U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–725 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–435

POST–9/11 VISA REFORMS AND

NEW TECHNOLOGY: ACHIEVING

THE NECESSARY SECURITY

IMPROVEMENTS IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 23, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire, Chairman

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Aber, John, Vice President for Research and Public Service, University of

New Hampshire .................................................................................................... 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Estorino, Jose, Senior Vice President of Marketing, Orlando/Orange County

Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc., Orlando, Florida .................................. 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Hardy, David, Acting Assistant Director, Records Management Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation ............................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

Jacobs, Janice L., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau of

Consular Affairs, Department of State .............................................................. 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator From Florida ....................................................... 22

Oberlin, William, President, American Chamber of Commerce, Seoul, South

Korea ..................................................................................................................... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ................................ 1

Verdery, Hon. C. Stewart Jr., Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border and

Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security .......................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Appendix

Additional information submitted for the record by Janice L. Jacobs ................ 65

Additional questions submitted by the committee for the record ........................ 70

(III)

(1)

POST–9/11 VISA REFORMS AND

NEW TECHNOLOGY: ACHIEVING

THE NECESSARY SECURITY

IMPROVEMENTS IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

Thursday, October 23, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in Room

SD–419, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John E. Sununu, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SUNUNU. Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing

on post-9/11 visa reforms and new technology. We’re trying to understand whether we’re achieving necessary security improvements

that everyone in America expects in today’s changing environment.

The events of September 11th have made every American even

more proud of our open and dynamic society. We welcome even

more enthusiastically visitors to our shores to attend business, academic, or scientific meetings, visit friends, or study at the outstanding universities around the country. From the White Mountains of New Hampshire to the sparkling beaches of Florida, we

recognize that those that travel here to enjoy the beauty of America, tourists, and other visitors make an enormous impact on our

economy. We know that, as well as a great trading nation and a

leader of development of new science and technology, our present

and future prosperity, as well as our military and economic security, depend upon the swift movement of people, goods, and services all around the globe.

The attacks of 9/11, however, forced us to reassess our policies

in a number of areas including the challenging task of ensuring

that those who come to our country as guests or immigrants mean

us no harm by a more rigorous scrutiny of travelers that want to

visit our shores.

Since September 11th, Congress has worked closely with the executive branch to improve our ability to control our borders and

prevent terrorists and criminals from entering our country. Congress passed two major pieces of legislation to address this need,

the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Enhanced Border Security and

2

Visa Entry and Reform Act of 2002. In these bills, we have taken

a wide range of steps, creating the new Department of Homeland

Security, adding new requirements for strengthening the visa application and review process, and using new technology, such as

biometrics in passports and visas, to protect our borders.

Today, we’ll examine these post-September 11th visa issuance reforms and the new technology that supports them. We’ll discuss

these issues first with our distinguished witnesses from the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as the Federal

Bureau of Investigation. In our second panel, we’ll hear from several leading figures from the private sector to ascertain how the

visa reforms affect them.

The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security recently recommitted themselves and their agencies to ‘‘work cooperatively to create and maintain an effective, efficient visa process that secures

America’s borders from external threats and ensures that our borders remain open to legitimate travel in the United States.’’ They

reaffirm that ‘‘such travel is important to our international, economic, and national values and interests.’’

This subcommittee understands the tremendous challenge that

these and other agencies, including the FBI, undertake every day

to keep terrorists and other criminals out while welcoming our

friends. In fiscal year 2002, there were about 440 million border

crossings into the United States at over 300 designated ports of

entry. Of the more than 358 million borders crossers who entered

through land ports, almost 50 million entered as pedestrians. The

rest entered in more than 131 million vehicles, including cars,

trucks, buses, and trains. Further, State Department processed

about 8.4 million non-immigrant visa applications and issued 7 million U.S. passports. These numbers alone give stark indication to

the scope and magnitude of the challenge that our witnesses today

deal with every day.

Today, we’ll focus on the procedures related to non-immigrant

visas, including border crossing cards for Mexican citizens, as well

as entry procedures for those using the Visa Waiver Program. The

goal is to examine the visa-related reforms that this new government team, Departments of State and Homeland Security, working

closely with the FBI, have made overseas and here in Washington.

We’re particularly interested in how new technology is being used

to consolidate and expeditiously exchange information that agencies have on terrorism criminals who would threaten our security.

Among the questions we’ll be asking, What steps are being taken

to ensure that the visa and border control officers on the front lines

are getting the information they need to ensure that evildoers cannot enter the country? Will, for example, the new Terrorist Screening Center, which is administered by the FBI, be able to meet the

requirement to provide accurate and timely information on terrorists trying to gain admission through legal ports of entry in the

United States? Looking to the future, a key question is, What new

resources will be required to ensure that this new system operates

the way it should? And what are the performance goals now set by

agencies for timely decisions? I would add, whether or not those

performance goals are meeting the expectations and the needs of

3

those in private industry or other areas of the economy that depend

on the timely issuance of visas.

Such decisions are important to speed bona fide and legitimate

visitors that are on their way and to enable us to work with others

to apprehend terrorists. We seek the private sector’s perspectives

on the impact of reforms on these legitimate travelers, as well.

We’ll hear from two panels of witnesses today. We will begin

with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Service, who

will outline the new visa and border card application and adjudication process, from beginning to end. We will then hear from the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border, and Transportation Security about the agency’s new and vital

role in this area. And finally we will have the acting assistant director for Records Management from the FBI to brief us on the

FBI’s important role in the new process.

Our second panel will consist of representatives from business

and academia, that deal with travel and the access of foreign visitors that might have an impact on our economy, to provide us with

their perspectives of the new process. I also hope that they’ll share

with us their insights of the impact the reforms will have on foreign friends and the perception of those foreigners on the United

States.

I appreciate the time you’ve all taken from your very busy schedules to be with us this morning. I know Mr. Oberlin, representing

the American Korean Chamber of Commerce, has come all the way

from Seoul, and some other witnesses have traveled from as far as

New Hampshire.

We will begin with our first panel. If there are no objections, I

will enter all of your written statements into the record, ask each

of you to summarize in five minutes your key observations. If you

can do your best to keep to our timetable, that will allow the greatest possible amount of time for questions and interaction. And I do

assure you any written testimony will be submitted for the record.

With that, let me welcome you and begin with Ms. Janice Jacobs,

who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services from the Department of State.

Welcome, and please feel free to provide us with a summary of

your written testimony.

STATEMENT JANICE L. JACOBS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VISA SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

I’m pleased to be here today to discuss the critical role that the

State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs plays in securing

our nation’s borders. Protecting the security of the United States

from foreign threats has always been, and continues to be, the primary goal of the visa process. The Secretary has also articulated

our policy of ‘‘Secure Borders/Open Doors,’’ many times before the

Congress and public. We are acutely conscious of the need for legitimate travelers, who constitute the overwhelming majority of

our applicant pool, to receive swift, thorough, and clear adjudications of their visa applications so that they can plan their travel

to the U.S. consonant with the goals of that travel.

4

It is an undeniable fact that in some parts of the world it now

takes longer to receive a visa to travel to the U.S. than it did in

the past. This is a direct consequence of the greater scrutiny to

which certain visa applicants have been subjected in the wake of

9/11. At the same time, we continue to reform the visa process to

make it more efficient and effective, but always within the context

of security.

I’m proud to report to you today on some of the many improvements to the visa process since the terrorist attacks on September

11th, and I also would like to enter into the record a list of these

accomplishments that we’ve undertaken since 9/11.

Senator SUNUNU. Without objection.

[See the appendix to this hearing, page 65, for the information

referred to by Ms. Jacobs.]

Ms. JACOBS. Obviously, the best way to stop terrorists or criminals from receiving a legitimate U.S. visa is to identify those persons beforehand to our consular officers. The Consular Lookout and

Support System’s 15 million records on people ineligible to receive

visas comes from U.S. government-wide sources and helps us do

just that. Data are essential, but you obviously need to know how

to use them in order to reliably distinguish the genuine threats

from the legitimate visitors. Consular officers consequently apply

their language and area skills to analyze an application and put

relevant questions to the would-be visitor, when required.

We recently revised our regulations to limit the circumstances

under which a post may waive the requirement to personally interview applicants so that this resource may be used with greater frequency. Requiring more personal interviews also allows our embassies and consulates to prepared for the introduction of biometric

identifiers in the U.S. visa by October 26th, 2004, as required by

law. In accordance with international standards established by the

International Civil Aviation Organization, we have selected facial

recognition and electronic fingerprint scanning as the most effective and least intrusive. We are currently collecting fingerprints at

six posts, and will be collecting at all 211 visa issuing posts by the

mandated deadline.

Since terrorist groups are agile organizations that are constantly

recruiting members, we have designed a system of Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) requirements that require a consular officer

abroad to refer selected visa cases identified by law enforcement

and intelligence information for greater review by Washingtonbased agencies. Of the various SAO procedures, Visas Condor was

created to focus on potential terrorism applicants. Review of Condor cases requires close cooperation with our partners in law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that all the

best analysis is brought to bear on such cases before deciding

whether to issue an applicant a visa. In no case do we issue a visa

over the objection of law enforcement or the intelligence community.

We also have an SAO procedure to ensure that sensitive U.S.

technology is not stolen or inappropriately shared with those who

would use it to harm the U.S. or our allies. Known as the Visas

Mantis, this procedure also requires close cooperation with other

5

agencies that are experts in law enforcement, counter-terrorism,

and high technology. Once the analysis is complete, we review all

information provided, and advise the consular officer as to whether

or not there is any derogatory information on the applicant.

We have fortunately come a long way from the beginning of the

Condor process, when, frankly, none of the agencies involved in the

clearance process were able to handle the volume of cases. Since

then, we have coordinated closely with the other agencies to improve the interagency process. We also shifted the clearance of

Condor cases to our National Visa Center in New Hampshire in

July of this year, created a special Mantis team in the visa office

devoted exclusive to technology transfer cases, and are piloting a

$1 million project this November to allow for seamless electronic

transmission of visa data among foreign-service posts, the Department of State, and other Washington agencies.

The integrity of our own travel documents, both physical and

procedural, is another lynchpin in the security of our country’s borders. We are currently developing an intelligent passport with an

imbedded chip that will use a facial-recognition standard consistent

with the ICAO standard that is accepted internationally. The data

initially written to the chip will be limited to the same biodata

shown on the data page in the current version of the passport,

along with a full digital image of the passport-bearer’s portrait.

We have assembled an interagency working group to develop a

project plan for implementing our program. Our objective is to

begin piloting the passport in October 2004, with systemwide implementation by the end of 2005.

As I noted above, we will meet the congressionally mandated

deadline of Section 303(b) of the Enhanced Border and Security Act

to add biometrics to visas we issue to foreign nationals. Let me further add that to support this program, we will be expanding our

data-share arrangements with the Department of Homeland Security. We will be providing DHS the electronic record of all issued

visas, in real time, to include the visa recipient’s photo and fingerprints. The fingerprint data will be checked against the DHS Lookout Database known as IDENT. We expect that DHS will use our

visa data to speed up the identification, verification, and inspection

of travelers arriving at U.S. ports of entry.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about our new partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. In this historic

time of change, State and DHS have come together to establish

procedures that will provide a sound basis for maintaining an effective, efficient visa process that secures America’s borders from external threats while continuing to promote legitimate travel to the

U.S. We worked long and hard together on a framework that gives

the Secretary of Homeland Security the policy role contemplated by

the Homeland Security Act, while maintaining the Secretary of

State’s clear chain of command over consular officers, and relying

on the foreign policy and visa processing expertise of the Department of State and its consular officers.

I hope I have conveyed our deep commitment to enhancing the

security of the visa process. I hope I have also conveyed our commitment to maintaining the openness of our society to foreign visitors from all aspects of life—students, family members, scholars,

6

business travelers, and tourists. All enrich our country and bring

significant economic benefits to the United States. Secure Borders/

Open Doors remains our goal. Our challenge has been to integrate

the security enhancing features of our new programs in both the

visa and passport worlds in a manner that does not discourage legitimate travel to the U.S.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANICE L. JACOBS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the critical role that the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs plays in securing our nation’s borders. Protecting

the security of the United States from foreign threats has always been, and continues to be, the primary goal of the visa process. The Secretary has also articulated

our policy of ‘‘Secure Borders/Open Doors’’ many times before the Congress and public. We are acutely conscious of the need for legitimate travelers—who constitute the

overwhelming majority of our applicant pool—to receive swift, thorough, and clear

adjudications of their visa applications so that they can plan their travel to the U.S.

consonant with the goals of that travel. It is an undeniable fact that, in some parts

of the world, it now takes longer to receive a visa to travel to the US than it did

in the past. This is a direct consequence of the greater scrutiny to which certain

visa applicants have been subjected in the wake of 9/11. At the same time, we continue to reform the visa process to make it more efficient and effective but always

within the context of security. I am proud to report to you today on some of the

many improvements to the visa process since the terrorist attacks of September 11,

2001. (I would also like to enter into the record this list of improvements.)

Secretary Powell has described our consular officers abroad as America’s first line

of defense against terrorists and criminals who seek to enter the US to do harm

to our citizens and foreign guests. Obviously the best way to stop terrorists or criminals from receiving a legitimate U.S. visa is to identify those persons beforehand

reliably to our consular officers so they can spot them on visa lines and take appropriate action against them. Thanks to the USA PATRIOT ACT, which mandated

interagency data-sharing, our Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) now

contains more than 15 million records on people ineligible to receive visas, more

than double the number available before 9/11. CLASS counts on the systematic contributions of many federal government agencies—but especially those of the law enforcement and intelligence communities—to provide up-to-date information on terrorist threats to the United States. In fact, the majority of information (61%) now

in CLASS is derived from other agencies.

Data information is essential but you obviously need to know how to use it in

order to reliably distinguish the genuine threats from the overwhelming majority of

visa applicants who simply wish to visit our country for legitimate reasons. Consular officers employ the language skills and country knowledge acquired prior to

arrival at post, along with new techniques now taught at the Foreign Service Institute that allow them to better recognize deception. Officer training and state-of-theart consular systems come together in the visa interview where an officer can assess

an applicant’s bona fides, perform the mandatory namecheck and decide whether or

not to issue a visa. While personal interviews may be costly in time and money, they

are an essential part of the process to enable us to better assess the visa applicant.

This is why we recently revised our regulations to limit the circumstances under

which a post may waive the requirement to personally interview all visa applicants.

Requiring more personal interviews also allows our embassies and consulates to

prepare for the next major reform, the introduction of biometric identifiers in the

U.S. visa as required by Section 303 of the Enhanced Border and Security Act. By

October 26, 2004, all U.S. visas must incorporate a biometric identifier. In accordance with international standards established by the International Civil Aviation

Organization, we have selected facial recognition and electronic fingerprint scanning

as the most effective and least intrusive. We are currently collecting fingerprints at

six posts (San Salvador, Guatemala City, Frankfurt, Brussels, Ottawa and Montreal) in an efficient and respectful manner and will continue to expand our capability to all visa-issuing posts to meet the congressionally mandated deadline of October 26, 2004.

7

Since terrorist groups are agile organizations that are constantly recruiting members, we have designed a system of Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) requirements

that require a consular officer abroad to refer selected visas cases, identified by law

enforcement and intelligence information, for greater review by Washington based

agencies. Of the various SAO procedures, ‘‘Visas Condor’’ was created to focus on

potential terrorism applicants. Review of Condor cases requires close cooperation

with our partners in law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that

all the best analysis is brought to bear on such cases before deciding whether to

issue the applicants a visa. In no case do we issue a visa over the objections of law

enforcement or the intelligence community. In the last fiscal year, we processed approximately 212,000 SAO cases, which represent only 2.2 per cent of total visa

workload.

We also have an SAO procedure to ensure that sensitive U.S. technology is not

stolen or inappropriately shared with those who would use it to harm the US or

our allies. Known as the ‘‘Visas Mantis,’’ this procedure also requires close cooperation with other agencies that are experts in law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and

high technology. Once the analysis is complete, we review the derogatory information provided in light of the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act and

other relevant law. We then advise the consular officer as to whether there is any

derogatory information on the applicant.

We have nonetheless come a long way from the beginning of the ‘‘Condor’’ process

and the very difficult period from the summer of 2002 when we first required a positive response from law enforcement prior to issuing any visa subject to this review.

None of the federal agencies involved in the clearance process, including State, were

technically equipped to handle the volume of data that began to come in to us when

‘‘Condor’’ began. To improve the overall process, we have made a number of technical changes in coordination with other agencies. In July of this year, we improved

the efficiency of the clearance process by shifting clearance of ‘‘Condor’’ cases to our

National Visa Center in New Hampshire. We also created a special Mantis team in

the Visa Office devoted exclusively to technology transfer cases. We are also piloting

a one million dollar project to allow for seamless electronic transmission of visa data

among Foreign Service posts, the Department of State and other Washington agencies. The other agencies will no longer receive a telegram but a reliable data transmission through an inter-operable network that begins with the Consular Consolidated Database. Using the Consular Consolidated Database as an electronic

linchpin will improve data integrity, accountability of responses in specific cases,

and statistical reporting. We will pilot this project in November.

The integrity of our own travel documents, both physical and procedural, is another linchpin in the security of our country’s borders. Although the Enhanced Border Security Act does not address the issue of biometrics in the U.S. passport, we

believe it is desirable for the U.S. to commit to a comprehensive program to incorporate this new technology into the U.S. passport in light of the clear security and

identity advantages that this new technology offers. We are currently developing an

‘‘intelligent passport’’ with an embedded chip that will use a facial recognition

standard consistent with the ICAO standard that is accepted internationally. The

data initially written to the chip will be limited to the same bio-data shown on the

data page in the current version of the passport, along with a full digital image of

the passport bearer’s portrait. We have assembled an interagency working group to

develop a project plan for implementing our program. Our objective is to begin piloting the passport in October 2004 with systemwide implementation by early 2006.

As I noted above, we will meet the congressionally mandated deadline of section

303(b) of the Enhanced Border and Security Act to add biometrics to visas we issue

to foreign nationals. Let me further add that to support this program we will be

expanding our datashare arrangements with DHS We will be providing DHS the

electronic record of all issued visas in real-time to include the visa recipient’s photo

and fingerprints. The fingerprint data will be checked against the DHS lookout

database known as DENT. We expect that DHS will use our visa data to speed up

the identification verification and inspection of travelers arriving at US ports of

entry.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about our new partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. In this historic time of change, State and DHS

have come together to establish procedures that will provide a sound basis for maintaining an effective, efficient visa process that secures America’s borders from external threats while continuing to promote legitimate travel to the U.S. We worked

long and hard together on a framework that gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the policy role contemplated by the Homeland Security Act while maintaining

the Secretary of State’s clear chain of command over consular officers and relying

8

on the foreign policy and visa processing expertise of the Department of State and

its consular officers.

I hope I have conveyed our deep commitment to enhancing the security of the visa

process. I hope I have also conveyed our commitment to maintaining the openness

of our society to foreign visitors from all aspects of life: students, family members,

scholars, business travelers and tourists all enrich our country and bring significant

economic benefits to the United States. ‘‘Secure Borders/Open Doors’’ remains our

goal. Our challenge has been to integrate the security enhancing features of our new

programs in both the visa and passport worlds in a manner that does not discourage

legitimate travel to the U.S. I welcome your questions.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.

Our second witness will be C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., who is the

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Border, and Transportation Security

at the Department of Homeland Security.

Welcome, Mr. Verdery.

STATEMENT OF HON. C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR POLICY, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION

SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. VERDERY. Good morning, Chairman Sununu and Chairman

Lugar.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s new role in the visa

issuance process and to describe how we intend to carry out our responsibilities now that the Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and the Department of State is in effect.

I’ll speak as to how DHS will enhance security of the current

visa issuance process, and highlight several DHS initiatives and

statutory deadlines that will affect the entry and admission of foreign nationals to the United States.

Before delving into these topics, I’d like to mention how honored

I am to return to the Senate for the first time in an official DHS

capacity. I served Senators Warner, Hatch, and Nickles for over six

years in this body, and have special appreciation for the legislative

and oversight responsibilities that you and your colleagues exercise

every day.

As Ms. Jacobs described, in developing and implementing the

MOU, DHS has developed a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the Department of State. Our respective bosses, Asa

Hutchinson and Maura Hardy, have established a very productive

working relationship, and we’re consulting on a variety of issues,

including the visa clearance process and interview requirements for

visa applicants. DHS and DOS also participate in several interagency working groups addressing issues such as the upcoming biometrics deadlines for documents, and the entry/exit system known

as US-VISIT.

DHS intends to do a top-to-bottom review of the visa process to

assess whether there are security weaknesses in the existing regulatory scheme or efficiencies to be gained without sacrificing security. This review is a high priority for the Department and will require collaboration with my colleagues at DOS, other executive

branch departments, various stakeholders in the business community and private and public sectors, including the education establishment.

We’re committed to ensuring that adequate resources and staff

are devoted to implementation of the MOU and are working within

9

the President’s fiscal year ’05 budget request to assess the resource

needs for this program, which will be handled, on an operational

level, by the Office of International Enforcement within BTS. In

the interim, OIE will fund operations from existing BTS budgets

and leverage existing resources and personnel to staff our overseas

operations.

We already have officers in Saudi Arabia reviewing all visa applications, as required by law. Our officers have full access to a variety of law enforcement databases and selected legacy-INS information.

The true value of DHS officers, in addition, lies in their wealth

of law enforcement experience, especially related to border admissions and interior enforcement. By placing DHS officials at consular posts at the very beginning of the visa process, we’re able to

ensure that homeland security requirements are addressed immediately during visa adjudication.

The next phase for deployment currently envisions five regional

hub sites that will cover approximately 23 countries. These sites

will be selected based on a variety of factors, including visa volume,

and security and threat assessments. Possible locations—and these

are possible—include Pakistan, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Indonesia.

DHS has also launched a number of initiatives that will affect

the visa process and admission to the United States. BTS is implementing the US-VISIT system, which will capture entry and exit

information of certain visitors to the United States. Increment I of

the system involves deployment of the entry/exit system at air and

sea ports of entry by December 31st of this year, and collection of

biometric and biographical information from visa holders. This information collected through the US VISIT program will enable

DHS to check potential visitors against up-to-date watch lists and

to restore integrity to our immigration laws for individuals who

overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas.

DHS is also piloting border crossing card (BCC) readers at six

ports of entry. DHS and DOS already incorporate biometrics into

the BCCs, which are issued to Mexican nationals who qualify for

B1 or B2 non-immigrant visitor status and cross the border frequently. DHS will be taking delivery of approximately 1,000 BCC

readers starting next month. The BCC pilot tests have already

helped DHS to identify a number of impostors and aliens attempting to enter the United States fraudulently.

There are also two congressionally mandated deadlines that will

affect foreign travelers seeking admission under the Visa Waiver

Program, or VWP. The first is the machine-readable passport, or

MRP, deadline required by the Patriot Act. DOS granted a postponement of this October 1st, 2003, deadline to 21 countries currently participating in the VWP, and the Bureau of U.S. Customs

and Border Protection within BTS has already issued field guidance to inspectors at the ports of entry, in terms of handling foreign nationals who are subject to the waiver. For those countries,

this deadline now coincides with the October 26th, 2004, deadline

for VWP countries to begin issuing passports enhanced by biometric information, which is required by the Border Security Act.

10

Finally, an effective and secure visa system also requires improved information-sharing and watch-list integration so the officers adjudicating or reviewing applications or screening travelers

at U.S. ports of entry have all available tools and information needed to make sound decisions. DHS, in partnership with the State

Department, the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence

Agency, and the Homeland Security Council, is participating in two

important and soon-to-be-integrated initiatives, the Terrorist

Threat Integration Center, or TTIC, whose key responsibilities are

the development and maintenance of an all-source database on

known and suspected international terrorists, and the Terrorist

Screening Center, the TSC, which will develop, integrate, and

maintain a consolidated terrorist screening list of individuals

known or suspected to be engaged in terrorist activities.

In conclusion, we recognize the importance of maintaining a visa

process that allows legitimate travelers—whether for business, for

education, or for family reasons—to continue to travel to the

United States while ensuring that homeland security requirements

receive the priority they deserve.

We look forward to working with our other DHS components, our

law enforcement partners, the Department of State, the private

sector, and the public sector to ensure that collectively we develop

a visa system that provides the security that the American people

expect and deserve.

Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. STEWART VERDERY, JR.

Good afternoon, Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson and distinguished

members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today

to discuss Homeland Security’s new role in the visa process and describe how we

intend to carry out our new responsibilities now that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State

Department is in effect. I also will speak to how DHS will add value to the current

visa process without duplication of effort. Finally, I would like to highlight several

Homeland Security initiatives and statutorily mandated processes that affect entry

procedures and admission of foreign nationals to the United States.

We recognize that DHS has a tremendous challenge ahead in terms of developing

sound visa policy and adopting effective reforms to further enhance security in the

current visa process. Our interests extend beyond the process by which non-immigrant or immigrant visas are issued at U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad.

Our interests extend to the use, or exemption from use, of visas or other travel documents once issued and the admission of individuals to the United States generally.

Any revision to existing visa policy or related procedures requires a thorough understanding of the mechanics of overseas and domestic operations and how they affect

travel—from the initial application for a visa or travel document abroad, to the inspection process at the U.S. ports of entry, to admission to and departure of travelers from the United States.

Although the visa MOU has been in effect only a few weeks, DHS already has

developed a cooperative partnership with State Department to begin examining various aspects of the visa process. Even prior to our formal assumption of responsibilities under the MOU, we worked with the State Department to tighten

vulnerabilities in the visa process abroad. DHS and State Department consulted on

a variety of issues, including criteria for visa clearances under Visas Condor and

Mantis; streamlining of visa clearance procedures; and changes to interview waiver

procedures for visa applicants. Today, DHS and State Department participate in ongoing interagency working groups including the US VISIT working group which,

among other matters, addresses collection of biometric information from visa appliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
11

cants at consular posts abroad; the Data Management improvement Act (DMIA)

Taskforce which is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations for implementation of the entry-exit system; and the Visa Security Program (VSP) Steering Committee which supports the Office of International Enforcement (OIE) and

makes recommendations on significant issues affecting implementation of the MOU.

DHS intends to do a ‘‘top-to-bottom’’ review of the visa process and assess which

aspects work well and which areas need improvement. We also will evaluate current

regulations that affect the visa process to see if there are any security weaknesses

in the existing regulatory scheme. This review is a high priority for the Department

and requires extensive work with the State Department, other executive branch departments, and various stakeholders in the business community and public and private sector. Our ultimate goal is to adopt visa policies and procedures that emphasize security as well as efficiency. I am currently chairing a visa policy working

group that will develop short and long-term policy initiatives related to DHS’ visa

responsibilities under the MOU. This working group will make recommendations to

Secretary Ridge on how DHS should alter or improve visa policy.

We still are in the early stages of implementation of the visa MOU. The OIE, a

distinct entity within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate (BTS), is

responsible for overseeing management and implementation of the visa MOU and

for assignment of DHS personnel to select consular posts. DHS has committed to

ensuring that adequate resources and staff are devoted to implementation of the

MOU and visa security program and is working, in the context of the President’s FY’ 05 budget request, to assess the financial requirements and appropriate budget

needed to fund the program. In the interim, OIE will fund current operations from

existing BTS budgets, and leverage existing resources and personnel to staff OIE

and cover overseas operations at designated consular posts.

DHS officers are already in Saudi Arabia reviewing all visa applications prior to

adjudication as mandated by the Homeland Security Act. Our officers in Riyadh and

Jeddah also have provided valuable assistance, expert advice and training to consular officers on fraudulent documents, fingerprinting techniques and identity fraud.

As part of the review process, DHS officers at home and abroad have full access to

a variety of law enforcement databases, including the National Crime Information

Center (NCIC), Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS); Interagency

Border Inspections System (IBIS); National Security Entry Exit System (NSEERS);

Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS); Biometric print fingerprint system (IDENT); and Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS). They

also have access to selected legacy-INS automated adjudications data and certain

commercial databases.

The real value of DHS officers lies in the wealth of their law enforcement and

fraud experience and expertise, particularly from the perspective of border admissions and interior enforcement. By placing DHS officers at consular and diplomatic

posts at the very beginning of the visa process, we are able to ensure that homeland

security requirements are addressed immediately during visa adjudication and

issuance—in essence, pushing the security perimeter of the United States outward

to the point of first interaction with individuals seeking to enter the United States—

at the time of their visa application.

DHS intends to deploy and assign personnel to select overseas posts in a phased

approach. Phase I has already occurred with the DHS operation in Riyadh and

Jeddah. Phase II will involve deployment to additional selected. Working with the

Department of State, DHS will select the additional sites based on factors such as

threat level or security risk, visa volume, and adequacy of physical facilities and

communication capability. Possible next locations are: Pakistan, Egypt, United Arab

Emirates, Morocco, and Indonesia. Prior to final selection of additional locations,

DHS and DOS assessment teams will travel to each site, and certain alternate

locales, beginning at the end of this month and again in late November/early December. On return, the assessment teams will make formal recommendations to

Secretary Ridge on which countries should be selected for Phase II deployment. We

will update the committee once those sites have been determined.

DHS has launched a number of initiatives, some statutorily-mandated and some

in conjunction with the State Department, that will affect the visa process and admission of foreign nationals on either Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) or non-immigrant visas. We are committed to ensuring that every initiative or decision that may

affect visa issuance or travel and entry into the United States always involves careful consideration of the impact of national security requirements on the traveling

public, U.S. industries and on agency resources. DHS’s Office of Private Sector Liaison serves as a point of contact for affected parties to voice their concerns about any

proposed DHS initiative, policy or action. The Office of International Affairs also coordinates information exchange with foreign governments and other nations friendly

12

to the United States on a variety of issues including matters related to the visa

process. We recognize the need for open dialogue and communication with affected

parties and for an effective outreach strategy and public information campaign that

makes the traveling public aware of the many changes required by recent legislation

and national security enhancements.

BTS is in the first phase of developing the US VISIT system. US VISIT is a new

border security and enforcement program that will capture entry and exit information of certain visitors to the United States. The information collected will include

biometrics such as fingerprints and a digital photograph that will validate identity

and authenticate documents used for travel to the United States. The system will

be capable of tracking the entry and exit of foreign visitors who require a visa or

certain other travel documents to enter the U.S. US VISIT will make entry easier

for legitimate travelers and more difficult for illegal entrants through the use of biometrically enabled documents.

Increment I of US VISIT involves deployment of the entry exit system at air and

sea ports of entry by December 31, 2003. This first phase will allow DHS to identify

entry and exit of foreign nationals who travel in and out of the United States by

air and sea on a visa or other travel document to collect and verify biometrics for

foreign nationals who travel on a visa at air and seaports; to check such travelers

against watch lists using biographic and biometric data; and to monitor the duration

of individual visits. The US VISIT program at air and sea ports of entry is further

enhanced by the electronic passenger manifest procedures that require airlines to

submit information on passengers prior to their arrival to, and departure from, the

United States. DHS has pilot projects ongoing in Atlanta and at the Baltimore

Washington International (BWI) airport. Increment II is tied to the October 26,

2004, deadline mandated by section 303(b)(1) of the Enhanced Border Security Act,

which requires both DHS and DOS to issue machine-readable, tamper-resistant

visas and other travel and entry documents that incorporate biometric identifiers.

By this date, DHS must be able to read and verify these new documents that are

presented by foreign nationals seeking admission to the United States. Congress

currently requires implementation of the integrated entry-exit system at the 50

highest volume land ports of entry by December 31, 2004 and the remaining land

border ports by December 31, 2005.

The information collected through the US VISIT program will enable DHS to better enforce the immigration laws pertaining to individuals who overstay their visas

or otherwise violates the terms of their admission to the United States. By using

new biometric and other security-related technology, DHS will improve the integrity

of the overall visa issuance and admission process. DHS and DOS already incorporate biometrics into Border Crossing Cards (BCCs), which are now issued only to

Mexican nationals who qualify for B-1/B-2 non-immigrant visitor status and who

cross the border frequently. The biometric BCC is functionally the equivalent of a

B-1/B-2 visa for each entry that the alien makes, although there are specific time

of visit and distance limitations on the alien’s travel when he enters the United

States. Applicants apply for BCCs with the State Department. During the application process, the State Department captures biometrics, the fingerprints and face,

and these biometrics are then submitted to DHS. DHS checks the biometrics against

various watch lists, enrolls the applicant in the BCC database and sends the outcome of the database check to the State Department for adjudication of the application. If the BCC application is approved that applicant may seek admission at any

port of entry. In instances where applicants use a BCC in lieu of a separately issued

B-1/B-2 non-immigrant visa, the applicant’s admission is limited to a 72-hour period

and a 25-mile radius of the port of entry, except for aliens entering through certain

ports in Arizona who may travel up to 75 miles within that state.. BCCs presented

at airports are scanned by readers at the primary inspection lane. As required by

statute, inspectors match the biometrics (photo) on the BCC that is presented

against the characteristics of the alien who bears the card prior to authorizing admission. At airports, the alien’s information is verified against the information presented by the airlines prior to the applicant’s arrival in the United States. If a BCC

is presented at a land border, the card may or may not be scanned through a BCC

reader, depending on whether the applicant arrives at the port of entry through a

pedestrian, cargo, commercial or vehicle lane. All applicants, however, are subject

to inspection and referred to secondary, if deemed necessary by the primary inspector, where a more through inspection may be accomplished.

DHS has piloted BCC readers at six ports of entry. Each port of entry was

equipped with the BCC readers known as the Biometrics Verification System (BVS).

These readers have the ability to biometrically verify those individuals applying for

entry bearing BCC’s on a limited basis. DHS is work to finalize the deployment

schedule. DHS will take delivery of 1,000 BVS readers, with 200 BCC readers to

13

be delivered each month starting in November of this year. Preliminary results from

the BCC pilot tests have helped DHS to identify a number of impostors and aliens

attempting to enter the United States by fraudulently presenting a BCC. Ultimately, the information captured under the BCC system will be integrated into the

US VISIT process.

Finally, there are two congressionally mandated deadlines that affect foreign travelers seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): the October 1,

2003, machine readable passport (MRP) deadline required by section 417 of the USA

Patriot Act, and the October 26, 2004, biometric deadline required by section 303

of the Border Security Act. The October 1, 2003, MRP deadline is distinct from the

October 26, 2004, deadline for biometrics in MRPs. Under section 303 of the Border

Security Act, by October 26, 2004, VWP countries are required certify that they

have a program to issue passports that contain biometrics as a condition of continued participation in the VWP. Also, on or after October 26, 2004, any alien seeking

admission under the VWP must present an MRP that contains ICAO compliant biometrics, unless the passport was issued prior to that date.

On the October 1, 2003, MRP deadline, the State Department, in consultation

with DHS, agreed to permit individual VWP countries to apply for a one-time waiver of the October 1, 2003 MRP deadline. Exercising his legislatively-authorized prerogative, the Secretary of State granted a waiver until October 26, 2004 to 21 countries currently participating in the VWP based on their having met certain requirements. Each country granted a waiver was required to make a formal request, via

diplomatic note, acknowledging that the waiver would be a one-time opportunity

and only valid until October 26, 2004, the date by which nationals of VWP countries

must present a machine-readable passport. Countries also had to certify that they

were making progress towards ensuring that machine-readable passports are available to their nationals and that they are taking appropriate steps to protect against

the misuse of their non-machine readable passports. The Bureau of Customs and

Border Protection (CBP) has already issued field guidance for inspectors at the ports

of entry for handling foreign nationals who are subject to the waiver. CBP procedures require inspectors to notify travelers from VWP countries of this new requirement with handout material indicating that the non-MRP will no longer be accepted

for travel to the United States after October 26, 2004. In addition, CBP inspectors

are instructed to hand write ‘‘MRP notified’’ adjacent to the admission stamp in nonmachine readable passports. On the October 26, 2004 MRP biometric deadline, DHS

and the State Department are working along with our VWP partners to ensure understanding of the ICAO standards.

An effective and secure visa system requires more than adopting new technology

or making enhancements to existing processes. It also requires improved information sharing and watch list integration so that officers adjudicating or reviewing

visa applications abroad or screening travelers at the U.S. ports of entry have all

available tools and information needed to make a sound decision.

Based upon direction from the White House, DHS, in partnership with the State

Department, the Homeland Security Council, Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency is participating in two important, and soon to be integrated

initiatives, that improve interagency access to terrorist-related information during

visa adjudication and admissibility determinations. The President announced his decision to create the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) during his State of

the Union address and the Center began operations on May 1 of this year. One of

TTIC’s key responsibilities is the development and maintenance of an all-source

database on known and suspected international terrorists. On September 16, 2003,

President Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6 establishing the

Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The TSC will develop, integrate, and maintain a

consolidated terrorist screening list about individuals known or suspected to be engaged in terrorist activities. TSC will permit appropriate users access to terrorist

identities information for use in a wide range of screening opportunities. The OIE

is developing a visa vetting protocol that fully ensures that capabilities of both the

TTIC and TSC are integrated into the visa vetting process.

DHS recognizes the importance of maintaining a visa process that allows legitimate travelers to continue to travel to the United States and we will continue to

balance these interests while ensuring that homeland security requirements receive

the priority they deserve in the visa process. We look forward to working with other

DHS components, our law enforcement partners, and the Department of State to ensure that collectively, we develop a visa system that provides the security that the

American people expect and deserve.

Thank you for the invitation to testify today and I look forward to any questions

you might have.

14

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Verdery.

Our third panelist is Mr. David Hardy, the acting director, acting

assistant director, for Record Management at the FBI.

Thank you, Mr. Hardy, for being here, and welcome.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HARDY, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

RECORDS MANAGEMENT DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Sununu and Chairman Lugar, thank you for inviting

the FBI to testify in this hearing in which you will be examining

the FBI’s role in the process of vetting foreign visa applicants to

the United States.

My written testimony contains a detailed explanation of the

name-check process, or the visa security review, as it’s sometimes

called, that occurs at the FBI. But, in short, the process identifies

whether a name or a visa applicant is found in the FBI records,

and then we determine if it is or it could be the individual whose

name we’re reviewing. Then we determine whether there is pertinent information on that individual. And finally we determine

whether a Security Advisory Opinion should be given to State concerning that particular individual.

I want to emphasize to you that the FBI is sensitive to the impact that delays in visa processing may have on business, education, tourism, this country’s foreign relations, and the worldwide

perceptions of the United States. With these considerations in

mind, the FBI is working diligently with the Department of State

and other federal entities toward the common goal of improving the

expediency and efficiency of the visa clearance process.

At the same time, the consequences of the FBI’s mission on

homeland security requires that our name-check process be primarily focused on accurate and thorough results. This means that

there are instances when the FBI’s review of a visa request must

require as much time needed as to obtain an unequivocally correct

result. In addition, this process has identified individuals who are

of concern to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI’s goal is to have all Mantis and Condor vetting requests

completed within 120 days. In my written testimony are two attachments, which show the current status of the Visas Condor Program and the Visas Mantis Program, and their status as of October

1st. I invite your attention to them so that I can explain the charts

to you.

Attachment A, which is for Visas Condor, if you will look in the

month of September, the FBI received 7,986 requests. By October

1st, the FBI had resolved all but 521 of these requests. In the

month of August 2003, the FBI received 7,381 Visas Condor requests, and by October 1st we had resolved all but 257 of these requests.

