TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING

LENGTH: 16390 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

HEADLINE: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL) HOLDS HEARING ON HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT

SPEAKER:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL), CHAIRMAN

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES:

HONORABLE MARC GROSSMAN, AMBASSADOR, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
HONORABLE GEORGE LANNON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS

BODY:

 
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOLDS A HEARING ON THE
HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL
 
JUNE 26, 2002
 
SPEAKERS:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL)
CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (R-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES A. LEACH (R-IA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DOUG BEREUTER (R-NE)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAN BURTON (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON GALLEGLY (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CASS BALLENGER (R-NC)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD R. ROYCE (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER T. KING (R-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AMO HOUGHTON (R-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. MCHUGH (R-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD BURR (R-NC)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COOKSEY (R-LA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM TANCREDO (R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH (R-MI)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH PITTS (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CANTOR (R-VA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN KERNS (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA)
 
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM LANTOS (D-CA)
RANKING MEMBER
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GARY L. ACKERMAN (D-NY)
U.S. DELEGATE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DONALD M. PAYNE (D-NJ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHERROD BROWN (D-OH)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY (D-GA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EARL F. HILLIARD (D-AL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT WEXLER (D-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM DAVIS (D-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELIOT ENGEL (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT (D-MA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GREGORY W. MEEKS (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH HOEFFEL (D-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE EARL BLUMENHAUER (D-OR)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GRACE NAPOLITANO (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DIANE E. WATSON (D-CA)
 


*


HYDE: Today's hearing will examine the functions and activities of the State Department that bear most directly on the domestic security of the United States. H.R. 5005, the "Homeland Security Act of 2002," will make important changes in the way in which these functions and activities are carried out. As introduced, this legislation would transfer to the new Department of Homeland Security authority over the process by which visas for admission to the United States are granted and denied.

Yet the legislation would also preserve the role of the State Department, at least for the time being, as the institution whose employees do most of the work on the front lines. It's hard to know in advance how any new arrangement will work, and this is particularly true of an arrangement in which responsibilities will be divided between an established institution and one that has not yet come into existence.

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

The proposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security has often been described as a response to the failure of existing institutions. However painful it may be to look back to the days and weeks before September 11 and wonder what we might have done differently, we must recognize that virtually all of the agencies charged with protecting our national security and public safety could have done better and, by doing better, might conceivably have averted the tragedy.

But we simply cannot allow an enterprise of this magnitude to be about assigning bureaucratic blame or, even worse, about inflicting bureaucratic punishment. On the contrary, the Homeland Security Act must be about providing for the future.

Before we build and empower new institutions, before we demolish or weaken old ones, let us learn as much as is humanly possible about exactly what needs to be done, so that we can be sure the new structure will be one that works.

In the case of visa processing, the first thing to understand is that the United States currently issues approximately 6 million visas every year. The overwhelming majority of these are non-immigrant visas, mostly for tourists and business travelers. Even if we were prepared to cut this number in half -- at great sacrifice to the U.S. economy -- we would need an institution or institutions capable of adjudicating millions of visa applications.

These institutions would need to subject any application that presents even a hint of a threat to national security or public safety to the strictest possible scrutiny. At the same time, these institutions would be required to address fairly and efficiently all the other questions that go into determining whether each of those millions of applications should be granted or denied.

The sheer magnitude of these tasks strongly suggests that the Administration's proposal is a wise one. In order to protect our borders from terrorists and other evildoers, the Homeland Security Department must have a role in the visa adjudication process.

However, if the Secretary of Homeland Security were forced to build a new structure from scratch to adjudicate those millions of visa applications or to cobble one together from bits and pieces of other agencies, it's hard to know how he would find time to perform any of the other essential functions, which this legislation confers upon him.

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

I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide some estimate of the number of visas, out of those millions of applications, which present security issues. Even if the number is in the tens of thousands -- or even if it is in the hundreds of thousands -- this would leave millions of applications in which the questions to be adjudicated are traditional consular issues, such as whether the applicant is likely to overstay his visa or to become a public charge.

Can a structure be devised that will ensure that Homeland Security officers get a close look at every application that may present security concerns, and that consular officers continue to adjudicate all other applications, so that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to focus its time and energy primarily on homeland security?

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

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

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

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

In the aftermath of September 11, our Committee had the responsibility of ensuring that the President received all the powers he needed to conduct a war against global terrorism.

Together, you and I managed a nine and a half or marathon session on the House floor. And ultimately it proved the resolution with just one descending vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our Committee and this Congress in its consideration of the proposed Department of Homeland Security will again give the President the powers and authorities that he needs. I am confident that our President will have the same bipartisan support wall-to-wall that he has had in the fight against terrorism.

The political will to create a new Homeland Security Department exists in Congress, but we must structure the Department correctly, otherwise America's security will end up suffering.

The new Homeland Security Department must make it easier for our nation's law enforcement, intelligence and diplomatic personnel to fight terrorism, not spark years of disputes in which those who battle terrorism will fight each other.

The State Department has been an interesting test case, Mr. Chairman, of how difficult it is to integrate different entities. As we all know, we have recently been through the integration of the United States Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State. It was a horrendously complex undertaking and I hope we learn from this experience.

As a matter of fact, although the experience was horrendously complex and difficult, all three agencies basically shared the very similar culture. In creating the Homeland Security Department, we have the task of combining agencies and departments across the full spectrum of our government with profoundly different cultures. And the task will be excruciatingly complex.

The specific issue before us today is whether the new Homeland Security Department, the State Department or a combination of the two should be charged with issuing visas to the millions of foreigners who visit our country each year.

With over 6 million non-immigrants and 400,000 immigrant visas granted annually, how the issue is resolved will greatly affect the resources, which both departments will have to devote to this issue through all of the U.S. Forgiven Service and the national interest.

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

A junior Foreign Service official serving at a part of an embassy is clearly under the authority of the Ambassador. He relies on the whole structure of that large embassy. He needs the guidance and advice of more senior officers at the embassy and to say that it's the Homeland Security Office that will do the issuance of the visa, I think is a fiction. It's the Department of State that will continue to do so and at some level, there will be some liaison.

We are told by the Administration that the personnel who process visa applications often -- first through foreign service officers, contract employees, will continue to work for the Department of State.

But, we have many questions as to how this proposal will work and we hope Undersecretary Grossman will be able to answer them today. Who will set the policy to determine who gets a visa and who doesn't? What issues, other than national security will be considered when considering an application? And which agency will have the resources to carry out the task?

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

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

HYDE: Thank you Mr. Lantos. It is not mandatory that members make an opening statement. I just thought I would announce that rule. It is an entitlement. No, it's not an entitlement, it's by leave of the Chair, but I will entertain opening statements --

MCKINNEY: Mr. Chairman?

