<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:91049.wais] VISA REVOCATIONS: CATCHING THE TERRORISTS AMONG US ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 18, 2003 __________ Serial No. 108-84 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ 91-049 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------ MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Peter Sirh, Staff Director Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota CHRIS BELL, Texas JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel Thomas Costa, Professional Staff Member Robert A. Briggs, Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 18, 2003.................................... 1 Statement of: Ford, Jess T., Director, International Affairs and Trade Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; Catherine Barry, Managing Director, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jayson P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Charles H. DeMore, Interim Assistant Director for Investigations, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Steven C. McCraw, Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation........... 12 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Ahern, Jayson P., Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Information concerning improved Visa revocation and TIPOFF procedures...................................... 88 Prepared statement of.................................... 41 Barry, Catherine, Managing Director, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, prepared statement of...................................... 34 DeMore, Charles H., Interim Assistant Director for Investigations, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of............................................... 49 Ford, Jess T., Director, International Affairs and Trade Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of............................................... 15 Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, prepared statement of................... 9 Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 7 McCraw, Steven C., Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of............................................... 55 Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3 VISA REVOCATIONS: CATCHING THE TERRORISTS AMONG US ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2003 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:17 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Shays, Janklow, Kucinich, Maloney, Sanchez, and Bell. Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel; J. Vincent Chase, chief investigator; R. Nicholas Palarino, senior policy advisor; Thomas Costa and Kristine McElroy, professional staff members; Robert A. Briggs, clerk; Chris Skaluba, fellow; David Rapallo, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager. Mr. Shays. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National Security, Emergency Threats and International Relations hearing entitled, ``Visa Revocations: Catching the Terrorists Among Us'' is called to order. We are a welcoming Nation. But those from around the world who would visit the United States must ask permission to come here. They apply for a visa. When they do, we have the sovereign right, and the sworn duty, to deny entry to anyone who might pose a threat to our security. Today we ask: If a visa is issued erroneously, or before disqualifying information on possible terrorist connections is obtained, what happens then? The answer: Too little. Revocation of a visa remains a trifurcated bureaucratic shuffle with little imperative for corrective action. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, referred to as DHS, and Justice bring disparate practices, informal customs, and clashing cultures to what should be a seamless process. As a result, one available screen against potentially violent invaders remains dangerously porous, leaving Americans avoidably vulnerable to terrorists in our midst. In an earlier report on visa screening as an antiterrorism tool, the General Accounting Office [GAO], found some aliens, whose visas had been revoked on terrorism grounds, might have entered the United States anyway. So the subcommittee, joined by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, asked GAO to look more closely at the strengths and weaknesses of the post-September 11th visa revocation process. The GAO findings released today describe limited progress and systematic problems. While law enforcement and intelligence data is being forwarded to the State Department's electronic watch list more routinely, the Department often shares information on visa revocations slowly and inconsistently, if at all. DHS immigration officials may not know they are admitting someone on a revoked visa. The FBI has no legal or operational incentive to pursue aliens on the basis of a revoked visa alone. It is not even considered a counter-terrorism matter. The legal, procedural, and technical relics of a simpler age hamper those involved in issuing visas, controlling entry to the United States, and monitoring foreigners among us. A reason good enough to deny applicants' entry into the United States is not sufficient cause to remove them once they are here. Even when notifications are timely, visa revocation actions are faxed or cabled, leading to downstream errors and misinterpretation. Suspicions about terrorist connections are not always detailed in the revocation notice, making it difficult to pursue removal under immigration laws. So what is the product of this disjointed approach to visa revocations? GAO concludes 30 or more people who should not have been admitted to the United States due to terrorism concerns may still be among us, undetected and undeterred. Immigration screens have to be as strong as the global enemy they are meant to catch. Twenty-one months after the September 11th attacks, revocation of a visa has to be more than a paper process, a ``file and forget'' exercise. All the September 11 terrorists had visas. If the next Al Qaeda cell manages to get in, they should not breach our shores carrying revoked entry documents. To be effective as an antiterrorism tool, visa revocations have to be timely, well founded, consistently posted to watch lists, and acted upon by law enforcement officials until the foreigner's status is determined. Today, the GAO, State Department, DHS representatives, and the FBI will sit as one panel to help us examine the visa revocation process in a detailed and constructive way. We are grateful for their participation, their patriotism, and their dedication to public service. We look forward to their testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.002 Mr. Shays. I welcome our witnesses. They are: Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; Catherine Barry, Managing Director, office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jayson P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Officer, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Charles H. DeMore, Interim Assistant Director for Investigations, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Steven C. McCraw, Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation. At this time, I would ask you to stand and be sworn in. Also, if there is anyone that may need to testify, please stand as well. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Shays. All witnesses have responded in the affirmative. Mrs. Maloney, do you have any statement? Mrs. Maloney. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this incredibly important hearing. Nearly 2 years ago we faced the worst attack against our homeland in the history of this Nation. The tragic events of September 11th and the city I represent, once again put the inadequacies of the visa issuing and tracking system into the spotlight. I must say that we all know that the hijackers who flew those planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, were all legally in the United States with temporary visas despite the immigration laws that specifically prohibit terrorists from being admitted into this country. When Congress established the new Department of Homeland Security, it attempted to improve the process of issuing visas by giving the DHS the responsibility for approving immigrant petitions and for inspecting everyone who enters the United States. However, we have learned that things have not improved. Information sharing is critical if we are going to have an effective system for determining which visas should be issued, and to whom, and for ensuring that we know for what purpose those individuals have entered the United States. But if the Customs Service, the INS, the States, and others are all having different systems, it is difficult for me to believe that potential terrorists are not slipping through the cracks. Additionally, we must ensure that foreign students who enroll in American universities complete their course work and do not abuse the system by using student visas as a cover for terrorist activity. We know that another terrorist attack will occur somewhere in America in the future. While each local community, city, and State may be a target, New York, the area that I represent, and my constituents know first hand the horror and devastation that results when terrorists, who have no regard for human life, are allowed into this country and conduct their training activities unnoticed. Since September 11th, we have made protecting the homeland a top priority. I believe that one of the most basic things that we can do to prevent another attack is to stop terrorists from entering the country. Therefore, I deeply thank the chairman for holding this hearing today about this critically important issue. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.003 Mr. Shays. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Bell, I believe you have a statement you want to put on the record. Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to thank you for calling this hearing on such an important issue concerning the security of our Nation. In response to the attacks of September 11th, President Bush made commitments to consolidate and integrate the operability of the numerous watch lists that monitor terrorist activity within our borders. However, these commitments made by the Bush administration have gone largely unfulfilled, according to recent GAO testimony before this subcommittee. GAO has reported that nine Federal agencies still maintain 12 different terrorist watch lists. Transparency between Federal agencies with oversight has not been implemented satisfactorily. If we are to strive for the continued security of ports of entry to our country, there must be an elevated level of communication between these agencies of national oversight. Additionally, immigrants with visas that have been revoked due to suspicion of terrorist activity must be part of common interdepartmental watch lists, located and removed immediately. It is incumbent upon us, if our national security is to be preserved, to move beyond making commitments. We must take definitive action. Since September 11th, despite heightened standards used in visa applications and screening, background checks remain inconsistent from department-to-department. Communication between agencies, such as the State Department, consular offices, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies that are involved in issuing visas, must be increased if we are to forestall potential terrorist attacks. We must be dedicated to protecting the lives of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I submit that now is the time. I would hope that today's witnesses can adequately address the concerns facing our national security. Again, thank you for calling this hearing. Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. Let me just say before calling on our witnesses, I see folks standing up. Any students or any staff who want to sit in the last few chairs on either end of what we have up here, can. If you are a student, an intern, or staff, please feel free to sit in the seats at the end there. I ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in the record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask for unanimous consent to insert a statement from Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. Senator Grassley was a co- requestor of this GAO report under discussion today. He has a statement which will be put in the record. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.006 Mr. Shays. I thank our witnesses for their patience. We had votes, and that really interrupted us. All witnesses' statements will be included in the record in their entirety. My request is that you be as close to 5-minutes as possible. If necessary, we will set the clock for another 5 minutes. Following the testimony, I believe we will have a healthy discussion. We want to determine what the problem is, what the solution is, and then get on with our lives. Mr. Ford. STATEMENT OF JESS T. FORD, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; CATHERINE BARRY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VISA SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JAYSON P. AHERN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; CHARLES H. DEMORE, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INVESTIGATIONS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND STEVEN C. MCCRAW, INSPECTOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to discuss our report, which we are issuing today, on the need for new policies and procedures to fill gaps in the visa revocation process. Our report calls for new policies and procedures to ensure that when the State Department revokes a visa because of terrorist concerns, homeland security and law enforcement agencies that protect our country are promptly notified of this information, and take appropriate action. Since the September 11th attacks, the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs has been receiving an increased volume of information from the intelligence community, law enforcement agencies, and other sources on suspected terrorists. In some cases, the Department decided to revoke visas of certain individuals when it received potentially derogatory information on them after issuing the visas. This issue was raised in our October 2002 report which was referred to earlier. At your request, Mr. Chairman, and that of Senator Grassley, we evaluated the effectiveness of the visa revocation process and how it is being used as an antiterrorism tool. Our work focused on all 240 of the State Department's visa revocations on suspected terrorist grounds from September 11, 2001, through December 31, 2002. Our analysis shows that the visa revocation process could be used more aggressively to prevent suspected terrorists from entering the country, and to alert homeland security and law enforcement agencies that individuals who entered before their visas were revoked, might be security risks. However, we found that in practice the process broke down when information on visa revocations was not shared between the State Department and appropriate immigration and law enforcement offices. It broke down even further when individuals in question had already entered the United States prior to revocation. INS and the FBI were not routinely taking actions to investigate, locate, or resolve the cases of individuals who remained in the United States after their visas were revoked. Depending on the results of these investigations, the cases could be resolved by clearing persons who were wrongly suspected of terrorism, removing suspected terrorists from the country, or prosecuting suspected terrorists of criminal charges. In our review of 240 visa revocations, we found numerous cases where notification of the revocation did not reach the appropriate units within the INS or the FBI and cases where lookouts were not posted to the agency watch list of suspected terrorists. We also found evidence that individuals whose visas were revoked because of terrorist concerns entered the United States and may still remain in the country. Additionally, the INS and the FBI were not routinely taking actions to investigate, locate, and resolve these cases. I would like to expand on these weaknesses and the process, and then comment on the U.S. Government's lack of a specific policy on visa revocations. Mr. Chairman, we have prepared two charts that are on my right. The first chart depicts the flow of information between