If you can turn to Attachment B, which is for Visas Mantis. For

Visas Mantis, the FBI received 1,029 requests in the month of September 2003, and by 1 October had resolved 832 of them. In the

month of August, the FBI received 1,122 Visas Mantis requests,

and by October 1st had resolved all but 116 of these requests.

15

The percentage of completion of these requests continue to rise

over time. Ninety-seven percent of Visas Condor and 95 percent of

Visas Mantis were resolved within 90 days. Visas Mantis are particularly difficult to resolve due to the predominance of the requests we receive from China and the commonality of Asian names.

A common question we receive, then, is, How long does it take

to complete a visa request name check? And as shown in these

graphs, for these two type of visa requests, 80 to 93 percent are

completed in 30 days. For both type of visa requests, 97 to 98 percent of the requests are resolved within 120 days.

Most of the name-check requests that are over 30 days old are

the result of the time required to retrieve and review field-office

record information. Some delays occur at the analysts’ desks. These

are the counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, and other appropriate desks, but that is to be expected. The analysts that review

these requests are the same ones that are assigned to support ongoing operations or to support the flow of intelligence to policymakers. While this adds to their significant responsibilities, they

are the best professionals that the FBI has, and they’re the appropriate individuals to make informed decisions of whether a request

of a visa represents a threat to our homeland.

These efforts are not without substantial challenges. Prior to

September 11th, the FBI name-check system processed approximately 2.5 million name checks. In fiscal year 2002, that number

increased to 3.2 million. This is for all name checks, not just for

visa name checks. And for fiscal year 2003, the number of requests

reached 6.3 million. At earlier hearings, we had estimated 9.8 million requests, but the request of name checks decreased over the

summer, although the number of visa requests have not decreased.

Attachment C illustrates this explosive increase.

With the advent of new screening requirements in late 2001, specifically the Visas Condor Program, the FBI was overwhelmed by

the increase of names to be checked. We did experience a backlog,

and there were problems. Certain visa requests were lost between

the Department of State and the FBI. We’ve all but eliminated that

backlog and are working together with the Department of State to

ensure that any old visa requests have been accounted for and

processed. This has been accomplished through clarification of the

FBI name-check database, software modifications, development of

internal FBI tracking systems, and improvement in the coordination with the visa name-check processing, particularly with the Department of State.

This summer and fall, we closely monitored the student visa submissions for this school year, and believe that we were able to meet

the seasonal demand, something that did not happen in summer

2002.

We are using the National Academy of Sciences’ data to assist us

in monitoring our response time and to conduct spot checks for

both students and visiting scholars. Again, we have not seen any

systematic problems associated with our review process.

We recognize that our current name-check process is not sufficiently robust for the volume of requests that we now receive, and

that the current process of retrieving records and information from

16

our field offices is too cumbersome. The FBI is developing remedies

for both of these concerns.

Again, the FBI recognizes the importance of accurate and timely

name-check processing. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize

to you, this has the direct attention of the Director of the FBI.

The FBI appreciates the interest of the committee in this matter,

and I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. HARDY,

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to testify in this hearing, in which the committee is

examining the FBI’s role in the process of vetting foreign visa applicants to the

United States. My name is David Hardy and I currently serve as Chief of the

Record/Information Dissemination Section, the section within the FBI’s Record Management Division responsible for the National Name Check Program. My goal today

is inform you of the manner in which the FBI is an integral part of the cooperative

effort of federal agencies to screen certain visa requests.

FBI NAME CHECK PROCESS

Certain visa applicants require substantial vetting prior to issuance of a visa. Two

of these categories are Visas Condor, relevant to certain individuals who are from

designated countries and who satisfy additional criteria which may make them worthy of additional scrutiny, and Visas Mantis, relevant to certain individuals who will

have access during their visit to American special technologies.

Since June, 2002, the FBI has been able receive visa applications by automatic

uploading of Department of State cables. Visa request information from the cable

is parsed and placed in a server for transfer to the FBI’s National Name Check Program (NNCP). Parsed information is run against the FBI Universal Indices (UNI).

The searches seek all instances of the individual’s name and approximate date of

birth, whether a main file name or reference. By way of explanation, a main file

name is that of an individual who is the subject of an FBI investigation, whereas

a reference is someone whose name appears in an FBI investigation. References

may be associates, witnesses, co-conspirators, or victims whose name has been indexed for later retrieval. The names are searched in a multitude of combinations,

switching the order of first, last, middle names, as well as combinations with just

the first and last, first and middle, and so on. It also searches different phonetic

spelling variations of the names, especially important considering that many names

in our indices have been transliterated from a language other than English.

If there is a match with a name in a FBI record, it is designated as a ‘‘Hit,’’ meaning that the system has stopped on a possible match with the name being checked,

but now a human being must review the file or indices entry to further refine the

names ‘‘Hit’’ on. If the search comes up with a name and birth date match, it is

designated an ‘‘Ident’’ An ‘‘Ident’’ is usually easier to resolve.

Approximately 85% of name checks are electronically returned as having ‘‘No

Record’’ within 72 hours. A ‘‘No Record’’ indicates that the FBI’s Central Records

System contains no identifiable information regarding this individual. By agreement

with the Department of State, partially due to our concern about the time factors

in approving most visa requests, a No Record equates to a No Objection to the

issuance of a visa. The substantive investigative divisions in the FBI, (i.e.,

Counterterrorism Division (CTD), Counterintelligence Division (CD), Criminal Investigative Division (CU)) and the Cyber Division (CyD)) do not review visa requests

where there is no record of the individual. Duplicate submissions (i.e., identically

spelled names with identical dates of birth submitted within the last 120 days) are

not checked and the duplicate findings are returned to the Department of State.

Because a name and birth date are not sufficient to positively correlate the file

with an individual, additional review is required. A secondary manual name search

usually identifies an additional 10% of the requests as having a ‘‘No Record’’, for

a 95% overall ‘‘No Record’’ response rate. The remaining 5% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record. The FBI record must now be retrieved and

reviewed. If the records were electronically uploaded into the FBI Automated Case

Support (ACS) electronic record-keeping system, it can be viewed quickly. If not, the

relevant information must be retrieved from the existing paper record. Review of

17

this information will determine whether the information is identified with the subject of the request. If not, the request is closed as a ‘‘No Record.’’

The information in the file is reviewed for possible derogatory information. Less

than 1% of the requests are identified with an individual with possible derogatory

information. These requests are forwarded to the appropriate FBI investigative division for further analysis. If the investigative division determines there is no objection to the visa request, the request is returned to the name check dissemination

desk for forwarding to the Department of State. If there is an FBI objection to the

visa request, the investigative division will prepare a written Security Advisory

Opinion (SAO) and forward it to the Department of State. In reviewing these visa

requests, the FBI has identified individuals attempting to enter the United States

who are of serious concern to the FBI.

I want to emphasize to you that the FBI is sensitive to the impact that delays

in visa processing may have on business, education, tourism, this country’s foreign

relations, and worldwide perceptions of the United States. With these considerations

in mind, the FBI is working diligently with the Department of State toward the

common goal of improving the expediency and efficiency of the visa clearance process. At the same time, the consequences of the FBI’s mission on homeland security

requires that our name check process be primarily focused on an accurate and thorough result. This means that there are instances when the FBI’s review of a visa

request must require as much time as needed to obtain an unequivocally correct result.

PROCESSING TIMES

The FBI’s goal is to have all Mantis and Condor vetting requests completed within 120 days. Attachment A illustrates the current status of Visas Condor names

checks, and Attachment B illustrates the same for Visas Mantis name checks. This

status was taken on October 1, 2003. For example, for Visas Condor, the FBI received 7,986 requests during the month of September 2003. By October 1, 2003, the

FBI had resolved all but 521 of these requests, for a 93% resolution rate. (See Attachment A) In the month of August 2003, the FBI received 7,381 Visas Condor requests and by October 1, 2003, had resolved all but 257 of these requests for a 97%

resolution rate. For Visas Mantis, the FBI received 1029 requests in the month of

September 2003 and by October 1, 2003, had resolved 832, or 80% of them (See Attachment B). In the month of August 2003, the FBI received 1,122 Visas Mantis requests and by October 1, 2003, had resolved all but 116 of these requests for a 90%

resolution rate. The percentages continue to rise over time, 97% of Visas Condor and

95% of Visas Mantis were resolved within 90 days. Visas Mantis are particularly

difficult to resolve due to the predominance of requests from China and the commonality of Asian names.

A common question we receive is, How long does it take to complete a visa request name check? As shown on these graphs, 80 to 93% are completed in 30 days.

For both types of visa requests, 97–98% of the requests are resolved in 120 days.

Most name check requests that are over 30 days old are the result of the time required to retrieve and review field office record information. Some delay occurs at

substantive analysts’ desks, but this is to be expected. These analysts are assigned

to the investigative divisions and are primarily assigned to the analysis of intelligence reports from around the world in order to support on-going investigations,

or to support the flow of intelligence to policy makers. Despite these significant and

voluminous responsibilities, these are the best professionals to review information

in our records and to then make an informed decision on whether a requester of

a visa represents a threat to our homeland, or is interested in illegally acquiring

our targeted technology. Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, the FBI’s resolves 98% of

all types of visa requests within 120 days.

18

Resolved Visas Condor—2003

Attachment A

Month

Received

Number of

Requests

Received

Number of

Requests

Resolved

October ............................................................................... 6,436 6,417

November ............................................................................ 8,355 8,337

December ............................................................................ 6,488 6,460

January ............................................................................... 5,374 5,342

February .............................................................................. 4,492 4,473

March ................................................................................. 6,648 6,620

April .................................................................................... 5,836 5,811

May ..................................................................................... 5,059 5,021

June .................................................................................... 7,384 7,266

July ..................................................................................... 9,307 8,996

August ................................................................................ 7,381 7,124

September .......................................................................... 7,986 7,465

Resolved Visas Mantis—2003

Attachment B

Month

Received

Number of

Requests

Received

Number of

Requests

Resolved

October ............................................................................... 875 875

November ............................................................................ 1,283 1,282

December ............................................................................ 1,119 1,113

January ............................................................................... 1,354 1,347

February .............................................................................. 1,035 1,023

March ................................................................................. 2,011 1,986

April .................................................................................... 985 970

May ..................................................................................... 1,240 1,217

June .................................................................................... 2,589 2,564

July ..................................................................................... 1,737 1,652

August ................................................................................ 1,122 1,006

September .......................................................................... 1,029 832

19

Total Name Checks (1994–2003)

Attachment C

Fiscal Year Number of Names

Checked

FY 1994 ............................................................................................. 1,792,874

FY 1995 ............................................................................................. 2,091,426

FY 1996 ............................................................................................. 2,939,521

FY 1997 ............................................................................................. 2,850,769

FY 1998 ............................................................................................. 2,148,993

FY 1999 ............................................................................................. 2,957,525

FY 2000 ............................................................................................. 2,449,981

FY 2001 ............................................................................................. 2,771,241

FY 2002 ............................................................................................. 3,288,018

FY 2003 ............................................................................................. 6,309,346

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

These efforts are not without substantial challenges. Prior to September 11, 2001,

the FBI name check system processed approximately 2.5 million name check requests per year. In FY 2002, that number increased to 3.2 million. For FY 2003,

the number of requests reached over 6.3 million requests. (At earlier Congressional

hearings the FBI estimated that the number would reach 9.8 million requests. The

rate of growth decreased over the summer months. It should also be noted that

while over all name check submissions decreased over the summer, the number of

visa request name checks showed no decrease.) Attachment C illustrates this explosive increase. With the advent of new visa screening requirements in late 2001, specifically the Visas Condor program, the FBI was overwhelmed by the increase in

names to be checked. We did experience a backlog, some visa requests were lost between the Department of State and the FBI, and visas requested in the spring and

summer of 2002 were delayed beyond the time period travelers had anticipated. We

have all but eliminated the backlog, and are working together with the Department

of State to ensure that any old visa requests have been accounted for and processed.

This was accomplished through clarification of the FBI name check database, software modifications that allowed development of detailed metrics, the development

of an internal FBI tracking system for SAO opinions, and improvement in the coordination of visa name check processing.

We closely monitored student visa submissions for this school year and believe

that we were able to meet this seasonal demand. We are using National Academy

of Sciences’ data to assist us in monitoring our response time for both students and

visiting scholars. Again, we have not seen any systematic problems associated with

our review process. However, the FBI recognizes that the explosion in numbers of

requests necessitates development of even more efficient processes in order to sustain the current pace of processing name check requests. The FBI is in the process

of implementing a number of interim improvements to minimize manual submissions by all agencies and increase efficiency within the name check process. The FBI

has developed high-level functional requirements for a new name check application

compatible with the new FBI information systems in development. These new information systems, over time, will eliminate dependence on the retrieval of paper files.

The development of this new name check application is now undergoing review

within the FBI’s Investment Management Process.

DECENTRALIZED RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM

I have touched upon our IT systems challenges, but now I want to discuss another

factor in delays in the FBI responding to a visa name check. FBI files are currently

stored at one of approximately 265 locations, including the FBI’s Headquarters facility, several warehouses around the Washington Metropolitan area, in records centers either operated by the NARA or commercial concerns, four large Information

Technology Center facilities on the east and west coast, at each of the 56 field ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
20

fices, many of the larger of our 400 resident agencies, and at legal attache ́ offices

worldwide. Delays result from NNCP personnel identifying a file’s location then requesting file information from a field office. Time delays mount as field office staffs

search file rooms and then ship needed information or a prepared summary to FBI

Headquarters. This process—repeated for many tasks, not only dilutes the FBI’s responsiveness, but also limits information sharing—a critical success factor in working counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases.

One possible solution to these problems the FBI is exploring would be a central

records repository where all of our closed paper files could be located, and our active

files stored electronically. Our frequently requested closed files could be scanned

and uploaded into our electronic record-keeping system, so that Agents and analysts

world wide would have instant, electronic access to the information they need to do

their jobs.

CONCLUSION

Again, the FBI recognizes the importance of accurate and timely name check processing. I want to emphasize to you, this issue has the full attention of Director

Mueller. The FBI appreciates the interest of the committee in this matter. I am prepared to answer any questions the committee may have.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardy.

We’re joined by Senator Nelson, as well as Chairman Lugar. And

I will begin the questioning. I’ll try to take less than five minutes

so that I may turn to Senator Nelson for any opening comments

and questions that he may want to get into.

Let me ask each of you to begin by commenting on information

sharing. That seems to me to be a central issue here—the ease, the

speed with which law enforcement, State, Homeland Security, and

the FBI can share information and get access to information in

order to evaluate requests for visas in a timely manner.

I’d like each of you to comment on what you see, currently, as

the greatest obstacle to a good, strong, consistent information-sharing between agencies.

And why don’t we begin with you, Mr. Verdery.

Mr. VERDERY. Well, Mr. Chairman, it’s clear the problem that

you identified is an important one. Whether you’re talking about a

Consular officer, a DHS officer overseas, or a Customs and Border

Protection inspector at the border, not to mention a state and local

officer who might have run into somebody, having access to the

kind of information they need to do their job is obviously critical.

I think this is the central thinking behind both the TTIC and the

TSC that the Administration has unveiled over the last few

months, the TTIC is running as we speak, and the TSC is coming

online, I believe, late this year or in January, to try to come up

with the integrated or consolidated sharing of information so that

the people who have a need to know have the information they

need to have. And so that’s, obviously, been a problem over the

years, that these two initiatives will link up together.

From our point of view, we will be both the supplier of information to these entities and a client, so we’ll be receiving intelligence

that will go in, to develop intelligence. We’ll also be recipients, in

terms of getting information from the TTIC and TSC and sharing

it with the border inspectors, and our DHS overseas officers.

One thing I would just mention is, there has been a lot of

progress in terms of making sure that the information that the

State Department receives during the visa application process is

available at the borders, at the ports of entry, for the inspectors so

they can see, through the data-share program, information that

21

was received at the time of application to make sure that it’s

verified when the applicant shows up at the port of entry for admission to the United States.

Senator SUNUNU. Ms. Jacobs, what is the biggest obstacle to information sharing between agencies right now?

Ms. JACOBS. Well, I would just like to mention that I think the

data-sharing has increased enormously after 9/11. We are making

greater use of our consolidated database that has all information

on visas that are issued or denied, sharing that information with

inspectors at the ports of entry. We have doubled the number of

lookouts in our Lookout system. We are finding new ways to share

data with other agencies. Soon we will be sharing the fingerprint

data that we collect overseas with the Department of Homeland Security with the inspectors at ports of entry.

I think that probably the two greatest obstacles that we all face,

one would be the uneven pace of modernization of existing systems

and systems architecture. And we all have new systems, I think,

that we’re trying to put in place. They don’t necessarily talk to

each other yet, and I think that’s one thing that we really need to

address.

The more that we can share information electronically, the more

that we can do special clearances, or security advisory opinions, in

particular, electronically, the faster the process will go. We are undertaking, at the State Department, to use our consolidated visa

database to begin doing name checks electronically. We’re going to

pilot that program in November, and we hope to have it up and

running by January of next year.

I think the other thing, the second greatest obstacle right now

is perhaps the quality of the data that we share. I think we need

to work a little bit on formats, the type of information, making sure

that it is consistent, so that everyone is able to read the same

things and understand what the Lookout data means.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Hardy, I’ll give you a chance to answer

that question in a moment, but, Ms. Jacobs, is there a plan in

place, at State and certainly within your organization, to deal in

some way with the system’s modernization question?

Ms. JACOBS. Absolutely. We replace computer hardware every

three to four years on our existing systems, and our systems are

continually modified and updated to meet ne requirements. I think

that the systems used by the Bureau of Consular Affairs are really

state-of-the-art. As I mentioned, our consolidated database, which

now has about 70 million visa records, 30 million of those have

photos attached, we are finding new functionality for that system

all the time. I talked about this new project to do electronic name

checks. We’re also using that data to share information with other

agencies. The Bureau of Consular Affairs has just established a

technology information management steering committee to undertake quarterly reviews of its projects. So I think we are, at State,

doing everything we can to keep up to date.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you.

Mr. Hardy?

Mr. HARDY. As Secretary Jacobs referred to, in the FBI record review, our name-check process, two existing systems were essentially modified and adapted to work together, and so that has not

22

been without the requirement for a great deal of coordination and

loss of time as we try to adapt these two systems. The State Department is in the process of developing a new system, as is the

FBI, and so many of the problems that we have currently will resolved as these new systems come online.

I will also state, though, that a significant amount of human cooperation and information sharing has overcome the lack of compatibility of these two systems, and it is through a great deal of

hard work of people in both agencies that we’re able to keep the

robust information flow that is occurring.

As to other information issues, particularly concerning the investigative decision, I’ll have to take that for the record, as it’s out of

my area of expertise.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you.

Senator Nelson?

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

calling this hearing.

This is an important subject, and in your next panel we have

someone from Florida representing the tourism industry, to tell

this subcommittee just how vital that industry is to our state and

how much our Florida economy is so heavily dependent on the

tourism industry. Close to 900,000 jobs in the state are related to

tourism and all the ancillary businesses, such as the hotels, the

restaurants, the theme parks, the airlines, the cruise ships. And so

I’m looking forward to this panel, and it’s of vital importance to our

state.

Changes to the current policy toward the visa issuance are clearly needed, and we must ensure that we don’t allow people who

want to do us harm enter this country. At the same time, we’ve got

to streamline the system. We clearly have to protect ourselves, but,

in the process of protecting ourselves, we’ve got to enable the commerce to continue.

So we’re now in a position to evaluate the failings and the shortcomings of the previous policy and to implement the changes needed to improve the systems. During these discussions, I’d like us to

remember that we live in a global economy, and we simply can’t

close our doors to the foreign nations, nor can we create a system

that is so burdensome that we discourage good, law-abiding nations

to come here to visit, to work, to study, and otherwise contribute

to our economy and to our country, as a whole.

We have had hearings, Mr. Chairman, of which—you and I both

sit on the Commerce Committee—we’ve had hearings on the health

of the nation’s tourism industry, especially after September 11th.

Now, I have some concerns that some of these visa policies discussed could have a negative impact on the international tourism,

and this is at the same time that we recognize that what we ought

to be doing is reaching out to our foreign guests and having them

coming to America. And so, last year, we appropriated $50 million

to the Department of Commerce to create the U.S. Travel and

Tourism Advisory Board. And it’s a remnant of what we had 20

years ago, which was a little agency called the USTTA, the U.S.

23

Travel and Tourism Administration. And by leveraging just a few

dollars in foreign advertising, it brought untold numbers of guests,

which stimulated our economy here. Well, we are now reintroducing this idea after a two-decade hiatus, and I hope it’s going to

be one way that we can encourage more people to come and visit

the U.S.

The ease of issuing non-immigrant visas is greatly important to

sustaining tourism and other sectors of the economy.

Fingerprinting services are a small, but a key, component to effective and efficient visa issuance. The ability of consulates to process

fingerprints electronically is crucial in this age of rapid global

movement.

In our Commerce Committee, we had a question of, in the aftermath of September 11th, what we found, that some of the hijackers

had come here, they had taken flight lessons. My state happened

to be a state where they had taken a lot of those. We have enacted

legislation that—for foreign nationals taking flight lessons. And we

want to encourage that activity; it’s a legitimate business. So how

do we protect ourselves? Well, we’re requiring that they have fingerprints done, and done in an expeditious manner so that it won’t

hurt those flying schools’ business. And, as I understand the process, fingerprinting is one of the final components of a background

check, following the verification of names and other biographical

information. And yet, in the past, we’ve seen it has taken up to

three weeks to complete, and this is a very lengthy time for anybody that wants to come here, and it’s also a lengthy for someone

that is here in the United States, for clearance. And if the applicant is not cleared, for whatever reasons, that person clearly is— it’s in our interest that we find out why they didn’t get cleared.

So thank you for letting me make my opening statement, and

what I’d like, then, is to ask of the panel to discuss and explain

when can we expect electronic fingerprint collection to be widespread, and which countries will be among the first to have American consulates equipped with the technology? And take us through

the scenario of what can a foreign national expect in the future

when they go into an American embassy or consulate in their country to apply for a visa to come to the U.S.

Thank you.

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for that question. I’m happy to answer

it, because we have actually just started our fingerprint program

at several of our posts overseas. As you know, we’re required by

law to include biometric identifiers with the visas that we issue by

October 26th of 2004, and there are about six to eight posts right

now where we are doing that. Doing that is working extremely

well. In fact, I have here to show you basically what we’re using.

It is an electronic scanner, and all the applicants have to do is put

down an index finger from each hand, very quickly. It takes about

30 seconds, and the fingerprint has been collected.

Senator NELSON. What are those six or eight posts? And when

will that be installed?

Ms. JACOBS. Okay, we are already collecting at Frankfort, Brussels, Guatemala, San Salvador, Ottawa, Montreal, and I think we

start Cairo in the next couple of days. And, as I said, we’ll be

worldwide by October of 2004.

24

The process itself is very quick, it’s very easy. This data will

eventually be shared with the inspectors at ports of entry, and we

will also be checking a database that DHS maintains, called

IDENT, so there will be a name check in addition to the name

check that we do through out Lookout system.

Senator NELSON. Well, that sounds very encouraging. That

sounds like October of ’04 you’re going to basically be able to fingerprint check everybody in a quick and efficient manner on any

person applying for a visa to come to the U.S.

Ms. JACOBS. That’s right. There is another process involved. We

do have a lot of the NCIC, the FBI criminal data, in our Lookout

system. If there is a hit on somebody who applies, where it looks

like it’s the same person, on those particular individuals we do

have to take ten rolled fingerprints and send those back to the FBI

to verify whether it’s the same person. So that process does take

a little bit longer than the electronic process that I was describing

earlier.

Senator NELSON. How much longer?

Ms. JACOBS. I think we’re doing those in about three weeks.

Senator NELSON. And what’s the difference there? And what percent of all your visa applications will take that more lengthy process?

Ms. JACOBS. It’s a very small percentage of the applicants. It just

depends on whether there’s a name that’s either a direct hit or a

close hit in the NCIC data. I think that eventually we may be able

to do that electronically, as well. It’s certainly something we’re

working towards.

We have an FBI agent who works up at our National Visa Center, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, who actually is processing

these, and he’s very dedicated to turning these around quickly.

Senator NELSON. And when you say a ‘‘small percentage,’’ what

are we talking about?

Ms. JACOBS. I’ll have to get back to you, I think, with the exact

number, but of all of the applicants it’s a very small number that

actually—where we have to do the ten fingerprints.

[Ms. Jacobs’ response to Senator Nelson’s question follows:]

Ms. JACOBS. Of the 7,079,805 non-immigrant visa applications received worldwide during FY 2003, 24,364, or 0.34% were required

to have their fingerprints taken as a result of a possible match in

the NCIC FBI criminal database.

Senator NELSON. And that is just an estimate now. You’re estimating that it’s going to be a very small percentage.

Ms. JACOBS. Yes. Yes, sir. But I’m fairly certain it is a very small

percentage.

Senator NELSON. But that’s because they get back a direct hit.

Ms. JACOBS. Right.

Senator NELSON. Okay. Thank you.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Nelson.

Chairman Lugar, welcome to our subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Sununu.

I thank you and Senator Nelson for a very important hearing.

My question comes really from the testimony of the next panel,

and I cite specifically testimony of Jose Estorino, from Florida,

25

whom Senator Nelson has mentioned. He gives a summary, which

is certainly balanced, that, by and large, these new rules and requirements make sense, from a homeland security perspective, and

that TIA and the U.S. travel industry support efforts to enhance

national security. But the many prospective international visitors,

who experience wave after wave of new travel requirements, and

so forth, paint a big picture that the United States is becoming a

destination that’s too difficult to enter, too expensive to visit, and

simply not worth the effort. He cites Brazil, where a 45 percent

fall-off in travel to the United States has been noted. He then details South Korea, and another witness gets into the South Korean

problems, and estimates that maybe a sixth of the persons who

would be coming to the United States, for various reasons, will not

be coming.

In the Brazilian case, it’s an interesting anecdotal discussion, because it’s a big country. If Brazilians must travel long distances to do the paperwork, this could amount to $450 of expense per member—for a family of four, $1,800—and what was meant to be a vacation simply becomes ‘‘a bridge too far.’’ Likewise, in South Korea,

there are equally daunting problems.

Now, these dilemmas are well-known, I think, to everybody who’s

been discussing this issue. I started with the balance summary,

that homeland security, as we have seen is extremely important.

We’ve had a congressional inquiry going on in the Intelligence

Committee, seemingly endlessly, as to why our government failed,

intelligence-wise, in terms of our record-keeping, or whoever else

was involved, that led to the death of many Americans on September 11th. So it’s a serious business.

I’m just curious, from your standpoint, though, as persons representing three different departments, who does a broad overview

of what this means to the country, as a whole? For instance, is it

possible that the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, the

Attorney General, would meet in any informal or even formal way?

Or is this at the level of the President? We try to assess what all

this means to us, in terms of loss of national income, in terms of

loss of international scholarship, and the perception of our country.

My general summary of all the testimony today, but also

anecdotally of a lot more, is that the cost of this program, in addition to the bureaucratic cost, the payment of the salaries and the

expenses of doing all this—which are considerable—the cost in

terms of our exports, the balance of payments, quite apart from the

reputation America has, is very, very substantial.

I’m just curious: maybe this subcommittee is finally left to try to

make these evaluations. Maybe the reason why we try to bring together two panels, those who are dealing with the real world and

those who are dealing with the mechanisms of government, is to

try to address this specific problem.

Do you have any view of who in our government, either executive

or legislative, is supposed to take a more olympian view of what

the general assets and liabilities of all of this are? If there are disasters, who mitigates them?

Ms. Jacobs, do you have an overall view of this situation?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir, thank you. Actually, it’s a very good question, because I think all of the agencies involved in border control

26

and border protection are trying to work on these measures in a

way that does not discourage travel. I think we all recognize the

billions of dollars that tourists introduce into the economy of this

country, certainly students coming here—I think that’s about a $12

billion industry—and I think we are all trying to work together.

I think that, to answer one of your questions, Secretary Powell,

Secretary Ridge, and Attorney General Ashcroft do meet on a regular basis to talk about these issues, and sometimes they really get

down in the weeds on some of it, too, about fingerprinting and all

of the different things that we’re doing. And those are very healthy

discussions, because they are looking at the big picture, and they

are trying to figure out, you know, are we doing these things in a

smart way and to make sure that we’re sharing information, sharing data, and, in the end, not discouraging legitimate travelers

from coming to the U.S.

So I think, yes, I think there are people looking at this, there are

people who certainly understand that their security, yes, has to be

our top priority, but there are many other interests here at play,

and people are watching those and taking an interest.

I’d give you an example, if I may, on how we’re working on the

U.S. Visit Program, which is the DHS’s entry/exit system, will start

early next year. All of the fingerprint data that we will be collecting will eventually be shared with the inspectors at ports of

entry. We are already getting our systems more compatible so that

we’re able to share all kinds of information. I think perhaps that’s

one of the answers to this. If we can do this in a smart way, where

we’re using the most up-to-date technology so that we can check

and keep out the people that we really need to keep out while letting in the legitimate travelers, I think that’s the goal of the agencies represented here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that’s encouraging, that there could be

some, as you say, ‘‘smart technology.’’

Now, I mention this because this is a very controversial thing in

our own country. Frequently we have constituents who say aged ladies are being stopped in our own security operations, and other

people who are clearly not threats to American security. But yet,

in a democratic principle, we say it doesn’t matter who you are,

how aged, how infirm, what your problem is, you’ve got to proceed

in these ways. And those who are suggesting that there might be

some smart technology that somehow leads us to greater discrimination of who might be a troublemaker leads then to lots of problems politically between various groups in our society, and we go

back and forth.

No easy answers to this, but the net effect, most of our domestic

airlines would say, has been a fall-off in patronage. Now, it may

be the recession. And I note the New Hampshire University situation cites perhaps the decline in enrollment, or lack, that we

haven’t had much more, there comes from that, and so it may be.

But there are a good number of people who would just testify airline travel internally, here, has become so daunting and discouraging, people have figured out other ways of simply doing it. Now,

it may be more secure, but it may be dead by the time we’re finished.

27

These are the issues that—and I’m grateful to your testimony

that the Secretaries do visit specifically about these things, as you

say, get into the weeds, in terms of the overall American posture

and prosperity, as well as our reputation abroad, because I just

think that’s critically important.

And I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you would

have subsequent hearings at various benchmark times to, sort of,

see how it’s all going. It may be, as the streamlining occurs, that

tourism begins to peak up and we found that the worse didn’t happen. And the problems that I find, say, with Purdue University,

which you’ve found in New Hampshire, over 5,000 students, many

coming from countries very controversial, on all of these lists, but

extremely important, in terms of the technology sharing, our overall diplomacy with many, many countries, and I just see a tremendous loss occurring here.

Now, the delays mean, as anecdotes come in this testimony, that

people delay courses of study. Eventually, they may get it done a

year or two later, if they’re not discouraged and go somewhere else,

have a relationship with another country. And these are serious

issues, even while we’re trying to work through the nitty-gritty of

security.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence of this additional

editorial.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. I’m

more than happy to indulge the committee Chairman.

In fact, I’d like to pursue that a little bit more. I think one of

our witnesses mentioned the level of cooperation between counterparts at the State Department and Homeland Security, but with

regard to the impact on travel or tourism or business or academia,

is there a formal mechanism for consulting these other stakeholders when we’re looking at changes in policy or procedures?

And, second, is there a formal mechanism for discussing, with industry, potential new applications of existing private-sector technology to help solve some of these problems?

And I’d like each of you to address that, beginning with you, Mr.

Verdery.

Mr. VERDERY. Well, in terms of official working groups to advise

the Department, the one that you might be most familiar with is

the Data Management Improvement Act Task Force, the DMIA,

which Congress set up to advise then the Attorney General and

now Department of Homeland Security on entry-exit issues. The

DMIA has a number of important business stakeholders—airports,

airlines, the travel industry, and the like—along with relevant government players—State and Commerce and the like—and they advise us on entry-exit, especially the US-VISIT program.

Senator SUNUNU. How often does that group get together?

Mr. VERDERY. I think officially it’s quarterly, but we work with

them quite a bit. Just in my short stint in the Department, I’ve

met with them probably a half dozen times, and then we obviously

meet with the individual members. The US-VISIT team and our office is working incredibly closely with the airports and the airlines

on the US-VISIT program, because we understand how crucial they

are to its success, both in terms of designing the systems at airports to allow for better check-in and check-out, and with the airVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
28

lines in terms of making sure the passengers know what’s in store

for them. In fact, there’s going to be a blizzard of press activity

over the next few months to make sure the traveling public from

foreign countries knows, when you show up at a port of entry, that

you’re going to slap these two fingerprints, have a quick picture

taken during your interview process with the customs officer.

While I have the floor for just a second, I just wanted to echo

what Ms. Jacobs said, in terms of the way these issues are handled

at a principals level many times. The Attorney General, Secretary

Ridge, and her department are very involved with US-VISIT and

the other various biometrics deadlines. This is a top priority. He’s

given us very clear direction to facilitate travel.

And I truly believe that these systems are going to create efficiencies over time. The analogy that came into my head while you

were talking, Chairman Lugar, is if you told somebody 20 years

that you were going to scan everything at a supermarket, people

would have said, ‘‘Wow, that’s—you are going to wire that all up,

and that’s going to take forever.’’ Well, now it obviously saves people time, it speeds people through.

And that’s the idea, that the biometrics are going to make it easier for people to prove that there’s no problem. If you don’t show up

on a watch list, there’s no hit, you zoom on through, there’s less

discretionary problems, and it allows us to focus our energies, both

at the visa issuance process and at the port of entry, on the very

small number of people where we think there might be an issue.

So I do think that it’s going to take a little growing pains, and

we are working hand-in-glove with State, especially on US-VISIT

and these other issues. But, in the medium-term, I’ll call it, I am

convinced this is going to be a boon to the travel industry, whether

it’s the students or business travel.

Senator SUNUNU. Ms. Jacobs, did you have anything you wanted

to add to that?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir. We are active members of the Tourism Policy Advisory Board that Senator Nelson mentioned. Within the

State Department, we have a number of bureaus. Our Economic

Bureau, EB, is always coming to us with concerns from the airlines. We have our regional bureaus, which also come to us with

concerns about delays and the drop in travel that people have seen.

So we are always aware of the issues.

In addition to that, we have a very active outreach program, with

different business groups, academic, scientific groups who come to

see us on a regular basis to both talk about, sort of, the overall picture, their concerns, and oftentimes they give us specific cases that

they want us to look into where there might be delays. And so we

do have a very active outreach and dialogue program with all of

these different groups that have an interest in bringing legitimate

travelers here.

Senator SUNUNU. Senator Lugar also mentioned cost. I mean, literally the cost of the application process, let alone the time and the

effort that might be involved for applying for a visa.

Two specific cases. I believe the current price to apply for a nonimmigrant visa is a hundred dollars. And today there was a report

that plans are in place to charge foreign students a hundred-dollar

fee to pay for the new student tracking system.

29

Is this pricing structure a problem? Is it an issue? Does it act as

a deterrent? Does it discourage visitors that we really should want

to come to this country, should welcome to this country, from doing

so?

Ms. Jacobs?

Ms. JACOBS. The $100 that we do charge non-immigrant visa applicants is a processing fee that is charged to most all of our applicants. Actually, our consular operations are funded by the fees that

we collect from our visa applicants, from the non-immigrant applicants. And so it is based on a cost of study on the service that is

provided.

Whether it’s a deterrent or not, you know, you can argue, I think,

both ways on that. Some people say that it is not; others say that

once you get close to a hundred dollars, it suddenly becomes a factor in whether people want to apply for a visa.

Senator SUNUNU. Does it cover more—you know, when all is said

and done and you look at your costs and what you collect in revenues, does it cover more than the cost of the processing and what’s

done with any overage? And is there reciprocal pricing by other

countries?

Ms. JACOBS. It is not over the price of the services that we’re providing. In fact, with all of the new requirements that we have undertaken after 9/11 and with the drop in demand going on at the

same time, we were doing around 10 million, processing 10 million

visas, in FY-01. We did about 6.9 million in FY-03. So there has

been a drop in numbers, which means a drop in revenue, but our

requirements are increasing. And so I think the answer is no, that

the $100 is certainly—we’re not overpricing the cost of visas.

With regard to your question about reciprocity, it really varies

from country to country. Some countries that Americans enter with

no fees, some countries do charge a fee, some less than a hundred.

There are a few countries, including Brazil, Russia, some others,

that charge a hundred dollars or more. What a lot of countries do

is, will let people in free for a certain amount of time, but if you

plan to stay over that time, say 90 days, then they will charge you

a fee for that.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you.

Senator Nelson?

Mr. VERDERY. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, could I speak a second

to the SEVIS fee that you mentioned, if I could?

Senator SUNUNU. Yes, please.

Mr. VERDERY. Because I believe that regulation is going to be

promulgated either today or tomorrow.

The basic thinking of this is to support the SEVIS student tracking system mandated by Congress to make sure that foreign students are enrolled in legitimate universities for a legitimate course

of study. This program’s actually been a great success this fall, in

terms of getting people enrolled. The overwhelming majority of the

people made it through with no problems. We had a instant response team set up to deal with problems from August 1st to September 15th, and I believe we cleared over 200,000 foreign students.

But, in terms of the fee, there was no mechanism to cover the

cost of this. There’s no appropriation to cover the bulk of this proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
30

gram? And the decision came down to, do we want the taxpayers

to cover this, or the beneficiaries of the program. And the decision

was made to make the beneficiaries, the students, cover the fee,

and the fee will not only cover the cost of the program, in terms

of dealing with schools and the credentialing of schools, but also an

enforcement mechanism, for the folks who we find that are not legitimate students. And we are finding impostors and others who

were not enrolled. Several hundred, I believe, is what has been

found this fall. And we have to have a capability to go find them

and take appropriate action.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you.

Senator Nelson?

Senator NELSON. Ms. Jacobs, you said your applications are

down, so you have a revenue shortfall. Does that mean that you’re

thinking about raising the hundred-dollar fee?

Ms. JACOBS. At this particular point in time, we’re still looking

at it. We have just completed another cost-of-service study, and we

have not made a final decision. I don’t think, if it is raised, that

it will be raised by much. But we’re still looking at the information

to see if we need to raise it. Our preference would be not to raise

it if we don’t have to. But, unfortunately, because we do depend on

the machine-readable visa fees to fund our operations overseas, and

we have the biometrics requirements and other things that we’re

doing after 9/11, we’re going to have to find ways to fund that,

those additional requirements.

Senator NELSON. Well, let me tell you that in 30 states, the tourism and travel industry is among the top three industries in those

30 states. And in a state like Florida, which has so many foreign

guests come in its travel, if you’ve got a family of four or five that

are coming for a vacation, four- or five-hundred dollars is a pretty

big hit. And it starts to get into a question of, does it become a deterrent to those foreign guests coming and taking a vacation in

America? So I would certainly urge you to consider that at the time

that you are considering the raising of the fee, and I would hope

that you don’t raise the fee.

