting as
the testimony yesterday from outer space that a couple Members
of this body were able to hear, but I will do my best.
The visa lottery is a fatally flawed program. There are in
fact as many problems with mismanagement as there are with much
of the other elements of the immigration system, and problems
like that could at least in theory be fixed by reforms. But the
administrative problems, as important as they are, are
secondary. It is the existence of the program that is the main
problem because the visa lottery does not serve any national
interest. And it should be discontinued. And let me touch
briefly on some of the reasons I think that.
Despite its name, the diversity lottery has done nothing to
diversify the immigrant flow. Mr. Morrison conceded that it is
impossible for it to diversify the immigration flow. And yet
that is the clear rationale for many people's support of it. It
can never be expected to diversify the flow. The top ten
immigrant-sending countries still account for the majority of
new arrivals just as a they did a decade ago. In fact, if you
look at the existing immigrant population, the very time that
the lottery has been operating, the existing immigrant
population has been getting steadily less diverse. In 1990,
Mexicans, the largest national origin group, were 22 percent of
all immigrants. In 2000, they accounted for 30 percent of all
immigrants. When you put all of Spanish-speaking Latin America
together, one cultural group, they went from 37 to 46 percent
of the total immigrant population; something we have never
experienced in American history. Only a 30-, 40-, 50-fold
increase in admissions under this program would make even a
dent in the diversity of the immigration flow. And if national
origins quotas are what this is about, we should just embrace
them and stop pretending that we are trying to diversify the
flow and institute open national origins quotas. I think that
is a bad idea, but that is essentially what this is about.
Furthermore, the requirements for entering the lottery are
so low as to be essentially meaningless. By design, they do not
select the best and brightest from overseas that have the
skills that are important to a modern society. Nor in my
opinion would an increase in the nominal skills, levels of
education and what have you that applicants would need to have
make much difference because of the pervasive nature of fraud
in the program.
And the fraud problem is systemic. It is not something that
really can be alleviated or at least ended with better
management. The systemic nature of the fraud is for two
reasons. One, the State Department has an unavoidable
institutional bias against law enforcement in favor of
diplomacy, and that is essential. And weeding out fraud is a
law enforcement function. That could be alleviated conceivably
by transferring the visa function to the Homeland Security
Department, but that is something that Congress decided not to
do.
The second reason that fraud is systemic is that lottery
applicants come from the most corrupt nations in the world,
objectively judged by people who do that sort of thing, and
they have no U.S. family member or no U.S. institution to vouch
for them or to help demonstrate their legitimacy as do family
members or people being sponsored for jobs who also come from
countries where corruption is widespread.
The idea of basing eligibility for immigration to the
United States principally on a paper document issued in Nigeria
or in Bangladesh or in Albania is absurd on its face.
The fraud is bad enough, of course, in the abstract, but
after 9/11, this poses a serious security threat. First of all,
it is a diversion for the State Department, a diversion of time
and resources from people who are supposed to be attempting to
screen terrorists and others out of those who are trying to
come to the United States. And the lottery composes a large
portion of the work in a number of important consular posts.
Nor does it draw people randomly from around the world. It
disproportionately draws people from the Islamic world, the
very countries where al-Qaeda is active. And I have some
statistics on that in my statement.
This is not theoretical. As you said, Mr. Chairman, there
are actual terrorists who have come in through the lottery
program. Actually, you missed a couple. Karim Koubriti and
Ahmed Hannan, who were members of the Michigan sleeper cell,
were Moroccan lottery winners. The very fact that it encourages
immigration of people who have no family or other connections
in the United States makes it ideal for someone planning an
attack.
There are other ways to get here. For instance, temporary
visas and what have you, but a greencard enables a terrorist to
do a lot more than a temporary visa would. And the real
vulnerability is not simply in the process that the Kentucky
service center deals with, the initial application. The
security vulnerability especially comes from the final
application process where the winning numbers can and in fact
according to the State Department have been sold to people who
did not actually apply; and this gives al-Qaeda or any other
bad guys attempting to enter the United States an opening.
And let me say just finally, this really is not about even
the level of immigration. I have concerns about the level of
immigration, but even if you think that we need 50,000 extra
people each year entering the United States, it would seem both
common sense and morally imperative to simply take the next
50,000 husbands, wives and little kids of legal, permanent
residents rather than take complete strangers who have no
family, no skills and no jobs in the United States. I will end
there and be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Krikorian
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian.
