U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–602 PDF 2011

SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 704 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Serial No. 112–27 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 704, the ‘‘SAFE for America Act’’ ................................................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 6 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 23 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Stephen A. Edson, Principal, SAEdson, LLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Janice L. Kephart, Director, National Security Policy, Center for Immigration 

Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

Johnny Young, Ambassador, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 24 

Material submitted by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................................................................. 54 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 131 

Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform ..................................................................................................... 134 

Prepared Statement of the National Immigration Forum ................................... 136 

Letter from the Honorable Charles E. Shumer, a U.S. Senator from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security .............................................................. 138 

(1) 

SAFE FOR AMERICA ACT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:24 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Ross, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, and Pierluisi. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Good afternoon. The issues raised by H.R. 704, 

the ‘‘SAFE for America Act,’’ go to the core of any immigration debate. 

That is the integrity of the U.S. Immigration policy. 

H.R. 704 eliminates the visa lottery program under which 50,000 

individuals are chosen completely at random each year to receive 

immigrant visas. The visa lottery, first implemented in fiscal year 

1995, has long been a subject of concern for those of us who believe 

it is important to have a credible immigration system. 

The program is rife with fraud. That was the case in 2003 when 

the State Department Inspector General found that ‘‘the DV program is subject to widespread abuse.’’ That was the case in 2004 

and 2005 when two different State Department Inspectors General 

testified in front of this Subcommittee about the flaws in the program. That was the case in 2007 when the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that ‘‘the DV program is vulnerable to fraud committed by and against applications.’’ And that 

is still the case today, when we will hear testimony about high levels of fraud in the program. 

Even the State Department acknowledges the high rate of deception throughout the visa lottery. In fact, the Web sites for many of 

the U.S. Embassies around the world include diversity visa program fraud alerts, like you can see we have on the two screens up 

here as we speak. This particular alert is on the Web site of the 

London Embassy, but there are similar alerts on other U.S. Embassy Web sites. 

And why is fraud such a concern? Because terrorists use our generous immigration policy to harm us, and terrorists have already 

used the visa lottery as a means of entering the country. 

2 

The Egyptian terrorist who murdered two Americans at LAX in 

2002 was a diversity visa recipient when his wife was selected for 

the lottery. And a Pakistani national who received a diversity visa 

when his parents were selected for the lottery pleaded guilty in 

2002 to conspiring to wage jihad by plotting to destroy electrical 

power stations, the Israeli consulate, and other South Florida targets. He had reportedly told his friends he wanted to wage war 

against the United States. 

But terrorists are not the only people who abuse the visa lottery. 

We will hear testimony today about foreign organized crime groups 

who try their own luck at the lottery. And visa lottery applicants 

and third-party brokers all try to, and do, game the system. The 

visa lottery gives them a great shot at winning. 

U.S. Immigration policy should be based on something more than 

just the luck of the draw. It should be secure and it should be beneficial to Americans. The visa lottery program is neither. 

I am glad to be an original cosponsor of the gentleman from Virginia’s bill, Mr. Goodlatte, and I look forward to moving H.R. 704 

toward enactment. 

[The bill, H.R. 704, follows:] 

3 


HR704-1.eps
4 


HR704-2.eps
5 


HR704-3.eps
6 

Mr. GALLEGLY. At this time, I would yield to my good friend from 

California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 

to our witnesses for their patience; first of all, votes and then the 

delay in getting back. There is a suspicious package down in the 

basement, and everybody had to snake their way back. So glad that 

we are finally here on this hearing. 

As the Chairman said, the diversity visa program was established by the Immigration Act of 1990, and the goal was to encourage greater diversity in the pool of immigrants that we accept each 

year. The program now provides up to 50,000 visas annually to natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were lower 

than 50,000 over the preceding 5 years. 

Applicants for diversity visas are chosen by a computer-generated random lottery drawing. Each winner is permitted to apply 

for an immigrant visa and can gain lawful permit resident status 

in the United States provided that they pass through the screening, because diversity visa winners are subject to all of the bars of 

inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality Act and must 

undergo background and security checks that are more rigorous 

than those required for persons entering the country by other 

means such as through the visa waiver program. 

Diversity visa winners must provide biographic and biometric information, including fingerprints and a digital photograph, pass 

comprehensive background checks, submit to physical and mental 

examinations, and undergo interviews with consular officers abroad 

before entering the U.S. 

The program represents a small part of our immigration system. 

In fiscal year 2010, only 4.8 percent of the total number of persons 

who obtained lawful permanent resident status came through this 

program, but it also represents an important effort that has been 

largely successful in increasing the diversity of legal residents to 

the United States. 

I recall that this program was originally proposed by then-Chairman Peter Rodino. He observed that because we have a strong family-based immigration system, this reduces the opportunity for immigrants to come to this country if they are from places that have 

historically not sent immigrants to the United States, and over 

time, this limits the ability to grow and sustain a diverse Nation. 

In creating the diversity program, Mr. Rodino and many others 

wanted to encourage continued immigration opportunities for people from Italy or Ireland; but today, as we see, the program continues to help in a small way to balance the immigration system. 

In fiscal year 2006, for instance, 40 percent of diversity immigrants were from Africa, and 34 percent were from Europe. Compare this to the fact that only 3 percent of family and employmentbased visas went to persons from Africa, and only 8 percent went 

to persons from Europe. 

One frequent criticism about the diversity visa program is that 

it is random, that we bring people to the country through the program and that they may not have skills or education they need to 

succeed. We know that the program requires applicants to have a 

high school diploma equivalent, or at least 2 years of work experiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:10 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040511\65602.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
7 

ence in an occupation requiring training, but we actually get more 

than that. 

In 2003, the State Department described its typical diversity visa 

recipient as a male professional, age 26 to 30, holding a university 

degree. Just yesterday, the Congressional Research Service released a report finding that diversity immigrants were 21⁄2 times 

more likely to report managerial or professional occupations than 

other lawful permanent residents in fiscal year 2009. 