Mr. Verdery, when the terrorist screening—when will the Terrorist Screening Center be established?

Mr. VERDERY. I believe it will become operational around the

first of the year. I’d have to get back to you on a specific date. That

is really handled within our Department, within the Information

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, rather than the

BTS Directorate, where I work. We’re more of a client of it. But I

understand, first part of next year.

[Mr. Verdery’s response to Senator Nelson’s question follows:]

Mr. VERDERY. The Terrorist Screening Center will be established

December 1, 2003.

Senator NELSON. We were told December the 1st.

Mr. VERDERY. That is probably more accurate.

Senator NELSON. When will the Consolidated Terrorist Screening

List be established?

Mr. VERDERY. I assume it would be sometime after the TSC is

set up. I think those plans are under development.

Senator NELSON. Okay. If you could get back to the committee—

31

Mr. VERDERY. I’d be happy to.

Senator NELSON. —we’d appreciate it.

[Mr. Verdery’s response to Senator Nelson’s question follows:]

Mr. VERDERY. The Consolidated Terrorist Screening List will be

established December 1, 2003.

Senator NELSON. I want to pick up on the Chairman’s comments

about the testimony that will be coming with regard to tourism,

and particularly coming from Brazil.

Foreign travel is clearly off, to a place like Orlando that is the

number-one tourist destination in the world. And in the past, a lot

of that travel has come from Brazil. It’s estimated that we’ve lost

nearly half of that travel business from Brazil.

So, Ms. Jacobs, comment to you—what you think we ought to do

about this. What can we do to encourage and recoup some of that

travel?

Ms. JACOBS. I think it’s a difficult question, because sometimes

it’s hard to understand all of the different factors at play regarding

the drop in travel to the U.S. I think that the new visa procedures

and requirements may be a part of it. I think the economic situation of any given country, or perhaps even the worldwide economic

situation, is a factor. I think that there may be perhaps more fear

of travel in general after 9/11. So sometimes it’s difficult to understand, you know, to really point your finger at any one particular

thing that is causing people not to come here anymore.

Our hope, as far as visas goes, is to carry out these requirements

that we have after 9/11 in a way that does not discourage travel

to the states. We want to find, to use, the systems that we have,

the technology that we have available to us, to do this in a fast way

so that we are processing people quickly through.

I don’t think there’s any denying, though, that it is going to be

an—for example, the fingerprint requirement that we have now

will require people to travel to a consulate in order to collect those

fingerprints. And so the procedures are going to be different after

9/11, and I’m not sure that we’ll be able to go back to the way they

were before September 11th. But we are doing everything that we

possibly can to keep the process as efficient as possible.

Senator NELSON. In the old days, there were some countries that

you didn’t have to have a visa to travel from. Those days are gone

forever now, are they not?

Ms. JACOBS. The Visa Waiver Program? The Visa Waiver Program still exists. There are 27 countries that participate. I think

that the vast majority of people who enter the U.S., foreign visitors,

come in under the Visa Waiver Program.

Senator NELSON. How are we going to protect our shores from

the terrorists coming in under a visa waiver and not having to do

the fingerprint?

Ms. JACOBS. The people from the visa waiver countries will—first

of all, now they—by October of 2004, they’ll have to have—all have

to have machine-readable passports after that date. They will need

the new biometric passport, which is a chip with their picture on

it, biodata, which will allow the inspectors at the ports of entry to

do facial recognition to confirm the identify of these travelers. In

addition, we get information on these passengers before they actuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
32

ally arrive in the U.S., so that the inspectors at the ports of entry

can run their names through the Lookout system, so that if anyone

is in there, they can be stopped at the port of entry.

Mr. VERDERY. Senator Nelson, could I add to that? It’s actually

just something I’m working on, as Secretary Jacobs mentioned that

a key part of the Visa Waiver Program is that we obtain the passenger name record information on incoming airline passengers before they get on the plane so that our Customs and Border Protection inspectors can run tracking of them and targeting to see if people have hits and the like. This will also be used with the CAPPS

II program that TSA is developing to make sure that these folks

are not a danger to the plane itself, in terms of hijacking.

I have actually been designated by the Secretary to handle our

negotiations with the European Commission on this issue. They

have privacy concerns about turning over and allowing us to have

access to this type of data on their airline passengers of European

origin, and we are negotiating with them as we speak to make sure

that we continue to gain access to that information, because it really is the only information we receive for people in the Visa Waiver

Program before they show up at a port of entry.

Senator NELSON. Would Richard Reed have been eligible under

the visa waiver?

Mr. VERDERY. I’m trying to remember which country he—I believe he was.

Senator NELSON. He was a British citizen.

Mr. VERDERY. Yes. And that’s the kind of information we would

want to be able to run, a passenger’s name like his through our

watch list via the passenger name record information before he

gets on the plane. Currently, under an agreement we have for Customs and Border Protection, that information is transmitted 15

minutes after wheels-up, so that they have access to it when they

arrive. But for the CAPPS II program, we need to get the information beforehand so it can be reviewed before the passengers actually board the plane.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Nelson.

Senator Lugar?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask—you may already have defined this

before I came in, but what is the Condor and what is the Mantis

program? What are the meanings of those terms, and who are we

looking for?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir. The Visas Condor was established in January 2002 to check for terrorists, a new requirement. And then the

Visas Mantis is to check against transfer of sensitive technology.

That particular check actually has existed for years. We just

changed the name of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, how many visas have actually been denied

under either of those two programs?

Ms. JACOBS. We have done about 125,000 Condor checks. To

date, no one has been denied as a terrorist as a result of those

checks. We’ve done about 12,500 Mantis checks, and I think the refusal rate is about .05 percent on those, and that’s fairly consistent

with what it’s been over the years.

The CHAIRMAN. On those occasions, what sort of persons would

be denied, or what would be causes for denial?

33

Ms. JACOBS. Under Visas Mantis, it would be someone whose

program in the U.S. or course of study or purpose of travel somehow would involve sensitive technology that’s controlled.

The CHAIRMAN. But, in the first instance, of the Condor, out of

125,000 applicants, not a single denial of those.

Ms. JACOBS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That’s, you know, astonishing on the face of it,

but there might have been some suspicion, I suppose, about at

least one of the 125,000. How does it work? In other words, what

sort of information is required in that particular program, as opposed to other visa programs?

Ms. JACOBS. Under that program, there are criteria that are established by various agencies back here in Washington, and when

an applicant falls under the criteria, the case is referred back to

Washington as a Security Advisory Opinion, and it’s looked at by

a variety of agencies—intelligence, law enforcement—and if they

have any derogatory information, they get back to us. If we get a

‘‘no record’’ back, then we go ahead and say that the visa can be

issued if the person is otherwise qualified.

The CHAIRMAN. Pragmatically, are you examining that from time

to time to either add requirements or subtract them or tweak the

thing so that it may be more effective and less inhibiting, in terms

of people coming and going?

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir. In fact, we just revised the criteria and got

those revised criteria out to the field a couple of months ago.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Well, I appreciate that technical information.

I just would comment that I think the work of this subcommittee

on this issue, and your testimony today, is very, very important.

We are trying to take a look at technical aspects of our security,

but many of us, at least all three of us, in one form or another, are

deeply worried about our economy. You know, in other fora, in

other committees, we worry about jobless recovery or unemployment in the country or the fact that since 9/11 we’ve had a downer.

Many people have been discussing this in terms of so-called ‘‘frictional costs,’’ the frictional costs being security measures that businesses are taking all over our country, or trips that were not taken,

sales that were not made, tourism, that didn’t occur. All the fallout

of this continues. This is why I asked. You’ve been most responsive,

as to the fact that at some level, the Secretary level, people who

have a view of our entire economy and our well-being as American

people—leaving aside the specific security problems that are posed

to each of you—keep a sharp eye on this. We’re busy trying to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and through regulatory

changes and other things that we feel are very, very important. We

pile one on top of another, and we are sometimes criticized for running up the federal deficit in our attempts to get something going.

Now, what we’re discussing here today, of necessity, is an inhibitor on that growth, in my judgement, and it’s a very substantial

one. The question is, what is the balance? If our security requires

warfare, we have been involved in that. We’ve been involved in all

sorts of other operations, short of that, that are very expensive.

That may be what we all have to face as Americans. If so, it’s a

fairly bleak prospect. This is why these hearings, it seems to me,

34

are extremely important in making certain that we think through

everything we are doing, in terms of cost-effectiveness and, in a

more Olympian view, in terms of American security.

I thank each one of you for the privilege of hearing you this

morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Chairman Lugar.

Ms. Jacobs, you might have provided this in your testimony—if

so, I apologize—but what is the specific goal for turning around

and making a decision on a visa from application to final approval?

Ms. JACOBS. Our goal for the cases that are referred back to

Washington—and only about 2.2 percent of all of the visas that we

process are actually referred back to Washington for some kind of

clearance—our goal is to get those cases, once they come into

Washington, through the process and an answer back to the field

within 30 days.

Senator SUNUNU. And what is the current average duration?

Ms. JACOBS. I think we are doing the vast majority of our cases

in 30 days or less. If the FBI puts a hold on a case, then they’ve

asked us to give them 120 days to resolve the case, so some may

take longer.

Senator SUNUNU. You don’t track an average time, though, for

them all that you can watch and monitor and determine whether

it’s increasing or decreasing?

Ms. JACOBS. We do. The office within the Visa office that processes the clearances actually goes through and checks on cases that

are overdue, and we actually put those on a disk and give those

to the FBI just to make sure that they’ve been checked.

Senator SUNUNU. So you would argue that you’re meeting your

goals at this point.

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

Senator SUNUNU. Are you going to change the goal, make it a little tougher? Set a new goal? Set a higher standard?

Ms. JACOBS. I would like to very much. When we have our new

project in place using our consolidated database, I’m really hoping

that we will be able to turn these around faster.

Senator SUNUNU. And I assume that Condor applications are

part of the 2.2 percent that you say is referred back to Washington.

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

Senator SUNUNU. Do they comprise all of that 2.2 percent?

Ms. JACOBS. No. No, they—

Senator SUNUNU. What is the difference in criteria or evaluation,

background checking, that goes on with regard to the Condor applicants that isn’t done with other applicants that are referred back

to Washington?

Ms. JACOBS. Okay. David, do you want to handle that one?

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, we look at each referral to us the

same way. We do the same check, which is to review all FBI

records to see whether or not there’s information on that individual.

Senator SUNUNU. So is all of the 2.2 percent then goes through

the same evaluation process, you’re saying?

Mr. HARDY. If it’s referred to us by the State Department, yes,

that’s correct.

35

Senator SUNUNU. How does the State Department decide which

of the 2.2 percent gets referred to the FBI and which doesn’t?

Ms. JACOBS. All of the cases that come in the—what we call SAO,

Security Advisory Opinions, automatically go to the FBI, CIA, and

other agencies around town. Some of the—it just depends on the

type of check. The Visas Mantis, for example, we have an office

within the State Department, the Nonproliferation Bureau, that actually looks at those cases, as well, and gives us advice as to

whether they think there’s a problem. So there are several players

involved; it just depends on the type of check that’s done.

Mr. VERDERY. Mr. Chairman, could I add something?

Senator SUNUNU. No, not just yet.

Mr. VERDERY. Oh, sure.

Senator SUNUNU. That didn’t quite make sense to me. I must

have missed something. Mr. Hardy said that anything that he receives goes through the same process, which I assume is the Condor and Mantis evaluations. And you suggested that all of the 2.2

percent go to FBI and CIA. So that would suggest that all of the

2.2 percent go through the Condor and Mantis process.

Ms. JACOBS. No, I’m sorry. That 2.2 percent includes a number

of different checks. They all have animal names. There’s a long list

of them. Bears, Donkeys, Horses. I’m not quite sure how we—

Senator SUNUNU. So they’re not all referred—

Ms. JACOBS. They’re not—

Senator SUNUNU. —to the FBI.

Ms. JACOBS. All of those would be referred to the FBI.

Senator SUNUNU. Sorry. These two—I mean, these two statements do not square. If all of the 2.2 percent refer to the FBI, and

the FBI treats them all the same way, then they all go through the

same process.

So maybe, Mr. Hardy, maybe I misunderstood what you said. All

of the referrals that you get, do they all go through the Condor and

Mantis program? Do they all go through the same background evaluation program?

Mr. HARDY. Sir, I think the Condor and Mantis are subsets of

the 2.2 percent that come through us. All programs, whether

they’re Donkeys, Eagles, Condors, Mantises, are reviewed the same

way by the FBI. So the entire menagerie constitutes the 2.2 percent.

Senator SUNUNU. Okay. Maybe the problem here is using words

like ‘‘reviewed the same way.’’ Are you saying they all go through

the exact same set of match identifiers and move through the same

set of databases?

Mr. HARDY. That’s correct, sir.

Senator SUNUNU. Why would you have a distinction, then? Why

have the different categories if they’re all going through the exact

same databases? And, in some ways, that would be a good thing

if we didn’t have to make these distinctions, because we had a system that was quite seamless and quite efficient and could go

through the same sets of matches. Perhaps you can submit the information or the clarification for the record.

And I’m sure that the problem is mine.

Just a couple of final questions, and I appreciate your patience.

36

Mr. Verdery, do the Homeland Security officers who review the

visa applications in Saudi Arabia have access to information that

our Consular officers do not?

Mr. VERDERY. They do.

Senator SUNUNU. And is that a vulnerability at other posts that

don’t have DHS officers?

Mr. VERDERY. Yes and no. The folks on the ground in Saudi Arabia and the people who will be deployed to the other posts that I

mentioned during my opening statement will have access to certain

DHS databases, law enforcement bases, that Consular officers do

not. Now, this problem may be solved when the Terrorist Screen

Center is up and running.

In terms of your questions about the places where DHS officers

are not, which right now is everywhere except for Saudi Arabia, we

do have a mechanism in place for questions to be referred back to

Homeland Security here in Washington for review by the Office of

International Enforcement. So there are people here that can provide this same type of expertise as the people on the ground overseas as we begin to roll out the deployment. Clearly, the deployment is going to take awhile, considering our resources, but we do

have a mechanism in place for the officers overseas, both through

the DOS or other DHS employees who aren’t visa security officers,

to reach back to Washington to gain the expertise that they need.

Senator SUNUNU. Did you give a date by which the five new hubs

will be established?

Mr. VERDERY. I believe the goal is toward the end of this year.

Like I mentioned, the locations have not been officially determined,

and we’re working to get assessment teams out to the field to review them, and then we’ll have to go up to the Secretary for review.

Senator SUNUNU. But the effort has been funded?

Mr. VERDERY. The effort is being funded right now out of existing

budgets, out of the other BTS components—the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Customs and

Border Protection. It’s basically being taken out of hide for this

year’s budget cycle.

Senator SUNUNU. Ms. Jacobs, what’s the impact of the new interview requirements on Consular staffing needs?

Ms. JACOBS. The impact has really not been that great at most

of our posts, because most people were interviewing more applicants after 9/11. Many posts have always interviewed a large percentage of their applicants because of high fraud or other immigration pressures to come to the U.S. For the posts that have been

heavily impacted, such as Seoul and some of the others, we are providing TDY assistance. We sent a Consular Management Assistant

Team to that post to look at the situation, to come up with recommendations on use of windows, work flow, things that they can

do to perhaps increase efficiencies. And we will continue to do that.

We are—as I said, though, most of the posts were already interviewing more people, so it really has not made that much of a difference. We have about 19 of our 211 posts, at this point, that have

waiting periods of 30 days or more for an interview. All of the others are below that.

37

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Verdery, I understand that there’s technology out there where we can take the machine-readable visa and

put it through a scanner that can then retrieve or access the photo

that was attached to the application at the time that you made the

visa request. Can your officials that are at ports of entry right now

currently get access to that information?

Mr. VERDERY. They have access right now to the biographical information. The visas being issued with biometrics built in, as Ms.

Jacobs mentioned, are in development now. And the photograph is

not biometrically enhanced in the visa and is not available.

Senator SUNUNU. But the biographic information is the only

thing that can be called up electronically right now.

Mr. VERDERY. That’s right.

Senator SUNUNU. If there are no further questions—

Senator NELSON. And when will those photos be available?

Mr. VERDERY. I have to refer to Ms. Jacobs on the roll out—I

think they are doing the fingerprints, and the pilots are ongoing.

Ms. JACOBS. That’s correct. We actually do have photos available.

We have about 70 million records in the database at this point, and

about 31 million of those have photos attached. But when we share

the fingerprint data, there will be photo information shared with

that, as well.

Senator NELSON. And that will be, for all countries, by next October?

Ms. JACOBS. By October 26th, 2004. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Okay.

Mr. Hardy, I’m going to follow the line of questioning of the

Chairman. Do you do a different kind of investigation on each of

these animal names, or is it all the same?

Mr. HARDY. Yes, sir. We essentially have the same process. The

different categories are basically different criteria that are looked

at. And within the FBI, a Mantis is more likely to be looked at by,

say, the Russian desk or a China desk officer, as opposed to a Condor, which has to do with terrorism and would probably be looked

at, in the end process, by someone from counter-terrorism.

Not only are there different criteria, there are different expediencies. For individuals who are traveling to this country with nonimmigrant visas, there is a requirement to turn them around

quickly, there’s considerable attention given to them in our mission

profiles. So what we’re trying to do is move them as quickly as possible, as opposed to some of the other ones—for example, an Eagle,

which maybe a immigrant status or refugee status—that we didn’t

talk about here today, because they’re not what primarily impacts

international travel.

So we’re able to break out the different categories of visa requests, and then we gauge our priorities as we work through the

process based on the need to move them, or the importance of that

particular program, Condor obviously being one of the most important programs that we have. So that’s the distinction that occurs,

but the overall generic process which occurs is the same for each

of them.

Senator NELSON. With regard to the visa wavier program, Mr.

Hardy, what is in process now—what is in place now that was not

a year ago that would catch a Richard Reed?

38

Mr. HARDY. First, again, within my own particular area, on the

Visa Waiver Program, we would not see one of those coming

through the name-check program. However, as the FBI identifies

individuals, they do provide them to the Lookout and CLASS systems, so that they assist in that identification, as has been earlier

discussed by Secretary Jacobs.

Senator NELSON. Are you satisfied? Is your testimony to this

committee that you’re satisfied that the procedures are in place to

catch a guy like that?

Mr. HARDY. Senator Nelson, I think as a record-management individual, I would have to defer that to our analysts and our substantive desk, which deal with the substance of the policies. So if

I could take that for the record?

Mr. VERDERY. Sir, if I could just add that there are reviews ongoing of the countries within the Visa Waiver Program. I believe

there have been six countries reviewed over the last year of so, and

two of them have been found wanting in terms of the criteria for

the program, in terms of the refusal rates for people from that

country, our confidence in whether or not passports are stolen or

lost, and a whole range of factors. And we are planning under the

MOU that’s now been signed, that that responsibility is primarily

ours to review the Visa Waiver Program, and we are planning on

doing so, to make sure that the countries that are in it are meeting

their obligations.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Verdery, let me ask you—a little out of

your bailiwick, but still important to our tourism industry, is lessening the hassles of travel and yet enabling still you to catch the

bad guys. On what timetable do we have this kind of identification

system on the passengers that you don’t have a problem having to

screen, and, therefore, they will have some kind of identification

that allows them to streamline the process?

Mr. VERDERY. Well, if you’re talking about the US-VISIT program, sir—— Senator NELSON. I’m talking about the domestic market.

Mr. VERDERY. The domestic market?

Senator NELSON. Yes.

Mr. VERDERY. Are you talking about U.S. citizens traveling?

Senator NELSON. Yes.

Mr. VERDERY. The CAPPS II program, is that what you’re asking

about?

Senator NELSON. I don’t know the name of the program.

Mr. VERDERY. The CAPPS II is the program that TSA, Transportation Security Administration, is developing and is scheduled to

become effective sometime next year. It has not begun testing yet.

And this would replace the current CAPPS II program that the airlines run that determine who is referred to secondary screening.

CAPPS II would attempt to make those decisions based more on

identity verification, people that we have a reason to believe they

are not who they say they are or their factors in their background

bump up against something that raises concern and then they

would be referred to secondary screening for flights.

The overwhelming majority of people would either go through

with no screening, or, after the screening, you might run into the

occasional so-called ‘‘red hit’’ that somebody’s actually on a watch

39

list. But the point here is to improve the screening to lessen the

number of people going to screening and to make it based on some

more rational factors. And that should be up and running next

year.

Senator NELSON. Okay, thank you.

Ms. Jacobs—and this will be my last question—earlier this year,

the State Department promulgated a rule which would require a

personal interview of most non-immigrant visa applicants. What

are the costs and space implications for the staffing and embassy

construction of this decision? And is the requirement of an interview creating the backlog or adding to the existing backlog of the

visa applications?

Ms. JACOBS. Most of the posts have not been affected by the

change of policy. In fact, most of the posts began interviewing more

applicants after 9/11. Some of our posts have always interviewed

a large portion of their applicants because of fraud or for other reasons. So the impact on the majority of our 210 posts has not been

that great.

There have been a few posts, however, that were not interviewing a lot people, who are now, such as Seoul. And we are providing them extra help, extra people. We sent a special team there

to take a look at the situation to see what recommendations they

could make to improve efficiency—the use of the windows, things

of that sort.

The space really has not been an issue. The collection of fingerprints that I talked about, we’re actually doing this right at the

interview window, so we haven’t had to add anything new to the

consular sections that would take away space. At some point in the

future, if we were to go to more fingerprints, which we understand

is a possibility because NIST, the scientists, have told us at some

point our database may get so large that we need more than two

fingerprints. If we have to go to a larger machine, then space will

become an issue for a lot of our posts, and we are talking to our

office of building operations and also to diplomatic security about

needs if we need to enlarge or move offsite.

Senator NELSON. Well, all of you have a difficult job, and we appreciate the job you’re doing, and it’s one that we have to do well,

for the protection of us, as well as for the enhancement of our economy.

Thank you.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.

Thank you to our panelists, who obviously have significant challenges in front of you. But I think we have a pretty good sense of

where the immediate priorities are.

I do note that among the funds in the supplemental was $29 million to deal with the possibility of a shortfall for machine-readable

visa—machine-readable passport fees. So I think it’s fair to say

that, at least on the appropriations side, people are cognizant of

the needs to continue to provide the resources necessary to upgrade

these technologies.

Thank you again, and we will submit additional questions for the

record that we weren’t able to get to this morning.

I thank you again, and welcome the next panel.

40

Our second panel will include Mr. William Oberlin, the president

of the American Chamber of Commerce in South Korea, Dr. John

Aber, who is vice president for Research and Public Service at the

University of New Hampshire, in Durham, New Hampshire, an institution I know very well, and Mr. Jose Estorino, who is the senior

vice president of Marketing at the Orlando and Orange County

Convention and Visitors Bureau, in Orlando, Florida.

Gentlemen, I very much appreciate you taking the time and traveling in order to be here today to provide testimony for the subcommittee. You’ve been very patient, but I do—I hope and I believe

this was a case where the testimony of the previous panel was of

particular interest to each of you, and I hope we were able to cover,

with our questioning, some of the same questions that you might

have asked of the previous panel.

At this time, it’s a pleasure for me to allow you to summarize

your written testimony. Your entire written testimony will be included in the formal subcommittee record. And we will begin with

Mr. Oberlin.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OBERLIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA

Mr. OBERLIN. Chairman Sununu, thank you very much.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the concerns of the new visa policy and its effects upon U.S. business in

Korea. As president of the American Chamber of Commerce, I represent approximately 1,000 companies, approximately 2,500 members, and, in addition, I also work for the Boeing Company as the

country executive for Korea.

Korea is a major trading partner, the 12th largest economy in

the world, and it remains a strong security ally by sending noncombat troops to Iraq. They have just announced that they will

send several thousand additional combat troops to support our efforts.

The world has felt significant changes since September 11th as

America comes to grips with previously unimaginable threats. Our

members strongly support all the security changes necessary to

keep our country safe.

The U.S. Embassy in Korea is the largest visa-processing post in

the world. Last May, Secretary Powell announced a new guideline

that had the practical impact of doubling the number of personal

interviews needed in Seoul, from 35 percent to 70 percent. The

change in policy was announced during Korea’s peak travel season,

with only two week’s notice to the industry. The backlogs in interviews immediately ballooned to more than 60 day’s wait from the

pre-policy turnaround times of two to five days.

We are extremely grateful to Consul General Bernie Alter and

his team for their daily dedication to help American business in

this new, difficult environment.

Coming at a time when many foreigners view America with increasing skepticism, the new visa policies will unfortunately spur

a growth of anti-American sentiment in Korea. One such example

was the recent action taken with virtually no advance warning to

suspend the Transit Without Visa Program. This suspension came

41

at the beginning of August, when many Korean students were

about to return home from their summer language programs in

Canada. One American carrier told over 100 Korean students

stranded in Canada they could not honor their reservations because the flight required an aircraft change in the U.S. Because

there was a lack of appropriate notice and because the event took

place during a peak travel season, there were no seats available on

non-American carriers. These students and their families were severely inconvenienced and made to feel unwelcome by the United

States.

We are concerned that a net increase of only 39 consular officers

for fiscal year ’03 and another 40 officers in fiscal ’04 maybe not

be enough to adequately handle the current and expected global demands without creating additional backlog. Last year, almost

700,000 Korean passport holders entered the United States, making Korea the fifth-largest source of inbound travel to the U.S. Unlike Koreans, citizens from the other four countries—the U.K.,

Japan, Germany, and France—do not need tourism visas to enter

the U.S. In other words, Koreans form the largest single group of

tourists who require visas to travel to the U.S. According to the

U.S. Commercial Service, Korean tourists spent almost $21 billion

in the U.S. over the last year. This revenue is at significant risk

with our new visa policy.

Amway Korea annually takes its key distributors on incentive

trips. Amway’s ’04 convention was scheduled to held in Las

Vegas—or Los Angeles and was to include 8,000 Korean distributors. Historically, groups have been bulk-processed by an interviewwaiver program internally managed by the consular section. Now

all the applicants must individually apply for a personal interview

via a telephone appointment system, which requires three to four

minutes per application to register for an appointment. Waits for

a interview range from between 30 to 70 days, depending upon the

season. Because of the logistics of pushing 8,000 people through an

individual appointment and interview process, Amway cancelled

their L.A. venue and rescheduled for Japan. The aggregate lost revenue value of that single group alone was $18 million.

On May 19th, US VISIT, an entry-exit system to monitor the arrival and departure of international visitors, was announced, the

plan to capture fingerprints and photographs for the millions of

international visitors arriving at U.S. airports and the seaports beginning in January 1st, ’04. This new security measure has not

been well communicated to the travel industry, and certainly not

to the traveling public in Korea. Again, a necessary policy clumsily

implemented will do more to alienate our already strained relationships.

Also on the horizon is the law requiring all visa applicants to include biometric identifiers by October ’04. Considering current

space and staffing challenges, the expected waiting times to arrange appointments could be, some say, devastating, if not very,

very challenging.

The reality in Korea is that due to increased security and a onesize-fits-all approach, we are losing business, tourists, and students, and, more importantly, we are losing friends and influence

at a time when American can ill-afford the loss.

42

We believe that in addition to the war on terrorism, there is also

a war raging for global influence, and this is also a war the U.S.

cannot afford to lose. We may not see the results immediately, but

in 20 to 30 years from now, when one looks back at this time and

these challenges, we will be judged on how much foresight and how

much creativity we used in resolving these difficult issues.

We respectfully urge the departments involved to begin aggressive information campaigns to explain the policy and to try and

mitigate the negative repercussions. One creative approach might

be to contract mobile biometric information collectors and, for an

addition cost-recovery fee, take the service directly to the applicants. Allowing applicants to submit visa applications online, similar to Australia’s visa policy, would shift the burden of the data

entry to the applicants, which would save the U.S. Government

time and money.

Let me conclude by iterating what I stated at the beginning. The

American business community in Korea strongly supports the federal initiatives designed to protect America from terrorist attacks.

We believe that protection of our national security must go hand

in hand with protecting our economic security. Procedures and systems designed to deny terrorists must also work to facilitate the efficient entry of legitimate international business and leisure travelers. This is not an either/or proposition, but a matter of balance.

We must achieve the twin goals of improving security and facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

Thank you very much. I look forward to trying to answer some

of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberlin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OBERLIN

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the concerns of the new

visa policy and its effects on U.S. business in Korea. It is an honor to be invited

here to contribute to this important dialogue on homeland security and visas. I came

here today to share the views of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea. As

president, I represent almost 1,000 companies doing business in Korea. These companies range in size—from very small 1-man companies to several thousand people

working for America’s largest and most prestigious companies. In addition to my position at AMCHAM, I also work for The Boeing Company as its Country President

for Korea.

KOREA BACKGROUND

Korea is a major trade partner for the United States. As the 12th largest economy

in the world, Korea has a GDP of $477 billion and per capita GDP of over $10,000,

placing it in the middle rank of OECD countries and as the second largest in Northeast Asia after Japan. Korea is our 6th largest export market with Koreans buying

more American products than those from China, France, Taiwan and Australia. Our

two-way trade last year exceeded $58 billion. It is our largest market for agriculture

and high tech products and is also becoming an increasingly important market for

U.S. services, reaching $11.6 billion in 2001. These huge business opportunities

have not gone unnoticed by our European and increasingly Asian competition, and

they are aggressively focusing their business sights on Korea.

Korea also remains a strong security ally and was one of the first to join the U.S.

led war on terrorism. They sent non-combat troops to Iraq and have just announced

they will be sending several thousand combat troops to support our efforts in postwar Iraq. They also agreed to provide $200 million for the rebuilding of Iraq in addition to the $60 million already earmarked.

43

NEED FOR INCREASED SECURITY

The world has felt significant changes since September 11th as America comes to

grips with previously unimaginable threats. Our members strongly support all the

security changes necessary to keep our country safe. We understand that the movement of people and materials has changed forever and we are extremely grateful

for all the dedicated efforts of so many to keep us out of harm’s way while still expediting the legitimate flow of people and cargo.

We fully understand and accept the need for increased security in the visa process

and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts our

Consular Affairs people have made in their efforts to delicately balance the increased need for security with the ever-present necessity to facilitate legitimate

travel. They are the real unsung heroes here.

U.S. EMBASSY: SEOUL

The U.S. Embassy in Korea has the distinction of being the largest visa processing post in the world. So any change in visa policy has a profound impact on our

members and our businesses in Korea. Last May, when Secretary of State Cohn

Powell announced a new guideline that had the practical impact of doubling the

number of personal interviews needed in Seoul from 35% or 120,000 interviews to

70% or 240,000 interviews, both our exceptional staff in the State Department’s

Consular Affair’s team and our own Embassy group immediately went to work to

mitigate the potentially negative impact in Korea. Unfortunately, the Travel Agent

Referral Program, which accounted for 28% of all visas issued by the post and the

largest single channel of visas, was eliminated. Thanks in large part to the efforts

of the Consul, however, the AMCHAM Visa Referral Program for our member companies, the Business Referral Program for large Korean companies meeting strict

criteria and the University Referral Program were all extended through October

2004.

Literally overnight, the number of people requiring personal interviews doubled,

with no additional staff or overtime money. In business, when demand doubles overnight for a product or service with no appreciable increase in resources, the result

is usually long delays. The change in policy was announced during Korea’s peak

travel season with only 2 weeks notice to the industry. The backlogs for an interview immediately ballooned to more than 60 day waits from the pre-policy turnaround times of 2–5 days for a visa. Current interview appointment waits are now

about 1 month, largely due to September/October being the country’s lowest demand

period for outbound travel. We are extremely grateful to Consul General Bernie

Alter and his team for their daily dedication to help American business in this new

difficult environment. While their efforts to minimize the damage on travel between

Korea and the U.S. has been invaluable. We believe there are serious unintended

consequences still facing the industry. Coming at a time when many foreigners view

America with increasing skepticism, the new visa policies will unfortunately spur

the growth of anti-American sentiment in Korea and the new policies, although necessary for our nation’s safety and security, sometimes appear ill coordinated and

poorly communicated.

NEED FOR TIMELY COMMUNICATION

One such example was the recent action taken by Homeland Security and the Department of State. With virtually no advance warning, they suspended 2 programs

known as the Transit Without Visa (TWOV) and the International-to-International

(ITI) programs. These program suspensions came in the beginning of August when

many Korean students were about to return home from their summer language programs in Canada to begin their Korean school year. At least one American carrier

told over 100 Korean students stranded in Canada the American flag carrier could

not honor their reservations because their flight required an aircraft change in the

U.S. before continuing onto Seoul. Because there was a lack of appropriate notice

and because this event took place during a peak travel season, there were no seats

available on non-American carriers. These students and their families were severely

inconvenienced and made to feel unwelcome by the U.S.

While we understand and fully support the need for additional security, it sometimes seems that heavy-handed decisions like this have the unintended consequences of alienating our friends and allies even more. There is more anecdotal

evidence of senior Korean business leaders beginning to question whether America

truly wants their business.

One of our members is a Belgian citizen, who went to the U.S. on a business trip

and had a harrowing experience. He was detained and ultimately not allowed to

44

enter the U.S. because his passport was not machine readable. Throughout this ordeal, he was not allowed to speak with anyone who could explain what was happening and as a result, ended up missing an extremely important business meeting.

Additionally, his perception of the U.S. has been negatively affected by this experience. A leading American IT company nearly lost a multi-million dollar deal because

their client’s software engineers and purchasing team’s visa applications took almost

8 weeks to complete.

One of America’s premier financial institutions expressed that their international

clients are more and more suggesting meeting venues be moved to London or

Frankf1rt because of U.S. visa difficulties.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

We recognize the need for our government to shift the priorities from concern on

visa issuance about illegal-overstays to security. We also congratulate the efforts to

better apprise consular officers of counter-terrorism issues, new programs to more

fully vet visa applicants of particular concern and most importantly, the move to

increase staffing for consular officers abroad. However, it does seem that a net increase of only 39 consular officers for fiscal year 2003 and another 40 officers in fiscal 2004 may not be enough to handle the current and expected demands without

creating additional backlogs. Remember our Seoul example, virtually overnight we

went from approximately 35% of the applicants needing personal interviews to 70%,

with no appreciable increase in resources. Embassies like Seoul also face additional

challenges of old physical structures and severe space limitations. The Embassy in

Seoul currently has only 9 interview windows, so even with a significant increase

in human capital resources, they would still be facing enormous physical space challenges.

KOREAN TOURISTS

In calendar year 2002, almost 700,000 Korean passport holders entered the U.S.

making Korea the 5th largest source of inbound travel to the U.S. Unlike Koreans,

citizens from the other 4 countries—the UK, Japan, Germany, and France do not

need tourist visas to enter the U.S.; in other words, Koreans form the largest single

group of tourists who require visas to travel to the U.S.

According to the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, Korean tourists spent almost

$21 billion in the U.S. during the previous year. We believe this revenue is at significant risk with our new visa policy. Our Visit U.S.A. Committee tells us that approximately 80% of the total airplane load leaving Korea is usually booked less than

3 weeks before the scheduled departure, which is one of the shorter lead times in

the international travel industry. As a result, with competition from many attractive

foreign tourist locations, the Korean market is extremely sensitive to the length of

waiting period for visas appointments. Visa waits of more than a few days are no

longer tolerated when visa free alternative destinations beckon. Airlines are watching their fall load numbers very closely and several of our members in the airline

industry privately expressed deep concern about the falling demand for tourism to

the U.S.

In Korea, travel agents tell us America is an increasingly difficult destination to

sell. Koreans have visa exemptions and visa free agreements with over 100 countries, so they have many other competitive options available to them. Where other

countries seem to be rolling out the red carpet and welcoming Korean travelers, the

welcome mat for America is indeed looking very frayed. Many of our travel destination competitors are explicitly marketing themselves as an alternative to the arduous U.S. visa procedures.

I would like to share with you one example that illustrates the economic impact

of this new policy change. Amway Korea annually takes its key distributors on incentive trips. Amway’s 2004 convention was scheduled to be held in Los Angeles,

California and was to include 8,000 Korean distributors. Historically, groups had

been bulk processed via an interview waiver program internally managed by the

Consular Section. Under the August 1, 2003 policy change, all applicants, including

mega-groups, must individually apply for a personal interview via a telephone appointment system, which in itself requires 3–4 minutes per application just to register for an appointment. Waits for an interview then range between 30 to 70 days,

depending on seasonality. Because of the logistics of pushing 8,000 people through

an individual appointment and interview process, Amway cancelled their Los Angeles venue and rescheduled the convention for Miyazaki, Japan. The aggregate lost

revenue value of this single group alone was $18 million. This scenario is now being

repeated constantly as meeting, incentive and convention business rebooks to nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
45

U.S.A. destinations. We need your help to ensure that a system capable of processing these mega-groups is put in place so that America can get back into the consideration set.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM

The U.S. economy relies on the billions and billions of dollars spent each year by

tourists. The tourism industry makes up 6% of America’s workforce but has suffered

25% of all jobs lost since September 11, 2001. Visitors for tourism and business were

about 4.3 million visitors in fiscal year 2002, down from 5.7 million in fiscal year

2000. America needs safe, but open doors. The U.S. share of worldwide travel has

been in a decade-long decline. With respect to Korea, up until 1995, growth of Korean visitors to the U.S. had tracked in tandem with Korea’s total outbound growth.

Since 1995, however, the U.S. has struggled to attain a 5% growth over a 7 year

period, during a time when total Korean outbound travel has grown by 67%. With

the latest interview policy changes, we expect the U.S. numbers will now turn negative as many would-be travelers choose other destinations. America has already

dropped from its 30 year position as the 2nd largest tourist destination for Koreans

to a 2003 ranking as number 4 behind Japan, China and Thailand. We expect further slippage going forward.

STUDENTS

American universities have been drawing on the talents of the best and brightest

students of the world. Roughly half of all students now receiving Ph.D.’s in the

sciences at U.S. schools are foreigners. However, this trend may not last for long.

These international students are important to the U.S., not just for the nearly $12

billion they infuse into the U.S. economy each year, but also for the knowledge they

provide to bridge cultural gaps that is greatly improving the strategic position of

the U.S. in the world. These students develop deep ties to our country, laying the

foundation for productive relationships in the future. The U.S. Commercial Service

estimates over 49,000 Korean students are studying in the U.S., contributing over

$1.47 billion to our economy annually. We respectfully urge you to keep these important doors open.

CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON—PERCEPTION OF ‘‘FORTRESS AMERICA’’

On May 19th of this year, the Department of Homeland Security announced new

details regarding its U.S. VISIT (U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator

Technology) system, an entry-exit system to monitor the arrival and departure of

international visitors. The plan is to capture fingerprints and photographs for the

millions of international visitors arriving at U.S. airports and seaports beginning

January 1, 2004. This new security measure has not been well communicated to the

travel industry and certainly not to the traveling public in Korea. There is concern

that when our friends and business associates arrive in the U.S. early next year to

be fingerprinted and photographed, many will find the treatment, without advance

warning to be unsophisticated and distasteful. Again, a necessary policy, clumsily

implemented will do more to alienate our already strained friendships.