HYDE: -- reminding everyone that brevity is the sole of eloquence. Yes, ma'am?

MCKINNEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm so happy you said that before it got directly to me.

HYDE: Well, whatever that means, I agree with the (inaudible).

MCKINNEY: That means thank you.

HYDE: Thank you.

MCKINNEY: And I do have a statement that I'd like to submit for the record.

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

GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll abide by your advice and be brief.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for continued leadership as this Committee does its part to help reform our National Security Infrastructure.

The President's proposed creation with Department of Homeland Security is the most significant transformation of the U.S. Government in over a half of the century.

Homeland Security starts abroad. The men and women staffing our embassies and consulates, who handle many critical immigration law enforcement responsibilities, including issuing visas and passports, serve as our front line defense against terrorists.

We need to make certain that the men and women who will be making visa decisions -- no matter who they report to -- have the information, the discretion, and motivation necessary to make certain that America excludes terrorists and their supporters, while welcoming its friends and those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families.

The (inaudible) future, focus of responsibility for visa decisions has raised some concern among our colleagues and the Government Reform Committee, on which I serve, and on a Judiciary Committee.

We welcome this distinguished panel who are here today to testify before our Committee regarding this important issues and we'll be listening carefully and we hope that they will advise us on how best to proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Berman?

BERMAN: (No audible response.)

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

LEACH: No, sir.

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

MCKINNEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm also very cooperative and I would like my statement to appear in the record.

HYDE: It certainly will.

MCKINNEY: Thank you.

HYDE: In extra heavy print. The gentle lady from Miami, she has no statement. The gentleman from Boston, he has no statement. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher?

ROHRABACKER: Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement.

HYDE: Thank you. Make a note of that. Mr. Schiff?

SCHIFF: No statement.

HYDE: Thank you. Does anybody else have a statement? Good. Mr. Royce's will go in the record, thank you. Very well.

I'm now pleased to introduce our distinguished witnesses. It's a pleasure today to welcome the Honorable Marc Grossman, who was confirmed by the Senate in March of 2001 as Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

Ambassador Grossman has been a career foreign service officer since 1976. During this span, he has among other assignments, been Director General of the Foreign Service, Director of Human Resources, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. He's also served previously as Deputy Director for the private office of the Secretary General of NATO, political officer at the U.S. Missitan (ph) NATO, Deputy Special Advisor to President Carter, and in other assignments within the Department of State.

Ambassador Grossman earned his B.A. from the University of California and a Master of Science in international relations from the London School of Economics. We look forward to hearing you today, Ambassador Grossman.

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

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

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

If I might say, Mr. Chairman, taking from your opening statement, I certainly appreciate your comments, I hope that at the end of this conversation and I hope at the end of the work that you do, you will find as you said this to be a wise proposal and something very much worth supporting.

I think as you said, Mr. Chairman, the object here is -- as you said -- to make sure that we are looking after and protecting the safety and freedom of all Americans. That seems to me a very good way to look into this. And I very much appreciate your invitation here. I appreciate your comments.

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

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

As the Chairman said, is there a structure we can find? I believe the answer to that is yes. And I'd be glad to answer further questions on this.

The other question is, Congressman Gilman and Mr. Lantos talked about is this issue of culture. And if I could just say from our perspective, the issue here is whatever different cultures existed in the past, the culture that has to exist now in the Executive Branch, seem to me a culture, as the Chairman said, to focus on the safety and freedom of American citizens.

And that means everybody has to change. It means we have to change, other people have to change and I think the President's proposition for this issue and creation of the Office of Homeland Security shows a way forward.

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

Let me be absolutely clear that the Department of State supports the President's proposal and specifically Section 403, which transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security control over the issuance and denial of visas to enter the United States.

From my perspective, September 11, 2001 brought a vigorous, a determined, and effective response from the people and government of the United States, but as the President said in his transmittal of this bill to Congress, we can do better. And I believe, in fact, we must do better and that is one of the reasons that we so strongly support the President's proposition.

I believe the President's proposition shows the way ahead as we do everything in our power to protect our country and its people from terrorism. And the United States Department of State has been and will continue to be fully committed to this effort.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, you both said that we've got a lot of important work abroad. And we have no more important work than the protection of Americans at home and abroad.

Let me give you some statistics, Mr. Chairman that you were looking for. On any given day, about 3 million private Americans are abroad. Americans abroad give birth to 44,000 children whom the State Department documents as American citizens; 2,000-3,000 Americans are arrested every year in other countries. They need to be visited, they need to be helped, they need to find their way through a foreign legal system.

Some 6,000 Americans abroad die every year and about half of those families ask that the bodies be returned to the United States. We search for and we assist in the search for almost 40,000 Americans abroad who are lost or whose family lose contract with them and are concerned about them when they are living or traveling abroad.

When a plane crash overseas happens, it is State Department officers who are often the first people on the scene to help those families and parents and survivors. 114,000 Americans study abroad, a number that's gone up 10 percent a year for a number of years. And our passport offices at home and abroad issue almost 7 million passports to our fellow citizens.

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

My answer to that question over my career and some of the things that I have done is that our Foreign Service employees and Civil Service employees are drawn from the very best talent in the United States and what motivates them? What motivates them is patriotism, the desire to promote and protect and defend the Unites States of America, curiosity about life abroad and desire to serve their fellow citizens. And one thing that is very interesting to me, is over the past year and certainly since the 11th of September, the number of people who are taking for the Foreign Service exam, who want to join the Foreign Service has grown in very large numbers. 8,000 people took the exam in September of 2000. Almost double that number took the exam in September of 2001.

Our officers learn languages, they learn about cultures and they get prepared for what I think you would agree, can often be a very, very dangerous job abroad.

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

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

You asked, Mr. Chairman, how many people get interviewed, how many people would likely be security threats. During fiscal year 2001, more than 68 percent of our posts interviewed 50 percent of their visa applicants. That doesn't mean they're all security risks, but those are the people that people wanted to see in front of them and check their information. Experienced consular supervisors review issuances and refusals. Our anti-fraud units monitor attempts at deception and only then is a visa issued.

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

I think the majority of the people in the State Department and I'd say a majority of the people in the Foreign Service recognize the value to their further careers of the knowledge of a foreign society, this knowledge of immigration work, this ability to help American citizens abroad. And that most officers move on to other jobs in their career seems to me not a negative, but a testament to our career service.

Those who do stay with the consular function, one of the five core competencies of the Foreign Service make a huge contribution to the representation of the United States abroad. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I found most heartening in the past year, is the number of people who are choosing Consular Affairs as their specialty coming into the State Department has risen dramatically. And it's now the third most chosen of the five specialties.

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

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

And the identification by intelligence and law enforcement and the sharing of that data with consular officers abroad remains the key to fighting terrorism with visa policy. We've come a long way in a short time and many new things have happened, including the very great help we've received from the Congress and the U.S. Patriot Act and a number of decisions the President has made.