Ms. Jenks.
TESTIMONY OF ROSEMARY JENKS, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
NumbersUSA
Ms. Jenks. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today about the Visa Lottery
Program.
NumbersUSA is a grassroots organization representing
830,000 Americans who are concerned primarily with
immigration's impact on American workers and on quality-of-life
issues. These are folks who see the impact of our current
immigration policy in their community every day. Their kids
attend over-crowded schools. Their local emergency room is on
the brink of bankruptcy. Many of them are unable to find a job
that pays a livable wage, and those who are employed find their
commutes getting longer and longer as roads become increasingly
congested.
Imagine how these folks feel when they find out that the
United States government by law holds a national-origins-based
lottery each year to hand out 50,000 visas to randomly selected
winners. I can assure you that the American people did not call
their representatives in Washington one day and demand that a
visa lottery be set up.
I think it is also safe to say that the spouses and
children of lawful permanent residents who must wait at least 4
years for a visa based on current processing times did not
demand it either.
So who did demand it? I think Congressman Morrison answered
that question in 1990 when he said, ``It is absolutely key to
political support for our immigration system that all of the
diverse groups that make up our country know that our
immigration laws understand their interests and the concerns
that they have that people from the parts of the world that
their ancestors come from will also be considered under our
immigration system.''
In fact, the lottery was created to benefit a handful of
ethnic groups led by the Irish. The fact that 40 percent of the
transition visas were reserved for Irish nationals, although
the law was carefully worded so as to avoid saying that
explicitly, is proof of that.
``Mr. Chairman, it has always been my understanding that
the best immigration policy would be a policy that is fair and
that applies equally to every country. In 1965, the last year
that we passed a legal immigration bill, the whole point of
that immigration bill was to make up for past discrimination
and to come up with a legal immigration bill that would be fair
and equal to all countries. Here we are today debating a bill
that is special interest legislation that gives special
privileges only to individuals from certain countries. I think
that violates the fairness and equity that we all should expect
in our immigration laws.''
Congressman Lamar Smith was referring to the lottery when
he said those words almost 15 years ago during the floor debate
on the bill that became the Immigration Act of 1990. And he was
right. The visa lottery is inescapably and inexcusably a
national-origins-based policy. It discriminates to the
detriment of some and to the benefit of others based solely on
a person's nationality.
The visa lottery and the transition program leading up to
it were justified on two grounds. First is the idea that some
mostly European countries were adversely affected by the 1965
amendments. In other words, by taking away the privileged
status of these countries that they had enjoyed prior to the
1965 act, Congress had discriminated against them, and so we
now owed it to them to discriminate for them yet again.
Second is the idea that Congress has a duty to make the
United States more diverse. The reality is that the United
States does not need to admit a single additional immigrant to
ensure increasing ethnic and racial diversity here. It is a
demographic certainty. But the fact that 52 percent of all
lottery visas have been awarded to Europeans should be
sufficient to dispel the notion that true diversity was the
goal.
Congressman John Bryant, a former Member of this
Subcommittee from Texas pointed this out in 1990. ``They say
that we need to increase diversity. We are already the most
diverse country in the world. I would ask, how can bringing in
so many people of the same race as the majority race encourage
diversity?''
But even if the lottery did exactly what it purported to
do, it would still be bad policy. As the bipartisan Jordan
Commission on Immigration Reform pointed out in its final
report, immigration policy should serve the national interest.
That means that we should have clear goals and priorities and
then design the immigration system to prioritize the admission
of immigrants who meet those goals. The commission argued that
in the absence of a compelling national interest to do
otherwise and as long as an adequate system of protections for
American workers is in place, immigrants should be chosen on
the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy.
The Jordan Commission found only two national interests
compelling enough to diverge from this priority: uniting
nuclear family members and providing safe haven to refugees.
The commissioners apparently all agreed that the visa
lottery should not be part of our legal immigration system. In
fact, only one commissioner, Warren Leiden, disagreed with the
commission's final report and even he did not mention the
lottery in his dissent.
Mr. Chairman, the Immigration and Nationality Act says,
``No person shall receive any preference or priority or be
discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa
because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place
of residence.''
Eliminating the visa lottery will bring us one step closer
to making that law a fact. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rosemary Jenks
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Ms. Jenks.