Also on the horizon is the law requiring all visa applications to include biometric

identifiers by October 2004. While today there are more than 3 million Koreans with

valid U.S. visas in their passports, this change in policy will likely require 100%

of all visa holders as well as new applicants to come to the U.S. Embassy to be

fingerprinted. Considering current space and staffing challenges, the expected waiting times to arrange appointments could be devastating. We again express our deep

gratitude for the State Department’s Consular Affairs’ leadership in doing their best

to provide additional resources in advance of this onerous requirement. Because this

new policy has not been well communicated to the traveling public in Korea, when

the Korean people realize everyone must be fingerprinted before submitting their

visa application, there is concern that avoidable damage will again be done to our

relationship.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

The reality in Korea is that due to increased security and a ‘‘one size fits all approach,’’ we are losing business, we are losing tourists, we are losing students and

more importantly, we are losing friends and influence at a time when America can

ill afford the loss. At a time when our policymakers are lamenting the global spread

of antiAmericanism and pushing for better public diplomacy, the implementation of

our new visa policies are making sacrifices we need not make. We believe that in

addition to the war on terrorism, there is also a war raging for global influence and

46

this is also a war the U.S. cannot afford to lose. We may not see the results immediately but in 20 or 30 years from now when one looks back at this time and these

challenges, we will be judged on how much foresight and creativity we used in resolving these difficult issues.

CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO FACILITATE TRAVEL

We respectfully urge the Departments involved to begin aggressive information

campaigns to explain the policy and to try and mitigate the negative repercussions.

There also appears to be no recognition for the cultural impact of such decisions.

Since Korea is one of the most technologically advanced economies in the world, one

creative approach might be to contract mobile biometric information collectors and

for an additional cost recovery fee, take the service directly to the applicants.

Allowing applicants to submit visa applications online, similar to Australia’s visa

policy, would shift the burden of the data entry to the applicants, which would save

the U.S. government time and money. American industry is known for its creativity

and innovation. Examples like FedEx’s revolutionary package tracking system

might be modified and used to expedite the visa process.

Since September 11, the U.S. government has introduced dramatic changes to

strengthen the security of visa issuance. We must find ways to reduce delays that

impede legitimate business and tourist travel, without incurring additional security

risks. We must fully staff and fund these increased security programs to prevent

damaging of our strong economic ties. Delays will end in Koreans choosing other

destinations and worse, other business partners. If we want their continued business, we need to make them feel welcome and provide them the best service available. When additional security requirements are needed, we should do our utmost

to provide timely information and communicate the changes as clearly and consistently as possible.

The new security realities in which we now live are here to stay. So we must find

innovative, new ways to facilitate legitimate travel, while doing our best to carefully

scrutinize those who would harm our nation.

Some people believe increasing the percentage of personal interviews will automatically improve the security of the U.S. One concern is that we seem to be moving

towards a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach. And in this particular case, one size definitely

does NOT fit all. We support a risk-based approach that would carefully consider

a country’s links to terrorism, the mobility of its population and the government’s

commitment to support the U.S. on our war on terrorism.

We can unequivocally say that Korea would be at the low end of that security

spectrum. There is no evidence of any Korean passport holder being involved in terrorism and there are no indigenous terrorist groups in Korea. The country is homogeneous, making it more difficult for terrorist cells to operate here. Korea is a strong

security ally who was one of the first nations to answer the U.S. call for support

in Afghanistan and again in Iraq with non-combat troops. And just last week the

Korean government has agreed to send combat troops to join America in post-war

Iraq. Clearly, both economically and more importantly, security-wise the South Korean people have proved to be our friends. We respectfully urge our leaders to recognize this friendship by making it easier for our Korean friends, customers, employees and relatives to travel to the U.S.

Let me conclude by reiterating what I stated at the beginning, the American business community in Korea strongly supports the federal initiatives designed to protect America from terrorist attacks. We believe that protection of our national security must go hand-in-hand with protecting our economic security. Procedures and

systems designed to deny terrorists must also work to facilitate the efficient entry

of legitimate international business and leisure travelers. This is not an ‘‘either/or’’

proposition, but a matter of balance. We must achieve the twin goals of improving

security and facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

Thank you very much for your kind attention and I look forward to your questions.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Oberlin.

Dr. Aber, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ABER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH

AND PUBLIC SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dr. ABER. Good morning, Chairman Sununu and Senator Nelson.

Thank you for convening this hearing on a topic of central importance to the vitality of America’s enterprise in science and techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
47

nology. Events since 9/11 have reaffirmed the need to maintain an

American edge in these fields while creating the political and administrative membrane that protects the nation’s borders while

continuing to encourage the free exchange of people and ideas

across those borders remains a daunting challenge.

I think there’s general agreement that the optimum management

of our research enterprise requires free and open access by U.S.

universities and laboratories to the pool of aspiring students and

scholars who hold citizenships in other countries. This pool provides a significant part of the energy and talent that drives our

technological advancement.

In presentations to a House committee last spring, Dr. Shirley

Tilghman, president of Princeton University, noted that, in round

numbers, a third of all Ph.D.s in science and engineering and 40

percent of all Ph.D. degrees in computer science are awarded to foreign-born students. Two thirds of these students stay in the country and contribute to our technological advances. Forty percent of

the faculty in engineering departments across the country are foreign-born. Not only are the numbers important, but the quality of

these people is also important. Dr. Tilghman notes that 20 percent

of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are foreignborn, and more than a third of U.S. Nobel laureates, as well.

In addition, in her testimony, Dr. Tilghman noted that there had

been changes post-9/11 that had impacted the free movement of

students and scholars. Most of what she discussed related to the

technology alert list, those fields which generate an immediate security check or further review by officers in security organizations.

Both the expansion of the number of topics that are included in

that last and the use of key words in interview processes to trigger

these automatic further reviews were contributing, she felt, to the

extension of the time involved in clearance. Also, the elimination

of time limitations on decisions by State Department officials, relative to student visas, was also adding to the time required.

The impact of these changes on visa processing was reinforced in

a statement by two national educational organizations, whose

names are given in the printed testimony. Their statements stress

the importance of interview waivers as a way of increasing the efficiency of the visa process and questioned, at the time of their letter, whether or not an increase that seemed to go from 20 percent

of interviews of candidates to a 90 percent interview rate for candidates could be handled without increases in funding. And, Senator Nelson, I believe you asked questions on this to the previous

panel.

Just to take the University of New Hampshire as an example, we

continue to see about two to four cases each year of visa refusals,

generally from students coming from China, Africa, and developing

countries. Probably not surprisingly, our biggest difficulties are

with students coming from Russia and China in high-technology

areas. Many of these will automatically generate the Security Advisory Opinion process, which, again, was discussed in the previous

panel.

There is an effort underway by educational organizations to try

to put some numbers behind these. And, again, you were asking

questions about what fraction of people go through the additional

48

process and what the time is involved in those additional processes.

Three of these national organizations have posted a survey on the

Web, and I’ve got the Web site, again, in the testimony. Their goal

is to have good quantitative numbers from universities about how

these changes have impacted their processing.

Last October, two of these organizations put up preliminary results suggesting that there had been substantial increases in processing time and that hundreds of students arrived late for their

classes, resulting in unrecoverable costs to them, losses of tuition

revenues to colleges, and decisions by students to go elsewhere.

The University of Minnesota, for example, realized a 24 percent decrease in applicants from foreign students for their programs in the

fall of 2003.

SEVIS has been described here as a technological method for

speeding this process. Last spring, there were some technical difficulties with this mechanism. These seem to be largely cleared up,

and SEVIS is, indeed, speeding the processing. And I think you

heard some very up-to-date statistics, again, from the previous

panel on this.

There have been additional costs, in terms of processing time.

Ninety percent of our two-person team for processing these foreign

student visas at the University of New Hampshire now goes into

SEVIS-related issues. There will be also some additional costs for

hardware and software, but these are things we bear gladly in

order to be able to maintain the flow of these young and established scholars into our institution.

In terms of actual numbers, at the University of New Hampshire

we have seen a leveling off of numbers of applicants for student

visas through UNH. We would have probably expected to see an increase. There had been a continuing increase over the previous

years. Although, again, it’s difficult to say whether or not 9/11

alone has caused that leveling off, or the extent to which recession

in the global economy has also contributed to that.

One area that’s actually an exception, where we have seen a significant reduction in numbers of student applicants is in people

coming for English-language instruction. These are shorter programs, and hindrances and walls created in that application process for the visas for those are more substantial for these shorter

programs. Some institutions, we’ve seen a 20 percent decrease,

some institutions have seen as much as a 50 percent decrease if

that’s one of their primary programs.

Student and scholar mobility is another area which is probably

even a bigger process, and if we were going to focus on one that

limits the ability of our foreign students to succeed, it would be the

difficulty in reentering the country after they have achieved their

visa status and then leave the country either to return home or go

to scientific meetings. In particular, with Chinese students, those

who have successfully come to the U.S. are becoming very reluctant

to either return home or attend meetings because of the long

delays they may encounter in returning to the U.S. This makes it

difficult for them to maintain professional, personal, and family

contacts, which are needed to persuade consular officers that they

won’t remain in the U.S. indefinitely, so it affects them in that

way, as well.

49

In my search for information about this, it seemed that the problems being encountered, at UNH in particular, had more to do with

employment visas than student visas. And I realize that’s outside

the scope of this particular hearing, but they do contribute, in general, to the idea of the perception of the U.S. in other countries.

And I think it’s interesting—and there was one mention of this in

the previous panel—that there’s really a very large industry

around foreign visa students—a $12-billion-per-year industry—and

that we are beginning, it seems, to lose market share to Australia,

Canada, and the United Kingdom in that arena, partly because of

the perception, at least, that we’ve become a less welcoming institution.

There are a number of case studies in the report, and case studies, I think, are interesting because they put a human face on this,

but I’ll just conclude with one which kind of captures the problem.

There was a nursing scholar in the U.S. on a J-visa, who went to

Canada for lunch, and because of a mixup in her visa status and

in the processing of that, she had to remain in Canada for four

weeks. She was the head of her university’s Healthy Asian American Program, and because of this delay, her institution had to rearrange and re-coordinate her program in a different way. So just

one example of several.

But thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope this has been

helpful.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Aber follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN ABER

Good Morning Chairman Sununu and members of the committee. Thank you for

holding this hearing on a topic of central importance to the vitality of America’s enterprise in science and technology. Events since September 11, 2001 have reaffirmed

the need to maintain an American edge in science and technology. A good case can

be made that the vigor of our science and technology community derives in large

measure from what one of my German-born colleagues calls a ‘‘traditionally open

and welcoming atmosphere for free discussions and large-scale international efforts’’

here in the U.S. Creating the political and administrative membrane that protects

the nation’s borders but continues to encourage the free exchange of ideas and people in support of a vigorous scientific community is a daunting challenge. This testimony will reinforce the importance of the international exchange of students and

scholars to our research enterprise, and present information on the impact of

changes in the student visa system since 9/11, using examples from both the University of New Hampshire and other major research institutions around the nation.

I’ll close with a statement on perceptions of the U.S. as result of changes in immigration processes, and a small set of case histories that put a human face on this

important issue.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS

There is general agreement that the optimum management of our research enterprise requires free and open access by U.S. Universities and laboratories to the pool

of aspiring students and scholars who hold citizenship in other countries. This pool

provides a significant part of the energy and talent that drives our technological advancement. The importance of this source of talent has been emphasized by recent

statements by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security in support of visa

policies that both protect our citizens and provide legitimate access, stating that

‘‘such travel is important to our international, economic and national values and interest.’’

In presentations to a house subcommittee on a related topic, Dr. Shirley

Tilghman, President of Princeton University, and Dr. David Ward, President of the

American Council on Education, summarized a number of important facts regarding

50

the impact of foreign-born scholars on the American research effort that are generally known, but bear repeating here. These include, in approximate numbers:

• One-third of all Ph.D.s in science and engineering, and two-fifths of those in

Computer Science and Engineering, are awarded to foreign-born students;

• Two-thirds of foreign students who receive Ph.D.s here in science and engineering remain in the country and work here, and

• Two-fifths of faculty in engineering departments across the country are foreignborn.

In addition to quantity, the quality of work derived by our research enterprise

through the efforts of non-native students and scholars is also evident. Foreign-born

researchers make up:

• Nearly one-fifth of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, and

• More than one-third of U.S. Nobel laureates.

Dr. Ward also supplied important statistics on the positive impact of foreign students on the American economy, both directly while students, and eventually

through their contributions to technological advancement in U.S. industries. He also

makes the point that visiting students and scholars can be our best proponents of

the American way of life abroad, and play an important role in increasing international understanding.

The testimonies of Dr. Ward and Dr. Tilghman, both eminent scholars and educators, are especially relevant in that they are both foreign-born.

National studies and our experience at the University of New Hampshire both

show that this large representation of international students in technical degree

programs does not result from preferential recruitment or retention. At the national

level, the long-standing lack of interest in science curricula by U.S. students is a

lamentable but undeniable fact of life, and is the subject of a number of initiatives

by both governmental agencies and private foundations and institutes. At the University of New Hampshire we combine an enduring commitment to the kind of highquality undergraduate educational experience generally associated with small liberal arts colleges, with focused support and achievement in selected areas of research excellence. One of our strongest areas is in Space Physics, particularly SunEarth interactions. Recruiting graduate students from the U.S. into this field is a

tremendous challenge, even though the potential for a successful and stimulating

professional career is very high. Without foreign-born students, many from Europe

as well as other parts of the world, this important program would lack the energy

and stimulation provided by young and developing scholars, and would be severely

hampered.

IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN VISA PROCESSING SINCE 9/11

Operational and Fiscal

In her testimony to the House Science Committee, Dr. Tilghman noted changes

that, from her perspective, had the greatest impact on visa processing. These included: (1) expansion of the Technology Alert List (TAL) to include the biological

sciences and urban planning as Critical Fields of Study; (2) guidance to consular officers that restrictions on the export of controlled goods and technologies (the TAL)

apply to nationals of all countries and not just to those who are from state sponsors

of terrorism; (3) guidance that consular officers are not expected to be versed in all

fields on the TAL, but should ‘‘listen for key words or phrases from the Critical

Fields list’’ while interviewing applicants; and (4) elimination of time limitations on

decisions by the State Department to suspend the processing of a student visa request. Each of these changes has increased the number of cases that are referred

to the State Department and other federal agencies for additional screening and security approval, and the increased case load has resulted in prolonged processing

time for nearly all student visa applications.

The impact of this change on visa processing time has been reinforced in a statement submitted to the Committee on Government Reform by the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange and NAFSA: Association of International Educators. That statement stressed the importance of the waiver of personal interviews as an important mechanism for increasing the efficiency of visa application processing. These groups questioned the ability of the departments involved to handle a change from a 20% interview rate to a 90% interview rate without substantial increases in funding.

At UNH, although we continue to see occasional outright visa refusals (generally

due to presumed immigrant intent on the part of F-1 students and exchange stuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
51

1 NASULGC = National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, NAFSA

= NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and AAU = Association of American Universities.

dents in J-1 status), we have seen no real increase over the level of recent years— about two to four cases each year, generally from China, Africa, and developing

countries. More important adverse impacts derive from the increased time required

to complete a successful application. Consular officers at U.S. embassies and consulates overseas now more than ever err on the side of caution in deciding whether

to refer a case to Washington for a ‘‘security advisory opinion’’ based on a combination of the applicant’s country of citizenship (or, occasionally, country of birth) and

the degree of sensitivity of their field of endeavor here in the U.S.A. Russian and

Chinese applicants working in fields where technology transfer is a major concern

are especially likely to face delays because their cases are being referred to Washington. Although the Department of State tells us that eighty per cent of cases referred to Washington are cleared in thirty days or less, our anecdotal experience,

and that of our colleagues at other institutions, does not appear to confirm this statistic.

It would be valuable to have data to underlie the perception that visa processing

times have increased. The perception is surely there. Visits to the websites of major

research universities across the country reveal a consistent set of statements regarding increased processing time and the requirement to begin the visa process

early. MIT has instituted official policies that provide guidance on how to deal with

foreign students who are delayed to the point that they cannot start a semester on

time. The letter announcing those policies (released in February of this year) does

suggest, however, that the number of cases involving substantial delays in student

arrival time have been few.

There is an effort currently underway to determine whether processing times are

increasing or decreasing. Three organizations representing the university community (NASULGC, NAFSA and AAU 1) have posted a questionnaire on the web

(www.nafsa.org/survey) to obtain information both about processing times and about

numbers of current and past applications and enrollments by foreign students.

Two of these organizations (AAU and NAFSA) conducted a preliminary survey

with results released in October 2002. Summary conclusions included that there had

been a ‘‘substantial increase in the numbers of student visa delays and denial for

fall 2002 when compared with fall 2001.’’ Particular delays occurred with students

from China, India and Muslim countries, with ‘‘hundreds’’ of students missing program start dates. The most common consequences of these delays were unrecoverable costs to students, loss of tuition revenue to colleges, and decisions by students

to go elsewhere. One campus in particular, the University of Minnesota, reported

a decline of 24% in international student applications for the fall of 2003.

The agencies involved have been bringing technology to bear in an effort to reduce

processing time. SEVIS is a web-based system developed and operated by ICS to

allow electronic submission and review of applications for student visas. Early difficulties with the technology reported by Dr. Tilghman last spring appear to have

been solved, and SEVIS appears to be reducing processing times. Open questions

remain about whether or not to charge a fee for this application method, and how

this fee, if charged, should be collected. Otherwise, the system appears to be functional and helpful—a good use of technology to assure our own technological growth.

The system has impacted university international student offices by increasing

upfront and operational costs associated with the local management of this system.

Dr. Tilghman says that Princeton spent $38,000 for hardware and committed a full

time person to implement SEVIS locally.

At UNH, implementation of SEVIS has required considerable amounts of time

and effort to ensure that UNH is in compliance with new tracking requirements,

especially relative to visiting students. Our part-time foreign student advisor and

our full-time director devoted approximately 90 per cent of their time to SEVIS-related issues during the first half of this year—in addition to time spent during the

many months leading up to initial implementation. This additional time commitment has resulted from the need to gather additional information from students, inform them of the requirements of the new program, and—because the stakes are

so high for students who could fall out of legal status in case of error—double and

triple checking the accuracy of all information and procedures. Time has also been

spent working with national professional associations contributing information with

the goal of influencing future regulations and processes.

Financial costs are yet to be determined. While we anticipate little need for additional hardware, we will undoubtedly need to purchase one of several software programs that can interface between SEVIS and our current data base system. This

52

could eventually cost $10,000 or more. Meanwhile, the need to confirm enrollments

by hand rather than by ‘‘batching’’ data reported through SEVIS to the Department

of Homeland Security is costing our office considerable staff time. Many smaller

schools which are starting off from a less sophisticated level find the necessary investments of hardware, software, and staff training overwhelming.

Student Enrollment

In general, we have not seen a significant change in the numbers of foreign applicants to UNH degree programs. In the absence of the post-9/11 measures undertaken by government agencies, we could have expected a continued modest increase

each year, but it is difficult to ascribe the lack of growth to specific factors. The general economic down-turn and other factors might be equally responsible. Likewise,

we have not seen a significant increase in visa refusals or delays among our student

cases. These trends mirror those reported to the House by Dr. Tilghman for a number of large private universities.

The one exception to this trend at UNH is a decrease of approximately twenty

per cent in our English language programs, which tend to be of relatively short duration. Students coming to these programs are more likely to be discouraged by

added costs and bureaucratic obstacles than are degree candidates. Many other institutions, especially those which offer English language instruction only, have seen

their numbers cut in half. Because students coming initially to learn English tend

to remain in the U.S. as degree candidates, decreased enrollments in other programs will likely follow with a lag time of one year.

Student and Scholar Mobility

Changes in immigration processes are also having an impact on the movement of

students and scholars, affecting their intellectual progress and contributions to

American research. One example involves Chinese students, who are both a large

proportion of the total foreign student pool, and one which has traditionally faced

higher visa refusal rates than those from most other countries. As a result of past

practice and recent changes, Chinese students who are successful in getting to the

U.S. are most often reluctant to risk a trip outside the U.S. during the course of

their studies or research, for fear of being refused a reentry visa. They are therefore

less likely to maintain the professional, personal, and family contacts which are

needed to persuade consular officers that they won’t remain in the U.S. indefinitely.

The number of countries for which individual interviews for visas are required is

increasing, and now includes India, Russia, predominantly Muslim countries, and

even Western European countries and Japan. As significant challenges in the visa

process increase, more and more of our visitors are deciding not to go home to visit

family, or to attend important international professional conferences, for fear of

lengthy disruption of their studies and/or research.

International Perceptions

One of the charges from the committee regarding this testimony was to comment on ‘‘perceptions of our nation and our people abroad.’’ Here we must rely on anecdote alone, as there are no valid indices of how our scientific colleagues view the

U.S. as an environment for research. UNH has a significant presence in international research both in space physics and in the geosciences, and in other selected

areas. A number of our most productive faculty spend a considerable part of their

working life abroad. One of them has expressed to me a general concern about scientific collaborations, citing recent changes in practices as creating significant obstacles to international cooperation and creating the perception in the international research community that the U.S. is becoming more of a ‘‘closed shop.’’ He suggests

that this, combined with enormously constraining regulations about technology

transfer has led to a rapid decline in collaboration opportunities. One specific example involved limitations on the selection of lead scientists for a NASA project that

suggested to him an environment that ‘‘diminishes greatly the reach of U.S. scientific enterprises.’’ Visa challenges at the national level are now combined with additional complex

requirements from other government agencies relating to drivers’ licenses from state

Departments of Motor Vehicles, social security numbers, and even tax information.

Because of this, our international students and scholars are forced to divert increasing amounts time, attention, and emotional energy into issues of daily life and away

from their studies and research. All of these factors in the long run seriously affect

the efficiency with which they contribute to our collective progress. As they report

back to their countrymen on these issues, the United States will may well continue

to lose market share in the multi-billion-dollar international education business to

Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom which have become increasingly competitive in attracting the best and brightest young minds worldwide.

53

As an example, a recent article by Janice Spaskey in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a Canadian program to speed visa processing for students wishing

to study in Alberta, to increase that province’s competitive advantage relative to

Australia and the U.S. The provincial Minister of Learning developed this idea after

a trip to Asia during which he became convinced that visa-related matters were important when students were deciding where to study. These potential foreign students were clearly seen as a resource worth competing for, and the current visa

processing time of 3 to 9 months an important deterrent to success in that competition.

Case Histories

I’d like to give some of these general statements a human face by providing a few

stories that underlie them. Anecdotes are dangerous because in a system as large

as this there are bound to be occasional mistakes and individual delays for acceptable reasons. But these stories do exemplify how real people are being seriously impacted, and their important scholarly efforts delayed, by the current operation of the

visa system. Identifying information has been removed from these case studies, but

all are verifiable through direct communications. Personnel at NASULGC have been

very helpful in drawing some of these stories together.

Case 1:

A Chinese graduate student in Physics from returned to China for family business

in December, 2002. When he left for China, he did so with all of the appropriate

documentation and maintained all immigration regulations while there. He initially

interviewed for his return visa in early January, providing the follow-up information

on his research area, which was requested by the visa officer. With no news on the

visa after 6 weeks, the student visited to embassy to inquire about the status of his

application. The student was informed that his application needed a security advisory opinion (SAO) from Washington and that he must wait. In the middle of February, a Congressional office inquired about the student’s application with the State

Department and learned that it was still under review. The approval for a return

visa was finally granted in June and the student returned to campus almost immediately thereafter. The long delay had a number of negative consequences for the

student and the university. The student was expected to graduate in August, 2003.

Now, because of the delay, his graduation date has been pushed back by a year to

August, 2004. A multi-million dollar federally-backed multiuniversity research

project, of which he was a critical member, and the activities associated with it were

delayed, including publications. The student was involved in another multi-million

dollar federally-funded equipment simulation project, which was also delayed.

Case 2:

A third-year Chinese Biochemistry Ph.D. student visited her family during the

holiday break in 2002. Upon attempting to renew her visa to return to the U.S. to

continue her studies on January 3, 2003, she was told she would have to wait for

the security clearance on her visa application. Her application was not cleared for

the return visa until early August, 2003. She missed an entire semester.

Case 3:

A second-year graduate student from China in Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering visited China in September, 2002, with her academic advisor to participate

in a conference and present a paper at a major Chinese university. Upon applying

for her renewal visa to reenter the U.S to continue her studies, she has been delayed by the security check. She is still waiting for clearance and has to arrange

make up courses in order to set the proper time for your Ph.D. qualifying exams.

Case 4:

A student from Turkey in the last semester of his Master’s program in Economics

was scheduled to begin his Ph.D. program Fall 2003. Although his student visa is

valid until December 2003, he decided to apply for a new visa during the summer

while visiting his family. His visa appointment was on July 24th; apparently there

was a ‘‘hit’’ on the name check. His fingerprints have already been taken twice and

as we understand it, the visa clearance process is still not resolved. He was forced

to defer his Ph.D. program to Spring 2004 and the department had to reassign his

assistantship at the last minute.

Case 5:

An undergraduate student from Canada who graduated last May applied for Optional Practical Training (OPT) in March 2003 for employment beginning 07/22/2003

and ending 07/21/2004 (F-1 students are allowed 12 months of employment in their

54

field of study). The OISS entered all the necessary information in SEVIS, as required. She received a job offer with a begin date of 06/01/2003. Unfortunately,

‘‘data fixes’’ in SEVIS can only be done through the SEVIS Help Desk but instead

of changing the dates as the OISS requested, her OPT data was inadvertently canceled (apparently a miscommunication among Help Desk ‘‘counselors’’). It took multiple phone calls to the Help Desk and the Vermont Service Center, with the help

of Sen. Judd Gregg’s office to finally resolve her case. Her OPT was finally approved

on July 8. She was unable to leave the country while her case was pending for fear

that she will not be able to return.

Case 6:

Due to an error in the SEVIS system, a J-visa nursing scholar could not reenter

the United States for nearly four weeks after going to a border city in Canada for

lunch. She is one of the coordinators of the university’s Healthy Asian Americans

Project. Due to her delay in returning to the U.S., alternate staffing had to be arranged to coordinate a major outreach program.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. Estorino, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JOSE ESTORINO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF

MARKETING, ORLANDO/ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION AND

VISITORS BUREAU, INC., ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Mr. ESTORINO. Thank you.

Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on U.S. visa policy and related

matters impacting international travel to the United States. It’s a

matter of serious and continuing concern for individual companies

in the U.S. travel industry, as well as cities and states that depend

on international travel for their economic livelihood.

The Orlando Convention and Visitors Bureau represents nearly

1500 private businesses that make up the tourism industry in the

area. The travel industry is critical to the economic health of Orlando and the entire state of Florida. While domestic travel to Central Florida and the U.S. overall is much larger, international visitors typically stay longer and spend a great deal more than U.S.

travelers. This is why the industry is so concerned about federal

policies that are designed to protect the homeland, but may have

the unintended consequence of deterring legitimate international

travelers visiting Orlando and so many other destinations.

Today, I’m testifying on behalf of the Travel Industry Association

of American, of which we are a long-time and active member. TIA

is the national nonprofit organization representing all components

of the $525 billion U.S. travel and tourism industry. TIA’s mission

is to represent the whole of the travel industry to promote and facilitate increased travel to and within the United States.

International business and leisure travel to the U.S. is a vital

component of the national economy. In 2002, over 41 million international visitors generated 88 billion in expenditures, 12 billion in

federal, state, and local revenue, and accounted for one million jobs

nationwide. The continuing decline in international visitation over

the past two years, though, has cost our economy $15.3 billion in

expenditures.

The decline in travel is due to a variety of reasons, including fear

of terrorism, a downturn in the global economy, and confusion over

the new U.S. visa and border security procedures. While some of

the causes are beyond the reach of any single government, actions

by the U.S. Government can either enhance or harm our nation’s

55

ability to attract more international visitors and create more economic opportunity for all states and cities.

There are a number of federal policy decisions that have been

made in recent years or are currently being contemplated that have

resulted in actual or perceived barriers that deter visitors from

traveling to the United States. Rightly or wrongly, the international traveling public increasingly perceives the myriad of security rules is creating a fortress America. By and large, these rules

and requirements make sense for a homeland security perspective.

And TIA and the U.S. travel industry support efforts to enhance

national security. But for many international visitors, wave after

wave of new travel requirements paint a big picture that the

United States is becoming a destination that is too difficult to

enter, too expensive to visit, and simply not worth the effort.

In their opinion, the welcome mat has seemingly been pulled.

Perception has become the new reality, and even in countries

where there are relatively few barriers for travel to the United

States, this negative perception has resulted in lost business for

the United States.

I’d like to share with you comments and concerns from the field

and other industry members that I have received in preparation for

this hearing.

Since everyone in the family between the ages of 16 and 60 must

come for a personal interview to a consulate or embassy, the cost

to these individuals, in some cases, is 50 percent of what an actual

trip to the U.S. would cost. This is the case in Brazil, a country

the size of the United States, with only four places to conduct

interviews.

Secondly, the rumored or perceived denial rate for these visas is

reported to be 25 to 35 percent. And, in some cases, one family

member is denied, while others are approved, basically preventing

many from traveling.

Thirdly, due to the length of the process in acquiring a visa and

the reality that people are planning trips shorter, and this creates

additional barriers.

Fourth, the competition has taken advantage of our situation by

heavily promoting other destination. And, in some cases, foreign

carriers are adding greater flight frequency to their destinations.

Fifth, the tour operators and travel agents are selling these other

destinations because of the visa barriers to the United States and

have begun to develop new products to Europe and other destinations that don’t have visa requirements.

And, sixth, the international media has reported on the visa barriers and is creating fear and dislike for travel to America. I was

told that the consumer now perceives us as arrogant and elitist.

This is damaging America’s image.

Just last year, as Congressman Nelson mentioned, Congress appropriated 50 million to promote the U.S. internationally as the

premier visitation destination in the world. The travel industry is

grateful to Congress for recognizing the need to tell the world that

we are not only open for business, but also eager to welcome international visitors to our cities and rural areas to experience our natural beauty, culture, and exciting attractions.

56

But even before government and industry have decided how best

to invest this 50 million to attract increased numbers of international visitors, there is great concern, particularly overseas, that

all of this new visa, passport, and entry procedures could potentially drown out efforts to invite the world to see America.

In conclusion, let me repeat that the U.S. travel industry strongly supports efforts by the Federal Government to protect our homeland. We realize these are challenging times for our government officials, who seek to prevent acts of terror while working to facilitate

legitimate international travel and trade. We stand ready to work

with Congress and the Administration on the creation of commonsense policies that prevent the entry of terrorists while truly facilitating the entry of tens of millions of legitimate business and leisure visitors who provide a great economic, social, and political

benefit to our country.

Thank you very much, and I’ll be glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Estorino follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSE ESTORINO

Chairman Sununu, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the subcommittee,

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on U.S. visa policy and related

matters impacting international travel to the United States. This is a matter of serious and continuing concern for individual companies in the U.S. travel industry, as

well as cities and states that depend on international travel for their economic livelihood.

I am Jose Estorino, Senior Vice President of Marketing for the Orlando/Orange

County Convention and Visitors Bureau. I am responsible for all global marketing,

domestic and international, and oversee seven international sales offices in Europe,

Latin America and Japan. We represent nearly 1,500 private businesses that make

up the tourism industry in our area. The travel industry is critical to the economic

health of Orlando and the entire state of Florida. While domestic travel to central

Florida and the U.S. overall is much larger, international visitors typically stay

longer and spend a great deal more than U.S. travelers. This is why the industry

is so concerned about federal policies that are designed to protect the homeland, but

may have the unintended consequence of deterring legitimate international travelers from visiting Orlando and so many other destinations.

Today I am testifying on behalf of the Travel Industry Association of America

(TIA), of which the Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau is a

long-time and active member. TIA is the national, non-profit organization representing all components of the $525 billion U.S. travel and tourism industry. TIA’s mission is to represent the whole of the travel industry to promote and facilitate

increased travel to and within the United States. Its more than 2,000 member organizations represent every segment of the industry throughout the country.

The travel industry remains concerned about several federal policy decisions and

programs that have created actual barriers to inbound international travel, or created a perception of barriers, that serve to discourage international visitors from

traveling to the U.S. We continue to urge the federal government to work with us

to find ways both to protect the homeland and ensure the economic vitality of the

U.S. travel industry. This is not an ‘‘either or’’ proposition. This nation should and

must have both.

OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TO THE U.S.

International business and leisure travel to the U.S. is a vital component of our

national economy. In 2002, over 41 million international visitors generated $88 billion in expenditures, $12 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue, and accounted for one million jobs nationwide. International travel and tourism to the U.S.

is a service export, and in 2002, the U.S. had a positive balance of trade of $8 billion.

The continuing decline in international visitation over the past two years, though,

has drastically reduced the flow of tax revenue to all levels of government and reduced our international balance of trade. Since 2000, the loss of international travel

to the U.S. has cost our economy $15.3 billion in expenditures. Below is a review

57

of key international market performance since 2000, based on 2002 and 2001 arrivals figures:

Arrivals in U.S.

(2000 Ranking)

Change in 2002

from 2001

Change in 2002

from 2000

Canada (1) ..................................................... –4.0% –11.1%

Mexico (2) ....................................................... –0.5% –4.8%

Total arrivals ......................................... –7.0% –19.5%

U.K. (3) ........................................................... –6.8% –18.8%

Japan (4) ........................................................ –11.2% –28.3%

Germany (5) ................................................... –9.4% –33.3%

Brazil (6) ........................................................ –26.5% –45.1%

Total Overseas ....................................... –12.4% –26.4%

Note: Japan and the U.K. are in the Visa Waiver Program, which only requires a valid passport for entry. Travel from Brazil requires a valid passport and U.S. issued visa. Different rules

apply to Canada.

Data Source: Dept. of Commerce, Ofc. of Travel and Tourism Industries.

The decline in travel is due to a variety of reasons, including fear of travel because of terrorism, a downturn in the global economy and confusion over new U.S.

visa and border security procedures. While some of the causes are beyond the reach

of any single government, actions by the U.S. government can either enhance or

harm our nation’s ability to attract increased international travel to the U.S. and

create more jobs and economic opportunity for states and cities in every corner of

our country.

FEDERAL POLICIES IMPACTING INBOUND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL

There are a number of federal policy decisions that have been made in recent

years, or are currently being contemplated, that either create actual barriers to

travel for prospective international visitors, or lead to a perception of great difficulty

for those intending to visit the U.S. for business or pleasure. Recent decisions on

visa policy and new requirements for applicants, new rules concerning Visa Waiver

traveler passports, and new entry-exit procedures taken as a whole have led to serious confusion and concern on the part of the international traveling public and

those businesses that sell travel to the U.S.

INCREASED INTERVIEWS FOR VISA APPLICANTS

As security has become a paramount concern in visa processing, it now takes

longer to process non-immigrant visa applications at numerous consulates. The

State Department is taking more time to review applications and requiring more

documentation. In addition to these changes, starting August 1, 2003, U.S. embassies and consulates have been required to personally interview virtually all non-immigrant visa applicants.

While the travel industry supports more vigorous screening of visa applicants, we

were disappointed to learn these new requirements would not be accompanied by

any increases in personnel or additional facilities in which to carry out this new

mandate. In fact, the State Department fully admitted that increasing interview

rates to approximately ninety percent would likely worsen delays in visa processing.

We appreciate the State Department’s intentions to possibly shift resources to

high-volume, visa-issuing posts abroad or add new consular positions to meet the

dramatically expanded workload in some countries. That said, we argued this past

summer, and still believe now, this policy should have been delayed until the State

Department requested and received from Congress the requisite resources to avoid

even greater delays in visa processing and issuance. Longer waits for visas will only

cause international visitors to choose other destinations for travel where the actual

or perceived barriers are less, and where they perceive their business is welcome.

58

VISA POLICIES AND COSTS DETER INTERNATIONAL VISITORS

New visa policies and related costs are having a detrimental impact on international travel to the U.S., and the following are real-world examples from the two

largest non-Visa Waiver markets for travel to our country, Brazil and Korea.

Brazil is the largest market for travel to the U.S. from Latin America, and a

major source of overseas visitors in Orlando, and Florida as a whole. Unfortunately,

over the last two years Brazilian travel to the U.S. has declined by 45%. According

to recent survey research by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the top concern for

Brazilian tour producers wanting to send clients to the U.S. is the issue of travel

barriers as a result of changes in U.S. visa policy.

For example, the visa interview rule has drastically increased the cost of visiting

the U.S. for many Brazilians. Currently, there are only four locations in Brazil

where an individual can go to apply in person for a U.S. visa. Brazil is almost as

large as the continental U.S. This means many Brazilians will have to travel a significant distance to reach the U.S. Embassy or one of the consulates. For many visa

applicants the trip will be long enough to warrant purchasing an airline ticket and

possibly a hotel room. When you add these travel costs on to the $100 visa application fee, the total cost for obtaining a U.S. visa can be as much as $450 (U.S.) per

person, or $1,800 for a family of four, in cases when all family members must appear in person.

Please bear in mind this is simply the cost for the trip within their own country

to apply for a visa with the hope of reaching their ultimate destination—the United

States. Further compounding the situation is the fact that one-third of Brazilian

visa applicants are refused. Is it any wonder that while outbound travel from Brazil

is growing in recent months, Brazilian travelers are choosing to travel to Europe

where visas are not required?

As further evidence of the impact these visa policies are having on inbound travel

from Brazil, we respectfully request that a letter from the Association of Brazilian

Travel Producers (BRASTOA) on this matter be included in the official hearing

record.

The Asian market has also been negatively affected. Last year, 638,000 Koreans

traveled to the U.S. for business or leisure. In 2002, the U.S. embassy in Seoul

issued 337,000 new visas, of which 273,800 were B–1 or B–2 visas for business and

leisure travel. For 2002, only 27% of all B–1/B–2 visa applicants were interviewed

in person.

If a 100% visa interview policy were implemented for the U.S. Embassy in Seoul

with no additional resources, personnel and facilities limitations would restrict the

embassy to issuing a maximum of 200,000 visas of all types per year. TIA estimates

this would result in a loss of approximately 114,000 travelers (one of every six Korean visitors) and a loss of $205 million in expenditures for the South Korean travel

market alone. Expand this to other travel markets, and it is easy to see how U.S.

visa policies would cost industry and government hundreds of millions of dollars and

thousands of lost jobs.

In spring of 2003, prior to implementation of the new visa interview requirements,

a South Korean would only have to wait two to five days before receiving a U.S.

visa. At that time only about 35% of applicants were interviewed. The U.S. Embassy

in Seoul moved to the new interview policy on July 18. Recent reports indicate Koreans must now wait eight weeks for an interview for B–1 or B–2 visas. This is unacceptable, and will undoubtedly cause many Korean travelers to choose other destinations for leisure trips.

VISA POLICIES RESULT IN CANCELED BUSINESS

According to reports from the Visit USA Committee in Korea, an 8,000-person

group from Amway Korea was planning a 2004 conference in the U.S. As a result

of increased delays in visa processing, they are now looking at alternative ‘‘visa-free’’

sites in Asia. The lost business from this one group is estimated to be over $15 million in travel expenditures.