But, one of the most important reasons, I believe, to support the President's proposition in this area of Homeland Security is to make sure that the right information is collected and the right information goes to our consular officers abroad.

One more point, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll stop. In creating this new department, with its very proper focus on homeland security and its very proper focus on law enforcement, it's also important to recognize, as you did in your opening statement, that visas have an important connection to the foreign policy of the United States.

The United States uses visa policy to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and punishing enemies of democracy around the world. These priorities will continue to inform our policy and the Secretary of State will support the Homeland Security Department to advance them.

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

HYDE: Thank you Ambassador Grossman. If I may ask the first question.

Under the Homeland Security Act as introduced, the Secretary of Homeland Security is granted broad supervisory authority over all visa processing. Some members of Congress have felt that the entire operation should be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security because of the sensitivity of people coming in and out of our country.

And my own view is a compromise between the State Department handling these millions of applications as they do now, but having an official or an officer of Homeland Security present at the missions where the visas are issued to attend to security issues. That person would be available for reviewing an applicant, guidance as to what to look for, resolving questions in dispute, but dealing with homeland security issues so that the administration of these millions of applications would stay with the State Department, but there would be present, physically present in the field at each mission, a security officer from Homeland Security to take care of those issues.

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

Your comments, please?

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

As to your suggestion, I mean obviously, I think as we go along, we would take ideas and suggestions from the Chair or from any other member and I certainly would take one from the Chair of this Committee.

My initial reaction is, is that we ought to kind of figure out whether we can achieve the same goals that you seek, Mr. Chairman, through rapid communication. I, for one, would be a little bit worried about sending someone from Homeland Security to all of our missions overseas, because you then add one more person to the mission and maybe there's a security problem.

So, these are things I'd like to talk about with you, but I think for the moment, what we've got is a pretty good balance between the direction that we would receive and our consular officers would receive from the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Secretary of State. And I think we can achieve this. But, as I say, I'm very, very glad to have an idea from the Chairman.

HYDE: Thank you. Mr. Lantos?

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

Let me just mention two items -- or three. All cabinet secretaries are equal by definition. But, if there ever was validity to the concept of (inaudible), first among equals, then the Secretary of State historically -- and the American government is such -- is the number one cabinet secretary.

I have difficulty envisioning my good friend, Tom Ridge, issuing directives to my good friend, Colin Powell. And I have difficulty comprehending how the American people would view this bazaar relationship. Because, as long as we recognize that this is merely a sort of an administrative and bureaucratic slate of hand, Ridge passing on the responsibility to Powell and Powell then making a new system for issuing visa, because certainly the system has to be dramatically restructured in view of security.

I have infinitely more confidence in the Department of State doing it with people who have lived abroad for their whole career who understand foreign cultures, who speak the language, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And my feeling is -- and you've served as our distinguished Ambassador to Turkey -- if I would be the lone Homeland Security guy assigned to Ankara, presumably not speaking a verb of Turkish, never having been to Turkey, trying to prevent visas being issued to people who shouldn't be getting visas, it would be a pretty over powering responsibility.

While tightening within the Department, the issuance of visas in Turkey -- maybe I should say Saudi Arabia, but I think the most outrageous pattern has existed for far too long. I would feel much more secure having Colin Powell and you with years of experience behind you deal with this.

Tom Ridge was a colleague of ours and then Governor of Pennsylvania. And I don't know who the people he would find to assign to this. Would they go to the Foreign Service Institute? Would they have language training? Would they have training in culture? Would they then be restricted to one place?

I mean take the Balkans (ph). I mean you would need linguistic training in a dozen and a half languages, some of these very complex languages. How would you handle this?

My own concern with respect to the visa issue, if it has any focus, it has the focus of the use of foreign nationals in issuing visas. As you know better than I do, Mr. Secretary, in many of our embassies, the majority of the work -- in some case the bulk of the work -- is done by not nationals of the United States.

I mean we are in a new era and some of the insanities that we see unfolding even today, reflect the fact that security was not the prime consideration prior to September 11 and now it is.

Our top agencies dealing with this matter are still farming out translation of documents to people of questionable security, clearance or qualifications. Those are the issues we need to worry about. And I truly, I think we will move on whatever legislation is proposed, probably unanimously.

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

GROSSMAN: Consular Lentos, let me try to answer your question, all of your questions, because we've also given this a huge amount of thought.

First, I think we all have to recognize and we all have to admit that the structure that was in place before the 11th of September was a structure designed to bring as many people as possible to the United States who met certain criteria.

We were asked by the tourism industry; we were asked by the education industry; we were asked by many of our offices to bring people into the United States and that's fair enough. And that's what we were doing before the 11th of September. And I think we ought just admit that out in the open.

After the 11th of September, as you said, when security wasn't the foremost requirement -- security is now the foremost requirement. And so we have to do what you said in your opening statement, which is to change the culture of what it is that we're doing. And absolutely.

Our people bring to this job, tremendous skills. They bring to this job that they do skills that nobody else has. But, the question now is, how do they focus those skills and on what do they focus those skills? And I would submit to you, sir, that the job we all have in changing this culture, both Executive Branch and Legislative Branch, is to make sure that the skills, the desire, and the patriotism that people bring to their job is now focused not on the job pre-9/11, but the job post-9/11, which is making sure that security is upper most.

So, I would say to you, Mr. Lantos, that all of the positives that you listed about our experience, languages, culture, understanding, all ought to be turned to the ability to better protect the United States of America and how to do that.

I would say that what you are calling a bazaar relationship, I think actually has the possibility to turn out to be exactly the right balance. And when the Secretary has talked to me about this, after his conversations with Governor Ridge, after thinking about this a lot, he said exactly what you said about the Congress and the Administration. Nobody any longer has a lock on all wisdom in this regard. State Department doesn't have a lock on this wisdom. The new Department of Homeland Security might not, other areas might not. (TAPE 2)

GROSSMAN: But we think -- and I know the President thinks and I believe the Secretary thinks -- that it's time now given 9/11 to give the authority and the responsibility for issuing regulations, for carrying out the Immigration and Nationality Act, for setting standards, for issuing standards to the Department of Homeland Security so that it is absolutely clear what our objective is. And I think this could work. That's why the Section 403 talks about through the Secretary of State, so the Secretary is informed, so that he continues to hire, promote and train the people who are doing this work.

But, I think all of the pluses that you put out there, which I appreciate, now need to focus on the question of Homeland defense.

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

HYDE: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?

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

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

Under the structure that this bill seeks to create, if our intelligence and law enforcement agencies raise objections or concerns about the issuance of visas to these individuals, who would make the ultimate determination? The Secretary of State, as Mr. Lantos was asking? The new Secretary of Homeland Security? What does Section 403(a)1 of the bill actually say when it says that the Secretary of State shall have exclusive authority through the Secretary of State?

