U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

24–378 PDF 2017

OVERSTAYING THEIR WELCOME: NATIONAL 

SECURITY RISKS POSED BY VISA OVERSTAYS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

BORDER AND 

MARITIME SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

JOAN V. O’HARA, General Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY 

MARTHA MCSALLY, ARIZONA, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

PAUL L. ANSTINE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

KRIS CARLSON, Subcommittee Clerk 

ALISON NORTHROP, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Martha McSally, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Arizona, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4 

The Honorable Filemon Vela, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime 

Security ................................................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Mr. John Wagner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 9 

Mr. Craig C. Healy, Assistant Director for National Security Investigations, 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 17 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 8 

Ms. Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Screening Coordination 

Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 19 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 8 

Mr. Robert P. Burns, Deputy Director, Homeland Security Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 21 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 8 

(1) 

OVERSTAYING THEIR WELCOME: NATIONAL 

SECURITY RISKS POSED BY VISA OVERSTAYS 

Tuesday, June 14, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Martha McSally [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McSally, Smith, Duncan, Barletta, 

Hurd, Vela, Jackson Lee, and Torres. 

Ms. MCSALLY. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to examine DHS’s entry-exit 

and visa overstay efforts. 

Before we begin today, I would ask that we observe a moment 

of silence to honor those killed and wounded in the terror attack 

in Orlando. 

Thank you. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims’ families of this terrible tragedy. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Border security naturally evokes images of the hot Arizona 

desert, dusty border roads, agents, and green fencing and camera 

towers. But a broader view of border security recognizes that there 

is more than just security along the Southwest Border to consider. 

Time and time again terrorists have exploited the visa system by 

legally entering America. 

The 9/11 Commission put it this way: ‘‘For a terrorist, travel documents are as important as weapons.’’ The commission’s focus on 

travel documents is not surprising. Since the 1993 World Trade 

Center bombing, terrorists have abused the hospitality of the 

American people to conduct attacks here at home. 

Mahmud Abouhalima, an Egyptian convicted of the 1993 World 

Trade Center bombing, worked illegally in the United States as a 

cab driver after his tourist visa had expired. At least 4 of the 

9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas or were out of status, a missed 

opportunity to disrupt the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 of our 

fellow Americans. 

Among the most important weaknesses the attackers exploited 

was the porous outer ring of border security. The hijackers passed 

through the U.S. border security a combined total of 68 times without arousing any suspicion. More recently, Amine El Khalifi attempted to conduct a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2012. 

2 

He had been in the country since 1999 on a tourist visa but never 

left. 

Another man, arrested in the aftermath in the Boston Marathon 

bombing, who helped destroy evidence, was able to return to the 

United States despite being out of status on his student visa. 

Clearly visa security is an important element of keeping the 

homeland secure. To put the National security risks in perspective, 

a widely cited 2006 Pew Hispanic Center Study indicated that as 

many as 40 percent of all illegal aliens who come into our country 

do not cross the desert in Arizona, California, or Texas, but come 

through the front door at our land, sea, and air ports of entry with 

permission and then overstay their welcome. 

Earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security released 

a visa overstay report demonstrating the visa overstay problem 

may be much worse than previously thought. In fiscal year 2015 

fewer people were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol than 

overstayed their visas and are suspected of still being in the country, making the estimate closer to 68 percent of those illegally in 

the United States. 

Ms. MCSALLY. We have a graphic up there, a little bit of math 

to—where did it go? It was up there—to show what we are talking 

about here. If you think about, again, we have a 54 percent effective rate, you have got to do a little math—for those who are apprehended, therefore those we think were got-aways. Then if you look 

at that, so that is 223,000 got-aways, but visa overstays in 2015: 

482,000. 

So the unlawful presence is up to 705,000 just based on these 2 

numbers. So that actually calculates a 68 percent unlawful presence rate that are visa overstays versus coming over the border. 

Again, these are estimates based on got-aways, so, you know, it is 

only as good as those assumptions. 

But still, the point is we spend a lot of time focusing on the 

Southern Border, as we should, but there is also another problem 

here. We have unlawful presence in our United States from the 

visa overstays, and that is what we are focusing on today. 


h:\seals\114751.eps
3 

I am concerned that there are unidentified National security and 

public safety risks in a population that large, which has historically 

been the primary means for terrorist entry to the United States. 

In order to tackle the challenge, the Department has to first identify those who overstay their visa in the first place. 

A mandate to electronically track entries and exits from the 

country has been in place for more than 20 years, and a mandate 

for a biometrically-based entry-exit system has been a requirement 

for 12 years. Since 2003, we made substantial progress adding biometrics to the entry process, and we now take fingerprints and 

photographs of most visitors entering on a visa. 

But CBP has made, in fits and starts, only marginal progress 

when it comes to biometric exit. There have been a series of exit 

pilot projects at Nation’s air, land, and sea ports over the last 10 

years, but no plan has ever been implemented for a biometric exit 

capability. None of it was seriously considered by CBP and the Department. 

CBP is now engaged in a series of operational experiments, such 

as the use of mobile devices with biometric readers designed to 

support a future biometric exit system. In fact, until very recently 

the political will to make biometric exit a priority was really missing from the Department and CBP. Thankfully, it appears the Department has finally turned this corner. 

Secretary Johnson has now committed to a 2018 rollout of an 

operational biometric exit system at the Nation’s highest-volume 

airports, an ambitious time line, but long overdue. Congress has recently provided a steady funding stream in the form of new fees 

that will enable CBP to make investments to bring this system online. 

Putting a biometric exit system in place, as the 9/11 Commission 

noted: ‘‘An essential investment in our National security,’’ because 

without a viable biometric exit system, visa holders can overstay 

their visa and disappear into the United States, just as 4 of the 

9/11 hijackers were able to do. 

Once we identify overstays, especially those who present National security and public safety threats, we must dedicate resources necessary to properly remove those in the country illegally; 

otherwise we put our citizens at risk unnecessarily. Yet even as we 

dedicate scarce resources to pursue this small subset of overstays, 

up to 25 percent of this group was found to have already departed 

the United States after ICE special agents conducted full field investigations. We are spending too much time chasing our tails. 

Adding a reliable exit system will be an immediate force multiplier, allows our National security professionals to focus their efforts on preventing terrorist attacks. Doing so mitigates the chance 

that visitors can stay in the country beyond their period of admission and reduces the terrorist threat in the process. 

The American people need to know answers to these simple questions. How many more overstays are out there who pose a serious 

threat to the security of our homeland? Can Immigrations and Customs Enforcement quickly identify and remove these overstays to 

mitigate substantial National security risks? 

4 

I look forward to receiving answers to these important questions 

and to discuss the witnesses’ efforts to address the challenges of 

visa overstays. 

[The statement of Chairwoman McSally follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN MARTHA MCSALLY

JUNE 14, 2016 

Border security naturally evokes images of the hot Arizona desert, dusty border 

roads, agents in green, fencing and camera towers. But a broader view of border 

security recognizes that there is more than just security along the Southwest Border 

to consider. 

Time and time again, terrorists have exploited the visa system by legally entering 

America. The 9/11 Commission put it this way: ‘‘For terrorists, travel documents are 

as important as weapons.’’ 

The Commission’s focus on travel documents is not surprising. Since the 1993 

World Trade Center bombing, terrorists have abused the hospitality of the American 

people to conduct attacks here at home. 

Mahmud Abouhalima, an Egyptian convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center 

bombing, worked illegally in the United States as a cab driver after his tourist visa 

had expired. 

At least 4 of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas, or were out of status—a 

missed opportunity to disrupt the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 of our fellow 

Americans. 

And among the most important weaknesses the attackers exploited was the porous ‘‘outer ring of border security.’’ The hijackers passed through U.S. border security a combined total of 68 times without arousing suspicion. 

More recently, Amine el-Khalifi attempted to conduct a suicide attack on the U.S. 

Capitol in 2012. He had been in the country since 1999 on a tourist visa, but never 

left. 

Another man, arrested in the aftermath of Boston Marathon bombing who helped 

destroy evidence, was able to return to the United States despite being out of status 

on his student visa. 

Clearly, visa security is an important element of keeping the homeland secure. 

To put the National security risks in perspective, a widely-cited 2006 Pew Hispanic Center Study, indicated as many as 40% of all illegal aliens who come into 

our country do not cross the desert in Arizona, but come in through the ‘‘front door’’ 

at our land, sea, and air ports of entry, with permission, and then overstay their 

welcome. 

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security released a visa overstay 

report demonstrating the visa overstay problem may be much worse than previously 

thought. In fiscal year 2015, fewer people were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol, than overstayed their visas and are suspected of still being in the country, 

making the estimate closer to 60% of those illegally in the United States. 

I am concerned that there are unidentified National security and public safety 

risks in a population that large, which has historically been the primary means for 

terrorist entry into the United States. 

In order to tackle the challenge, the Department has to first identify those who 

overstay their visa in the first place. A mandate to electronically track entries and 

exits from the country has been in place for more than 20 years, and a mandate 

for a biometrically-based entry-exit system has been a requirement for 12 years. 

Since 2003, we made substantial progress adding biometrics to the entry process 

and we now take fingerprints and photographs of most visitors entering on a visa. 

But CBP has made, in fits and starts, only marginal progress when it comes to 

biometric exit. There have been a series of exit pilot projects at the Nation’s air, 

land, and sea ports over the last 10 years, but no plan to ever implement a biometric exit capability was seriously considered by CBP and the Department. 

CBP is now engaged in a series of operational experiments, such as the use of 

mobile devices with biometric readers, designed to support a future biometric exit 

system. In fact, until very recently, the political will to make biometric exit a priority was missing from Department and CBP leadership. Thankfully, it appears that 

the Department has finally turned a corner. 

Secretary Johnson has now committed to a 2018 roll-out of an operational biometric exit system at the Nation’s highest volume airports—an ambitious time line, but 

long overdue. And Congress has recently provided a steady funding stream, in the 

5 

form of new fees that will enable CBP to make investments to bring the system online. 

Putting a biometric exit system in place is, as the 9/11 Commission noted, ‘‘an 

essential investment in our National security,’’ because without a viable biometric 

exit system, visa holders can overstay their visa, and disappear into the United 

States; just as 4 of the 9/11 hijackers were able to do. 

And once we identify overstays, especially those who present National security 

and public safety threats, we must dedicate the resources necessary to promptly remove those in the country illegally—otherwise we put our citizens at risk unnecessarily. 

Yet, even as we dedicate scarce resources to pursue this small sub-set of 

overstays, up to 25% of this group was found to have already departed the United 

States after ICE Special Agents conducted full field investigations. We are spending 

too much time chasing our tails. 

Adding a reliable exit system will be an immediate force multiplier that allows 

National security professionals to focus their efforts on preventing terrorist attacks. 

Doing so mitigates the chance that visitors can stay in the country beyond their period of admission—and reduces the terrorist threat in the process. 

The American people need to know answers to these simple questions: 

• How many more overstays are out there who pose a serious threat to the security of the homeland? 

• Can Immigration and Customs Enforcement quickly identify and remove visa 

overstays to mitigate the substantial National security risks? 

I look forward receiving answers to these important questions, and to discuss 

their efforts to address of the challenge of visa overstays. 

Ms. MCSALLY. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of 

the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vela, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. VELA. I thank Chairman McSally for holding today’s hearing 

on the National security risks posed by visa overstays. 

Before we begin, I want to express my sympathies to the families 

of those lost in the attack in Orlando this weekend, and my prayers 

are with those injured in the tragedy. 

I expect to learn more about the National security implications 

of this attack at a House-wide briefing with Secretary Jeh Johnson 

later today, but hope that the witnesses before us can touch briefly 

on the role of the Department and its components related to this 

terrible incident. 

With respect to the topic before the subcommittee today, I am 

pleased we are addressing the overstay issue. While Congress has 

in recent years paid a great deal of attention to securing our Southern Border, and rightfully so, less attention has been focused on 

successfully addressing visa overstays. The approximately 527,000 

individuals who overstayed in fiscal year 2015 is a far greater number than the 331,000 individuals who were apprehended along the 

U.S.-Mexico border that year, illustrating the scope of the overstay 

problem. 

As a Member of Congress representing a district along our 

Southern Border, I understand the challenges related to deploying 

a biometric exit system at ports of entry. Our Nation’s airports and 

seaports were not built for exit control, nor were our land borders, 

certainly. 

Overcoming these infrastructure and technology challenges is an 

integral part of DHS’s task. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what progress CBP and DHS S&T have made toward 

addressing these challenges as well as what their plans are for fulfilling the Secretary’s commitment to begin deploying biometric exit 

at airports by 2018. 

6 

I hope to hear about how the Department plans to address biometric exit at our land borders, particularly with Mexico. Unlike 

Canada, Mexico currently does not have the entry infrastructure, 

technology, and processes necessary to share traveler information 

with the United States. Whatever the ultimate solution, DHS must 

ensure it does slow the legitimate travel and trade that is so important to communities like those I represent. 

I hope to hear from ICE about how it prioritizes individuals who 

have overstayed and may pose a National security or public safety 

threat. With limited resources, we must first address those who 

may do us harm. Deploying biometric exit at ports of entry and addressing overstays is no easy task but it is a necessary part of ensuring meaningful border security. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. MCSALLY. The gentleman yields back. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

We are pleased to be joined by 4 distinguished witnesses to discuss this important topic today. Mr. John Wagner is the deputy assistant commissioner for CBP’s Office of Field Operations. Mr. 

Wagner formerly served as executive director of admissibility and 

passenger programs, with responsibility for all traveler admissibility-related policies and programs, including the Trusted Traveler 

Program, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, the Immigration Advisory Program, and the Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit. 

Mr. Craig Healy is the assistant director for National security 

and investigations at ICE’s Homeland Security and Investigations 

Division. Mr. Healy began his career in public service with the 

United States Marine Corps and served as a U.S. Customs Officer 

before joining ICE. In 2003, Mr. Healy served with the first group 

of U.S. Federal special agents entering Iraq in support of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. He has served at ICE Headquarters since 2010. 

Ms. Kelli Ann Burriesci is the deputy assistant secretary for 

screening coordination office at the Department of Homeland Security. In this role, Ms. Burriesci is responsible for developing and coordinating the Department’s screening policies, including the Visa 

Waiver Program in the Real ID Program. Before joining DHS, Ms. 

Burriesci was working in the private sector focusing on identity 

management programs and Federal personnel identity verification 

credentials. 

Mr. Bob Burns is the deputy director for Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency for DHS’s Science and Technology 

Directorate. As deputy director, he manages the resources and 

technical direction of the APEX Technology Engine Program and 

guides business community outreach initiatives. 

Mr. Burns was previously the director for Air Entry-Exit Re-engineering Project from February 2013 until December 2014. He led 

S&T in a partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

enhance both air entry and exit processes by developing and implementing technologies for use in exiting airport inspecting and examination operations for travelers entering the United States. 

The witnesses’ full written statements will appear in the record. 

7 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wagner for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WAGNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. WAGNER. Morning. 

Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Customs and Border Protection’s progress in 

incorporating biometrics into our exit operations, especially as it 

pertains to identifying travelers who may have overstayed their authorized period of admission in the United States. 

Since assuming the responsibility for the DHS entry-exit policy 

in 2013, CBP has been actively moving forward on several initiatives I will discuss today. 

