<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:86827.wais]
STRENGTHENING AMERICA: SHOULD THE ISSUING OF VISAS BE VIEWED AS A
DIPLOMATIC TOOL OR SECURITY MEASURE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE,
CENSUS AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-206
__________
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
______
86-827 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Civil Service, Census and Agency Organization
DAVE WELDON, Florida, Chairman
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Garry Ewing, Staff Director
Melissa Krzeswicki, Professional Staff Member
Scott Sadler, Clerk
Tania Shand, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 15, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of:
Glantz, Ken, Office of Homeland Security, Orange County
Sheriff's Office........................................... 9
Hemphill, Tim, executive director, Kissimmee-St. Cloud
Convention and Visitors Bureau............................. 16
Horner, Mike, president of the Kissimmee/Osceola County
Chamber of Commerce........................................ 22
Klein, John, deputy chief, city of Kissimmee Police
Department................................................. 7
Risch, Carl C., attorney..................................... 39
Tkacik, John J., Jr., research fellow, Asian Studies Center,
the Heritage Foundation.................................... 29
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Glantz, Ken, Office of Homeland Security, Orange County
Sheriff's Office, prepared statement of.................... 11
Hemphill, Tim, executive director, Kissimmee-St. Cloud
Convention and Visitors Bureau, prepared statement of...... 18
Risch, Carl C., attorney, prepared statement of.............. 41
Tkacik, John J., Jr., research fellow, Asian Studies Center,
the Heritage Foundation, prepared statement of............. 34
Weldon, Hon. Dave, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 5
STRENGTHENING AMERICA: SHOULD THE ISSUING OF VISAS BE VIEWED AS A
DIPLOMATIC TOOL OR SECURITY MEASURE?
----------
MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Civil Service, Census and
Agency Organization,
Committee on Government Reform,
Kissimmee, FL.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., at
Kissimmee City Hall, 101 North Church Street, Kissimmee, FL,
Hon. Dave Weldon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Weldon and Keller.
Staff present: Garry Ewing, staff director; and Scott
Sadler, clerk.
Mr. Weldon. Good morning. Before I begin my opening
statement, let me first thank the city of Kissimmee and its
staff here at City Hall, particularly Wayne Larson and Ashley
Innocenti, for giving up part of their Sunday and helping my
staff put this important hearing together this morning. Without
objection, Representative Ric Keller will participate in
today's hearing.
Today we will examine one of the most vital components of
the President's proposal to establish a new Department of
Homeland Security. Our homeland security starts abroad and
nothing is more important than who gets approved for a visa to
enter this country. The issuance of visas can no longer be
thought of as a mere diplomatic function. We're in a war on
terror and our embassies and consulates must be our Nation's
first line of defense.
Common sense tells us that the best way to protect
Americans from foreign terrorists is to prevent terrorists from
entering the United States in the first place. Just as we work
hard to prevent biological, chemical or other weapons from ever
making it to our shores, so we must keep terrorists' deadly
weapons in and of themselves from reaching our homeland. A
security focused visa issuance program is essential to achieve
that goal.
Before I go on, I'd like to show a brief news clip from the
Fox News Channel that will shed more light on this issue. If we
can go ahead and roll the tape.
[News clip shown.]
Mr. Weldon. We thank the staff for putting that together.
Let me continue. All nineteen of the September 11th terrorists
came to America after obtaining legal visas. This is
unacceptable. The security of our Nation must begin abroad.
Visa issuance should not be about speed and service with a
smile.
This process should be about close and careful examination
of each and every visa applicant. Our security depends on it.
The safety of the American people depends on it. While the
President recognizes the importance of visa issuance and the
obvious problems with the process, the current proposed
legislation I feel very strongly does not go far enough. The
State Department views the issuance of visas as a diplomatic
tool and a cash cow that generates at least $500 million a year
in fees. The day is past when it should be viewed this way. The
responsibility for issuing visas should be with a department
dedicated to protecting our shores; the Department of Homeland
Security.
However, I can't only cast aspersions on the State
Department. Last week my colleagues on the Government Reform
Committee and two other committees defeated an effort by Dan
Burton from Indiana and myself to move visa operations to the
Department of Homeland Security.
So what seems like a no-brainer here in the heart of
America is a difficult uphill battle in Washington. In
Washington, too often people are more concerned with protecting
their jurisdictions than protecting the American people. In
Washington, too often politicians are more interested in
protecting their party than protecting Americans. In
Washington, bureaucracies protect their turf to the very end.
But my like-minded colleagues and I are not finished yet.
And we will attempt until the very end to do what is right and
what is in the best interests of our constituents.
Recent news reports have brought to light a program in
Saudi Arabia called Visa Express. It allows private Saudi
travel agents to process visa paperwork on behalf of Saudi and
non-Saudi residents. Three of the September 11th terrorists
obtained their visas this way; never being interviewed by
anyone in the Consular Affairs Office.
Fortunately, last week an amendment that I authored to
eliminate the Visa Express program and prevent it from ever
resurfacing was accepted, albeit by a narrow margin. I will
continue to work hard to ensure that this amendment makes it
into the final legislation signed by the President.
Finally, my staff recently received a letter addressed to
the Justice Department from the State Department stating that
it is not enough that another governmental agency recommend
that a visa be denied because that agency objects to the
applicant's entry.
The letter continues: Unfortunately, the information we
have received from the Foreign Terrorists Tracking Task Force
so far has been insufficient to permit a consular officer to
deny a visa. The information we have received states only that
the FTTTF, the Foreign Terrorists Tracking Task Force, believes
the applicants may pose a threat to national security and
therefore the FTTTF recommends against issuance.
So there you have the heart of the problem. A
recommendation from our law enforcement experts that certain
applicants may pose a terrorist threat and shouldn't be issued
visas and the State Department boldly saying no, they will get
their visas despite the warning.
It's apparent to me that the new Department of Homeland
Security must take over the visa issuing process. The security
of the American people must begin abroad.
And with that, I would like to now recognize my colleague
from Florida, Ric Keller, for an opening statement.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Congressman Weldon, and I want
to begin thanking you for your leadership on this issue. As was
seen in the Fox News clip, Congressman Weldon's really been one
of the people we look to in Washington for guidance on this
issue in light of his position and knowledge of these issues
from serving on the Government Reform Committee. And I also
want to thank the witnesses that are taking time out of their
busy schedules to advise Congressman Weldon and myself and the
other Members of Congress who will read your testimony.
I want to thank the members of the public for taking the
time out of their schedules to come here and finally I'd like
to give a special thanks to the people from the city of
Kissimmee for graciously hosting the event.
Today we will be discussing a national security issue that
has a direct impact on Central Florida's tourism-based economy;
43 million tourists visit Central Florida every year. One out
of every two of these tourists come here by airplane. And after
September 11th because people became afraid to fly, we saw
theme park attendance and hotel occupancy rates go down and
unemployment go up. So the key to revitalizing our tourism-
based economy is to make sure people feel safe about getting on
airplanes again.
As Congressman Weldon mentioned, most of the nineteen
terrorists received visas issued by the State Department and
issuing visas to potential foreign terrorists we believe should
be a matter of national security, not a diplomacy related
issue. To be frank, there is a split in Congress as we speak
right now on this issue. Should the entry level State
Department officials with minimal law enforcement training be
allowed to continue to issue visas or, on the other hand,
should this function be considered a matter of national
security and transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security.
Second related question is if this issuance of visas stays
within the State Department, should their training and skills
be upgraded so that they know what they're doing in terms of
dealing with these potential foreign terrorists. On these
issues, we welcome your input. Congressman Weldon and I will
take your advice and suggestions back to Washington with us and
the U.S. House of Representatives will resolve this issue one
way or another before the August recess.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Ric, and again I want to thank you
for being here and being part of this very important hearing.
Our first panel today is a local one. I cannot tell you the
importance of hearing from local people beyond the Washington
beltway, those that I think truly are affected by the laws that
we pass and the policies that we implement. It is particularly
important to hear from people here in Central Florida. As my
colleague just said, our Nation's No. 1 tourist destination is
obviously an area of concern to all of us here in Central
Florida that critical assets all over our Nation are protected.
Joining us today are two representatives from local law
enforcement, the first responders, and also two people from our
business community and our tourism industry. We will hear from
Deputy Chief of Police John Klein, city of Kissimmee. We will
also hear from Lieutenant Ken Glantz, Office of Homeland
Security with the Orange County Sheriff's Office. And after
that, we will hear from Tim Hemphill, Executive Director of the
Kissimmee/St. Cloud Convention and Visitors Bureau, along with
Mike Horner, President of the Kissimmee/Osceola County Chamber
of Commerce.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dave Weldon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.002
Mr. Weldon. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for
being here today, particularly on such short notice. It is the
policy of the Government Reform Committee to swear in all
witnesses who provide testimony at our hearings. Would the
witnesses please rise?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Weldon. Let the record show that the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. Gentlemen, you may be seated.