Another example of business lost as a result of either actual barriers, or perceived

barriers, involves New York City, which was one of three finalists for hosting the

2004 World Masters-Athletics Indoor Track & Field Championships. Although New

York City out-scored Stuttgart and Stockholm in all host city judging categories, the

World Association of Masters Athletes chose Germany over the U.S. specifically because it was believed that stringent U.S. visa policies would deter competitors and

their families from coming to the meet. It was perceived that Germany would be

more ‘‘open’’ to allowing athletes and their families to visit, even making special visa

allowances for the athletes. The result of this decision is that New York City lost

59

anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 international visitors (athletes, trainers, and family

members) with an economic price tag of $5.75 to $11.5 million.

POSSIBLE INCREASE IN VISA APPLICATION FEE

In Congressional testimony this year, State Department officials have publicly

mentioned the possibility of increasing the non-refundable fee it charges for non-immigrant visa applicants. The fee was raised in November of 2002 from $65 to $100

U.S. This fee is paid regardless of whether or not the visa application is approved.

While we acknowledge that the State Department has fixed costs related to adjudication of visa applications, increasing the fee again would only serve to further

discourage legitimate international travel to the U.S.

NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF U.S. POLICIES

The international traveling public increasingly perceives that the myriad of new

security rules is creating a ‘‘Fortress America.’’ International travelers do not just

consider the impact of individual rules, but view all rules and programs in total.

They have noted the increase in visa fees, new visa interview requirements and

growing visa denials. They are also aware of machine-readable passport deadlines,

the future use of biometric identifiers in U.S. visas and Visa Waiver passports, collection and use of advance passenger information, or API, along with the soon to

be implemented US VISIT (U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology), or entry-exit system, which is scheduled to begin at U.S. airports and seaports in 2004.

By and large, these new rules and requirements make sense from a homeland security perspective, and TIA and the U.S. travel industry support efforts to enhance

national security. But for many prospective international visitors, wave after wave

of new travel requirements paints a ‘‘big picture’’ that the United States is becoming

a destination that is too difficult to enter, too expensive to visit and simply not

worth the effort. In their opinion, the ‘‘welcome mat’’ has seemingly been pulled.

Perception has become the new reality, and even in countries where there are relatively few barriers for travel to the U.S., this negative perception has resulted in

lost business for the United States.

CONGRESS FUNDS INTERNATIONAL TOURISM PROMOTION

Just last year Congress appropriated $50 million to promote the U.S. internationally as the premier visitor destination in the world. This U.S. promotion campaign

is being led by the U.S. Department of Commerce, with advice and counsel from the

U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, which is composed of leaders

in the U.S. travel industry. The travel industry is grateful to Congress for recognizing the need to tell the world that we are not only open for business, but also

eager to welcome international visitors to our cities and rural areas to experience

our natural beauty, culture and exciting attractions.

But even before government and industry have decided how best to invest this

$50 million to attract increased numbers of international visitors, there is great concern that all of these new visa, passport and entry procedures could potentially

drown out any efforts to invite the world to ‘‘See America.’’ Our overseas business

partners who sell travel to the U.S. are worried this investment in promotion will

do little to increase inbound international travel because of widespread negative

perceptions. We share their concerns, but sincerely hope this will not be the case.

We are committed to working closely with the Department of Commerce to ensure

this $50 million investment results in more international visitors, increased U.S.

jobs and growing revenues for all levels of government.

CONCLUSION

TIA and the U.S. travel industry strongly support efforts by the federal government to protect our homeland from attack by those who would seek to harm our

citizens, residents, and international guests. We stand ready to work with Congress

and the Administration on the creation of policies that prevent the entry of terrorists while truly facilitating the entry of tens of millions of legitimate business and

leisure visitors who provide a great economic, social and political benefit for this

country.

We realize these are challenging times for government officials who seek to prevent acts of terror while working to facilitate legitimate international travel and

trade. TIA and the entire travel industry, for example, applaud the Administration

for its recent decision that extended the machine-readable passport deadline by one

year for twenty-one Visa Waiver Program countries. This decision will help to preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
60

vent the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost business from key

markets, and is viewed by travel industry leaders as a hopeful sign the federal government is increasingly aware of the ‘‘economic security’’ needs of the U.S. travel

industry.

Again, we must have enhanced U.S. national security as well as growth in travel

and tourism and the overall U.S. economy. Protecting America and providing jobs

must remain priorities for Congress and the Administration. These goals are not

mutually exclusive, and we can and must have both.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Estorino.

We’ll begin the questioning with Senator Nelson.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Estorino, welcome. I think you have underscored the case most articulately, what I was trying to get across

in my questioning of the previous panel, that we’ve got to make it

easier in the minds of the foreign guests to be able to come, and,

at the same time, of course, protect our own borders.

Why don’t you, for the record, tell about the travel business from

Brazil and how it is so dramatically dropped?

Mr. ESTORINO. Travel has dropped significantly, about 45 percent, just recently. The issue that I’m hearing from the field is primarily the cost of acquiring a visa. You can imagine—I’ll put it in

a different perspective—imagine if American citizens had to get a

visa to travel to the United Kingdom and we only had consulates

in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. If every American had to

go to one of these places in order to get a visa to travel to the U.K.,

how many people do you think would be traveling to the United

Kingdom? I would suggest that it’s not many.

So picture that case in Brazil. You have a situation where we’re

forcing a very large country—there are many other areas of population that do travel to the United States and are having to go to

a selected number of cities.

I asked the question, because I wanted to know how many people

outside of Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Rio de Janeiro were traveling

to the United States. The number that I received was approximately 45 to 50 percent of the travelers to the United States are

coming from outside those major cities.

So it’s a huge cost, as we all indicated earlier, when you have to

pay a fee per applicant, as well as pay for travel arrangements, in

the case of Brazil, in many cases, air travel, and then you have to

spend the night, and then you have to get, you know, meals, et

cetera, to then only find out that a third of these applicants are

being denied. I believe it creates a huge barrier in interest and is

really hurting the image of our country in welcoming these folks

to the United States.

Senator NELSON. What about the other countries in South America?

Mr. ESTORINO. Well, there’s a couple of countries that would

have a similar scenario, that would have to travel long distances.

The issue of delays is the other question. All around the world,

people are traveling—deciding to travel with a lot less lead time.

So having to wait a long time for a visa does not incentivize people

to want to come. Again, the denial rate is significant. So it just creates additional barriers. The media is not helping us in any way

in these countries, obviously, presenting these stories and cases

and so on.

61

So we have an image problem. We have to repair it through a

public-relations effort, and we have to welcome our guests. And I’m

not suggesting that we give each passenger a pina colada as they

board the plane, but I am suggesting that we treat them, you

know, respectfully. Most of these people are legitimate people that

want to come to our country, and we should be welcoming them.

Senator NELSON. Of all of your inbound tourism traffic into the

Orlando area, is Brazil the largest percentage of that?

Mr. ESTORINO. The United Kingdom represents our largest

source of visitation, with over a million visitors. We saw that market decline last year. As an example, we saw our U.K. visitation

drop approximately 17 percent, while we saw Brazilian visitation

to Orlando drop 50 percent. So we’ve been hit across the board.

Our Asian markets, although the number is much smaller, has also

declined by 53 percent.

In total, Orlando was hit particularly hard, Senator, with an

overall decline last year of 22 percent, compared to a U.S. overall

decline of approximately 7 percent. So Orlando was hit particularly

hard with international visitation.

Senator NELSON. And the Florida figures are not just Orlando.

That’s Miami, as well.

Mr. ESTORINO. Actually, sir, I was stating Orlando figures. Orlando had dropped over 22 percent, the state of Florida dropped

nearly 16 percent, and the overall United States dropped, international passengers, was a drop of 7 percent. So Florida was hit

harder than the nation, and Orlando was hit harder than both.

Senator NELSON. I, of course, bring up Miami because it, as well

as Orlando, is one of the major international destination points,

particularly with regard to commerce, a lot of banking, and so

forth. It’s interesting why we have our United States military

Southern Command in Miami. It’s because that is the point of

greatest contact for all the governments of Central and South

America. You think of the one point where they travel most frequently, interestingly, it’s Miami.

With the United Kingdom being first—do you have that list? Go

on down the list. Who’s second into Orlando?

Mr. ESTORINO. Into Orlando, would be Germany. Then the South

American nations, Brazil—I’m sorry, Canada would be second. It

would be the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Brazil. And Mexico—I don’t have exact numbers, but Mexico would be pretty high.

Senator NELSON. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Estorino, do you have any other suggestions, specific suggestions, for dealing with that reduction in travel?

Like you mentioned the costs. Obviously, we could try to deal with

the costs to the application process.

Mr. ESTORINO. I think, in the case of a country like Brazil, I’ve

been told that organizations in Brazil, such as the Organization of

Brazilian Travel Agents, BRAZTOA, the Association of Brazilian

Tour Operators, is more than willing to work with the government,

the U.S. Government, in facilitating anything that they could do to

bring consulars to the other major cities to help facilitate visa processing. I’d say take them up on it somehow. We need to reduce the

62

process, we need to make it more economical for people to obtain

a visa, and we need to do some outreaching to them.

Chairman Sununu, the other concern that I have is that if these

barriers don’t get resolved quickly, part of what may happen is

American travel companies that are interested in generating visitation from these countries may abandon their marketing effort in

these countries. There have been situations already; I’ll give you an

example: Walt Disney World has already closed their office in

Brazil. While we, as the Orlando Convention and Visitors Bureau,

have maintained our offices. That’s a matter of prioritizing. But I

can tell you it’s very difficult to continue to dedicate resources to

stimulate these markets when we know that there are some significant barriers that there’s little we can do about.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Oberlin, does the embassy in Seoul have

any sort of a mechanism for regular discussion with the business

community or the academic community there on visa-related

issues?

Mr. OBERLIN. Yes, as I mentioned in my comments, we applaud

the efforts of the consular section, the leadership of Ambassador

Hubbard. They have been working with the travel industry in

Korea. They’ve been working with the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea and trying to find ways so that the problems can

be lessened, to whatever degree possible.

A lot of what we think are some of the innovative ways in which

we can go forward, that has been—that is through collaboration essentially with the experts, because there you have the experts right

there on the ground.

Senator SUNUNU. Has the embassy been proactive in trying to

communicate with the Korean people, generally, on these issues?

Mr. OBERLIN. I would say, yes, they have; but, unfortunately, I

would also probably add that they’re limited in resources in being

able to do that. That’s one of the things that we believe is critical.

And I think one of my colleagues has already pointed it out, too.

Communication. We know that we have to do—we know we have

to do this. These policies are something that are necessary for our

national security. However, at the same time, we have to make

sure that our friends and potential visitors to the United States understand why we’re doing what we’re doing, because they have a

different perception than what we have.

Senator SUNUNU. Do you have a specific goal in mind for a reasonable visa processing time?

Mr. OBERLIN. Well, we would like to take it back to where it was,

and where it was—that was two to five days. We don’t know

whether that’s possible in the near-term, but that should definitely

be the objective. In other words, if you had to come up with a metric, the simplest metric would to take it before the implementation

of the policy and try to achieve that in as short a period of time

as possible.

Senator SUNUNU. And where is it now?

Mr. OBERLIN. Depending upon the season, it’s between 30 to 60

to 70 days. I might comment—going back to your question about

working with the embassy—we were very, very concerned initially,

before the policy was implemented, that this was going to be far

worse than what it is. I think everybody has pulled together quite

63

well to bring it down to the level that we see now. Unfortunately,

for all the reasons that also have been discussed as far as how people make decisions on traveling, et cetera, it’s still unacceptable./

Senator SUNUNU. Dr. Aber, on the student visa tracking system,

do you believe that a centralized system would work more effectively or would be less costly, or should our goal be focused on making the current distributed system work even better?

Dr. ABER. I would think the distributed system has the advantage of having the people who are in contact with the students having access to the technology to do that processing. Certainly that

leads to centralized review, as it should, but I would imagine that

if there was a barrier between the people dealing with the students

and a centralized data-entry system of some kind, it would probably increase the processing time rather than decrease it. There

are certainly the costs of doing business this way, which are higher. But, again, as I said, at UNH, at least, you know, we’re happy

to do that, to the extent we can, in order to provide the best possible service and make it as easy as possible for these visitors to

come.

Senator SUNUNU. Are you aware of any problems with tampering

or unauthorized disclosure of information in the system?

Dr. ABER. I’m not. One thing that the people in our office said

they do is go over and over this information several times, because

they know once it’s into an automated system, if it’s inaccurate in

any way, it might be very difficult to reclaim that information or

restart the process. I haven’t heard directly of any kind of tampering with the system. Although the concern is around if there is

a charge for SEVIS, how that will be administered, and there was

discussion of doing it with some kind of paper transaction which

was thought to—would be thought to really increase the processing

time. Given that this is centralized and electronic, there should be

an electronic way of making the payment, as well.

Senator SUNUNU. When was the first time that you heard about

a potential fee for SEVIS?

Dr. ABER. It was in that letter that was written by the American

Association of Universities, which would have been in the spring of

this year.

Senator SUNUNU. What has been your experience with any government officials or offices that you’ve had to contact with regard

to the program?

Dr. ABER. I haven’t heard any complaints along that line for

UNH. We’re, of course, a relatively small university. I have about

800 of these applicants in a year, and we have about four or so

turned down per year, which I guess is about the national average.

So I didn’t hear any egregious problems in our contact. Most of

the problems that we encountered had to do with the reentry problems for students, and I’ve got some examples here, also reentry

problems for people with immigrant statuses of one kind or another. And also, in terms of perceptions, the way that the visa status has been linked to things like driver’s license renewals and tax

information and things which tend to add, at the state level, to the

number of headaches that our international visitors have to deal

with, and add to this general notion that it may be easier to go

somewhere else.

64

Senator SUNUNU. And you say you have submitted those case

studies for the record, is that correct?

Dr. ABER. Yes.

Senator SUNUNU. Excellent.

Well, I thank all of our panelists very much for their testimony,

for their willingness to stay and answer questions. And I offer you

the opportunity to submit additional information for the record, if

you would like.

And in order for Senators that weren’t here today to submit

questions, I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open

for three more business days. It will be done so, without objection.

Thank you each again. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(65)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY JANICE L. JACOBS

CHANGES TO THE VISA APPLICATION PROCESS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

The Department of State has made significant changes to the visa process and

entry screening requirements since September 11, 2001, to provide better security

in light of the revised threat assessment to our national security. The steps outlined

below are some of our more important efforts to improve the security of U.S. borders, which also include our ongoing participation in interagency efforts to implement the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Enhanced Border Security and

Visa Entry Reform Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the National Security

Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS).

Improvements Made in Visa Processing

Application Processing

• Greatly increased the percentage of non-immigrant applicants interviewed

worldwide and set a written standard on interviews to achieve consistency

around the world. On August 1, 2003 new regulations were implemented which

limit waiver of personal appearance for non-immigrant visa applicants to only

a few categories of exceptions, such as diplomats, children, and the elderly.

• In coordination with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, added

more interagency security checks for counter—terrorism purposes for certain

groups of visa applicants from certain countries.

• Provided access to the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) to DHS inspectors at ports of entry. The CCD provides detailed information on all visas

issued, including photographs of noniminigrant visa applicants. (The CCD had

earlier been made available to consular officers worldwide in May 2001.)

• Expanded intranet resources for consular adjudicators to assist them in reading

and verifying entry/exit cachets in Arabic or Persian script.

• Concurred with the Department of Justice in the removal of Argentina (February 2002) and Uruguay (April 2003) from the Visa Waiver Program and imposition of limitations on Belgium’s participation (May 2003).

• In March 2003, Centralized the flow of fiance ́e visa petitions from BCIS to the

National Visa Center (NVC) in New Hampshire. NVC will compile FBI and security advisory checks before sending the files to overseas posts.

• Developed Internet site that allows applicants to complete NIV application online. Resultant application form includes a 2-D bar enabling quick scanning of

data into the NIV system.

Namechecks

• By June, 2002, incorporated approximately eight million records from the FBI’s

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) into our Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) namecheck database. This more than doubled the records

on file. (This was authorized by the USA Patriot Act.)

• Received into CLASS a threefold increase in namecheck records from the intelligence community (through TIPOFF, a clearinghouse for sensitive intelligence

and watchlist entries).

• Started automated cross-checking of new derogatory information concerning terrorists or suspected terrorists (including TIPOFF entries) against records of previously issued visas in order to revoke existing valid visas in the hands of those

who may be a threat.

66

• In May 2003, implemented the Alternate Processing Center (APC) for the

CLASS namecheck system. Located in the Kentucky Consular Center, several

hundred miles from Washington, DC, the APC provides additional namecheck

production resources and load sharing capability with the primary computer

complex in the Washington area. APC also improves CLASS survivability. Effective November 2002, discontinued the use of a CD-ROM based back-up

namecheck system. No visa is now issued without a CLASS check which provides real-time lookout information.

• Implemented the Hispanic algorithm in all Western Hemisphere post; additional posts are gradually being phased in.

• Joined with DOJ and others in establishing a new Terrorist Screening Center

(TSC) that will integrate watchlists, including TIPOFF. Visa applicants will be

checked against TSC data.

Enhanced Data Collection

• Began worldwide deployment of biometric NIV software, with Brussels, our first

pilot post, going live with fingerprint collection on September 22, 2003. All visa

posts will have this capability by October 26, 2004.

• Included 25 additional data elements in the automated non-immigrant visa

processing system beginning in September 2002. These fields are viewable

worldwide through the Consular Consolidated Database. This data includes information on the U.S. sponsors and U.S. destination of the visa applicant.

• Created two new forms for nonimrnigrant visa applicants:the DS–157 (November 2001), required of all men aged 16 to 45 from every country in the world;

and the DS–158 (July 2002), required of all applicants for student visas. The

DS–157 is used to identify applicants who require a security advisory opinion

from Washington agencies.

• In the spring of 2002, provided all posts with software and scanners to allow

scanning of supporting evidence in serious refusals. This evidence is thus available in its electronic format to all consular operations and DHS border inspection offices. This is part of the effort to replace paper files with image-storage

and retrieval and to improve the access to information by consular officers making adjudication decisions.

• In April 2002, began requiring photo-capture for refused noniinmigrant visa applicants.

• Revised photo standards for non-immigrant applicants to improve the quality

of data for facial recognition and other purposes.

• Included several additional data elements in the automated immigrant visa

processing system to support datasharing with the Social Security Administration.

Expanded Information Sharing

• Created a new staff office, VO/I, in the Visa Office in August 2002 to coordinate

information management and liaison activities. We expect this office to continue

to grow and to play a key role in interagency discussions.

• The Border Biometric Program office in the Visa Office has been reorganized

as the Office of Border and International Programs to allow for expanded efforts

at information sharing and coordination with like-minded nations and multilateral organizations.

• Piloted datashare with the Social Security Administration to facilitate enumeration of new immigrants.

• In the fall of 2001, began storing serious refusal files for posts at risk (or with

space problems) at the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC). KCC has begun scanning old files, making these files available to all CCD users. This process will

be expanded to include serious refusal files from all posts worldwide, thereby

making them available to all posts worldwide and to domestic offices.

• Expanded distribution of electronic Intelligence Alerts on lost/stolen blank documents, making them available to federal, state, and local agencies and to foreign governments.

• Implemented technology support in the visa lookout system to support DHS’s

National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS).

• Successfully launched the Interim Student and Exchange Authentication System (ISEAS) (September 2002), which provided electronic verification of the acceptance of foreign students and exchange visitors who apply to enter the

67

United States on student (‘‘F,’’ ‘‘M’’) and exchange visitor (‘‘J’’) visas. ISEAS was

created to satisfy the mandates of Section 501(c) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 and remained active until February

2003 when DHS’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)

was implemented.

• Worked with DHS on the implementation of the SEVIS student tracking system. All student visas are now verified and registered in SEVIS. Over one million records from SEVIS have been downloaded to CA’s Consular Consolidated

Database where the information is available for the electronic verification, adjudication, and reporting of student and exchange visitor visas.

Internal Controls

• Removed direct Foreign Service National access to detailed namecheck information in consular automated systems.

• Reviewed the visa referral system and reminded post/consular managers of the

controls needed. The referral form was revised and its use was made mandatory

worldwide. The form now requires written certification by the referring officer

that the visa applicant is personally known to the referring officer and does not

pose a threat to the United States.

• In July 2002, installed new management tools to monitor user accounts on consular automated systems.

• Mandated a special worldwide review of management controls in September

2002 and again in August 2003. This is now being made a required annual report from all consular sections.

• Implemented a system of Consular Management Assistance Teams to visit posts

to review management controls and procedures. The first such visits were made

in February 2003.

• Began the process of formalizing and disseminating Standard Operating Procedures for visa processing, including the creation of online processing manuals

to better index operating instructions.

• Fraud Prevention Efforts

• In March 2002, pilot tested the new, tamper-resistant Lincoln non-immigrant

visa foil with worldwide deployment completed in September 2003.

• Developed a more secure way of canceling machine-readable visas to deter

malefactors from ‘‘washing’’ the cancellation stamp from the visa. The system

was made available to posts in March of 2003.

• In April 2003, established a Vulnerability Assessment Unit (VAU) staffed by

personnel from Consular Affairs and Diplomatic Security. VAU personnel employ data-mining and other techniques to identify baseline trends and patterns

and detect variations which could indicate possible malfeasance. The unit analyzes data anomalies and makes recommendations for action. The unit also participates in State Department training efforts to ensure consular employees are

well informed about issues related to malfeasance.

• Provided information to the field on lessons learned from cases of consular malfeasance.

• In August 2003, established a fraud prevention unit at the National Visa Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (NVC). The unit focuses initially on data

validation/fraud screening for employment—based cases using automated

search tools. After experience has been gained at NVC, we will expand the program to the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC).

• Based on success with the Diversity Visa lottery (DV) program, anti-fraud efforts using Facial Recognition technology have been expanded on a test basis

to thirteen NIV applicant pools, with a focus on countering both visa fraud and

terrorism.

• Created an e-form for easy reporting of lost/stolen/missing visaed passports,

with automatic forwarding to DHS.

• Continue to update our database of foreign lost and stolen passports. We currently have over 680,000 entries of blank and individually issued lost and stolen

passports in the database.

Training

• In March 2002, initiated an Advanced Namechecking Techniques course at the

Foreign Service Institute. Hundreds of consular officers have now received this

training.

68

• Lengthened the Basic Consular Course, also known as ConGen, from 26 to 31

days. This change is the result of the added emphasis that we are giving to visa

security, counter-terrorism awareness and interviewing techniques. Among the

new modules is a two-day interviewing ‘‘minicourse’’ that will focus students on

ways to identify lying/deception by applicants. The new curriculum also includes

a half-day program on counter-terrorism at the CIA Headquarters in Langley.

The new, longer ConGen training schedule began October 17, 2003.

• Increased training for Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission and Principal Officers on their supervisory role in the visa function.

• Incorporated CIA module on terrorist travel patterns into the basic consular

course, which was expanded in October 2003.

Security Improvements

• Proposed elimination of crew list visas and establishment of a requirement that

seamen obtain individual visas. (Crew list visas do not allow for the same

verification of identity and bona fides as do individual applications.) A proposed

regulation was published for public comment in December 2002; the final rule

in the final stages of interagency clearance.

• In February 2003, eliminated the waiver of visas for permanent residents of

Canada and Bermuda.

• In March 2002, amended regulations to close a loophole and limit the ability

of persons with expired visas to reenter the U.S. from contiguous territory (i.e.

Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean). The change removed from the automatic revalidation provision those persons who apply for a new visa and are refused in

Canada or Mexico and all nationals of countries designated as state sponsors

of terrorism regardless of whether they apply for a visa.

• Supported implementation of the Aviation Security Bill.

• Reiterated standing guidance on interview requirements for applicants subject

to security advisory opinion requirements.

• Started discussions with Mexico and Canada about greater cooperation on immigration, security, and visa issues.

• Approved an Entry-Exit Project Charter (now the ‘‘U.S. Visit’’ (United States

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program), drafted jointly

with INS, Customs, and DOT, which sets the parameters for an automated system to record the arrivals, departures, and stay activities of individuals coming

to and leaving the U.S. Continue to work closely with DHS on development of

U.S. Visit.

Future Improvements to the Visa Process and Timetables

The Department continues to implement requirements set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, and the

Homeland Security Act. Major initiatives not outlined above that are currently

planned include:

Application Processing

• Initiate investigation of ‘‘rules based process’’ as a tool for visa screening.

• Implement an internet-based NIV application form that allows the applicant to

fill in the form, which when printed contains a bar code readable at post for

automatic input into our visa system.

• Revamp the visa processing sections of the Foreign Affairs Manuals, including

a complete reexamination of all existing guidance to overseas posts. Existing

standard operating procedures are being redrafted and reissued, and new standard operating procedures SOPs are being developed.

• Re-engineering the Interagency Visa clearance process to allow stronger accountability and quicker processing.

Namechecks

• Improve capacity of CLASS to handle additional information such as Interpol

and deportation lookout information, the Hispanic algorithm, and lost and stolen passport data.

• Develop and implement an algorithm to improve performance on namechecking

of Asian names. This algorithm will be piloted in FY 2004, with worldwide rollout projected for FY 2005.

• Continue to load data from the FBI, in a priority order.

69

• Upgrade the central namecheck processing facility to increase computer power

and provide system scalability.

Enhanced Data Collection

• The Patriot Act requires that U.S. visas use biometric identifiers by October 26,

2004. The Department began phased implementation of biometric (fingerprint)

collection in September 2003, with the first post ‘‘going live’’ on September 22,

2003. We anticipate that all posts will be collecting biometrics by October 2004.

• The Department will work with countries that are eligible for the Visa Waiver

Program (VWP) and with ICAO to meet the requirement that those countries

incorporate biometric identifiers in their passports by October 2004, as required

by the Patriot Act.

• Software improvements to help consular officers make all case notes online.

This would support a legislative mandate to require electronic notes providing

rationale for all visa refusals and for any subsequent issuance to a previously

refused applicant.

Expanded Information Sharing

• Continue to expand datashare opportunities with federal agencies, maximizing

the value of consular data to the USG while developing procedures to ensure

proper use of this information.

• Make consular data available via the interagency OSIS (Open Sources Information System) network. Work with agencies concerned with Border Security

(DHS, FBI, etc.) to develop an MOU that will allow this access.

• Continue working on a number of programs with Canada and Mexico as part

of our U.S.-Canada Smart Border Action Plan (30 point plan) and U.S.-Mexico

Border Partnership (22 point plan). As concerns the movement of people, we are

working on agreements that would allow us to share Advance Passenger Information/Passenger Name Records for airline passengers entering the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. We are also working with both these countries (NEXUS with

Canada and SENTRI with Mexico) to expand frequent travelers programs to

allow faster crossings for bona fide travelers.

Training

• The Foreign Service Institute has lengthened the Basic Consular Course, also

known as ConGen, from 26 to 31 days. This change is the result of the added

emphasis that we are giving to visa security, counter-terrorism awareness and

interviewing techniques. Among the new modules is a two-day interviewing

‘‘mini—course’’ that will focus students on ways to identify lying/deception by

applicants. The new, longer ConGen training schedule began in October 2003.

Internal Controls

• Restrict further the access of Foreign Service National employees to namecheck

information.

• Provide additional guidance to the field on supervisory officer review of visa

issuances and refusals.

• Maintain a robust schedule of visits by consular management assistance teams

to posts to review management controls and procedures.

• Provide written guidance to chiefs of mission and their deputies to assist them

in their oversight of consular sections.

Fraud Prevention Programs

• Review facial recognition results from initial test deployment at visa posts to

determine how it may benefit screening in the operational environment.

• Introduce new, tamper-resistant and machine readable immigrant visa foil. This

new machine-readable immigrant visa process will include digitized photo and

fingerprints.

Security Improvements

• Move to on-line electronic registration for the Diversity visa program. Registration for the DV–2005 ‘‘lottery’’ will be conducted exclusively through a dedicated

web site. This will enable us to better identify duplicate entries, including,

through extensive use of facial recognition technology, those submitted under

fraudulent identities.

• Re-engineer the interagency visa clearance process with other agencies.

70

• Eliminate crew-list visas and require all seamen to obtain individual visas.

Additional Questions Submitted by the Committee

for the Record

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY JANICE JACOBS BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. In today’s Hearing, it was mentioned that Brazil and Russia charge $100 for US citizens to apply for visas to their countries. Are these charges only

for Americans? Please provide a list of the fifteen most expensive B1/B2-type visas

for American citizens and note if these charges apply to other nationalities applying

in those countries?

Answer. Yes, these charges are only for Americans. Brazil and Russia’s visa fees

are based on the principle of reciprocity.

Given the nature of many countries’ visa regimes it is difficult to identify a list

of the fifteen most expensive B1/B2-type visas charged American citizens. Some

countries, for example, charge American citizens fees ranging from $30 to $500 depending on the length of the visa and how many entries the visa is valid for. The

fees also vary greatly for countries that permit American citizens to enter visa free

for up to 90 days, but require a B1/B2-type visa for more extended stays.

Of those countries that maintain a visa requirement for American citizens even

for short-term visits, Brazil, Russia, Chile, Turkey, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan,

Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus charge American citizens a minimum of $100 for

a visa. Almost all of these countries base their visa fees on the principle of reciprocity. They generally charge American citizens more than nationals of other countries in order to match our $100 Machine Readable Visa fee.

Question. At today’s hearing it was mentioned that of all the Visa Condor inquiries, not one resulted in refusal. Please provide for the Committee the number of

cases of Visa Mantis, Eagle, Condor, Donkey, Bear, 212(f), Pegasus and Horse clearance cases and the number and percentage refused for the CY 2000–2002.

Answer. The Visa Office does not at present have an automated processing system

that could produce overall statistics regarding the number of security advisory opinion (SAO) cases. The Visa Office uses an electronic filing system to receive and send

responses to SAO cables. We were able to estimate the number of all SAO cables

received in CY 2002. During that year, consular officers included multiple applicants in some cables. Consequently, the numbers below reflect the total number of

cables, not the total number of applicants. The Visa Office is developing an improved electronic SAO system that will connect SAO requests with the Consolidated

Consular Database which will allow us to obtain more accurate statistics on SAOs.

The new system is scheduled for introduction in the field in early 2004.

Number of SAO Cables

Type CY 2002

Bear ............................................................................................................................. 2,013

Condor ......................................................................................................................... 39,220

Donkey [includes 212(f)] ............................................................................................ 21,848

Eagle ........................................................................................................................... 24,728

Horse ........................................................................................................................... 43

Mantis ......................................................................................................................... 4,464

Pegasus ....................................................................................................................... 56

The Visa Office electronic filing system for SAOs also does not keep statistics on

denials. Such statistics are available from a separate system, the automated nonimmigrant visa system in use overseas by consular officers.

The rate of denial is extremely low. The consular officer submits the case to

Washington for a national security review only if the applicant is otherwise eligible.

In other words, if a consular officer has cause to deny the visa for such reasons as

71

failure to establish entitlement to non-immigrant status, violation of immigration

law during prior visits to the U.S., or prior criminal activity, the officer denies the

visa and does not send the case to Washington.

The chart below lists the total number of refusals recorded by consular officers

in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) under the following sections of the

Immigration and Nationality Act:

1. 212(a)(3)(A)(i) relating to espionage and sabotage;

2. 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) relating to any other unlawful activity;

3. 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) relating to opposition to, control or overthrow of the U.S. Government by force, violence or other unlawful means;

4. 212(a)(3)(B) relating to terrorism;

5. 212(a)(3)(C) relating to aliens whose entry into the U.S. would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences for the U.S.; and

6. 212(f) presidential relating to any class of aliens whose entry into the U.S.

would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. Currently there are 212(f)

proclamations in effect for certain aliens from Angola, the Western Balkans,

Burma, Cuba, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Visa Refusals: CY 2000

Section of INA Refusals

212(a)(3)(A)(i) ............................................................................................................. 12

212(a)(3)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 107

212(a)(3)(A)(iii) ........................................................................................................... 1

212(a)(3)(B) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(a)(3)(C) ................................................................................................................ 1

212(f) .......................................................................................................................... 34

Visa Refusals: CY 2001

Section of INA Refusals

212(a)(3)(A)(i) ............................................................................................................. 23

212(a)(3)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 79

212(a)(3)(A)(iii) ........................................................................................................... 0

212(a)(3)(B) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(a)(3)(C) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(f) .......................................................................................................................... 52

Visa Refusals: CY 2002

Section of INA Refusals

212(a)(3)(A)(i) ............................................................................................................. 42

212(a)(3)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 55

212(a)(3)(A)(iii) ........................................................................................................... 0

212(a)(3)(B) ................................................................................................................ 44

212(a)(3)(C) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(f) .......................................................................................................................... 107

We have a quarterly reporting requirement to Congress on visa denials under

212(a)(3)(B), terrorism grounds. The visa applicants noted in the reports for

CY 2000–2002 were, we believe, watchlisted and were reported to Washington by

consular officers through the Visas Donkey process. They were not reported through

72

the Visas Condor process for which, as Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacobs stated in

her testimony, there have been no denials on terrorism grounds to date.

Question. Please provide for the Committee the 19 posts mentioned at today’s

Hearing where the processing time of an NIV is in excess of 30 days. Please include

the number of American and FSN staff working at each of those posts as well as

the number of interview windows.

Answer. Fluctuations in wait times occur and cause changes on a weekly basis

among posts that report workload statistics on the Consular Affairs database (CCD)

meeting the 30 day or less wait time limit, and other posts that exceed 30 day limits. The 15 posts listed below reflect the number of posts that reported exceeding

the 30 day wait time limit as of November 12, 2003. However, all overseas posts,

including the 15 listed here, have standing instructions to prioritize student and

medical or other emergency visa cases.

Post Wait Times in Excess of 30 Days

(as of November 12, 2003)

Post Date

Average Appt.

Wait Time (#

Days)

Average Appt.

Wait Time

for Student,

Exchange

Visitors (#

Days)

Number of

NIV

Officers at

Post

Number of

NIV

FSNs at Post

Number of

Interview

Windows at

Post

Abidjan .............. 12 Nov 70 10 2 2 3

Accra .................. 10 Nov 105 1 2.5 4 3

Addis Ababa ...... 10 Nov 43 1 3 7 *

Caracas ............. 10 Nov 73 10 6 11 8

Conakry .............. 9 Nov 90 1 1 4 *

Osaka-Kobe ........ 12 Nov 56 10 1 6 5

Lagos ................. 28 Oct 140 1 8 23 *

Manila ................ 9 Nov 95 3 12 68 *

Mexico City ........ 10 Nov 40 3 19 43 15

Monterrey ........... 31 Oct 77 28 12 22 10

Santo Domingo .. 4 Nov 92 1 6 14 6

San Salvador ..... 10 Nov 32 1 6 8 6

Shanghai ........... 2 Nov 35 1 4 14 *

Tegucigalpa ....... 3 Nov 32 2 3 3 3

Ulaanbaatar ....... 3 Nov 60 20 1 3 *

(*: Information not yet received by Department of State from respective post as of November 12, 2003)

Question. The current Budget in Brief (p. 21) estimates $676,245,000 from MRV

fees and $850,000 from FBI fingerprint fees for FY 04. Please provide for the Committee the FY 03 estimates and actual intakes for these two funds. How much of

the current Iraq Supplemental is needed to cover unanticipated MRV shortfalls for

FY 03?

Answer. We estimated that net MRV collections would be $582 million in FY 2003.

Actual net MRV collections totaled $536.778 million. Revenues collected from the

fingerprint fee were estimated to be $1.2 million; actual FY 2003 collections totaled

$2.704 million.

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108–106) provides $109.5 million in the Diplomatic & Consular Programs appropriation to cover anticipated

FY 2004 shortfalls. The FY 2003 MRV shortfall was covered through a combination

of reductions in program spending and $46.0 million in supplemental appropriations

provided in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Act, 2003 (Public Law 108–11).

73

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY JANICE JACOBS BY SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Question. Please provide a list of the Security Advisory Opinion request categories

such as ‘‘Condor’’ with a brief description of the function of each category and the

process by which they are reviewed in Washington. Include a flow chart. How many

requests were sent to Washington in each category in FY±2002? In FY 2003 to date?

How many resulted in recommendations to deny a visa?

Answer. There are six types of Security Advisory Opinions (SAO) for which the

Department acts as an interagency clearinghouse: Visas Bear, Condor, Donkey,

Eagle, Mantis and Merlin. Posts send SAO cables to the Department and clearing

agencies.

1. Bear: For non-immigrant visa applicants for A, C-3 or G diplomatic visas.

There are currently 33 countries that this requirement applies: These include

Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, Central African Republic,

China, Croatia, Cuba, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia,

Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. These cases require

interagency clearance.

2. Condor: For non-immigrant visa applicants from certain countries who fit special criteria and from countries that are designated state sponsors of terrorism. The list of countries and related list of criteria are classified. These

cases are reviewed by the FBI.

3. Donkey: For applicants from any country for whom there is a hit in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) or who are nationals of certain

countries with special processing requirements. The latter is based on classified criteria. Requires interagency clearance.

4. Eagle: For certain immigrant and non-immigrant applicants from China,

Cuba, Iran, Russia and Vietnam. These cases are reviewed by the FBI.

5. Mantis: For non-immigrant applicants from any country whose activities in

the U.S. might involve the illegal transfer of sensitive technology. Requires

an interagency clearance as well as input from the Department’s Bureau of

Non-Proliferation.

6. Merlin: For refugees from any country with a hit in the Consular Lookout and

Support System (CLASS), Cuban parolees under the Migration Accord, and

following-to-join asylees. Requires interagency clearance.

All SAO telegrams are transmitted simultaneously by the consular officer overseas to all appropriate agencies in Washington. The Visa Office acts as the clearinghouse. It receives the incoming cable, records the responses of appropriate agencies,

reviews derogatory information as needed, and transmits guidance to the consular

officer in each case.

All SAO cases require FBI clearance and the FBI responds specifically to each

case. Other clearing agencies respond when they have pertinent information. They

have 15 working days (45 in the case of Merlins) to do so. Once the FBI has cleared

and 15 days have passed, the Department informs the post that there is no objection

to issuance of the visa.

If an agency has provided derogatory information on a specific case, the Visa Office will discuss with immigration experts in DOJ and DHS as appropriate as to

whether the information is sufficient to warrant visa denial. No visa is issued if a

clearing agency has filed an objection with the Visa Office until the appropriate derogatory information is reviewed in an interagency context.

Until March 21, 2003 consular officers included multiple applicants in some SAO

cables. Thus, the numbers below reflect the total number of cables received, not the

total number of applicants.

74

Number of Cables Submitted to the Department by Category

Type FY 2002 FY 2003

Bear .................................................................................................... 1,774 2,616

Condor ................................................................................................ 17,177 85,288

Donkey ................................................................................................ 19,253 27,287

Eagle .................................................................................................. 16,625 45,616

Mantis ................................................................................................ 3,252 13,728

Merlin ................................................................................................. 0 7360

Denial Rate for SAOs

The Visa Office electronic filing system for SAOs does not keep statistics on denials. Such statistics are available through the automated visa system in use overseas

by consular officers.

The rate of denial is extremely low. The consular officer submits visa cases to

Washington for a national security review according to criteria pertinent to an SAO

category only if the applicant is otherwise eligible. In other words, if a consular officer has cause to deny the visa for such reasons as failure to establish entitlement

to non-immigrant status, violation of immigration law during prior visits to the

U.S., or prior criminal activity, the officer denies the visa and does not send the case

to Washington for an interagency review.