I would like to begin by briefly discussing how we collect current 

arrival and departure data from foreign visitors. In the air and sea 

environments, CBP requires that carriers provide manifests containing biographic information on all passengers, which we run 

against numerous law enforcement and intelligence databases and 

automated targeting systems to identify and, if necessary, address 

and potential risks as far advance of travel as possible. 

Now, when that traveler arrives in the United States they 

present their passport to the CBP Officer, who confirms the validity of the document, the accuracy of the carrier’s manifest information, and for foreign nationals fingerprints are collected and a digital photograph is also collected. 

If the traveler has a visa we compare those fingerprints against 

what the State Department collected at the embassy to make sure 

it is the same person. If they are traveling under the Visa Waiver 

Program we collect a set of 10 fingerprints, and if we have seen 

them previously we compare them against the previous visit. 

The CPB Officer also reviews all the results of the pre-arrival 

biographic and biometric vetting to ensure that there are no previous violations, active warrants, or any other risk factors that will 

determine whether we need a further inspection. Before admitting 

the person, we interview the traveler to determine the purpose and 

the intent of travel. We then stamp the passport and write the period of admission into the passport as well as record that in our 

automated system. 

Now, when that same person leaves the United States we again 

receive a biographic manifest information from the carrier and run 

this against the same law enforcement and intelligence databases. 

This allows us to create a departure record from the traveler once 

the airlines confirm that person has boarded the flight. It is 

through this exit process that CBP apprehended the Times Square 

bomber, Faisal Shahzad, who was attempting to depart JFK in 

2010. 

In fact, last year CBP arrested 379 airport passengers with outstanding NCIC warrants as result of departure manifests provided 

by the carriers. 

Now, we use this arrival and departure information to generate 

overstay lists on a daily basis. It is important to point out that determining lawful status can be more complicated than simply 

8 

matching entry and exit data. For example, a person may receive 

a 6-month admission period at a time of entry but then apply for 

and receive an extension, which is relevant to determining if that 

person is truly an overstay or not. Therefore, overstay lists need to 

be carefully correlated against other DHS systems and organizations. 

The overstay lists are run through our automated targeting system. We apply ICE-defined criteria and prioritize these records. 

That information is then provided to ICE for appropriate action. 

Now, the overstay report, along with the comprehensive entryexit plan we provided to Congress in April, articulates the foundation for incorporating biometrics into the exit aspect of our system. 

The biographic information we are using today is actionable, but it 

can certainly be enhanced with the addition of a biometric upon departure in order to validate and confirm the information we are 

acting upon. 

Now, unlike past attempts to deploy a biometric exit system, the 

challenge that remains is not so much the technology as it is the 

infrastructure, as Mr. Vela pointed out. Our ports of entry were not 

designed to have departure-control processing. Unlike for arrivals, 

there is no exclusive and designated space for departure controls. 

International departures share gates with domestic traffic. 

So where the biometric collection takes place is critical. Placing 

the technology too far in advance of the departure process, such as 

at a TSA checkpoint or the airline check-in counter, would not provide assurances that the person who provided the data actually 

boarded the plane and left. In this case, we would end up nearly 

defaulting to the biographic manifest data, which is exactly the 

same system that we have in place today. 

So in preparing for deploying biometric exit we have launched 

several pilots, which were mentioned earlier: Did the facial comparison at JFK and Dulles, and we did a pedestrian pilot at Otay 

Mesa in California, and we did the handheld pilot at 10 airports 

across the country. 

Now, starting yesterday we commenced a pilot in Atlanta, Georgia at the airport in testing the ability of our information systems 

to compare facial images of travelers departing the United States 

against previously provided images by those travelers. This is done 

in an automoted fashion without impacting airport operations. 

This is our logical next step in building on our previous pilots 

that focused on the collection in matching front-end efforts. This 

pilot is now integrating this data into our back-end systems. It is 

not another layered-on process, and it is critical to getting the airlines’ and airports’ cooperation, as we can incorporate this into 

their existing business processes. 

The analysis of this test will provide the final set of specifications 

and requirements for the biometric exit procurement to be released 

in early 2017 to provide the best technologies that meet our mission needs for the biometric exit system. 

So as law enforcement professionals we see that biometric technology on departure has the potential to provide a critical layer of 

data verification and security to our existing biographic system. We 

will continue our close collaboration with the Department and ICE 

in the development and the implementation of the biometric exit 

9 

1The following categories of aliens currently are expressly exempt from biometric requirements by DHS regulations: Aliens admitted on an A–1, A–2, C–3 (except for attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G–1, G–2, G–3, G–4, NATO–1, NATO–2, 

NATO–3, NATO–4, NATO–5, or NATO–6 visa; Children under the age of 14; Persons over the 

age of 79; Taiwan officials admitted on an E–1 visa and members of their immediate families 

admitted on E–1 visas. 8 CFR 235.1(f)(1)(iv); and certain Canadian citizens seeking admission 

as B nonimmigrants per 8 CFR 235.1(f)(1)(ii). In addition, the Secretary of State and Secretary 

of Homeland Security may jointly exempt classes of aliens from US–VISIT. The Secretaries of 

State and Homeland Security, as well as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, also 

may exempt any individual from US–VISIT. 8 CFR 235.1(f)(1)(iv)(B). 

concepts. We will continue to work closely with our private industry partners, including the airlines and airports who are essential 

to the successful deployment and development of these solutions. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Wagner, Mr. Healy, Ms. 

Burriesci, and Mr. Burns follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WAGNER, CRAIG C. HEALY, KELLI ANN

BURRIESCI, AND ROBERT P. BURNS

JUNE 14, 2016 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the progress 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is making to incorporate biometrics 

into our comprehensive entry/exit system and to identify, report, and address 

overstays in support of our border security and immigration enforcement missions. 

As recently as 13 years ago, the process of matching entry and exit data was extremely difficult. DHS legacy agencies relied on a mostly paper-based system to 

track arrivals and departures to and from the United States. There was no biometric collection, beyond photographs, by the Department of State (DOS) for visa applicants, nor for individuals seeking admission to the United States. Until 2008, myriad documents were accepted at land borders as evidence of identity and citizenship 

for admission or entry, and passenger information was provided voluntarily by air 

carriers. There was very limited pre-departure screening of passengers seeking to 

fly to the United States. Overall, these factors provided for only a limited ability 

to detect violations of immigration law based on overstaying a lawful admission period. 

Over the last decade, with the support of Congress and our interagency and international partners, DHS—particularly through the combined efforts of the Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T), National Protection and Program Directorate’s 

Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM), Office of Policy (PLCY), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE)—has significantly enhanced its capability to record arrivals and departures 

from the United States, detect overstays, and interdict threats. DHS has dramatically reduced the number of documents that can be used for entry to the United 

States, which in turn strengthened DHS’s ability to quickly and accurately collect 

biographic information on all admissions to the United States and check that data 

against criminal and terrorist watch lists, and other Government sources, such as 

immigration databases. This advancement has been particularly significant at land 

borders through the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. 

In the air and sea environments, individuals undergo rigorous vetting before boarding an air or sea carrier for travel to the United States. Since 9/11, agencies have 

improved information sharing regarding known or suspected terrorists, including 

creation of the consolidated Terrorist Watch List through the Terrorist Screening 

Database. We have also worked closely with our foreign partners to deepen bilateral 

and international information sharing to enhance the depth and quality of our information holdings. 

Presently, we collect biometrics for most nonimmigrant foreign nationals 1 and 

check them against terrorist watch lists prior to the issuance of a visa or lawful 

entry to the United States. Furthermore, we have developed new capabilities and 

enhanced existing systems, such as the Automated Targeting System (ATS), to help 

10 

2 ESTA collects biographic data and screens passengers against various law enforcement and 

intelligence databases. ESTA has digitized the Form I–94 (Arrival/Departure Record) for authorized travelers from participating VWP countries. 

identify possible terrorists and others who seek to travel to the United States to do 

harm. 

Today, DHS manages an entry/exit system in the air and sea environments that 

incorporates both biometric and biographic components. Applying a risk-based approach, the Department is now able, on a daily basis, to identify and target for enforcement action those individuals who represent a public safety and/or National security threat among visitors who have overstayed the validity period of their admission. Moreover, with the recent support of Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, (Pub. L. No. 114–113), and as described in the Comprehensive Biometric Entry/Exit Plan provided to Congress in April 2016, DHS is continuing to 

move forward in further developing a biometric exit system that can be integrated 

in the current architecture to enhance this capability. 

In the past 4 years, substantial improvements to DHS travel and immigration 

data systems, coupled with targeted immigration enforcement efforts, have strengthened the security of our borders and enhanced our ability to identify, prioritize, and 

address foreign nationals who overstay their lawful period of admission. As a result 

of these improvements, DHS was able for the first time to publish the Entry/Exit 

Overstay Report, for fiscal year 2015, on January 19, 2016. We expect to expand this 

report in future years as data and analytic capabilities continue to improve. Enhanced data analysis and reporting capabilities, in conjunction with biographic overstay data from CBP, enables ICE to identify and initiate enforcement actions on 

overstay violators using a prioritization framework focused on individuals who may 

pose National security or public safety concerns. Both ICE and CBP are taking steps 

to further enhance visa overstay enforcement efforts. 

EXISTING DHS ENTRY AND EXIT DATA COLLECTION

A biographic-based entry/exit system is one that matches the personally identifying information on an individual’s passport or other travel document presented 

when he or she arrives to and departs from the United States. The biographic data 

contained in the traveler’s passport includes name, date of birth, document information, and country of citizenship. By comparison, a biometric entry/exit system 

matches a biometric attribute unique to an individual (i.e., fingerprints, a facial 

image, or iris image). 

How DHS Collects Arrival Information 

For instances in which an individual requires a visa to enter the United States, 

biometric and biographic information is captured at the time his or her visa application is filed with DOS, along with supporting information developed during an interview with a consular officer. For certain visa categories, the individual will have already provided biographic information via a petition filed with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) as well. For individuals seeking to travel to the 

United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), biographic information is captured from an intending traveler when they apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).2 If the individual is authorized for travel with an ESTA 

following the required security checks, an individual is able to travel to the United 

States under the VWP. Biometric information will be captured at the U.S. port of 

entry (POE), where the traveler will also be interviewed by a CBP Officer. 

In the air and sea environment, DHS receives passenger manifests submitted by 

commercial and private aircraft operators and commercial sea carriers, which include every individual who actually boarded the plane or ship bound for the United 

States. This information is collected in DHS’s Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) and all non-U.S. citizen data is then sent to the Arrival and Departure 

Information System (ADIS), where it is stored for matching against departure 

records. 

As part of CBP’s pre-departure strategy, and throughout the international travel 

cycle, CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC) continuously vets and analyzes passenger information, including visas and VWP ESTA authorizations. In addition to 

vetting achieved through DOS’s visa application and adjudication processes, the 

NTC conducts continuous vetting of nonimmigrant U.S. visas and ESTA authorizations that have been issued, revoked, and/or denied. This continuous vetting ensures 

new information that impacts a traveler’s admissibility is identified in near-realtime, allowing CBP to immediately determine whether to provide a ‘‘no board’’ recommendation to a carrier, recommend that DOS revoke the visa, revoke the ESTA 

authorization, or, for persons already within the United States, notify law enforceVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:17 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\114THCONGRESS\16BM0614\HM166110.TXT HEATH
11 

3See Footnote 1. 

4DHS uses this information for a variety of immigration and law enforcement reasons, including to determine which travelers have potentially stayed past their authorized period of admission (i.e., overstayed) in the United States. 5 United States-Canada Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, Action Plan, Dec. 2011. Accessible at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/us-canadalbtblactionlplan3.pdf. 6 ‘‘Pulse and Surge’’ operations are strategies whereby CBP Officers and agents monitor outbound traffic on the U.S.-Mexico border. 

ment agencies or other appropriate entities. CBP devotes its resources to identifying 

the highest threats, including those travelers who may not have been previously 

identified by law enforcement or the intelligence community due to the newness of 

the derogatory information. 

When a nonimmigrant arrives at a U.S. POE and applies for admission to the 

United States, a CBP Officer interviews the traveler regarding the purpose and intent of travel, reviews his or her documentation, and runs law enforcement checks. 

If applicable,3 CBP collects and matches biometrics against previously collected data 

and stores this data within OBIM’s Automated Biometric Information System 

(IDENT). If admission is granted, the CBP Officer will stamp the traveler’s passport 

with a date indicating the traveler’s authorized period of admission. Based on electronic information already in DHS’s systems, CBP electronically generates a Form 

I–94, Arrival/Departure Record that the traveler can print remotely to provide evidence of legal entry or status in the United States. The form also indicates how long 

the individual is authorized to stay in the United States. 

How DHS Collects Departure Information 

The United States has a fully functioning biographic exit system in the air and 

sea environments. Similar to the entry process, DHS also collects APIS passenger 

manifests submitted by commercial and private aircraft operators and commercial 

sea carriers departing the United States. Carriers and operators are required to report biographic and travel document information to DHS for those individuals who 

are physically present on the aircraft or sea vessel at the time of departure from 

the United States and not simply for those who have made a reservation or are 

scheduled to be on board. Since 2005, collection of this information has been mandatory, and compliance by carriers is near 100 percent. DHS monitors APIS transmissions to ensure compliance and, if needed, issues fines for noncompliance on a 

monthly basis. CBP transfers this data (excluding data for U.S. citizens) to ADIS, 

which matches arrival and departure records to and from the United States.4

At the Northern land border, as part of the Beyond the Border Action Plan,5 the 

United States and Canada are implementing a biographic exchange of traveler 

records that constitutes a partial land border exit system on our shared border. 

Today, traveler records for all lawful permanent residents and non-citizens of the 

United States and Canada who enter either country through land POEs on the 

Northern Border are exchanged in such a manner that land entries into one country 

serve as exit records from the other. The current match rate of Canadian records 

for travelers leaving the United States for Canada against U.S. entry records for 

nonimmigrants is over 98 percent. In April 2016, Canada reaffirmed its commitment 

to the United States to complete the program to include all travelers who cross the 

Northern Border. Canada will need to complete passage of additional legislation to 

facilitate this, which is expected to happen in late 2016. 

Although the Southwest land border does not currently have the same capabilities 

and infrastructure as the Northern Border, DHS obtains exit data along the Southwest Border through ‘‘pulse and surge’’ operations,6 which provide some outbound 

departure information on some travelers departing the United States and entering 

Mexico. The Department is seeking to work with Mexico to develop the best methods of obtaining data from travelers departing the United States through the Southwest land border. 

ADDRESSING OVERSTAYS

This integrated approach to collecting entry and exit data supports the Nation’s 

ability to identify and address overstays. CBP identifies two types of overstays— 

those individuals who appear to have remained in the United States beyond their 

period of admission (Suspected In-Country Overstay), and those individuals whose 

departure was recorded after their lawful admission period expired (Out-of-Country 

Overstay). The overstay identification process is conducted by consolidating arrival, 

departure, and immigration status adjustment information to generate a complete 

picture of individuals traveling to the United States. This process extends beyond 

12 

7LeadTrac is an ICE system designed to receive overstay leads to compare against other DHS 

systems and Classified datasets to uncover potential National security or public safety concerns 

for referral to ICE field offices for investigation. The system employs a case management tracking mechanism to assist with analysis, quality control reviews, lead status, and field tracking. 8 Hot lists are lists of individuals that are prioritized based on their level of risk. 