And I would ask unanimous consent that the CRS report be entered into the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

8 


65602A-1.eps
9 


65602A-2.eps
10 


65602A-3.eps
11 


65602A-4.eps
12 


65602A-5.eps
13 


65602A-6.eps
14 


65602A-7.eps
15 


65602A-8.eps
16 


65602A-9.eps
17 


65602A-10.eps
18 


65602A-11.eps
19 


65602A-12.eps
20 


65602A-13.eps
21 


65602A-14.eps
22 

Ms. LOFGREN. This is, of course, not the first time the Subcommittee has considered the bill introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Goodlatte. I opposed that bill in the 108th 

Congress and I continue to oppose his measure, although I do not 

dislike him. 

The name of the bill suggests that it increases security and fairness, but I don’t think it does either. Nothing in the bill increases 

fairness for Americans or for persons who seek to emigrate to this 

country to achieve the American dream. I think it does the opposite. The bill just eliminates a small immigration program that allows a small percentage of new immigrants from underrepresented 

nations to come and become Americans. The program adds to our 

ethnic and racial diversity, which enriches our society and provides 

the only hope some people have to emigrate to the United States 

lawfully. 

The bill also would not make us any more secure than it would 

if it eliminated any other visa program. Diversity visa winners are 

carefully screened for criminal history or ties to terrorism, like any 

other immigrant. In fact, there is no evidence that a terrorist is 

more likely to enter the U.S. under this program than any other 

U.S. immigration category. Given that tens of millions of applications are submitted each year for only 50,000 slots, which includes 

the spouses and minor children of lottery winners, this visa program would be an incredibly inefficient means of entry for a person 

who seeks to do harm to the United States. 

That is not to say the program is perfect. Both the State Department’s Inspector General and the GAO issued reports some years 

ago, I might add, highlighting the risk of fraud and abuse in the 

program and the practical resource challenges that consular posts 

faces. The State Department has made significant efforts to reduce 

that risk of fraud, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do more. 

Several years ago, the State Department converted the application process from paper to electronic and requires all applicants to 

submit digital photos. Recently, the State Department ended the 

practice of notifying lottery winners by mail and now relies entirely 

on its Web-based system. Consular posts provide outreach and education to the community about the process and work to combat 

fraud through the visa adjudication process. 

In closing, as I prepared for today’s hearing, I was reminded that 

Freddie Adu, the young soccer phenom from Ghana, entered the 

U.S. through the diversity visa program. So did Seth Dankar, another native of Ghana, who enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army 

shortly after entering the country on a diversity visa. Private 

Dankar’s service was featured in the film, ‘‘New American Soldier,’’ 

which highlights the courageous work that many immigrants now 

do in our armed services. 

If there are concerns about this program, we should focus on 

ways to improve it. One idea that was recommended by the State 

Department’s IG is that we charge a small application fee in order 

to reduce the prevalence of duplicative applications. Now that the 

system has moved from paper-based applications to electronic ones, 

the cost effectiveness of this anti-abuse measure may need to be reassessed. 

23 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, to improve this program, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. Well, like Zoe 

Lofgren, I like Mr. Goodlatte but I don’t like his bill. And the question here might be in this hearing is do we want to have another 

way for people that don’t qualify under the kind of three-part system of immigration that we have to come into this country or do 

we not. 

What we are faced with is a rather continued attempt to eliminate the people least likely to be able to come to this country, and 

so this part 3 of the program is designed to create diversity in our 

immigration population. And so the question is, from my point of 

view, maybe the opponents of this program don’t want diversity in 

the first place, which is a perfectly valid position to take. It is not 

a very nice position to take, but if we eliminate this system—and 

by the way, the hearings, what have there been? Three of them so 

far? They are never about how to improve the system. It is how to 

eliminate the system and that is not escaping my attention at this 

hearing either. 

The whole idea is let us get rid of the diversity program that is 

the way more African immigrants get into this country than any 

other way. You are entitled to that view, but I don’t think that this 

is the way we want to think about our country or its policy on immigration. 

That is why I support the comments made by Ranking Member 

Lofgren. We have got to look at how we improve it, and it is very 

interesting to me that we have—our examples are real great— 

somebody, I can wager, is going to mention Hedayet—how can you 

have a terrorist who has to win the lottery first to implement his 

program? 

The other part of this that is very important is that the Government Accountability Office has found no documented evidence that 

the diversity visa immigrants program pose a terrorist or other 

threat. So don’t let me hear anybody talking about terrorism. 

And I will revise the rest of my statement, Mr. Chairman, and 

yield back my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

24 


65602G-1.eps
25 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

And just to take the privilege of the Chair just for a second to, 

if I could, engage both my colleague Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Conyers. 

John, my neighbor, my friend, how would you respond to the arguments that many make about since this program started there 

have been approximately 800,000 people who have come here 

under the diversity program? Many would argue that that 800,000 


65602G-2.eps
26 

that have come here would ensure diversity forever through chain 

migration. What would your response to that be, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. But it isn’t happening. That hasn’t happened— 

well, here, you are just giving me back the challenge that I posed. 

If you really want to cut the numbers down in the program, you 

are saying the program is a success, so that leads to the same conclusion: We don’t need it anymore. I reject that out of hand. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I can answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I 

would note from the report we received from the Congressional Research Service just yesterday that the predominant immigrant 

through this is a managerial, single-male professional and who is 

not bringing in a spouse and children. 

So also I would note that the brother-sister backlog, as you know, 

is very regressed. I mean, it is decades in some cases for people to 

bring in siblings. So although theoretically one could talk about 

that, in fact, it is not a practical measure. 