At this point, we will turn to questions.
Mr. Krongard, in your opening statement, you talked about
the issue of weeding out the presence of duplicate
applications, and then at one point, even the recommendations
that had been made by the OIG to the State Department will not
necessarily result in the end of duplicates or the use of
duplicates and the successful use of duplicates in the process.
And Mr. Krikorian suggested that the problem in the program is
systemic.
Can you further elaborate on why you think that this
program will never achieve the weeding out of the fraud, such
as duplicate applications, and the successful gaining of visas
as a result of duplicate applications?
Mr. Krongard. I think the lead in to your question is
correct, sir. First of all, we are dealing with very large
numbers of applications, and there are no restrictions on who
these applicants can be. For example, people can be making
application who have no intention whatsoever of ever
immigrating to the United States. They can be Americans. They
can be American citizens who are participating in this. They
can be people from some of these countries who have no
intention of coming. However, winning the lottery is like a
winning lottery ticket. As the gentleman from Virginia said, a
cottage industry has grown up so that there are facilitators
who make money off of this. There are advisors. There are
people who, through unlawful means, acquire the winning notice,
and therefore, there is an inducement that we are never going
to eliminate. The recommendation that is still open is one that
would make it at least illegal to reapply after you have been
caught making multiple entries in 1 year. And that is still not
dealt with. So there is really not enough disincentive or
enough technology to eliminate the ability to make multiple
entries.
But I might add that, as the CA has definitely made
improvements, I do not think there is any question about that,
the technology has gotten better, more duplicate entries are
being found and eliminated. Part of the problem now is also in
the winning pool. In other words, there are anecdotal evidences
of new types of fraud growing up in dealing with the winning
lottery ticket and what is done with that and issues of who
actually then comes along.
For example, we have the issue of what we call pop-up
families. In other words, an applicant registers as a single
person, for example, and wins the lottery and, in the course of
applying for the visa with the winning lottery, now has a
family. That is not on its face inappropriate. Under the
regular immigration rules, to have a change, a significant
change in your family life might put you into a different
category, but there is only one category for diversity
applicants. And therefore, if the reasons are correct and there
is a true change that cannot be proven to be fraudulent, we
have situations where a one-person enrollee becomes say a
three- or four-person immigrating family.
Mr. Hostettler. Interesting.
Mr. Krikorian, what do you think is the single biggest
vulnerability to the program or to the visa lottery scheme in
general?
Mr. Krikorian. I would have to say the very concept of
artificially stimulating immigration of people with no
connections to the United States from the most corrupt
countries in the world is, in other words, the center of the
visa lottery, the whole concept of the visa lottery is the
greatest vulnerability. I do not see any specific vulnerability
or weakness that we could patch up that would make it
significantly less problematic. I mean, it is bailing out the
Titanic. It sinks a little slower, but it is a problem on its
face.
So I would have to say, stimulating immigration of people
with no connection to the United States for no good reason, not
to promote any specific national interest, is the central
problem with the visa lottery.
Mr. Hostettler. Do you have suggestions of how to address
those in a reform?
Mr. Krikorian. Getting rid of the visa lottery. That is my
point. This is not something that can be reformed. It has got
to be eliminated. Again, I would emphasize. I would prefer
these 50,000 visas simply not be issued, but a less radical
change would be simply to divert them to family category which
actually does serve at least conceivably some national
interest.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for purposes of an opening statement and
questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me acknowledge a Member of my Committee, Mr. Berman. I
thank him for his commitment to these issues and the Members of
this Committee. This is an important hearing.
I just left a Homeland Security hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
I thank you for your indulgence. We are overlapping hearings,
and we were in the middle of intense questioning on the issue
of the potential of terrorist acts against chemical plants. And
one report suggests that that could wind up killing 2.4 million
persons in a densely populated area. I make that anecdotal
story because it appears that, on many occasions, we have taken
immigration to be equated to terrorism. And this hearing, I
hope, will shed some light on a very viable program and also
give us some impetus for what I think many of us have a common
commitment to, and that is a comprehensive look at immigration
and the comprehensive reforming of the immigration policies in
America, those that will respect the founding basis of this
nation, that we are a land of immigrants and of laws.
I want to congratulate Mr. Morrison on his vision on the
Diversity Visa during his tenure here in the United States
Congress.