9OBIM supports DHS components by providing storage and matching services using its 

IDENT system and returning any linked information when a match is made already encountered by DHS to identify known or suspected terrorists, National security threats, criminals, and 

those who have previously violated U.S. immigration laws. 

our physical borders to include a number of steps that may occur well before a visitor enters the United States through a land, air, or sea POE and up to the point 

at which that same visitor departs the United States. 

CBP’s ADIS identifies and transmits potential overstays to CBP’s Automated Targeting System (ATS) on a daily basis, which screens them against derogatory information, prioritizes them, and sends them to ICE’s lead management system, 

LeadTrac,7 which retains them for review and vetting by analysts. 

Through specific intelligence and the use of sophisticated data systems, ICE identifies and tracks available information on millions of international students, tourists, and other nonimmigrant visa holders who are present in the United States at 

any given time. Visa overstays and other forms of nonimmigrant status violations 

bring together two critical areas of ICE’s mission-National security and immigration 

enforcement. 

Enhancing Capabilities 

In the past 4 years, DHS has made substantial improvements to enhance our ability to identify, prioritize, and address confirmed overstays. DHS system enhancements that have strengthened our immigration enforcement efforts include: • Improved ADIS and ATS–Passenger (ATS–P) data flow and processing quality 

and efficiency, increasing protection of privacy through secure electronic data 

transfer. • Extended leverage of existing ATS–P matching algorithms, improving the accuracy of the overstay list. Additional ADIS matching improvements are underway to further improve match confidence. • Developed an operational dashboard for ICE agents that automatically updates 

and prioritizes overstay ‘‘Hot Lists,’’8 increasing the efficiency of data flow between OBIM 9 and ICE. • Implemented an ADIS-to-IDENT interface reducing the number of records on 

the overstay list by providing additional and better quality data to ADIS, closing information gaps between the 2 systems. • Improved ability of ADIS to match U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

(USCIS) Computer-Linked Adjudication Information Management System 

(CLAIMS 3) data for aliens who have extended or changed their status lawfully, 

and therefore have not overstayed even though their initial period of authorized 

admission has expired. • Created a Unified Overstay Case Management process establishing a data exchange interface between ADIS, ATS–P, and ICE’s LeadTrac system, creating 

one analyst platform for DHS. 

• Enhanced ADIS and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Alien Flight 

Student Program (AFSP) data exchange to increase identification, efficiency, 

and prioritization of TSA AFSP overstays within the ADIS overstay population. 

• Enhanced Overstay Hot List, consolidating immigration data from multiple systems to enable ICE employees to more quickly and easily identify current and 

relevant information related to the overstay subject. 

• Established User-Defined Rules enabling ICE agents to create new or update 

existing rule sets within ATS–P as threats evolve, so that overstays are 

prioritized for review and action based on the most up-to-date threat criteria. 

These measures and system enhancements have proven to be valuable in identifying and addressing overstays. The DHS steps described above have strengthened 

data requirements through computer enhancements, identified National security 

overstays through increased collaboration with the intelligence community, and 

automated manual efforts through additional data exchange interfaces. DHS is continuing this progress in fiscal year 2016. 

Reporting Overstay Data 

On January 19, 2016, DHS released the first Entry/Exit Overstay Report. This report represents a culmination of the aforementioned efforts to enhance data collection and address issues precluding production of the report in prior years. The 

Entry/Exit Overstay Report for Fiscal Year 2015 provides data on departures and 

13 

overstays, by country, for foreign visitors to the United States who were lawfully 

admitted for business (i.e., B–1 and WB classifications) or pleasure (i.e., B2 and WT 

classifications) through air or sea POEs, and who were expected to depart in fiscal 

year 2015—a population which represents the vast majority of annual nonimmigrant admissions. In fiscal year 2015, of these nearly 45 million nonimmigrant 

visitors, DHS calculated a total overstay rate of 1.17 percent, or 527,127 individuals. 

In other words, 98.83 percent of visitors had left the United States on time and 

abided by the terms of their admission. 

The report breaks the overstay rates down further to provide a better picture of 

those overstays, for whom there is no evidence of a departure or transition to another immigration status. At the end of fiscal year 2015, there were 482,781 Suspected In-Country Overstays, resulting in a Suspected In-Country Overstay rate of 

1.07 percent. 

Due to continuing departures by individuals in this population, by January 4, 

2016, and described in the report, the number of Suspected In-Country Overstays 

for fiscal year 2015 had dropped to 416,500, reducing the Suspected In-Country 

Overstay rate to 0.9 percent. In other words, as of January 4, 2016, DHS had been 

able to confirm the departures of more than 99 percent of nonimmigrant visitors 

scheduled to depart in fiscal year 2015 via air and sea POEs, and that number continues to grow. Indeed, as of June 6, 2016, the number of Suspected In-Country 

Overstays for fiscal year 2015 has further dropped to 355,338, further reducing the 

Suspected In-Country Overstay rate to 0.79 percent. 

For Canada and Mexico, the fiscal year 2015 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate 

as of the end of the fiscal year was 1.18 percent of the 7,875,054 expected departures and 1.45 percent of the 2,896,130 expected departures respectively. Consistent 

with the methodology for other countries, this represents only travel through air 

and sea ports of entry and does not include data on land border crossings. 

This report also separates VWP country overstay numbers from non-VWP country 

numbers. For VWP countries, the fiscal year 2015 Suspected In-Country Overstay 

rate as of the end of the fiscal year was 0.65 percent of the 20,974,390 expected departures. For non-VWP countries, the fiscal year 2015 Suspected In-Country Overstay rate at the end of the fiscal year was 1.60 percent of the 13,182,807 expected 

departures. DHS is in the process of evaluating whether and to what extent the 

data presented in this report will be used to make decisions on the VWP country 

designations. 

As noted above, these fiscal year 2015 In-Country Overstay rates continue to decline due to continuing departures by individuals in these populations. 

In partnership with other DHS components, CBP is continuing to improve ADIS 

so that additional overstay information can be included in future reports, including 

additional visa categories such as the foreign student and exchange visitor population (F, M, and J nonimmigrant admission classes) and other nonimmigrant admission classes (such as H, O, P, Q nonimmigrant admission classes), and certain 

land-related overstay populations as determined by our data exchange with Canada. 

Overstay Enforcement in the United States 

ICE actively identifies and initiates enforcement action on overstay violators 

using a prioritization framework focused on individuals who may pose National security or public safety concerns, and consistent with the Department of Homeland 

Security’s November 2014 Civil Enforcement Priorities. ICE’s overstay mission is accomplished in close coordination with CBP, and both agencies are taking steps to 

further enhance the visa overstay enforcement efforts described below. 

ICE’s primary objective is to vet system-generated leads in order to identify true 

overstay violators, match any criminal conviction history or other priority basis, and 

take appropriate enforcement actions. Within ICE, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has dedicated special agents, analysts, and systems in place to address 

nonimmigrant overstays. Through investigative efforts, HSI is responsible for analyzing and determining which overstay leads may be suitable for further National 

security and public safety investigations. 

ICE analyzes system-generated leads initially created by, or matched against the 

data feed for biographic entry and exit records stored in CBP’s ADIS. ADIS supports 

the Department’s ability to identify nonimmigrants who have remained in the 

United States beyond their authorized periods of admission or have violated the 

terms and conditions of their visas. Once the leads are received, ICE conducts both 

batch and manual vetting against Government databases, social media, and public 

indices. This vetting helps determine if an individual who overstayed has departed 

the United States, changed status or extended a period of stay in the same status, 

or would be appropriate for an enforcement action. 

14 

As part of a tiered review, HSI prioritizes nonimmigrant overstay cases through 

risk-based analysis. HSI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit 

(CTCEU) oversees the National program dedicated to the investigation of nonimmigrant visa violators who may pose a National security risk. Each year, the 

CTCEU analyzes records of hundreds of thousands of potential status violators after 

preliminary analysis of data from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System (SEVIS) and ADIS, along with other information. After this analysis, 

CTCEU establishes compliance or departure dates from the United States and/or determines potential violations that warrant field investigations. 

The CTCEU proactively develops cases for investigation in furtherance of the 

overstay mission and monitors the latest threat reports and proactively addresses 

emergent issues. This practice, which is designed to detect and identify individuals 

exhibiting specific risk factors based on intelligence reporting, travel patterns, and 

in-depth criminal research and analysis, has contributed to DHS’s counterterrorism 

mission by initiating and supporting high-priority National security initiatives 

based on specific intelligence. 

In order to ensure that those who may pose the greatest threats to National security are given top priority, ICE uses intelligence-based criteria developed in close 

consultation with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. ICE chairs the 

Compliance Enforcement Advisory Panel (CEAP), comprising subject-matter experts 

from other law enforcement agencies and members of the intelligence community 

who assist the CTCEU in maintaining targeting methods in line with the most current threat information. The CEAP is convened on a quarterly basis to discuss recent intelligence developments and update the CTCEU’s targeting framework in 

order to ensure that the nonimmigrant overstays and status violators who pose the 

greatest threats to National security are targeted. 

Another source for overstay and status violation referrals is CTCEU’s Visa Waiver 

Enforcement Program (VWEP). Visa-free travel to the United States, especially 

through the VWP, builds upon our close bilateral relationships and fosters commercial and individual ties among tourist and business travelers in the United States 

and abroad. VWP participants, the primary source of nonimmigrant visitors from 

countries other than Canada and Mexico, currently allows eligible nationals of 38 

countries to travel to the United States without a visa and, if admitted, to remain 

in the country for a maximum period of 90 days for tourism or business purposes. 

Prior to the implementation of the VWEP in 2008, there was no National program 

dedicated to addressing overstays within this population. Today, CTCEU regularly 

scrutinizes a refined list of individuals who have been identified as potential 

overstays who entered the United States under the VWP. A primary goal of this 

program is to identify those subjects who attempt to circumvent the U.S. immigration system by seeking to exploit VWP travel. 

Enforcement Prioritization 

Every year, the CTCEU receives approximately 1 million leads on nonimmigrants 

that have potentially violated the terms of their admission, such as overstays and 

out-of-status non-immigrant students or exchange visitors. Over half of these leads 

are closed due to the vetting conducted by CTCEU analysts, which eliminates false 

matches and accounts for departures and pending immigration benefits. As noted 

above, to better manage investigative resources, the CTCEU relies on a 

prioritization framework established in consultation with interagency partners within the National intelligence and Federal law enforcement communities through 

CEAP. The CTCEU has also aligned its policy on sending leads to the field with 

the DHS’s civil enforcement priorities, which focus enforcement and removal policies 

on individuals convicted of significant criminal offenses or who otherwise pose a 

threat to public safety, border security, or National security. 

The CTCEU’s prioritization framework is divided into 10 CTCEU priority levels 

to identify possible immigration violators who pose the greatest risks to our National security. The CTCEU Priority Level 1 is based on special projects and initiatives to address National security concerns, public safety, and apply certain targeting rules. These projects and initiatives include: The Recurrent Student Vetting 

Program; DHS’s Overstay Projects; Absent Without Leave (AWOL) Program; 

INTERPOL Leads; and individuals who have been watchlisted. 

In fiscal year 2015, CTCEU reviewed 971,305 compliance leads. Numerous leads 

that were referred to CTCEU were closed through an automated vetting process. 

The most common reasons for closure were subsequent departure from the United 

States or pending immigration benefits. A total of 9,968 leads were sent to HSI field 

offices for investigation—an average of 40 leads per working day. From the 9,968 

leads sent to the field, 3,083 have been determined to be viable and are currently 

under investigation, 4,148 were closed as being in compliance (pending immigration 

15 

benefit, granted asylum, approved adjustment of status application, or have departed the United States) and the remaining leads were returned to CTCEU for continuous monitoring and further investigation as appropriate. HSI Special Agents 

made 1,910 arrests, and secured 86 indictments and 80 convictions in fiscal year 

2015 from overstay leads. 

ICE is taking steps to further enhance enforcement efforts with respect to nonimmigrant visa overstays and violators, in conjunction with CBP. 

ENHANCING THE DEPARTMENT’S COMPREHENSIVE ENTRY/EXIT SYSTEM

Since fiscal year 2013, CBP has led the entry/exit mission, including research and 

development of biometric exit programs. A comprehensive entry/exit system that 

leverages both biographic and biometric data is key to supporting DHS’s mission. 

As previously described. Biographic information is, and will continue to be, the foundation of our comprehensive entry/exit system, because it constitutes the vast majority of our intelligence, law enforcement, and background information that informs 

CBP decisions regarding the admission of individuals into our country. CBP will 

continue to further these biographic capabilities, while also redoubling efforts to incorporate biometrics into the exit aspect of our system and to develop and deploy 

a biometric entry/exit system, as mandated by statute. CBP’s plan for expanding implementation of a biometric entry/exit system, based on technological and operational lessons derived from past, on-going, and planned pilots, and utilizing currently authorized funding, is described in the Comprehensive Biometric Entry/Exit 

Plan provided to Congress in April 2016. This plan includes Secretary Johnson’s direction to begin implementing biometric exit solutions, starting at the highest volume airports, in 2018. 

DHS continues to strengthen systems and processes in order to improve the accuracy of data provided to ADIS. These improvements will enable ADIS to more accurately match entry and exit records to determine overstay status, and whether that 

individual presents a National security or public safety concern. Data that is entered into ADIS comes from a variety of sources in the Department including 

USCIS, CBP, and ICE. Additionally, DHS has identified mechanisms to ensure ICE 

investigators receive priority high-risk overstay cases for resolution in a timely fashion and to ensure other ADIS stakeholders (such as CBP, USCIS, and DOS) receive 

the best possible information with which to make immigration decisions. Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. No. 

114–4) provided $9 million for a new reporting environment for ADIS, enhancing 

DHS’s ability to record and analyze the entry/exit data. 

Incorporating Biometrics into the Exit System 

In pursuing a biometric exit system, DHS is cognizant of limitations posed by existing infrastructure. The United States did not build its land border, aviation, and 

immigration infrastructure with exit processing in mind. In the land environment, 

there are often geographical features that prevent expansion of exit lanes to accommodate adding lanes or CBP-manned booths. Furthermore, U.S. airports do not 

have designated and secure exit areas for out-going passengers to wait prior to departure, nor do they have specific checkpoints for these passengers to go through 

where their departure is recorded by an immigration officer. Instead, foreign nationals depart the United States without Government exit immigration inspection and 

intermingle with domestic travelers. This challenge is further compounded at many 

airports where international and domestic flights share gate space for operations. 

Ultimately, CBP must develop a solution for this environment that ensures a passenger ticketed for a particular flight actually departed the United States in order 

for a biometric exit program to be credible and effective. Additionally, this solution 

must address airline carriers’ and airports’ concerns that a biometric exit process 

not create an environment in which an airport cannot afford to support an international flight because that space is so highly restricted. 

Currently, Federal law requires airports serving flights with arriving foreign nationals to provide space, at no cost, to DHS for processing of travelers entering the 

United States; however, there is no corresponding provision that requires airports 

to provide space for processing of departing foreign nationals. 