Officer Klein, you may begin. We have a policy of trying to
have our witnesses provide their verbal testimony in about 5
minutes. We'll be flexible on that. For those of you who were
able to submit written testimony, we will have your entire
written testimony included in the record. This gives you an
opportunity if you would like to summarize your written
testimony from your verbal testimony; you can do that. Officer
Klein, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KLEIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, CITY OF KISSIMMEE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief Klein. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Representative
Keller. I thank you for this opportunity to come and testify
before your subcommittee. I apologize and regret that I was
unable to prepare written comments prior to today's testimony
given the expediency of the hearing and the expeditious notice,
plus the process by which it was put together.
I have to remark on the Fox News clip that I saw this
morning. I have to really respectfully disagree with the
statement I heard the Under Secretary of State make and that
had to do with his reasoning behind why there were issues or
difficulties in the visa approval process and those issues as
he characterized them were it's really an issue, I believe he
said, of people, personnel and space. And I would respectfully
disagree with that.
I think that what we're talking about here is an issue of
national security. I think what we're talking about is the
safety of the people, the American public. I think what we're
talking about is an issue of security and accountability.
That's the way I would characterize it.
I was thinking about this this morning as I came in and the
issue of who does what or which bureaucracy handles which, I've
been in bureaucracies in government long enough to understand
and appreciate territoriality and turf wars as they occur, but
I think that the issues here transcend those territoriality and
turf war common problems that people experience.
I think that the safety and the security of the American
public demands that. Accountability is an issue that we hear
constantly bandied about in the United States with respect to
public service and I would expect no less from either the
Foreign Service or the Department of Homeland Security.
When you bifurcate responsibility, you basically have no
responsibility, in my mind, and if the proposals go forth as
suggested that perhaps the State Department would continue to
have either final approval or disapproval authority for visas
and some other entity, be it Homeland Security or another, they
would have the ability to set standards and I believe you
basically would end up with no standards.
I would liken that to me in Kissimmee having responsibility
for public safety and having the responsibility to suppress
and/or prevent the crimes of arson and having arson
investigators hired by the Kissimmee Fire Department over which
I have no control and holding me accountable for the work of
the City Fire Department; similar analogy.
A more down home reality that I thought of on my way riding
in this morning is my wife always points out to me, if I have a
problem in my house, an electrical problem or a plumbing
problem, I call for an electrician or a plumber. I don't call
for someone who's been to a Home Depot seminar or who's read a
book or bought a book on home repair about how to fix the
electricity and plumbing because I want an expert to do that. I
want an expert who has been trained and more so I want an
expert with experience in using discretion.
Security jobs, police jobs, the jobs that we're talking
about involve the exercise of discretion, unsupervised
discretion for the most part because that's what these jobs are
about. And the only way that one can properly exercise
appropriate discretion, in my view, is with experience and
continuing training. In the police field, as you'll hear from
other witnesses perhaps, not only are we given a considerable
amount of training before we begin our years of service, but we
are continually retrained like any other profession.
And, minimally, I would think that whoever is going to bear
the responsibility for approving or disapproving or reviewing
visas would not only have to have some very well-defined and
well-reasoned and well-articulated standards. They would also
have to have continual training upon which to build their
experience and to build their basic knowledge upon which to
exercise their discretion.
Again, I go back to the fact that this is accountability
we're talking about. We don't want to have a situation, in my
view, of fingerpointing. If, God forbid, we were to have
another incident of some type and the investigative process
were then to focus on who made a mistake, who did what, who
didn't do what that caused this or allowed this to occur, I
don't think any of us would want to be in a position of trying
to say, well, this was the State Department or this was the
Department of Homeland Security or this was that or this was
this person.
I think what we're looking to do is design a system that
works--that works as well as possible, that invests authority
and financing and staffing with those agencies who are best-
equipped, best-suited, best-trained, best-supervised to provide
those services so we don't have any fingerpointing. I hope
that's a situation that would never come about.
Having said those rather reflective remarks that I felt
over the last day or so, I will certainly pass on to my other
learned colleagues and be available to respond to any questions
that the committee may have.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much. That was very valuable.
Officer Glantz, you're recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEN GLANTZ, OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ORANGE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Lieutenant Glantz. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keller, members of the
staff, thank you very much for inviting the views of the Orange
County Sheriff's Office on such a vital matter.
Orange County is the most popular tourist destination in
the world. Over 43 million people visit Orange County yearly.
Nearly 4 million of those visitors are international tourists.
In addition, we host a plethora of worldwide and world-renowned
attractions. We have a vested interest in securing our borders
against terrorists.
Today we are here to discuss the matter of transferring
Consular Affairs from the U.S. Department of State to the new
Department of Homeland Security. Basic security tenets
establish that the first layer of security always begins at the
perimeter and works its way to the core in layers. The
embassies and consulates are our Nation's perimeter security
posts and therefore represent our Nation's first line of
defense against terrorism.
The fact that fifteen of the nineteen September 11th
terrorists obtained visas, three of which were obtained through
the Visa Express program, is significant evidence that there
are gaping holes in our Nation's first line of defense.
Sound security principles must be in place to prevent
terrorists from obtaining visas. We must be sure that visas are
issued to tourists and not terrorists. Combined testimony given
on June 26, 2002, established that under the Department of
State, Consular Affairs' concern is primarily diplomatic.
Security, however, is now a major concern and should be the
primary concern.
This indication illustrates a bifurcated approach to the
Consular Affairs' function. This combined approach is contrary
to the principles of security management. There must be a
logical division of work, clear lines of authority and
responsibility, coordination to meet organizational goals and
most importantly, unity of command. This can be accomplished by
bringing the Consular Affairs' function under the direction of
one agency, the Department of Homeland Security. This would
improve the Bureau's security coordination and communication
with other Homeland Security related agencies.
Additionally, the transfer of the Bureau of Consular
Affairs to the Department of Homeland Security would be in line
with the President's initiative to consolidate homeland
security-related functions.
According to congressional testimony given by Wayne Merry,
most visa positions overseas are filled by young,
inexperienced, probationary Foreign Service officers, most with
no interest in consular work, but merely fulfilling a mandatory
assignment before going on to the more glamorous diplomatic
side of their profession.
Mr. Nikolai Wenzel likened the consular position to hazing
in a college fraternity, a right of passage, not relevant to
their professional aspirations. Our Nation's first line of
defense is an entry level position with nothing more than a
warm body filling the position.
This highly critical, high profile security function cannot
be accomplished with a warm body. Just as law enforcement
officers at the local, State and Federal level are screened and
matched for employment, so should be the Consular officer.
Additionally, there should be career paths within the Bureau
that allow for advancement while remaining in the security
function.
According to testimony, in the majority of nations that do
not participate in the Visa Waiver Program, applicants are only
interviewed if, according to Joel Mowbray, they fail on paper
first. Policies should reflect basic security principles. All
information in the application packet should be verified
through the interview process.
This is our Nation's first contact with the foreign visitor
or terrorist. We must verify that they are who they say they
are, do the proper background checks, check the watch lists,
ensure that they are entering the United States for legal
reasons. Interviews are the most effective initial method of
verifying the information submitted on a visa application.
Foreign policy must be reexamined and changed to reflect
security going into programs. Programs such as Visa Express
place our Nation in serious jeopardy; they must be abolished.
The fact that a terrorist can obtain a visa through a Saudi
Arabian travel agency is irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, as host community of the world's most popular
tourist destination, terrorism is a paramount concern. Over 4
million of our visitors are from nations other than our own.
Many of them are here on visas issued by the Bureau of Consular
Affairs. By transferring the Bureau of Consular Affairs to the
Department of Homeland Security, we ensure that our Nation's
security is our No. 1 priority. We must be sure that tourists,
not terrorists, are visiting our community. Thank you.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Officer Glantz.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glantz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.007
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Hemphill, you're now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF TIM HEMPHILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KISSIMMEE-ST.
CLOUD CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU
Mr. Hemphill. Thank you. Well, first and foremost, I'd like
to thank Congressmen Weldon and Keller for seeking input on
this important matter at the grassroots level where literally
thousands of people's livelihoods depend on tourism on a daily
basis. Almost 11,000 of Osceola County's work force is directly
linked to tourism and almost fifty percent of the County's
taxes are collected from tourism based sales or properties. Our
schools, transportation network, local police and fire
protection, social services all depend heavily on the vitality
of tourism. This has never been more evident than in the recent
9 months.
The issuance of visas is not the only role of the Bureau of
Consular Affairs. However, it is in that role that they serve
as the gatekeepers for many of our international visits.
International visitors account for nearly thirty percent of our
business which virtually disappeared the days after September
11th. This sector of our market can be literally the margin of
difference in success or failure and in fact many of our hotels
remain in a day-to-day mode today.
The international market segment has gradually returned,
but not near at the levels we had traditionally experienced and
they are not expected to for quite some time. Among the
impediments is the lingering uncertainty that our systems are
still not what they should be and I applaud the Congressmen for
demanding that all of our delivery systems be reexamined.