We can argue whether or not our immigration system should 

seek to have diversity. I recall Senator Kennedy and Chairman Rodino were concerned that the Irish and Italians would not be 

present in our immigrant pool, and they thought that was a problem, and that really was the origin of this. And it is interesting 

that it is now the diversity that we are seeing is from Africa primarily, not completely, because of the way patterns of immigration 

have developed, and absent this visa, aside from the refugee program—and I guess some of our students that are coming in who 

I have met, some who are highly educated—we wouldn’t see much 

immigration from Africa. And I think, you know, the diversity has 

always made our country richer, and it is why we are a proud immigrant Nation. So that would be my answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And again, we shouldn’t be debating this. We 

have witnesses here to listen to, but I can’t help but respond to the 

only two examples I used in my opening statement about two incidents, one at LAX and one at Pakistani National, that was advocating jihad here in the U.S. In both of these instances, the people 

that were advocating this were—one was a son and one was a husband of the applicant. So that does have something to do with that 

portion of it. 

In any event, we are fortunate today to have four exceptional 

witnesses. Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety, and I ask each to try to summarize in 5 minutes, if at all possible. We got a late start. It is not 

your fault, but in view of that, I want to make sure everyone has 

a chance to be heard. And, if you will, we will provide the lights 

as kind of a guide, but I would appreciate you to try to work as 

carefully and as helpful in that vein as possible. 

The first witness today, of course, the sponsor of the legislation, 

who is obviously a good friend of both of my colleagues here, as evidenced in their opening statements. Bob Goodlatte, currently is 

serving his tenth term representing the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He has been an active Member of the House Judiciary Committee since arriving in Congress and is currently Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, 

Competition, and the Internet. 

27 

Our second witness today is Stephen Anthony—I have known 

Tony—Edson. Mr. Edson is former Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

State for visa services. He was with the State Department for 28 

years and currently serves as principal, SAEdson law firm. 

Our third witness, Ms. Janice Kephart, is the director of national 

security policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. She previously served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Ms. Kephart received her bachelor’s degree from Duke and J.D. From Villanova 

law school. 

And our last witness is Ambassador Johnny Young. Ambassador 

Young is executive director of the migration and refugee services 

of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He was previously a member of the senior foreign service with the rank of career Ambassador and, last, served abroad as the U.S. Ambassador 

to the Republic of Slovenia. 

So you can see we have some very good witnesses this afternoon, 

and we will start with our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers. It is a pleasure to be before 

you today, and I will submit my written statement for the record. 

I wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the Ranking 

Members, who are indeed my friends as well. 

First of all, the United States has the largest and most diverse 

immigration program in the world, and that is even without consideration of the visa diversity or visa lottery program. When I practiced immigration law prior to my election to Congress for more 

than a decade, I represented individuals from more than 70 countries, none of whom were coming in under the visa lottery program. 

They were coming in under family-related and primarily work-related visas. We also admit people to this country based upon refugee status from any country in the world where that is a necessity, and we grant political asylum. So the opportunity right now 

for diversity from virtually any country in the world exists even 

without this program. 

Secondly, this program has been rejected by the House of Representatives twice now, once under a Democratic Congress, once 

under a Republican Congress. The House has voted to eliminate 

this program, and while there have been claims, as have just been 

made, that the program could be improved, during the majority in 

which the gentleman from Michigan was the Chairman of the full 

Committee and the gentlewoman from California was the Chairman of the Subcommittee, no hearings whatsoever were held on 

this issue or to improve it. 

I would suggest to you that there are a number of legitimate reasons why the program should be eliminated. One of those is a national security concern. There is no doubt that given the fact that 

there is no necessity for a family relationship, no necessity for a 

particular job skill, that it is easy for an organization like al-Qaeda 

to submit names—yes, it is done at random, but you could submit 

lots of names from individuals who do not have terrorism records, 

are young people, whose names could be drawn. We would be none 

28 

the wiser that not only were they admitted to the country like the 

9/11 hijackers were, but they were admitted to the country on a 

permanent resident status, green card, so they are admitted permanently to the country. 

Secondly, there is I think a very strong argument to be made 

that this program is grossly unfair to those people who have met 

the public policy interests of the United States. Immigration is a 

two-way street. There is not a person in this room who can’t go 

back a few generations or several generations and find somebody 

in their family who came to the United States to better their lives 

for themselves and their family, but we do it based upon having 

a connection, like having a family connection or a job skill that is 

needed in the country, or based upon persecution or a refugee status situation. 

And when we do that, it seems to me very important that we recognize that this program allows people to bypass people who are 

on very long waiting lists from countries who have family relationships, who have job skills that have been determined to be in need 

in this country, and they watch somebody who gets an opportunity 

to get a visa to come here based upon pure luck. That combination 

I think is not a good one, and that is why I have introduced this 

legislation in the last few Congresses. 

It has been bipartisan each time I have done it, and as I say, it 

has passed both in the 109th Congress as a part of the appropriations process and in the—in the 109th Congress, it passed as an 

amendment to H.R. 4437 on the House floor with a very strong bipartisan vote; and in the 110th Congress, it passed as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 State Foreign Operations appropriations bill. 

So, again, I think there is very strong bipartisan support for this 

legislation. I think that the State Department’s Inspector General 

testified before the 109th Congress that the program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, 

criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry 

into the United States as permanent residents, quote-unquote. 

With the tool of legal permanent resident status in hand, terrorists 

and spies would have free rein to travel and plan terrorist activities within the borders of the United States. 

Our immigration policy should be based upon what the needs are 

of the United States because there are people, millions of people, 

who want to come here for a multitude of of different reasons, some 

good, some bad. We should identify the good reasons for bringing 

people here and have an immigration policy that does that and not 

rely on pure luck to determine who are the good people that should 

be coming to this country. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 

29 


Good-1.eps
30 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Edson. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. EDSON, PRINCIPAL, SAEdson, LLC 

Mr. EDSON. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee, good afternoon and thank you for allowing me this opporVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:10 Jun 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040511\65602.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

Good-2.eps
31 

tunity to discuss my experience with the diversity visa lottery program. 

All visa categories are subject to attempted fraud by applicants 

interested in entering the United States illegally. Applicants misrepresent their identities, their credentials, and their intentions 

every day before consular officers around the world, trying to obtain visas that they don’t qualify for. Most visa categories, particularly for immigrants to this country, have very specific requirements that pose barriers for applicants attempting to submit a 

false application. 