In meeting these challenges, CBP has concluded that a viable biometric exit solution depends on leveraging emerging technologies to innovate ways of processing 

passengers biometrically. In reaching this conclusion, CBP considered and rejected 

broad non-cost effective options involving recapitalizing the infrastructure at land 

borders and airports, or the hiring of additional officers to manually verify all departing travelers. Recapitalization of all U.S. international airports and land borders would allow CBP to establish sterile physical areas, which, once entered, a foreign national cannot leave without inspection by an immigration officer. This recapiVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:17 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\114THCONGRESS\16BM0614\HM166110.TXT HEATH
16 

talization would require significant limitations in the number of gates that airlines 

could use for international departures, and result in overall direct and indirect costs 

of billions of dollars. CBP does not consider this option viable. 

Alternatively, CBP could pursue a solution within the constraints of existing infrastructure through the hiring of thousands of new officers that would be necessary 

to biometrically verify departing passengers. There are currently thousands of international departure gates at the top 30 airports in the United States, which handle 

over 97 percent of the departing international passengers. Based on current and 

previous pilot programs, CBP estimates that it would need 7–9 officers to collect biometrics on departing foreign visitors for a large aircraft, which accounts for many 

international departing flights. CBP estimates that in order to inspect 95 percent 

of all ‘‘in-scope’’ travelers departing by air, a manual solution at the top 30 airports 

would require approximately 3,400 more officers at an average annual cost of $790 

million, independent of any other costs, including considerable infrastructure costs, 

and cause significant delays. 

For the land environment, such an approach to biometric exit would require building and staffing of hundreds of outbound lanes at land ports of entry, many of them 

operational 24 hours a day. It is estimated that the land solution would require CBP 

to dramatically increase the current Office of Field Operations workforce and budget, and those costs would recur annually. 

Instead, DHS believes the most efficient and cost-effective solution to a viable biometric exit program is to leverage emerging technology, in addition to process transformation. CBP is collaborating with S&T and is also partnering with private industry to develop the tools needed. CBP has already deployed several pilot programs 

in order to operationally test different technologies and operational processes, provide input to the cost-benefit analysis of a comprehensive biometric exit solution, 

and to inform decisions regarding the next steps in deploying a biometric exit program. These include: • 1-to-1 Facial Comparison Project.—From March to June 2015, CBP conducted 

a 1-to-1 Facial Comparison project. This biometric experiment at Washington 

Dulles Airport (Dulles) used facial comparison on some returning U.S. citizens 

to confirm the identity and determine the viability of using facial recognition 

technology during entry inspections. Facial images of arriving travelers were 

compared to images stored in the U.S. ePassport chips. This project tested the 

viability of the technology in matching a traveler to their travel document and 

assessed the extent to which it may further strengthen our entry screening 

abilities. The success of this program led to deploying the project at JFK airport 

in New York in January and back to Dulles in February 2016. Lessons learned 

from this deployment are informing the use of facial biometric matching during 

departure. • Biometric Exit Mobile Air Test (BE–Mobile).—Since July 2015, CBP has been 

experimenting with the collection of biometric exit data using mobile fingerprint 

collection devices on a random group of in-scope non-U.S. citizen travelers on 

selected flights departing from 10 U.S. international airports. BE–Mobile confirms traveler departures with certainty and identifies threats in real time 

using biometric technology. This test has provided a small amount of biometric 

departure data, supported on-going auditing of biographic data provided 

through airline manifests, and provided a significant law enforcement benefit 

for existing outbound operations. The technology is currently being used in the 

Top 10 airports: Chicago/O’Hare, Atlanta/Hartsfield, New York/JFK, Newark, 

Los Angeles/LAX, San Francisco, Miami, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Washington/Dulles, 

and Houston/George Bush. While evaluating the data collected, CBP will continue to operate BE–Mobile at these airports and expand BE–Mobile to a number of small airports to see if BE–Mobile can fully support the biometric exit 

requirements of small ports. 

• Pedestrian Field Test.—From early December 2015 through early May 2016, 

CBP deployed a Pedestrian Field Test at the Otay Mesa POE in California, 

which involved the collection of biographic and biometric data from pedestrian 

travelers departing the United States. Biographic data was collected on all outbound travelers, including U.S. citizens, and biometric data (face and iris image 

capture) was collected on all inbound and outbound non-exempt, non-U.S. citizens. The field test explored the viability of this technology in an outdoor land 

environment. While the evaluation of this test is on-going, this initiative enhanced CBP’s ability to identify departures and successfully match biometric 

entry and exit records at the land border for the first time. 

• Departure Information System Test.—Starting June 13, 2016, CBP has begun 

to implement a test of how the integration of data sources and re-architecture 

of information systems can process new departure data at Hartsfield-Jackson 

17 

Atlanta International Airport. CBP is testing the ability of its information systems to compare images of travelers departing the United States in real time 

against images previously provided to determine if they are in scope for biometric collection in an automated fashion. This effort builds upon previous CBP biometric efforts at Dulles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport and will advance the innovation and transformation of the 

entry and exit process. This test has been designed to conform with airlines’ existing standard operating procedures such that the incorporation of biometrics 

is agnostic to current boarding processes and will have minimal impact on airlines, airports, and the traveling public. 

The results from these pilots will inform the future biometric exit solution by 

identifying how best to leverage our existing biographic capabilities, determining the 

overall accuracy of the biographic exit data that CBP receives today, and testing 

new business processes and emerging technologies. The Department and CBP will 

continue to apprise Congress of the results of these projects and their implication 

for the deployment of the biometric entry/exit system. 

Fee Collections for Exit Activities 

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. No. 114–113), Congress 

provided CBP with a fee-funded account for biometric entry/exit activities, which 

may collect up to $1 billion by fiscal year 2025. 

CBP’s plan for expanding implementation of a biometric entry/exit system, based 

on technological and operational lessons derived from past, on-going, and planned 

pilots, and utilizing these authorized funds, in described in the Comprehensive Biometric Entry/Exit Plan submitted to Congress in April. CBP is further developing 

its expenditure plan for these funds, which could cover the initial biometric air exit 

engineering efforts, biometric scanning technology, data system integration, infrastructure upgrades, and CBP officer support that would be necessary to deploy to 

the top gateway airports. CBP is also preparing an acquisition plan which will address how and when CBP will partner with private industry in order to achieve our 

goal of development of a biometric exit system. Of note, while the funds provided 

through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 will enable CBP to take the next 

major step in development of a biometric entry/exit system at the highest volume 

airports, full Nation-wide deployment of a comprehensive entry-exit system at system at all ports of entry will require additional resources not available from the authorized surcharges. 

CONCLUSION

While implementation of a robust and efficient biometric exit solution will take 

time, and significant challenges remain, DHS is aggressively evaluating emerging 

biometric technologies in existing operational environments and redoubling efforts 

to incorporate biometric exit capabilities into our comprehensive entry/exit system. 

We are working closely with our domestic and international stakeholders to find solutions that protect the integrity of our visa system, minimize disruptions to travel, 

prove to be cost-effective, and provide sufficient flexibility to address both current 

and future requirements. Through these and related efforts, we will continue to 

build on the progress we have made in our ability to identify, report, and take appropriate action against those who overstay or violate the terms of their admission 

to the United States. 

Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on this important 

issue. We look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Healy. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG C. HEALY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

NATIONAL SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HEALY. Good morning Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’s role in overstay enforcement and how we 

would benefit from the implementation of a biometric exit system. 

18 

For nearly 30 years I have spent my career in Federal law enforcement, and I recognize that visa overstay enforcement is an important issue for this subcommittee. I would to briefly outline my 

agency’s involvement as a recipient of information collected by my 

DHS colleagues represented here today and how we use that information. 

ICE Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI, through our 

Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit, is dedicated to 

identifying and initiating enforcement action on priority overstay 

violators. Our overstay mission is accomplished in close coordination with CBP, and our primary objective is to vet the system-generated leads we receive in order to identify true overstay violators 

for appropriate enforcement action. 

ICE uses dedicated special agents, analysts, and systems to specifically address nonimmigrant overstays who may pose a National 

security and public safety concern. In fiscal year 2015 our agents 

and analysts devoted approximately 650,000 investigative hours on 

overstay enforcement. In fiscal year 2015 the Counterterrorism and 

Criminal Exploitation Unit received approximately 971,000 systemgenerated potential overstay leads received from entry-exit international student databases and other Government systems. 

The system-generated leads are created using biographical and 

travel data stored in CBP’s arrival and departure information system. This system allows DHS to identify nonimmigrants who have 

remained in the United States beyond their authorized periods of 

admission or have violated their visas. 

Once the leads are received, ICE conducts both automated and 

manual searches against additional Government databases, social 

media, public records to determine if a potential overstay has departed the United States, has adjusted to a lawful status, or requires further review, in which case a lead will be sent out to a 

field office. 

Additionally, ICE prioritizes nonimmigrant overstay leads 

through risk-based analysis. A targeting framework consisting of 

10 tiers was developed in close consultation with the intelligence 

and law enforcement communities to ensure that our National security and public safety concerns are prioritized. 

To accomplish this, we meet regularly with interagency partners 

to ensure that our targeting methodologies are aligned with current 

and existing U.S. Government threat information, trends, and priorities. 

To better manage investigative resources, the Counterterrorism 

and Criminal Exploitation Unit not only relies on the previouslydiscussed prioritization framework, but also incorporates focused 

enforcement and removal operations on individuals who are threats 

to National security, border security, public safety, or who are convicted of significant criminal offenses. 

Of the leads analyzed in fiscal year 2015, approximately 1 percent, or roughly 10,000 leads, were determined to potentially pose 

a National security or public safety concern. Fortunately, with further investigation ICE was able to determine that even many of 

these leads were not, in fact, high-risk. However, all of these leads 

were sent to HSI field offices for further-up investigation. 

19 

Of the 10,000 field referrals or 10,000 investigations that were 

sent out to the field, our offices have approximately 3,000 of those 

investigations that are still on-going, and roughly 4,000 of those investigations have been closed, because even after our initial vetting 

it was determined that those individuals were, in fact, in compliance. 

The remaining leads are in continuous monitoring for further investigation. More importantly, as a result of those 10,000 investigations we made over 1,900 arrests, of which 139 were criminal arrests, and secured 86 indictments and 80 convictions. 

In conclusion, ICE will continue to work alongside our partners 

within DHS in pursuing visa overstays who violate the terms of 

their admission. The implementation of the biometric exit system 

will facilitate enhanced information sharing while improving the 

quality of the data, thereby improving our efficiency and effectiveness in identifying and removing visa overstay violators. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look 

forward to taking your questions. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Healy. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Ms. Burriesci for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KELLI ANN BURRIESCI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, SCREENING COORDINATION OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. BURRIESCI. Before I begin I would also like to express my 

sincere condolences for the people of Orlando who lost a family 

member or a friend this past weekend, and I appreciate the moment of silence earlier. 

Thank you, Chairman—Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member 

Vela, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss DHS’s progress to support border security and immigration enforcement missions. 

I am the deputy assistant secretary of the Screening Coordination Office, part of the DHS Office of Policy. The Screening Coordination Office is charged with developing cross-departmental policy 

for the screening and vetting of people and with advising the assistant security of policy. 

The Screening Coordination Office also collaborates with its 

interagency partners to inform and develop screening policies that 

involve multiple departments. This whole-of-Government approach 

to screening involves decisions about how we share information and 

interact with one another across the Government. 

I am here with my DHS colleagues today to discuss overstays 

and biometric exit. 

On January 19, 2016, DHS released the entry-exit overstay report for fiscal year 2015, the first such report in a generation. This 

report provides information on the number of individuals in this 

country who have overstayed their period of admission and is presented by country. The report covers 87 percent of all nonimmigrant travelers coming to United States by air and sea. It reflects that 99 percent of these travelers, these nonimmigrant travelers, depart within their period of admission. 

At the time the report was issued, 416,000 of these individuals 

were suspected of remaining in the United States as an overstay. 

20 

Since the report was issued, the number has dropped to below 

355,000 individuals. 

While the report represents a tremendous step forward, DHS recognizes that it does not answer all of the questions. As you have 

heard DHS officials brief in the past, DHS has identified quality 

errors in historic data that, while now fixed, prevents us from 

being able to retroactively produce reports for prior fiscal years. 

That said, and for transparency, DHS provided fiscal year 2014 

numbers in the appendix of the fiscal year 2015 report. As the report states, the ability to accurately and reliably estimate overstay 

rates is dependent upon the completeness and accuracy of arrival 

and departure records. 

During the generation of the fiscal year 2014 overstay data, DHS 

identified significant discrepancies regarding the data received 

from certain air carriers, which resulted in artificially elevated 

overstay rates. These data quality issues have since been resolved 

for business and tourism travelers, and the fiscal year 2015 overstay report tables are an accurate depiction of country-by-country 

overstay numbers for these categories. 

Over the past 2 years DHS has made significant progress in 

terms of its ability to accurately report data on overstays, and we 

will continue to make progress. DHS anticipates that we will 

broaden the scope of data for future reports, with a particular emphasis on student visa categories. 

Relatedly, DHS recently submitted the comprehensive biometric 

entry-exit plan to Congress April 20, 2016. Over the last decade, 

with the support of Congress, DHS, through the combined efforts 

of DHS S&T, CBP, ICE, and NPPD’s Office of Biometric Identity 

Management, has enhanced its capability to record arrivals and departures within the United States. 

CBP is the DHS-designated executive agent for operationalizing 

a comprehensive entry-exit system with biometrics, building off of 

our current biographic system that exists today. 

Secretary Johnson directed CBP to redouble its efforts to achieve 

a biometric entry-exit system and to begin implementing biometric 

exit starting at the highest-volume airports in 2018. While it will 

take time, effort, and innovation, DHS believes it has put forward 

a responsible and thoughtful approach to achieve a sustainable solution. 

This solution recognizes that one technology may not be suitable 

for each air, land, and sea environment and that one process may 

not be appropriate for all environments. Our overarching goal is a 

fully integrated, scalable, and sustainable entry-exit enterprise 

that includes biometrics. 

With the on-going support of Congress, most recently demonstrated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, DHS will 

continue to advance a biometric exit system that can be integrated 

into the current traveler screening architecture. We thank you for 

the support and we will continue to provide updates on our 

progress to Congress well past this hearing. Thank you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Ms. Burriesci. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Burns for 5 minutes. 

21 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BURNS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BURNS. Good morning, Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and distinguished Members of the committee. Thank you 

for this opportunity to testify along with my colleagues today from 

the Office of Policy, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with whom we work closely. 

The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate, or S&T, 

is to deliver effective, innovative insight, methods, and solutions for 

the critical needs of the homeland security enterprise. We work 

closely with our operating components, such as ICE, CBP, and our 

oversight offices, including the Office of Policy, to address the gaps 

in operational capabilities and invest in efforts that will result in 

knowledge or products aimed at closing these gaps. 

In 2012 CBP asked for our assistance in their efforts to enhance 

air entry and air exit operations. In response, S&T created the 

Apex AEER Entry-Exit Re-Engineering Project, known as AEER, 

or AEER, which is composed of several vital parts: Technology forging and testing, operations and technology cost analysis, and stakeholder engagement. 

Apex projects are key S&T activities carried out in close collaboration with operational components to achieve increased or improved capabilities. 