The chart below lists the total number of refusals recorded by posts in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) under the following sections of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA):

1. 212(a)(3)(A)(i) relating to espionage and sabotage;

2. 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) relating to any other unlawful activity;

3. 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) relating to opposition to, control or overthrow of the U.S. Government by force, violence or other unlawful means;

4. 212(a)(3)(B) relating to terrorism;

5. 212(a)(3)(C) relating to aliens whose entry into the U.S. would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences for the U.S.;

6. 212(f) presidential proclamation relating to any class of aliens whose entry

into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. Currently there

are 212(f) proclamations in effect for certain aliens from Angola, the Western

Balkans, Burma, Cuba, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

The denial statistics under sections 212(a)(3) and 212(f) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act for FY 2002–2003 are as follows:

Visa Refusal Statistics: FY 2002

Section of INA Refusals

212(a)(3)(A)(i) ............................................................................................................. 45

212(a)(3)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 63

212(a)(3)(A)(iii) ........................................................................................................... 0

212(a)(3)(B) ................................................................................................................ 47

212(a)(3)(C) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(f) .......................................................................................................................... 93

75

Visa Refusal Statistics: FY 2003

Section of INA Refusals

212(a)(3)(A)(i) ............................................................................................................. 60

212(a)(3)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 43

212(a)(3)(A)(iii) ........................................................................................................... 0

212(a)(3)(B) ................................................................................................................ 98

212(a)(3)(C) ................................................................................................................ 0

212(f) .......................................................................................................................... 1990

We have a quarterly reporting requirement to Congress on visa denials under

212(a)(3)(B), terrorism grounds. The visa applicants noted in the reports for

CY 2000–2002 were, we believe, watchlisted and were reported to Washington by

consular officers through the Visas Donkey process. They were not reported through

the Visas Condor process.

Question. Private-sector witnesses in Panel 2 argued that the August 1 policy increasing non-immigrant visa interviews has increased the time an applicant must

wait to be interviewed dramatically and has thus increased significantly the cost of

a visa in time and money. Witnesses also said that the problem was compounded

by high refusal rates. As a result, the U.S. tourism industry is said to be increasingly disadvantaged in its competition with other destinations, particularly those,

such as the EU in the case of Brazilians, that require no visas for short visits.

Please provide a list of the wait-times at each visa-issuing post (the time a nonimmigrant-visa applicant must wait between requesting an interview and being

interviewed) for FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002 and August and September 2003, following the increase in required interviews.

Please also provide for all posts the number of applications by visa category (B1/

B2, F–1, etc.) number of issuances and refusals, and the rates of refusal.

Answer. The Department of State began collecting statistical workload information on wait times for NIV appointments in July 2003. Therefore, of those months

for which data was requested, the Department of State is only able to provide information for the months of August and September 2003. All overseas posts have

standing instructions to prioritize student and medical or other emergency visa

cases.

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Abu Dhabi ................................ 5-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 12-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 19-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 25-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 1-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 9-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 14-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Abu Dhabi ................................ 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Abidjan ..................................... 1-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Abidjan ..................................... 18-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Abidjan ..................................... 26-Aug-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Abidjan ..................................... 16-Sep-03 120.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Abidjan ..................................... 29-Sep-03 120.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Accra ........................................ 7-Aug-03 128.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

76

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Accra ........................................ 13-Aug-03 126.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Accra ........................................ 18-Aug-03 126.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Accra ........................................ 26-Aug-03 125.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Accra ........................................ 8-Sep-03 130.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Accra ........................................ 22-Sep-03 127.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Auckland .................................. 6-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Auckland .................................. 16-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Auckland .................................. 30-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Adana ....................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 Days .00 days

Adana ....................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Adana ....................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Addis Ababa ............................ 1-Aug-03 89.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Addis Ababa ............................ 27-Aug-03 78.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Addis Ababa ............................ 2-Sep-03 70.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Addis Ababa ............................ 9-Sep-03 69.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Addis Ababa ............................ 25-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Addis Ababa ............................ 30-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Ashgabat .................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Ashgabat .................................. 18-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Algiers ...................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 14.00 Days 1.00 Days

Algiers ...................................... 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days 14.00 Days 1.00 Days

Algiers ...................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days 10.00 Days 1.00 Days

Algiers ...................................... 1-Sep-03 1.00 Days 10.00 Days 1.00 Days

Amsterdam ............................... 30-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Ankara ...................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 2-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Ankara ...................................... 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Antananarivo ............................ 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable

Antananarivo ............................ 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Antananarivo ............................ 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Asmara ..................................... 1-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Asuncion .................................. 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Asuncion .................................. 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Asuncion .................................. 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Asuncion .................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Asuncion .................................. 4-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Asuncion .................................. 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

77

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Almaty ...................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Almaty ...................................... 30-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Athens ...................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 21-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Athens ...................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Bamako .................................... 5-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bamako .................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bamako .................................... 18-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days

Bamako .................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Bamako .................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bamako .................................... 15-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Bamako .................................... 30-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Banjul ...................................... 1-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Banjul ...................................... 13-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. -Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bucharest ................................. 4-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 Days 7.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 16-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 23-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bucharest ................................. 30-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 22.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 25-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 2-Sep-03 22.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 8-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 15-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 22-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Budapest .................................. 29-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Beijing ...................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Beijing ...................................... 18-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Beijing ...................................... 26-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Beijing ...................................... 3-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Beijing ...................................... 9-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Beijing ...................................... 14-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Beijing ...................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Bern ......................................... 20-Aug-03 60.00 Days .00 days 60.00 Days

Bern ......................................... 30-Sep-03 60.00 Days .00 days 60.00 Days

78

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Bridgetown ............................... 6-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bridgetown ............................... 11-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bridgetown ............................... 18-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bridgetown ............................... 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Bridgetown ............................... 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Bridgetown ............................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bridgetown ............................... 12-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bridgetown ............................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 4-Aug-03 127.00 Days 5.00 Days 4.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 11-Aug-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 18-Aug-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 26-Aug-03 114.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 2-Sep-03 126.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 9-Sep-03 121.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 15-Sep-03 120.00 Days 8.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bogota ...................................... 22-Sep-03 120.00 Days 6.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 13-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 28-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 18-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 23-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bishkek .................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Baku ......................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Baku ......................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Belfast ..................................... 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Belfast ..................................... 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Belgrade ................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 16-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 26-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 3-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 9-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 23-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days

Belgrade ................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 Days .00 days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 3-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 10-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 17-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 24-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 31-Aug-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 14-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 21-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Mumbai (Bombay) ................... 28-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 11-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 18-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 24-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

79

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Bangkok ................................... 1-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 7-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 14-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 21-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Bangkok ................................... 28-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Buenos Aires ............................ 12-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 21-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 15-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Buenos Aires ............................ 29-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Brasilia .................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Brasilia .................................... 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Brasilia .................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 14-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Berlin ....................................... 30-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Brussels ................................... 1-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days Unavailable

Brussels ................................... 7-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Brussels ................................... 21-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Brussels ................................... 29-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Brussels ................................... 18-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Brussels ................................... 23-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Beirut ....................................... 4-Aug-03 21.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days

Beirut ....................................... 11-Aug-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days

Beirut ....................................... 2-Sep-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days

Beirut ....................................... 17-Sep-03 28.00 Days 28.00 Days 3.00 Days

Bandar Seri Begawan ............. 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 1-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Bratislava ................................ 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bratislava ................................ 12-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 15-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 19-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Bratislava ................................ 3-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Bratislava ................................ 12-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Bratislava ................................ 23-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Bratislava ................................ 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

80

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Bujumbura ............................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days

Ciudad Juarez Tpf ................... 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable

Ciudad Juarez Tpf ................... 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable

Ciudad Juarez Tpf ................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable

Ciudad Juarez Tpf ................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable

Ciudad Juarez Tpf ................... 2-Sep-03 32.00 Days 30.00 Days Unavailable

Chengdu ................................... 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 17-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 27-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 3-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 7-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chengdu ................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Chiang Mai .............................. 3-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Chiang Mai .............................. 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Chisinau ................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Calcutta ................................... 3-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 19-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 25-Aug-03 6.00 Days .00 days 6.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 1-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 7-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 21-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Calcutta ................................... 28-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 1-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Calgary ..................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 18-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 25-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 17-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Calgary ..................................... 29-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Colombo ................................... 10-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Colombo ................................... 17-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Canberra .................................. 4-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 Days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 18-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 3-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 8-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Canberra .................................. 28-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Cotonou .................................... 6-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Copenhagen ............................. 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Copenhagen ............................. 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

81

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Copenhagen ............................. 3-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Copenhagen ............................. 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Cape Town ............................... 6-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cape Town ............................... 12-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cape Town ............................... 19-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cape Town ............................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cape Town ............................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cape Town ............................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Cairo ........................................ 3-Aug-03 45.00 Days 50.00 Days 15.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 10-Aug-03 39.00 Days 50.00 Days 15.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 17-Aug-03 45.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 24-Aug-03 47.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 1-Sep-03 44.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 7-Sep-03 45.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 14-Sep-03 35.00 Days 60.00 Days 20.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 21-Sep-03 17.00 Days 60.00 Days 17.00 Days

Cairo ........................................ 28-Sep-03 24.00 Days 60.00 Days 24.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 5-Aug-03 51.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Caracas .................................... 11-Aug-03 53.00 Days .00 days 53.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 18-Aug-03 53.00 Days .00 days 53.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 26-Aug-03 58.00 Days .00 days 58.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 2-Sep-03 24.00 Days .00 days 24.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 8-Sep-03 65.00 Days .00 days 65.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 16-Sep-03 52.00 Days .00 days 52.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 23-Sep-03 63.00 Days .00 days 63.00 Days

Caracas .................................... 29-Sep-03 57.00 Days .00 days 57.00 Days

Conakry .................................... 10-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 17-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 25-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 31-Aug-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 7-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 14-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Conakry .................................... 21-Sep-03 60.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Conakry .................................... 28-Sep-03 80.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Casablanca .............................. 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Casablanca .............................. 13-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 16-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Casablanca .............................. 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Dublin ...................................... 6-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days

Dublin ...................................... 18-Aug-03 11.00 Days .00 days 11.00 Days

Dublin ...................................... 15-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

82

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Dublin ...................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Dublin ...................................... 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Dhaka ....................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Dakar ....................................... 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Dakar ....................................... 1-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days

Dakar ....................................... 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days

Dakar ....................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Dakar ....................................... 29-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 26.00 Days 1.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 11-Aug-03 1.00 Days 26.00 Days 1.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days 27.00 Days 4.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 25-Aug-03 5.00 Days 26.00 Days 5.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 1-Sep-03 9.00 Days 27.00 Days 9.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 7-Sep-03 6.00 Days 28.00 Days 6.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 15-Sep-03 6.00 Days 27.00 Days 6.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 28.00 Days 5.00 Days

Damascus ................................ 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 28.00 Days 5.00 Days

Dubai ....................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Dubai ....................................... 12-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Dubai ....................................... 19-Aug-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Dubai ....................................... 1-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Dubai ....................................... 14-Sep-03 .00 Days 1.00 Days .00 Days

Frankfurt .................................. 11-Aug-03 35.00 Days 21.00 Days .00 Days

Frankfurt .................................. 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days 10.00 Days .00 Days

Frankfurt .................................. 15-Sep-03 19.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days

Frankfurt .................................. 22-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days

Frankfurt .................................. 29-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 Days

Gaborone .................................. 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable

Gaborone .................................. 5-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Gaborone .................................. 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Gaborone .................................. 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Gaborone .................................. 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Gaborone .................................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Guadalajara ............................. 5-Aug-03 9.00 Days 25.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 25.00 Days 3.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 25.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 26-Aug-03 8.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 22.00 Days 1.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days

Guadalajara ............................. 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 18.00 Days 1.00 Days

Georgetown .............................. 4-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Georgetown .............................. 2-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

83

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Guatemala City ........................ 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 16-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Guatemala City ........................ 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 3-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Guangzhou ............................... 3-Aug-03 11.00 Days 1.00 Days 11.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 20-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 24-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 1-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 7-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 12-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Guangzhou ............................... 29-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Guayaquil ................................. 4-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 11-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 20-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 25-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 2-Sep-03 16.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 15-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 23-Sep-03 11.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Guayaquil ................................. 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 days 90.00 Days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days 90.00 Days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 9-Sep-03 .00 days 80.00 Days .00 days

Havana ..................................... 30-Sep-03 .00 days 75.00 Days .00 days

Ho Chi Minh City ..................... 5-Aug-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Ho Chi Minh City ..................... 10-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days

Ho Chi Minh City ..................... 18-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days

Ho Chi Minh City ..................... 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days

Ho Chi Minh City ..................... 7-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Hermosillo ................................ 4-Aug-03 15.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 11-Aug-03 13.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 18-Aug-03 15.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 2-Sep-03 19.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 6-Sep-03 17.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 13-Sep-03 17.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 23-Sep-03 16.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Hermosillo ................................ 29-Sep-03 18.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 5-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 18-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 26-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 3-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

84

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Halifax ...................................... 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Halifax ...................................... 30-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Helsinki .................................... 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days

Helsinki .................................... 21-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days

Helsinki .................................... 10-Sep-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days 5.00 Days

Hong Kong ............................... 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 10-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 18-Aug-03 16.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 25-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 1-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 8-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 14-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 21-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Hong Kong ............................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Harare ...................................... 27-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Islamabad ................................ 25-Aug-03 59.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 days

Istanbul .................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Istanbul .................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 2-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 18-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Istanbul .................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Jakarta ..................................... 10-Sep-03 42.00 Days 7.00 Days 1.00 Days

Jeddah ...................................... 7-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 7-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 3-Sep-03 9.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Jerusalem ................................. 23-Sep-03 7.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Osaka/Kobe .............................. 3-Aug-03 10.00 Days 10.00 Days 10.00 Days

Osaka/Kobe .............................. 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days 10.00 Days 10.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 4-Aug-03 12.00 Days .00 days 12.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Kathmandu .............................. 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Kiev .......................................... 5-Aug-03 32.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Kiev .......................................... 12-Aug-03 28.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Kiev .......................................... 20-Aug-03 28.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

85

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Kiev .......................................... 27-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Kiev .......................................... 9-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Kiev .......................................... 15-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 19-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 25-Aug-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 8-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Kinshasa .................................. 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 4-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 11-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 18-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 1-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kuala Lumpur .......................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Kingston ................................... 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Kingston ................................... 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kingston ................................... 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kingston ................................... 19-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kingston ................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kingston ................................... 4-Sep-03 2.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kolonia ..................................... 3-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Kolonia ..................................... 31-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Koror ......................................... 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Krakow ..................................... 6-Aug-03 16.00 Days 10.00 Days 16.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 29-Aug-03 7.00 Days 10.00 Days 7.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 11-Sep-03 4.00 Days 10.00 Days 4.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 19-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 25-Sep-03 5.00 Days 10.00 Days 5.00 Days

Krakow ..................................... 30-Sep-03 2.00 Days 10.00 Days 2.00 Days

Kuwait ...................................... 1-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Kuwait ...................................... 12-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Kuwait ...................................... 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Kuwait ...................................... 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Lagos ....................................... 25-Aug-03 90.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Lagos ....................................... 15-Sep-03 65.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Lagos ....................................... 23-Sep-03 77.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Lagos ....................................... 30-Sep-03 78.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Libreville .................................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lilongwe ................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lilongwe ................................... 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lima ......................................... 11-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Lima ......................................... 18-Aug-03 25.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Lima ......................................... 26-Aug-03 22.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Lima ......................................... 9-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

86

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Lima ......................................... 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Lima ......................................... 23-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Lima ......................................... 29-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

London ..................................... 12-Aug-03 42.00 Days 5.00 Days 8.00 Days

London ..................................... 26-Aug-03 32.00 Days 5.00 Days 8.00 Days

London ..................................... 12-Sep-03 22.00 Days 5.00 Days 22.00 Days

London ..................................... 22-Sep-03 19.00 Days 7.00 Days 19.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 11-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 2-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 8-Sep-03 16.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 15-Sep-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 22-Sep-03 14.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

La Paz ...................................... 29-Sep-03 11.00 Days 3.00 Days 5.00 Days

Lisbon ...................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 17-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Lisbon ...................................... 29-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Luanda ..................................... 1-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days Unavailable

Luanda ..................................... 2-Sep-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Lusaka ..................................... 14-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Luxembourg .............................. 1-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days Unavailable

Luxembourg .............................. 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Maseru ..................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Maseru ..................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Madrid ...................................... 4-Aug-03 58.00 Days 1.00 Days 22.00 Days

Madrid ...................................... 11-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 15.00 Days

Madrid ...................................... 19-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Madrid ...................................... 25-Aug-03 22.00 Days 1.00 Days 18.00 Days

Madrid ...................................... 2-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Madrid ...................................... 15-Sep-03 19.00 Days 1.00 Days 14.00 Days

Chennai ( Madras) .................. 6-Aug-03 34.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Chennai ( Madras) .................. 6-Aug-03 34.00 Days 1.00 Days 23.00 Days

Chennai ( Madras) .................. 11-Aug-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 25.00 Days

Chennai (Madras) .................... 27-Aug-03 23.00 Days 1.00 Days 16.00 Days

Chennai (Madras) .................... 10-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 4-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 11-Aug-03 48.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 18-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 25-Aug-03 46.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 2-Sep-03 49.00 Days 30.00 Days 5.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 8-Sep-03 48.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

87

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Mexico City ............................... 15-Sep-03 47.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 22-Sep-03 45.00 Days 30.00 Days 1.00 Days

Mexico City ............................... 29-Sep-03 39.00 Days 30.00 Days 1.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 4-Aug-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 25-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 3-Sep-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 22-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days

Melbourne ................................ 28-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Milan ........................................ 4-Aug-03 19.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Managua .................................. 4-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Managua .................................. 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Managua .................................. 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Managua .................................. 9-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Managua .................................. 17-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Managua .................................. 23-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Managua .................................. 30-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 4-Aug-03 67.00 Days 4.00 Days 11.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 19-Aug-03 80.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 25-Aug-03 74.00 Days 3.00 Days 1.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 2-Sep-03 72.00 Days 3.00 Days 2.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 8-Sep-03 73.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days

Manila ...................................... 15-Sep-03 70.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days

Manila ...................................... 22-Sep-03 73.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days

Manila ...................................... 28-Sep-03 88.00 Days 4.00 Days .00 Days

Moscow .................................... 13-Aug-03 13.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 19-Aug-03 8.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 3-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 16-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 24-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Moscow .................................... 29-Sep-03 5.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Minsk ....................................... 1-Aug-03 23.00 Days .00 days Unavailable

Minsk ....................................... 3-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Muscat ..................................... 2-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Montreal ................................... 4-Aug-03 31.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Montreal ................................... 11-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Montreal ................................... 18-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Montreal ................................... 27-Aug-03 37.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Montreal ................................... 2-Sep-03 36.00 Days .00 days 36.00 Days

Montreal ................................... 11-Sep-03 24.00 Days .00 days 24.00 Days

Montreal ................................... 17-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Montreal ................................... 23-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days 35.00 Days

Monterrey ................................. 4-Aug-03 59.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days

Monterrey ................................. 3-Sep-03 55.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days

Monterrey ................................. 30-Sep-03 55.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days

88

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Montevideo ............................... 19-Aug-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 3.00 Days

Montevideo ............................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Nicosia ..................................... 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 18-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 25-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 15-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nicosia ..................................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days 25.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 27-Aug-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 8-Sep-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 15-Sep-03 4.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 19-Sep-03 2.00 Days 28.00 Days .00 days

Nogales .................................... 26-Sep-03 1.00 Days 35.00 Days .00 days

Naha ........................................ 10-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Naha ........................................ 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Naha ........................................ 7-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Naha ........................................ 18-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Naha ........................................ 28-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Naples ...................................... 4-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 12-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 25-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 3-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 16-Sep-03 9.00 Days .00 days 9.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 23-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Naples ...................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Nassau ..................................... 9-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Nouakchott ............................... 13-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

New Delhi ................................. 4-Aug-03 29.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

New Delhi ................................. 11-Aug-03 28.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

New Delhi ................................. 18-Aug-03 22.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days

New Delhi ................................. 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days

New Delhi ................................. 2-Sep-03 15.00 Days 3.00 Days 7.00 Days

New Delhi ................................. 10-Sep-03 10.00 Days 3.00 Days 10.00 Days

New Delhi ................................. 24-Sep-03 .00 days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 4-Aug-03 1.00 Days 5.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 19-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Oslo .......................................... 22-Sep-03 3.00 Days 2.00 Days 1.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 4-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

89

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Ottawa ..................................... 11-Aug-03 9.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 18-Aug-03 12.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 14-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Ottawa ..................................... 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Phnom Penh ............................. 7-Sep-03 38.00 Days 1.00 Days 38.00 Days

Phnom Penh ............................. 29-Sep-03 30.00 Days 1.00 Days 30.00 Days

Panama City ............................ 6-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Panama City ............................ 11-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Panama City ............................ 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Panama City ............................ 11-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Panama City ............................ 22-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Prague ...................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 18-Aug-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 26-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 5-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 9-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 15-Sep-03 9.00 Days 1.00 Days 9.00 Days

Prague ...................................... 30-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 11-Aug-03 23.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Paris ......................................... 18-Aug-03 23.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 21-Aug-03 26.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 2-Sep-03 22.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 10-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 12-Sep-03 20.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 15-Sep-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Paris ......................................... 23-Sep-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Perth ........................................ 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Perth ........................................ 11-Aug-03 .00 days 2.00 Days .00 days

Perth ........................................ 18-Aug-03 .00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Perth ........................................ 25-Aug-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Perth ........................................ 3-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Perth ........................................ 8-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Perth ........................................ 22-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Perth ........................................ 28-Sep-03 .00 Days .00 days .00 Days

Port Moresby ............................ 1-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Port Moresby ............................ 30-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Port Au Prince .......................... 29-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Port Of Spain ........................... 4-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Port Of Spain ........................... 11-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Port Of Spain ........................... 19-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Port Of Spain ........................... 25-Aug-03 21.00 Days 3.00 Days .00 days

Port Of Spain ........................... 10-Sep-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Port Of Spain ........................... 25-Sep-03 6.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Quebec ..................................... 8-Sep-03 6.00 Days .00 days .00 days

90

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Quito ........................................ 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 12-Aug-03 13.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 18-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 8-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Quito ........................................ 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Recife ....................................... 3-Aug-03 27.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Recife ....................................... 2-Sep-03 5.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Rio De Janeiro ......................... 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days

Rio De Janeiro ......................... 27-Aug-03 5.00 Days 5.00 Days 5.00 Days

Rio De Janeiro ......................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days 5.00 Days 7.00 Days

Riga ......................................... 13-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Riga ......................................... 18-Aug-03 5.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Riga ......................................... 25-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Reykjavik .................................. 10-Sep-03 .00 days 3.00 Days .00 days

Rome ........................................ 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 11-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 20-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 26-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 2-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 15-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 23-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rome ........................................ 30-Sep-03 10.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 4-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Rangoon ................................... 10-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 20.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 18-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 20.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 26-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 2-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 7-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days

Rangoon ................................... 14-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 25.00 Days

Santo Domingo ........................ 4-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 12-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 18-Aug-03 88.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 25-Aug-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 8-Sep-03 87.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 15-Sep-03 86.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Santo Domingo ........................ 22-Sep-03 86.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Seoul ........................................ 28-Aug-03 20.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Seoul ........................................ 9-Sep-03 35.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Seoul ........................................ 21-Sep-03 14.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Seoul ........................................ 29-Sep-03 31.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 11-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 18-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

91

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Singapore ................................. 7-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 21-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Singapore ................................. 30-Sep-03 2.00 Days 2.00 Days 2.00 Days

Shanghai .................................. 3-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 3-Aug-03 38.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 11-Aug-03 42.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 17-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 27-Aug-03 15.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 9-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 14-Sep-03 35.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Shanghai .................................. 22-Sep-03 43.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Skopje ...................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 25-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 9-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 15-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 22-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

Skopje ...................................... 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days .00 days 4.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 4-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 11-Aug-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 18-Aug-03 18.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 25-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 2-Sep-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 8-Sep-03 19.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 15-Sep-03 18.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 22-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Jose ................................... 29-Sep-03 17.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 12-Aug-03 15.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

San Salvador ........................... 18-Aug-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 8-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 16-Sep-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

San Salvador ........................... 29-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 4-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Santiago ................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 2-Sep-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days 8.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 9-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 15-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 22-Sep-03 6.00 Days 1.00 Days 6.00 Days

Santiago ................................... 29-Sep-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days

Shenyang ................................. 11-Aug-03 8.00 Days .00 days 8.00 Days

Shenyang ................................. 17-Aug-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Shenyang ................................. 2-Sep-03 12.00 Days .00 days 12.00 Days

92

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Shenyang ................................. 7-Sep-03 28.00 Days .00 days 28.00 Days

Shenyang ................................. 15-Sep-03 30.00 Days .00 days 30.00 Days

Shenyang ................................. 29-Sep-03 32.00 Days .00 days 32.00 Days

Sofia ......................................... 11-Aug-03 44.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Sofia ......................................... 8-Sep-03 36.00 Days .00 days 5.00 Days

Sofia ......................................... 29-Sep-03 25.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Sao Paulo ................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 4-Aug-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 11-Aug-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 2-Sep-03 4.00 Days 1.00 Days 4.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 8-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 22-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

Sao Paulo ................................. 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 1.00 Days 2.00 Days

St Petersburg ........................... 25-Aug-03 18.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

St Petersburg ........................... 15-Sep-03 15.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

St Petersburg ........................... 23-Sep-03 17.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

St Petersburg ........................... 30-Sep-03 15.00 Days 2.00 Days 4.00 Days

Surabaya .................................. 3-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 10-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 20-Aug-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 24-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 26-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 2-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 7-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 14-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Surabaya .................................. 28-Sep-03 1.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Stockholm ................................ 4-Aug-03 28.00 Days 1.00 Days 25.00 Days

Stockholm ................................ 29-Aug-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Stockholm ................................ 11-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Stockholm ................................ 16-Sep-03 21.00 Days 1.00 Days 5.00 Days

Suva ......................................... 2-Sep-03 5.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Sydney ...................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 11-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 18-Aug-03 4.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 25-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 3-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 8-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 22-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 1.00 Days

Sydney ...................................... 28-Sep-03 3.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Taipei ....................................... 3-Aug-03 9.00 Days 2.00 Days .00 days

Taipei ....................................... 10-Aug-03 8.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Taipei ....................................... 17-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

Taipei ....................................... 24-Aug-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days .00 days

93

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Tallinn ...................................... 5-Aug-03 2.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Tallinn ...................................... 12-Aug-03 3.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Tallinn ...................................... 2-Sep-03 2.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Tbilisi ....................................... 15-Aug-03 30.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Tbilisi ....................................... 19-Aug-03 24.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Tbilisi ....................................... 22-Sep-03 21.00 Days .00 days .00 days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 4-Aug-03 29.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 11-Aug-03 24.00 Days 4.00 Days 3.50 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 18-Aug-03 28.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 25-Aug-03 25.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 2-Sep-03 34.00 Days 5.00 Days 3.50 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 8-Sep-03 20.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 16-Sep-03 25.00 Days 4.00 Days 2.00 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 23-Sep-03 22.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days

Tegucigalpa ............................. 29-Sep-03 25.00 Days 5.00 Days 2.00 Days

Tijuana ..................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Tijuana ..................................... 4-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days 15.00 Days

Tijuana ..................................... 11-Aug-03 16.00 Days 30.00 Days 16.00 Days

Tijuana ..................................... 2-Sep-03 6.00 Days 30.00 Days 6.00 Days

Tijuana ..................................... 8-Sep-03 5.00 Days 30.00 Days 5.00 Days

Tijuana ..................................... 29-Sep-03 2.00 Days 30.00 Days 2.00 Days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 5-Aug-03 21.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 19-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 22-Aug-03 15.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 3-Sep-03 12.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tijuana Tpf .............................. 22-Sep-03 8.00 Days 30.00 Days .00 days

Tokyo ........................................ 3-Aug-03 10.00 Days 14.00 Days 7.00 Days

Tokyo ........................................ 5-Sep-03 7.00 Days 14.00 Days 7.00 Days

Tel Aviv .................................... 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days

Tel Aviv .................................... 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days 2.00 Days 7.00 Days

Tunis ........................................ 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Tunis ........................................ 28-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Tunis ........................................ 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Tunis ........................................ 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Ulaanbaatar ............................. 4-Aug-03 43.00 Days 2.00 Days 30.00 Days

Ulaanbaatar ............................. 27-Aug-03 46.00 Days 2.00 Days 30.00 Days

Ulaanbaatar ............................. 8-Sep-03 46.00 Days 2.00 Days 21.00 Days

Vancouver ................................ 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Vancouver ................................ 29-Sep-03 15.00 Days .00 days 15.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 4-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 11-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 19-Aug-03 14.00 Days .00 days 14.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 25-Aug-03 10.00 Days .00 days 10.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 3-Sep-03 13.00 Days .00 days 13.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 15-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Vilnius ...................................... 22-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

94

Historical Wait Times for NIV Appointments Reported by U.S. Overseas Post—Continued

(for August & September 2003 only)

Post Entry Date

Average

Appointment

Wait Time

Average

Processing

Time

Average Appointment

Wait Time Student,

Exchange

Visitors Only

Vilnius ...................................... 29-Sep-03 7.00 Days .00 days 7.00 Days

Valletta .................................... 1-Aug-03 .00 days 2.00 Days Unavailable

Valletta .................................... 4-Sep-03 .00 days 2.00 Days .00 days

Vienna ...................................... 5-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Vienna ...................................... 20-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Vienna ...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days 1.00 Days .00 days

Warsaw .................................... 5-Aug-03 26.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 11-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 2.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 18-Aug-03 20.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 25-Aug-03 17.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 2-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 8-Sep-03 14.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 15-Sep-03 8.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Warsaw .................................... 22-Sep-03 6.00 Days .00 days 3.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 4-Aug-03 10.00 Days 1.00 Days 10.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 11-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 18-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 25-Aug-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 2-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 8-Sep-03 7.00 Days 1.00 Days 7.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 15-Sep-03 3.00 Days 1.00 Days 3.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 22-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Yerevan .................................... 29-Sep-03 1.00 Days 1.00 Days 1.00 Days

Zagreb ...................................... 4-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 11-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 18-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 25-Aug-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 2-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 8-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 15-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

Zagreb ...................................... 22-Sep-03 .00 days .00 days .00 days

(Note: Statistics designated as ‘‘00 days’’ reflect ‘‘same day processing’’)

FY 2003 Worldwide NIV Workload

(by Visa Category)

Category Issuances Refusals Overcome/

Waivers

Adj. Refusal

Rate

A ............................... 183,504 5,159 3,461 1.99%

B1 ............................. 61,195 19,628 8,437 15.46%

B1/B2 ....................... 2,223,166 1,507,689 317,703 34.86%

B1/B2/BCC ............... 836,378 375,010 27,470 29.36%

B2 ............................. 271,990 156,007 34,710 30.84%

C ............................... 40,839 4,524 1,465 6.97%

C1/D ......................... 210,648 24,074 15,563 3.88%

D ............................... 16,120 1,976 1,314 3.94%

95

FY 2003 Worldwide NIV Workload—Continued

(by Visa Category)

Category Issuances Refusals Overcome/

Waivers

Adj. Refusal

Rate

DCREW ..................... 4,631 1 0 0.02%

E ............................... 32,096 6,934 5,138 5.30%

F ............................... 235,579 129,269 51,149 24.90%

G ............................... 31,103 3,082 2,162 2.87%

H ............................... 286,930 66,924 41,919 8.02%

I ................................ 12,329 1,467 777 5.30%

J ................................ 283,660 55,170 32,170 7.50%

K ............................... 44,633 17,951 10,091 14.97%

L ............................... 110,816 19,454 15,207 3.69%

M .............................. 4,301 1,769 1,155 12.49%

N ............................... 18 0 0 0.00%

NAFTA ....................... 1,219 158 122 2.87%

NATO ......................... 5,702 100 70 0.52%

O ............................... 10,150 1,406 1,004 3.81%

P ............................... 34,358 6,894 3,106 9.93%

Q ............................... 1,970 417 194 10.17%

R ............................... 11,798 6,062 2,680 22.28%

T ............................... 58 15 9 9.38%

V ............................... 43,203 11,365 6,958 9.26%

Total ..................... 4,898,394 2,422,505 584,034 27.29%

Question. According to private-sector witnesses, the significant costs for applicants’ travel to visa interviews, particularly in large countries like Brazil, is already

having an adverse impact on U.S. interests, including business, tourism, scientific,

technological and public diplomacy interests. Is the Department considering new

programs such as opening permanent or temporary visa-interview offices in more locations to enable applicants to be interviewed closer to home?

Answer. The Department of State is not considering opening more consular facilities at this time. Our priority is to focus first on strengthening the skills of existing

personnel through better training, adding more consular officers to existing overseas

posts, upgrading existing overseas facilities, and meeting biometric requirements for

travel documents set forth by Congress. Once these challenges are met, we will be

in a position to evaluate further the possible need for additional facilities.

Let me note that consular facilities are extremely costly given the need to have

permanent funding strategies to maintain security, communications, personnel, and

resources to support consular activities and related internal controls. Such facilities

cannot be adequately maintained based on the MRV fee alone as a funding strategy.

Decisions as to whether to open additional offices overseas must also take into account foreign policy issues.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JANICE JACOBS BY SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Question. In its report of July 15 (GA)–03–1013T), the General Accounting Office

(GAO) found ‘‘that the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice could

more effectively manage the visa process if they had clear and comprehensive policies and procedures and increased agency coordination and information sharing.’’

GAO said that ‘‘State and Justice disagreed on the evidence needed to deny a visa

on terrorism grounds.’’

Further, the visa revocation process was not being used aggressively to alert

homeland security and law enforcement agencies that individuals who are security

risks might have entered the country before their visas were revoked. ‘‘The process

96

broke down when information on revocations was not being shared between State

and appropriate immigration and law enforcement officials.’’ GAO concluded that these ‘‘weaknesses diminish the effectiveness of the visa process in keeping potential terrorists out of the United States.’’ What steps have the Department of State, Homeland Security, and Justice taken

to remedy these deficiencies?

Specifically, what is now the guidance to consular and DHS officers on the evidence needed to deny a visa on terrorism grounds?

Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)

Answer. The Patriot Act of October 26, 2001 made changes to the language of Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which describes the

grounds of visa ineligibility for terrorism. The Act had the effect of broadening and

strengthening the provisions of Section 212(a)(3)(B). The Department of State communicated the new provisions to all consular officers shortly after enactment of the

Act. The Department has also established a special segment of the training program

that consular officers receive before they go abroad to help them identify potential

terrorists who may apply for visas. As a procedural matter, all consular officers

must consult the Visa Office when they have reason to think that a case may involve terrorism. The Visa Office provides guidance to the consular officer in each

specific case that reflects the consensus of appropriate agencies once such agencies

have reviewed the derogatory evidence that exists relevant to that case. We have

no outstanding cases for which there is a difference of opinion with DHS concerning

the relevance of case specific information and the terrorism grounds of ineligibility

of the INA. The Department of State does not authorize the issuance of any visa

over the objections of either DHS or the FBI.

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. Prior to January 2003, legacy agencies and then DHS did experience

problems with receiving notice of visa revocations from the Department of State

(DOS), in part due to a miscommunication about which codes should be accepted

as revocation codes and to an incorrect interface between IBIS and CLASS. These

problems have been corrected and since the June 2003 report, DOS has worked with

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) to put procedures into place that strengthen the visa revocation

process. Both CBP and DOS agree that the optimal solution for ensuring revoked

visa information is transmitted timely is the automated interface that links the

Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) with the Treasury Enforcement

Communication System (TECS) and the Interagency Border Inspection System

(IBIS). CBP and DOS have established a single code for posting of visa revocations

into TECS/IBIS. In addition, ICE has requested and received immediate notification

from DOS of all visa revocations, including revocations based on national security

grounds.

Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides guidance,

and some specific definitions, to consular and DHS officers on the evidence needed

to deny a visa on terrorism grounds and specifically renders an alien ineligible to

receive a visa when:

The alien has engaged in terrorist activity;

A consular or DHS officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe,

the alien is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist

activity as defined in part (iv) of that section;

The alien has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause

death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

The alien is a representative of a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Secretary of State, or of a political, social or other similar

group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary

of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or

eliminate terrorist activity;

The alien is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated

by the Secretary of State or which the alien knows or should have known

is a terrorist organization (an alien who is an officer, official, representative

or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered to be

engaged in terrorist activity);

The alien has used the alien’s position of prominence within any country

to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:04 May 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 92725 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
97

rorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State determines United

States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities; orThe alien is the

spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years

(exceptions to this clause are specified).

If a consular post believes that an individual may be ineligible for a visa based

on terrorism grounds outstanding instructions require that the application be forwarded to DOS’s bureau of consular affairs for decision. The decision to deny a visa

based on terrorism grounds cannot be made by an individual officer at a consular

post.

Question. What is the process the Department of State now uses to notify Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies that a visa has been revoked? Does the

Department of Homeland Security then check entry records to see if the individual

is in the United States? What steps are then taken to apprehend the individual?

Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)

Answer. The Department of State notifies the Department of Homeland Security

of revoked visas in three ways. A copy of the signed Certificate of Revocation is

faxed to the Intelligence Division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP is also a recipient of outgoing cables sent by the Department to overseas Posts,

which inform Posts of revocations and instruct them to take appropriate action.

Third, the Department enters hits in its CLASS lookout system under the code

‘‘VRVK’’ (Visa Revoked). These hits are shared electronically, on a real-time basis,

with the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS), which is used by CBP inspectors at ports-of-entry and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in

their capacity as the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

The additional questions concerning internal procedures of DHS fall within the

competence of DHS to respond.

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. CBP and DOS have established a single code for posting of visa revocations into TECS/IBIS. This code is used to flag cases in the lookout databases, thereby notifying inspectors at the port-of-entry that an alien seeking admission has had

his or her visa revoked. The revocation code and the current language on the visa

revocation certificate are adequate for the CBP to take action to prevent the holder

of a revoke visa from entering the United States.

ICE also now receives immediate notification from DOS of all visa revocations, including revocations based on national security grounds. As a result, ICE is kept upto-date on all visa revocations on terrorism grounds. When ICE is notified of a visa

revocation the Intelligence Unit conducts records checks, obtains all derogatory information relating to the subject of the visa revocation, and forwards it to the appropriate ICE Investigations Division for a full field investigation. ICE, upon receipt

of notification of a visa revocation, always queries ICE databases to determine if any

of the individuals who have had their visas revoked have entered the U.S. and still

have not departed. Upon confirmation that individuals who have had their visas revoked for national security grounds have entered the U.S. and not departed, ICE

Office of Investigations in coordination with the FBI will make every attempt to locate the individual and investigate all possible avenues to remove the individual

from the U.S. thereby minimizing the threat they may pose to the homeland. ICE

also investigates all immigration violations that would make the person subject to

removal proceedings (violations such as unauthorized employment, failure to depart

the United States as required, etc.). ICE conducts a full field investigation of any

foreign national that is believed to be in the United States and whose visa was revoked on national security grounds.