The United States has tried several different systems for
distributing immigration visas, and a national origins quota
system favored immigrants from Europe at the expense of
immigrants from other regions. In 1965, Congress replaced the
national origins quota system with a system of family-based and
employment-based immigration and a per-country limit. This does
not distribute visas evenly either.
During the next 20 years, immigrants from Asia, Latin
America outnumbered immigrants from other parts of the world.
The next attempt to balance immigration from around the world
produced a series of piecemeal lottery programs, and lotteries
made it possible for immigrants from under-represented
countries to obtain visas. This was followed by a permanent
lottery system, the Diversity Visa program that is the subject
of this hearing.
I think a year or two ago, we listened to a young man from
Kenya who told a passionate story, a moving story about his
opportunity to come to the United States on the basis of the
Diversity Visa. It was established by the Immigration Act of
1990.
Diversity Visas are limited to six geographic regions with
a greater number of visas going to regions that have low rates
of immigration. The Diversity Visa program does not provide
visas for countries that have sent more than 50,000 immigrants
to the United States in 5 years. Applicants for Diversity Visas
are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. The
winners who qualify for immigrant visas and are eligible to
admission to the United States are granted legal permanent
resident status.
To qualify, an applicant must have completed 12 years of
formal education, the equivalent of graduating from a United
States high school, or 2 years of qualified work experience.
When Diversity Visa aliens apply for admission to the United
States, they receive the same inspection that other immigrants
receive.
I would hesitate to say that these are not individuals that
cannot come here and provide for themselves and be contributing
to our society.
In September 2003, the Office of the Inspector General for
the Department of State issued a report on Diversity Visas.
According to the report, the Diversity Visa program was subject
to widespread abuse. Despite a rule against duplicate
submission, thousands of duplicates were detected each year.
Identity fraud was endemic, and fraudulent documents are
commonplace.
The report recommended barring aliens from states that
sponsor terrorism, permanently barring adult aliens who submit
multiple applications, and making the program self-financing by
charging every applicant a fee, instead of just charging
applicants who win the lottery, which is in the present system.
The charge to winners is $350 per person. A much lower fee
would be possible if every applicant had to pay a filing fee.
The State Department has tried to work on this issue as it has
converted from paper to electronic applications. It has
required each applicant to submit an electronic photograph. The
new process went into effect for the FY 2005 lottery program.
The electronic system has made it possible to do much more
comprehensive screening for duplicate applications.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that there
has been some progress in using the electronic format, and I
think we should give this program greater opportunity. The last
report by Deputy Inspector General Anne W. Patterson on April
29, 2004, she testified that the State Department had made
progress in reducing fraud and vulnerabilities by introducing a
facial recognition system.
So I would hope that we all express our concern in the
right direction for fighting terrorists and that we find a way
to cut down on fraud. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we note that there
is fraud in the Social Security card. But I would hope that we
would see the viability of the Diversity Visa program and hope
to fix it and not to end it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose questions to
the congressman for a time, and as I do so, Congressman
Morrison, let me cite for the record that I have been given an
overall gleaming affirmation of my commitment, Americans for
Better Immigration. And I am so glad that I do not have to show
this report card to my mother. But if I showed it to her, I
could explain it to her, and I could assure you that she would
be applauding me for understanding this nation. This is a bunch
of F's and D's as relates to immigration, and distorted I might
suggest. Distorted, misconstrued and false.
But I think it is important that we get a full
understanding of what the visa program is. So could you briefly
say to me whether and how you try to thwart fraud? In
particular, would you respond to Ms. Jenks' comments, the visa
lottery is a blatant example of a special interest driven
approach to policy making?
Mr. Morrison. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, first of all, I am
pleased to be here and to answer your questions. Let me say
that, of course, special interest is always in the eye of the
beholder. The things we do not like are special interests. The
things we support are national interests, and of course, we
will always be debating that. That is the nature of politics.
At the heart of the decision to create a program like this
is a recognition that things that on the surface do not
discriminate or do not give some people better opportunities
than others, when you look below the surface operate a
different way. The fact is that who it is that comes under
family- and employment-based systems has its own special
choice-making mechanisms and networking mechanisms that favor
some people from some parts of the world over people from other
parts of the world. The fact that we developed an immigration
system that never opened the door to Africans to immigrate has
a lot to do with our history with respect to Africa. And it
certainly was one of the things that cried out to me at the
time that we were considering these questions.