In the meantime, competition has crept in and if we don't
act soon, it will become ever more difficult to regain our
market share. And I'll take advantage of this occasion to
advance the idea that the United States needs to have a
national tourism office. We can no longer afford to sit on the
sidelines as every country imaginable enters the market. We
have so many more competitors now, it is inconceivable that we
don't have a national tourism office.
In Osceola County, nearly one-third of our visitors were
international pre-September 11th. Of the top twenty producing
countries, citizens of nearly half of those are required to
have a visa to enter the United States. Among the top ten
countries needing visas are Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina,
Colombia and Brazil.
Clearly, the UK and Canada far outpace other countries in
visitation to this area and their citizens are not required to
have a visa, but in 2001, over 100,000 visitors came from
Venezuela, for example, the third largest international market.
Their citizens are required to have a visa to visit the United
States.
Osceola County in particular is friendly to the foreign
visitors. In general, they feel very comfortable here. We have
a vast array of lodging options, traditional resorts, hotels,
condos, villas and short-term rentals. The particular culture
of a country dictates what they are looking for and feel
comfortable in. Few places offer as many options as Osceola
county.
Our industry, obviously, is very sensitive to the systems
that deliver our foreign visitors. We recognize the importance
of making certain that those systems are as fail-safe as
possible. We cannot afford another incident. Of that, we are
certain.
The initial reaction to changes proposed to a system that
has been so integral to tourism is defensive. Moving from
diplomacy to security in mindset initially sounds like the
value of customer service would be lost. A closer examination
would likely conclude that the current system for issuing visas
has not necessarily been without customer service issues. You
often hear of the nightmares prospective visitors convey about
their experiences.
Striking a balance between homeland security and customer
service will be the key. I am convinced that a system can be
designed whereby the appropriate security measures are in place
and we treat our prospective international visitors with the
appropriate dignity and courtesy. I think we all know that some
thing or things failed and we are compelled to give all the
systems our utmost attention.
For the long term, we would like there to be no measurable
net difference in the number of visas issued. Should it take
longer? Yes. Should we be surer of the background and purpose
of the trips to the United States? Absolutely. Should our image
as a country that welcomes international guests be maintained
in the process? Most certainly.
We all want the United States to be everyone around the
world's dream vacation or holiday as it's called. In many
cases, that starts with the issuance of a visa.
Again, let me thank Congressmen Weldon and Keller for
sponsoring this important occasion.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Hemphill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hemphill follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.011
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Horner, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF MIKE HORNER, PRESIDENT OF THE KISSIMMEE/OSCEOLA
COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Horner. Thank you, Mr. Keller and Mr. Weldon, for
giving me the opportunity to testify here this morning.
The events of September 11th had a profound impact on our
entire country. I believe that no region outside of New York
City and Washington, DC, was more affected by the terrorist
attacks than Central Florida.
Our region is heavily dependent on tourism. After September
11th, we saw a catastrophic decrease in the amount of tourists
traveling to our area. This affected not only those who work
directly in the hospitality industry, but our entire business
community. Many businesses failed or were forced to cut back
causing thousands of citizens to lose their jobs.
It is clear the Federal Government must make every effort
to keep would-be terrorists from entering the United States.
The visa process is our first line of defense against those who
would travel to our country to do us harm. Every step should be
taken to make sure the visa process is sound and that those
responsible are highly trained and motivated.
Some may argue that a thorough visa review process will
create delays that would be detrimental to the tourism
industry. I would argue that nothing would be more harmful to
the tourism industry than another terrorist attack. I would
encourage you to support an exhaustive visa approval process
operated by trained professionals who keep the safety of our
homeland as their top priority.
And I would like to follow suit with the officer who took
issue with the Under Secretary who talked about it was an issue
of resources and manpower. Though you can offer all the
resources and all the manpower in the world, oftentimes, it's a
matter of mission and the mission of the State Department is to
ingratiate themselves in these foreign countries, to work with
the folks in these foreign countries.
The mission of homeland security is to protect our country
and that's very different. You can have all the resources in
the world, but it depends on the culture of the organization
and clearly the homeland security is the department with the
appropriate mission and the appropriate culture.
I'd like to thank you for your vigilance in this matter. We
are relying on leaders like you to ensure that the government
is taking the steps necessary to protect our citizens and our
way of life. Thank you for having me here today.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Horner, and I want to thank all
the witnesses and we'll now begin questioning. And I yield to
my colleague from Florida, Congressman Keller, to begin the
questioning.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have a question
for each of you. You all pointed out some very interesting
things. Mr. Klein, you were pointing out something that's been
a big concern to many of us who serve on the Judiciary
Committee; and that is, while the Department of Homeland
Security currently is planning on giving advice and guidelines
to the Secretary of State employees and the Consulars Office,
they would still be Secretary of State employees so having to
serve two masters, so to speak.
I think you were pointing out that if you had a situation
at, let's say, the Kissimmee Police Department where one of the
rank and file officers at the Kissimmee Police Department
technically was under your command but I suppose if the Osceola
County Sheriff's Office had the ability to hire and fire that
officer and the sheriff's office had the responsibility of
cutting the paycheck, he may not be as accountable to you; that
we should have it streamlined so that there's only one person
that you're trying to serve. Is that the gist of what you're
getting at there?
Chief Klein. Absolutely, Congressman. As a practical
matter, decisions are being made at a low level of the
organization based upon whatever set of criteria and guidelines
they must be using for that purpose and the Department of
State. And just as a fundamental matter of human nature, if
you're an employee making those decisions, who are you going to
be more responsive to; the people that do your performance
ratings for you, the people that approve transfers for you, the
people that can make your life much easier every day that you
have to work with every day when you're in a foreign place.
Just very fundamental, practical human considerations are
what's going to dictate who you respond to and in what manner
you respond. If you're seeking approval from your bosses so you
can improve your long term posture in the organization, improve
your family's consideration, those are the kinds of
considerations just as human beings we're going to be taking
into account when we make those decisions.
You can have all the guidelines in the world, but if those
guidelines are being promulgated by someone who's thousands or
hundreds of miles away and whose approval your job or salary
rests is sitting in the same room with you, that's the person
you're going to respond to.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Lt. Glantz, one of the things we are
concerned about in Congress is that the entry level State
Department employees who are doing these interviews only have a
couple of hours in law enforcement training in terms of fraud
and interview techniques. I know that you're with the Homeland
Security Section of Sheriff Beary's office. Give me a contrast
of what kind of training it takes for someone to get a job in
your section.
Lieutenant Glantz. Well, in order to be a criminal
investigator, most of the investigators have at least 40 hours
of training and that's through different schools on interview
and interrogation. Those people go on to a criminal
investigation area and they also have some on-the-job training,
which is considerable comparatively with the 5-hours or so that
the Consular employee has.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Lt. Glantz.
Mr. Hemphill, you pointed out the detrimental effects that
September 11th had on our tourism-based economy. I was
interested in hearing that about half of the taxes that we
collect here in Osceola County come from tourists. Is this also
having an impact on the ability of Osceola County and local
government officials to fund our schools and our roads because
of the decline in sales tax revenues?
Mr. Hemphill. Most definitely. In fact, the budget process
for the County by the County employees is underway now and this
will probably be the most budget year with the most stressed
resources that the County's ever experienced.
Mr. Keller. Do you have any feeling of optimism that if we
are successful on the war on terrorism in terms of tracking
down these terrorists, whether either one by one and we tighten
up the visa process and we do computer checks for terrorists on
airlines so people feel good about flying again, that will be a
positive benefit to the tourism economy here in Osceola County?
Mr. Hemphill. Undoubtedly. It will return to normal levels
in due time, but those measures have to be enforced.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Horner, you mentioned that one of your
concerns is that kind of the mindset at Consular Affairs,
Secretary of State's office is that they want to ingratiate
themselves with the country that they're in. I was thinking of
a situation if a diplomat is over there and he has a very
prominent--let's say he's in Saudi Arabia and he's looking at a
visa application for a ne'er-do-well son of a very prominent
businessman, you're concerned that their inclination to kind of
ingratiate themselves with these countries and their prominent
leaders would lead to a decision that was more lax than, say,
if an FBI interviewer was looking at the same ne'er-do-well
son. Is that the gist of it?
Mr. Horner. Exactly. They've got a political concern as
opposed to a security concern.
Mr. Keller. Thank you very much. Congressman Weldon, I will
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much, Congressman Keller, for
your very valuable input on this hearing. I wanted to just
start off with a question for our two representatives from law
enforcement. As you are aware, we had a hearing on this issue
on June 26th and we took testimony from the Assistant Secretary
of State who told the subcommittee that if we replaced Foreign
Service officers with more security-minded personnel, we would
end up with, ``rent-a-cops,'' on the visa line and that we
wouldn't want that.
What do you think of that statement? Do you want to comment
on that? I certainly have some differing opinions on that, but
I'd really rather hear your perspective as law enforcement
officers.