Those wishing to obtain a visa fraudulently must first convince 

DHS through the petition process, and then the consular officer 

during an interview, that the requisite relationship or employment 

experience or work situation exists. For someone misrepresenting 

themselves as a doctor or business executive or a parent of a U.S. 

citizen, quite a bit of documentation and interview preparation is 

thus required. 

Contrast this to the diversity visa program where the barriers for 

entry into the program are so low that we ask applicants to prove 

only that they have the equivalent of a high school education or 2 

years of some sort of a skill-based employment, some sort of financial support or job lined up in the U.S., and they are otherwise eligible for a visa, the standard ineligibility, public health, criminal 

record. 

Because almost anyone can qualify for entry into the program, 

the cost of committing fraud in this category is quite low. The possibility of legal permanent resident status in the U.S. makes it well 

worth the limited amount of time and money required to enter the 

program fraudulently. 

The diversity visa program is subject to attempted fraud both by 

applicants themselves and, worse, by third-party brokers and touts 

who abuse both the visa system and those applicants. 

Fraud by applicants includes, among many other things, multiple 

entries, fraudulent claims to education and work experience, popup spouses or family members, relatives added after the application 

is submitted, and false claims for employment or financial support 

in the United States. 

Fraud and abuse by third parties is just as prevalent and can 

have tragic consequences. Consular officers have seen cases of collusion with post office officials—thus, the change that Ranking 

Member Lofgren mentioned—so that notification to winners of the 

lottery are either stolen and used by someone else or held hostage 

until the applicants pay for the release of their documents. This 

was quite common. 

Just as commonly, unfortunately, the applicant may be extorted 

throughout the process; in other words, not just forced to pay for 

the release of their initial documents, but forced to pay criminal 

gangs in order to be allowed to complete their application. This 

problem occurs to a limited extent, a much more limited extent, 

with other visa categories as well, but because these diversity visa 

applicants don’t have relatives and employers in the United States, 

they are particularly vulnerable. 

Nor is this sort of abuse limited to applicants who choose to 

enter the diversity visa lottery. Consular officers have many times 

32 

seen unscrupulous agents enroll large groups of people, including 

in Bangladesh the phone book, so that they could then extort 

money from the legitimate applicants who didn’t in fact apply, or 

from other people that they sell the winning slot to as they apply 

for the visa. 

The State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has done 

outstanding work over the years in fighting this fraud in the DV 

program. I should be clear that just because the program is rife 

with fraud, it does not mean that scores of unqualified applicants 

are necessarily entering the United States. The refusal rate for the 

DV cases is quite high, and Consular Affairs has done 

groundbreaking work with facial recognition software, electronic 

application processes, and online data analysis tools to weed out 

fraudulent lottery entries. 

Consular officers in the field are similarly astute in interviewing 

these cases, probing for relationship fraud and working hard to 

validate the few legislative requirements for the program. Despite 

the best efforts of consular officers and the State Department, however, the DV program will continue to be a special target of attempted fraud. When anyone can play—and in this program they 

can, because of the minimum requirements for entry—then everyone will, and the cost of a fraudulent application is so low that 

fraud will remain prevalent. 

I believe that the SAFE for America Act will solve the problem 

of fraud in the DV program in the only way it is likely to work, 

by eliminating it. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edson follows:] 

33 


Edson-1.eps
34 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Kephart. 


Edson-2.eps
35 

TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SECURITY POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. KEPHART. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren and Ranking Member Conyers, for holding this hearing 

on the DV program today. I would also like to acknowledge the 

leadership of Representative Goodlatte for the introduction of this 

SAFE for America Act. 

My purpose today is to provide my analysis of the DV program 

from my vantage point as a former 9/11 Commission counsel, as 

well as national security policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies. My underlying perspective, let me make clear, is to 

treat our borders as they truly are, as a geographic demarcation of 

U.S. sovereign rights, to assure that people who seek to come here 

are who they say they are and will not pose a public safety or terrorist threat to American citizens. 

Unfortunately, the DV program is a blind spot in our immigration system that assures none of these elements well. Instead, it 

can be a terrorist gamble. A successful application means an infiltration tactic with little oversight, a guaranteed visa, and permanent residency for those already in the U.S. or seeking entry from 

abroad; or a terrorist or other criminal can simply wait for a lottery 

announcement, then hire somebody to buy that win, change identities, and voila, they are within our immigration system. 

Whatever purpose the DV program sought to be for diversity in 

a pre-9/11 environment, it has been outlived. Today it is a national 

security vulnerability, and let me go over the six main reasons why 

I believe that is the case. 

First, the DV program draws from nations that are state sponsors of terror or are known to harbor terrorist organizations with 

overtly stated terrorist intentions toward the United States. Eligibility will remain for these countries in the 2012 lottery, despite 9/ 

11 and despite serious geopolitical shifts in the Mideast today. The 

four state sponsors of terror—Iran Sudan, Syria, and Cuba—received a total of 2,588 visas or adjustments of status for the DV 

program in 2010. Nations with active terrorist populations such as 

Yemen and Somalia, as well as governments known to support terrorist causes and terrorist travel, such as Venezuela, also benefit 

from the program, as do Afghanistan and Iraq, to name a few. 

Again, there are no stopgaps against fraud, as Mr. Edson has 

pointed out, to determine qualifications or properly vet identity, or 

derogatory intelligence, to assure that radicalized individuals applying from these nations are not entering the U.S. on a DV. 

Second, the program does not include national security standards 

for, or reviews of, participant countries, such as visa-waiver countries have to do to maintain their status in that program. 

Third, the program is susceptible to serious fraud and malfeasance—admitted by the State Department most recently in a press 

conference back in 2010 discussing the 2012 lottery—both in and 

out of the U.S. because of its inability to assure identities or qualifications of fraud, similar but perhaps even worse than that we addressed on the 9/11 Commission regarding the processing of Saudi 

visas pre-9/11. 