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JANICE JACOBS BY SENATOR BILL NELSON

Question. There doesn’t seem to be anyway for a person applying for a non-immigrant visa to know when she can expect to have her application either approved or

denied. In addition, there are reports that some people are required to wait months

for a decision on their application. This uncertainty coupled with the sometimes unreasonably lengthy wait times can create a great deal of hardship for travelers trying to come to the US to the extent that many may choose not to come at all.

98

How long does it currently take to process non-immigrant visa applications at consulates or embassies? How long should the process take? Do the wait times for processing applications vary significantly from country to country? If so, what are the

reasons for the discrepancies? And when can we expect those discrepancies to be

eliminated? Are, and if so, how are applicants notified when their visa applications

require more thorough background checks? Will the automation of biometric data

significantly reduce the wait time for applicants? If so, by how much? Does the State

Department and Department of Homeland Security have a timeframe under which

they intend to improve the process to address all these concerns?

Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)

Answer. The overwhelming majority of all non-immigrant visa applicants receive

a definitive decision from the consular officer regarding the merits of their case

upon conclusion of the visa interview. Only 2%–2.5% of all non-immigrant visa cases

worldwide on average are submitted by consular officers to Washington for interagency screening.

Interagency screening currently takes less than 30 days to process for most cases.

Whenever the consular officer has reason to submit a case to Washington for interagency screening, the consular officer normally advises the visa applicant that additional administrative processing is required.

In other instances, the complexity of a respective applicant’s case may require the

applicant to return with additional supporting evidence, or the consular officer may

wish to take investigative measures to determine the veracity of the applicant’s statements. Such issues generally add a few days to visa processing.

Wait time processing of applications does vary from country to country based on

availability of staffing and local political, economic, or social conditions. For example, most student visa applications are submitted during the summer due to the

U.S. academic calendar. Staffing gaps often occur to some degree during the summer because most Foreign Service change of assignments occur during this period.

In only 15 U.S. posts overseas have appointment wait times in excess of 30 days

for NIV applicants as of November 12, 2003.

We do not expect that these discrepancies will be eliminated altogether because

variances that arise are post-specific. However, the majority of US posts do currently have a wait time under 30 days.

The automation of biometric data is not expected to significantly reduce the wait

time for applicants. The use of biometric data will help establish identity but consular officers will still need to perform their adjudication responsibility, i.e. determine whether the applicant intends to visit the US for legitimate purposes as specified in immigration law.

In order to improve the visa issuance process and address all the above concerns,

the Department of State intends to create 80 additional MRV-funded consular officer positions in FY 04 in order to assist with the additional workload demand. These

positions will be designated for posts worldwide with significant workload increases

in order to improve the efficiency of the visa process while not compromising the

need to meet security requirements.

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. DHS’ ultimate goal is to adopt visa policies and procedures that will emphasize security as well as efficiency. DHS, working in cooperation with DOS and

other agencies, is exploring ways to improve or modify the visa process in order to

support this goal. While DHS has not set a particular timeframe for action, the visa

process and DHS’s new role in that process, is a priority for the Department. DHS

is also well aware of the significance of visa policy to other government entities as

well as the private sector and will keep their concerns in mind when evaluating the

visa process. Currently, DHS has a visa policy working group that is developing

short and long-term policy initiatives related to DHS’ responsibilities under the section 428 visa MOU. This working group will make recommendations to Secretary

Ridge on how DHS should alter or improve visa policy to increase security as well

as efficiency in visa processing. We will gladly update the committee on these initiatives as the Department moves forward on these issues.

In the meantime, DHS made a policy decision to suspend the NSEERS 30-day and

annual interviews in December 2003 to better utilize immigration enforcement resources. DHS has also decided that Border Crossing Card holders will not be subject

to US-VISIT, initially, to prevent additional wait times at land ports of entry primary inspection lanes while the US-VISIT office determines the best manner to implement US-VISIT at the land borders. DHS, along with DOS and other relevant

agencies, is currently finalizing its plan to review the Visa Waiver Program countries, which is required every two years under the Enhanced Border Security and

99

Visa Entry Reform Act. Also, DHS is currently examining the Visa Condor and

Mantis programs with the goal of streamlining the visa process and reducing the

application period.

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JANICE JA- COBS BY SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN

Question. There are reports that some of our major international gateway airports

are facing substantial delays in processing in-bound passengers. At Dulles, for example, wait times have increased for arriving international passengers.

Recognizing that the government has legitimate security concerns in processing

passengers, I would like to know what can be done to speed things up. Is it a question of manpower and other resources?

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. Arriving international passengers are not experiencing substantial delays

in CBP processing. Since developing a strategic plan to monitor and measure average wait times at the top 20 airports (83% of all arriving passengers), average wait

times nationwide have decreased from 59 minutes to 34 minutes. At Dulles, the average wait time decreased from 70 minutes as of an August 2003 baseline to 45

minutes as measured in a recent 7-day period (12/28/03 through 1/3/04).

Since implementation of US-VISIT, average wait times nationwide and at Dulles

have remained relatively stable. Nationwide wait times decreased slightly from 36

minutes to 34 minutes; at Dulles, the average wait time is now 45 minutes, relatively unchanged from 43 minutes as measured in the last full week prior to USVISIT.

CBP continues to monitor and measure airport primary wait times at the top 20

airports on a daily basis. Field Offices with airport location(s) exceeding the wait

time threshold of 60 minutes are required to provide an explanation and corrective

action plan to Headquarters.

Question. Recent changes in the transit-without-visa rules and the internationalto-international transfer rules are likely to compound the problem for major gateway airports. As you can appreciate, these programs will continue to have a significant adverse affect on concessionaires and others connected with our international

gateway airports. What, if anything, is being done to address the potential negative

impact of these rules?

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. DHS and CBP have been working on revising a security-enhanced transit

program since August 7, 2003, when the Secretary of Homeland Security and the

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs published regulations suspending

the TWOV and ITI transit programs based on credible intelligence concerning a specific threat of exploitation of the TWOV program by terrorist organizations.

In August and September 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)conducted field visits and held meetings with airline industry and

theDepartments of Homeland Security (DHS), State (DOS), and Transportation(DOT) on the possible reinstatement (or revision) of a security-enhanced transit program. On September 22, 2003, the public comment period concerning the suspension of the TWOV and ITI programs expired. CBP reviewed the 17 comments

submitted by the air and sea industry in response to the regulation published in

the Federal Register on August 7, 2003. These comments, along with concerns

raised during CBP field visits and meetings held with the industry, contributed to

the formulation of a proposed plan to reinstate a transit without visa program. In

mid-January 2004,special transit procedures were initiated at Miami International

Airport for certain groups of international passengers, including passengers holding

Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country passports, passengers in possession of a visa

to enter the U.S., and Canadian citizens. Presently, special transit procedures have

taken place at several U.S. ports of entry including Los Angeles, Orlando, and San

Juan. Meetings with the DOS and the Department of Commerce (DOC) concerning

a revised transit plan were held in January 2004.

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JANICE JA- COBS BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. How realistic is the October 24 [sic], 2004 requirement for biometric

data to be encrypted in the passports of current Visa Waiver Program Countries?

100

Which countries have already requested waivers for this provision, which have told

us that they will be able to meet this requirement? When will U.S. Passports have

such biometric features? What biometric feature(s) will be encrypted in our passports?

Response from Janice L. Jacobs (DOS)

Answer. Most countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) will be

unable to comply with section 303(c) of the Enhanced Border Security Act.

Of the 27 countries currently participating in the VWP program, only five (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand) have indicated that they

may be able to include biometrics per the ICAO standard by the mandated deadline.

Budgetary difficulties may delay their plans.

Most governments cited as the main reason for being unable to comply with the

October 26, 2004 deadline the fact that the ICAO did not establish a biometric

standard (facial recognition technology) until May 2003. Most governments say

there is insufficient time before October 26, 2004 to identify and contract for new

technology that would bring a new passport with biometrics into production. All

have said they will be able to comply with the ICAO standard at some point, possibly in late 2005/early 2006, but not prior to the October 2004 deadline stipulated

in US law.

No waiver of the biometric requirement stipulated in section 303(c) concerning the

passports of VWP countries exists in U.S. law.

The Department of State (DOS) plans to implement a new version of the United

States passport that will meet the ICAO standard for the use of biometrics. The new

U.S. passport will contain an embedded Integrated Circuit (IC) contactless chip. The

chip will be used to store the information currently displayed on the passport (i.e.

name, date and place of birth, date of issuance, etc.) along with a full digital image

of the portrait of the passport bearer. The new technology will enhance the security

of the passport and will facilitate the movement of travelers at ports of entry. The

new passport initially will be issued on a limited scale by October 2004. All newly

issued full-validity United States passports will have embedded chips by the end of

calendar 2005.

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. While most VWP program countries will be able to certify that they have

a program in place to issue biometric passports by the October deadline, very few,

if any, VWP countries will actually be able to begin issuing biometric passports by

that date. The result is that millions of visitors from VWP countries who are issued

non-ICAO compliant passports after October 26, 2004, will be required to obtain

visas prior to traveling to the United States. The issue is not lack of will or commitment to achieving the standard by these countries, but rather challenging scientific

and technical issues.

According to the Department of State, most of the Visa Waiver Program governments have indicated that they will be able to comply with the ICAO standard (facial recognition) in late 2005 to early 2006. Secretaries Ridge and Powell have testified before the House Judiciary Committee, requesting an extension of the deadline.

In addition, Senator Chambliss has introduced a bill to extend the deadline.

There are two congressionally mandated deadlines that affect foreign travelers

seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

• October 1, 2003—machine readable passport (MRP) deadline required by section

417 of the USA Patriot Act

• October 26, 2004—biometric deadline required by section 303 of the Border Security Act.

Section 417 of the USA Patriot Act requires any alien seeking admission to the

United States under the VWP, on or after October 1, 2003, to possess a machinereadable passport unless the Secretary of State waives the requirement. The October 1, 2003, MRP deadline is distinct from the October 26, 2004, deadline for biometrics in MRPs. Under section 303 of the Border Security Act, by October 26, 2004,

VWP countries are required to certify that they have a program to issue passports

that contain biometrics as a condition of continued participation in the VWP. Also,

on or after October 26, 2004, any alien seeking admission under the VWP must

present an MRP that contains ICAO compliant biometrics, unless the passport was

issued prior to that date.

Unlike the October 1, 2003 MRP, the October 26, 2004 biometrics deadline does

not have a waiver provision.

On the October 1, 2003, MRP deadline, DOS, in consultation with DHS, agreed

to permit individual VWP countries to apply for a one-time waiver of the October

101

1, 2003 MRP deadline. Exercising his legislatively-authorized prerogative, the Secretary of State granted a waiver until October 26, 2004 to 21 countries currently

participating in the VWP based on their having met certain requirements. Those

countries are: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San

Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Each

country granted a waiver was required to make a formal request, via diplomatic

note, acknowledging that the waiver would be a one-time opportunity and only valid

until October 26, 2004, the date by which nationals of VWP countries must present

a machine-readable passport. Countries also had to certify that they were making

progress towards ensuring that machine-readable passports are available to their

nationals and that they are taking appropriate steps to protect against the misuse

of their non-machine readable passports. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already issued field guidance for inspectors at the ports of entry for

handling foreign nationals who are affected by the waiver. CBP procedures require

inspectors to notify travelers from VWP countries of this new requirement with

handout material indicating that the non-MRP will no longer be accepted for travel

to the United States after October 26, 2004. In addition, CBP inspectors are instructed to handwrite ′′MRP notified′′ adjacent to the admission stamp in non-machine readable passports.

Regarding the October 26, 2004 MRP biometric deadline, most VWP program

countries will be able to certify that they have a program in place to issue biometric

passports by the October deadline, but very few, if any, VWP countries will actually

be able to begin issuing biometric passports by that date. The result is that millions

of visitors from VWP countries who are issued non-ICAO compliant passports after

October 26, 2004, will be required to obtain visas prior to traveling to the United

States. The issue is not lack of will or commitment to achieving the standard by

these countries, but rather challenging scientific and technical issues. According to

the Department of State, most of the Visa Waiver Program governments have indicated that they will be able to comply with the ICAO standard (facial recognition)

in late 2005 to early 2006. Secretaries Ridge and Powell have testified before the

House Judiciary Committee, requesting an extension of the deadline. In addition,

Senator Chambliss has introduced a bill to extend the deadline.

Question. Given the testimony of the second panel at today’s Hearing regarding

the situation confronting foreign students, and the remarks by the first panel on the

need to collect SEVIS, what are the current plans to collect the $100 SEVIS processing fee?

Response from C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (DHS)

Answer. On October 27, 2003, DHS published a regulation in the Federal Register

that will require every foreign student who registers in the Student and Exchange

Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to pay a one-time fee of $100. The SEVIS fee

is mandated by Section 641 of P.L. 104–208 IIRIRA, published 30 September 1996.

To date, the SEVIS program has been unfunded. In the FY 2002 supplemental (P.L.

107–206 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States), legacy INS received $36.8 million

in appropriated counter-terrorism funds to expedite the development of SEVIS However, while the funding covered the program development, it did not include funds

for enforcement or maintenance of the program. The $100 fee is estimated to generate over forty million dollars that will be used for program operations, system

maintenance, personnel to work with the schools, and for compliance efforts. This

fee also will allow DHS to continue to closely monitor students coming into the

United States while ensuring that this close scrutiny is not burdensome on the students or the educational communities that they seek to join.

The proposed rule, currently in its comment period, states that the $100 SEVIS

student fee will be collected in two ways:

1. The student or exchange visitor (hereafter, student), or a family member or other third party including schools or exchange visitor programs if

they so desire, may complete the Form I–901 online and submit the $100

in an online credit card transaction. Once the transaction processes (usually

less than one minute), the payor will be able to print out a receipt. A receipt will be mailed, or sent via courier for an additional cost, to the student within three days of the fee payment being processed; or

2. The student may obtain a hardcopy I–901 form or complete the internet I–901 form and send it in with a check, money order, or foreign draft

drawn on a U.S. bank, in U.S. dollars. The fee receipt will be printed and

102

mailed, or sent via courier for an additional cost, to the student within

three days of the fee payment being processed.

In either case, the Department of State consular officers will be able to check electronically to confirm that the fee was paid in cases where the receipt does not arrive

or subsequently is lost.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. What is the level of DHS funding for equipment needed to handle the

information now being sent over by the State Department? What are the levels

budgeted for FY 2004? Please provide the committee with an example of the age

and types of computers and bandwidth that you are using at border points of entry

and describe your replacement/upgrade cycle.

Answer. The costs to establish and maintain section 428 responsibilities are being

funded by the components within the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a variety of computers at the ports of

entry that are primarily Dell Pentium 3 or Pentium 4 workstations. Typically,

workstations are replaced every three to four years, contingent upon the availability

of funding. The land border primary workstation is a ruggedized laptop PC with a

special keyboard layout and glare resistant screen that is four years old and will

be replaced when the US-VISIT Project incorporates new functionality into the vehicle primary booths. The CBP network uses frame relay protocol with T1 circuits to

each Port of Entry.

Question. As the committee currently understands the situation, visa application

information, including the applicant’s photo, captured by the Department of State

is available to DHS officials at ports of entry, but that DHS is only able to access

the data in ‘‘secondary,’’ that is, not during the initial interview. The committee understands that DHS is in the process of upgrading its systems to remedy this.

Is the above scenario correct? If so, what upgrade mechanisms are required—new software and/or hardware? Please provide the per-unit cost of the upgrade and the

total cost. Has this cost been requested in the FY 2004 appropriations, if not will

it be funded from within existing DHS resources or will this have to wait until FY

2005?

Answer. Visa information is already available at primary (initial interview) locations. As part of the US-VISIT Increment 1 implementation at 115 airports and 14

seaports on January 5, 2004, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented

the display of non-immigrant visa (NIV) data at all primary inspection locations in

these ports. In response to the CBP Officer ‘‘swiping’’ a visa through the integrated

document reader at primary, a query is made against the central IBIS (Interagency

Border Inspection System) database, which includes NIV data supplied by the State

Department. Available NIV data matching the query is displayed to the CBP Officer, including the digital visa photo. This allows the CBP Officer to perform an immediate match between the traveler, the traveler’s document, and the data/photo

supplied by the State Department. This match supplements the fingerprint matching process also implemented as part of US-VISIT. CBP currently has NIV data dating back to July 2001. The State Department has provided additional NIV data

going back to the beginning of 2000 and this data is currently being loaded for access by the CBP Officers at primary. Plans for implementing the US-VISIT capability, including NIV data, at land-border ports is still under discussion at the USVISIT Program Management Office.

The NIV data and process for continuous updates were already available in IBIS

prior to the US-VISIT implementation. Integration of this data into the US-VISIT

process at primary was funded as part of the US-VISIT FY03 funding. No additional

funding is required to complete the loading of the older NIV data.

Question. In order to have a better understanding of the workload at our borders,

please provide for the committee a staffing pattern of Custom and Border Protection

Officers/INS Legacy Officers, by fiscal year from FY 1999 to FY 2003, by port of

entry. Please indentify any officers that are contractors. For each post, for each

year, please provide the number of visitors processed.

Answer. Please find attached on-board staffing data, which we are able to provide

as a total for the Legacy United States Customs Service (USCS) and the Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for FY 1999 and for Legacy USCS, Legacy INS, and the Legacy Agricultural Quarantine Inspectional Service for FY 2000

103

(attachment 1). We are also able to provide Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

on-board staffing data by port of entry for FY 2003 (Attachment 2). Also, please find

attached the workload figures at ports of entry for FY 1999–FY 2003 (Attachment 3).

Attachment #1.—Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations

(as of the end of FY 2003)

Inspectional Staff for All Locations

FY 2001

(9/22/01)

FY 2002

(9/21/02)

FY 2003

(10/04/03)

Legacy Customs ............................................. 8,184 9,008 10,538

Legacy Immigration ....................................... 4,717 5,422 6,741

Legacy Agriculture ......................................... 10 10 1,485

Totals ......................................................... 12,901 14,430 18,764

1 Historical totals are unavailable.

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Atlanta (1317)

Atlanta GA — 98 99 38 235 —

Brunswick GA — — 213 —

Savannah GA — 4 41 8 53 —

Bullock NC — 1 — 1 — —

Charlotte NC — 11 16 4 31 —

Fayetteville NC — — 1 1 — —

Greensboro NC — 2 — 2 — —

Morehead City NC — 213 — —

Raleigh–Durham NC — 3 8 4 15 —

Wilmington NC — 2 10 3 15 —

Winston Salem NC — 1 — 1 — —

Bethune SC — 1 — 1 — —

Charleston SC — 6 70 9 85 —

Columbia SC — 1 — 1 — —

Greenleyville SC — 1 — 1 — —

Greenville SC — 415 — —

Myrtle Beach SC — 1 — 1 — —

Dublin VA — 1 — 1 — —

Newport News VA — 3 — 3 — —

Norfolk VA — 47 6 53 — —

Richmond VA — 5 — 5 — —

Charleston WV — 1 — 1 — —

Subtotal:

Atlanta — 495 124 317 76 517 -22

Baltimore (1313)

Dover AFB DE — 3328 —

New Castle DE — — 3 — 3 —

104

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Wilmington DE — — 516 —

Baltimore MD — 21 75 10 106 —

Atlantic City NJ — — 1 — 1 —

Trenton NJ — — 1 — 1 —

Avoca PA — — 1 — 1 —

Erie PA — 1 — — 1 —

Harrisburg PA — — 3 — 3 —

Philadelphia PA — 62 109 17 188 —

Pittsburgh PA — 11 12 2 25 —

Alexandria VA — — 2 — 2 —

District Office:

Wash., DC VA — 1 — — 1 —

Dulles VA — 96 86 18 200 —

Norfolk VA — 6 — — 6 —

Subtotal:

Baltimore 541 201 301 50 552 -11

Boston (1304)

Bridgeport CT — — 3 — 3 —

Hartford CT — 5 7 — 12 —

New Haven CT — — 3 — 3 —

Wallingford CT ——— 1 1 —

Windsor Locks CT ——— 1 1 —

Boston MA — 65 118 20 203 —

Gloucester MA — — 1 — 1 —

New Bedford MA — — 2 — 2 —

Springfield MA — — 2 — 2 —

Worcester MA — — 2 — 2 —

Bangor ME — 4 6 — 10 —

Belfast ME — — 1 — 1 —

Bridgewater ME — 6 3 — 9 —

Calais ME — 25 41 — 66 —

Coburn Gore ME — 4 3 — 7 —

Eastport ME — — 2 — 2 —

Forest City ME — — 1 — 1 —

Fort Fairfield ME — 8 8 — 16 —

Fort Kent ME — 8 10 — 18 —

Houlton ME — 16 45 4 65 —

Jackman ME — 10 22 — 32 —

Limestone ME — 7 — — 7 —

Lubec ME — 5 4 — 9 —

Madawaska ME — 13 8 — 21 —

Orient ME — — 1 — 1 —

Van Buren ME — 11 9 — 20 —

Vanceboro ME — 6 5 — 11 —

Portland ME — 4419 —

Manchester NH — — 1 — 1 —

Pittsburg NH — 4 — — 4 —

Portsmouth NH — — 2 — 2 —

Providence RI — 4 5 — 9 —

105

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Warwick RI ——— 1 1 —

Alburg VT — 5 — — 5 —

Beebe Plains VT — 4 — — 4 —

Beecher Falls VT — 7 10 — 17 —

Burlington VT — — 4 — 4 —

Derby Line VT — 25 48 1 74 —

Highgate

Springs VT — 22 53 3 78 —

North Troy VT — 6 1 — 7 —

Norton VT — 11 16 — 27 —

Richford VT — 19 21 — 40 —

St Albans VT — 1 2 — 3 —

Subtotal: Boston 814 305 474 32 811 3 —

Buffalo (1309)

Albany NY — 1618 —

Alexandria Bay NY — — 51 1 52 —

Champlain NY — 57 130 — 187 —

District Office:

Buffalo NY — 2 285 8 295 —

Johnson City NY — — 1 — 1 —

Massena NY — 19 30 — 49 —

New York NY — — 1 — 1 —

Niagara Falls NY — 93 — — 93 —

Ogdensburg NY — 13 23 — 36 —

Peace Bridge NY — 56 — — 56 —

Rochester NY — — 6 — 6 —

Rouses Point NY ——— 1 1 —

Syracuse NY — — 3 — 3 —

Thousand

Islands NY — 28 — — 28 —

Trout River NY — 14 34 — 48 —

Subtotal:

Buffalo 808 283 570 11 864 -56

Chicago (1339)

Des Moines IA — 1 1 — 2 —

Chicago IL — 162 185 51 398 —

Decatur IL — — 1 — 1 —

Des Plains IL ——— 1 1 —

Milan IL — — 1 — 1 —

Peoria IL — — 1 — 1 —

Rockford IL — — 1 — 1 —

Rosemont IL ——— 4 4 —

Waukegan IL — — 2 — 2 —

Wheeling IL — — 1 — 1 —

Evansville IN — — 1 — 1 —

Fort Wayne IN — — 2 — 2 —

106

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Indianapolis IN — 2 14 2 18 —

Wichita KS — — 2 — 2 —

Erlanger KY ——— 6 6 —

Hebron KY — — 32 — 32 —

Lexington KY — — 1 — 1 —

Louisville KY — — 19 — 19 —

Lowmansville KY — — 1 — 1 —

Duluth MN — 2 — 1 3 —

Minneapolis/

St. Paul MN — 37 29 7 73 —

Rochester MN — — 1 — 1 —

Chesterfield MO — — 1 — 1 —

Gladstone MO ——— 1 1 —

Kansas City MO — — 5 — 5 —

North Kansas

City MO — — 1 — 1 —

Springfield MO — — 1 — 1 —

St. Ann MO ——— 4 4 —

St. Louis MO — 12 — — 12 —

Woodson Terr. MO — — 11 — 11 —

Akron OH — — 2 — 2 —

Ashtabula OH — — 1 — 1 —

Cincinnati OH — 13 — — 13 —

Cleveland OH — 8 1 — 9 —

Columbus OH — 1 5 — 6 —

Dayton OH — — 9 — 9 —

Hebron OH — — 1 — 1 —

Middleburg

Heights OH — — 15 1 16 —

OIC/Cincinnati OH — 2 — — 2 —

Sandusky OH — 2 2 — 4 —

Swanton OH — — 2 — 2 —

Toledo OH — 2 2 — 4 —

Vandalia OH — — 1 — 1 —

West Chester OH ——— 1 1 —

Wilmington OH — — 4 — 4 —

Erie PA — — 2 — 2 —

Sioux Falls SD — — 1 — 1 —

Milwaukee WI — 2 9 — 11 —

Racine WI — — 1 — 1 —

Subtotal:

Chicago 709 246 372 79 697 12

Detroit (1338)

District Office:

Detroit MI — 2 — — 2 —

Algonac Ferry MI — 3 — — 3 —

Battle Creek MI — — 2 — 2 —

Bay City MI — — 1 — 1 —

Cascade MI — — 3 — 3 —

107

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Detroit MI ——— 5 5 —

Detroit Int’l

Bridge MI — 58 — — 58 —

Detroit Tunnel MI — 48 — — 48 —

Detroit, Metro

Airport MI — 91 287 — 378 —

Marine City

Ferry MI — 2 — — 2 —

Marine Unit MI — 8 — — 8 —

Pontiac MI — — 3 — 3 —

Port Huron MI — 52 107 5 164 —

Romulus MI — — 69 13 82 —

Saginaw MI — — 1 — 1 —

Sault Ste.

Marie MI — 27 35 1 63 —

Ypsilanti MI — — 1 — 1 —

Subtotal:

Detroit 816 291 509 24 824 -8

El Paso (1324)

Columbus NM — 15 35 1 51 —

Santa Teresa NM — 8 40 — 48 —

Albuquerque NM — — 4 — 4 —

Antelope Wells NM — — 2 — 2 —

Conchiti NM — — 1 — 1 —

District Office:

El Paso TX — 2 — — 2 —

El Paso TX — 271 457 26 754 —

Fabens TX — 22 35 1 58 —

Fort Hancock TX — 6 3 — 9 —

Harlingen TX 1 — — 1 —

Presidio TX — 12 34 1 47 —

Progresso TX — — 1 — 1 —

Subtotal: El Paso 957 337 612 29 978 -21

Houston (1353)

Oklahoma City OK — — 2 — 2 —

Tulsa OK — — 2 — 2 —

Corpus Christi TX — 4 5 2 11 —

Dallas TX — 86 106 35 227 —

Galveston TX — 5 — 2 7 —

Houston TX — 83 226 52 361 —

Houston Seaport TX — 10 — — 10 —

Port Arthur TX — 1326 —

Amarillo TX — — 1 — 1 —

Freeport TX — — 1 — 1 —

Lubbock TX — — 1 — 1 —

108

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Subtotal:

Houston 617 189 347 93 629 -12

Laredo (1323)

Austin TX — 1528 —

Brownsville TX — 122 227 29 378 —

Del Rio TX — 43 61 2 106 —

District Office:

San Antonio TX — 1 — — 1 —

Eagle Pass TX — 81 105 11 197 —

Hidalgo TX — 97 138 — 235 —

Laredo TX — 153 381 25 559 —

Pantex TX — — 1 — 1 —

Pharr TX — — 64 22 86 —

Progresso TX — 39 36 1 76 —

Rio Grande City TX — — 25 — 25 —

Roma TX — 44 54 4 102 —

San Antonio TX — 15 15 4 34 —

Subtotal:

Laredo 1824 596 1112 100 1808 16

Long Beach

(1327)

Hawthorne CA ——— 94 94 —

LA Deferred

Inspection CA — 3 — — 3 —

Ontario CA ——— 2 2 —

Palm Springs CA — — 1 — 1 —

Port Hueneme CA — — 123 —

Terminal Island CA — — 76 — 76 —

Ventura County

Suboffice CA — 1 — — 1 —

Victorville CA — — 1 — 1 —

Long Beach

Marine CA — 15 205 34 254 —

Los Angeles

Airport CA — 361 349 6 716 —

Las Vegas NV — 15 7 2 24 —

Subtotal: Long

Beach 1199 395 640 140 1175 24

Miami (1352)

District Office:

Miami FL — 2 719 196 917 —

Ft Ldl/Prt

Evrglds FL — 40 127 18 185 —

Key West FL — 6 6 1 13 —

109

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Miami Airport FL — 332 — — 332 —

Miami Marine

Unit FL — 59 — — 59 —

West Palm

Beach FL — 7 27 4 38 —

Ft. Pierce FL — — 314 —

Subtotal: Miami 1527 446 882 220 1548 -21

New Orleans

(1320)

Little Rock AK — — 2 — 2 —

Mobile AL — 2 14 5 21 —

Alabaster AL ——— 1 1 —

Birmingham AL — — 1 — 1 —

Huntsville AL — — 437 —

Baton Rouge LA — 3 2 — 5 —

Lake Charles LA — 3 3 — 6 —

New Orleans LA — 28 55 20 103 —

Gramercy LA — — 2 — 2 —

Morgan City LA — — 5 — 5 —

Shreveport LA — — 3 — 3 —

Gulfport MS — 3 19 4 26 —

Pascagoula MS — — 2 — 2 —

Vicksburg MS — — 3 — 3 —

Memphis TN — 5 42 7 54 —

Nashville TN — 2 4 — 6 —

Blountville TN — — 1 — 1 —

Chattanooga TN — — 2 — 2 —

Knoxville TN — — 3 — 3 —

Subtotal: New Orleans 260 46 167 40 253 7

New York (1310)

Cherry Hill NJ — 4 — — 4 —

Newark NJ — 186 164 27 377 —

Elizabeth NJ — 278 37 315 — —

Secaucus NJ — — 112 —

New York NY — 488 10 121 619 —

Newburgh NY ——— 2 2 —

Queens NY — — 620 — 620 —

Subtotal:

New York 1932 678 1073 188 1939 -7

Portland (1329)

Alcan AK — 7 — — 7 —

Anchorage AK — 16 38 7 61 —

110

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Border AK — — 3 — 3 —

Dalton’s Cache AK — 4 — — 4 —

Dutch Harbor AK — 1 — — 1 —

Eagle AK — — 1 — 1 —

Fairbanks AK — 1 1 — 2 —

Haines AK — — 7 — 7 —

Juneau AK — 1 1 — 2 —

Ketchikan AK — 6 3 — 9 —

Nome AK — 0 — — 0 —

Sitka AK — — 1 — 1 —

Skagway AK — 6 7 — 13 —

Wrangell AK — — 1 — 1 —

Aurora CO ——— 2 2 —

Broomfield CO — — 1 — 1 —

Colorado Springs CO — — 1 — 1 —

Denver CO — 16 20 — 36 —

Englewood CO — — 1 — 1 —

Fort Collins CO ——— 2 2 —

Boise ID — — 1 — 1 —

Astoria OR — 2 1 — 3 —

Coos Bay OR — — 1 — 1 —

Portland OR — 17 24 6 47 —

Longview WA — 1 1 — 2 —

Subtotal:

Portland 223 78 114 17 209 14

Preclearance

(1354)

Freeport BAH — 7 10 — 17 —

Nassau BAH — 19 17 — 36 —

Hamilton BER — 10 8 — 18 —

Calgary CAN — 25 11 — 36 —

Edmonton CAN — 9 7 — 16 —

Montreal CAN — 40 19 1 60 —

Ottawa CAN — 13 7 — 20 —

Toronto CAN — 119 49 1 169 —

Vancouver CAN — 59 21 1 81 —

Victoria CAN — 8 — 0 8 —

Winnipeg CAN — 6 7 — 13 —

Dublin IRE — 2 — — 2 —

Shannon IRE — 4 — — 4 —

Aruba NA — 3 11 1 15 —

Subtotal:

Preclearance 628 324 167 4 495 133

San Diego (1325)

Andrade CA — 12 22 — 34 —

Calexico CA — 166 204 16 386 —

111

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Calexico East CA — 1 — — 1 —

Otay Mesa CA — 29 94 — 123 —

San Ysidro/San

Diego CA — 406 365 39 810 —

Tecate CA — — 39 — 39 —

Bonnyville CA — — 1 — 1 —

San Jose CA — — 1 — 1 —

District Office:

San Diego CA — 2 — — 2 —

Subtotal: San

Diego 1528 616 726 55 1397 131

San Francisco

(1328)

Sacramento

Suboffice CA — 2518 —

San Francisco CA — 222 241 50 513 —

San Jose

Suboffice CA — — 448 —

Fresno CA — — 1 — 1 —

Oakland CA — — 5 11 16 —

Agana GUA — 66 — — 66 —

Honolulu HI — 164 109 53 326 —

Hilo HI — — 1 — 1 —

Kahului HI — — 1 — 1 —

Kailua Kona HI — 5 4 2 11 —

Reno NV — 1 2 — 3 —

Salt Lake City UT — 2 3 — 5 —

Subtotal:

San Francisco 1013 462 376 121 959 54

San Juan (1349)

Mayaguez PR — 8 12 3 23 —

Ponce PR — 3 7 4 14 —

Roosevelt Roads PR — 2 — — 2 —

San Juan PR — 115 155 57 327 —

Arecibo PR — — 1 — 1 —

Coloso PR — — 1 — 1 —

Culebra PR — — 1 — 1 —

Fajardo PR — — 5 — 5 —

Penuelas PR ——— 1 1 —

Rio Piedras PR — — 1 — 1 —

Salinas PR — — 2 — 2 —

Vieques PR — — 1 — 1 —

Charlotte Amalie VI — 36 9 — 45 —

Christiansted VI — 12 6 — 18 —

Cruz Bay VI — 3 2 — 5 —

St. John Is VI — — 2 — 2 —

112

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

St. Croix VI — — 10 5 15 —

St. Thomas VI — — 18 7 25 —

Subtotal:

San Juan 492 179 233 77 489 3

Seattle (1330)

Eastport ID — 11 20 — 31 —

Porthill ID — 10 7 — 17 —

Baudette MN — 6 11 — 17 —

Crane Lake MN — — 1 — 1 —

District Office:

St. Paul MN — 3 — — 3 —

Duluth MN — — 314 —

Grand Portage MN — 7 18 — 25 —

Intl. Falls MN — 22 43 1 66 —

Lancaster MN — 4 4 — 8 —

Noyes MN — 2 — — 2 —

OIC–Suboffice

SPO MN — 1 — — 1 —

Pinecreek MN — 4 — — 4 —

Roseau MN — 3 11 — 14 —

Warroad MN — 7 14 — 21 —

Babb MT — — 9 — 9 —

Butte MT — — 1 — 1 —

Cut Bank MT — — 1 — 1 —

Del Bonita MT — 4 — — 4 —

District Office:

Helena MT — 4 — — 4 —

Eureka MT — — 12 — 12 —

Great Falls MT — — 3 — 3 —

Havre MT — — 1 — 1 —

Kalispell MT — — 1 — 1 —

Morgan MT — 5 — — 5 —

Opheim MT — 5 — — 5 —

Piegan MT — 8 — — 8 —

Raymond MT — 12 17 — 29 —

Roosville MT — 10 — — 10 —

Scobey MT — 4 1 — 5 —

Sweetgrass MT — 17 46 3 66 —

Turner MT — 4 1 — 5 —

Whitetail MT — 1 1 — 2 —

Whitlash MT — 0 — — 0 —

Wild Horse MT — 5 — — 5 —

Willow Creek MT — 4 — — 4 —

Ambrose ND — 2 — — 2 —

Antler ND — 3 1 — 4 —

Carbury ND — 5 1 — 6 —

Dunseith ND — 6 20 — 26 —

Fargo ND — — 1 — 1 —

Fortuna ND — — 1 — 1 —

113

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Hannah ND — 4 1 — 5 —

Hansboro ND — 5 1 — 6 —

Maida ND — 4 1 — 5 —

Neche ND — 5 5 — 10 —

Noonan ND — 5 1 — 6 —

Northgate ND — 4 1 — 5 —

Pembina ND — 23 71 1 95 —

Portal ND — 10 39 — 49 —

Sarles ND — 1 1 — 2 —

Sherwood ND — 3 1 — 4 —

St. John ND — 4 1 — 5 —

Walhalla ND — 5 1 — 6 —

Westhope ND — 3 1 — 4 —

Anacortes WA — — 5 — 5 —

Bellingham WA — 3 5 — 8 —

Blaine WA — — 149 22 171 —

Boundary WA — 4 — — 4 —

Danville WA — 4 4 — 8 —

District Office:

Seattle WA 2 — — 2 —

Ferry WA — 1 — 2 3 —

Friday Harbor WA — 1 3 — 4 —

Frontier WA — 11 — — 11 —

Laurier WA — 5 3 — 8 —

Lynden WA — 15 19 — 34 —

Metaline Falls WA — 3 4 — 7 —

Moses Lake WA — — 1 — 1 —

Northport WA — — 6 — 6 —

Oroville WA — 19 22 1 42 —

Pacific Highway WA — 36 — — 36 —

Peace Arch WA — 44 — — 44 —

Point Roberts WA — 12 2 — 14 —

Port Angeles WA — 1 4 — 5 —

Port Townsend WA — — 1 — 1 —

Seattle/Seaport WA — 7 — 24 31 —

Seattle/Tacoma

Airport WA — 37 122 — 159 —

Spokane WA — 0 3 — 3 —

Sumas WA — 20 50 — 70 —

Tacoma WA — 4 24 — 28 —

Subtotal: Seattle 1402 484 802 55 1341 61

Tampa (1318)

Cape Canaveral FL — 16 15 3 34 —

Daytona Beach FL — — 1 — 1 —

Fernandina

Beach FL — — 1 — 1 —

Fort Myers FL — 4419 —

Jacksonville FL — 4 41 2 47 —

Melbourne FL — — 1 — 1 —

114

Attachment #2.—FY 2003 Customs and Border Protection: Report of

Inspectors; Sorted by Field Office, Port of Entry, and Legacy Agency—Continued

[As of End of FY 2003]

Field Office

& Port of Entry State

Field

Office

Authorized

Legacy

INS

On Board

Legacy

Customs

On Board

Legacy

AGI

On Board

Total

On Board

Total

Vacancies

Ocala FL — — 1 — 1 —

Orlando FL — 60 42 20 122 —

Panama City FL — 0112 —

Pensacola FL — — 1 — 1 —

Sanford FL — 21 7 2 30 —

Sarasota FL — — 1 — 1 —

St. Petersburg FL — — 2 — 2 —

Tampa FL — 29 36 4 69 —

Subtotal: Tampa 321 134 154 33 321 0

Tucson (1326)

Douglas AZ — 42 72 2 116 —

Lukeville AZ — 15 14 — 29 —

Naco AZ — 16 20 — 36 —

Nogales AZ — 107 214 25 346 —

Phoenix AZ — 22 18 7 47 —

San Luis AZ — 63 91 5 159 —

Sasabe AZ — 4 11 — 15 —

Tucson AZ — 4 9 2 15 —

Subtotal:

Tucson 790 273 449 41 763 27

Regional Offices 42 14 — — 14 28

Training

Academy — 0 — — 0 0

Headquarters 224 40 141 — 181 43

Grand Total 19,162 6,741 10,538 1,485 18,764 398

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

National Totals ...................................................................... 479,904,115 493,251,056 471,666,097 415,193,122 412North Atlantic CMC

—Boston ................................................ 15,271,379 15,270,045 14,465,950 12,401,346 12

Port of Portland, ME ............................................................. 97,218 139,873 132,078 161,212 Port of Jackman, ME ............................................................. 586,910 678,539 747,119 560,263 Port of Bangor, ME ............................................................... 31,973 31,853 25,597 37,448 Port of Bath, ME ...................................................................Port of Bar Harbor, ME ......................................................... 55,582 Port of Rockland, ME ............................................................Port of Portsmouth, NH ......................................................... 5,196 7,891 6,918 5,949 Port of Belfast, ME ............................................................... 127,940 115,050 125,524 43,021 Manchester User Fee Airport, NH .......................................... 248 730 1,018 730 Port of Houlton, ME ............................................................... 1,092,072 1,023,928 888,357 941,339 Port of Van Buren, ME .......................................................... 617,359 571,418 572,290 528,447 Port of Madawaska, ME ........................................................ 1,529,163 1,502,028 1,298,667 1,188,158 1Port of Fort Kent, ME ............................................................ 699,485 678,094 589,589 527,264 Port of Fort Fairfield, ME ...................................................... 523,009 465,910 422,582 383,078 Port of Limestone, ME ........................................................... 116,414 110,897 118,556 137,468 Port of Bridgewater, ME ........................................................ 265,817 192,800 167,144 146,895 Port of Calais, ME ................................................................. 3,366,209 3,400,087 3,161,446 2,083,870 2Port of Eastport, ME ............................................................. 560,199 574,989 532,641 454,162 Port of Vanceboro, ME .......................................................... 95,105 147,447 144,681 122,837 Port of Jonesport, ME ............................................................Port of St. Albans, VT ........................................................... 14,933 Port of Highgate Springs/Alburg, VT .................................... 1,168,806 1,220,791 1,247,205 1,203,572 1Port of Richford, VT .............................................................. 297,673 295,728 278,518 257,333 

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Burlington, VT ........................................................... 5,256 6,220 5,335 5,105 Port of Derby Line, VT ........................................................... 1,863,366 1,759,129 1,723,816 1,536,398 1Port of Norton, VT ................................................................. 197,345 234,863 183,244 180,068 Port of Beecher Falls, VT ...................................................... 228,779 214,382 191,006 209,775 Lebanon User Fee Airport, NH ............................................... 465 26 21Port of North Troy, VT ...........................................................Port of Boston, MA ................................................................ 47,685 73,299 86,794 74,541 Logan Airport, MA ................................................................. 1,722,012 1,794,628 1,773,563 1,527,044 1Port of Springfield, MA ......................................................... 220 161 17 51Port of Worcester, MA ........................................................... 250 232 397 293 Port of Gloucester, MA .......................................................... 1,716 2,109 1,991 2,626 Port of New Bedford, MA ...................................................... 2,549 2,967 3,591 3,602 Port of Plymouth, MA ............................................................ 144 750 270 195 Port of Fall River, MA ........................................................... 66 163 37 93 Port of Salem, MA ................................................................. 303 125 220Port of Lawrence, MA ............................................................ 62 136 97 100 Port of Provincetown, MA ......................................................Port of Hartford, CT .............................................................. 16,032 17,678 12,056 14,664 Port of Bridgeport, CT ........................................................... 340 316 296 162 Port of New Haven, CT .......................................................... 369 336 588 417 Port of New London, CT ........................................................ 1,067 411 957 350 Port of Providence, RI ........................................................... 1,498 1,267 3,898 6,215 Port of Newport, RI ............................................................... 1,044 2,794 2,893 1,019 EAST GREAT LAKES CMC

—Buffalo ....................................... 30,515,499 30,939,591 30,094,389 29,777,568 26

Port of Buffalo, NY ................................................................ 20,168,171 20,141,564 20,683,033 19,838,233 17

Port of Rochester, NY ............................................................ 5,048 5,677 4,833 2,144 TNT Skypak, Buffalo, NY .......................................................Port of Oswego, NY ............................................................... 2,444 2,460 2,547 1,923 Port of Syracuse, NY ............................................................. 5,791 4,071 3,762 3,326 Port of Utica, NY ...................................................................Binghampton User Fee Airport, Syracuse, NY ...................... 806 738 485 Port of Champlain-Rouses Point, NY .................................... 3,564,928 3,700,556 3,558,376 4,423,403 4Port of Trout River, Champlain, NY ...................................... 475,756 593,841 396,940 377,130 Port of Albany, NY ................................................................. 2,631 2,246 2,415 2,780 Port of Ogdensburg, NY ........................................................ 723,988 795,573 560,626 639,028 Port of Massena, NY ............................................................. 3,290,566 3,301,420 2,614,673 2,387,370 2Port of Alexandria Bay, NY ................................................... 2,275,725 2,391,377 2,266,446 2,101,746 1MID-ATLANTIC CMC

—Baltimore ........................................... 3,433,843 3,682,557 3,987,844 3,742,790 4

Port of Philadelphia, PA ........................................................ 17,174 18,138 13,164 14,155 Philadelphia International Airport, PA .................................. 917,996 968,252 1,138,238 1,141,374 1Port of Chester, PA/Wilmington, DE ...................................... 1,366 1,183 1,460 1,932 Port of Chester, PA ...............................................................Atlantic City User Fee Airport, NJ ......................................... 1,060 1,359 769 332 UPS Courier Philadelphia, PA ............................................... 1,604 1,742 3,361 3,825 Allentown, PA ........................................................................ 1,180 758 960 2,520 Port of Pittsburgh, PA ........................................................... 254,402 231,631 270,551 229,345 Trenton/Mercer User Fee Airport, NJ ..................................... 425 1,260 1,403 Port of Harrisburg, PA ........................................................... 3,528 2,524 2,987 1,511 Port of Wilkes Barre/Scranton, PA ........................................ 612 752 662 757 Port of Baltimore, MD ........................................................... 1,474 331 6,420 201 Port of Annapolis, MD ...........................................................BWI Airport, Baltimore, MD ................................................... 306,279 314,732 382,702 335,593 Port of Alexandria, VA ........................................................... 4,657 1,825 1,437 119Port of Washington, DC ........................................................ 1,922,511 2,138,388 2,163,873 2,009,723 2NEW YORK CMC

—New York ................................................. 14,252,757 15,143,391 14,017,278 11,561,856 12

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of JFK Airport, NY .......................................................... 9,898,560 10,327,062 9,577,663 7,867,512 8Federal Express Corp (JFK), NY .............................................NYACC. JFK Int’l Airport, NY .................................................

DHL Airways, JFK Int’l Airport, NY ........................................Emery Worldwide, JFK Int’l Airport, NY .................................

Air France (Mach Plus), JFK Int’l Airpot, NY ........................Dworkin/Cosell Courier, JFK Int’l Airport, NY ........................Swiss Air, JFK Int’l Airport, NY .............................................Alitalia (Aliexpress), JFK Int’l Airport, NY .............................

TNT Skypak, JFK Int’l Airport, NY ..........................................Port of New York, NY ............................................................ 247,015 320,047 240,039 277,500 Port of New York-Newark, Elizabeth, NJ ............................... 4,103,574 4,492,593 4,196,245 3,413,763 3Port of Perth Amboy, NJ ........................................................ 1,346 964 724 101 UPS (Newark), Elizabeth, NJ .................................................Morristown Airport, Elizabeth, NJ .......................................... 2,262 2,725 2,607 2,980 Federal Express ECCF, Elizabeth, NJ ....................................

SOUTH ATLANTIC CMC

—Atlanta ........................................... 3,066,117 3,515,550 3,551,972 3,301,175 3

Port of Norfolk, VA ................................................................ 46,149 51,641 48,605 66,975 Port of Newport News, VA ..................................................... 12,704 7,812 3,992 5,692 Port of Richmond/Petersburg, VA ......................................... 5,914 5,466 4,412 3,899 Port of Charleston, WV .......................................................... 718 724 672 755 Port of Front Royal, VA .........................................................New River Valley User Fee Airport, Dublin, VA ..................... 81 73 82 Port of Charlotte, NC ............................................................ 277,061 380,859 431,613 307,137 Port of Wilmington, NC ......................................................... 7,879 9,242 9,682 10,372 

Port of Beaufort-Morehead, NC ............................................. 14,549 18,994 8,561 16,099 Port of Durham, NC .............................................................. 70,604 70,610 65,259 65,596 Port of Winston Salem, NC ................................................... 1,083 939 989 3,187 Port of Charleston, SC .......................................................... 6,752 15,712 25,695 23,103 Port of Greenville/Spartanburg, SC ....................................... 1,901 2,771 1,518 2,814 Port of Georgetown, SC ......................................................... 79 23 44 266 Port of Columbia, SC ............................................................ 1,647 1,187 500 492 Port of Savannah, GA ........................................................... 2,890 5,001 4,028 2,118 Port of Brunswick, GA ........................................................... 3,088 1,933 1,006 1,015 Port of Atlanta, GA ................................................................ 2,612,712 2,941,488 2,944,991 2,790,937 2NORTH FLORIDA CMC

—Tampa ............................................. 3,151,528 3,613,679 3,318,158 3,019,563 3

Port of Tampa, FL ................................................................. 360,837 343,823 394,920 386,517 Port of St. Petersburg, FL ..................................................... 118,344 78,509 72,002 16,810 Port of Manatee, FL .............................................................. 26,063 46,781 48,345 51,210 Port of Ft. Myers, FL ............................................................. 24,690 62,726 61,053 22,576 SW. Florida Regional Airport, Ft. Myers, FL .......................... 40,550 736 876 1,109 Sarasota Bradeton Airport, Sarasota, FL .............................. 2,951 22 4,686 57 Port of Orlando, FL ................................................................ 1,077,155 1,134,713 957,781 660,123 Port of Port Canaveral, FL .................................................... 974,764 1,439,073 1,249,400 1,341,212 1Sanford Regional Airport, FL ................................................. 457 Daytona Beach Regional Airport, FL ..................................... 10,966 11,264 8,089 8,449 Melbourne Regional Airport, FL ............................................. 221 1,310 1,680 3,781 Sanford-Orlando Int’l Airport, Sanford, FL ............................ 458,156 442,508 465,096 467,778 Port of Jacksonville, FL ......................................................... 44,213 41,897 44,044 48,941 Port of Fernandina, FL .......................................................... 6,529 5,376 5,538 5,188 Port of Panama City, FL ....................................................... 4,047 3,518 3,156 2,674 Port of Pensacola, FL ............................................................ 1,566 1,318 1,370 3,056 Ocala Regional Airport, FL .................................................... 8 66 86 82 

SOUTH FLORIDA CMC

—Miami .............................................. 14,777,974 12,974,382 13,563,043 13,019,133 14

Miami Airport, FL .................................................................. 8,369,505 8,314,194 8,079,088 7,266,908 7

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Fort Pierce, FL ........................................................... 17,675 17,434 15,550 15,943 International Courier Association, Miami, FL .......................DHL Worldwide Express, Miami, FL .......................................MIA/CFS Exp Consig Facil, Miami, FL ...................................UPS Miami International Airport, Miami, FL .........................Port of Miami, FL .................................................................. 1,585,472 1,608,171 2,332,493 2,285,511 2Port of Port Everglades, FL ................................................... 1,878,378 1,892,019 1,662,927 1,783,454 2Port of West Palm Beach, FL ................................................ 94,732 114,715 93,411 93,244 Port of Key West, FL .............................................................. 973,097 958,150 885,081 1,207,716 1Miami Seaport Alternate, Miami, FL .....................................Ft. Lauderdale Intl. Airport, FL ............................................. 69,699 494,493 366,357 CARIBBEAN CMC

—San Juan ................................................ 3,219,189 3,500,223 3,817,388 3,888,511 5

Port of Aguadilla, PR ............................................................ 5,003 7,196 5,600 3,843 Port of Fajardo, PR ............................................................... 50,806 47,804 43,678 33,594 Port of Mayaguez, PR ............................................................ 23,569 27,575 47,541 74,481 Port of Ponce, PR .................................................................. 1,889 1,712 3,504 6,553 Port of San Juan, PR ............................................................ 629,602 699,021 956,993 1,355,000 1International Airport, Old San Juan, PR ............................... 1,264,001 1,409,354 1,371,418 1,182,893 1Guanica, PR ..........................................................................Port of Charlotte Amalie, VI .................................................. 317,548 243,938 181,365 138,079 1Port of Cruz Bay, VI .............................................................. 146,683 138,031 134,914 148,580 Port of Christiansted, VI ....................................................... 128,178 230,167 363,963 244,285 Pre-Clearance, St. Croix , VI ................................................. 186,421 187,726 185,282 176,956 Pre-Clearance, St. Thomas , VI ............................................ 465,489 507,699 523,130 524,247 

GULF CMC

—New Orleans ..................................................... 394,929 423,691 390,418 453,287 

Port of Morgan City, LA ........................................................ 22,517 19,776 16,250 15,921 Port of New Orleans, LA ........................................................ 166,123 224,778 210,168 239,382 Port of Little Rock, AK .......................................................... 109 133 177 271 Port of Baton Rouge, LA ....................................................... 10,453 3,226 210 166 Port of Memphis, TN ............................................................. 115,040 118,745 116,930 150,176 Port of Nashville, TN ............................................................. 2,6632 24,165 18,992 9,569 Port of Chattanooga, TN ....................................................... 298 319 228 446 Port of Gramercy, LA ............................................................. 310 351 316 183 Port of Vicksburg, MS ........................................................... 278 239 185 368 Port of Knoxville, TN .............................................................. 532 382 273 414 Port of Lake Charles, LA ....................................................... 21,114 2,583 2,027 937 Port of Shreveport/Bosier City, LA ........................................ 3,997 3,886 801 941 Port of Jackson Airport, MS .................................................. 96 130 153 113 Tri-City Airport, Blountville, TN ............................................. 212 263 454 722 FEDEX Courier, Memphis, TN ................................................ 10,723 12,464 12,561 9,985 Arkansas Aeroplex User Fee Airport, AR ...............................Port of Mobile, AL ................................................................. 2,911 1,384 2,285 15,342 Port of Gulfport, MS .............................................................. 3,159 901 802 1,076 Port of Pascagoula, MS ........................................................ 2,565 2,344 2,432 1,835 Port of Birmingham, AL ........................................................ 5,242 4,980 2,738 2,771 Port of Huntsville, AL ............................................................ 2,618 2,642 2,436 2,669 MID-AMERICA CMC

—Chicago .............................................. 15,339,328 6,441,804 6,333,382 5,451,645 5

Port of Chicago, IL ................................................................ 4,124,875 4,557,948 4,573,343 3,799,223 3Port of Peoria, IL ................................................................... 994 658 613 682 Port of Omaha, NE ................................................................ 662 1,070 1,158 2,213 Ohare International Airport, Chicago, IL ...............................Port of Des Moines, IA .......................................................... 482 635 728 1,316 Port of Davenport/Rock Island/Moline, IL ............................. 34 83 250 181 Waukegan Regional Airport, Chicago, IL .............................. 502 736 935 801 Greater Rockford Airport, Rockford, IL .................................. 416 291

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Pal-Waukee Airport, Wheeling, IL .......................................... 511 1,734 1,549 1,702 Nippon Courier Hub, Chicago, IL ..........................................Rockford Airport, IL ............................................................... 414 292 412 587 Midway Int’l Airport, Chicago, IL .......................................... 1,743 95,207 Dupage User Fee Airport, West Chicago, IL ......................... 111 821 805 1,036 Decatur User Fee Airport, IL ................................................. 150 287 274 Port of Cleveland, OH ........................................................... 69,832 100,706 101,043 65,878 Port of Ashtabula/Conneaut, OH ........................................... 13,160 11,882 Port of Erie, PA ..................................................................... 3,986 3,902 3,594 3,633 Port of Owensboro, KY/Evansville, IN ...................................Port of Akron, OH .................................................................. 1,193 1,106 1,156 1,093 Port of Cincinnati, Lawrenceburg, IN ................................... 449,090 412,297 298,369 326,247 DHL Courier, Cincinnati, OH ................................................. 1,640 2,730 3,523 3,930 Port of Columbus, OH ........................................................... 11,296 11,798 12,259 11,112 Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus, OH .................................... 141 30 157 Port of Dayton, OH ................................................................ 3,856 3,101 1,854 2,200 Airborne Air Park, Wilmington, OH ........................................ 1,955 1,690 1,552Emery Courier, Dayton, OH .................................................... 6,830 7,403 6,544 3,962 Port of Indianapolis, IN ......................................................... 47,310 47,597 51,473 50,358 Port of For Wayne Airport, IN ................................................ 1,750 1,651 1,424 1,009 Port of Louisville, KY ............................................................. 1,178 2,170 1,316 884 Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, KY ......................................... 33 472 511 635 UPS Courier, Louisville, KY ................................................... 3,112 2,825 3,316 3,119 Port of Toledo/Sandusky, OH ................................................. 14,659 35,989 29,095 31,267 Port of Sandusky, OH ............................................................ 789Burlington Air Express, Toledo, OH ....................................... 2,426

Burlington Air Express Hub, Toledo, OH ............................... 3,550 3,947 3,197 Federal Express Hub, Indianapolis, IN .................................. 775 915 1,492 779 Airborne Courier Hub, Wilmington, OH ................................. 1,597 Port of Milwaukee, WI ........................................................... 48,799 48,107 54,699 57,139 Port of Marinette, WI ............................................................. 610 575 600 820 Port of Green Bay, WI ........................................................... 2,285 2,109 2,083 2,500 Port of Manitowoc, WI ........................................................... 11Port of Sheboygan, WI ...........................................................Port of Racine, WI ................................................................. 264 451 550 444 Port of Minneapolis, MN ....................................................... 829,395 890,950 863,737 739,976 Rochester User Fee Airport, MN ............................................ 374 908 737 939 Port of Sioux Falls, SD .......................................................... 2,242 2,287 1,887 2,267 Port of St. Louis, MO ............................................................ 238,187 263,622 264,728 202,851 Port of Springfield, MO ......................................................... 245 163 258 355 Port of Wichita, KA ................................................................ 1,343 2,878 4,223 2,660 Port of Kansas City, MO ....................................................... 33,986 25,293 22,057 15,121 Port of Spirit of St. Louis, MO .............................................. 309 293 WEST GREAT LAKES CMC

—Detroit ....................................... 33,389,092 38,382,135 31,993,695 23,676,485 22

Port of Detroit, MI ................................................................. 22,685,595 25,657,300 23,066,299 16,074,309 14Oakland/Pontiac Airport, Detroit, MI ..................................... 3,502 3,454 3,141 3,055 Willow Run Airport, Ypsilanti, MI .......................................... 597 778 963 Detroit Metropolitan Airport .................................................. 1Port of Sault Sainte Marie, MI .............................................. 3,920,555 4,435,217 2,606,768 2,060,759 2Port of Escanaba, MI ............................................................Port of Mackinac Isle, MI ......................................................Port of Grand Rapids, MI ...................................................... 7,177 8,547 5,948 5,695 Port of Battle Creek, MI ........................................................ 1,649 1,498 1,905 1,865 Port of Saginaw/Bay City/Flint, MI ....................................... 3,999 4,279 4,340 3,974 Port of Muskegon, MI ............................................................Port of Port Huron, MI ........................................................... 6,766,586 8,271,243 6,304,516 5,525,865 5

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Algonac, MI ...............................................................EAST TEXAS CMC

—Houston ................................................. 4,513,256 4,977,497 5,203,799 4,838,113 4

Port of Houston, TX ............................................................... 77,205 97,868 161,626 231,533 Houston Intercontinental Airport, TX ..................................... 2,378,482 2,656,873 2,774,955 2,691,220 2Port of Galveston, TX ............................................................ 2,835 1,252 256 274 Port of Texas City, TX ...........................................................Port of Freeport, TX ............................................................... 287 488 463 509 Port of Port Arthur, TX .......................................................... 49 40 271 41,757 Port of Beaumont, TX ............................................................Port of Port Lavaca, TX ......................................................... 320 50 80 1,168 Port of Corpus Christi, TX ..................................................... 1,818 584 2,184 5,519 Port of Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX .................................................. 2,049,669 2,215,224 2,258,993 1,861,923 1Midland Airport, TX ............................................................... 613 372 387 349 Addison Airport, Dallas, TX ................................................... 577 2,219 1,519 1,692 Fort Worth Alliance Airport, TX ............................................. 54 425 462 440 Port of Amarillo, TX ............................................................... 10 64 94 97 Port of Lubbock, TX ............................................................... 75 24 40 82 Port of Oklahoma City, OK .................................................... 268 964 1,250 889 Port of Tulsa, OK ................................................................... 820 1,050 1,219 661 SOUTH TEXAS CMC

—Laredo ................................................. 107,074,542 105,021,530 96,205,915 87,113,236 84

Port of Laredo, TX ................................................................. 25,584,455 25,223,807 25,996,152 22,175,729 22Port of Del Rio, TX ................................................................ 6,185,883 6,300,780 4,750,624 4,883,922 4Port of Eagle Pass, TX .......................................................... 8,028,121 9,608,956 9,593,065 9,806,065 9Port of Roma, TX ................................................................... 5,157,288 5,296,982 4,479,956 3,826,185 3

Port of Rio Grande City, TX .................................................. 2,587,394 2,558,389 2,275,470 2,700,494 2Port of Hidalgo, TX ................................................................ 32,362,499 28,282,474 22,687,793 20,232,325 19Port of Progreso, TX .............................................................. 4,574,584 4,553,650 4,487,126 4,339,723 4Port of Brownsville, TX .......................................................... 22,446,293 23,035,546 21,776,588 19,014,143 18Port of San Antonio,TX .......................................................... 133,689 144,710 141,087 119,868 Port of Austin, TX .................................................................. 14,336 16,236 18,054 14,782 WEST TEXAS/NEW MEXICO CMC

—El Paso ........................... 57,460,944 61,194,899 56,694,883 42,141,131 41

Port of El Paso, TX ................................................................ 52,118,723 55,255,832 51,295,486 36,443,526 36Port of Presidio, TX ............................................................... 2,016,187 2,007,443 1,867,851 1,818,696 1Port of Fabens, TX ................................................................ 2,135,911 2,097,280 1,989,080 1,847,469 1Port of Columbus, NM ........................................................... 1,016,923 1,624,295 1,203,051 1,154,676 1Port of Albuquerque, NM ....................................................... 1,162 1,044 1,844 1,259 Port of Santa Teresa, NM ..................................................... 156,760 208,549 337,117 875,156 Port of Santa Teresa Airport ................................................. 15,278 456 454 349 ARIZONA CMC

—Tucson ........................................................ 34,520,599 35,952,803 34,205,867 37,193,881 35

Port of Douglas, AZ ............................................................... 6,558,323 6,880,304 5,800,521 8,754,639 6Port of Lukeville, AZ .............................................................. 1,472,346 1,257,372 1,431,679 1,386,963 1Port of Naco, AZ .................................................................... 908,154 978,901 964,705 930,849 1Port of Nogales, AZ ............................................................... 15,174,299 17,074,824 15,363,834 14,687,826 15Port of Phoenix, AZ ............................................................... 397,777 458,729 506,587 495,109 Port of Sasabe, AZ ................................................................ 97,857 95,646 96,592 111,524 Port of San Luis, AZ ............................................................. 9,873,359 9,171,062 10,011,133 10,799,854 9Port of Tucson, AZ ................................................................ 38,484 35,452 29,786 26,125 Scottsdale User Free Airport, AZ ........................................... 513 1,030 992 Williams Gateway User Fee Airport, Mesa, AZ ..................... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CMC

—San Diego ............................ 95,780,599 95,492,433 98,946,655 85,732,767 90

Port of San Ysidro, CA .......................................................... 41,413,098 39,569,663 47,936,872 42,265,083 47Port of Otay Mesa , CA ......................................................... 11,357,380 12,780,553 11,069,117 11,364,297 12Port of San Diego, CA ........................................................... 278,306 298,798 338,745 377,677 

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Tecate, CA ................................................................. 3,465,212 3,650,752 2,887,611 2,779,776 3Port of Calexico, CA .............................................................. 29,434,800 28,276,782 25,074,265 18,735,914 16Port of Andrade, CA .............................................................. 3,397,050 3,580,525 3,358,839 3,137,651 3Port of Calexico East, CA ...................................................... 6,434,753 7,335,360 8,281,206 7,072,369 6SOUTH PACIFIC CMC

—Los Angeles ...................................... 8,782,667 9,820,664 9,635,201 8,213,662 8

Port of Los Angeles, CA ........................................................ 941,228 1,111,185 931,168 810,012 1Port of Long Beach, CA ........................................................ 599Port of Port Hueneme, San Pedro, CA .................................. 7,129 7,667 7,038 10,669 Port of Port San Luis Obispo, CA .........................................Port of Segundo, CA ..............................................................Port of LAX, Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 7,580,488 8,405,521 8,368,864 7,126,242 7Port of Ontario Int’l Airport, Los Angeles, CA ...................... 198 377 10,288 19,336 

Port of Las Vegas, NV ........................................................... 252,409 294,713 316,633 246,089 DHL (LAX), Los Angeles, CA ..................................................Gateway Freight Ser. Inc, Los Angeles, CA ..........................International Bonded Courier, Los Angeles, CA ....................Virgin Atlantic Cargo, Los Angeles, CA ................................UPS Ontario, Los Angeles, CA ............................................... 281 394 284 275 Port of Palm Springs, Los Angeles, CA ................................ 335 757 871 953 TNT Express, LAX, Los Angeles, CA ......................................Southern Calif. Logistics Airport, Victorville, CA .................. 50 55 86 San Bernadino User Fee Airport, CA ..................................... 

MID-PACIFIC CMC

—San Francisco ....................................... 6,597,151 7,014,660 6,931,112 5,995,546 5

San Francisco International Airport, CA ............................... 3,307,795 3,699,556 3,808,868 3,324,888 3

Port of San Francisco, CA ..................................................... 37,387 27,999 34,622 44,793 Port of Reno, NV ................................................................... 649 3,062 2,310 885 Port of Fresno, CA ................................................................. 19 188 69 10Port of Eureka, CA ................................................................ 1,086 719 526 662 Port of Salt Lake City, UT ..................................................... 23,675 21,314 30,256 31,311 Port of Monterey, CA .............................................................Port of Oakland, CA .............................................................. 85,963 74,083 55,238 104,058 Port of San Jose, CA ............................................................. 159,965 163,646 216,722 147,003 DHL Worldwide Express, San Francisco, CA .........................Aircargo Handling Service, San Francisco, CA .....................TNT Skypak, San Francisco, CA ............................................FEDEX Courier Hub Facility, Oakland, CA .............................IBC Pacific, Burlingame, CA .................................................Sacramento, CA ..................................................................... 50 55 135 57 Port of Honolulu, HI .............................................................. 90,412 124,643 89,303 79,241 Port of Hilo, HI ...................................................................... 64,307 40,254 243 1,112 Port of Kahului, HI ................................................................ 6,856 1,288 1,984 4,281 Port of Nawiliwili-Port Allen, HI ............................................ 37,674 62,791 13 Honolulu International Airport, HI ......................................... 2,688,519 2,710,113 2,603,268 2,190,256 2Port of Kailua-Kona, HI ......................................................... 92,274 84,949 87,555 66,989 NORTHWEST GREAT PLAINS CMC

—Seattle .......................... 26,959,252 26,049,912 24,478,093 21,274,248 19

Port of Seattle, WA ................................................................ 214,561 279,289 301,588 Airport Inspection Branch (SEATAC), Seattle, WA ................ 922,184 923,884 855,454 Port of Spokane, WA ............................................................. 8,858 8,899 5,286 Yakima Airport, WA ............................................................... 1Grant County User Fee Airport, Moses Lake, WA .................. 260 608 176 Port of Kenmore Air Harbor, Seattle, WA ..............................UPS, Seattle, WA ...................................................................Port of Avion Brokers, Seattle, WA, ......................................DHL Worldwide Express, Seattle, WA ....................................Port of Tacoma, WA .............................................................. 22,070 20,151 20,059 

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Aberdeen, WA ............................................................ 30 14 1 Port of Everett, WA ................................................................ 7,176 5,875 1,776 Port of Port Angeles, WA ....................................................... 313,335 307,917 285,957 Port of Port Townsend, WA ................................................... 1,018 784 712 Port of Olympia, WA .............................................................. 253 516 352 Neah Bay, WA ........................................................................Airborne Express SEATAC, Seattle, WA .................................UPS Courier HUB, Seattle, WA ..............................................Port of Blaine, WA ................................................................. 9,504,549 9,319,177 8,751,886 5,495,810 5Port of Oroville, WA ............................................................... 607,283 592,659 576,971 574,944 Port of Boundary, WA ............................................................ 78,256 71,904 90,484 73,811 Port of Danville, WA .............................................................. 128,570 137,339 134,053 106,737 Port of Ferry, WA ................................................................... 30,317 26,415 29,054 27,585 Port of Frontier, WA ............................................................... 126,899 110,610 110,390 103,907 Port of Laurier, WA ................................................................ 125,901 122,729 123,816 97,881 Port of Metaline Falls, WA .................................................... 81,639 80,600 81,602 73,269 Port of Nighthawk, WA .......................................................... 16,348 15,987 12,641 12,305 Port of Sumas, WA ................................................................ 2,286,081 2,264,737 1,916,030 1Port of Bellingham, WA ......................................................... 15,861 12,525 52,093 Port of Anacortes, WA ........................................................... 115,075 119,505 121,972 Port of Friday Harbor, WA ..................................................... 48,575 42,453 37,827 Port of Point Roberts, WA ..................................................... 1,697,067 1,645,188 1,320,372 1Port of Lynden, WA ................................................................ 1,479,860 1,394,663 1,312,636 1Port of Great Falls, MT ......................................................... 43,247 32,895 3,247 Port of Butte, MT .................................................................. 312 334 185 Port of Eastport, ID ............................................................... 349,233 299,234 271,516 

Port of Piegan, MT ................................................................ 448,210 412,076 401,444 Port of Porthill, ID ................................................................. 256,379 288,803 226,218 Port of Roosville, MT ............................................................. 322,829 242,476 277,670 Port of Missoula City Airport, MT .........................................Port of Kalispell, MT ............................................................. 981 1,014 643 Port of Raymond, MT ............................................................ 99,612 92,461 87,082 Port of Scobey, MT ................................................................ 14,696 15,420 13,858 Port of Whitetail, MT ............................................................. 12,391 11,521 10,925 Port of Opheim, MT ............................................................... 13,685 14,235 12,161 Port of Sweetgrass, MT ......................................................... 939,250 766,593 1,924,416 Port of Turner, MT ................................................................. 15,932 13,126 11,606 Port of Morgan, MT ............................................................... 16,627 17,295 12,676 Port of Whitlash, MT ............................................................. 2,953 2,759 2,759 Port of Del Bonita, MT .......................................................... 66,759 40,906 45,785 Port of Wildhorse, MT ............................................................ 20,571 43,512 Port of International Falls/Ranier, MN .................................. 1,454,414 1,389,293 1,239,368 1Port of Baudette, MN ............................................................ 521,770 464,019 483,224 Port of Warroad, MN ............................................................. 447,124 435,308 397,972 Port of Grand Portage, MN ................................................... 775,062 518,607 532,186 Port of Pembina, ND ............................................................. 1,123,526 1,020,220 1,020,743 Port of Noyes, ND .................................................................. 143,135 159,374 71,355 Port of Duluth, MN ................................................................ 32,240 15,813 12,765 Port of Ashland, WI ...............................................................Port of Superior, WI ...............................................................Grand Forks Airport, ND ........................................................ 713 769 2,137 Port of Portal, ND .................................................................. 375,932 328,358 341,890 Port of St. John, ND .............................................................. 76,315 75,308 68,878 Port of Northgate, ND ........................................................... 44,301 42,832 33,472 Port of Ambrose, ND ............................................................. 13,034 8,855 5,099 Port of Antler, ND .................................................................. 30,148 27,953 26,544 Port of Sherwood, ND ............................................................ 31,341 24,882 23,765 Port of Hansboro, ND ............................................................ 32,223 28,574 23,615 

Attachment #3.

—Workload Figures at Ports of Entry for FY 1999 to FY 2003

—Continued

Total Passengers and Pedestrians

Location FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 0

Port of Fortuna, ND ............................................................... 31,327 26,932 28,288 Port of Westhope, ND ............................................................ 29,595 34,023 44,819 Port of Noonan, ND ............................................................... 64,550 60,155 58,909 Port of Carbury, ND ............................................................... 33,934 34,090 27,730 Port of Dunseith, ND ............................................................. 202,927 200,413 176,168 Port of Roseau, MN ............................................................... 109,821 107,068 89,295 Port of Neche, ND ................................................................. 110,577 100,327 111,966 Port of Walhalla, ND ............................................................. 63,681 64,708 73,052 Port of Hannah, ND ............................................................... 14,153 19,574 17,618 Port of Sarles, ND ................................................................. 14,478 19,058 20,997 Port of Maida, ND ................................................................. 41,384 41,579 41,985 Port of Pinecreek, MN ........................................................... 16,735 17,466 18,804 Hector User Fee Airport, Fargo, ND ....................................... 2,691 2,911 3,486 Lancaster, MN ....................................................................... 133,875 NORTH PACIFIC CMC

—Portland ........................................... 1,403,461 1,519,036 1,128,649 1,145,094 1

Port of Portland, OR .............................................................. 250,994 169,741 80,656 8,109 Portland International Airport, OR ........................................ 2,394Port of Longview, WA ............................................................ 167 238 194 186 Port of Boise, ID .................................................................... 1,132 1,104 1,070 1,536 Port of Astoria, OR ................................................................ 162 175 71 125 Port of Coos Bay, OR ............................................................ 1,255 1,249 1,098 727 Port of Newport, OR .............................................................. 69 235 229 357 Rogue Valley-Medford, Medford/Jackson, OR ........................ 53 73 247 210 Port of Vancouver, WA ..........................................................Port of Kalama, WA ...............................................................

Kingsley Field User Fee Airport, Klamath Falls, OR .............Port of Anchorage, AK ........................................................... 235,774 287,744 125,817 141,483 Port of Juneau, AK ................................................................ 14,889 153,106 12,680 2,660 Port of Ketchikan, AK ............................................................ 151,928 130,229 138,082 213,957 Port of Skagway, AK .............................................................. 254,612 268,931 248,098 247,139 Port of Alcan, AK ................................................................... 162,583 154,141 142,191 148,332 Port of Wrangell, AK .............................................................. 5,610 1,342 1,120 1,537 Port of Valdez, AK ................................................................. 436 476 125 189 Port of Dalton Cache, AK ...................................................... 40,484 47,743 49,014 47,839 Port of Fairbanks, AK ............................................................ 7,866 7,312 8,145 10,698 Saint Paul Airport, Anchorage, AK ........................................ 41 5 32Port of Sitka, AK ................................................................... 447 411 337 1,760 FEDEX Courier Hub Facility, Anchorage, AK ......................... 6,146 6,141 6,194 5,943 UPS Courier Hub Facility, Anchorage, AK ............................. 3,936 4,499 5,306 5,076 Port of Denver, CO ................................................................ 261,751 282,112 306,910 304,941 Natrona County Int’l Airport, Casper, WY ............................. 494 585 351 741 Jefferson Country Airport, Broomfield, CO ............................ 238 402 218 732 Arapahoe County Airport, Englewood, CO ............................. 1,042 464 817 PRECLEARANCE OPERATIONS CMC ....................................... 12,320,530 12,702,346 11,252,036 11Kindley Field, Bermuda ......................................................... 323,088 380,785 346,412 Freeport, Bahamas ................................................................ 318,027 372,059 349,068 Nassau, Bahamas ................................................................. 1,278,464 1,258,091 1,100,619 1Aruba, Miami, FL ................................................................... 251,963 541,086 494,778 Vancouver, Canada Preclearance ......................................... 2,068,395 2,064,671 1,904,495 2Edmonton, Canada Preclearance .......................................... 245,814 267,601 200,431 Montreal, Canada Preclearance ............................................ 1,532,035 1,482,292 1,339,176 1Winnepeg, Canada Preclearance .......................................... 209,572 206,282 163,824 Toronto, Canada Preclearance .............................................. 4,854,284 4,901,616 4,194,927 3Calgary, Canada Preclearance .............................................. 838,664 848,037 827,657 Ottawa, Canada Preclearance .............................................. 400,224 379,826 330,649 

132

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY C. STEWART

VERDERY, JR. BY SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Question. With 80% of the U.S. border crossings through land ports of entry, security of the entry process at these ports is critical. What steps is the Department of

Homeland Security taking to do security name checks and Congressionally mandated document verification for those seeking entry without passports because they

claim Canadian or U.S. citizenship or resident status and are thus exempt from

passport requirements?

Answer. The great majority of persons arriving at land border ports are residents

of the border areas who cross frequently and who are familiar with requirements

concerning their entry into the United States. Consequently, at land border portsof-entry, a screening procedure has been established to rapidly inspect applicants

for admission, passing those found readily admissible and referring for further action those requiring more detailed examination. Without an efficient primary inspection, it would be impossible to process the great volume of applicants at large land

border ports or utilize manpower effectively at the smaller ports. The effectiveness

of inspections at such ports is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of the primary

inspector. Despite the limited time devoted to each inspection, primary officers at

land borders intercept a high volume of fraudulent documents and false claims to

U.S. citizenship. CBP inspectional procedures differ between the northern and

southern borders, reflecting differences in regulations governing entry documentation. While the actual procedures may differ, the inspection process itself does not—

each application for admission is carefully reviewed by a CBP officer who must be

fully satisfied that the person making application is entitled to enter the United

States.

In determining which oral claims to accept, a CBP officer may rely on the confidence of the applicant’s demeanor and language ability. Veteran officers develop

questioning and recognition skills. Each adult applying for admission is questioned

as to citizenship. An officer may require documentary proof of citizenship at any

time.

In order to properly screen arriving persons and vehicles entering at Canadian or

Mexican border ports-of-entry, a license plate number is entered into the IBIS computer on the primary line. Automatic license plate readers (LPRs) have been installed at the majority of the land border crossings. These LPRs are designed to

automatically capture and transmit license plate data from vehicles processed at the

land border to TECS.

It is current CBP policy for all officers on the land border to perform a 100%

query of the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) on all arriving private

and commercial vehicle license plates including buses, tractor-trailers and taxi cabs.

IBIS checks are performed for all adults applying for admission at land border pedestrian primary stations, where local managers deem appropriate. IBIS checks are

mandatory for all applicants for admission, who are referred to secondary inspection. Discretion must be exercised consistent with existing threat levels when less

than 100% IBIS checks are to be performed. Local CBP management officials should

coordinate to determine how to best inspect frequent border crossers and conduct

IBIS checks.

CBP is constantly reviewing its procedures and operations to address national security issues. CBP provides the most up to date information to our line officers and

develops additional training materials so that they are fully prepared to meet the

challenge that they face daily.

Æ