Chief Klein. Congressman, I also have a response to that.
My response obviously wouldn't be fit for the record to print.
I think that's a very specious statement, a very specious
argument to make. I think that if you design a program and
staff a program properly and give it the appropriate mission as
my colleague has identified, you'll get basically what you're
looking for.
An example in the Federal service would be the most recent
change with the sky marshals. There was a desire to
professionalize or make the sky marshals more visible, have a
much more dedicated function, security function in the air. In
order to do so, the Federal department designed pretty exacting
standards, pretty exacting requirements for experienced,
primarily law enforcement people. They established a career
path within the Federal service which would allow and which
would also motivate officers who were otherwise not motivated
to come into the Federal service, to come in with the
understanding that they could provide service at a certain
level for a certain period of time and have the opportunity of
moving perhaps into Federal law enforcement service.
I think that you get what you pay for and you get what you
design. If you design a program where you're going to have
airport screeners who are looking in bags and are being paid $5
an hour, that's what you're going to get frankly. That's the
level of service that you'll get.
If you design a program that's intended to attract
qualified, motivated, experienced, educated law enforcement
personnel of which there are many throughout the country and
you provide them with a career opportunity, that's exactly what
you'll get; you'll get well-qualified, well-motivated, very
talented, very energetic, mission-oriented security personnel;
a security force that will do a good job for the country and
you won't have to deal with these rent-a-cop issues that if you
design otherwise, you'll get otherwise.
Mr. Weldon. Lt. Glantz, did you want to elaborate on that?
Lieutenant Glantz. Yes, Dr. Weldon. In Orange County, our
deputies have a mission of tourist-oriented policing down in
the International Drive area to the Walt Disney World area. Our
deputies are trained, good policemen, have security issues
forefront, work crime areas and they also are diplomatic to the
tourists who are here in Orange County. It angers me to hear a
statement where they call us rent-a-cops or they say that
police officers won't be able to fill a mission if it's
diplomatic. Police officers can be diplomatic. Like my
colleague just said, you get what you pay for. And if you pay
someone $5 an hour and they aren't trained, that's what you'll
get. If you pay someone consummate what their job is, they will
do the job for you if they have the education and the
background and training and that's what you need to look for
when you put a person in this position.
The FBI, the CIA, local law enforcement have brilliant
people working for them. They have some of the best shining
stars that you'll see and I think that's one of the important
things that you need to realize; that we're not rent-a-cops and
that you wouldn't be filling this position with rent-a-cops.
Mr. Weldon. Would you like to comment--as I understand it,
the position of Consular Affairs' officer goes to the new
recruits from the foreign service. So they graduate from
college with a degree in whatever. It can be liberal arts. They
take the foreign service exam. They get hired. And as I
understand it, they get 2 weeks of training and a whole
plethora of issues that Consular Affairs deals with which is a
lot of other issues beside visa issuance.
But specifically the visa issuance, part of their training,
as I understand it, is a half a day. I'd ask all the panelists
to comment on this, but particularly our representatives from
law enforcement. Do you feel that is adequate for a level of
training considering the impact that September 11th has had on
this community, not only from the business sector, but we've
also heard about from tax collection and its ultimate impact
that it's going to have on education, for example, our ability
to fund our school system. So I just would ask for your
response to that. My thinking is that it's an inadequate amount
of training and another reason why we need to move this over to
the Department of Homeland Security.
Lieutenant Glantz. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you 100
percent. As far as the degree that they have in liberal arts, I
don't think that makes a difference whatsoever. However, police
officers receive approximately 600 hours of training before
being allowed to go on the street; 600 hours comparatively to 2
weeks or a half a day. If we move to a security-minded Consular
officer, then they need to have much more training like a
person who's going to become a sky marshall.
They need to go to academy. They'll need to go to some type
of security academy to get the adequate training. Interview and
interrogation training would be part of it. Diplomatic training
would be part of it. They would have to learn to use equipment
such as voice stress analysis equipment which could be used to
verify the answers that are given on the applications, on the
visa applications. There's a lot of training that could be put
into becoming a Consular Officer and I believe you are
absolutely right. Five hours is not adequate training.
Chief Klein. Mr. Chairman, I think for that type of a job,
if part of your role was to review and approve or deny visa
applications, in my sense based on my experience in law
enforcement, that's not something you can hire someone who has
a college degree with no background in law enforcement to come
in and do as part of their duties. It just frankly is not.
To be able to make judgments about someone being a security
risk, to be able to review and access documents, to be able to
judge whether documents are fraudulent, to be able to look at
people and make judgments as to whether they are being truthful
with you, to be able to exercise discretion in a law
enforcement context, are things that can't be learned in a
classroom. Those are the things that require experience. Those
are things that require having been, to use the phrase, ``in
the field,'' you need to be able to have a different range of
skills to be able to perform that type of a function than you
do to be able to perform other diplomatic functions or other
functions related to education.
The issue of security is somewhat unique and people may
refer to some people in the law enforcement profession as rent-
a-cops, but the training and experience that you get in dealing
with people in the law enforcement business is much different
than you can get in any other type of educational background.
And I don't think that any amount of classroom training,
certainly not 4 hours, could even adequately acquaint or
familiarize someone to perform that type of a function if you
are serious about performing the visa function in a very
serious and conscientious and mission-oriented fashion.
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Horner, did you want to add to that at all?
Mr. Horner. I would like to say even if the State
Department would upgrade their training, which I think everyone
here would agree the training is inadequate, it still comes
back, not to be a broken record, to mission. Even if you could
provide that adequate training, what is the organization
placing emphasis on? And I think that an organization that
places security as their top goal would be in a better position
to provide that service.
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Hemphill, could you just speculate for the
record what potentially could be the impact--and I ask you, Mr.
Horner, as well--of another major attack on the United States
here in Central Florida?
Mr. Hemphill. It would be devastating and I'm not certain
that we could recover. We're all pretty confident that we're
recovering from the previous one, but I'm not sure we'd be able
to recover in the tourism industry from another such incident.
Mr. Weldon. You mentioned before I asked you to comment on
that--you mentioned a couple of times in your testimony
competition. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Hemphill. Well, in the global market now and it's
happened in only a few short years, from a marketing
standpoint, you can look through a travel guide now and see
countries that are trying to get people to visit their
countries that you never would have imagined would be in the
market.
Mr. Weldon. Can you cite a few for example?
Mr. Hemphill. Vietnam.
Mr. Weldon. Vietnam?
Mr. Hemphill. Vietnam. Cuba.
Mr. Weldon. Warm climate in the winter months; is that what
we're looking at here?
Mr. Hemphill. Yes. The competition is fierce and we can't
afford any occasion to allow additional competition. We're just
losing markets. I know that sounds like we're kind of getting
off target in the issue of security measures, but all of these
types of things allow more competition.
Mr. Weldon. I don't think it's not involved with our
discussion here. If the United States were to be hit again and
again by more terrorist attacks, I think you could see more and
more international visitors selecting what is perceived by them
to be a safer location to take their vacation.
Mr. Hemphill. Mr. Chairman, a good example of that
currently is our UK visitors are down. Their next obvious
option is Spain and once they get comfortable going to Spain,
will we be able to get them back? I'm not sure we will, but
that's a great example of competition.
Mr. Weldon. Do any of you have any more comments that you
want to add? I just have one more question for our
representatives in law enforcement. One of the arguments put
forth by State Department officials is giving a visa is just
one step and that they come here and they get interviewed by
INS when the plane lands and they have to go through customs
and immigration and it's really a two-step process.
I agree with your comments, Lt. Glantz, about placing the
focus is at the perimeter. You want to comment on that at all?
I personally don't see that as a valid argument to leaving them
in diplomatic function. I would still prefer to move them to a
security organization. The planes land and there's a lot of
pressure to get the people through the lines quickly and out to
the hotels. Your thoughts on that?
Lieutenant Glantz. Mr. Chairman, prior testimony indicated
that INS receives the foreign visitors here and if they don't
have a lot of luggage looking like they're going to be here for
3 or 4 months, they pass them right through at the INS station.
INS, of course, could beef that up. However, I would remain to
say that we need that perimeter post to be our first line of
defense and if we don't have a strong first line of defense,
we're got them here to this country and we have to rely on
another system. Let's take them out at the first opportunity.
Chief Klein. Just again as a more practical way of looking
at things, the first step is always the hardest step and once
people get onto our shores, we have a whole plethora of other
issues that arise and local law enforcement and the INS. We are
continually subjected to discussions or allegations of
profiling, of grouping of certain nationalities or ethnic
groups for the improper or inappropriate services. We have the
ACLU who does a fine job in many areas, but there are other
types of pressures and other things that are brought to bear
once people hit our shores.
So I think the first step being the hardest step, the first
step should be the hardest step. And once you can get past that
threshold, then perhaps there's a different type of scrutiny
that you can be subjected to when you're entitled to the type
of things that we give our citizens on this shore. But that
first step should be the hardest step.