Fourth, the program’s low applicant standards, combined with a 

computer-generated random lottery drawing, creates an invitation 

36 

to those with nefarious intentions to take advantage of blind picks 

and negligible standards. 

Fifth, the program is known to be exploited for human trafficking 

and the slave trade by crime syndicates, which I discuss in greater 

length in my written testimony, and it provides little to promote 

that straightforward diversity from lower immigration countries 

when we have crime syndicates taking advantage of it. 

And lastly, sixth, the program enables those already here to stay 

while their change of status is under consideration, as known terrorist Hesham Hedayet did, thus increasing the vulnerabilities inherent in the DV program by enabling potential criminals and terrorists to embed longer and legally in the U.S. 

I would like to spend my remaining time focusing on the national 

security challenges of the DV program, particularly Iran. The high 

numbers of DVs issued to Iranians is perhaps the best indication 

that the DV program is operating in a vacuum with little concern 

for national security. For example, Iran is known for its security 

forces actively seeking infiltration from abroad, and creates another opportunity for such infiltration. It is hard for us to know 

who is who when we have such little penetration into Iran with our 

own intelligence system. Iran, we know, supported 9/11 hijackers’ 

travel. We know they support Hezbollah and currently harbor alQaeda, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. 

Yet the DV program embraces Iran. Looking closely at the 2010 

worldwide distribution of visa lottery winners, Iran received 1,854 

visas or adjustments of status. Iran ranked ninth in the world of 

the 173 nations eligible to receive these visas, up four places from 

2009 where it ranked 13th. 

My conclusion is that the DV program has, unfortunately, outlived its usefulness in a post-9/11 world. If this Nation seeks more 

diversity in our immigration population, that is for you all to decide, but the DV program is not the route to do so. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:] 

37 


Kephart-1.eps
38 


Kephart-2.eps
39 


Kephart-3.eps
40 


Kephart-4.eps
41 


Kephart-5.eps
42 


Kephart-6.eps
43 


Kephart-7.eps
44 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ambassador Young. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHNNY YOUNG, AMBASSADOR, 

U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank you. I would like to also thank Subcommittee Member Zoe 

Lofgren and the Committee Member John Conyers for allowing me 


Kephart-8.eps
45 

to testify today. My testimony is on behalf of the United States 

Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

Chairman Gallegly, the U.S. Bishops believe that the call for the 

diversity visa program’s elimination is misguided. The program is 

an important facet of not only U.S. immigration policy but also 

U.S. foreign policy interests. Indeed, the program benefits the 

United States’ interests both domestically and abroad. I will address each of these in turn. 

First, U.S. domestic interests are served by the diversity immigrant visa program. The program provides an avenue for a diverse 

population of qualified individuals to emigrate to the United 

States. It reaches beyond those with family or business ties in the 

United States today and creates a mechanism for a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse population to lawfully emigrate, that 

would otherwise not exist under other visa programs. 

These eligible immigrants, in turn, benefit from U.S. freedom 

and opportunities while contributing to the economic and cultural 

fabric of our great Nation. In facilitating this, the diversity visa 

program, for most respect for U.S. immigration laws, rewarding 

would-be immigrants who respect our laws and seek a lawful 

means of entry into the United States. 

Second, U.S. foreign policy interests are served by the diversity 

visa program.Mr. Chairman, I served as U.S. ambassador to countries as varied as Slovenia and Sierra Leone. Today, I am executive 

director for the largest refugee resettlement agency in the world. 

From these vantage points, I have witnessed firsthand U.S. diplomacy and direct aid initiatives undertaken to further U.S. national 

interests abroad. These important initiatives are undertaken in 

part to help shape the minds and hearts of those within their borders to regard the United States and the democracy it enjoys as a 

beacon of hope and opportunity and, therefore, a leader in the 

world. 

In a 2009 report by the independent task force co-chaired by Jeb 

Bush and published by the Council on Foreign Relations, the authors underscored the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity that is crucial to the maintenance of U.S. and American leadership. The diversity immigrant 

visa program helps further these objectives. 

The diversity immigrant visa program has promoted a necessary 

diversification of the immigrant population in the United States. 

According to the GAO, the data shows that the DV program is contributing to the diversification of the U.S. immigrant pool. Indeed, 

well over a half million immigrants from countries with low rates 

of admission to the United States have become lawful permanent 

residents through the program. The majority of diversity immigrants are from Africa and Europe, two regions with low levels of 

admission under family- or employment-based immigrant visas. 

Mr. Chairman, the diversity immigrant visa program generates 

goodwill and hope among millions across the globe ravaged by war, 

poverty, undemocratic regimes, and opacity in government. 

Through the diversity immigrant visa program, the United States 

makes a counterpoint to that reality, a chance at becoming an integral member of an open, democratic society that places a premium 

on hard work and opportunity. 

46 

In fiscal year 2011 alone, there were 12.1 million qualified applicants to the diversity immigrant visa program. From a diplomacy 

standpoint, that is a powerful opportunity. The U.S. Catholic 

bishops asks that the Congress maintain lawful avenues for immigration to the United States and continue to prioritize the diversification of our immigrant pool. The diversity immigrant visa is an 

important facet of both our domestic and foreign policy objectives. 

If we are truly concerned about the rule of law, the wholesale 

elimination of legal avenues for immigration such as the diversity 

visa is not the answer. 

Where fraud is present, or security risks the potential, Congress 

should work with the Administration to implement measures to 

combat that fraud as reported by the GAO, and as it does with 

other important government benefit programs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

47 


Young-1.eps
48 


Young-2.eps
49 


Young-3.eps
50 


Young-4.eps
51 


Young-5.eps
52 


Young-6.eps
53 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record, without objection, the following items to be made a part of 

the record of the hearing: 

The 2003 Department Office of Inspector General memorandum 

inspection report on the diversity visa program. 

Number two, the 2007 GAO report entitled ‘‘Fraud risks complicates States’ ability to manage diversity visa program.’’ 


Young-7.eps
54 

Number three, March 31, 2011, Irish Times article entitled ‘‘U.S. 