the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, its overseas post, and the INS Inspection Unit, which is now part of DHS, the INS National Security Unit, which is now part of DHS, and the FBI and its component organizations. As shown in the first chart, the top box shows the extent of communication on visa revocations between the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs and State's overseas consular posts. We found that State had not consistently followed its informal policy of entering a lookout into its Class Lookout System at the time of revocation. Without a lookout, it is possible that a new visa could be issued without additional security screening. We reviewed class records on all 240 individuals whose visas were revoked, and found that the State Department did not post lookouts within a 2-week period on 64 of these individuals. The second box depicts information flow on revocations between the State Department and the INS Inspection Unit. The INS Inspection Unit is the unit that posts the information on the INS lookout system, which goes to the border agents at ports of entry. It is supposed to alert the border agents to prevent potential terrorists from entering the United States. Officials from this Unit told us that they had not received any notification of revocations from the State Department in 43 of the 240 cases. That is listed on the first bullet on the second chart. In another 47 cases, the Unit did not receive information on the revocation on a timely basis. On average, in these 47 cases, it took 12 days for the revocations to reach the Unit. On a positive side, when notifications were received, INS agents were able to stop 14 individuals from entering the country. However, once persons enter the United States and have their visas revoked, INS border agents are not able to take action. We found 30 cases where persons had entered the country and may still be here, even though their visas had been revoked. Neither the INS's National Security Unit, which is responsible for investigating these cases, nor the FBI routinely investigated these 30 cases. A key reason was the weakness in the information flow between the State Department, the INS, and the FBI, and within units of each of those agencies. This is depicted in the third box on the first chart which shows the information that is supposed to flow from the State Department to the FBI units and to the Investigative Unit of the INS. INS officials also told us that they generally do not investigate these cases because it would be challenging to remove these individuals unless they were in violation of their immigration status, even if they could locate them. As a consequence, in most cases the INS and the FBI did not investigate the whereabouts of the individuals who entered the United States and had their visas revoked. We believe that the weaknesses that I have just outlined are the result of the U.S. Government's limited policy guidance on the visa revocation process. Our analysis indicates that the U.S. Government has no specific policy on the use of visa revocations as an antiterrorism tool and no written procedures to guide State in notifying the relevant agencies of visa revocation on terrorist grounds. Moreover, neither the INS nor the FBI had specific policies or procedures that covered investigating, locating, and taking appropriate action in cases where the visa holder had already entered the country. To remedy these systemic weaknesses in the visa revocation process, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is now responsible for issuing regulations and administering and enforcing provisions of U.S. immigration law, in conjunction with the Department of State and the Attorney General, develop specific policies and procedures for the interagency visa revocation process, to ensure that the notification of visa revocations for suspected terrorists and relevant supporting information are promptly submitted from the State Department to Immigration and law enforcement agencies, and that their respective inspection and investigative units receive this information on a timely basis. We are also recommending that they develop a specific policy on actions that immigration and law enforcement agencies could take to investigate and locate individuals whose visas have been revoked for terrorism concerns who remain in the United States after revocation. We further recommend that they determine if any of the individuals with visas revoked on terrorist grounds are currently in the United States, and determine whether or not they continue to pose a security threat to the United States. I might add that the Department of Homeland Security commented on our draft report that they agreed with the thrust of our recommendations and said that they planned to work with the State and Justice Departments to improve this process. That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. [Note.--The GAO report entitled, ``Border Security, New Policies and Procudures Are Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process,'' may be found in subcommittee files.] [The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.021 Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and good morning to the members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the subject of visa revocations and how they fit into our overall strategy of strengthening the visa process as an antiterrorism tool. It cannot be stated too often that border security is a multi-agency mission that requires information sharing, cooperation, continuous analysis, and procedural review so that we stay ahead of the people who seek to enter the United States to do harm to Americans or our foreign visitors. Since September 11th, and helped by legislation that required data sharing among Federal agencies, the State Department's visa officers abroad have access to a data base more than double the size of what they could consult prior to that date. We receive extensive records from the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies through our Consular Lookout and Support System [CLASS]. The TIPOFF program managed by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at State, provides highly classified intelligence agency information on terrorist threats. Both of these systems are at the fingertips of consular officers who adjudicate visa applications abroad. Both are available to DHS inspectors at ports of entry. Nonetheless, visa information comes to us in a variety of forms and is not always available when an applicant presents himself. We use visa revocations to ensure that already issued visas take advantage of this information. There are two forms of revocations. The first category of revocation is pretty straightforward. We obtain information that clearly relates to an individual holding a validly issued U.S. visa, that demonstrates that individual to be ineligible under one or more provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The visa is revoked, and the lookout entry is made. Both can be done by a consular officer abroad, and the matter ends there if the applicant is overseas. Many of our revocations fall into the latter category of being ``prudential.'' We receive information about a person who may or may not be the person to whom a U.S. visa was issued, telling us something that may or may not render that person ineligible for the visa they received. Since the information, when provided about known or suspected terrorists, is serious and if true can endanger our security, we take the necessary precaution of revoking the visa prudentially. This sort of information about possible terrorists almost always comes to us from TIPOFF and originates with U.S. intelligence agencies. It is often vague and ambiguous, and identifies people with common names often without other biographic information such as birthdates and places of birth that could be used for corroboration. When we revoke a visa prudentially, we want to see the applicant again so that we can elicit further information that either confirms the ineligibility and leads to a firm visa refusal, or discounts it and clears the applicant for solid visa issuance. We recognize that the inspector from DHS at the port of entry is not in the best position to have the time or resources to interview someone in light of new and normally partial information that derives from intelligence sources. The DHS officer can deny admission to the United States to that individual based on the revoked visa. The consular officer will then review the case overseas, and readjudicated it in consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies. A second scenario concerns the admission of an alien to the United States before a visa was revoked. Such a case must then be handled by DHS immigration officers. Prior to the creation of DHS, we alerted the INS Lookout Unit about a prudential revocation. The INS, of course, has the most pertinent information as to whether the alien was in the United States. We now work most directly with the Lookout Unit in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of DHS. The system we have in place shares information quickly and reliably. The visa office checked visas revoked from January 1st of this year to May 31st, revoked by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State on a prudential basis, and found that all are properly in the lookout system with the correct revocation code. Last year, and in years past, we entered such revocations into CLASS into what are known as ``quasi-refusal codes.'' We sent the revocation certificate to INS by fax when we revoked a visa, and sent a cable to that agency and the FBI as a secondary means of notifying them of this action. The language of the revocation certification which informs the alien and other relevant U.S. Government agencies that the visa is no longer valid, was written in consultation with the then-INS and the Department of Justice. Last summer we became aware of the fact that port-of-entry inspectors did not have access to the quasi-refusal for a suspected terrorist. Recognizing this vulnerability, we created the revocation code that we now enter into CLASS which does transfer information automatically in virtual real time to DHS via the IBIS system. Such an entry immediately allows a port-of-entry inspector to know that a visa presented for admission has been revoked. Unfortunately, the change in procedure was not communicated effectively within the Visa Office to all pertinent parties until December of last year when we began using this revocation code in all cases. This gap only affected prudential revocations since the revocation based on a known visa ineligibility would be accompanied by a CLASS entry based on the underlying ground for the visa refusal, and would be available via IBIS in any event. Nonetheless, it was a gap that perhaps represented a carry over from the previous informal system of communication that we regret, but which we have now corrected. The use of the revocation coding class not only promptly notifies other of the potential need for action if the subject of the revocation attempts to or has already entered the United States, but also allows for transparency in our data collection and auditing. We can now review revocation data, and know the numbers of revocations and the reasons they were revoked. Our partnership with DHS in this area has been greatly improved by these system changes, and the previous informal system is now a thing of the past. Finally, let me discuss the specific cases that were reviewed by the GAO and led to the report that we are here to discuss. While they were not free from the improvised nature of our old procedures, I believe they demonstrate how cautiously we proceed when there is the slightest risk of a terrorist connection to a visa applicant. First is the 105 cases that the GAO first identified in their October report. Much newspaper ink has been spilled, exaggeratedly claiming that the subjects of these revocations are suspected terrorists. In fact, all of these subjects have since been cleared by the FBI and some have been reissued visas. Some of the affected people were turned away at U.S. ports of entry and some were able to enter the United States in spite of the revocation. To date, we have received no information from law enforcement indicating that any of these applicants was ever a terrorist or a threat to U.S. national security. None of their names ever applied in CLASS, as eligible on terrorism, or any other ground of refusal. In fact, the incident was entirely due to the difficulty we experienced when first instituting the ``Visas Condor'' interagency screening program for visa applicants. The workload stressed the resources of participating agencies for several months last year. The remaining 135 revocations were based on information that we learned via TIPOFF entries from the intelligence community. Whenever we receive new TIPOFF entries, we run the names against our data base of issued visas to ensure that we have not previously approved a visa to someone who should not be allowed to enter the United States. We revoke any such visas prudentially to stop the applicant from traveling to the United States and to allow for resolution of the case in any subsequent application. These cases, since they refer back to specific information about known or suspected terrorists, are potentially very serious, but they are complicated by the same vagueness about identity and ineligibility that accompany the use of incomplete information. Our practice is to revoke the visa if there appears to be a link between the intelligence report and the visa holder. Today, modern computerized systems give us the chance to apply even partial knowledge to our advantage by allowing us to review historical data on issued visas. We continue to refine our procedures, and to enhance data share concerning data on lookouts and visa holders with other Federal agencies. The tragedy of September 11th strengthened the resolve of the Department of State to take every step within our authority to safeguard our borders and spurred us to think through improvements in our procedures for visa work. We work cooperatively every day with DHS and the FBI on numerous border security programs and have mutually improved many of these programs. We remain vigilant in looking for further enhancements and have redoubled our efforts to improve the performance of consulate officers overseas and headquarters staff in meeting our primary goal of secured borders and open doors. Thank you very much. I would be happy to take your questions as appropriate. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Ms. Barry follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.026 Mr. Shays. Thank you, Ms. Barry. Mr. Ahern. Mr. Ahern. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege to be here before you today to discuss the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's role in visa revocations. I would like to take this time to outline key parts of my written statement. As you know, on March 1, 2003, inspectors from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, as well as inspectors from the U.S. Customs Service and the entire Border Patrol merged to form the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection [BCBP], within the Department of Homeland Security. We are resident within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. Now, for the first time in our country's history, all agencies of the U.S. Government with significant border responsibilities have been brought under one roof. The priority mission of BCBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. BCBP's role in the visa revocation process is to prevent holders of revoked visas from gaining entry into the United States. Identifying and preventing the entry of persons ineligible to enter the United States, in this case because they have had their visa revoked is the responsibility of BCBP. BCBP has reviewed the GAO report and its recommendations on the revocation process. We believe BCBP has a key role in two of the three recommendations. One of those recommendations is that the agency develop specific policies and procedures for the interagency visa revocations process to ensure that notification of visa revocations are transmitted in a timely fashion from the Department of State, to Immigration, now BCBP, and the law enforcement agencies and their respective inspection and investigation units. The other recommendations is that agencies determine if any persons with revoked visas on terrorism grounds are in the United States and, if so, whether they pose a security threat. BCBP has already begun work with the Department of State and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [BICE], to address the concerns raised by the GAO report. We have agreed on perfecting procedures that use an electronic interface between the Department of State's Consular Lookout and Support System [CLASS], and our Interagency Border Inspection System [IBIS], so that revocations get into the lookout systems immediately. We have agreed on a procedure for direct notification to BCBP for the Department of State's revocation cables. We have agreed that BCBP will immediately verify if there is a lookout on the subject of a visa revocation. Further, we will also determine whether the subject of a revocation has entered the United States and, if so, BCBP will immediately provide the information to the investigative arm, BICE. We will continue our discussions with the Department of State and BICE, both from the operational and the technical side, to make sure that these procedures are working. Together we will make sure that the enhancements are in place to ensure timely agency notification so that revocations get into the lookout system. The electronic interface I just mentioned provides the best solution and a transparent verifiable record of action. In cases where the Department of State cannot physically notate the visa and thus render it invalid for travel, we need a lookout in IBIS to ensure that if the subject arrives at a port of entry here in the United States, the inspector will know that the visa is invalid. As a redundancy, the Department of State sends revocations by fax or cable to BCBP for entry into the NAILS system, which is the National Automated Immigration Lookout System. NAILS interfaces with IBIS as well. In this way we have backup procedures to ensure that this critical information is available to our frontline BCBP officers. Protection of the Nation is the highest priority. It is our highest duty. We actively seek improvements in our own practices and work with other agencies to fulfill our mission. We know that our new agency faces great challenges in merging the border agencies to fulfill our mission. But now that all the Federal inspection services and Border Patrol have been unified within Customs and Border Protection under the Department of Homeland Security, we are in a far better position to meet those challenges and accomplish our goal. We will be far more effective working together than we were as separate agencies in different departments. Together we will learn all we can from our legacy agencies, and we will bring new innovation to border management. With the continued support of the President, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress, BCBP will succeed in meeting the great demands placed upon it. We will play a key role in the Department of Homeland Security by better securing our border against the threat of terrorism. I will conclude at this point. I would be happy to take any questions later. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ahern follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.032 Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Ahern. Mr. DeMore. Mr. DeMore. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to update you on the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's efforts to combat terrorism and to explain our role in the visa revocation process. No mission of the U.S. Government is more important than protecting the Nation and the American people against future terrorist attacks. This mission is paramount to the responsibilities of the newly created Department of Homeland Security. The work of BICE is an indispensable part of fulfilling that mission. Knowing who has entered and departed from our country in real time is an important element in enforcing our laws. Equally important is knowing in real time when the Department of State, or another Government agency, has developed information like a visa revocation or other derogatory information about an individual who has entered but not departed. Since September 11th, the law enforcement community has risen to the challenge of enhancing efficient communication and collaborating appropriately a national security information- gathering, intelligence-sharing investigations. I am pleased to be here today to discuss BICE's role in the investigation of all referred visa revocation matters. On May 27, 2003, the GAO presented BICE with its draft report. We agree with the GAO finding that the Secretary of Homeland Security should work with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to strengthen the visa revocation process as an antiterrorism tool, and to establish specific policies and procedures that ensure timely and direct notification of visa revocations to both the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, as well as to BICE. BICE considers the timely notification of State Department visa revocations to be an important element in protecting the United States against the entry of inadmissible aliens, including possible terrorists. Currently the State Department provides BICE information on visa revocations to aid in determining how to proceed on a specific case. The GAO recommendation that is particularly relevant to BICE is the one regarding determining if any persons with revoked visas on terrorism grounds are in the United States and, if so, whether they pose a security risk. The National Security Unit within BICE is responsible for investigating all leads and referrals involving terrorism and national security matters involving cases where an issued visa has been subsequently revoked. In making these determinations during an issued investigation, BICE coordinates with BCBP to ensure that it has all appropriate information regarding entries into the United States. Pursuant to NSU's standard operating policy, visa revocation cases are investigated and coordinated in the same manner as all other types of national security cases handled by that unit. The NSCU has a clearly defined role to investigate those cases involving aliens who may have entered the country and either had their visa revoked after admission or were admitted despite the revocation of their visa. BICE's records indicate that during the time period studied in the report, the National Security Unit received information on 10 leads involving visa revocation. In all 10 cases, the National Security Unit conducted full field investigations concluding that there was insufficient evidence under current civil and criminal immigration law to allow BICE to take action against those visa holders who were located. With the release of the GAO report, we are working with our partners by reviewing additional data to ensure that no other cases have not been appropriately addressed from an investigative standpoint. It is important to note that the information needed to revoke a visa is not necessarily sufficient for BICE to initiate removal proceedings against an alien who has been admitted to the United States and is otherwise maintaining his or her status. When an alien is admitted to the United States, certain legal rights are attached to that admission. These legal rights require that BICE present clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate before an immigration judge that the alien is a national security threat or is removable on other statutory grounds. Another factor in prosecuting these revocation cases is the current language used on the revocation certificate when an alien has been admitted to the United States. The language states that the visa revocation takes effect only after the alien departs from the United States. Consequently, the visa remains valid, and the aliens maintains lawful status while in the United States, absent any conduct making him or her subject to removal. We are working with the State Department to determine if a change in this language would improve our ability to remove an alien who has been admitted. Deterring illegal migration and combating immigration- related crime have never been more critical to our national security. The men and women of BICE are taking this mission with diligence, determined to ensure that no duty is neglected, even as they continue to adjust during this time of transition to the new Department. We look forward to working with other DHS components, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State on strengthening the visa revocation process. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Mr. DeMore follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.036 Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. DeMore. Mr. McCraw. Mr. McCraw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, First I would like to depart from my written testimony, with your permission, and ask that it be included in its entirety. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. McCraw. I would like to publicly thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for all the support that you provided the FBI, enabling it, along with its partners, to prevent acts of terrorism. We appreciate all the support that you have provided. Second, I would like to publicly thank the Department of State and Homeland Security for their support to the FBI and information sharing. It is happening. Frankly, we could not function without it. We are very proud to be partners of theirs in this effort. I agree with Mr. Ford that the process that he studied was broken. I do not think there is any question about that. Perhaps it is my fault as this study went forward to not bring to GAO's attention that there was a system in place. It has been in place since 2002. It does address all those issues in terms of visa revocations as well as other cables. In fact, there are other parts of the equation, as Congresswoman Maloney pointed out, that when you are trying to stop terrorists from getting into the United States, we have to be concerned about those individuals that come into the United States undetected, even if they did not have a visa revoked, either through Canada, Mexico, or a country that does not require visas. That system would have been put in place in 2002 back when the Attorney General was tasked to setting up the Foreign Terrorism tracking Task Force, that we could put in place, that would be able to stop individuals like Al Midhar and Nawaf Al Hamzi from coming into the United States, two of the hijackers of September 11? That starts with working with State Department information, recognizing that TIPOFF, for the intelligence community and for the State Department, is the single point of an indexing system in terms of individuals who have been linked to terrorism. The other system is VGTOF and the FBI's NCIC files. That information has been provided since 2002 to the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Track Force. When any one of those individuals who has been linked or identified to terrorism tries to enter the United States, clearly as Homeland Security pointed out today, they have NAILS, IBIS, and other systems in place at the points of entry. There is also a fail safe system working behind the scenes. When they do enter the United States, the system allows the exploitation of data that is available out there, including the INS data, for example, to identify when they come into the United States at any given time, no matter whether they came in on a visa, whether the visa was revoked, or otherwise. In this situation, of the 240, 105 of those revoked as a result of delays. I believe those were delays in the FBI in terms of doing background checks. All of those individuals were cleared. Out of the 240, there was another 145, 47 of whom who placed in the TIPOFF data base, which means that there had been a determination by the intelligence community that in some way, shape, or form, these individuals were linked, associated, or had relationships with terrorism. All 47 of those individuals went through this particular process. Out of that 47, 8 of those individuals were determined to have been in the United States at some point in time. In fact, four of those individuals were pre-September 11 and the other ones were pre setting up this particular system which went into effect in January 2002. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that there is a system in place. Thankfully, the system is in place primarily because of the support of Congress in terms of funding, and something that was recognized early on that we have to do something to put in place to stop these individuals before they get into the United States. Once they do get into the United States undetected, how do we know? How can we do that so that we can prevent other like situations. Granted, it does not take into account every gap that exists, but clearly it was a glaring gap. It has been filled, I am proud to point out. Although redundant, it is important that we have all processes working effectively. Certainly we in the FBI are glad to take suggestions from GAO and others to do anything we can to improve our capabilities and our ability to do the job. We welcome any constructive criticism. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.040 Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. McCraw. I thank all of our witnesses. We are going to start out with the Governor and then go to Mrs. Maloney. We will spend 10 minutes per questioner. We are getting very helpful information. I am not certain that the committee has a full sense of where things exist right now, but hopefully before the end of our hearing, we will know. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Janklow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For me, the past is prolog. We really were not very well prepared on September 11, notwithstanding what structures were in place. Since then there has been a huge amount of activity. There is a certain amount of growing pains. My sense is that things get better every day. That is my sense. Are they getting better fast enough to prevent the one magical problem? We do not know. Ms. Barry, in your written testimony, you say you do not agree with all the conclusions of the GAO. What conclusions do you not agree with in the GAO study? Ms. Barry. I think we took from the GAO report the notion that we need to have a liaison with more individuals on this process. We are trying to keep the hand-off very simple and very direct. We always use the INS Lookout Unit for the hand- off. We kept in contact with them as the organization at DHS changed. We have verified with Mr. Ahern that should be our primary partner for this type of activity. Mr. Janklow. Have you read the first page of what the GAO found on their report? Ms. Barry. I did at some time. Mr. Janklow. Let me just ask you. ``Names were not consistently posted to the agency's watch list of suspected terrorists.'' Do you agree or disagree with that? Ms. Barry. Let me explain that when we were doing visa revocations prior to the creation of the revocation code---- Mr. Janklow. I am sorry. This is rude. Let me interrupt you for a second, if I can. Let me ask you. Let us forget the past for a moment. Today are names consistently posted to an agency's watch list of suspected terrorists? Ms. Barry. Sir, there are two issues here. Is someone simply a suspected terrorist? That name is posted to other agencies through the TIPOFF program. If a subject of such an INTEL report seems to be someone who holds an issued visa, then there is the issue of visa revocation. We use one code, and one code only, now to indicate that we have revoked a visa. That code is shared with DHS through the IBIS system. Mr. Janklow. Are names consistently posted to agency watch lists of suspected terrorists? Is that a yes? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir; it is a yes. Mr. Janklow. OK. It says, ``Individuals whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds entered the United States and still remain.'' Now, as I understand it, from your testimony, Mr. DeMore, you indicate in your written testimony that the standards are different for revoking of visas, and--I will say--expelling someone from the country; is that correct? Mr. DeMore. That is correct. Mr. Janklow. Is this a statutory problem or a regulatory problem? Mr. DeMore. I am not an attorney, sir, but I have discussed it with our attorneys. We believe it could be corrected without statutory changes. Mr. Janklow. It is inconceivable to me that we would revoke a visa of someone because we are concerned about the security of this country. In our words, we keep them out, but once they are here we are going to let them stay here. We are not dealing with that regulation. Whose agency is this regulation in? Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry. Sir, the language of the Certificate of Revocation and the issue that it becomes effective when the person departs the United States, came out of an interagency consultation in 1999 between INS, the State Department, and the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Department of Justice. Mr. Janklow. Has that been reviewed now? Ms. Barry. The DHS has asked that it be reviewed. We have started our internal deliberations to do that. We have not yet met with the Department of Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation. Mr. Janklow. How long with that process take? Ms. Barry. It should not take long. We are prepared to meet with the other partners on this issue. The Department of Justice, because of litigation issues, has serious equities on this issue. Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Janklow. Certainly. Mr. Shays. I do not understand. ``Serious equities.'' What do you mean? Ms. Barry. Well, the Office of Immigration Litigation is responsible for taking cases to the immigration courts. So we have to consult them. It has been viewed up until this time that someone who is admitted to the United States and is in status, the controlling issue--and again I caveat this that I am not an attorney--is the admission by the Immigration officer at the port of entry. The visa itself is only the travel document to allow someone to permit themselves for inspection. So the visa has no legal authority once someone is admitted into the United States by INS, and now DHS. Mr. Shays. I was just asking about the concept of ``serious equities.'' I just do not understand. It is like ``State Department Speak.'' I want to understand you. Ms. Barry. The Government's position is going to be defended by the Department of Justice if someone wants to litigate the issue of the visa revocation. Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Janklow. But, the Department of Justice is your lawyer. They are not your decisionmakers, correct? These litigators are your lawyers, not your decisionmakers? Ms. Barry. That is true, sir. Mr. Janklow. You make the findings within your agency, and then it is their job to defend you under the law? Ms. Barry. I can only say at this point that in 1999 when this issue was last reviewed, the Department of State consulted the other agencies. Mr. Janklow. Much has happened since 1999. Much process did not work back then. We have a new system in play. Is there no sense of urgency in dealing with this? Ms. Barry. There is a sense of urgency, sir. The issue was brought to us fairly recently. I cannot tell you specifically when the issue was brought to us. It has been recent. Mr. Janklow. Thank you. One of the things that you said, Mr. Ford, was that the State Department was not following its ``informal policy.'' Let me ask you. At this stage of the game, either we have a policy or we do not. One of the problems that citizens have with Government is that they never understand what an ``informal policy'' is. Is that one that you have that nobody follows, somebody follows, you choose to follow if you feel like it? What is an ``informal policy,'' sir? Mr. Ford. For us, it is a written policy that---- Mr. Janklow. That is ignored. Mr. Ford. No, in this particular case it was not a written policy. Mr. Janklow. In other words, you have a policy---- Mr. Ford. When we asked what kind of policies they have in writing that describe what their responsibilities are, they did provide some limited information. But there were certain things that were not written down. For example, the timeliness question. There is not a written policy at the Department of State that says you have to do this within 1 day. Mr. Janklow. That is what I am trying to get at, sir. That being the case, there is no way in the world that the universe of the State Department could ever understand what the policy is and give any uniform application. Mr. Ford. We would agree with that. That is why we made the recommendations so that could be corrected. Mr. Janklow. Have they disputed that recommendation? Mr. Ford. State did not comment on our recommendations, so I do not know what their position is on that. Mr. Janklow. I fully understand and appreciate the fact that people slip through the cracks that should not. In State and local governments, pedophiles and child molesters end up as approved foster parents sometimes, notwithstanding all the efforts to try to weed these people out. I can appreciate the difficulty that all of you have in all of your agencies. Mr. McCraw, I notice you are originally from El Paso. Are you familiar with that multi-agency group that is located on the old military base? Mr. McCraw. Yes, sir, Fort Biggs, at EPIC. Mr. Janklow. How many agencies are involved in that? Mr. McCraw. Every Federal agency outside the intelligence community participates there, including the Department of Defense. Mr. Janklow. And the State of Texas? Mr. McCraw. Yes sir, they do; even more so now. Traditionally they did not when I was with the State Police in Texas. We did not have a formal membership. They do have a liaison relation with them. Mr. Janklow. Officers in South Dakota, my State, the highway patrol, were able to check individuals coming down the interstate doing any kind of check, and access that data base. Is that data base tied into the data bases of these other agencies that Mr. DeMore, Mr. Ahern, and Ms. Barry's agencies are using? Mr. McCraw. Well, all of our data bases are at EPIC. Mr. Janklow. They are? Mr. McCraw. Yes, sir. The advantage, as you said, just like your highway patrol there, they have a 24/7 watch. You can pick up the phone and call and make those checks. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Ahern, on page 3 of your written testimony, I did not quite follow this. ``By revoking the visa prudentially, the bearer is required to reapply for a visa.'' Then you go on in the next sentence, ``The actual visa, once issued to an individual, is usually at large and could be used if inspectors at ports of entry are not aware of the revocation.'' But given the fact that you use data bases, that should not happen again; should it? Could someone just walk through a port of entry with a visa without having them checked on the computer quickly? Mr. Ahern. No, that should not happen at all. Once somebody comes into the United States, they should be entered into the system, the Interagency Border Inspection System, which does then interact with the NAILS system as well as the CLASS system. If there is a lookout in the system, it should be identified. If it is in there for a visa revocation, then that person is referred to secondary inspection for final determination. Mr. Janklow. So what you have here should not be the case any longer; is that correct? Mr. Ahern. That is correct. Mr. Janklow. Let me ask you all, if I can, in this limited time I have available. Is there any problem with the existing Federal laws that you now feel, given the functions that you are carrying out, all the reorganizations, all the things that are being done? We understand that it is helter-skelter and it gets better every day; is there a statutory problem that your agency might recommend and that Congress should address? Mr. McCraw. I cannot comment on any issues as it relates to statutory issues right now, sir. Mr. Janklow. Because you are not allowed to, or because you do not know of any? Mr. McCraw. Because I am not involved in that particular process, sir. Mr. Janklow. Do any of the rest of you know of any statutory changes that would be helpful in carrying on this mission in making America safer? Ms. Barry. Sir, to the best of my knowledge, the Department of State has not asked for any additional statutory changes for the visa function in terms of findings of ineligibility. Mr. Janklow. But asking and needing are two different things. Do you know of any? Ms. Barry. I know of no one in the Department of State who is advocating any additional changes. Mr. Janklow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays. We will come back. Mrs. Maloney?. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all of the panelists and in particular Mr. McCraw. A number of your agents helped my constituents and others in New York to escape from the World Trade Center. I know you lost an agent there. I want to express the appreciation of New Yorkers for the role that the FBI played in September 11th. I would like to ask Mr. McCraw who is in charge? Ultimately the FBI, if there is a terrorist on the ground, it is really your responsibility, of course with the help of INS, State, and everyone else, to track them down and to protect the American people. It seems as though a lot is happening, but ultimately if you are not notified that there is a suspected terrorist, who takes ownership? Who is in charge? Specifically, the report noted that there may be 30 individuals that had their visa status revoked. According to the report, the FBI claimed that they were not notified by State that these people were in the United States. Quoting from the report: ``The FBI claimed in other cases that the State Department did not alert them that the person with revoked visas could be possible terrorists.'' My question to the FBI is: How do you find out there is a possible terrorist? If all of the agencies are working together, and we have this computer system, who is responsible to notify the FBI? If there is a breakdown in the system, who do we hold accountable that they were not on the watch? Mr. McCraw. First, thank you very much for your kind comments. Second, I think the FBI has to take a leadership role and any individual, whether they can legally be deported or not, has been somehow linked to terrorism, and somehow ended up in the United States. Mrs. Maloney. But if you are not notified by State and INS, how can you do that? The report is saying, and the FBI says, they were not notified. Mr. McCraw. The FBI people, including some of my people that commented on that report, were right as it relates to the process that GAO studied. There is no question that process was broken including enough systems in terms internally of the FBI not having a written control as it relates to the revocation of visas. Fortunately, we saw this back in post-September 11. We saw that the system, especially until the FBI overhauls its information technology system, we are not going to be where we want to be. We put another system in place. Frankly, with working with the State Department and at that time working with the INS, having their data and utilizing the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task Force, we are alerted anytime any of these individuals that have been linked to terrorism enter the United States. So I feel confident that we have a system in place that does that. Now, is it the process that I find redundant in terms of what we talked about, and what the GAO study is about? No, that system certainly is not working. But fortunately we have a system in place that not only takes care of the revocation of visas. I am convinced this will be straightened out. There is no doubt in my mind. Mrs. Maloney. So, in other words, if I am hearing you correctly, it is the responsibility of State to notify the FBI. Then it is the FBI's responsibility to go out and check these individuals; is that correct? Mr. McCraw. Yes. We have an obligation. As the Director has said, ``No terrorism lead shall go uncovered.'' If an individual somehow has been linked, or there is some relationship or association, we must go out and find that individual and talk with that individual. Mrs. Maloney. But now you are confident that State has given you all of that information? That has been corrected? Mr. McCraw. Yes. What they have done is the TIPOFF data base that Ms. Barry has talked about, which we have agreed is the intelligence community's data base for known or suspected terrorists, and has been provided to the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task Force since January 2002. We have utilized that, with some DOD technology. Mrs. Maloney. Let us get away from technology into what is happening. According to your report and others, two of the terrorists, two of the pilots from September 11, came into the country legally with tourist visas. Then they changed them to student visas. They never went to school. It was a bogus change. I have read other reports where the student visa is often used as a rouse or a blanket under which to hide. It may possibly be the easiest visa to get to come into our country. I would like to hear what are the safeguards from the universities on these student visas? The student may enroll in some school, but then not go to school. How do they notify you? Do they notify the FBI directly? Do they notify the State Department? If someone has a student visa, and obviously is not in school, how are we checking up on this particular segment? Mr. McCraw. I would have to defer that to Mr. DeMore. I know that they have responsibility for that. Mr. DeMore. Under the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System [SEVIS], students apply abroad to get their visa. That data is entered into the system with biographical information and biometric information. When that student makes an entry into the United States through BCBP, they capture that information electronically. It is transferred to the school electronically. When the student arrives at the school, that information is data input by a foreign student advisor. That is notated electronically. If the student does not show up at the school, that information is now transferred electronically to us for enforcement action. So we can literally track the movement from abroad of a student into the country. Mrs. Maloney. Once they get to the school, they will notify you they are at the school. Is there a requirement if they then go to classes for a week and then drop out, that the school notifies you? Do you take this information and give it to the FBI? What do you do with it? In other words, once they go to school, they go for 1 day of classes and then they disappear. Does the school then notify you? Are they required by law to notify you? Mr. DeMore. Yes, they are. We would be notified electronically. We would take that information and develop what we call a target folder which is basically running that through intelligence and law enforcement data bases to determine if there is any significant derogatory information. Based on a certain threshold, that information is sent out to the local BICE field offices for investigative followup. Mrs. Maloney. I would like to be notified how many students are missing in New York. Some of the schools have told me that they do not notify because the system does not work. I want to know is the system working in all of the schools? Are you being notified? Mr. DeMore. I know in the initial systems development there were problems. But we can certainly provide that information for the record. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mrs. Maloney. It seems to me that if the system is not working, if you could just ask them to type it up on a sheet of paper and mail it in to the FBI, that might be a practical way. We are starting a lot of technical computer systems that may take years to get them working appropriately. It appears that if students come in and they disappear, that information that the FBI or somebody should have to try to locate them. Mr. DeMore. I am told that the system is working well now. We will certainly provide you with the post-SEVS numbers of students. Mrs. Maloney. The second question I am getting is this. I represent a lot of very important universities, many of whom are international universities. They are saying that it is becoming very difficult to get student visas for legitimate students. I would like to hear your comments on that. I just know as a Congressmember, it is more difficult to get visas for my constituents or their families--and probably rightfully so as we do these background checks. Could you comment on the comments by the universities that they have not been able to process legitimate students from foreign countries? Mr. DeMore. I would defer to my colleague, Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry. There is really only one issue that affects students in the post-September 11 world. A student visa applicant has always been under great scrutiny by consular officers overseas. First of all, we have to know that the request to study in the United States is not a ruse for illegal immigration. Even some highly qualified students who would clearly meet the eligibility of a U.S. university for admission, do not have a bona fide intention of showing up and studying. We also have to be very careful about their ability to finance a U.S. education. We, of course, are concerned that their intentions and the finances and their academic qualifications all come together and we can issue the visa. In the post-September 11 world, the one additional requirement is that we now have a program for interagency screening for counter-terrorism purposes, known as ``Visas Condor.'' A number of student cases are now sent back to Washington for further interagency screening. It is a small percentage of the overall numbers of students, but it is an additional requirement for some students. Mrs. Maloney. Ms. Barry, you mentioned finances. That is a very important point. We know that many of the terrorists were financed by Al Qaeda, and financed by countries that are not our allies. Is there any connection to the Treasury Department's money laundering financial tracking system on how these students are financed? It might be appropriate for the Treasury Department's financial unit that is tracking money coming into the United States from foreign sources, foreign banks, or suspected terrorist organizations, to connect up with that unit on the financing. How a student is financed is a very important aspect of the security information for the country. Ms. Barry. To the best of my knowledge, we are hooked up to the Treasury information that is now name-retrievable. It is in our lookout system. But it is something that we are very interested in. We look primarily to the family. It is rare when a student comes and says that they are being financed by a third party. Mrs. Maloney. But the consulate is very able to find out if, in fact, they are financed by the family, by checking the family background. Ms. Barry. Right. We can look at this. In most countries we have very strong cooperative relationships with financial institutions and with law enforcement agencies. We can do what we feel is necessary to resolve a specific case. We also work in an embassy that frequently has representatives from a number of different agencies. Again, we can look to those experts as well to help us inform our judgments. Mrs. Maloney. My time is up. But just to followup, we may be friends and have great diplomatic relations with certain countries, yet those countries finance terrorists in this country. I mention Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists from September 11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. I, for one, would be interested, if the country, even though they are diplomatic allies, of financing either through the government or through not-for-profits or whatever, various student activities or students in this country. I just mention that as one example. I think the GAO did an excellent report. I was very impressed with it. I would like to ask the chairman if it would be appropriate if the panelists would respond in writing to the recommendations that GAO put forth. They put forth very concrete recommendations. Mr. Shays. Let me say that we are not going to wait to have it done in writing. With all due respect, I have heard some comments about how the report is not all that accurate. I heard an attempt by a member to say, ``Well, where is it not?'' We have heard really no specifics. I feel no sense of urgency on the part of this panel. I have a tremendous amount of pride when I go from country-to- country and visit our State Department employees. I am so proud of them. I am as grateful as I can be for their work. But we are like ships passing in the night here. At least that is the way I feel. Let me just tell you how I visualize this. Then maybe we could use that as a framework for the questions I want to ask. We have a real concern of terrorist attacks. It is not make- believe. It is for real. It is probable. It is not a question, as far as I view it, of if it will happen, but when, where, and of what magnitude we will face chemical, biological, conventional attacks that are serious, nuclear, or radioactive material. That to me, is a given. When I attend a hearing like this and I listen to it, that is in the back of my mind. I want to say: Are we awake? Is that something that Government employees also feel? Do I just feel that way having had 50 hearings on this issue over the last 5 years before September 11? There is nothing surprising about what happened to September 11 in one sense. In another sense, they answered the one question we did not know. There is no red line that they will not cross. They are willing to destroy whatever. There is no sense of proportion. I am a bit concerned, as I think other people are as well. These attacks can be carried out by American citizens. They can be carried out by people who are here as our guests who are working here. They can be carried out by visitors. They can be carried out by people who got here illegally. As it turned out, September 11th was done by everyone who, for the most part, were here legally. They had visas. We thought maybe there is a bit of a problem here. All of you felt the same way. We said: Maybe we are issuing visas to people who should not get them. That seems logical. What can we do about it? We even thought we should take it away from the State Department because we were not happy with the job they were doing. Ultimately it was left with the State Department. We reorganized our Government. There is a new threat, a new strategy. Now we have put Customs and INS and I think have this potentially very helpful Department of Homeland Security. We asked GAO to look at what is going on. What they have seen is not a very good thing. I was hoping that all of you would say: GAO is right here, they were wrong here. These are the things they were right about when they do the report, but guess what, we have changed things now. And by the way, we are tracking now every 1 of those 30 people. That is what I thought was going to happen. I was going to say: Well, where do we go from here. But all I felt is a bit confused by the responses. Ms. Barry, I am not even convinced you read the report. Ms. Barry. To the best of---- Mr. Shays. I am not finished yet. I am not convinced you read the report. You just gave a comment that you do not agree with it. You had an opportunity from this Member to tell us exactly what you did not agree with. You went in a big circle, as far as I was concerned. The Department of State decides whether or not someone should be allowed to come into the United States, and they issue a visa. Sometimes they issue a visa without all the information. Then when they get more information, they might revoke a visa. Now, in the meantime, someone may have gotten into the United States, or they may not have. Mr. Ahern, your agency is the one that receives the individual. You are going to have to have information that tells you they have a visa. You do a check and make sure there is not a problem. But if it has been revoked, we want to make sure that you know about it on a timely basis and say, ``Sorry, it has been revoked.'' I understand there were about 14 where this happened and where you found them. I want to ask you what happened to those 14. Did we look at them and allow them to stay? Did we send them back? I also understand that once they get through you, we have a problem. It is really easy to deny a visa. You can just basically deny it. You do not have to give a lot of reasons. You can just deny it. You can give a very general reason. But once they are in the country, we play by different rules. We have to substantiate why you are here. They came here legally. They had a visa. They walked in. They are here legally. So now my mind says: ``OK. What is breaking down in the system that would allow them to stay?'' I heard people give reasons. But they are not good reasons. I want to know, based on the report, did you track down the 30 people? They are suspected terrorists. Guess what? Maybe none of them are. But they are suspected terrorists. I want to know: Did we track them down? Did we interview every one of them? How many of the ones that we interviewed did we say should be sent back? I want to know if you did it when the report was written or if you did it afterwards. That is fair enough. If you read the report and said: ``My gosh, they have a point here. We had better do something better here.'' That is acceptable. By the way, GAO can be wrong. We are going to start with Ms. Barry. What specifically did you agree with and what specifically did you disagree with? Ms. Barry. We agree with the procedural problems that were found by the GAO in their report. We address them as follows. Mr. Shays. I do not want to know how you address them. I want to know what you agree and disagree with. That is basically their report, correct? Ms. Barry. They also commented on the nature of the 240 visa revocations. We did provide them comments on their characterization of those cases and the basis of a prudential revocation. With regard to the procedural shortcomings, we agree with the report. Mr. Shays. OK. Let me understand, Mr. Ahern, what you agree with and what you disagree with. Mr. Ahern. I would like to start with my background. It is with the U.S. Customs Service which on March 1st became part of the Department of Homeland Security. We have adopted this new process. I come to it from a different perspective. When I read the report, I saw there were some things that needed to be taken care of and put in place. I first started to get engaged with this process 2 weeks ago. What we have looked at is from the Customs and Border Protection's perspective, what we need to do is to shore up the system of input from the Department of State through the CLASS system. We believe that has now been undertaken with the correct code placed in the system. Then the process is to be set in place, making sure that there is not a single solution to the potential problem. We want to make sure there is zero tolerance here. We want to make sure that there are redundancies in place to make sure that there is not the potential for one individual to come into this country that is not supposed to. What we have done is to work with the State Department over the last couple of weeks to make sure as far as the correct visa revocation code is in place. That has been taken care of. They are certainly well on the way with that. Mr. Shays. You are telling me solutions right now. Is there is anything in the report you disagree with that you read relating to your area? Mr. Ahern. From my perspective, I believe that there were some systems in place that were not necessarily as formalized as they should be. I believe we need to formalize those and we need to perfect them more in greater detail. Mr. Shays. But the GAO report does say there are some systems in place. He is not saying there were not systems in place. Mr. Ahern. I believe there were systems in place. My point is that they need to be perfected more. We need to make sure that we have redundancies in place. My point is that they need to be perfected more. We need to make sure that we have redundancies in place. Mr. Shays. I will ask the question again. Is there anything in the report that you disagree with? Mr. Ahern. There was some minor editing. We made comments back both from the Bureau as well as the Department. But just minor editing comments. Mr. Shays. Mr. DeMore. Mr. DeMore. Yes, sir. We would agree that there appear to be connectivity problems between the respective components. Mr. Shays. What do you call it? Mr. DeMore. Connectivity problems in terms of cases reported from State and those received by BCBP. There seem to be discrepancies also in terms of the number of cases that were reported and the number that were received. That seems to be problematic. What we would disagree with is the statement on page 24 of the report where it says: ``National Security Unit investigators said that they generally did not investigate or locate individuals whose visas were revoked for terrorism.'' We would strongly disagree with that from the BICE perspective in that we were notified in September that three visas had been revoked for persons who had already entered the United States and an additional seven in December 2002. For each and every one of those cases we immediately developed target folders which means that we ran the available information through the intelligence community, through law enforcement data bases, and through our own internal data bases. We put all of that in the target folder and had it within a week or 10 days to a local field office for investigation. We fully conducted field investigations on those 10 cases. We found four of the people, interviewed them, determined that they were compliant with the terms of their admission, the visa was considered valid and was not revoked until they departed the country, so it was considered valid at the time we located them. They were in status. There were no removable grounds. We could take no law enforcement action. Mr. Shays. I am a little unclear on that. You say they were not revoked, but you were notified they were revoked? Mr. DeMore. As we have been discussing, the language on the revocation says the visa is revoked if you have not entered the country, and if you have entered the country, it is revoked upon your departure. Mr. Shays. OK. But with all due respect, it was revoked. Legally they have their visa. But you were notified it was revoked, correct? Mr. DeMore. No, sir. It is clearly not revoked until they depart the country. In other words, it is the intention of the Department of State to revoke that visa, but if you are in the country, it will not be. Mr. Shays. You were notified it was the intention to revoke it, correct? Mr. DeMore. Yes. Mr. Shays. It was the intention of the State Department to revoke it because we feared they might be terrorists. Mr. DeMore. Right. You have heard testimony here that the TIPOFF often contains data that is vague and ambiguous and that there's sometimes the slightest of indications. Mr. Shays. I understand that. Mr. DeMore. Right. So what we do is that we verify the veracity of the allegation that there is a terrorist nexus. These were run through the FBI. They found none. Mr. Shays. What is the number 30; why do you tell me 7? Mr. DeMore. We received 10 from BCBP. We would be most happy to aggressively investigate those other 20 if GAO would provide us that information. Mr. Shays. Let me understand something. There are 20 others that somewhere you do not know about, but the State Department knows about? Mr. DeMore. All I can tell you is that we were only referred 10 cases. Mr. Shays. OK. Referred from whom? Mr. DeMore. From BCBP, our counterparts in the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Ahern's shop. Mr. Shays. OK. Let me back up. So how many were you told about? Mr. Ahern. There were 30 that needed to be reconciled; 10 were referred to BICE. Prior to March 1st, that was one organization. There was not that separation. One of the things that we have been able to determine is there could be a variety of different factors. There could have been an additional visa that was actually issued to the individual and the revocation was not actually removed from the system. They could have actually entered and we just missed it at the border. That is a potential of concern. Part of what we are formalizing at this point is the referral mechanism now from BCBP to BICE to make sure that those do not fall through the cracks and that they get timely referrals for investigative followup so we can track these individuals down. Mr. Shays. Mr. DeMore, I want to be thoughtful to you, but when you said I could check with GAO, why would you not have just talked with Mr. Ahern? Mr. DeMore. Well, sir, we do. Mr. Shays. You read the report. You know there are 30 people. Is there anything in your mind that said, ``Gosh, we only did 10. What is this other 20? Why would you not have been prepared to come and tell me what happened to the other 20? Mr. DeMore. To my knowledge, they do not exist. Our National Security Unit has worked very closely with the Lookout Unit. Mr. Shays. Are you guys in the same department? Mr. DeMore. We are in the same department of Homeland Security. Mr. Shays. With all due respect, that is the point. You are in the same department. We are hoping you guys are going to talk with each other. Mr. DeMore. We are talking daily. We are trying to build all the firewalls. Mr. Shays. I guess what I get is the sense that this report did not mean much to any of you. So when you read the report, it did not trigger any questions, and you did not decide to do anything about it. Maybe we are all wasting our time. That is the feeling I get. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but that is the feeling I get. Let me ask you this, Mr. McCraw. You are going to be able to respond to anything you want to say on your own. I just want to try to understand first where we are. Mr. McCraw. First of all, I want to apologize. Mr. Shays. You do not need to apologize for anything. I just want to know the answer to this question. I want to know what you agree with and disagree with the report. Then what I want to know is: Have you been notified of any of these 30 individuals so you know to look for them, to interview them, and to determine whether they are potential terrorists? Mr. McCraw. First, I do want to apologize for not conveying a sense of urgency. I agree with you. There is no question about it from what I see on a day-to-day basis. There is a sense of urgency. I apologize for not conveying that. The idea that there is 30 known or suspected terrorists running around this country, and we are not doing anything about it is absolutely of concern to any of us right here. The problem with the GAO report is that is not accurate. They are not linked to terrorism. None of those 30 fall within the 47 that were in TIPOFF. Those 30 are another pool of individuals that either were revoked because of the backlogs in terms of the FBI checks on them, or they were revoked for other reasons. But even though it said on the cable that came out from State that it was related to terrorism, if you break down the code, in fact they were not related to terrorism. As I indicated earlier in the testimony, out of the 240, there were 47 that we linked to terrorism. None of those 30 were the ones that the GAO report referred to that said somehow they got into the United States. They could not make a determination of whether they had left or not. So, out of that 47 the question is: Well, what about that 47? Did they get into the United States because they were issued visas? The answer is no. They are not in the United States. Mr. Shays. Let us just talk about the 30. Incorrectly marked, they still were marked that way. How did we know they were incorrectly marked? Are we now saying they were incorrectly marked now that we have had to back up here and figure out what went on? In other words, they were marked as potential terrorists; is that part correct? Mr. McCraw. That is correct. Mr. Shays. OK. So given that. Should I expect, and should you not expect that the system would have to respect that marking until we know it is incorrect? The problem is that the system did not seem to respect the marking. Mr. McCraw. Yes. And frankly there are so many gaps in that potential system. That is why I spent time in my testimony to talk about the system we put in place in 2002. I can identify several gaps that exist, especially when you depend upon a cable being printed and routed to a particular unit. That is why we spent the time and put this system in place to ensure that we deal with the best data. The best data in the U.S. Government right now is in the TIPOFF data base as it relates to terrorism from the INTEL community in the State Department. Making sure that we get that data in an electronic format and as you indicated earlier, it is important to have a seamless process. Immediately when these individuals are identified and have entered the United States, or somehow entered the United States undetected, even if the visa was not revoked, we need to know it. Many people come into this country that are valid, or they do not come with visas at all. How do we find those individuals? The problem with the GAO report is that it did not even discuss that system, which means that it missed the whole point. Yes, there is a system. In fact, it is a model of information sharing dating back to 2002. Mr. Shays. I am going to have Mr. Ford respond. I just want to be clear so that I can go the second round and understand. I want you all to have the opportunity to talk about solutions. By the time we are done I think you will feel satisfied that we have covered everything. Right now I want to know specifically what was inaccurate in the report, not how all of you responded, but what was inaccurate in the report. Mr. McCraw. First of all, the report was inaccurate because it did not study all the systems that were in place. It focused on a particular construct. I agree, and we have already agreed, that systems needs improvement. But it missed the whole point in terms of a system being in place. Second, it characterized that 30 individuals were linked to terrorism because upon the fact that the State Department sent cables out that said these were linked to terrorism. The fact is those 30 were not in TIPOFF, which means that those 30, or the 105 for that matter of the 240, were revoked as it related to a bureaucratic delay in the process. The FBI is culpable for that in that regard. We acknowledged earlier being backlogged in visa backchecks in Visas Condor. Mr. Shays. Let me be more precise here. They were accurate in defining that these had been classified as terrorists. Your point is that the report should have pointed out that they were not and they had been misclassified; is that it? Mr. McCraw. Exactly. Mr. Shays. Anything else? Mr. McCraw. No, sir. Mr. Shays. Mr. Ford, are there any comments that you want to make? This is a little bit of a painful process. Out of these, we are going to have some good answers. Mr. Ford. I guess my comment regarding the other systems would be this. When we started this project, we asked the Department of State to provide us with visas that had been revoked for some concern related to terrorism. That is how we got the 240 names. They came from the State Department. We did not generate them ourselves. We did ask early on in the project for information related to the basis for the 240 names being in the system. We asked the Department of Justice. We asked the CIA. They did not provide us with a response. Mr. Shays. Who? Justice or CIA? Mr. Ford. Both. If, in fact, all of these people are cleared, that is good news. But I stand by the fact that the 240 names were clearly identified by the Department of State. We went through each and every record, all 240 of them. They were all coded, based on what the State Department gave us and based on some concern related to terrorism. Whether, in fact, these folks are really terrorists or not, we were not provided with any information by anybody else that indicated that we were wrong. Mr. Shays. Let me ask this. Did the State Department, the DHS, and the FBI provide a formal response in writing? For instance, Mr. McCraw, did your people look at this report and then respond? Are you responding now when you could have responded in writing earlier? Mr. McCraw. Actually, the first time I saw the report was last week when I was notified I was going to testify here today. Mr. Shays. Mr. Ford, did GAO give this report to the FBI so that they could respond? Mr. Ford. To comment on it? Mr. Shays. Yes. Mr. Ford. We went through our normal chain through the Department of Justice. We assumed that the FBI got a copy. Mr. Shays. So the point is that you gave this report to the Department of Justice. I would like to think that someone in the Department of Justice said: ``This is a serious report.'' The sense I get is that your Department was not given this report, or you were not given the report? Mr. McCraw. I received the report last week for the first time, Congressman. I sat down and read it. In fact, I know of people in the FBI that met with Mr. Ford and his people. That is why I apologized early on that it was not pointed out to them that there is a seamless system in process and that, in fact, when you look it, it addressed all these things. We did not provide that back in writing, I know, because I did not get a chance to read the report until the last week. Mr. Shays. I will tell you this. You might want to find out where this seamless relationship. But the purpose of the GAO in doing these reports is that they have an obligation to give it to the departments. The departments have an obligation to comment in writing. If somehow Justice does not think that these serious obligations are not worth commenting on, that blows me away. Mr. McCraw. They certainly are. I personally take responsibility for that, Congressman. I am sorry. Mr. Shays. I do not know how you can personally do it. Mr. Kucinich, thank you for your patience. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Barry, how many visas are applied for on a yearly basis? Ms. Barry. I generally use the figure of 8 million. Prior to September 11 we were up to 10 million a year. For a variety of factors, after September 11 visa demand has gone down. This is non-immigrant visa demand. Mr. Kucinich. What is the rate of applications versus those applications that are actually granted? Ms. Barry. I believe as a historical figure, approximately one-third of non-immigrant visas worldwide are denied. Mr. Kucinich. What is the major reason for denial of a visa? Ms. Barry. Most visas are denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which says that we do not find you a bona fide short-term visitor to the United States. Mr. Kucinich. Has the rate of denials grown at all? Ms. Barry. The rate of denial is fairly steady under that section of law. As I said, as a historical reference overall, it is about one-third of cases that are denied. Mr. Kucinich. Are there any countries now where we are tending to deny visa applications more today than we did before September 11? Ms. Barry. I do not have any specific information to help me answer that question, sir. Mr. Kucinich. Can you get that information to this committee? Ms. Barry. Yes. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCraw, who decides the designation of a terrorist connection? Who makes that decision? Mr. McCraw. Many agencies make that decision. Mr. Kucinich. Many agencies? Mr. McCraw. Yes, sir. Mr. Kucinich. What are the guidelines for making that designation? How does it appear on an application? Mr. McCraw. First of all, from intelligence community reporting overseas. The U.S. intelligence community identifies individuals through a number of different sources that have been known or linked to particular terrorism, of varying degrees. Some absolutely, positively, and some that looks like there is a particular relationship to it. That intelligence is culled and those individuals, along with their biographical data, is agreed by the intelligence community, and goes into the TIPOFF data base. Mr. Kucinich. Is there like a committee that meets and says, ``Well, this person could be a terrorist, and this person is not?'' Mr. McCraw. No, sir; I do not believe so. I believe that those independent agencies submit names as they have identified those particular names. Mr. Kucinich. Is this a decision that one person makes? Are there many people who make the decision? Mr. McCraw. I probably should not be testifying for other agencies, but clearly the process is such that there are initiatives underway that I am aware of, where they go through a particular process. There is a set criteria. Those names are extracted. Mr. Kucinich. There is an initiative underway, but is there something in place right now? Mr. McCraw. Yes, sir; and has been. I probably should defer to Ms. Barry on this since they are the keepers of that particular data base in terms of how those programs work. Mr. Kucinich. Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry. Yes, sir. The TIPOFF data base is the responsibility of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State. They receive intelligence, primarily from the CIA and the FBI. There is a staff. Sorry, I cannot tell you offhand how many people are there. They screen that intelligence. Mr. Kucinich. Wait. If we could hold off, there. That is a significant question. How big of a staff? How many people are screening these? Who makes the decision whether something is stamped as a terrorist suspect or not? Ms. Barry. I am sorry; I do not have all of those details for you. It is a data base that is dedicated only to the question of counter-terrorism. The intelligence that is provided to them by the other agencies is provided for that reason. Mr. Kucinich. So you do not know the answer to any of the questions? Ms. Barry. No, I do not know the answers to those specific questions. Mr. Kucinich. Are you interested in finding out the answers? Ms. Barry. I would be happy to get them, sir. Mr. Kucinich. Where would we get that information? Ms. Barry. From the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the Department of State. Mr. Kucinich. Did you have oversight of that in your capacity? Ms. Barry. No, I do not. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, of which I am a part, provides funding for the TIPOFF data base. Mr. Kucinich. I think it would be very interesting, at least to myself and perhaps of this committee, to first of all, to know how many people are in this capacity, to know what the criteria happens to be for designating someone a suspect, and to know who makes the decision to designate someone, or to not designate someone, and to know if there is any oversight over there in a review capacity? Is that information shared with other agencies, and if someone says not, does another agency look at it, and if they say yes, does another agency look at it? What are the checks and balances within that system? How many people perhaps have been suspected of being a terrorist who, upon further investigation, were determined not to be? These are things that would give us some clue as to the kind of work that is actually being done and the connection and cooperation between agencies. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Kucinich. Please continue. Ms. Barry. The intelligence is screened. This is my perspective as a user of the data base in a consular perspective. Identifying information is gleaned from intelligence. Then the TIPOFF staff makes a lookout entry into the Consular Visa Lookout System, which gives to the best of their ability, based on the intelligence, a name, a date and place of birth, and their nationality. That, of course, is what consular officers are using in the field. We share the TIPOFF data base with DHS through the IBIS system. They have the benefit of that work as well. Mr. Kucinich. With respect to criteria, have you ever had a case where the criteria was applied and then you found out later on through other information that this person was, in fact, not involved in any kind of terrorist activity and did not merit being suspected of terrorism? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir. If I could, I will give a kind of an example. An INTEL report says that a particular individual is at a meeting overseas with individuals liked to Al Qaeda, for example. These decisions as to whether or not a specific individual applying for a visa is that same person is made here in Washington. It is not made by an individual consular officer. The underlying intelligence can be very highly classified. The consular officer will see a lookout entry and will send the case to Washington for further screening. Then the people in Washington at the State Department and other agencies, with the appropriate clearances, can look at that visa case and look at the intelligence, and determine whether or not it is the same person. If it is the same person, then we discuss whether or not the case meets the legal standard for denying the visa. We also consider whether there are other operational interests of another agency in the case. When all of that consultation is done in Washington, the Visa Office will provide the results of that deliberation to the consular officer in the field. Mr. Kucinich. Mr. McCraw, can you tell me if you have ever had an example where the FBI ended up causing a decision that was made on the part of the State Department to be overturned with respect to someone who is suspected of having some kind of terrorist ties? Mr. McCraw. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I got the question right, there have been instances clearly where the FBI has received its own intelligence, or intelligence from other agencies, that an individual was linked to terrorism, and on subsequent investigation determined that was not true. That happens. That is why evidence is important, and that is why it is important that any individual suspected of it, that we immediately pursue that particular lead, when we identify them in the United States, or wherever we identify them in that regard. Clearly the case is that the source could be incredible, or a number of other factors that just look bad at the time. It was very important for the U.S. Government to at least look at that and have it in the lookout system, TIPOFF system, if you will. As we develop additional information, we can investigate that and then exonerate the individual. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for calling this hearing. I think it would be very instructive for this committee to receive information relative to the criteria that are used. It is the criteria that actually establishes what we, as a Government, perceive to be a possible terrorist threat. I think it might give us a valuable view into the base of the decisionmaking in the various agencies. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank each of the witnesses for your service to our country and your willingness to undertake these very serious tasks. Thank you. Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. Before I recognize Mr. Janklow, I just want to ask Mr. Ford. Were all of the 30 individuals that were marked as potential terrorists from the list of 105? Mr. Ford. The 30 that are currently in the country? No, that is out of the 240. Mr. Shays. So some are in the 105 and some are not? Mr. Ford. Yes. Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. McCraw, are you comfortable with your statement that all of these were mismarked? Mr. McCraw. I am comfortable that the 30 he refers to as not reflective of entering the United States is not in the 47 that have actually been identified and linked to terrorism; absolutely. In fact, I rechecked the figures this morning to make sure that we did not miss anything. Mr. Shays. But let me ask you this. You have interviewed all 30 of these individuals? Mr. McCraw. No, we have not. Principally the reason we have not is because the intelligence community had not determined that they were linked to terrorism. Mr. Halloran. The TIPOFF system is the only definitive way to categorize someone as a potential terrorist? Mr. McCraw. Absolutely. As it relates to the Government data base, we found early on that the Government needed to pick one particular data base. Frankly, TIPOFF was working quite well. That needed to be the mechanism and the data. Everyone agreed to put their particular information in there. Mr. Halloran. Mr. Ford, is that your perception of the system as well, that the TIPOFF is the only way to flag someone as a terrorist, or a potential person of concern? Mr. Ford. I do not know if I can answer that question. I know that for the 240 names that we identified in our report, we were told that these individuals were on that list because they could be suspected terrorists. I do not know the source for the ones that may not have been in TIPOFF. I really cannot answer that. Mr. McCraw. Only 47 of the 240 were actually in TIPOFF. There is another system and it is what the FBI uses to communicate to State and local law enforcement, the NCIC. Prior to the Winter Olympics, the Director ordered that every FBI main subject and some references, when there is a substantial reason to believe they are linked to terrorism, be placed in what they call the VGTOF file. Then the State and local police officers can query NCIC. Once they query them, they can make a determination that this in fact, is under investigation by the FBI. There are specific instructions along with that in terms of what to do or not to do if they come in contact with that individual. Mr. Shays. The breakdown, as we understand it right now, that when the FBI did not provide a background check in time, Ms. Barry, then the State Department labels them as potential terrorists; is that correct? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir. In the case of the 105, they had been sent to Washington for interagency screening under the Visas Condor program, which is a counter-terrorism program. At the time the system was in place, the FBI had 30 days to respond. If we heard nothing, we proceeded with visa issuance. We did proceed with visa issuance in these 105 cases, and subsequent to issuance, got a hit from the FBI. The hit meant that they had something. On a prudential basis, we went ahead and revoked the visas. As they worked the cases further, they ended up clearing all of them. Mr. Shays. So you revoked them. In the revoking of them, did you notify them on a timely basis, or in fact, did it take a period of time for DHS to know that these had been revoked? Ms. Barry. At the time that we revoked those 105, our procedures were not reliable. We were using a code in our lookout system, which we subsequently learned did not pass to DHS and the INS. Mr. Shays. So the answer is yes? Ms. Barry. Yes. Mr. Shays. But you have dealt with it differently now? Ms. Barry. We have dealt with it differently. We created a specific lookout code for revocations. The lookout code actually says, ``Revocation.'' It absolutely goes across the interface to the IBIS system. We double checked all of the calendar year 2003 cases from January 1st to May 31st. We found that they had all transferred the interface to IBIS. Mr. Shays. So Mr. Ahern would get this information immediately? Ms. Barry. In virtual real time, approximately 5 minutes. Mr. Shays. Just to finish this link here. Mr. DeMore, how do you interface with Mr. McCraw in terms of the people that they were identifying in their lists as being potential terrorists? Do you identify those same people? Mr. DeMore. We work collaboratively with the FBI on the Joint Terrorist Task Forces. We would be working and sharing that information. Mr. Shays. That is not a comfortable answer, I guess just because I do not understand it. After 5 years of listening of how you work together, it means nothing to me. I was told that before September 11th. I need to know. Do you get the same list that his organization has? Do you actually seek out these same people? Is that duplicative and you allow the FBI to do it? That is what I need to know. Mr. DeMore. My perspective is, and Mr. McCraw can weigh in on this as well, but we fully support the FBI in all of their counter-terrorism investigations. Our officers are there working collaboratively with them. Mr. Shays. Who takes the lead? Mr. DeMore. The FBI takes the lead. Mr. Shays. OK. So the FBI is in charge. If they ask you to help them, you help them. In other words, they task you to look for these people? Mr. DeMore. Our agents work under the supervision of a supervisory FBI agent. Mr. Shays. OK. That makes sense. Mr. McCraw. In fact, we depend upon their expertise daily in what we do. As you recognize just by this hearing, how important this all is. We always depend upon their expertise. The way the process works right now, and the one that I described earlier, is that when the task goes to the operational division to the JTTF, when they open up the case, more often than not, often the INS agent are assigned that particular lead. That is our SOP. Why? They have the subject matter expertise that we depend to get that done. Mr. Shays. We are going to talk about all the solutions that you have in my next round. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Janklow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue in this area. Ms. Barry, you have to help me. I do not want to deal with specific numbers, but I have to. On page 23 of the report, it says there were 240 visa revocations reviewed, and 30 were found to have been revoked on terrorism grounds. Are you saying that to revoke a visa for terrorism grounds does not necessarily mean that there is anything involving terrorism? Ms. Barry. It means that we are willing and we do revoke if there is a reason to believe that a visa holder is the subject of an INTEL report linked to terrorism. Mr. Janklow. OK. When you say an ``INTEL report,'' are you accessing TIPOFF to make that decision? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir. As new entries come into TIPOFF---- Mr. Janklow. So the answer is yes. Ms. Barry. Yes. Mr. Janklow. OK. Are you also accessing all other available data bases that this country has to keep track of individuals? Ms. Barry. No, we continue to try. Seventy percent of the information that is now in our lookout system is from other agencies. Mr. Janklow. What agencies are you not able to access when you make a determination as to whether or not you should revoke a visa for terrorism grounds? Ms. Barry. Well, for terrorism, the data base that we know of related to terrorism is primarily TIPOFF. Some terrorist cases might be in the FBI VGTOF data base. We have access to both. We know of no other data base. Mr. Janklow. So the answer to the question should have been yes. Ms. Barry. Yes, sir. We know of no other data base linked to terrorism. Mr. Janklow. OK. Now, what is the National Security Unit? Mr. DeMore. The National Security Unit is in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is the INS' national security investigative component. Mr. Janklow. All right. There were individuals that told the investigators from GAO that the National Security Unit investigator said they generally do not investigate or locate individuals whose visas were revoked for terrorism concerns, but may still be in the United States. Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement? Mr. DeMore. Sir, I believe that to be inaccurate. I interviewed those officers this week. They told me that was not the message that they were communicating. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Chairman, if I might, could I ask that Mr. DeMore's staff and Mr. Ford's staff get together and report to the committee whether or not this was an accurate statement by the GAO folks, or it is inaccurate. I think it is really important to know whether or not the National Security Investigator said that they generally did not investigate or locate individuals whose visas were revoked for terrorism concerns but still may be in the United States. You say your staff never said that. Mr. Ford said that your staff reported it to his staff. We need to know what the accurate answer is. Could you two get together and report the committee what the dispute is or what the accurate fact is? Mr. DeMore. Yes, sir; we would be happy to. In fact, I can tell you that we only received the information on 10 individuals. We investigated those 10. Mr. Janklow. We just need to get to the bottom of who is saying what to whom. That is. It may be that the same staffers are saying different things to different people. I do not know. But we need to get to the bottom of it. I think you would understand why. Mr. DeMore. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Janklow. I think this goes to the heart of what I was getting at before. Now, over on page 25 of the GAO report, Ms. Barry, it appears that one of the reasons folks do not go after removing from the country folks whose visas are revoked, is because the notice from the State Department tells someone, ``Mr. Janklow, your visa is revoked when you leave the country.'' They said because of the wording of it, it causes them legal problems. Why cannot you change the wording of your visa revocation? Has this been discussed at all? Ms. Barry. It has been discussed, but only very recently. The discussion has not come to closure. Mr. Janklow. Why recently? Post-September 11, why would it take 2 years to discuss? You are not going to let me into the country because you are concerned I might be a terrorist problem, but once I am in here, you will revoke me because you think I might be a terrorist problem, and you will send me off to some other agency. But you say in my language that you send to me that I am revoked when I leave the country. Why would you not just tell me, ``You are revoked?'' Ms. Barry. Because while they are present in the United States, the determining factor is that they have been legally admitted by the immigration officer at the port of entry. The visa has no bearing once that has happened. Mr. Janklow. When can we expect a resolution of this issue? Ms. Barry. I am not a legal expert, but my guess is that we would expect this issue be resolved in about 2 to 3 weeks. Mr. Janklow. OK. Is this in your agency? Ms. Barry. My agency is primarily responsible for vias, but as I said earlier, we previously have consulted DHS and DOJ on this. Mr. Janklow. When did you see a draft of this report? Ms. Barry. We received a timely draft of this from Mr. Ford's staff. I do not remember exactly when that was. Mr. Janklow. The reason I ask is this. On page 25, it says, ``Homeland security official said that if State were to cease using the current language on the revocation certificates, the Government would no longer be effectively barred from litigating the issue. If a policy decision were made to pursue an aggressive litigation strategy, could seek to remove aliens who have been admitted but have subsequently had their visas revoked.'' Why does it take GAO to figure this out? Ms. Barry. All I can say, sir, is that notification to us from DHS on this issue was very recent. It was after GAO had done their draft report. Mr. Janklow. OK. Do you know how many of the September 11 attackers were students? The reason I am asking that question is because in your testimony you said, ``We have always been very tough on screening students.'' Do you know how many of them had student visas? Ms. Barry. I do not remember the number of names, no. Mr. Janklow. In terms of the data base for State, how does a person get into it? What facts are there that would put me into the data base if I were a foreigner? Ms. Barry. A denial of a previous visa. Mr. Janklow. Is there any information if I have never had contact before with the American officials? Could I be in there? Ms. Barry. Through intelligence services, yes. Mr. Janklow. That would put me in. It would also get me into TIPOFF; is that correct? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir; it would get you into TIPOFF. Mr. Janklow. If I could switch gears for just a second, Mr. DeMore, on page 5 of your testimony--and I believe the chairman got into this--``Contrary to the draft's report findings, BICE always takes actions to investigate cases referred to the NSU. NSU conducted a full investigation of 100 percent of the referrals received.'' Could I ask that you two get together and submit to the committee the accurate facts of whether or not the report is accurate or your opinion is accurate. We just need to know what the truth is. Mr. DeMore. Certainly. Absolutely. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Janklow. At this stage of the game where we are with respect to national security, should there be informal policies? Ms. Barry. No, sir. Mr. Janklow. Will State, after having read the report and discussing it among yourselves, do you plan on doing anything about these informal policies? Ms. Barry. The Bureau of Consular Affairs is engaged in an effort to formalize standard operating procedures. Mr. Janklow. How long will that take? How long has the effort been going on? Ms. Barry. The effort has been going on for several months. I do not know how many we have put in place. It is beyond 15 so far. This will be the subject of a standard operating procedure. I agree with you that it should be formalized and every staff member should know what it is. Mr. Janklow. Do you know how long that will take? Ms. Barry. It should not take long. I cannot give you a specific answer. I would say it should be wrapped up within a month. Mr. Janklow. The whole thing? Ms. Barry. The whole thing. Mr. Janklow. OK. I speak for only me, but I understand the value to this country of over the years having these foreign students come to our country and study. The impact that it has had is, first, for economic purposes, second, for relationship purposes, and third, for intelligent purposes, cannot be measured in terms of the relationships that have been established between foreign students and the students and the people of this country. I think what is important is that we have to have a good process and not harass the wrong people and harass the right people when it comes to entry into this country. There is no dispute with that; is there? Ms. Barry. No, sir. Mr. Janklow. The last question I have is: Staff gave me a note between my questions that said: State should have known about the problems with the revocation, as least as far back as September 2002 when they saw a draft of the GAO's original visa report, which led to this report. After you read the draft report back around September 2002, was there any discussion amongst the folks at State from and after last September about moving forward on some of these things have been highlighted? This is not a thing today to determine all of the good things that have happened. There have been a lot of good things. It is the one bad door they are going to come through. That is the door they will find their way through. Ms. Barry. We have taken all the GAO reports seriously. We have done a number of things to fix the vulnerabilities that they have identified. When they identified the vulnerabilities of the visa revocation process, we dealt with it. As I said, the cases for this year reflect that the system is working. Mr. Janklow. Mr. DeMore, as I close, let me just ask each of you, have you heard of any discussions of anything that Congress can do legislatively to make the job, the mission that your agency has, easier? Mr. DeMore. Sir, I have not, but we would be most delighted to work with the committee and with Congress to review any language and provide our earnest input. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Ahern. Mr. Ahern. I believe at this point we need to do some internal perfecting of our standard operating procedures and then see if there are any legislative changes that need to be made. Mr. Janklow. How often do your four agencies talked with each other? Daily? Mr. DeMore. I would say multiple times, daily. In the field and also at headquarters. Mr. Janklow. And you feel that State is as much in the loop as your three agencies? I see your three agencies more as a take-charge, law-enforcement, public-safety kinds of people. I am exaggerating for effective vernacular. But State is State. I am just wondering if they are really in the loop on all of this. Mr. McCraw. I think so, Congressman. I am biased because early on they provided data and also a full-time person to the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task Force when I was its director. I found them most willing and concerned, like the rest of us, on how do we fill these gaps. Mr. Janklow. You have 66 Joint Task Forces? Mr. McCraw. Yes, 66 Joint Terrorism Tracking Task Forces throughout the United States; yes, sir. Mr. Janklow. Mr. DeMore, do you have any problems with State? Mr. DeMore. I think we are all extraordinarily motivated right now to work together. Mr. Janklow. Mr. Ahern?. Mr. Ahern. I believe we have a good path ahead. In the last couple of weeks I know that we have been dealing more with the State Department. Mr. Janklow. You said in the last couple of weeks. Is that because of your newness in the position? Or have things gotten better in the last 14 days? Mr. Ahern. In the last couple of weeks. I became aware of it as part of Customs and Border Protection. We are formalizing the procedures we have in place, and also improving the internal practices we have at the border. Mr. Janklow. I have two last questions. Mr. Ford, I realize you work for Congress, but is there anything that you have come across where a legislative action may be beneficial to helping any of the remaining issues? Mr. Ford. I think this can be handled through policy and procedure with the executive agencies. We did not identify any legislative problems based on this particular analysis. We do not think there are any laws that need to be changed. Mr. Janklow. When was the gathering of data concluded for the purposes of the report? Mr. Ford. The analysis of the data is ongoing. We just recently received some information from INS on their computerized entry system which we are tying to match with the 30 names we identified through another source that they have. But the timeframe of the analysis runs through the end of calendar year 2002. So the 240 names that we used were from September 11, to December 31, 2002. Mr. Janklow. OK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I would like to talk to all of you. You have been very candid under some tough questioning. I appreciate it. Mr. Shays. We are going to be done very shortly. Let me say that I think the very good news that has not been disputed is that the FBI has checked and contacted and found everyone--and correct me if I am wrong--that has been identified as a potential terrorist who is a visitor to the United States. Is that correct, Mr. McCraw? Mr. McCraw. That is correct. Mr. Shays. OK. That clearly was our biggest concern. Disappointing that information appears not to have been conveyed to GAO before the report was drafted. I would like to know if that can be avoided in the future. The GAO is supposed to have a process that allows for all comments. Sometimes those comments result in the redrafting of the report to correspond with reality. The reality of this report that still holds is--I am getting the sense--being responded to, that there were inconsistencies in formal practices, and that we are going to have formal practices, that the inconsistencies are being addressed, and that the lack of on-time notification has already been addressed. Is that correct, Ms. Barry? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. Shays. So just the informal policy is the issue that now does need to be addressed? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir; and we will do so. Mr. Shays. That is the sense that I have. This is a good news story. The problems have been identified. It is being addressed. We would like a copy of the formalized procedures so we will know when it is done and we also know what it is. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Ford, we thank you for doing this report. Let me ask you this. In the course of hearing the testimony here, is there anything that we should be asking these individuals to address that you do not think they are inclined to address? Mr. Ford. Based on what I have heard, I think there is an issue that I would like to pose as a question for the Department of State, and that is this. If what the FBI says is true, that only those cases that come through the TIPOFF are areas of concern, then I think that the State Department should look at the way they code the revocations so that any misunderstandings about the purpose for which the revocation is made, are made more clear. I think that had the Justice Department provided us with comments of the nature that we have heard today, we probably would have modified some of the conclusions in our report. Regarding our recommendation to DHS to resolve some of these issues with policy and procedure, I think that this is one of them that in my view needs to be resolved. If, in fact, the problem is a lot smaller than it appears to be, that should be remedied by the way that they code revocations. Mr. Shays. I think those are sound requests. Let me ask you. There is one area that does not appear as being addressed, and that is the issue that is nonsensical from my standpoint. I do not know if this is an international challenge, but we issue a visa that gives someone the right to come in. If we revoke it, if we are fortunate enough to catch them before they come into the United States, it is revoked. But if they come into the United States, it is put on suspension until they leave. As I think of it, they may not want to come back. I do not know what good that has accomplished. Are there any of you that have a suggestion on how we deal with this? Let me ask you in this way. Maybe this will answer the question. Someone is here legally. You question them, Mr. McCraw or Mr. DeMore. You determine they are terrorists. What are you allowed to do? Mr. DeMore. I can tell you from the BICE standpoint if we determine there is a nexus to terrorism, we will use our National Security Law Division to initiate removal proceedings. In the four cases that we found---- Mr. Shays. Do you have to go through court? Do you have to go through a legal process? Mr. DeMore. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. What happens? Does that mean that you would have to disclose sources and methods? Mr. DeMore. It depends upon the information that was available to us. If there is classified information, the agency that classified that information would determine if they wanted to make that available. Mr. Shays. I just want to understand how the system works. Do you have to go before an immigration judge? Mr. DeMore. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry. Could I clarify that a visa does not give anyone the right to enter the United States. It gives them the right to present themselves for inspection to the DHS officer at the border. Mr. Shays. So once they are here, though, they are here? Ms. Barry. Once they are here pursuant to a decision from that inspector. Mr. Shays. And you do agree, though, that it is a lot easier for you to deny a visa? Ms. Barry. Yes, sir; I do agree. Mr. Shays. You wanted me to be aware of something. I am not aware of what you wanted me to be aware of. What do you want me to be aware of? I want to be a better listener. What is the point? Ms. Barry. I think the point is what you were getting at sir, that they do go to court. They go through removal proceedings because they have been legally admitted into the United States. There is a very specific process in the statute. Mr. Shays. We have a reason to want to avoid that. That is where I was headed. If, in fact, they robbed a bank, it is easy and we can say they did something illegal. But, in fact, if it relates to terrorism, we do not want to be in the position of having to share sources and methods. Is it conceivable that if we are not capable of showing sources and methods, that we know they are terrorists, that they are then allowed to stay? Honestly? The answer is yes; is it not? Nodding of the head does not constitute an answer. Mr. DeMore. I would say that is conceivable; yes. If there is no information that was available to us to render someone removable in a court, it is inconceivable that person would not be subject to removal. However, we would work very closely with the sources of that information to ensure that we would use every means necessary to safeguard American interests, meaning if we have to, we will release classified parts of it to effectuate a removal. I think the point you are getting to is: If the language in the revocation letter was retroactive saying that the revocation is effective on the date of issuance of the visa, then that would render that person removable administratively because they would have entered the country ostensibly without a valid visa. So if the language said that your visa is revoked, and it is retroactive to the date of issuance, we would not need to use these other sources. Mr. Shays. If we were able particularly before they entered. Mr. McCraw, do you have any comment? Mr. McCraw. No, sir. Obviously we use every tool that we can use. It is a privilege to come to the United States and not a right. If they violate those immigration laws along the way, and they are linked to terrorism, that is clearly why the legacy INS is so important to what we do on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Shays. It is important, Mr. McCraw, that you were here and you were able to qualify this report. Mr. McCraw. I apologize for not getting Mr. Ford the right information at the right time. Clearly that was my responsibility and I did not do that. Mr. Shays. I am delighted to allow any of you to put on the record any information you want without my interruption. Ms. Barry, about an hour-and-a-half ago, you wanted to talk about something and let us know about some reforms. Whatever you want to put on the record, please put on the record. Ms. Barry. Going back to the previous referral to the GAO report of September 2002, as I said, we are taking the recommendations of that report very seriously. We have made some major changes. For example, we recently set a new guideline of when a visa interview can be waived. We have started a process of formalizing standard operating procedures for use in the field and at headquarters. We will continue that effort. We similarly took the procedural recommendations of this present report on visa revocations very seriously. We believe we have addressed the procedural issues, but we have not yet fully formalized that. We will do so. Finally, as part of my wrap-up, I would say that the question of when a visa should be revoked from a legal point of view, and its effect in law, is an issue that we will energize a discussion within the Department of State on that point and consult with other appropriate parties in the Federal Government, to try to wrap that up as soon as possible. Mr. Shays. Thank you, very much. Mr. Ahern. Mr. Ahern. As I started to mention earlier about solutions, we believe we can have a lot better standardization of procedures within the Customs and Border Protection at the ports of entry to ensure that these things could not potentially occur. We will be happy to summarize those and submit those to you later, if you like. Mr. Shays. Without objection, so ordered. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.042 Mr. Ahern. But one of the things we believe we need to be looking at is trying to go ahead and stop that passenger continuum, as early in the transportation process as possible and not have an encounter at the border. So as early in the process as we can make good effective determinations of who should be issued a visa to travel to the United States, it should be done, whether that is at the consular's office or if it has been issued, before that person even potentially departs a foreign location. We then have a system in place to even have to deal with it in a foreign environment as opposed to upon arrival in the United States, if in fact, there is a good determination made for revoking somebody's visa. Mr. Shays. Mr. DeMore, I feel I owe you an apology in terms of my question of why you did not know about the other 20 versus the 10. I do apologize. Mr. DeMore. No apology necessary, sir. I would just tell you that I moved to Washington in October from California. When I got here with my two small children and recognizing what a target Washington is, I am greatly aware of my responsibilities and that of my agency to safeguard the American people. Lest the committee got the sense that we were not serious about our business, we are. To that end, we are working very closely with our partners here at the table. Mr. Ahern and I are talking closely and working through additional data just to make sure that if there are cases that we did not previously pick up, we can potentially identify any of these other 20. We are working that presently. We will report back if we are able to come to some sense of those 20 other cases. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. Without objection, so ordered. When you mentioned Washington, when you have a conversation with a family member who lives in another part of Washington, and you say if there is an event, say, the White House, do not try to find us. Go far away from whatever happens. That is a weird conversation to have with one of your children. But it is the reality of our world. Mr. McCraw. Mr. McCraw. Thank you for your support and the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate this. This is a very important issue. I am glad we had a chance to discuss it. Mr. Shays. It is an important issue. All of you have brought tremendous light to it. Mr. Ford, we thank you for the work of GAO. We know that you all work very hard. We also know that all the various departments do as well. I also want to thank the executive branch. We are all part of Congress. It is a lot better to be able to have this dialog without the GAO having spoken first, and having them at the table than walking away from table. Sometimes it is awkward for one or the other, but in the end we get at the truth. I thank you all for that. I think this was a very helpful hearing. I thank all of you are participating. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1049.122