It's really very difficult for us to get a grasp on that. So, essentially, what would be the relationship between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the new Department of Bureau of Information Analysis and the State Department regarding the issuance of visas?

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

I also believe that the sectional analysis, which the President sent up with the law, really has got this as clearly defined -- extremely well defined about what the responsibilities are. But, it's hard to say, because there is no Department of Homeland Security yet.

In specific answer to your question, it will be the Secretary of Homeland Security who will make the decisions about the issuance and denial of visas. And I kind of tripped over that sentence a couple times too in reading it, but of the section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the -- and then number one and number two, exclusive authority and then the authority to delegate.

So, in the proposition that you make, which is if there's information from the FBI, if there's information from the CIA, it will be the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to make that decision.

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

GROSSMAN: I apologize, I don't know the answer to the second question, but I'd be glad to come back to you. I think that people decided that the name "Visa Express" completely was getting the wrong impression. It gave the impression that this was some way around the normal visa process, which indeed it was not.

Visa Express in Saudi Arabia and in other countries in which we use it, is a way for consular officers to be able to focus on the hardest cases. It's a way to get your passport into the embassy. We've not subcontracted the visa function to travel agents. These decisions are still all made by Americans under the law.

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

HYDE: Mr. Berman?

BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of observations then a question. If the first observation is that I think there's a general recognition in this country and I think the law recognizes that there is no absolute right to come into this country. That the standards of rights and due process and carrying the burden for denials does not apply in the context of issuing visas in the way it might apply to a whole variety of benefits and privileges for U.S. citizens. And that's seen by the fact that a consular decision is non-reviewable in a court.

And the second point, I guess, is that we would be foolish not to rethink policies and processes after September 11, given what has transpired. But, I just want to throw out a concern. I hope it's just an abstract one, but I'd be interested in your reaction.

You point out correctly that visa policy plays a vital role in foreign policy concerns of the United States and you cite visa policies to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and punishing the enemies of democracy around the world. But, there have been times in our country's history where we used our visa policies to enforce policies, which weren't so wise or sensible. There were times when we denied visas to people based on sexual orientation. There were times when we denied visas because someone was an outspoken opponent of atmospheric nuclear testing. There were times when we denied visas 40 years after a person had expressed sympathies for one side or the other in the Spanish Civil War. We cleaned up a lot of that in the early 1990s.

I remember in the good old days when the Democrats where in the majority and the State Department Authorization Bill -- we made a lot of changes, got rid of a lot of this. Now, we're giving very, very broad authority to deny visas.

Tell me what is wrong with the current authority that the Secretary of State now has to decide when through he or his designees to decide when and when not to issue visas. Why do we need to broaden that authority further? And about the fears of absolute discretion leading to slipping back into sort of abusive and intolerant practices, which do not serve foreign policy or security interests.

GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Berman. I'll give you a personal answer. A personal answer is that I think all of the examples you've cited and there are many, many more as well, are important and worth remembering. And it's also worth remembering how many of us either are children or grandchildren of immigrants or immigrants themselves.

And I don't necessarily think that the answer here is what's wrong with the current system, other than to say, as Congressman Lantos --

BERMAN: Well, the current authority. Yeah.

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

BERMAN: Well, I take your point quite seriously. You've made it several times and it's worth making. I just wanted, perhaps, to throw out some concerns.

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

GROSSMAN: Well, again, a little bit as I've tried to answer the Congressman from Florida's question, because there's no, there is no Office of Homeland Security yet, it's speculative. But, I know from talking to Secretary Powell, that he believes that the language that's in this law, through the Secretary of State is the right place to be. He believe that from his perspective, it keeps him informed, it keeps him in line with what he considers to be his troops, and it gives him all of the opportunity that he needs to make the kinds of points that you say if that situation was to arise.

HYDE: Mr. Gilman?

GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the criticisms that we, of the current visa issuance process is that screening for security is not a top priority, that there's too much emphasis on customer service and that there's too much pressure to show the host country that we welcome visits by their countryman.

Do you think security concerns have been overshadowed by efforts to be customer friendly and I pose that to our good other Secretary for Consular Affairs, Mr. Lannon.

LANNON: Thank you for the promotion. No, security is the most, I think, the prime issue on any visa issuance. The security checks are required before a visa will be issued. They cannot be overcome; they have to be done. They run through the name check system. We take this very seriously. It's only done by an American. A visa cannot be issued over refusal without being checked by somebody else to make sure that it was done correctly. So, I think security remains, and was, and remains the prime factor in the issuance of a visa, regardless of what the host country nationals, or the host country thinks about it. If the person is ineligible for security reasons, they will not be issued a visa.

GILMAN: Well, Mr. Lannon, let me address a further question to you. Consular Affairs issued all 19 of the hijackers from September 11, valid visas for legal entry into our nation. Is that correct?

LANNON: That's correct.

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

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

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

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

GILMAN: What prevents us from having that information in the lookout system?

LANNON: Well, in the past there have been issues of just timeliness of getting information from law enforcement, intelligence community into the system. We have various ways of doing it, but sometimes they're just too slow. I think we look to the Department of Homeland Security to speed this process and ensure this information is put into the system.

GILMAN: Is that being taken care of now?

LANNON: Well, the Border Security Act we received the NCIC information from the FBI, we're in the process of integrating that information into our systems. Since September 11, have seen a marked increase of the information flowing in from the intelligence community into the system as well, so --

GILMAN: Since --

LANNON: With the Patriot Act and the Border Security Act we've seen increasing information coming into our lookout system.

GILMAN: So, we wouldn't be confronted with this kind of a problem in the future based on that revision?

LANNON: I hope not.

GILMAN: I hope not too. Can you please describe the consular training program? Does it train people to detect suspicious behaviors and did it reveal motivations of the individual particular with an eye on possible terrorist?

LANNON: We have a 26-day course at the Foreign Service Institute where they go through basically the law; it covers the three main segments: the immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas, and American citizen service. There are some interview technique training, but it covers the law. The problem I think is what does a terrorist look like? How do you discover one without other information?

I think one of the things about the 19, they're rather unremarkable. They're middle-class people, they didn't look like anything. It's very hard to train someone to discover a terrorist. That again, this is why we look to law enforcement and intelligence community who are doing this, looking at who these people are to provide us with this information. So we can get into our system to give the consular officers the tools they need when the person applies for a visa.

GILMAN: Mr. Lannon --

HYDE: Mr. -- your time is up.

GILMAN: I thought I had one more minute remaining, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: You do. You have 42 seconds, I'm sorry.

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

LANNON: We think it's -- it's hard to extrapolate. We don't have an exact figure, but we think it's 50 percent or more, probably no more than 60, but around 50 percent worldwide.