The same is true of the Soviet Union and other parts of
what were the Warsaw Pact countries where people did not get to
immigrate here and never created the employment flows, the
networks of employment, nor the family relationships. So what
this is is not an attempt to undo what exists in the other
parts of the immigration system. It is an alternative route,
and I think it accomplishes an alternative route.
And yes, there are--there have been in the administration
of the program opportunities for fraud. And it seems to me that
the State Department has been innovative in finding ways to
fight that. And in fact, some of their identity verification
schemes, their value goes far beyond the lottery program but to
other immigration programs and other screening programs. And I
think that is a benefit that has come from the existence of
this program and should continue to be used.
But the program itself is not the source of fraud, and the
program itself is not incapable of being operated in a
relatively effective manner.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask you just quickly about the
question that Mr. Krongard suggested about fraud and these pop-
up immigrants if you will, pop-up family members. How do you
respond to that?
Mr. Morrison. Well, the possibility of pop-up families
exist in all immigration categories. People get approved, and
at the time that they apply for a visa, not when they get
qualified initially through their family relationship or their
employment or through the lottery, when they get to the point
of applying for a visa, they can offer up accompanying or
following to join family members that they claim to be related
to. And that is a problem in immigration. And it has to be
dealt with in every case, and it has to be dealt with as an
area where there could be fraud, in which the relationship has
to be examined. So it is not a problem with the diversity
program. It is a problem with the fact that people are entitled
to bring their families when they come to this country, whether
as family members to someone else already here or to an
employee for a company that is here.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are saying that diversity visas
should not be singled out because it plagues all levels of
immigration, which we are all trying to work to decrease the
fraud in all levels of our immigration system.
Mr. Morrison. I do not know whether it plagues this more
than others. The fact is that you can abuse our immigration
system. Any system that allows people to travel here to the
United States, to move here to the United States, there are bad
people in the world who will try to misuse it. If we want to be
totally safe, we can close the door or try to. But the fact is
that if we are going to have the kind of open door that has
served the country well for its history, then we will have to
work on the anti-fraud side rather than to destroy the programs
that bring people here.
The fact is, people are talking about these folks who are
coming without connection. For most of our history, most of the
immigrants who are the forebearers of many of the people
sitting in this room came on a self-selected basis who did not
have a reason other than the reason they had in their hopes and
their dreams to come here. So these people are not that
different from the people who built America.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlewoman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte for 5 minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Morrison, welcome back to the Subcommittee that
you once chaired. When you were doing that in the 1980's, I was
practicing immigration law, and I assisted people from more
than 70 countries to immigrate to the United States. So my
purpose here is not anti-immigration. I do have views about
many aspects of our current immigration system. I believe both
our legal and illegal immigration problems are in need of
addressing in many, many areas but most especially in this
area.
When you talk about the creation of diversity, I have a
problem with that because the fact of the matter is that
countries from virtually every continent, including Africa,
have been excluded from participation in this program at
various times. Nigeria, for example, has in some years, because
of the volume of the immigration from Nigeria, been excluded
from participation. And I have a real problem telling someone
from Nigeria who has a close family member or who has a job
skill that is needed in the United States and has a direct
contact with somebody in this country, that they are entitled
to watch somebody from Kenya or Sierra Leone or some other
African country bypass that entire process and, much more
rapidly than they are able to do, come into this country on a
visa with very skimpy information. We know far less about them
because they do not have those family ties. They do not have
those job skills, that contact with an employer in the country,
and I just wonder how you justify telling that person from
Nigeria or from Mexico--the last time we had a hearing on this
there was an Asian-American who testified about the
discrimination against Chinese applicants. There is
discrimination again Europeans because sometimes Great Britain
is on this list, and they are excluded from being able to
participate, that somehow this is a fair system based upon our
system of fairness and justice for people coming to this
country from around the world.
Mr. Morrison. Our system is not fair, meaning that each
person gets to be at the head of the line when they would like
to be at the head of the line.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you not think that immigration should be
a two-way street, that the national interests of the United
States in seeking family reunification, in seeking employment
skills that are needed in this country is a part of the process
of determining who should come in here and not simply giving a
visa to somebody because they put their name in a hat or, in
this case, a computer, and they were lucky enough in a 1-out-
of-100 or a 1-out-of-200 chance to have their name drawn while
other people are on the sidelines from many, many countries
that have----
Mr. Morrison. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Goodlatte. I will yield again.