With respect to air entry and exit, our goal has been to help CBP 

evaluate technologies and concepts of operations to biometrically 

verify the arrival and departure of foreign nationals from U.S. airports. 

To determine candidate technologies, AEER conducted a comprehensive market survey of commercially-available, standardsbased fingerprint, iris, and facial recognition technologies. We work 

closely with biometric experts from the National Institutes for 

Standards and Technology to solicit their assistance and develop 

robust testing protocols and objectively analyze results. 

Additionally, we leveraged headquarters, interagency, and international expertise from the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management, the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of State, and foreign government partners. 

We identified over 100 devices and 15 matching algorithms from 

a wide range of vendors for testing in our Maryland test facility, 

which many Congressional staff members have visited over the 

past 2 years. We first evaluated these device performance on factors including accuracy, cost, speed, and operational footprint. 

Those that performed well were selected for scenario-based testing of their human interface and suitability in various concept of 

operations. Since June 2014, AEER has utilized a diverse group of 

over 1,700 volunteers from 50 countries of origin for our testing 

and we have simulated actual environmental conditions in which 

the technology would operate. 

To inform concepts of operation and scenario-based testing and 

to collect data in support of subsequent CBP cost analysis, we sent 

teams into the field to observe and analyze current airport operVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:17 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\114THCONGRESS\16BM0614\HM166110.TXT HEATH
22 

ations. This entailed close cooperation with CBP headquarters and 

field staff, as well as airport and airline stakeholders. AEER facilitated working sessions with front-line CBP Officers to solicit their 

operational insights and inform their project’s technical roadmap. 

Externally, we engaged industry groups, including Airlines for 

America, Airports Council International North America, the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, and the Association of 

American Airport Executives, to gain an understanding of the direct and indirect economic impacts of various biometric exit concepts of operation in the airport environment. 

We proactively and regularly invited airline, airport, and biometric industry groups to the Maryland test facility and hosted 

webinars to keep stakeholders updated and to solicit their feedback. We even co-chaired IATA biometrics working groups with 

Lufthansa. 

Through the Apex AEER Project, we have gained a robust understanding of the state-of-the-art of biometric technologies and how 

these technologies interact with passengers and might fit into various concepts of operation. With simulated testing of the biometric 

exit technology complete, CBP has taken responsibility for the airport-based pilots of biometric air exit. Apex AEER’s products will 

inform CBP’s path forward to a Nation-wide deployment for the biometric exit program. 

As we move into 2017, S&T will continue to assist CBP in data 

analysis for the upcoming pilot phases needed, and we stand ready 

to invest in additional R&D work should the need arise as results 

of the pilot. With this transition of S&T’s air exit work to CBP, the 

Apex AEER Project will end this year. 

We are developing out-briefs to share our high-level results and 

lessons learned with industry and Government partners, including, 

most recently, the Transportation Security Administration. S&T 

will continue to work with CBP’s Office of Field Operations to reengineer the air-entry process. This work is important not only to 

implementing a full biometric entry-exit process, but to helping 

CBP manage growth in international travel. 

Leveraging emerging biometric and mobile technologies, we will 

explore innovative ways to build upon and further secure valuable 

programs like Mobile Passport Control, Global Entry, and Countering and Measuring. Technology is undoubtedly an essential ingredient of effective border security. S&T will continue to collaborate with our components and partners to bring technology to operational use and help enhance border security. 

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify on 

this very important subject and I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Burns. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

I want to first make sure we understand the scope of the challenge and the numbers. Your visa overstay report for fiscal year 

2015, which we very much appreciate, indicated 482,000 overstays, 

has since been whittled down over time to, I think to 355,000. But 

just, I know you all understand this, but for the record, that was 

just for air and sea arrivers, and also just in B1 and B2 categories. 

So what we are missing is the rest of the categories arriving by air 

and sea, and all overland arrivals in departures. 

23 

Is that correct, Mr. Wagner? 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So if we were to extrapolate about the 1 percent 

rate of overstays to those other categories, like what would that 

number estimate to be if we would say 1 percent of the additional 

people that were not measured? What are we talking about here? 

Mr. WAGNER. We will have the numbers on the Canadian border 

on the next report. It is kind of tough to estimate because it is a 

different type of traffic, crossing a land—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Well, I am just trying to understand, like, we 

measured how many visitors total—4 million, or what was the 

number that we measured? 

Mr. WAGNER. Oh, it is 382 million passengers last year total; 250 

million came across the land border—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Mr. WAGNER [CONTINUING]. One hundred twelve million came 

land and sea, but that is total. That—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. I will follow up for the record. I am just 

saying if we can extrapolate the same rate to total visitors, I am 

just trying to understand what we think the magnitude of the overstay might be. Does that make sense if we extrapolate a 1 percent 

rate? 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes. Let us get those numbers for you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay, great. 

Mr. Healy, I am concerned about—these numbers are pretty 

large. So we have, you know, known, 482,000 but probably more, 

and you have gone through the process of how you sort of whittle 

that down with your resources to identify who are high-risk. I have 

a couple of questions on—you mentioned you test that against several databases. 

In your testimony it talks about viewing social media and other 

means. Are these not tests that are done prior to issuing someone 

a visa? Are the things that you are finding to identify somebody 

high-risk—they are here for 90 days, so they have committed a 

crime just in those 90 days? Like, can you just walk me through 

that process? 

I am particularly interested in social media. This committee has 

been very concerned about use of social media for vetting people 

prior to issuing a visa. So I want to know what we are doing with 

social media after the fact to identify high-risk overstayers. 

Mr. HEALY. Well, ma’am, as you are aware, Secretary Johnson 

did direct that a social media task force be created within the Department. The Department is about to transition into a DHS Social 

Media Center of Excellence, which will be housed and hosted by 

CBP, which we will be a part of. 

In answer to your question, the first part of the question ma’am, 

on a limited basis we do utilize social media in a visa security program for individuals coming into the United States. We do not utilize social media to review every application. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes, I am familiar with that. I am just talking 

about you whittling down the 480,000—— 

Mr. HEALY. Okay. Yes, yes ma’am. Now, getting to the overstay 

population, my numbers are actually a little larger than the 

480,000 because my numbers include everything received coming 

24 

out of ADIS. So that includes students, and it includes all visa categories. 

The first thing that we do, ma’am, is we check to confirm whether or not those individuals have departed again, we will go back 

to ADIS. We will also check with CIS to see if they have tried to 

attempt to obtain any benefits. 

We will also reach out to the intelligence community. We are 

more than happy in a detailed briefing, ma’am, in an appropriate 

setting to give you more background, but we reach out to the intelligence community and they provide information that we make decisions upon. 

After those decisions are made, we continue our vetting process 

by prioritizing the names. We have a criteria that we use in coordination with the intelligence community on law enforcement. We 

will put those names within certain categories and then we will 

rely on analysts to manually vet those names. If we are able to establish some type of derogatory information, if we are able to establish the location, then we will continue to prioritize as we go down 

the line. 

When we get to the point, ma’am, where the leads are ready to 

be sent out to the field, we in turn—sometimes we will use social 

media. If we haven’t had an opportunity to fully locate the individual and we want to enhance our ability to find that person, then 

those leads will go out to the field. 

Once out in the field, again, 40 percent of the leads that we sent 

out of that 10,000, ma’am, it was determined that individuals were 

in compliance. They had already either departed or they had applied for and received CIS benefits. 

The remaining individuals, we will proceed, whether it be a 

criminal-type investigation or whether it just be an administrative 

removal. 

Ms. MCSALLY. What is the time frame—the average time frame 

for this process that you just mentioned? Somebody is here for 90 

days, they have overstayed their visa, and now you are whittling 

down these numbers. What are we talking about? Are we talking 

about days, weeks, months? 

Mr. HEALY. It could be a month, a couple of months, ma’am. Because once the information—I mean, the manual vetting process to 

go through all of these—forget about the automated batch reviews 

that we do. Analysts have to go through this information because 

from our perspective it can’t go out into the field unless we know 

that it is a real individual and we know where that individual is 

located. So it can take a little bit of time because again, ma’am, 

these aren’t all just B1s, B2s; we got students involved, we have 

other categories that are involved as well. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. It was previously reported to me that about 

3 percent of your resources are used on these types of investigations on visa overstays. Is that still an accurate image? 

Mr. HEALY. I have to get back to you, ma’am, but last year total 

within the entire program we spent 650,000 hours on visa overstay 

enforcement. I have a unit, the Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit, this is all that they do in coordination with contractors, in coordination with—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. How many people are in that unit? 

25 

Mr. HEALY. I would have to get back to you on the exact, ma’am, 

but I would probably say well over 100. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great, thanks. 

My time is expired. 

The Chairwoman will now recognize Ms. Torres, from California. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. 

For Commissioner—or Deputy Commissioner Wagner, what are 

the different challenges of implementing a biometric entry and exit 

system on our Northern Border versus implementing that similar 

technology on our Southern Border? 

Then a follow-up from that for Ms. Burriesci, can you—once he 

answers, will you please follow up and discuss the training process 

of how we intend to bring up-to-date the agents working at both 

borders? 

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you for the question. 

At the land borders, unlike on the inbound traffic, we do not 

have facilities in ports of entry constructed to be able to stop traffic 

and confirm somebody’s departure. That is common on both borders. Places where they collect a toll to cross a bridge, there is 

some natural stop-and-go, which we can conduct some out-bound 

operations in, but if it is just a highway that goes across, they don’t 

stop until they hit the Canadian or Mexican in-bound facility. 

Now, the big difference with the Northern Border is the Canadian government does record the arrival biographically of everyone 

into Canada, so we have worked out an arrangement where we exchange the out-bound and in-bound data—our in-bound data and 

their in-bound data—to service as that out-bound departure record 

on all non-U.S., non-Canadian citizens. 

On the Mexican border, the Mexican government does not collect 

that type of information. So some of the discussions we have with 

them is is there a possibility to help them build the infrastructure 

to be able to do that and have a similar type of exchange. 

When we focus on the biometrics, none of the countries have the 

ability to collect the biometrics from passengers in a vehicle that 

is moving by or even stopping, so there is the extra challenge of 

finding technology that can work and look inside of a passenger vehicle or a bus with 50 people aboard to be able to retrieve those 

biometrics short of getting everyone out and lining up in front of 

some type of equipment to collect it. 

I think looking at the numbers of non-U.S., non-Mexican, nonCanadian citizens crossing the land borders, the numbers are very, 

very low. If we look at the number of, say, visa waiver travelers, 

they are very low that are crossing the land borders. 

So we are looking at efforts and what programs can we build to 

start with those populations first and start to move out on being— 

doing this. But it will be a bit of a manual-type process until the 

technology really emerges to do that. 

Mrs. TORRES. Okay. Can you talk about the training process of 

bringing the agents up-to-date on training on biometrics—time 

line, time frame as to what that will take? Can you also touch on 

this infrastructure that the Canadian has versus what we have and 

how the two compare? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. Well, the Office of Policy does not direct training 

for officers so I will defer those questions to CBP. 

26 

Mr. WAGNER. This was on the training of the biometrics? I am 

sorry. 

So our officers go through a 19-week academy when they get 

hired, then there is on-going training efforts on current trends 

with—— 

Mrs. TORRES. I am not talking about new hires; I am talking 

about the people that are already there and then we have a new 

system coming up. 

Mr. WAGNER. Right. So we will embark on a training regimen to 

teach them how to use the new systems, what the policies are, the 

technical requirements on how to operate the systems, and then 

what the trends are with what we are seeing and what we are trying to accomplish as far as fraudulent documents, counterfeit documents—— 

Mrs. TORRES. Is that an 8-hour program? Is that a 2-week program? Is that a 3-week program? 

Mr. WAGNER. It all depends—— 

Mrs. TORRES. Is that a 6-month program? What does that look 

like? 

Mr. WAGNER. It all depends on the type of technology we are delivering and how complicated or complex or new it is to the office. 

If it is just building on a current capacity, it might be as simple 

as a 4-hour training. If it is something brand new and a whole different approach with new policy implications it may be a full day, 

2 days, or a week. It all depends. 

Mrs. TORRES. So what are you looking at planning-wise for personnel that would be taken out of the field to do that type of training? 

Mr. WAGNER. For which—— 

Mrs. TORRES. I mean, we are talking about implementing a biometric program, but you are telling me that we have no answers 

as to how we plan to implement and train the folks that will be 

utilizing this program—— 

Mr. WAGNER. Okay. So—— 

Mrs. TORRES [continuing]. Budgets that you will need in order to 

implement it? 

Mr. WAGNER. Right. So when we make the final determination 

on how the technology will operate, there will be a personnel cost 

on getting officers to work the equipment and then respond to the 

information that equipment is going to provide. So if we have a 

mismatch on a biometric on someone departing the United States, 

an officer has to respond. If we have a case where it is a law enforcement action, an officer will have to respond. But it is too soon 

to calculate what those personnel costs will be. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield back. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you. 

It is the understanding of the Chair that the gentlemen from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta, has a limited amount of time to spend 

with us this morning. Without objection, Mr. Barletta is recognized 

out of order for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

What happened this weekend in Orlando was tragic. My prayers, 

as all of ours, are with the victims and their families and with our 

brave law enforcement officers on the front lines in this fight. This 

27 

attack is at the very least inspired by radical Islamic terrorism and 

once again demonstrates that radical Islam and ISIS are at war 

with us and want to attack our Western values. 

One way that they will do this is through our visas programs, 

which can be easily exploited. This threat is not new. Congress first 

mandated the establishment of the fully functional entry-exit system in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. 

The 9/11 Commission taught us that to terrorists, travel documents are just as important as weapons. That is the preferred 

method of entry into our country for terrorists: Come here legally 

and they just stay, disappear into the heartland. 

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, a biometric exit capability could have assisted law enforcement and intelligence officials 

in August and September 2001 in conducting a search for two of 

the 9/11 hijackers who were in the United States on expired visas. 

Mohamed Atta overstayed a tourist visa and Ziad Jarrah violated 

his student visa. 

This is a point that I have consistently raised since joining this 

committee. For example, one of the terrorists for the 1993 World 

Trade Center bombings was Mahmud Abouhalima. He overstayed 

a tourist visa and received amnesty when comprehensive immigration reform passed in 1986. He was a cab driver, but he claimed 

to be a seasonal agricultural worker. The only thing he planted in 

America was a bomb. 

In 2004 Congress followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and required the use of biometric technology in the entryexit system by passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Yet our Government still has not implemented the exit 

component of this National security system. 

I believe it should be a priority for Congress to address this gaping loophole. We should know in real time when a foreign national 

has left our country. 

Why? Because when I first came on this committee we were talking about roughly 40 percent of illegal aliens being present in our 

country because of their overstayed visas, yet the Department’s 

own incomplete—very incomplete—data shows that in the fiscal 

year 2015, 483,000 individuals overstayed their visas while 337,000 

were caught by the Southern Border. 

More people overstayed their visa than were caught illegally 

crossing the Southern Border. 

Mr. Wagner and Mr. Healy, we have always assumed that about 

40 percent of the people here in the United States illegally overstayed their visas. Can we now say that is a gross understatement 

of the visa overstay problem? Mr. Wagner and Mr. Healy, can we 

follow up here? Were you surprised to find that more individuals 

overstayed their visas than were apprehended crossing the Southwest Border? 