Mr. Weldon. Just one last question to the whole panel: We
were debating this issue in the Congress in committee just last
Thursday. One of the arguments--and I've heard this argument
over and over again put forward--is that the Consular Affairs
position is the first station that diplomats go to and it's a
career development issue for the diplomatic corps and if you
want to have well-seasoned diplomats, you need this opening
position for them to move into and that moving Consular Affairs
to Homeland Security would be very disruptive to the career
paths of diplomatic officers.
Would you like to comment on that at all?
Mr. Horner. I would just say that in Central Florida alone,
we had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of folks'
career path disrupted with that September 11th attack, not to
mention D.C. and New York City. There's got to be an
alternative--an alternate first step for these junior diplomats
to go through besides the issuance of visas.
Mr. Hemphill. Chairman, I think in this particular
discussion or in all discussions related to homeland security,
I think diplomacy is the sacred cow. I think certainly it is in
the diplomatic corps and the State Department and all those
departments feel like it's a sacred cow and I don't envision
that whatever it might affect in terms of career paths, it
shouldn't be changed or couldn't be changed. I really think
that everything should be on the table and every system should
be examined and this is one very important argument.
Lieutenant Glantz. If the Consular position was to be moved
over to the Homeland Security Department, I'm sure there'd be
an alternative and that is a career path for the people who
come who want to be diplomats. If it is moved over, it would be
very important for the career path within the Bureau to offer
advancement and remain in a security function.
Chief Klein. I've got the same type of reaction to that
statement that I had to the Under Secretary's response that
this is merely an issue about space or personnel or people. If
the issue is security, if the issue is national security, I
believe that's what the issue is as the President has said,
then issues of career paths or issues of who moves from which
job or what job are incidental when you're looking at security.
There are ways to work around this and I think people need to
take a hard look at what the President wants us to do and wants
the Office of Homeland Security to do. If security is what they
are supposed to be doing, than there are ways to deal with
career path issues and bureaucracies.
Mr. Weldon. Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses in
the first panel. Thank you for taking the time out from your
schedules to be here. It was extremely valuable testimony and
it will be very, very useful for us as we continue to debate
this very important issue. The House hopes to pass their final
version of the bill out before we recess for the August recess,
which we'll be recessing at the end of July. And then when we
return, hopefully we take up the final version of the bill and
the goal is to have this new Department of Homeland Security
created by the anniversary of September 11th if possible. It's
a very big issue and we may not be able to get that done, but
your testimony is a valuable input in the process. Thank you
again for being here.
We will now recess for 5 minutes while we call up the
second panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Weldon. The committee's hearing will now resume. I
apologize to our witnesses for keeping you waiting. Certainly
we appreciate you being here as well. An important component in
understanding the issuance of visas is to hear from those who
have actually served on the visa lines in the State Department.
We have two excellent witnesses today and I thank them for
taking time out of their busy schedules to travel to Kissimmee
to join us this morning.
First we will hear from John J. Tkacik. Did I pronounce
your name correctly, sir?
Mr. Thacik. Yes.
Mr. Weldon. Research Fellow for China, Taiwan and Mongolia,
Asian Studies Center and The Heritage Foundation and a former
23-year State Department employee. Then we will hear from Carl
C. Risch and your name is pronounced correctly, also?
Mr. Risch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Risch is currently an attorney, practices
law in Pennsylvania, I believe, but importantly is a former
Foreign Service officer in the State Department and I believe
also has some firsthand experience of Consular Affairs.
Gentlemen, if you could both please stand, raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Weldon. Let the record show that the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. Mr. Tkacik, you're recognized for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. TKACIK, JR., RESEARCH FELLOW, ASIAN
STUDIES CENTER, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Thacik. Chairman Weldon, thank you very much for
inviting me to testify today on the proposed legislation which
gives the new Department of Homeland Security exclusive
authority over the visa function.
Before I begin, let me say that the opinions I give here
today are entirely my own and should not be construed as
representing any official stance of the Heritage Foundation.
Although I am a research fellow for China policy at the
Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, I have considerable
experience in visa and immigration issues. I served for 23
years in the Department of State, including 2 years as
Supervisory Consular Officer at Peking at the U.S. Embassy in
China and 3 years as the Chief of the visa Section at the
American Consulate General in Hong Kong which at the time was
the third largest visa issuing post in the world.
I also spent several years as Chief of China Analysis in
the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and
I think appropriately to this hearing from 1986 to 1988, I was
the chief of Junior Officer Training which is the A-100 course
at the Foreign Service Institute.
First, let me say that there appears to be universal
agreement in the administration that the U.S. consuls abroad
who adjudicate visa applications by foreign visitors and
hopeful immigrants are within the first line of America's
defense against global terror networks. I think in recognition
of this, the administration's proposed legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security removes the visa function from
the State Department and places it in DHS. But I note that in
the wording of the administration's proposed legislation, it
says that the DHS secretary, ``shall have exclusive authority
through the Secretary of State,'' to issue visas and administer
and enforce visa laws.
Now, this seems inconsistent to have exclusive authority
through another secretary, cabinet secretary, but I think there
are logical ways to work this out and I think the key to this
is to move the State Department's Office of Visa Services known
as the Visa Office or VO into the new DHS.
Now, having been in the Foreign Service for 23, 24 years, I
understand that the State Department does want its own consuls
overseas to continue performing visa functions. For years,
local sensibilities and U.S. Ambassadors' concerns for
unsightly visa lines and strict enforcement of visa denials
have encouraged the visa function overseas to be managed more
as a service and not as a screen. It's a matter of priorities.
While visa consuls should be Foreign Service officers
within the Department of State, I believe, at the very least,
the U.S. Government's preeminent office controlling visa policy
and operations, State's visa office, must reside where the
Congress places the authority for those functions; in the
Department of Homeland Security.
And if the Department of Homeland Security is to be
accountable for its authority, then it should have its own
officers overseas to monitor and supervise these operations.
And I think this is called for in the administration's bill. I
think to do otherwise, the reorganization of the DHS will just
be business as usual and only the names on the door will
change. Foreign Service officers will continue to man the visa
offices under the guidance and oversight of the DHS. And that's
the way it should be.
Now, the DHS must assume total control over visa policies
and support services. An important provision of the Bush
administration's proposed Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the
placement of the country's border and transportation security
responsibilities within DHS including the transfer of the
immigration service to the new department. Section 403 of the
proposed legislation transfers, ``control,'' over the issuance
and denial of visas to enter the United States to the DHS,
``while preserving the Secretary of State's traditional
authority to deny visas to aliens based upon foreign policy
interests of the United States.''
Now, this appears to be the rationale for trying to keep
the visa function within the State Department which is to say
the Secretary of State has this traditional authority, but I
will note that this traditional authority which is embodied in
Section 212(a)(3)(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is
used very rarely. The last year that we have statistics which
is 1999, it was not used at all in that year. So I don't think
that you can justify moving any part of the visa function
into--keeping any part of the visa function in the State
Department under this ground of reasoning, much less all of the
visa authority.
I think in the interest of time, I'm going to skip to why
there must be a visa attache at the U.S. Embassies. I think
State Department officers still can perform the bulk of visa
functions overseas as has been earlier mentioned. It is
considered part of the training program for junior officers and
I, having been the chief of Junior Service Training for 2
years, understand that. But I think simply put, without formal
onsite monitoring of the visa lines by DHS, there is no control
of accountability. I think if DHS is to control the issuance
and denials of visas, DHS must have a supervisory attache
commission, of course, as a U.S. consul or vice consul assigned
to each embassy and each visa issuing consulate to provide
oversight, continuous monitoring and training and
indoctrination on visas. The DHS attache also must have
statutory authority to overrule a visa officer's issuances or
refusals on at least homeland security grounds.
And I see that in the amendment to the Burton Substitute
offered by Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, H.R. 5005, there
doesn't seem to be the authority to refuse visa applications
and develop programs of training of Consular officers as part
of that. And in addition, the proposed legislation that came
out of the subcommittee markup on Thursday night, I believe it
was, also calls for the review of any or all such applications
prior to their adjudication either on the initiative of the
employee of the Department of Homeland Security or upon request
of the Consular officer. I think this makes absolute sense and
I think at the very least, this is essential to the effective
functioning of the Department of Homeland Security in the visa
process.
Now, if the DHS attache overseas is to provide a value
added, then he or she should have full access to all the DHS
data bases; and by this, I mean all domestic and foreign data
bases, including U.S. national crime indices, and that access
should be at a secure site at the embassy or consulate.
In many cases where visa sections overseas are located in
an unsecure venue physically distant from the embassy, this
would mean that the DHS officer should have two offices. A DHS
section abroad in an embassy would also involve an increase in
the staff, as few as one per visa issuing post, but as many as
five in large posts. This may in fact involve as many as 300
additional DHS employees overseas.