Embassy in Dublin warns of widespread visa lottery scam.’’ 

Number four, March 30, 2011, Arab news article entitled ‘‘U.S. 

Visa scam gets personal.’’ 

And finally, a copy of the fraud alert on the Web site of the Embassy of the United States in London. 

If there is no objection, those will be made a part of the record 

of the hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


65602B-1.eps
55 


65602B-2.eps
56 


65602B-3.eps
57 


65602B-4.eps
58 


65602B-5.eps
59 


65602B-6.eps
60 


65602B-7.eps
61 


65602B-8.eps
62 


65602B-9.eps
63 


65602B-10.eps
64 


65602B-11.eps
65 


65602B-12.eps
66 


65602B-13.eps
67 


65602B-14.eps
68 


65602B-15.eps
69 


65602B-16.eps
70 


65602B-17.eps
71 


65602B-18.eps
72 


65602B-19.eps
73 


65602B-20.eps
74 


65602B-21.eps
75 


65602B-22.eps
76 


65602B-23.eps
77 


65602B-24.eps
78 


65602B-25.eps
79 


65602B-26.eps
80 


65602B-27.eps
81 


65602B-28.eps
82 


65602B-29.eps
83 


65602B-30.eps
84 


65602B-31.eps
85 


65602B-32.eps
86 


65602B-33.eps
87 


65602B-34.eps
88 


65602B-35.eps
89 


65602B-36.eps
90 


65602B-37.eps
91 


65602B-38.eps
92 


65602B-39.eps
93 


65602B-40.eps
94 


65602B-41.eps
95 


65602B-42.eps
96 


65602B-43.eps
97 


65602B-44.eps
98 


65602B-45.eps
99 


65602B-46.eps
100 


65602B-47.eps
101 


65602B-48.eps
102 


65602B-49.eps
103 


65602B-50.eps
104 


65602B-51.eps
105 


65602B-52.eps
106 


65602B-53.eps
107 


65602B-54.eps
108 


65602B-55.eps
109 


65602B-56.eps
110 


65602B-57.eps
111 


65602B-58.eps
112 


65602B-59.eps
113 


65602B-60.eps
114 


65602B-61.eps
115 


65602B-62.eps
116 


65602B-63.eps
117 


65602B-64.eps
118 


65602B-65.eps
119 


65602B-66.eps
120 


65602B-67.eps
121 


65602B-68.eps
122 


65602B-69.eps
123 

Mr. GALLEGLY. First of all, Bob, in your written testimony you 

referred to a statement before Congress made by the State Department’s Inspector General in which he stated that the visa lottery 

program contains significant risks to the national security of the 

United States. You also mentioned the case of the Egyptian national who was permitted to enter the U.S. because his wife was 

a visa lottery winner. Once in the country, the person killed two 

and injured three at LAX. Can you elaborate a little bit on your 

statement? 


65602B-70.eps
124 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I think that there have been reports from 

several sources that have indicated a great concern about this. And 

I think the nature of the concern is that you have people who want 

to come here because they have a family reunification issue. They 

have family that is already here petitioning for them. They have 

a job skill. They have an employer who is petitioning for them. 

It is a lot harder for a criminal organization, a terrorist organization, or somebody who just wants to come to the United States because it is an opportunity for them to engage in some kind of activity that we don’t want them here for, it is a lot harder for them 

to do that if they have to create that connection in the first place. 

You know, you have to have a job skill and an employer who wants 

them, or they have to have a specific family relationship, than if 

they simply put their name into a lottery, as you correctly note, 

millions of people do. 

And while I have no doubt that most of those people are wanting 

to come here for the same reason that other people want to come 

here, those who want to come here for illegitimate purposes, including terrorism or criminal activity, have an easier time doing 

that, as Mr. Edson pointed out in his testimony, than they do if 

they have to have that preformed connection in order to get the 

visa in the first place. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Edson, in your statement you mentioned the 

Bangladesh phone book. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that 

as an example of concern? 

Mr. EDSON. Certainly. We obviously have no way, or the State 

Department—I have got to get rid of the ‘‘we′′—the State Department has no way of knowing how often applicants—those 12 million entrants into the lottery program every year didn’t actually 

submit entries on their own behalf. But we know that it is quite 

common for agents to just take personal data on existing people 

and submit it into the lottery as entries. Often now, because facial 

recognition is used and the photos are required, picking photographs that are relatively neutral so that there is greater opportunity for look-alikes in the final win. So then if one of those real 

people who didn’t really apply wins a slot in the diversity visa lottery, the agent can then sell that slot to somebody who resembles 

the photograph closely enough that they can then steal the identity 

of that other person and complete the application process, and 

there is no preexisting data that is going to rule out that individual. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks. Ms. Kephart, in your testimony on page 

6, you discussed how organized crime rings exploit the visa lottery 

program. This is becoming a huge problem in my area, in the 

greater Los Angeles area, having to do with Medicare fraud and 

health care issues, with setting up phony clinics and so on and so 

forth. Does this have any relationship to what you are relating to 

in your testimony, or specifically what did your testimony relate to? 

Ms. KEPHART. Well, I think you are referring to the use of fraudulent and counterfeit documents to support applications in general. 

If that is your reference, yes; we have had Federal prosecution 

have to deal with a number of cases that are extremely serious 

dealing with fraud on the U.S. Side with the diversity visa program. One case involved slave trade being created out of Africa 

125 

where young female winners between 10 and 19 were brought over. 

They were forced to give up their identities and passports and 

brought over here and had to take on new identities. 

There are other pieces of this, though, as well. If you are dealing 

with fraudulent documents—this is something we dealt with extensively on the 9/11 Commission—the idea of fraud, the idea of looking clean when you are not really clean. And when you are dealing 

with a program like this that does not require a lot of identity information on the front end, you can switch out identities very easily, as Mr. Edson has done, based on fraudulent birth certificates, 

fraudulent driver’s license, fraudulent passports on the U.S. side. 