Mr. WAGNER. Well, I think if we look at the visa population, it 

is less than 1—about 1 percent overstay their visa of all the visa 

travelers that are entering the United States. As you extrapolate 

over time—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. But you are counting people who come in multiple 

times, right? If I am going back and forth, you are counting—— 

28 

Mr. WAGNER. No, these are individuals that overstayed their period of admission on a visa. We had calculated it at—for the B1, 

B2s, which is the majority of them, 1.74 overstayed. As you extrapolate that over time of course that number does decrease because people do leave, but later on. But I don’t think you can draw 

a comparison to the people crossing the land border in between the 

ports of entry. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So you disagree that more people overstayed their 

visa than crossed the—— 

Mr. WAGNER. No, I didn’t say that. I don’t understand the comparison that is being made between those 2 numbers. Yes, there is 

about 1 to 2 percent of people overstay their visas, but I am not 

sure I understand the correlation with the Southwest Border numbers. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Are you surprised that more people overstay their 

visas than cross the border illegally? 

Mr. WAGNER. I was not surprised by these numbers, no. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Okay. 

Mr. Healy. 

Mr. HEALY. I am not surprised by the numbers either, sir. But 

from my perspective, we receive the information and I just wanted 

to let you know that we are as committed to trying to track down 

and trying to vet these numbers for National security and public 

safety purposes. So the way we would look at it, sir, is numbers 

come to us, we follow them to where they take us. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I have an important—I know my time is running 

out, but this is an important point I am going to make. I have 

begun to introduce legislation that makes a simple tweak to our 

laws. 

As we all know, if someone illegally crosses the Southern Border 

they are unlawfully present in the United States. That is the term 

you use. If someone crosses—comes in on a visa and overstays their 

visa, the term is that they are unlawfully present in the United 

States. 

It is the same term for both individuals, yet the penalty is very 

different even though both people in this situation have the same 

legal status: Unlawfully present. Their status is the same: Unlawfully present. But unlawful border crossing is a crime while overstaying a visa is a civil offense. 

Does it make sense, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Healy, does it makes 

sense that the penalty is different? Why doesn’t it make sense for 

the same penalty—be the same penalty for both? 

Ms. MCSALLY. We can take that for the record since the gentlemen’s time has expired. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Smith, from Texas for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I didn’t know if you 

were giving him more time or not. 

Mr. Healy, let me direct my first questions to you, but on the 

way to doing so admit that I have a particular interest in the subject of entry-exit and overstayers. In 1996 I introduced a bill that 

became law that has still not been fully implemented, and if that 

law had been implemented I think we would have done a lot to address the problem of visa overstayers. 

29 

Last year I think the administration deported about 2,500 visa 

overstayers. Is that accurate? 

Is that the fewest number of any year under this administration? 

Mr. HEALY. I would have to check and get back to you on that, 

sir. I am not sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Let me tell you what the figures are and ask 

you the question again. 

This administration removed 12,500 in 2009; 11,200 in 2010; 

10,400 in 2011; 6,800 in 2012; 4,200 in 2013; 3,500 in 2014; 2,500 

in 2015. This is, in fact, the fewest number ever deported by this 

administration in 1 year. 

I would like to go to the overall figure. We have heard estimates 

as to the percentage of people in the country who are here illegally 

being visa overstayers. Percentages range from 40 percent to 68 

percent; let’s take 58 percent. 

So let’s take 10 million people in the country illegally. Half are 

here because they are visa overstayers and are in illegal status. 

So you have got 5 million people now in illegal status because 

they are visa overstayers. The administration deported 2,500 of 

those. That is 1/20th of 1 percent. 

That sounds to me like an extension of the administration’s amnesty program. Why are you not prioritizing these individuals? 

Why are you not sending more home? Two thousand, five hundred, 

the fewest of any year under this administration, 1/20th of 1 percent. 

I know the administration favors amnesty. Is this, like I say, just 

part of their amnesty efforts? 

Mr. HEALY. Sir, from my perspective, when you took a look at 

the removals process, when we look at the cases that we have 

worked and individuals who have gone into proceedings and then 

you look at the actual removals for that year, the removals process 

can be quite lengthy, as you are aware, sir. If we grab someone 

today, they are not necessarily going to be removed any time soon 

because it could take a while for them to go through the process. 

Mr. SMITH. But the—— 

Mr. HEALY. In terms of our prioritization, sir, we utilize our 

prioritization scheme along with the resources that we have—— 

Mr. SMITH. I understand that. But the administration remains 

convicted by their own actions, by the facts. Why haven’t they requested more money in their budget if they want to send more individuals home? They have not requested the money sufficiently to 

do so. 

Let me get at this point another way. How many investigations 

were conducted last year? 

Mr. HEALY. Within this area, sir, specific to 2015, we sent out 

10,000. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Those are 10,000 individuals whose identity 

you knew, whose location you knew, but you did not consider a priority because they had not been convicted of serious crimes. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. HEALY. No, that is not true sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

30 

Mr. HEALY. Those investigations were sent out for the field investigators to locate and to try to remove these individuals. But 

can I add one other point, sir? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. HEALY. If we send a lead out to the field, or if we don’t have 

the location of an individual, or if we have say a teenager who 

might not necessarily be of age but we are aware they are in our 

pool, if we have a situation where we know somebody has applied 

for a benefit, however they have yet to receive the benefit, all of 

that plus the individuals we cannot locate out in the field get continuously monitored. 

Last year, sir, 95,000 people were continuously monitored, and 

we periodically recheck those against the intelligence community, 

against CIS, against ADIS, to make a determination as to whether 

or not we have the information to send them back to the field. 

Mr. SMITH. Had you chosen to do so, many thousands of those 

individuals could have been deported. You picked 2,500 of the 

many, many thousand. You mentioned if they have applied for a 

benefit; there is an immense amount of fraud there where individuals know how to game the system, apply for a benefit, then they 

know they are not going to be deported. 

My concern with the administration’s actions is that by sending 

so few home, by deporting such a small percentage of the visa overstayers, the message they are sending wide and far is just get into 

the country. If you are not convicted of a serious crime, you are 

going to be allowed to stay. You are going to pass go. You are going 

to get the money. That is the wrong message to send because it increases more illegal immigration, it sends a message that the administration is just trying to implement amnesty by another 

means, and, as I say, it is the wrong message to send if you are 

really serious about trying to address illegal immigration in America. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will yield back. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Gentleman yields back. 

Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan, from South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for this 

hearing. Thanks for the information provided about visa overstays. 

We talk a lot about it back in the district. I talked about visa 

overstays with some students that were in my office this morning. 

The number I used then was 49 percent of all visa overstays, of all 

illegals in this country, were people that overstayed their visa— 

people that we gave a permission slip to to enter this country. They 

had a interview or went on-line with a Visa Waiver Program, but 

the bottom line is they came to this country with a permission slip, 

known as a visa, and decided to stay, for whatever reasons. 

The numbers you have here are 68 percent. It is an alarming 

number. 

We have entrusted these people with access to our country and 

they chose to violate that trust. Now I think that is low-hanging 

fruit for enforcement. 

We are not chasing a footprint in the desert. We know who these 

people are. They had an interview. They had a name, probably a 

correct spelling, some biometrics, according to Mr. Wagner. 

31 

We know where a lot of them were headed—either a work visa 

or a student visa. But too many times they overstay. This student 

visa, then why not contact the university if their visa has expired 

and find out what their status is? Are they still enrolled? Maybe 

they are in a master’s program. Maybe they need to have their visa 

extended. Maybe we get them into legal status and out of illegal 

status by extending their visa. 

Then we start reducing this number from 68 percent to a lower 

number, and then we can focus on the real problem in this country 

and that is our porous Southern Border that is being infiltrated by 

elements that have nefarious ideals, whether that is drug trafficking, human trafficking, or intent on doing harm to this Nation 

through acts of terror. 

ISIS has said they will infiltrate and exploit our porous Southern 

Border. They will infiltrate the Syrian refugee issue. Take them at 

their word. 

We send a lot of requests to Government agencies. I just sent a 

letter—actually several letters—to the Department of State asking 

about a memo, a white paper that was used to justify them circumventing the will of Congress in the Visa Waiver Program that we 

passed back in December in ways to try to get foreign nationals 

that have visited Iran or visited Syria or visited Sudan to circumvent our processes and the will of Congress, negotiated with 

the White House even, to allow those people to travel the United 

States. 

So they wrote a memo to justify that. We have asked for that, 

and asked for that, and asked for that, and I am asking for it again 

from the Department of State, to provide what we requested to 

Congress. 

Mr. Wagner, April 20, Chairman Perry asked Mr. Kolowski 

about the lost body armor and the 150 firearms that were unaccounted for by the CBP. Can you respond to why we haven’t gotten 

a response from CBP on this? 

Mr. WAGNER. No, sir. I was unaware you did not receive a response yet. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How about Government agencies be responsible to 

the United States Congress and respect our request for information? 

Okay. Entry-exit visas. When I think about—let’s go back to just 

one thing in just a minute on the visa overstays. 

I will give you an example. Boston bombing happened. Had original person of interest that was apprehended and taken to the hospital. Turns out he was an F1 student visa overstay. 

He actually was supposed to go to Ohio University and was over 

in Massachusetts as a student at another university. Why didn’t 

Ohio let the Department know, the U.S. Government know, that 

this gentleman who came to their university on a student visa was 

no longer enrolled there? 

These are common-sense things that American people expect us 

to do to start dealing with the number of illegals in this country. 

That gentleman is not in the country any more, by the way. 

So talk with me about an exit system. Right now we are checking 

airline manifest, but if I go to Japan, I am going to scan my thumb 

when I am leaving. They are going to know I left the country. 

32 

What are we doing about that? Because Congress has actually 

mandated that system. What are we doing? 

Mr. WAGNER. I am not aware that Japan is doing biometrics on 

departure. I know that they are doing it on entry, like several other 

countries around the world. I am not aware of many countries that 

do a 100 percent biometric exit on departure. 

Some countries have put automated gates in to speed their own 

citizens and others’ departure from that country, so there are some 

automated gates that they do allow people to use, but they also 

have officers and departure control systems set up in departure terminals exclusively for that, so it is easy just to put up a gauntlet 

of machines to help get everybody going through there. 

Now, we are working to deploy the biometric capability on departure. We launched a pilot yesterday—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have been working for several years now. When 

do we expect the Federal Government to finish this project? 

Mr. WAGNER. We will have this deployed and operational by fall 

of—by 2018. The Secretary has committed to 2018 to be doing this 

and we intend to do this. There are several steps we have to take 

before we get there, including launching this pilot, which we did 

yesterday, which will give us really the final requirements for what 

this solution will look like. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I appreciate the pilot and I appreciate you saying 

2018. I look forward to you coming back to this committee and telling us, ‘‘This is done. We will know when people have exited the 

country that have entered from a foreign country.’’ 

I yield back. Thank you, Madam. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Chairwoman now recognizes Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, from Texas, 

5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me pass for Mr. Hurd and I will go after 

him. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Hurd, from 

Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HURD. I would like to thank my colleague from the great 

State of Texas, want to thank the panelists for being here. Y’all 

have a difficult job, and I recognize that. 

Mr. Healy, I have a set of questions for you. It has been argued 

that an accurate entry-exit system would enhance ISIS enforcement efforts by reducing DHS’s need to review potential overstay 

leads that turn out to be false positives. For example, about onequarter of the leads HSI investigated between 2004 and 2012 were 

individuals who had already departed the country. 

Could you explain to the committee how leads are generated and 

sent to the field offices? I know you addressed that a little bit in 

your answer to my colleague from Texas. 

Mr. HEALY. Yes, I can, sir. So the information, the referral, is received from ADIS, Arrival Departure Information System. From 

there it is plugged into the automated targeting system CBP belongs to. 

It starts to work with my organization. This is all basically automated, sir. First thing we are going to do is we are bouncing it up 

to the intelligence community a batch request. We are going to 

send it next over to CIS to see how many are basically in compliVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:17 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\114THCONGRESS\16BM0614\HM166110.TXT HEATH
33 

ance or have applied for benefits, and then we are going to send 

it back, sir, to ADIS to see how many have departed in that window between receipt and when we are processing. 

Just that alone out of that 971,000 number that I provided you, 

we have already eliminated now 141,000 records in that quick exchange between us and CBP. 

The next thing, sir, we are going to wait for the response from 

the intelligence community, and we will take appropriate action depending on how we prioritize something depending on the response. 

Now we meet, sir, with the—a group of interagency intelligence 

community and law enforcement partners. They have given us a 

tiered system, a way to prioritize individuals in terms of U.S. security interests. I am more than happy, sir, to—in a closed setting 

to give you much greater detail on how we do that. 

Once that information comes to us and it is bucketed and 

prioritized, now I have to have analysts who have to manually vet 

all of that information. When they vet it, sir, we are looking for any 

type of derogatory information across 22 Government systems that 

will enable us to turn around and validate what we are doing and 

locate the individual. 

It will continue to work its way through the chain, sir. Once we 

get to that determination, now it is going to be sent out to the field 

office. 

The referral goes out as a collateral lead investigation. The field 

office is provided with a jacket, all the information that we have, 

and the field office is requested to go proceed. 

It can go down a criminal road; it can go down an administrative 

road. But that, in a nutshell, sir, gives you an overview of the process. 

Mr. HURD. That is helpful, and that is helpful for the American 

people to understand the process and what you all go through to 

identify these leads that you have to follow. So would a biometric 

exit capability reduce that amount of time because it allows you to 

focus on people that are actually still in the country? 

Mr. HEALY. Well, the example I would use, sir, and the Chairwoman cited it before, as those investigations get sent out to the 

field, out of that 10,000, 40 percent of those, they are deemed to 

be in compliance. So it is not an efficient use of resources. 

If we have the appropriate system as it evolves and gets to it, 

we will be able to better apply those resources toward a legitimate 

enforcement use instead of somebody who has already left the 

country or has accrued CIS benefits and we can’t take action on 

them. 

So, yes, sir. The answer is yes. 

Mr. HURD. Good copy. 

Is there currently a backlog of unmatched overstay records for 

terrorism and public safety threats? 

Mr. HEALY. In what way, sir? 

Mr. HURD. As you have vetted the potential leads through the intelligence community, those 22 agencies that you said you are reviewing, and there was derogatory information, is there a number 

that you all haven’t been able to begin investigation on? 

Mr. HEALY. Well, some of it, sir, would be the information that 

is received. We might have a name; we might have a name and a 

34 

date of birth; we might have John Smith who is staying down at 

a hotel in Disney World. 

Depends on the individual. Depends on the information. But I 

can tell you that this group—we call it the Compliance Enforcement Advisory Panel, and they are very supportive of assisting us 

to get the information that we need quickly so that we are able to 

follow up on these leads. I hope that answers your question. 

Mr. HURD. Yes. Do you have a percentage of those folks that 

have been identified by one way or another as having an overstay—that have derogatory, whether it is an SAO advisory or— 

they have derogatory information and you have a limited amount 

of information to conduct an investigation? 

Mr. HEALY. Yes, sir. What we will do is, as I referenced the continuous monitoring process before, if—even if a lead goes out to the 

field and it is exhausted, meaning that the agents can’t locate the 

individual, it circles right back around and it goes back into our 

tank. That would be inclusive of our intelligence community engagements as well. 