However, the actual visa issuance at embassies and
consulates abroad could and I think should continue to be
handled by Foreign Service officers. In the longer term, the
DHS visa office, once presuming it is moved into the--the visa
office is moved into DHS, will be responsible for developing
training programs for junior State Department Foreign Service
officers as they go out to an embassy. And the DHS visa office
will be required to develop this specialized software to
monitor the visa issuance.
Ideally, DHS should supervise and fund the program at the
State Department's Foreign Service Institute which would
indoctrinate FSOs in terrorism profiling, terrorism
organizations and operations and terrorism documentation in
addition to the existing visa course. The program would be a
part of the State Department's FSI's Consular Course and must
be developed in conjunction with the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department
of State's own coordinator for counterterrorism.
I think in the transition period as DHS begins to assume
control for visa policies, the State Department Consular
section chiefs in American embassies abroad must be brought
back to the United States for a period of training and
indoctrination on homeland security in a program designed to
sharpen visa supervision and oversight until DHS attaches can
be assigned.
Now, separately in the longer term, DHS must develop
Management Information System software to monitor visa
issuances overseas. This software would be developed by the
visa office to interface with its existing automated visa
issuance systems which are already in place. AVLOS and CLOK,
the automated visa lookout system and the classified lookout
book are indices--these indices as well have to be integrated
into the automated visa issuance systems and these separate
data bases will enable the DHS attache at post to review visa
officer processing of applications as well as to give him or
her access to visa data bases for investigation and
intelligence purposes.
Improvements in computer hardware memory, clock speeds as
well as broadband data transmission rates also permit the
retention of all visa applications in a centralized DHS data
base. To depart from my prepared testimony, I should note that
at present, issued visas, records of issued visas I believe are
dumped after 1 year. As a result, a year after a visa is
issued, you can't go back and check what happened to that visa.
I think finally in more advanced countries, the use of
data-mining software can speed local background checks for visa
issuance. With a minimum of intrusiveness, such techniques
could quickly identify visa applicants who have not established
themselves in their communities and hence fit a threat profile.
Nonetheless, speed of visa issuances should not be the top
priority in a wartime environment and a reasonable period
should be built into the visa process to ensure that reliable
name-checks are made.
So let me sum up. The visa function should be to the new
DHS. Section 403 of the administration's proposed Homeland
Security Act of 2002 recognized that effective homeland defense
requires that the new Department of Homeland Security should
control the visa function and that the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall have exclusive authority to issue or refuse
visas. I agree with that.
Second, the DHS must have a meaningful presence overseas.
Control and authority are empty words unless the Visa Office,
now under the Department of State, is transferred to the new
DHS and unless the DHS officers overseas have some effective
supervisory authority over visa issuances abroad. And again, as
I say, I'm happy to see that seems to be in the existing
markup.
Third, Consular officers should continue to perform visa
functions overseas. This does not require that all or even most
visa officers overseas must be DHS employees. Both DHS and
State will benefit if the bulk of the overseas visa function is
conducted by State Department Foreign Service officers.
Fourth, the DHS should have direct monitoring authority of
overseas visa operations via the DHS attaches at all visa
posts, and this includes most embassies, and those attaches
must have consular commissions.
And finally, the DHS Visa Office will and must take the
responsibility of training, indoctrinating and equipping visa
officers abroad and ensuring that they or their supervisors
have access to the relevant intelligence and name-check data
bases needed to screen alien visa applicants effectively.
That concludes my prepared presentation. I'm happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tkacik follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.016
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Risch, you're now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARL C. RISCH, ATTORNEY
Mr. Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to come
and testify on such an important issue. My name is Carl Risch
and I'm a former Foreign Service officer of the U.S. Department
of State having served from 1999 until 2002. From 2000 until
2002, I served as Vice Consul at the Consulate General in
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where I managed the Nonimmigrant
Visa Unit for 15 months, including on September 11, 2001.
During my tenure as Unit Chief, I adjudicated approximately
25,000 visa applications. I resigned in May 2002 even though I
received top evaluations and a challenging onward assignment.
While I longed to return to my private law practice, I was also
discouraged by the State Department's lack of dedication to the
effective enforcement of the immigration laws of the United
States. I took my job very seriously. The State Department did
not.
Unlike other witnesses you've seen, I never served in a so-
called visa mill. In fact, I experienced the best the State
Department has to offer; a tour in a first class, Western
European city and at a post with no staffing problems and a
high visa issuance rate.
The fact that even I was terrified by State's incompetence
and apathy toward law enforcement proves just how far this
problem has progressed. I urge the Congress to support the
transfer of the visa issuing function from State's Bureau of
Consular Affairs to the new Department of Homeland Security, a
department that will be committed to the rule of law and the
national security of the United States.
During my tour in Amsterdam, I observed two primary
institutional problems with the way the State administers
visas. First, State routinely sacrifices the rule of law in
order to further its diplomatic goals and ignores the impact
this may have on national security. Second, State considers
visa adjudication to be a right of passage of all Foreign
Service officers, even the vast majority who are disinterested
in consular service.
The State Department is by definition a diplomatic
institution. Our officers at posts abroad work hard to improve
America's image overseas. Adjudicating visa applications,
however, has nothing to do with diplomacy. Immigration law like
environmental regulations and the tax code is a complex,
specialized set of rules which allows foreign nationals to
apply for permission to travel to the United States. The proper
administration of these laws requires strict adherence to the
rule of law even when decisions are unpopular.
State's diplomatic function has proven too inconsistent
with this law enforcement function for it to be trusted with
this responsibility. The result has been a visa policy whereby
the rule of law is repeatedly sacrificed to please host country
officials and important contacts in reckless disregard of the
impact on national security.
Just one example: While serving in Amsterdam, I interviewed
a Tanzanian who wanted to visit the United States. He had only
been in Holland for a few days as a visitor. He could not
articulate a single reason for wanting to visit the United
States or even give a specific geographic destination for his
trip. He had no evidence of employment or other ties to
Tanzania or any other country.
I refused his application for failure to prove his
qualifications for a visit to visit the United States. Less
than an hour later, a high-ranking official called me into his
office. Apparently, a local VIP had called to report that he
was disappointed to hear that his neighbor's safari jeep driver
from Tanzania had been denied a visa.
After the State official apologized to the neighbor for any
inconvenience this man caused, I was then directed to issue the
visa. The fact that the applicant did not qualify for a visa
under any reasonable interpretation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act did not seem to bother the official. The only
thing that mattered was the diplomatic mission. Only an agency
committed to law enforcement and not diplomacy should be
trusted with enforcing the laws as intended by Congress.
State's record on visa worsens when one views its staffing
policy. Simply put, State views visa adjudication as garbage
work to be delegated to the lowest ranking, least experienced
officers. Poorly trained, unenthusiastic officers are sent by
the hundreds every year to be our first line of defense at visa
issuing posts abroad.
Although virtually all FSOs must spend some time
adjudicating visas, only a minority are actually interested in
the work. The rest suffer through it with the knowledge that
the rest of their careers will be spent elsewhere. It is no
wonder that State cannot competently administer the visa
function when it intentionally staffs its Consular sections
with people who desperately do not want to be there.
Visa work should be done by people who are interested in a
law enforcement career, although State behaves as if no one
ever wants to spend their careers adjudicating visas abroad.
This is simply not true. I found visa work to be an exciting
and important job where I could use all my skills as an
attorney to implement and enforce the laws of the United
States. I know I'm not alone.
I urge the Congress to support the transfer of the visa
issuing function to the new Department of Homeland Security
where visa sections will likely be staffed with dedicated and
enthusiastic law enforcement officers committed to the national
security of the United States. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Risch follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.019
Mr. Weldon. I want to thank both of you for your testimony.
It was extremely valuable. I'd like you both to comment on this
question: Under the administration's bill and various proposals
supported by some Members of Congress, the Homeland Security
Secretary is given responsibility for overseeing the visa
function but he must exercise it through the Secretary of
State. You were spelling that out very, very, clearly.
For example, the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot even
issue regulations for visas on his own. The Secretary of State
must issue the regulations for him as I understand the
interpretation of the President's proposal. The Secretary of
State will have direct operational control over the work force
responsible for implementing those regulations.
I have several concerns about this fragmented approach.
First, from a pure managerial perspective, it makes no sense to
give responsibility for any function to one person and then in
the same breath tell him that he is solely dependent on a co-
equal cabinet officer whom--and he can't be fired. Discipline
or reward will actually be carried out by the other function.
I'm also concerned that leaving operational control of the work
force with the Secretary of State undercuts the Secretary of
Homeland Security's authority.
Put simply, our Foreign Service officers working in the
Visa Office grow to be more responsive to the person who can
fire, discipline or reward them versus someone who can't.
Finally, it also seems to me that this fragmented approach will
mean that no one can really be held accountable.
Any comment on this?
Mr. Tkacik. Well, I'm just looking at the White House's
analysis of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which is
available on the White House red page and Section 403, all it
says is that the section transfers to the Secretary of Homeland
Security control over the issuance and denial of visas to enter
the United States while preserving the traditional authority to
deny visas to aliens based on foreign policy interests. That's
the Secretary of State's traditional authority.