Abroad, there is no way for a consular officer to make a determination as to the legitimacy of the high school education certificate that you are presenting, the birth certificate, or any of the 

identity information that you are providing. You can easily switch 

that out. Once you do that you are creating a fraudulent identity— 

once you have that in place you have a huge vulnerability that is 

much wider than what you even had with the 9/11 situation. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks. Thank you very much, Ms. Kephart. Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important 

to note that nobody on the Committee is in favor of fraud, but the 

issue is how to preserve diversity in a way that works for the country. That is the way I see this question anyhow. 

Without this diversity visa, African immigrants would only be 3 

percent of the immigrants to the United States, I mean statistically, and I don’t think that is good for the United States. 

And, Bob, I hear what you are saying. I always think about my 

grandfather, because he came here when he was 16. He didn’t have 

family ties. He didn’t have a job. He hadn’t finished his education, 

but he wanted to come here. He wanted to be free, and you know, 

what a country, his granddaughter is in Congress. So that is part 

of what this is about. It is to not lose that part of our history, but 

the question is how do we avoid the problem. 

Mr. Edson, I don’t know the answer to this. Can the State Department impose a fee on their own? They don’t need congressional 

action to do that, or do they? 

Mr. EDSON. I am probably not in the best position to answer, but 

it is my understanding that they do need congressional action. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is something that maybe we ought to look at, 

because certainly if there were a fee, that would be a deterrent. If 

we are talking about entering the phone book, that would be a very 

different issue. I think the facial recognition and the Web-based 

stuff is going to help, and maybe there are some other ideas to 

make this work better. 

You know, I think it is always dangerous to legislate by anecdote. Certainly, the fellow in Los Angeles who engaged in violence 

was awful; but there was an Egyptian man named Abdel Rahman 

Mossabah who came as a diversity visa immigrant, and he uncovered a planned terrorist attack on the New York City subway system. He reported it to the New York City Police Department, and 

they went in and they arrested the guys and they stopped the plot. 

So I don’t think you say, well, that is the reason for the diversity 

visa program any more than the reverse. And I think it is worth 

126 

noting that the GAO’s report that has now been entered into the 

record—and this is a quote—‘‘found no documented evidence that 

diversity visa immigrants from [state sponsors of terrorism] or 

other countries pose a terrorist or other threat.’’ 

So we need to, I think, make improvements if we can. 

Ambassador Young, I found your testimony actually pretty moving because the diplomatic value of being a beacon of hope for the 

world really is important to the United States. You served as Ambassador to a number of Nations. Were you able to use this as a 

tool of diplomacy, and can you expand on your experience with 

those who applied for the lottery program and what it means to us 

in the diplomatic sense, or who they are in your experience? 

Mr. YOUNG. Certainly. I found it particularly useful when I was 

in Africa, in Togo in particular. I served in Sierra Leone also, but 

that was prior to the program. In countries that are under, you 

know, oppressive governance and rule, that are very impoverished, 

that has very little to offer its people—although I didn’t go around 

peddling or advertising for the diversity visa in my interaction with 

young people, with young professionals, and what have you—they 

would ask me: You know, what can I do? I am a university graduate, I am a professional, or what have you. There is nothing for 

me to do here. What can I do? You know, you come from a great 

country; is there anything you can do for me? 

I said, well, I can’t meddle in the visa business as the 

Ambassador, but we do have something called the diversity visa 

program and you can apply for it and you may win, you may not, 

and you keep trying until you do. 

I can cite the case of a woman that I knew in Togo. She was educated. She had a sister in the United States who was a U.S. citizen. 

The sister had petitioned for her. She believed that the wait would 

have been about 25 years, and while waiting, she applied for the 

lottery. She didn’t win the first few times but she won—I think it 

was about the fourth time around. She came to the United States. 

She brought her teenage son. He finished school here in the United 

States and last year got his MBA at Harvard. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Wow, quite a story. 

Mr. YOUNG. That was a good one. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Ambassador, 

what is the impact of 12 million people all thinking about trying 

to get over here? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, they are anxious to do that because they look 

to us as their one opportunity for hope and for getting out of the 

situation that they are in. So they think of the United States in 

a very positive way, and I think that is a very good thing for our 

image, and I think that helps us. And as I said, the most important 

thing is that we offer—this is an opportunity for hope. 

Mr. CONYERS. And, Mr. Edson, your work with State Department 

gave you an opportunity to make a number of improvements, and 

we are grateful to you for that. I wanted to thank you. Could you 

discuss some of the things you got in place while you were there? 

Mr. EDSON. Certainly, thank you. The program when it began 

was a mail-based program and the amount of mail received was so 

high that the envelopes were actually bar-coded on the outside 

127 

without being opened. Winners were selected sight unseen. In the 

early years there was no way to tell how many entries were being 

submitted by applicants, and, in fact, we knew through sampling 

those first couple of years, there were large numbers of duplicate 

entries, thousands of duplicate entries from people who were just 

using technology and law firms and agents and things to help them 

out. 

The State Department was able to move to an electronic application process at a time when people thought that Internet penetration wasn’t enough. That helped. The facial recognition has helped. 

It was I think one of the earliest uses of facial recognition technology in the government to look for duplicate entries in the application process, and then some changes in rules like the requirement to submit photographs with the—and not the application but 

the lottery entry, the first stage, they were required to submit a 

photograph. That limits some identity fraud opportunities. 

It is telling, though, if I can get off the track just slightly, the 

bulk of the money spent on this program is to fight fraud in this 

way instead of to administer the program. And that is unlike any 

other visa work that we do, or we did at State, where the bulk of 

the resources were spent helping applicants get through the process. In this case it is almost all fraud-related but it has been done. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank you for your helpfulness and I 

wanted to turn to attorney Kephart because, you know, immigration as a field is a big problem in all of its branches, don’t you 

think? I mean, there is a lot of work to be done in all the areas 

and there continues to be more work done in this area. 

Ms. KEPHART. Yes, Ranking Member Conyers, yes, absolutely, 

you are right. 