If we can’t identify and we don’t have enough to move forward, 

we will hold it in our tank. If ADIS provides information or CIS 

or the I.C., we will repeatedly batch those requests and bounce 

them on a quarterly basis off other systems to kind-of update and 

refresh the record. Does that make sense, sir? 

Mr. HURD. It does. Thank you. 

Mr. HEALY. Okay. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Gentleman yields back. 

Chair now recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee, from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady and I thank the Chairwoman. I thank the Ranking Member as well. 

Let me acknowledge the representatives here from the Department of Homeland Security and add my personal appreciation to 

your service. We are having this hearing and it was scheduled before the heinous and horrific terrorist act of this past weekend. 

We know every day that you are on the front lines and many of 

you I have engaged with on a number of issues. We recognize that 

we also live in a Nation that deals with the issues of civil liberties 

and civil rights, and we understand that security has to be responsive to that. 

Let me before I ask my question, make a few comments. Madam 

Chairwoman, just to set the record straight, as I look at the Pew 

Research Center we note that there are about 93,000 overstays 

coming out of Canada, 123,000 out of Europe, and about 42,000 out 

of Mexico. There have arrived Central America, 17,000, and then 

we go down further with South America that has 93,000. 

So this overstay issue is not predominant to any one area. I 

think that is very important. I believe that the President’s approach of focusing on those who would do us harm is the most important approach. 

Let me also add to the record that this is, the DHS found that 

there were a total of 44.9 million nonimmigrant visitor admissions 

in the United States, air or sea, who were expected to depart fiscal 

year 2015. Of this number, an estimated 527,127 individuals overstayed. That is 1.17 percent. 

35 

So today I am really going to say that the Congress has some 

higher responsibilities right now. I think we need to pass a no-fly, 

no-buy; that if you are a terrorist on a terrorist list most Americans 

will not realize that the Department of Homeland Security can only 

abide by the law. The FBI can only abide by the law. Frankly, they 

cannot stop terrorists or individuals who have been investigated 

from buying for terrorism activities a gun. I hope we can pass that 

today or this week in regular order, that we can have that legislation passed. 

The banning of the assault weapons is something that the Secretary of Homeland Security has offered to provide security to the 

American people. That bill is ready to be passed right now. 

So I believe we will find that the alleged perpetrator, now dead, 

that did the heinous attack on the gay community, heinous attack 

on Americans, heinous attack on Latinos—dominant numbers of 

these individuals were from the Hispanic community—he was not 

an overstay. 

Why don’t I just ask the question? Mr. Wagner, was—to your 

knowledge, was the individual that perpetrated the heinous act, do 

you have any facts that he was an overstay? 

Mr. WAGNER. I believe he was a U.S. citizen born in New York. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, sir. I wanted to clarify that from 

the record from Mr. Wagner. He was a U.S. citizen born in New 

York. 

So, we are here confronting an issue that is important. The 

American people believe that there should be regular order in the 

immigration process. 

I believe in comprehensive immigration reform, which would 

allow Department of Homeland Security to see more people, vet 

more people, and reject more people, because in fact you would 

have a process for admission, or you would have a process for the 

overstays to engage in regular order. I think that is important. 

I do want to raise one question about technology. I have supported pilot programs, Mr. Burns, dealing with the technology, the 

biometric technology of overstays. That is what you need. You are 

much better at overstay situations in the airports or aviation than 

you are at the land areas, as I understand it. 

But would you share with me what you are doing in Science and 

Technology—if you do it quickly; I have one last question—on dealing with this technology that you need to better refine the issues 

of overstays? For all overstays, of course, you have a visa or you 

come in legally, and then it expires and you don’t leave. Thank you. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question. To follow up, it is—as 

Mr. Wagner said, it is an application issue. Biometric technology 

and the field of biometrics is rapidly evolving. It is, how do we take 

the actual pieces of technology and build them in to the operational 

process? 

The border situation, as Mr. Wagner stated, looking at people in 

vehicles, buses, is very different than the operations of an airport. 

So we are continuing to evolve and support looking at all biometric 

technology, actively working with the biometric industry, both 

large and small business, to make sure that we can bring the proper technology to the table, linking it to the operational process. 

In deference, I will stop. You said you wanted more time. 

36 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do. Thank you very much. I am gratified for 

that. 

Let me ask—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

We are going to do another round, though, if you wouldn’t mind 

deferring. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Could I just get this last question out on the 

record? 

Ms. MCSALLY. I cut everybody off at a little after 5, so if you 

want to submit it for the record or wait for a second round? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will do that for the record, then. 

Mr. Craig Healy—and I may be able to stay—and Ms. Kelli Ann 

Burriesci, if you would, I would be interested particularly in student overstays, which is somewhat difficult, and whether or not we 

include—incorporate the institution that they are supposed to be 

going to as an assist or a partner in determining. Is there a reporting feature that students—that universities have to utilize with respect to students? 

I would add employment, as well, because a lot of those visas, 

those H–1B visas, individuals have their families here, they have 

rooted here, and then they are without employment, looking for 

employment, and they may be considered an overstay. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Actually, I was going to ask about student visas in my next 

round, so I will ask the panelists to answer concerns about the student visa process. Those are not in this report, just so we know. 

Also I want to note, Mr. Healy, in the testimony you said for 

CTCEU’s priority No. 1 list you listed a series of projects and initiatives, and one of them is called the Recurrent Student Vetting 

Program. So let’s talk about the student visa process and compliance with universities, information flow, and how this all works. 

Mr. HEALY. Yes. Yes, ma’am. 

So in terms of the SEVP program, the Student Exchange and 

Visitors Program, we do have on several fronts in terms of 

overstays. We would not treat them any differently than we would 

any other overstay category. 

So in the numbers that I referenced earlier, ma’am, those are not 

only being fed into terms of SEVP submissions coming in from 

SEVIS. In other words, if a school determines that a student is no 

longer within a program and they terminate the student, the school 

will report that to SEVIS. That will come in to us. 

There is also—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Could you talk about the compliance rate? I noticed you talk about the airlines—there are fines and nearly 100 

percent compliance rate for passing information to you. What about 

educational institutions’ compliance rate, and are there any fines 

for noncompliance? 

Mr. HEALY. Well, there could be, ma’am. I will speak a little bit 

in generalities about it. I will have to get you specifics in terms of 

the actual program. 

But from our perspective, yes, we do have a robust compliance 

program. We do site visits—unannounced site visits. We are able 

to turn around and do out-of-cycle reviews. As you are aware, every 

school is mandated that they be certified every 2 years. 

37 

* The information has been retained in committee files and is available at https:// 

www.dhs.FY%gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry%20and%20- 

Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf. 

So we have a robust engagement with the schools through SEVP. 

It is required that the schools—their designated school officials report the information. If an individual stop attending class or if 

there is a problem with the student, they are required to report 

that within I believe a 30-day period. 

We have also started a new program, ma’am, in terms of our 

field representatives. We now have 60 individuals that are geographically placed around the country. Their job is to be that inbetween. They visit schools daily to make sure that the information 

flow is continuing. 

In terms of your question about recurrent vetting, what that basically means for us, as a part of our prioritization process every 

student that is legitimately in the United States attending school, 

when derogatory information comes in it is vetted against every individual student. So it is just another opportunity to make sure 

that we are being as expansive as we can be in our vetting processes. 

In terms of specific compliance rates, ma’am, I would have to get 

back to you on that. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great. Thank you. 

Will next year’s report include visa overstay information on students as well? 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes. We plan to include the student visas, some of 

the worker visas, as well as the U.S.-Canada land border non-U.S., 

non-Canadian travelers. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great, thanks. 

I want to follow up on the report. This is the entry-exit overstay 

report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the 

record for fiscal year 2015, the one that has been referenced several 

times today.* 

Ms. MCSALLY. Table one gives a review of Visa Waiver Program 

countries. Several of them are over 2 percent: Chile, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovakia. 

In your testimony you indicated that there is consideration to potentially using these overstay numbers to impact future inclusion 

in the Visa Waiver Program. Ms. Burriesci, can you clarify what 

is being looked at related to that? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. Overstay rates is part of something larger called 

the disqualification rate, and that is one of the requirements for a 

potential country to become a member country. So we do look at 

those overstay rates. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. It is just in the testimony it says we are 

looking at future—I can find the exact page that that is on—looking at future use of this information related to visa waiver countries, so I was just wondering what that meant in the testimony. 

Ms. BURRIESCI. Oh. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for that question. 

As we have testified, we have been working on the reliability and 

accuracy of that data. So as that data improves, we would use that 

information for making determinations on whether a country’s status remains and whether their designation in the program remains 

or we need to take an additional action. 

38 

Ms. MCSALLY. So is that currently being utilized to make a determination? It is on page 7 in the top paragraph. 

Ms. BURRIESCI. There is not a Visa Waiver Program country that 

is currently over the 3 percent requirement. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Then for the non-visa waiver countries we have got Afghanistan 

at 10 percent; Burkina Faso, 18 percent; Bhutan, 24.89 percent; 

Chad, 17 percent; Djibouti, 27 percent; Eritrea, 19 percent. I mean, 

these are huge numbers. 

So what is the information in this now? What is going on with 

this? Are you using it to decide whether countries should continue 

to have a certain number of visas or trying to address the issues 

of noncompliance with that country? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. The Department of Homeland Security assists in 

the vetting of the visas and the State Department issues the visas. 

So I am not sure if that answered your question or not. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So is there any feedback loop from this report to 

DHS and the State Department? I mean, are we just continuing to 

issue visas to these countries that have 20 to 30 percent overstay 

rates, or is there any sort of punishment or accountability? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. That might be a question better referred to the 

Department of State. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Is there any coordination that any of you 

can speak about from this information to the Department of State? 

Are they aware of it? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. The Department of State has the numbers that 

you have referenced, has the report information, yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. We will follow up on that. 

I will now recognize Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee for another 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, very much. 

I want to pursue my line of questioning, but I am going to pointedly ask for a more explicit response from Mr. Wagner, Mr. Healy 

on the job-related visas, the H–1Bs in particular, if there are others, in terms of any precise numbers that you may have of those. 

The numbers that we have—and I just want to recite these numbers again because I think it is worthy of including in the record— 

44.9 million nonimmigrant visitor admissions, and the record 

shows a estimated 527,127 individuals overstayed their visas, 1.17 

percent. The report goes on to stay, in other words, 98.8 percent 

of nonimmigrant visas complied with their terms of admission and 

departed on time in fiscal year 2015. 

But do we have any sort of isolation of the numbers dealing with 

those who are overstays that relates to work? To Mr. Wagner and 

Mr. Healy. 

Mr. WAGNER. No, we have not broken those out yet, but we will 

include those in next year’s report. Now, this year’s report included 

about 85 percent of all travelers, so all the other visa classifications 

covers about 15 percent of commercial air passengers. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you will do that for us next year? I think 

that will be very helpful. 

Mr. WAGNER. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But let me get to the bottom line of what my 

concern is. This should all be about, as we look at how we help you 

39 

do your job, and I have already said a metric of new laws under 

the title that we have been speaking about, many of us for a very 

long period of time, comprehensive immigration reform, which 

again refines and defines probably even in a more detailed manner 

what happens to overstays, maybe based on the level of threat. 

I am not arguing for overstays. They are persons who are in the 

United States unauthorized. But I think the question for the American people is the issue of security and the level of threat that 

these individuals represent. 

Mr. Wagner has reinforced the public information that the deceased actor and terrorist for the event in Orlando was not an overstay, was not an immigrant. The individual was a citizen of the 

United States born in New York. So I am concerned that Department of Homeland Security, which last part of its name is security, 

is taken away from major responsibilities dealing with the level of 

threat. 

So to Mr. Wagner, Mr. Healy, you are in Homeland Security Investigations. Have you all been able to assess overall, say, the 

500,000 individuals that have overstayed? Can we include in the 

report an assessment of the threat that they represent, which I believe is what the American people would be concerned with? Mr. 

Wagner, Mr. Healy. 

Mr. WAGNER. Let us take that back and look at that for inclusion 

in next year’s report, some analysis of what the overstay population 

encompasses. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that would be extremely important. 

Mr. Healy. 

Mr. HEALY. No, I would agree, ma’am. That is something that we 

are going to have to take back and consider and provide you that 

information at a future date. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me continue that line of questioning. 

In your recollection—and help me. Obviously, I have served on 

Homeland Security. I am trying to just monitor mass shootings. 

San Bernardino. Maybe you can recollect because it would have 

come to your attention, were any of those individuals—the—as I remember, the Virginia Tech was an individual from the Asian community. The Connecticut and Newtown, Auburn—excuse me—Colorado, in the theater—you can just—does any overstays come to 

mind in any of those mass shootings? I may not have calculated all 

of them. 

Mr. WAGNER. I can’t think of any off-hand, no. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, we all want to do our research, make sure 

we are giving accurate questions, but to your—coming to your mind 

at this time—and I believe that if one was it would probably remain very viable, enough for you to remember an individual because it would have come to your attention as to what kind of person perpetrated those particular incidences or mass incidences. 

Mother Emmanuel was not; Colorado was not, to my recollection; 

Columbine was not; Virginia Tech was not; Newtown was not; San 

Bernardino were individuals who were statused, though they were 

immigrants, if I recall. Certainly going back to as far as 9/11, let 

me say that I am not ignoring that. That is 9/11—I used the term 

mass shootings—9/11 did have overstays. 

40 

So my question would be, after 9/11 the Department of Homeland Security was created. Do you feel that you have enough structure in place that you would have caught or would have been 

drawn to the attention of the overstays that were part of the acts 

of 9/11 where there were overstays that were engaged in that? 

Mr. WAGNER. I believe we would have identified them, yes. With 

the systems that are in place now and the measures that are in 

place now, I believe so. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Can you just expand on those systems without breaching confidentially? 

Mr. WAGNER. I think, you know, well, one of the things we do 

is we take the visa database that State Department provides us 

and we run recurrent checks every day on that information, and if 

someone appears on a watch list that has a current visa, one of the 

things we do is look to say are they in the country or have they 

left the country. Regardless of whether they are an overstay or not, 

are they still here? 

We will provide that information to ICE, we will provide that information to the FBI, we will provide that to the intelligence community. But we have ways to identify those in real time when 

those things happen. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am going to yield back. 

Mr. Healy, did you want to comment on the investigation part of 

it? 

Mr. HEALY. I was just going to add, ma’am, that we rely heavily 

upon the intelligence community and our law enforcement partners 

to help us prioritize. So I am comfortable that they are providing 

us with good guidance for the individuals that we should be targeting and focusing on for National security purposes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That are coming into the United States. 

Let me thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think I want to leave 

my time at the microphone with the ultimate question of the threat 

to the people of the United States and our responsibility of securing 

them. I think any hearing that we have here in this committee 

needs to be in that context, and thank the men and women who 

are on the front lines for doing so. 

I end by saying I know, Madam Chairwoman, this is not your jurisdiction, but I cannot help saying that this week we must pass 

no-fly no-buy. If you are in any way had discussions about terrorist 

activities or threatening comments toward the American people you 

cannot buy an assault weapon or any guns of any kind. 

I thank the gentlelady for being kind enough, and I yield back. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

I am going to go through another round. Again, I appreciate the 

patience of our panelists here. 