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

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

HYDE: Sure.

GROSSMAN: I feel a little bit badly that perhaps I should have listed the examples in my statement, but Mr. Gilman, for the record, I put in with the Chairman's permission three or four examples actually of where consular officers using their intuition, using their knowledge, using their knowledge of the host country, actually did find people who turned up for a visa in two case terrorists and another case, someone who was running a huge alien smuggling routine. So, we do have these and I submitted these examples for the record with the Chairman's permission.

HYDE: Thank you. Mr. Delahunt?

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

GROSSMAN: Correct.

DELAHUNT: What's the basis? That's a -- I never realized that it was that proportion. That's almost 30 percent that would have been denied.

GROSSMAN: Well, of course, it's worldwide and in some countries -- and we don't have to go through each one -- but in some countries that proportion's considerably higher, obviously.

But, the law, as it is currently written and again, we can only speculate about how it will be enforced in the future, but the law at the moment, gives consular officers a whole range of possibilities for denying visas.

DELAHUNT: How many of those 3 million, if you know, were denied based upon security concerns?

GROSSMAN: I think -- we'd have to check, but I'd like to come back to you --

DELAHUNT: Yeah, I think that would be --

GROSSMAN: Very important --

DELAHUNT: -- be informative.

GROSSMAN: We should have that number; we'll come back to you.

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

GROSSMAN: No, sir. Because the Administration doesn't support it, we haven't done any of the work to find out how much it would cost. But, as I said --

DELAHUNT: Has there been any conversation about what the cost might be? Any --

GROSSMAN: Only speculative. I mean, as I said in my --

DELAHUNT: What's the speculation?

GROSSMAN: No, I'm saying only speculative in the sense that it would cost a lot of money. But, if you --

DELAHUNT: We talking a billion?

GROSSMAN: I have no idea, sir.

DELAHUNT: Okay.

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

DELAHUNT: Let me ask you this question. How does this proposal impact -- would it impact at all -- the Diesel Waiver Program?

GROSSMAN: I think --

DELAHUNT: I mean if our purpose now is to protect American citizens, and clearly that's it -- and as you say, there has been a shift in presumption -- how many nations are under the umbrella of the Visa Waiver Program? And do we have adequate security indicators of precautions to discover those that might harm our national interests?

And I guess that kind of follows up with another question. In situations where individuals would have duel passports, duel nationalities, one of which would be issued by a nation that was part of the Visa Wavier Program. If you have those answers, I --

GROSSMAN: I don't know the answer on duel nationals, but we'd be glad to take that.

On the question of the Visa Waiver Program, it goes back actually to this whole conversation. Of course the Visa Waiver Program was -- as you say -- designed to make it easier and more customer friendly to get into the United States. That presumption should change. But, I would say, Congressman Delahunt, that even before the 11th of September, people looked very, very carefully at the security issues that had to do with the Visa Waiver Program.

For example, a number of countries have never gotten in, because they can't control their blank passports. There are periodic reviews. There --

DELAHUNT: I understand that, Ambassador, but I'm thinking for example, an individual from Great Britain presumably they qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. And yet, there are -- I don't even know what the population of Great Britain would be at this point -- but presumably there are commonwealth nations that their citizens would be entitled to a British passport. And yet, what kind of screening filtering devise would we have?

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

DELAHUNT: Well, I think we have -- I can appreciate the fact that you don't have some ready answers here and what it would look like in the mechanisms, it seems to me like this is a -- presuming that the legislation passes, it's going to be a work in progress and it really will be incumbent upon both departments as well as Congress to excise its oversight and to really follow it.

HYDE: Mr. Green?

GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you can see, we're all supportive of many of the concepts you outline, but we're struggling with just how this would work. And I have some basic understanding questions in that area.

Does the Administration's proposal mean that one secretary will be able to direct the employees of another secretary? That seems to be the implication here. And if so, how do you see that working?

GROSSMAN: Oh, I apologize; I was waiting for another question. The way we see this working is, is that the authority for -- all the authorities that are currently with the Secretary of State for issuance and denials of visas will transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. But, the Department of Homeland Security will issue regulations and directions about how that process should be carried out. And as the law says, the Secretary of Homeland Security may or may not wish to delegate some of that authority back to the Secretary of State or someone else in the federal government.

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

GREEN: Yeah, but I think -- because I don't understand what you mean by through the Secretary. In other words, you promulgate regulations, you said physically carry them over to the Secretary of State and then physically passes them on. What does that mean when you say through the Secretary of State? I still, as a basic question, don't understand how that would work.

GROSSMAN: Well, since I would agree with your proposition, it means physically that if the Secretary of Homeland Security was to decide on issue X or Y that we should change the way that we are issuing visas or we should look more specifically at a category of people, he would promulgate that change in whatever form that he wished. It would then come to the Secretary of State and we would through the Department's communications, through the Department's training, through the Department apparatus, convey that to our people.

This happens all the time. We get instructions and we get changes and we get inputs from all kinds of cabinet agencies. So I know --

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

GROSSMAN: Well, again, I would say as I answered in a question before. Secretary of State -- and he's talked to me a lot about this -- certainly believes nobody after the 11th of September has got a lock on all wisdom here. And so we don't want to be in that attitude. We want to be supporting what Governor Ridge and the future Secretary of Homeland Security is going to do.

But, if the Secretary of State is informed of what's going on and has concerns about it, I'm sure he would find a way to raise them. But, I think the focus right now shouldn't be on that part of it, with all due respect, sir --

GREEN: Um-hum.

GROSSMAN: -- it ought to be on the transfer of these authorities, the focus on security, homeland security and law enforcement and we believe -- I know Secretary Powell believes -- that that will be the vast, vast majority of the work that gets done. Again, when he's talked to me about this, we don't even talk about the cases where there's going to be disagreement, because as we've said to the Chairman and the Ranking Member, there's got to be a culture change here.

GREEN: Again, I think we all agree with you in terms of the purposes of this legislation. But, I think as we look back on September 11th and the systems in place before September 11th, many of us have concerns that the system was far from seamless. And my concern is the process that you've outlined also doesn't appear to be seamless. It appears to be multi-staged with one stage building upon another and if there is a breakdown in any part of the process, then this seamless process breaks apart. I think that's the concern that we have, that we all want to address.

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

GROSSMAN: The State Department, sir.

GREEN: So, the State Department is responsible for staffing and managing. Homeland Security is responsible for developing the polices and regulations. See, the only concern I have is that as the President outlined this concept of clear lines of authority and accountability, I'm not sure it's been outlined here. It quite meets those objectives.

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Schiff?

SCHIFF: I'll give back my time, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Rohrabacher?

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much. Mr. Grossman, how many visas did you say, it was 7 million visas are issued a year?