[4:57 p.m.]
Mr. Morrison. We do all of those things. That is, we
bring--most of the people who come to the United States come
through those two channels that you have just described. And it
is a matter of opinion. Reasonable people can differ as to
whether there ought to be this other channel.
But on the question of fairness, on the question of
fairness which is where you started, the fact is that if you
want fairness for immediate families then you ought to do what
was in the House version of the Immigration Act of 1990, which
is to treat immediate families, minor children and spouses, as
immediate relatives and reunify those families immediately.
Our failure to do that----
Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Krikorian, who I agree with in terms of wanting to take
these visas off the list because they serve no interest,
pointed out that we could also use these visas for that very
purpose. The bill that I have introduced that Mr. Smith co-
sponsored, Congresswoman Herseth co-sponsored, does not do
that, but it is a step in the right direction of ending what I
think is an unfair practice.
Let me get in one more question--I see my light has turned
yellow--to Mr. Krongard, and that is--I would ask you if you
can tell me this. No matter what security precautions we take
with this visa lottery program, there will always be relatively
easy opportunities for terrorists to exploit the program; and I
would argue that the inherent dangers of the program outweigh
the merits. Do you believe that the program still contains
serious risks to national security by the entry of terrorists
or foreign intelligence officers?
Mr. Krongard. As I say in my written statement, we do
continue to believe that. There are improvements that have been
made. It is an open question as to how far the technology and
the efforts by CA can go to really reduce to a satisfactory
level that risk. The risk does continue. Whether it outweighs
other things, I couldn't address that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith,
for purposes of questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krongard, as I recall, in your written testimony you
recommended that the visa lottery program be reformed and that
we do not admit individuals from terrorist-sponsoring
countries. As I understand it, something like 18 percent of all
the visa lottery applicants have come from both terrorist-
sponsoring countries and countries that are sort of on our
watchlist. That is a significant number. Would you be
comfortable with that recommendation that you made in regard to
terrorist-sponsoring countries extending to watch countries as
well, where we either give them extra scrutiny or not admit
them?
Mr. Krongard. That recommendation was deemed to be closed
and satisfied by the response from CA, which was that they did
not want to be in a position to prevent people fleeing
oppression in countries like Cuba or Libya or Syria or Iran to
make them ineligible for visa through the diversity visa
program; and it would have taken statutory change to permit
that. So while that recommendation was made, the response from
our perspective being just dealing with compliance and
implementation of a program rather than the policy and wisdom
of the program, we deemed that that was a satisfactory
response.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Let me direct my next question to Mr. Morrison, but on the
way there say that Ms. Jenks almost embarrassed me by reminding
me that it has been 15 years that I have been involved in the
immigration reform business. Mr. Morrison could have
embarrassed me by reminding us that while he was Chairman of
the Immigration Subcommittee I was his Ranking, but I will
bring it up myself as sort of going on the offense before I
have to go on the defense.
Mr. Morrison, would you be willing to reform the system--my
light is sort of blinking here--reform the system to the point
where we do not admit individuals from terrorist-sponsoring
countries? I know that is a small percentage, but would you be
comfortable with that change?
Mr. Morrison. I think that is a consideration.
I would also think that----
Mr. Smith. Would you support it?
Mr. Morrison. Well, I want to qualify it a bit, as you
would expect. I think that it is a complicated question,
because many of these people are applying outside of those
countries. They are in fact--this is a--as all of our
immigration quota system works, it depends on where you were
born, not where you are. So the question of whether somebody is
tainted by birth, but--it raises some questions. So I would
think about it more broadly as to from where they are applying,
and that might be an appropriate disqualification.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Ms. Jenks, you don't want to reform the
system. You want to eliminate the system, as does Mr.
Krikorian. Why do you say it is bad policy and why do you say
it is contrary to the national interest to have such a program?
Ms. Jenks. Well, first of all, it is a national-origins-
based system. I mean, there is no way to get around that. You
are only eligible if you are from certain countries that are on
the list.
