U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–260 PDF 2012

WELCOMING BUSINESS TRAVELERS AND TOURISTS 

TO AMERICA ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3039 

MAY 17, 2012 

Serial No. 112–107 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 17, 2012 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3039, the ‘‘Welcoming Business Travelers and Tourists to America Act 

of 2011’’ ................................................................................................................. 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 12 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Joe Heck, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Jessica Zuckerman, Research Associate, Allison Center for Foreign Policy 

Studies, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45 

Edward Allen, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Response from Jessica Zuckerman, Research Associate, Allison Center for 

Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation ............................................ 60 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 63

(1) 

WELCOMING BUSINESS TRAVELERS AND 

TOURISTS TO AMERICA ACT OF 2011 

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, and Lofgren. 

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

Clerk; and (Minority) Gary Merson, Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call the Subcommittee to order. Today we are 

conducting a hearing on H.R. 3039, the ‘‘Welcoming Business Travelers and Tourists to America Act of 2011.’’ 

The legislation raises important issues, including how we balance 

our Nation’s security and counterterrorism efforts with our desire 

to encourage increased tourism and more visitors from foreign 

countries. 

H.R. 3039 requires the Secretary of State to process visas for 

Chinese, Indians and Brazilians within 12 days. The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct a pilot program using videoconferencing to interview visa applicants. Supporters believe videoconferencing should be used in remote areas far from a U.S. consulate 

office. 

The bill also allows the Secretary to increase the period of visa 

validity for individuals from a certain country regardless of the reciprocal visa validity period for Americans traveling to that country. 

I am looking forward to the hearing from each of our witnesses 

and getting their assessment of these provisions contained in H.R. 

3039. 

As we learned from past terrorist attacks in the United States 

or from other plots that have been foiled, we can never let down 

our guard in terms of preventing the entry of terrorists. And our 

visa processing system plays a critical role in keeping terrorists out 

of the country. For these reasons, I am eager to better understand 

how this legislation will impact the screening of potential terrorists 

by the State Department and other governmental agencies, while 

also ensuring that law abiding visitors can come to America for 

tourism and business. 

2 

I appreciate the hard work from the gentleman from Nevada, 

Congressman Heck, on H.R. 3039 and look forward to his testimony, and now I would yield to the gentlelady from California, the 

Ranking Member Ms. Lofgren. 

[The bill, H.R. 3039, follows:] 

3 


HR3039-1.eps
4 


HR3039-2.eps
5 


HR3039-3.eps
6 


HR3039-4.eps
7 


HR3039-5.eps
8 


HR3039-6.eps
9 


HR3039-7.eps
10 


HR3039-8.eps
11 


HR3039-9.eps
12 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tourism is a vital U.S. 

industry so I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and also 

Representative Heck for coming here to testify on his bill. 

As we emerge from the economic downturn, travel and tourism 

can help spark economic growth and create jobs. Currently international travel to the United States generates more than $153 billion annually in exports and supports 2 million U.S. jobs. In 2011 

total direct travel spending in my State of California was $102.3 

billion, supporting 893,000 jobs. Travel spending in 2011 generated 

$2.3 billion in local and $4 billion in State taxes for California. 

However, while significant revenue and jobs are supported by 

travel and tourism, America has been experiencing a decrease in 

market share. According to a study conducted by a coalition of 

American industries, the U.S. is estimated to have lost billions, $43 

billion in 2005 alone, in visitor spending due to lost market share. 

According to the Department of Commerce, the positive balance of 

trade generated by inbound travel declined more than 72 percent 

between 1996 and 2005, from $26.3 billion in 1996 to just $7.4 billion in 2005. Since 2005 these losses have only grown as international travel continues to increase but the U.S. share of this 

travel market continues to decrease. 

As we lose market share in international travel, we also lose the 

ability to share American ideals with the rest of the world. Studies 

have shown that foreigners who visit the U.S. are 74 percent more 

likely to have a favorable view of our country and 61 percent are 

more likely to support the U.S. and its policies. The country thus 

suffers with fewer foreign visitors who are able to experience real 

American hospitality, kindness and values. 

Now I know some in America would like to further close down 

our borders to commerce and tourism. Some say that would make 

the country safer. But we know that would crush our economy in 

sectors ranging from agriculture to tourism, sap the vitality that 

immigrants bring to America, and go against the values we share 

with visitors, values that have been essential to our national character and exceptionalism. It would in fact make us much weaker 

economically and in other important ways. 

Rules that facilitate visa issuance for eligible foreign nationals 

are not only important for travel and tourism but also for American 

educational institutions, scientific and academic research, as well 

as U.S. business in a variety of industries. What we need is to find 

ways to welcome foreign visitors while continuing to protect, of 

course, national security. Simply put, we need to have smarter visa 

issuance procedures. To do this we should explore new technologies, including threat assessment tools, and videoconferencing 

technologies for which a pilot is proposed in Mr. Heck’s bill. We 

should also explore ways to expand the visa waiver program, again 

while continuing to protect national security. 