I don't see where the administration's bill wants
everything to be done by the Secretary of State in the name of
the Secretary of Homeland Security. The section expressly
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to delegate his
authority under the section. It doesn't say what authority or
even all authority or any authority.
Mr. Weldon. If I can interrupt you for a second. I think
you touched on the operative language in your opening
statement, Mr. Tkacik. You said exclusive authority through the
Secretary of State is in the language and that's on page 16, I
believe, of the act as proposed by the President. So as I see
it, you know, this would be like me holding this hearing and
all of these people who worked for me not working for me. I
would tell them I want to have a hearing, I want to have it in
Kissimmee, but if they missed their flights, they don't invite
the right witnesses, I have no control over them. I can't fire
them or I can't discipline them or reprimand them.
Mr. Tkacik. Well, the way I interpret that is that it says
exclusive authority to the Secretary of State. I interpret that
as being the Secretary of Homeland Security can issue the
regulations but they go through the Secretary of State to the
visa officers on the line. And as I read the subcommittee's
markup, that makes much more--it's consistent and I think it
makes sense.
Mr. Weldon. Well, I wanted to get at that issue. The
original amendment did not have that language and we had a
debate and I was very engaged in that debate. The critical
issue--the language that they originally proposed was the
language that came through the judiciary committee and through
the Committee on International Relations which essentially put
personnel in these offices but gave them no teeth whatsoever.
And we reached a middle ground in this language in that we
put some language in there that gives the Secretary of Homeland
Security the ability to deny a visa. And to me, that's the only
way--if you want to move--I would like to move the entire
function over for the very reasons that you expressed, Mr.
Risch. If we cannot succeed in doing that as we move this
legislation through the process and ultimately get it signed
into law, minimally we need to give the Secretary of Homeland
Security the ability to deny a visa. Otherwise, all of the
personnel that DHS puts in the visa offices, they will be
toothless. And can you comment on that at all? Do you agree
with that?
Mr. Risch. I agree 100 percent. It doesn't make any sense
to keep any of it in the State unless, like you said, the
Department of Homeland Security would have the ability to
specify or to control, for lack of a better term, the visa
issuance made by the Department of State. But I would see that
as a progress, see that it's working so that the State
Department has the entire facility. Each part of the embassy
works part of the State Department, but also the Department of
Defense has an office, DEA has an office depending on what
country you're in. I just perceive the Visa Office to be
Department of Homeland Security office, working completely
independently from the Secretary of State or at least control
the visa issuance function in some way.
Mr. Weldon. You know, that's a good point because one of
the issues that the State Department keeps raising is Consular
Affairs does so many other things other than visa issuance. For
example, if an American citizen has a legal or a health problem
or should actually pass away overseas, Consular Affairs is very
engaged in those kind of things. So would it be possible to
leave Consular Affairs with State but place the visa issuance
office within Homeland Security?
Mr. Risch. Absolutely, and I believe that's the way
Consular Affairs runs now is we settle functions very
distinctly. In fact, my supervisors in Amsterdam, many never
worked in the visa office. In fact, my direct supervisor barely
ruled on any visas at all because he spent his entire career
working in references and services. So the State Department and
Bureau of Consular Affairs in fact does separate these things
out and I would say that American citizen services, passports
overseas, things of that nature should remain with the State
Department, but certainly not visa issuance.
Mr. Weldon. The language that ultimately passed the
committee was a mere compromise, but I was not happy with it. I
voted against it. I have a related concern about that language
in that it's definitely an improvement, but the visa issuance
officers are still going to be employed by the Secretary of
State. Therefore, if they do not put security first, there will
be no way to discipline them whatsoever in this compromise
proposal. So I am very concerned that if you don't actually put
the people who are issuing the visas under the Department of
Homeland Security, we are going to continue to have a problem.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Tkacik. Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be a
problem. I think that what you're looking at in a systems
analysis sense is you're looking at the issuance of visas to
people that shouldn't have them, especially to people who fit a
terrorist profile. The way to exert the Secretary of Homeland
Security's authority and guidance is to interpose what you have
here and again, as I say, in Section B, I guess it's 104--it
doesn't say here. Anyway, it basically says it gives the
Secretary of Homeland Security the following function: To
review any and all such applications, visa applications, prior
to their adjudication. This has to mean that you have to have
somebody at the post who goes through every visa application
and is sort of a watchdog, a monitor.
I served at the American Consulate General in Hong Kong for
3 years. At that time in 1985--1983 to 1986, it was the third
largest visa issuing post in the world. I personally as the
Chief of the Visa Section went through every nonimmigrant visa
application that was issued at the end of each day. You'd get
anywhere from 500 to 2,000 visa applications a day, both
issuances and refusals. And from that, I could monitor which
officers were lax, which officers were too strict, which
officers were not paying attention to the documentation, where
there was a lack of complete consideration of all the
information was even on the application itself.
Now, that was primarily a management tool. It was sort of a
mid-course correction. It was not designed really to intercede
and intervene in the visa process. However, it could be. It
could be extended. There would be a day's wait for a visa and
somebody would go through a little bit more carefully but have
the authority to deny the visa; say no, no, this visa should
not have been issued or this visa has to go back. We have to
have this person come back for another interview.
In Hong Kong, we also had a five-person visa fraud unit,
staffed by a professional Consular officer, FSO-3 rank which is
like 05 or 04 rank in the military, rank without a major in the
military and four local national visa fraud investigators. In
many cases, if I had a question, I could go right down the
hall, give it to them and say can you call this telephone
number? Can you go tomorrow down to the office and check where
this office is? This looks funny to me.
In those days, I will admit this is 20 years ago, we were
not looking at terrorism. We were looking for a lot of other
things that I can't perhaps go into right now, but I was very
satisfied at the time that the visa officers, the Consular
officers, especially the fraud officers, had internalized the
mission that we'd set them out to do. The major mission was to
prevent visa fraud. The second mission involved other things
that perhaps we could talk about later if you're interested in
an informal setting.
I think it's workable. Foreign Service officers are brought
into the State Department through a very rigorous examination
system. You're getting the best and the brightest. And let me
also sort of correct for the record, at least, to the best of
my knowledge, their visa training in the State Department's
Bureau of Foreign Service Institute in their so-called Conja
and Rosalyn course, their training does involve 2 weeks of visa
training including at least one full day where they're actually
pretending to be visa officers and/or pretending to be visa
applicants trying to circumvent the system.
That's just a small part of it. In addition to that, all of
the visa officers go through a 2-day session with the visa
fraud prevention unit of the Vice Office and, again, I think
they're well-indoctrinated in sort of the mission of preventing
visa fraud. I don't see that it's an attitudinal mission. I do
resent that people say, oh, these people don't want to be there
and they really don't like it. I think if you tell a Foreign
Service officer this is his job, he will do it. He just needs
the right guidance.
Now, at the very end, let me say that I did listen to
Secretary Powell's testimony in front of Chairman Berger, I
believe it was, on Thursday, Wednesday or Thursday, and he was
asked--Secretary Powell and I'm sure you'll correct me if the
record is a little bit fuzzy in my mind--but he was asked what
would you expect the Secretary of Homeland Security to tell
those officers overseas and you go tell them? And Secretary
Powell I think was very candid by saying, well, if it's a
guidance thing, it's a matter of priorities and he would expect
the Secretary of Homeland Security to give the kind of homeland
security-oriented guidance that perhaps the State Department
wasn't giving them. I think that's a very candid, frank and
accurate look at it.
It's for this reason that I think that Homeland Security
has to be integrally involved in the visa process, but it
doesn't mean that you have to throw the baby out with the bath
water and that you have to throw a very talented, bright,
intelligent and with the proper guidance, very well motivated
Consular Affairs officer with it.
Sorry about that. I rambling on. I apologize.
Mr. Weldon. Well, I don't doubt that many of the Consular
officers working in the visa section, particularly now today
after September 11th are capable and concerned about protecting
homeland security. The issue that I'm concerned about is I
believe the war on terrorism has the potential to go on for
decades. I have a fear at this time that this could be very
much like a cold war that goes on for decades and that our
children and maybe our grandchildren will be engaged in this
battle in the years ahead. And so that the decisions that we're
making now have very, very profound implications for our
ability to function in that arena.
The decisions that were made by the Kennedy administration
after World War II were extremely valuable to the establishment
of the National Security Council. The consolidating of all of
the defense functions under the Secretary of Defense were very,
very valuable as we moved into the cold war. We're talking
about moving INS into Homeland Security. We're talking about
moving the Coast Guard. We're talking about moving animal and
plant food inspection service, all these different agencies,
160,000 and personnel, but as I see it, this is sort of a
glaring omission on the part of the administration.