GROSSMAN: Yes, in fiscal year 2001.

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

GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.

ROHRABACHER: Okay. Of those 7 million non-immigrant visas, how many don't return back to their home country?

GROSSMAN: I have to come -- I will get you that information. I don't have that information.

ROHRABACHER: It's pretty important --

GROSSMAN: It is. Absolutely.

ROHRABACHER: -- fact, isn't it?

GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.

ROHRABACHER: Well, could you give me a guess?

GROSSMAN: I can't. I apologize.

ROHRABACHER: Not even, anything in the ballpark here? A million? 2 million? 3 million people? 500,000?

GROSSMAN: Oh, I'm sure that's too low. Part --

ROHRABACHER: So am I.

GROSSMAN: Part of this -- to go back to the point that Mr. Green was making is this is one of those scenes that I believe the Department of Homeland Security can switch up --

ROHRABACHER: I would hope so.

GROSSMAN: -- (inaudible)

ROHRABACHER: My guess is we're talking about millions of people who overstay their visa and that that's a large number of illegal immigrants in our country. (TAPE 3)

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

GROSSMAN: Yes, there's more attention paid to both their security, medical, background, all those things.

ROHRABACHER: All right. So, if someone comes in and they've overstayed their visa, if they want to stay here permanently, we're actually saying that there's going to be less of a check on someone as if they've immigrated from overseas.

GROSSMAN: I think, sir, that, again, I'm going to sound slightly bureaucratic here, but I think sir, that the change of status that would have occurred in the United States --

ROHRABACHER: Um-hum.

GROSSMAN: -- is of course the responsibility that it belongs to the INS. And they make the same kinds of checks, health and background, security if they're going to issue them then and let them immigrate.

ROHRABACHER: They do make the same -- they can't, right now they don't change the authority, do they? They have to go home for that. So, you're just postulating that the INS would make that same thorough check.

GROSSMAN: Well, there's someone who is here and --

ROHRABACHER: Somebody's here illegally, who've overstayed their visa, tourist visa and you just told us that the immigrant visa is much more extensive.

GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. If they're here illegally --

ROHRABACHER: Right.

GROSSMAN: -- absolutely.

ROHRABACHER: Okay.

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

ROHRABACHER: Yeah, let us note that the background check is much more thorough for immigrant visas and from what I've been told by consular officers that the INS people here do not have the same intelligence background and resources available to them as our people overseas do. In fact, Mr. Lantos made it very clear that he wanted the real specialists to be able to look into these requests. And, of course, it is the Administration's position, I believe to make sure that under 245I that people who are illegally don't have to return back to their home country.

How many student visas do we issue?

GROSSMAN: I'll have to get that exact number for you.

ROHRABACHER: A million? 2 million?

GROSSMAN: I don't think it's that many, but --

ROHRABACHER: 500,000? All right, you don't know. Let me ask you this. Do you think we should be concerned about students being given visas from Iran or Iraq or Communist China who are going to be educated in schools and being trained how to do very technical things, like make atom bombs?

GROSSMAN: Absolutely.

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

GROSSMAN: We have checks certainly in place.

ROHRABACHER: You believe that right now students from Communist China, from Iraq and Iran are not granted visas to participate in graduate studies that will prevent them to obtain the skills necessary to build weapons? Let me suggest, sir, that you better study your --

GROSSMAN: No, there is a clearance procedure --

ROHRABACHER: -- (inaudible) regulations.

GROSSMAN: -- in place. It's called the Mantis (ph) Program wherein --

ROHRABACHER: Right.

GROSSMAN: -- people, there's certain disciplines and certain countries who submit student visa applications are cleared through an interagency process.

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

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

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

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

GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.

MENENDEZ: Now, I read on page 16 of the legislation, which is primarily the focus of what we've been talking about, Section 403, the visa issuance. It says, "notwithstanding the provisions of Section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other law, the Secretary" -- referring to the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security -- "shall have exclusive authority" -- and I'm going to omit the next few words -- "to issue regulations with respect to administer and enforce the provisions of that Act and all other Immigration and Nationality laws relating to the functions of diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in connection with the granting or refusals of visas. And the authority to confer or impose upon any officer or employee of the United States" -- which I read to mean beyond the State Department and any other department of the federal government -- "with the consent to that agency to serve in the function and pursuit thereof."

Now, the only - so, what that says to me is that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the exclusive authority to do all of these things, notwithstanding the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the State Department, in my mind as I read this, becomes a functionary of the Secretary of Homeland Security, except for the one cariot (ph) where the Secretary of State can -- assuming that there's no problem with the Secretary of Homeland Security, still denies someone a visa for other interests that the State Department may have. Is that a fair statement? Is that your understanding of the legislation? A yes or no would suffice.

GROSSMAN: It's -- yes, it's my understanding --

MENENDEZ: Okay.

GROSSMAN: -- of the legislation.

MENENDEZ: Now, if that's the case, then I listened to your response to Mr. Berman that when you describe, well, what we're doing here saying what criteria, what presumption that the idea is different in terms of how we're going to approach the issue of visas.

How is it then, if this law is passed as is, that -- assuming that the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgates new visa issuance guidelines, focusing mainly on homeland security and maybe in some respects conditioning under the guise of security a whole host of stated provisions within the law as to what our immigration policy is? How do we continue to pursue our traditional foreign and domestic policy objectives, such as reunification of families, admission of those, which much needed skills in this country?

For example, computer engineers, unfortunately, I hope we get to the day soon where every American is going to fill those jobs, but the reality is that the industry needs far beyond what we create, opportunities for culture and educational exchange, facilitation of trade and tourism. We just spent an enormous amount of money in the airline industry to keep it alive.

How is it, under those provisions, which have traditionally been under the Secretary of State, that if the new criteria, the new presumption that the idea is different, how do we preserve all of those particular goals?

GROSSMAN: Mr. Menendez, thank you very much for that question. Let me answer it in three ways. First of all, to go back to the previous answer I gave, you asked me to give a yes or no answer about whether that was my understanding. With a little bit more time here, I think you're using -- you can use it if you want -- the idea that somehow the Secretary's a functionary in this, I think understates his role, because he still is the hirer and the promoter and the trainer of all the people who are out there. So, I think it's more than a functionary role, but I don't disagree that the authority belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.

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

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

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

SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Grossman, in 2001 under the Visa Waiver Program, 17.1 million visitors entered the United States from 29 countries. In February, Argentina was removed from the list, so now it's 28. 44,500 stolen blank passports according to John Brennen and this is reported by CRS of State from the Visa Waiver Program, they're unaccounted for; they're stolen.