Mr. Healy, you mentioned in your testimony you had 10,000 

leads last year, 1,910 arrests, 86 indictments, and 80 convictions. 

Is that number of arrests to convictions—that seems like a small 

percentage of arrests. Is that pretty typical or could you kind of 

speak about those that were arrested who, for whatever reason, 

have not been convicted? 

Mr. HEALY. The arrests, ma’am, include not only criminal arrests 

but also administrative arrests. So in a situation where there 

41 

might be a criminal prosecution following as part of an investigation, or there might be nothing much—might just be virtue of the 

fact of an administrative arrest because an individual is an overstay. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So of the 1,910, do you know how many were 

criminal arrests and how many were administrative arrests? 

Mr. HEALY. I believe—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Can you just walk me through the process of an 

administrative arrest? Like what does that mean, and what happens after the arrest? 

Mr. HEALY. What will happen is an individual will be encountered and they will be issued a notice to appear. It could be broken 

down into a couple different categories. If there is derogatory information, then it may be a custodial-type detention or the individual 

might just receive the notice to appear and then they are required 

to appear before an immigration judge. 

If it is a Visa Waiver Program they are not required to appear 

before an immigration judge because that is waived by virtue of the 

fact that a person came in through the Visa Waiver Program. But 

it would basically not go down the criminal route, would not go 

through the U.S. attorney’s office; it would be an internal administrative protocol that is run by ICE and enforcement and removal 

operations. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. So of the 1,910, do you know how many 

were administrative? If you don’t we can—— 

Mr. HEALY. I have it, ma’am. I will get it for you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Do you also know—and this may be just for 

the record, and I wasn’t planning on going down this road, but 

since you brought it up—of those that have been given notices to 

appear, are you tracking those that do not appear and do they kind 

of go back into the system here? 

Mr. HEALY. That is correct, ma’am, yes. Yes. We can get you 

those numbers and break them down for you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So are they then included in the, you know, 

355,000 remaining, because they maybe sort-of left your numbers 

and came back to the numbers? 

Mr. HEALY. Well, they would come back to us, ma’am, and they 

would actually wind back up in our continuous monitoring. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes, okay. Okay. Great. 

Mr. Burns, can you talk about the Apex program and what we 

learned from the program and how that is going to inform our implementation of, you know, future—the future biometric exit program? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Thank you. 

The Apex AEER program I think was indicative of the Department’s commitment to try and answer the question. So instead of 

it being the typical ‘‘let’s go develop something,’’ it was really a collaboration between CBP and S&T to look at the biometric entry 

and exit issue. 

In addition, we brought in all of the stakeholders that would 

have to deal or be impacted by what we were doing. So it was very 

important to bring in the biometric industry, the airline industry, 

and everybody that would be part. 

42 

So the first couple of months was actually getting everybody to 

identify the problem, both from a DHS operational perspective but 

also from an airline and an operation perspective as well. So the 

team was broad. The team was inclusive. 

Then we went and worked with industry, both small and large 

business, to identify the technologies—finger, face, and iris—which 

were the 3 that we deemed would fit in this operational construct, 

to bring them across the border and start the process. 

Biometric technology is evolving. Biometric technology is here to 

stay and I think will help answer the question. The issue is its application within the environment. 

Fingerprint technology that works well in one location does not 

work in another; the same with facial and same with iris. The simple thing is lighting or the environmental conditions of humidity 

will impact how we work it. 

So we ran a series of operational simulations within the Maryland test facility to see how well all those pieces would come together. All of that information has been provided to CBP so they 

can build into their longer acquisition program. 

We started from the get-go knowing that whatever the technical 

solution or products that we were going to bring out had to fit into 

their acquisition program. So operational requirements, cost-benefit 

analysis, all those things that would help them make a successful 

decision as they moved forward was provided to them. 

We also made sure that we looked at it from an entry and an 

exit holistic perspective. So whatever you do, as Mr. Wagner has 

said, on the exit side impacts entry. So we worked to see what 

could we do to speed up entry as we brought things forward for 

exit. 

We knew we had to deal with seconds. Five seconds added to an 

entry process is a huge amount of time. So we were down to looking at technology and operational processes that were 3 seconds 

differential from something else, and we brought all of that together. 

Working with the general public was also incredibly important. 

As I stated, we had 1,700 people from 18 to 81. We looked at all 

ethnicities, 50 different countries of origin. Because once again, it 

has to work for everyone that is in the traveling public. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. My understanding is there is an AEER report that you have that is going to be delivered to us, or can you 

give us a time frame of when we might—— 

Mr. BURNS. We are in the process of completing the high-level report of our findings. It is not as detailed as we would like because 

many of the companies that brought their technology did it under 

the agreement that their intellectual property and some other aspects would be protected. But the high-level report is in process, 

should be ready this summer. I can get back to you with a specific 

date. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Wagner, in the testimony—your joint testimony that already 

put together, said the compliance for—I know whether you guys 

call is APIS or A–P–I–S—is near 100 percent. I think in 2015 the 

number was 92 percent. Can we talk about what steps are being 

43 

made to bring that to as close to 100 percent as possible? What are 

the reasons why it is not 100 percent? 

Mr. WAGNER. Correct. So when the airline transmits the information to us we do all of our pre-arrival vetting and database 

checks on that. So when the person actually arrives and we read 

the document that is presented now, we compare it in the data 

fields against what the airline transmitted, and then we keep a log 

of any type of discrepancies. 

If there is data missing or inaccurate, the airlines are subject to 

a fine for that. We issue very few fines these days. I think we 

issued maybe about a dozen last year total. 

Generally I think they are for like missing crew data or a late 

transmission of the information. But we can certainly get you a 

breakdown of that. 

Where we see some of just the technical issues of a date of birth 

where they put the month and the day instead of the day and the 

month, some formatting issues like that, especially when it is 

keystroked in overseas by airline personnel and not through the 

machine-readable zone of the document, which is what we try to 

encourage. 

But by and large, the data is accurate both inbound—and what 

we have found with outbounds, even though on the departure 

manifest we are not there to validate each and every single transmission, what we are finding with the mobile technology that we 

deployed—one of the things we did is let’s confirm the accuracy of 

what the airlines are providing. 

We are finding that it also was in the high-90 percentile of accuracy. When we conclude our report on the mobile technology, we 

will include those figures in there. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. 

I want to follow up, Mr. Wagner, on—I understand the differences between what we can do with Canada with information 

exchange and the challenge that we don’t have a similar exchange 

with Mexico. Is there anything we can do with Mexico to address 

providing some better information for land ports of entry on the 

Mexican border in the short term? What are the ideas for the 

longer term? 

Mr. WAGNER. Well, we continue to hold discussions with them 

about the databases that they do have and what types of information are potentially to share, what kind of information are we sharing already. You know, at the land border they just do not have 

a system or the technology or the infrastructure to collect the passenger-level information. 

They collect license plates, and we have talked about sharing 

them or exchanging that. But at the traveler level, they just don’t 

have a system. So it is a case of we can build it on our side for 

departure and record it, or maybe we could—this opportunity to 

work with Mexico to build the infrastructure to collect it and then 

both of us use it. 

That is, you know, the ideas and the concepts that are being 

kicked around, but we haven’t really solidified an approach that 

would work. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. 

44 

So a lot of what we have talked about so far and really the focus 

of the hearing is tracking people who are overstaying and using biographical and biometric information in order to know, you know, 

who has left and who is in compliance and who is not. 

You mentioned in testimony, and we are interested in this committee, about the pilot program of identifying to make sure the person is the person who owns the passport, right? So they could have 

a fraudulent passport, a stolen passport, and that may—you can 

match their fingerprints to them in and out but it still may be that 

there is fraud involved and that is not the person who it is supposed to be. 

The pilot project that we had to match the facial recognition— 

I am interested in the outcome of that. I think Mr. Hurd has legislation to make that permanent for all passengers. 

Can you just comment on the fraud piece and how we can make 

sure that bad guys are not using the system to their advantage? 

I mean, you may match their biometrics to their passport, but if 

it is not the right person then we have a whole other program. 

Mr. WAGNER. Correct. So as travel documents’ physical security 

has gotten a lot better over the years, we have seen the amount 

of altered or counterfeit-type documents decrease tremendously, especially in the commercial air environment. 

Where the risk remains, though, is a person with a legitimate 

document that does not belong to them—a lost document, a stolen 

document, a borrowed document. That is really where the risk is 

because it is a good physical document. You have to compare the 

person against it. 

Most of the countries issue now electronic passports that at least 

at the minimum have a photograph on there, including U.S. travel 

documents. So what we are able to do with the facial comparison 

technology is read that chip, open it up, take a picture of the traveler, compare the two using an algorithm, and tell us with some 

certainty or probability that it does belong to that person. 

So what we are seeing—we have caught a couple of impostors, 

what we call them—a person using the—a legitimate document 

that doesn’t belong to them. Just a couple of weeks ago at JFK we 

had a woman arrive on a flight from Ghana, I believe, that presented a U.S. passport. The officer looked at it; didn’t quite think 

the picture matched up to the traveler, put her in front of the camera, recorded it, and it turned out that no, she was not the document-holder. She turned out to be a person from Liberia that had 

been denied a visa previously last year. 

But knowing that she had a U.S. passport wouldn’t routinely 

subject her to fingerprints upon entry. But using this comparison 

to the picture on the photograph of the document she presented, we 

could confirm she is an impostor. We then can fingerprint her, 

found out what her real identity was and the fact that she was denied a visa. 

So it is incredibly helpful technology for our office to be able to 

help make that determination of who the true document-holder is. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. 

Mr. Healy, if you were in charge of—with unlimited resources, in 

order to be able to do you job, to whittle down those who have overstayed and quickly be able to locate them and take appropriate acVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:17 Mar 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\114THCONGRESS\16BM0614\HM166110.TXT HEATH
45 

tion, what else would you need? We heard the biometric exit would 

help whittle down those false positives. What else would you need? 

I am also interested in local law enforcement are often maybe the 

first people that are encountering individuals, the information flow 

between the Federal and the local officials, and what access they 

may have. But what is your wish list in order to address this issue? 

Mr. HEALY. I think we are going in the right direction, ma’am, 

in terms of the work that we are doing, from where we have come 

from to where we are now. The system is not perfect. No system 

is perfect. 

But all the players that need to be engaged are engaged. CBP 

is in the process of pulling it together in terms of the automation 

process, which is making it a lot easier for us. 

In terms of our local engagement, through our field offices, 

through our task forces we are tied at the hip with our local States 

and local partners. So they also can be a part of this process, as 

well. 

So in terms of what I would hope for, I would just hope that we 

would just continue to move in the direction that we are moving. 

I think that we will get there soon. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thanks. 

I do want to follow up on Mr. Barletta’s question—I had thought 

about that myself in preparing for this hearing—is right now if 

somebody overstays less than—what is it? They can’t come in for 

2 years if it was a short overstay, and they can’t come in for 10 

years if it was a long overstay? Yes, okay, 3 and 10. Those are really the only disincentives or accountability items. 

Would it be valuable to provide some other accountability to 

these overstayers—to make it a crime, to have some fines, to have 

maybe a little bit of a harsher penalties of not being able to reenter? Are there any disincentives that we should consider—thoughtful disincentives? 

Mr. WAGNER. Well, what we do see is people that overstay, as 

time goes on, you know, those numbers do get whittled down, like 

you mentioned. You know, a lot of people do leave at some point, 

just late or later. 

They are subject to that 3-year bar or 10-year bar of getting a 

visa then to come back. They certainly cannot use the Visa Waiver 

Program again. You know, their Estas are invalidated; that information goes to State, and then they have to go to State and apply 

and really state their case as to what why they overstayed. 

So once they do depart the United States or are removed from 

the United States, it is going to be very difficult to come back in 

and get a visa unless they overcome with a waiver, and there are 

procedures to do that, or wait out the bar of inadmissibility. 

I don’t know if fining them or making it a criminal act would 

change the behavior of the people that are going to stay here and 

not leave. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Are individuals who left, say, 60 days late considered the same as individuals you caught 60 days later and put out? 

Like, basically it is the same punishment that they left voluntarily 

or you caught them and deported them? Because that is different 

behavior. 

Mr. WAGNER. I believe it would be the same. 

46 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Mr. WAGNER. I will have to think about it. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Do all of you—I mean, do you feel that those disincentives are adequate? 

Mr. WAGNER. I think people that are going to stay here permanently are—will try to stay here permanently. It will be difficult to 

come back in once a person leaves that has been identified as an 

overstay, so it is going be difficult to get a travel document, to get 

on board a plane to come back. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

I think we have exhausted a lot of items here. Let me give the 

opportunity for any of the members of the panel to share any other 

perspectives you weren’t asked about that weren’t in your testimony that you feel are important, even with some of the lines of 

questioning that came from the entire group of Members here. Is 

there anything else you want to leave with us that we haven’t considered on this issue? 

Mr. HEALY. Ma’am, just for the record, I wanted to clarify I have 

that number. Out of the 1,900 that you asked about—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes. 

Mr. HEALY [continuing]. One hundred thirty of those were criminal. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Got it. So it is 80 of 130, not 80 of 1,910, right? 

You know, 80 convictions of 130—— 

Mr. HEALY. That is correct. 

Ms. MCSALLY [continuing]. Criminal arrests. 

Mr. HEALY. That is correct, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. That is a little bit of a higher rate of conviction 

there. 

Mr. HEALY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay, great. Anything else? 

Mr. WAGNER. I would just like to add that, you know, just to follow up on what we discussed about the—our plan is to deploy the 

solution in fall 2018. The Secretary has charged us with doing that. 

We have put together a strategy to get there. 

It is contingent on the Government procurement process to spend 

the fees that Congress has made available to us to do this as a reference of $1 billion over the 10 years to do that. So there is a quite 

extensive procurement process, several steps that we will be engaging the industry and doing request for proposals over the next, you 

know, 18 months to be able to get there. 

So there are some tight deadlines to do this, but we will be going 

through that structured procurement process to be able to take 

that money and then put it onto a contract and be able to spend 

it to deploy the solution. So that is all. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. 

Any other—Mr. Burns. Ms. Burriesci. Anything else to add? 

Ms. BURRIESCI. No. 

Mr. BURNS. No. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great, thanks. 

I appreciate the hard job that you all have. There is obviously 

some differing perspectives about what is more important, you 

know, 1 percent or, you know, 480,000. I think at some point, you 

know, quantity has a quality all of its own when you are talking 

47 

about the magnitude of individuals, and it only takes one person 

with bad intentions, you know, to be a risk to public safety and National security. 

So we don’t need a hyperbolize it, but we need to be vigilant 

about doing everything we can to make sure that those that are 

trying to use our system and our processes that are trying to do 

us harm are very quickly identified and the public remains safe. So 

I appreciate all the efforts that are being made related to that. 

I think we do have a lot of—a lot of work has been done, but we 

do have a lot of work left to do, and we look forward to partnering 

with you to make sure that we are able to close some these gaps 

that are still there in technology and procedures and whatever else 

is required. 

So I appreciate your testimony today and appreciate all the work 

that you all do. 

I also want to thank the Members for their questions. The Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the 

witnesses, and I think we have already had some for the record, 

so please get back. We would ask you to respond to additional 

questions in writing. Pursuant to committee rule VII(e), the hearing record will be held open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