Now, what we've been engaging in in the Congress is all the
hair-splitting about what should come over and why it should
stay outside. Well, when you step back and compare that with
all the other things you really know, there's an inherent lack
of knowledge. And I think Mr. Risch's recommendation that if
you're not going to move all of Consular Affairs over, and I
agree, a lot of the stuff Consular officers do is not homeland
security-related issues, but you can say ditto about the State
Department--or the Coast Guard.
Mr. Tkacik. Customs.
Mr. Weldon. Customs. I was frankly shocked that the
President would bring Customs over. But he was so dedicated
that he was doing this. I'm interested in your recommendation.
If you're not going to move Consular Affairs, is it feasible to
move the visa issuance office so that the personnel ultimately
signing off on these visas every day work for the Secretary of
Homeland Security? Because I am very upset about this issue of
accountability. The Lantos/Ros-Lehtinen language was a definite
improvement and is a definite step in the right direction. It
gives the authority to deny a visa to the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
Let me tell you one of the reasons why I'm very upset about
that. I got a letter here from Under Secretary or Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage. The Justice Department created a
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force. You've probably seen
this letter and they recommended a bunch of people be denied
visas. So the Attorney General sets up this task force at the
direction of the President and they identified a bunch of
people that shouldn't be allowed in, but they let them in
anyway. And they cite all these laws and you got to change the
laws supposedly, but what he fails to mention is that the
decision is not appealable in a U.S. court. Am I correct in
saying that? You can deny a visa and the people who have their
visas denied have no course of action so whatever. So to me,
this letter as rationalization is terrible and it speaks loud
and clear that the Department of State is not capable because
of their mission model and their responsibility of properly
protecting us from the terrorist threat as our critical
parameter.
Did you want to comment on that at all or add to that?
Mr. Risch. I agree. When I try to explain this to people, I
try to say the visa function is sort of like the stepchild that
nobody wants but is the beneficiary of a large trust. No one
wants to spend time with the child. Maybe find him some
clothes, some food or something like that, but because of his
check that comes every month, you got to keep him around and
that's what it seems like it is with visas.
The State Department isn't interested in doing it
responsibly, doing what needs to be done to enforce the laws of
the United States. It manipulates the visa function for its own
diplomatic goals which has a point, but the fact that it
generates so much revenue for the State Department seems to be
the reason why they're so interested in holding onto it. The
way it treats the function, it's just viewed as something that
must be done. You'd think they would be anxious to get rid of
this function, but curiously they're not. So it seems it comes
down to money.
Mr. Tkacik. I'm not sure how much money it means.
Mr. Weldon. You've got $500 million a year.
Mr. Tkacik. I don't think any of it goes to the State
Department.
Mr. Weldon. It all goes to the State Department and it
generates over $600 million of revenue. It's all contained
within the State Department.
Mr. Tkacik. But that's part of the State Department's
budget. It goes back to the general fund of the Treasury and
then it's reprogrammed.
Mr. Weldon. I don't know exactly how the cash is handled,
but unlike some fees that are collected that go into general
revenue and disappear, these funds are contained within the
State's operating budget. And I don't know if it just doesn't
pass through the general Treasury and comes back in, but it is
a huge issue for the State Department. If the visa function is
moved out of the State Department, then any State resources
that are used for visa processing will have to be compensated
for in their budgeting.
But, you know, that's not the big issue here and we can
take care of the money issues. That's what the Congress's
responsibility is. I can understand State's concern about the
money. But we can fix that. We've got the budgeting under
control.
Mr. Tkacik. The State Department--I remember Secretary of
State Schultz saying the State Department doesn't have a dime
or a dollar that's not given to it by the Congress. I dare say
if it does stay in there, that it's the Congress that lets it.
Mr. Weldon. Oh, yeah, of course.
Mr. Tkacik. But I will agree that visas, especially--
particularly now that the visas are not a question of rights.
You don't have a right to a U.S. nonimmigrant visa with the
possible exception of a foreign diplomat going to the U.N. This
is to say U.S. Federal Courts have consistently sustained the
doctrine of Consular reviewability. When a Consular officer
denies a visa application, there is no judicial remedy. It's
interesting to me that Deputy Secretary Armitage would say,
``it is not enough for another government agency to recommend
that a visa be denied because that agency objects to the
applicant's entry.''
My reading of the law in this case is if you have any
reason to believe under Section 212(a)(3)(c), that an alien is
a threat or a problem, the Consular officer can turn it down
and there's no judicial review for that. It does disturb me
that the State Department despite a request from another agency
regarding--I take it in this case, it would be a terrorist
issue--would still insist on issuing a visa.
I think that does make your case very well that
responsibility and authority for issuing and denying visas must
be given to the Department of Homeland Security and that all
such visa applications should be reviewed prior to their
adjudications. To me, that language requires that the
Department of Homeland Security have a presence overseas and
that the Department of Homeland Security have control of the
Visa Office which is the visa policy function.
Mr. Weldon. Actually, my staff just produced me a section
of the U.S. Code and it looks like 8 U.S. Code, Section 1182. A
Consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has
reasonable facts he believes is engaged in or is likely to
engage after entry into any terrorist activity, they can deny.
Mr. Tkacik. Yes.
Mr. Weldon. So I thought Secretary Armitage's letter to me
was a smoking gun showing that the State Department should have
this authority taken away from it and it needs to be moved to
the Department of Homeland Security when an official at a high
level like him would send a letter saying even though you, Mr.
Attorney General, have designated these people as potential
terrorists, we're still going to let them in. If this doesn't
make the case, I don't know what does.
So I want to thank both of our witnesses for your
testimony. Is there anything you want to add for the record
before we adjourn the hearing?
Mr. Risch. I want to add two things, some factual issues.
The first is about the training that was partly clarified.
Consular officers when I worked in the process and I believe
it's unchanged go through 5 weeks of training. Two weeks are
dedicated to nonimmigrant visas, which is what we're talking
about today and one full day is spent interviewing. I think
that's where the belief is that only half a day or a day is
spent on interviewing techniques, but the rest of it is spent
learning the law concerning visa adjudication.
We have immigrant visas, green cards moving permanent to
America and then 3 weeks on American citizens passports,
Americans dying overseas, that sort of thing. Another issue was
the preservation of visa records. Visa issuance records are not
destroyed after 1 year. Sometimes the paper documents are
shredded. After September 11th, that happened at all posts. But
currently, all visas back 7 or 8 years are preserved
chronologically and we now have access to them so one can go
back to see who and how that visa was issued.
Mr. Tkacik. I've been out of it for a while. The two things
that I would want to raise are, one, that the Consular Affairs
function in consuls from the fifties through the sixties did
have a very rigid security mission. In those days, it was a
cold war mission and I do remember my first post in 1971 to
1973.
Mr. Weldon. You talking about the cold war.
Mr. Tkacik. Cold war. I'm sorry. One of our major tasks was
the monitoring of the members of the Communist party and
potential espionage. The consuls historically have had a
security issue and I think they historically could have another
one in the future. And then the second point I would make, at
the risk of sounding self-contradictory, I'm trying to think of
what Consular functions do not relate to homeland security.
Passport function, I think that relates to homeland security.
Protection of Americans overseas, especially pulling together
the American citizen warning system overseas, I think that has
a fairly clear homeland security component. Judicial
assistance, interrogatories, depositions, I think you could say
that's part of it.
So all things being equal, I don't see that you couldn't
take the entire Consular service and put it in Homeland
Security. My point is I don't see that it's workable in the
present situation, but at the very least, you need the visa
office in Homeland Security.
Mr. Weldon. When both of you went through your training,
were you told that the visa issuance process was our first line
of defense? I realize when you went through many years ago,
there was a cold war. You went through right before that. Was
it presented in the context of keeping bad guys out of the
country?
Mr. Risch. No. It was presented more as we were keeping
illegal immigrants out of the country. That was the thrust of
all of our training. The bad guy/terrorist part of the training
didn't really exist. It wasn't taken out of the hands of consul
officers even after September 11th where our name-check system
would reveal to us whether or not someone had a name or
birthday that was suspect. And at that point they would meet
with them and turn the information over to the State Department
and ask how to proceed. We were never trained at all.
Mr. Weldon. So you were there after September 11th?
Mr. Risch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weldon. And you'd get an applicant and there would be a
name-check and the computer said it was suspect, you would
never be provided any information about the details of that;
you would just forward it on to your supervisor?
Mr. Risch. I would then draft a telegram and ask for more
information about that individual.
Mr. Weldon. Did they provide you with information?
Mr. Risch. Sometimes they did if they weren't classified.
Mr. Weldon. You just made another case why visa issuance
should be with the Department of Homeland Security. I think
that officers on the front line should have access to all of
that information, including classified information, to help--to
better enable them to make a denial for a suspicious person.
I want to thank both of you. It's been very, very
informative to have this discussion. Without objection, the
Chair will keep the hearing record open for 7 days so that
Members may submit written questions for the record to our
witnesses. Witnesses may also submit written testimony during
this period.
The panel is excused with the committee's great thanks and
appreciation for your time. The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]