The second thing is that it doesn't serve a national
interest. These are, again, people who are not connected to the
United States in any way. There is no particular reason to
bring them here except for immigration for the sake of
immigration. Maybe when we were still developing the west that
would have been a justifiable reason, but it is not today when
there are people in line who have spouses and minor children
who have been waiting for years, when we have got employment-
based immigrants now at the unskilled level at least waiting,
and we have saturated our low-skill labor market here, and
these are more people coming in with a high school--the
equivalent of a high school degree. They are just not needed
here.
Mr. Smith. A few minutes ago, I think Mr. Goodlatte pointed
out that this doesn't really contribute to diversity. Why do
you think the lottery visas do not contribute to diversity? And
Mr. Krikorian, if you could answer the same question.
Ms. Jenks. Well, the numbers--the statistics on the lottery
winners show that 52 percent of them are European. We don't
have a shortage of white people in this country. That is not
additional diversity. There is a significant number of Africans
coming in, which does put Africans above their historical level
of immigration. But is that justification enough to bring in a
whole bunch more white people from Europe? It just doesn't seem
like that is diversity. And if you are talking about 50,000
visas in a flow of a million-plus legal immigrants and maybe
another million illegal immigrants, you are not going to get to
diversity.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Krikorian.
Mr. Krikorian. The numbers that I cited clearly show that
it is not having an effect on diversity. In other words, that
the immigrant flow and the immigrant stock already here aren't
getting more diverse, more mixed. In fact, quite the opposite
is what seems to be happening.
But I am--frankly, I am uncomfortable with the very idea
that there aren't enough people of whatever kind coming in or
too many people of whatever kind. I mean, this is national
origins thinking. And if we want to do that, if we think that
we need to have more Africans or more eastern Europeans coming
in, I think let us start setting quotas. I don't like that
idea. But as Lincoln said a long time ago in a different
context, he said: I prefer to move to Russia where they take
their despotism pure and unalloyed by hypocrisy.
Let us say what we are doing or let us not do it and try to
stick to a neutral and ethically and racially neutral
immigration system.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, may I have the time to ask one more question?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Krikorian, another question now. This is a little bit
unfair. I noticed in your testimony that you use the phrase
``jobs Americans won't do.'' That is not the subject of today's
hearing, but I would like to have your opinion as to whether
there are jobs Americans won't do.
Mr. Krikorian. There is no such thing as work that won't
get done without immigration. It is economic gibberish. The
fact is that there may be a specific number of jobs that would
shrink without immigration, but that would mean that to----
Just to pull a simple example out of the air. Instead of
five landscapers with shovels, you would have one landscaper
with a little bobcat frontloader. So, in that case, those four
extra jobs may well be jobs that Americans won't do, but the
work gets done by a smaller number of more productive, highly
paid American or legal immigrant workers.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
keen eye on that issue.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I really don't have a statement. I need to learn a lot more
about the diversity visas. Of course, I have raised some
questions in the past about places that I understand have met
the quota of--I don't know what the quota is. But there are
quotas that have been established, like places like Haiti who
have a quota, met the quota in the United States, are not
eligible for the diversity visas. Is that correct?
Mr. Hostettler. If the gentlelady would yield, I am not
exactly sure of the individual countries, but that can be the
case.
Ms. Waters. Well, then what I need to do is find out more
information. I am particularly interested in the Caribbean and
Africa, and I need to find out which of these countries----
Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The countries--I will list them off for you, because this
is a very interesting--and it is very diverse across the world.
These countries are not eligible to participate in this year,
and every year it can change. But Canada, China, Colombia,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico,
Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, United Kingdom--
except Northern Ireland, and Vietnam.
Now each year that changes. Some years, for example,
Nigeria has been on that list as well excluded from
participation, I would say discriminated against in
participating. So to answer your question, Haiti is on the list
this year. They cannot participate.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
I want to thank once again the members of the panel for
your presence and your testimony and assistance in this very
important issue. All Members are instructed that we have 5
legislative days to make additions to the record.
The business before this Subcommittee being completed, we
are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important oversight
hearing.
The visa lottery program was created to bring foreign nationals
into the United States from countries that have sent fewer immigrants
in the past. This program awards permanent resident visas based on pure
luck and threatens national security, results in the unfair
administration of our nation's immigration laws, and encourages a
cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists.
Each year, the visa lottery program grants approximately 50,000
foreign nationals ``permanent resident'' status. Because winners of the
visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a
serious national security threat. A perfect example of the system gone
awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national
who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles
International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for
lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status
as a visa lottery winner.