Earlier you responded that the presumption should change. What reforms can you tell us are contemplated and are those reforms likely to be chilled, paralyzed, go nowhere because of reorganization? You know, we went through reorganization a few years ago and I was a part of that as the Chairman of the International Operations Human Rights Chairman and it seemed like some things got crowded out. And I'm wondering, since this far exceeds the 7 million or so who go through the normal route -- or whatever we want to call it -- of having an interview. What is the deal here?

And secondly, and just let me ask you, based on your statement there're about 30 percent refusal rate, what percent of those refusals are later issued visas due to a reapplication?

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

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

Two, obviously, I can't speculate about the future, but I would, for me personally, I would think that the Visa Waiver Program would be among those things that the new Secretary of Homeland Security would look at first. And I would not say, Mr. Smith that this was something that would be pushed aside in any reorganization, because, as you say, the numbers are high.

And to be fair, there's a lot of interest in this Committee and in the Congress in the Visa Waiver Program, both pro and con. We get plenty of letters from people who want more countries to be put in the WPP, not less.

I'd ask Mr. Lannon to talk to the issue of reapplication, but let me talk to your fourth point, which is wouldn't it be better if we could interview everybody and how is it that we make these decisions.

In a perfect world, I think you'd still try to strike a balance. You'd have to do a risk assessment. A businessman from Britain or France or Italy or Brazil, who's been in and out of the country over a period of years, who works for an American company, who's got a ten- year visa, who is an investor in the United States, has shown over time that they live by our laws, and they're the kind of people we want to have into the country. No, sir, I don't think that you would gain much, other than probably an interesting conversation from talking to that person.

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

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

So, we have to have the best regulation, the best information, the best-trained people and make sure that they have the wherewithal to carry out their jobs.

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

HYDE: Mr. Davis?

DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I am a little concerned about how general your comments have been today on the recurring question about the integrity of the visa process. In fairness to you, I know this is a very tough issue. But, I think we need to resist the temptation to assume that just because we move this function to this new department we solve the problem; that we have thoroughly understood what the problem was and what the causes where to distinguish from the symptoms.

This issue about information sharing between the consular officers and the INS at the point of entry, as well as all of the agencies that contain this very sensitive information, is too important not to get it right. And it's unforgivable if we don't.

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

My concern is whether we need to institutionalize something to make sure attitudes don't lapse over time back to where they were.

The second issue is a resource issue. And that has to do with whether there's sufficient and confidence in the security, the sanctity of the INS database, the people who have access to it -- and I know that's not your issue -- and State, whether there's sufficient trust and confidence in that database and the people that have access to it, among all the law enforcement, intelligence community who jealously guards that information. And it seems to me, particularly the INS, because this all runs together, there are some resource issues there about getting their information infrastructure intact.

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

GROSSMAN: Yes, sir. I think all of those are -- that's advice well given. I think that I particularly agree with you and we certainly, Secretary Lannon and I are not here to tell you that if you move the authority for the visa process from over here to over here, all problems are solved. Definitely not. There's still a huge amount of work to do.

I think the work that's been done since the 11th of September, as you say, has been good, but there's still a lot of work to do and a lot of culture to change.

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

Third, obviously, as you rightly say, won't comment on the INS question. We are doing a huge amount to try to protect the security of our data. And not just the security of the data in the consular world, but the security of all the data at the State Department. And I believe that, again, changes certainly since Secretary Albright started us on this path, certainly since Secretary Powell, since the 11th of September, you will find a much tighter degree of control on all of the information at the State Department now and I think that's a good thing.

Is there more to do? Absolutely, but I appreciate your raising this.

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

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

GROSSMAN: I agree with that and we'll be glad either open or in classified way to try to get you the information you've asked for.

HYDE: The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach?

LEACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a distinction between processes and policies. And it strikes me that you've got a pretty good balance on your homeland security and you've got, I think, the only credible basis for giving some authority to that department over the basic policies. Although I would hope the department would have some input as those policies are made.

But, when one thinks it through, we're creating this large department and it presumably will have some people. It doesn't take that many people to come up with the policies. To implement the policies does, however.

And you're now the implementing department. And the Department of State, to my knowledge has made no indication that given this greater degree of scrutiny that is being required by the American people, that you need another soul. Soul, individual, people and I think, I would like to ask you to think that through and to make some recommendation to this Committee. This Committee has jurisdiction of the Department of State and its people. And you are now being given a substantially upgraded responsibility. And it's minor that there's a little bit of policy being transferred to Department of Homeland Security, which really simply means to the President of the United States. That's a non-people intensive effort. Implementation is a totally people intensive effort and it's going to be a lot harder.

The second thing on policy I would like to stress is that the Department of State's major issue with regard to homeland security is to have good polices. All these processes to protect homeland security are fairly minor if we have lousy policies. And so, I would only stress from the brief experience we've all had in the 9/11 era, that this is a pretty good time to assert American leadership, but American leadership is only going to be accepted if we put a lot of attention on the listening pretty attentively to the views of some other people.

And it's impressive how some other people have done and have in their societies in place more assertive techniques at looking at individuals in their societies than we do. And that the number of helpful breaks that come from potential terrorists have largely come through processes implemented by other countries abroad, sometimes with the assistance of the United States.

But, my impression is not tributly at their own initiative. And I think if we're going to have a Homeland Security Department that works, we're going to have to have a department of State that is upgraded itself, both in a leadership and a listening function. And I would like to hear from the Department of State on your advice in this regard. And very substantially.

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

Finally, I would just like to stress that you've got a difficult balance. Obviously, national security requires a great more rigor to be applied to the visa review process. But, at the same time, the national interest of the United States is and increasing will be related to how people have an understanding of America.

And interestingly, the Visa Program for education, for example, is like an exchange program paid for by them. So, it's an economic benefit to the United States, it's also a cultural benefit to the United States and particularly with countries that cooperate with us on the war on terrorism.

I think one has to be very concerned about not instituting blanket policies for all countries. It really should be narrowed to other kinds of countries. And so, I would hope that the department would weigh in on this issue as carefully as it can.

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The distinguished gentle lady from California, Ms. Watson.

WATSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you so much for holding this hearing on homeland security. I want to thank Ambassador Grossman for coming. And I want to make this statement, because I think everybody ought to understand the hardships that the Department of State has been laboring under and I have first hand experience.

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

The problem is having the resources to do the job and the follow up. It was this mention about function and I think the function ought to stay with the people who are trained to do it.

If the White House is going to make those decisions, I would hope that they would take State Department people who are trained in the Consular Corps into that new department. Just passing it through is not good enough. If they're not trained to recognize those aspects and those issues and false passports and papers and so on, like the Corps is, if they don't have some familiarity with the language and the culture and so on, they're going to miss a lot.

Another point that has to be made, remember the terrorists have no records. They were trained to come and melt in with our society. These (inaudible) people, even if you trace them back, you would not be able to determine that they were going to be a threat to us.