Across border security apparatuses, Mr. Edson was one of the 

people I interviewed when I was on the 9/11 Commission, and we 

went across the board, as you know, making lots of recommendations and criticisms on border security. Our staff monograph ‘‘9/11 

and Terrorist Travel’’ is a long history of problems with the immigration system, and there have been some improvements in some 

areas for sure. 

It is unusual for me, I have to say, to actually be in agreement 

on eliminating something completely. And in this particular case, 

when you run it through the rubric of our sort of tiered-analysis 

we used on the 9/11 Commission, we said two things that people 

up here know very well: Terrorist travel documents are as important as their weapons are; and that we must assure that people are 

who they say they are. 

When you look at this, this is not just a nonimmigrant visa. This 

is an immigrant visa. This allows permanent residency. This allows 

you to go freely in and out of the United States. So the vulnerability here is high. So for me, the security aspect of it on the front 

end has to be very high. Because that is not there, I think that is 

a vulnerability and because we really can’t—there are improvements in the system for sure in the DV program. 

However, the DV program is not strong enough to really assure 

that people are who they say they are. And when we are embracing 

state sponsors of terror, when we are embracing those nations 

where we know there are radicalized populations, that puts I think 

128 

this on a cusp of—an unfortunate cusp of not being a program that 

assures our national security and really gets at the issue that this 

program is supposed to, which is diversity and welcome mat to 

those who otherwise would not have the opportunity to come here. 

Mr. CONYERS. Chairman, could I get one additional—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. With the help of you and Mr. Pierluisi, I made 

a commitment we would finish by 330. So I will be happy to do 

that. Maybe you could help me, Mr. Pierluisi, to yield to Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I will yield a minute to the ranking. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. On a personal—I know you are representing here 

today. But, personally, has your vast experience with immigration 

issues led you to be skeptical, if not negative, about the whole immigration system itself? 

Ms. KEPHART. Actually, no. I think that the immigration system, 

as problematic as it is, has a lot of potential for improvement, and 

that is how I look at it. You know, I look at the southwest border 

and I see potential that we can actually secure that border now. 

And I look at all the work that has been done since 9/11 and the 

seriousness with which you all took our recommendations and that 

gives me a lot of hope. I think if I had thrown in the towel, I 

wouldn’t be sitting here right now. 

Mr. CONYERS. But you have given up on this one. 

Ms. KEPHART. On this particular one, yes, because I think it 

will—— 

Mr. CONYERS. We want to encourage you. We want to give you 

hope and encouragement. We want to keep hope alive. 

Ms. KEPHART. I understand, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. I will just make a comment and then wait for your reactions. I just believe that messages 

we send to the rest of the world are very important. And by having 

this program, we are sending a message that we continue to welcome immigrants from a diversity of backgrounds and nations of 

origins, and that is an important message. We have always been 

viewed as the land of opportunity and lots of people would like to 

join us; and what is wrong with that? 

I do agree that we have to make every effort to make sure no 

terrorists take advantage of a program like this. We don’t want any 

of them here, but I see—and the stats do not support this issue we 

are raising, because when I see the stats, close to 800,000 people 

have come in using this program to our country, and I can only see 

four cases of actual terrorists we have spotted. Wow, four cases out 

of 800,000 people. That is the first thing that comes to my mind. 

Another thing, GAO, which was the last objective entity looking 

at this, said there is no evidence of the program being abused for 

purposes of terrorism. So I see that, too. 

And then I see all these enhancements. So my reaction, my gut 

feeling is, let us keep improving it, but let us not send the message 

that we are basically closing this or, you know, shutting this door 

on so many people that dream about joining us and making this 

country even better. 

129 

So now I would like to hear your reactions. I guess I will start 

with Mr. Young; but, obviously, my fellow Member here, I would 

like to hear from you, too, Congressman Goodlatte. 

Mr. YOUNG. Shall I begin? 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Yes, I guess I said it in that order. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am with you 100 percent. I believe that the program is important to what we try to do worldwide in terms of who 

we are, what we represent, that we do offer hope. We give people 

an opportunity to those who are successful through this program 

to live with dignity and to realize their potential. We think the program is good. It is valid. It serves our purpose. We say do not 

eliminate it but let us work and find ways to improve its imperfections. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Goodlatte, did you want to respond? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I definitely do. Let me just say, as I indicated 

earlier, I have practiced immigration law before this program existed and, at that time, helped people to obtain permanent resident 

status from more than 70 countries. So I think that we already are, 

regardless of this program’s existence, the most diverse Nation on 

Earth and it is in part because of our immigration policies. But if 

those policies are designed to make this country better, we ought 

to take into account who it is that want to come here, based upon 

needs that we have in the United States, including needs to have 

the people with particular job skills, and including the important 

need to reunify people who have family members who are already 

here. Those should be our priorities. And given the high, high, high 

level of immigration we have, and given the problem that we have 

with the levels of unemployment and so on, we should not pick people to come here based on pure luck. 

And I respect the millions of people who want to come here. My 

concern is that basing your future upon whether or not you have 

one in 200 or one in 300, whatever the odds are, the chance of having your name picked out is like saying, I am going to—you know, 

I am going to save for the future by buying a lottery ticket every 

week. That is not the best way to enhance your own life. 

The program should be based upon people who have something 

the United States needs and want to come here, we want them 

here and they want to be here, not based simply on pure luck, chosen at random. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman has expired. I want 

to thank all of the Members for being here today, particularly when 

everyone likes everyone, that always makes it a lot easier for the 

Chair. 

In any event, thank you to all of our witnesses and, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative, days to submit to the 

Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will 

forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can 

so the answers can be made a part of the record of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion into the record. 

Again, thank you all for attending today, and with that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(131) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


65602C-1.eps
132 


65602C-2.eps
133 

f 


65602C-3.eps
134 


65602D-1.eps
135 

f 


65602D-2.eps
136 


65602E-1.eps
137 

f 


65602E-2.eps
138 


65602F-1.eps
139 


65602F-2.eps
140 

Æ 


65602F-3.eps