The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the
national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. In his
testimony, the Department of State's Inspector General states that the
Office of Inspector General ``continues to believe that the Diversity
Visa program contains significant risks to national security from
hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to
use the program for entry into the United States as permanent
residents.'' Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery
program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign
intelligence agencies from having members apply for the program who do
not have criminal backgrounds. These types of organized efforts would
never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-
fraud measures were enacted within the program.
Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have
existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the
United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help
ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing
America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's
economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to
immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.
In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who
comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery
program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to
receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign
nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly
violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants
currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program
pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job
skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored
immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong
message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the
international community as a whole.
Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A
report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is
commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program
multiple times using many different aliases. In fact, 364,000 duplicate
applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone.
In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage
industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to
applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign
nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful
permanent resident status in the U.S.
The visa lottery program is also by its very nature discriminatory.
The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily
disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000
immigrants to the U.S. within a five-year period. For the 2006
application period, nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada,
China, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti and others were not
allowed to participate in the visa lottery program.
The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our
country's immigration system. That is why I introduced H.R. 1219, the
``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This
much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery
program to enhance national security, reduce fraud and opportunism and
restore fairness to our immigration system.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
The United States has tried several different systems for
distributing immigrant visas. A national origins quota system favored
immigrants from Europe at the expense of immigrants from other regions.
In 1965, Congress replaced the national-origins quota system with a
system of family-based and employment-based immigration and a per-
country limit, but this did not distribute visas evenly either. During
the next 20 years, immigrants from Asia and Latin America outnumbered
immigrants from other parts of the world.
The next attempt to balance immigration from around the world
produced a series of piecemeal lottery programs. Lotteries made it
possible for immigrants from under represented countries to obtain
visas. This was followed by a permanent lottery system, the Diversity
Visa Program that is the subject of this hearing. It was established by
the Immigration Act of 1990.
Diversity visas are limited to 6 geographic regions, with a greater
number of visas going to regions that have low rates of immigration.
The Diversity Visa Program does not provide visas for countries that
have sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the past
5 years.
Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-generated,
random lottery drawing. The winners who can qualify for immigrant visas
and are eligible for admission to the United States are granted legal
permanent residence status. To qualify, an applicant must have
completed twelve years of formal education (the equivalent of
graduating from a United States high school) or 2 years of qualifying
work experience. When diversity visa aliens apply for admission to the
United States, they receive the same inspection that other immigrants
receive.
In September of 2003, the Office of the Inspector General for the
Department of State issued a report on the Diversity Visa Program.
According to the report, the Diversity Visa Program was subject to
widespread abuse. Despite a rule against duplicate submissions,
thousands of duplicates were detected each year. Identity fraud was
endemic, and fraudulent documents were commonplace.
The report recommended barring aliens from states that sponsor
terrorism; permanently barring adult aliens who submit multiple
applications; and making the program self-financing by charging every
applicant a fee instead of just charging the applicants who win the
lottery, which is the present system. The charge to winners is $350 per
person. A much lower fee would be possible if every applicant had to
pay a filing fee.
The State Department has converted from paper to electronic
applications and has required each applicant to submit an electronic
photograph. The new process went into effect for the FY 2005 lottery
program. The electronic system has made it possible to do much more
comprehensive screening for duplicate applications.
When paper applications were being used, the screening for
duplicates was limited to comparing the winning applications against
each other and against a small sampling of applications from applicants
who had not been selected. It was not feasible to do more comprehensive
screening when there were as many as 9 million paper applications.
Under the new, electronic system, all of the applications from within
each of the 6 regions are compared to each other; and additional
comparisons are made among the winners.
At a hearing last year on April 29, 2004, the Deputy Inspector
General, Anne W. Patterson, testified that the Department of State had
made progress in reducing fraud and vulnerabilities by implementing a
facial recognition system.
Another concern I want to address is that terrorists will use the
program to enter the United States. People who enter the U.S. using
diversity visas receive the same screening as any other aliens who come
here as an immigrants, and this is much more extensive than the
screening for admission as a nonimmigrant visitor, which is how the 9/
11 terrorists entered the country.
The Diversity Visa Program does what it was intended to do; it
diversifies immigration to the United States. I believe very strongly
that this is a benefit to the United States. Thank you.
<all>