Now, we have seen what can happen. So, it's the follow up when people are in this country, immigrants with visas and so on, we need to have the resources to be able to check them out.

There was the question as how many. Well, how would you know? I mean you don't have the resources. I was always told that in the State Department. We can't do it because we don't have the budget, we don't have the resources. So, I think that it's incumbent upon the Department of State to recommend to the President that this new agency department have new resources, budget. The President said it wouldn't, it would revenue and neutral. Cannot be revenue and neutral.

You're going to have to have trained people in the right places, you're going to have to have a larger staff, they're going to have to follow up on people who come and are on time-limited visas to be sure that they are back in their countries or leaving this country in time.

So, I want to say just in closing this statement that we need the State Department and its functionaries. We need to clarify and we're all frustrated because we don't know the fine details. We need to have it clarified to us how all this is going to be worked out, where it's going to be housed and who will do the work. And we need to, along with it, have a well-defined budget to be able to do these functions.

And so, I would appreciate, Ambassador that you come up with these recommendations to the Secretary of State, then who could take it back to the White House.

Thank you so much and good luck. I don't envy your position.

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

MENENDEZ: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: So, with great pleasure I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

MENENDEZ: Thank you. I'd just say to our distinguished witnesses, as you know, the December 2001 Office of Inspector General's report on the Visa Waiver Program found that the INS inspectors were not consistently clearing passport numbers against the lookout system. You know the FBI's list of the most wanted people. Can you assure us today that all of these individuals' names and known aliases are in the computer lookout list so that we don't give them a visa if one or more of them applied somewhere around the globe?

And secondly, and this is very importantly, because it's very timely. Recently when Jiang Zemin visited, I believe it Jiang Zemin, a high Chinese official visited Iceland, there was a very concerted effort made to preclude Americans who happen to be Falun Gong practitioners from traveling to Iceland. So our citizens were being very negatively impacted.

I wrote to the officials in Iceland protesting it. A couple days later -- I'm sure you protested as well -- they changed it. But meanwhile, many people did not get their opportunity.

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

GROSSMAN: This is the FBI list of --

MENENDEZ: Yes, yes, yes.

GROSSMAN: Yeah, those names are put into the lookout system, our lookout system. We did it ourselves.

MENENDEZ: And their aliases as well?

GROSSMAN: Excuse me?

MENENDEZ: And their aliases as well?

GROSSMAN: Alias, everything we could -- all the information we had and information as gleamed as we get it is put into the lookout system.

MENENDEZ: Appreciate that, Mr. Grossman.

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

MENENDEZ: And if you could, perhaps check into these threats that are being made against Americans who are Falun Gong of Chinese extrenchent (ph).

GROSSMAN: I'd be glad to.

UNIDENTIFIED: It's outrageous.

GROSSMAN: I'd be glad to.

UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Sherman?

SHERMAN: Thank you. (TAPE 4)

SHERMAN: I guess coming within this Committee's jurisdiction, the biggest effect is a change in the responsibility for who would issue visas. I have, on the last six years on this Committee been more of a little bit critical. We have horrendous delays in issuing of visas, no real success in keeping out those who have killed thousands of Americans. And I've been dealt with more than a little absence of courtesy whenever I've asked those out in the field to look at a particular case, including one of our general counsels who called me at 4:00 in the morning and then said he didn't know there was a difference in time zones.

And so, I at least can't see any reason why transferring of this responsibility to a new agency would not be an outstanding idea.

Perhaps, I could ask Mr. Lannon to comment on the delays that we've had in -- or what is the level of delay? If somebody comes in, they've married an American say in the Dominican Republic or the Philippians, how long would it take in the absence of any security concern for that person to be given a visa and be able to continue their married life here in the United States?

And I realize my criticisms all relate to a prior Administration. I have no criticisms that are applicable that I've brought to your attention.

LANNON: When we get the case, basically, we will schedule an appointment in 30 days. I think the process, where the jam up on the process tends to be with the filing of the petition. And most petitions have to be filed in the United States, so they have to work their way through the INS and then they go to our facility in Portsmith where there's a couple of weeks processing there. But, by and large, once we get the case, it's 30 days from the time we actually receive at post, but we will process it through. That's the American citizen.

SHERMAN: Okay. So, if I had a situation where a married couple of no challenge to legitimacy of the marriage, no challenge to the national security, had to live -- just because people were too tired to file the paperwork -- for three years separate lives, married with a child, so there's not a lot of doubt as to the legitimacy of the marriage, that would be an usual case? Because at the time, I was told, gee, Congressman, why are you calling this? It's pretty typical.

LANNON: For an American citizen. Or is this a --

SHERMAN: No, obviously American citizens don't need visas to come to this country, but the --

LANNON: No, no, I'm saying --

SHERMAN: -- spouse of an American citizen.

LANNON: -- spouse of an American citizen. I think three years would be very unusual. But, I will add that there were problems that last year, was in the end of 2000 when Congress passed the law, the K- 3 Visa, which was to deal with this because of the back logs in processing to allow these people to come to the United States and wait their time in the United States.

SHERMAN: If we had a situation where the average wait in the Philippines was two years and the average wait in London was two weeks, would you transfer personnel so as to even out the wait or would you decide that those who married English citizens should wait only two weeks and those who marry Philippino should wait two years?

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

SHERMAN: Now, the next issue relates to the economic concerns. I want to assume that your officers have no reason to be concerned about the national security threat. And that their only concern is that somebody will not return to their job in India or Guatemala or whatever. And so it's purely an economic situation.

Now, if the person had a really good job, you'd issue them a visa, but what is your stand on accepting a performance bond so that you're given an economic assurance that the person will return?

LANNON: Well, the bond itself doesn't overcome the presumption of 214B, so, generally a bond can't be accepted in lieu of 214B, the idea that the person would return.

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

LANNON: Well, it could play a role, but it doesn't necessarily have to play a role.

HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

SHERMAN: Yes, it has.

HYDE: I want to thank our witnesses for their excellent testimony and we're at the opening chapter of a long tale I'm sure. But, we're getting started in the right direction. Appreciate your cooperation.

GROSSMAN: Thank you, sir, for the opportunity.

HYDE: Committee stands adjourned.

END

NOTES:
[????] - Indicates Speaker Unknown
   [--] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.[off mike] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.

PERSON:  HENRY J HYDE (94%); BENJAMIN A GILMAN (72%); DAN L BURTON (56%); ELTON GALLEGLY (56%); CASS BALLENGER (55%); ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (55%); DANA ROHRABACHER (54%); PETER T KING (54%); CHRIS JOHN (53%); RICHARD M BURR (52%); JOHN COOKSEY (52%); RON PAUL (51%); NICK SMITH (51%); DARRELL ISSA (50%); ERIC CANTOR (50%); 

LOAD-DATE: July 4, 2002