This bill also has provisions to require faster visa processing for 

foreign nationals from some of the world’s fastest growing economies. These are issues that are important for us to consider. 

The bill’s provisions echo the approach outlined in President 

Obama’s January 19th Executive order, which also seeks to increase visa processing capacity in China and Brazil and to ensure 

that applicants are interviewed in a timely manner. These are 

13 

laudable goals, and I look forward to working with the Administration and Department of State to ensure that our visa process is as 

efficient and effective as possible. 

On June 26, 1963, before the Berlin Wall, John F. Kennedy said 

in one of his most memorable speeches, ‘‘Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we never had to put up 

a wall to keep our people in.’’ What was true then remains true almost 50 years later. People from all over the world still want to 

come to America. Many come seeking a refuge from persecution, to 

get a job to support their families, to start a business or to begin 

their studies. And some just come to visit America to see Disney 

World, the Grand Canyon, to show their support at Ground Zero 

in New York, to visit our Nation’s Capital. Many come because 

they love America and have dreamed of visiting our country for 

their whole lives. 

We should encourage this with smart visa policies that support 

travel and tourism, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. We have very distinguished witnesses on both of our panels today. Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less to help stay within the time. There is 

a time, a little light out there that will be a good indicator. And 

I would just appreciate your consideration of that. 

And with that we will move to our first panel and our first witnesses, our good friend and colleague from the State of Nevada’s 

Third District, Congressman Joe Heck. Welcome, Joe. 

Joe is currently serving his first term in the House. He serves 

on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the House Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence. And prior to serving in Congress Representative Heck spent 25 years in public service as a physician 

and Army reservist and community volunteer. Welcome this afternoon and we look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you very much for holding this hearing 

today on legislation I introduced this past fall, H.R. 3039, the ‘‘Welcoming Business Travelers and Tourists to America Act of 2011.’’ 

I know there are several bills out there trying to address the visa 

processing issue. This is but one more trying to attack the problem 

from a different pathway. 

As you have mentioned, I represent the Las Vegas area where 

travel and tourism is the main industry, with hundreds of thousands of Nevada families relying on the travel and tourism sector 

as a source of jobs and income. To give you an idea of how large 

the travel and tourism industry is in the United States, in 2011 

travel and tourism generated approximately $1.9 trillion in total 

economic output. This can be directly linked to 2 million American 

jobs being supported and the exporting of $153 million in U.S. 

Goods. 

14 

Additionally, international travelers spend about $4,300 during 

each visit to the United States. Over the past 10 years from 2000 

to 2010, the travel industry has seen major growth. According to 

the U.S. travel organization, global long haul travel has increased 

by 40 percent. However, as Ms. Lofgren mentioned, over this same 

time period the share of international travelers coming to the 

United States has dropped, dropped from 17 percent to 12 percent. 

This decline in the number of travelers coming to the U.S. has definitely been felt nationwide as well as in my home State. The hospitality industry is the largest employer in Nevada as well as the 

largest contributor to the State’s general fund. But while the national unemployment rate has remained about 8 percent for 30 

months, the unemployment rate in Nevada has continued to hover 

around 12 percent. 

The Department of Commerce estimates that just returning to the 17 percent market share would generate almost $860 billion to 

our economy and create 1.2 million jobs. It goes without saying 

that America is struggling and something needs to be done to get 

folks back to work. Because I represent a district that is markedly 

dependent on the travel and tourism industry, I introduced H.R. 

3039. 

The decrease in number of travelers coming to the U.S. cannot 

simply be attributed to a lack of desire to visit the United States 

but more so to a cumbersome travel visa application and processing 

system. In the past it has been reported that the State Department 

has posted interview wait times of more than 30 days, sometimes 

as much as 180 days, which exceeds its own internal goal of interviewing all visa applicants within 30 days. This can present major 

barriers for those wishing to travel to the United States because 

travelers do not have an accurate idea of the timeline to get an 

interview or when an appropriate time to apply for a travel visa 

would be because of a lack of information on historical wait times. 

My legislation seeks to modernize this process in several ways. 

H.R. 3039 mandates that the State Department implement a 12- 

day visa processing standard to ensure timely processing of visas, 

requires the disclosure of historical data, encourages better coordination between State Department and Department of Commerce, 

and allows for the establishment of a visa videoconferencing pilot 

program and gives the Secretary of State the option to modify visa 

validity periods. 

I understand that some Members of the Committee will have 

concerns with the legislation, specifically from the homeland and 

national security aspect. Please let me assure you that as someone 

who has severed in both the Army Reserves an its homeland security sector for over 25 years, national security is of the utmost importance to me. Some of the testimony you will hear later is somewhat inaccurate and off base, having largely nothing to do with the 

provision of H.R. 3039. Nothing in this legislation does anything to 

increase or modify the visa waiver program, it does nothing to 

change the visa interview process, nor does it change the approval 

requirements for actually granting a visa. It just tries to streamline 

the process. 

The video processing, video teleconferencing provision I can tell 

you, from someone who has used secure videoconferencing in my 

15 

military career as well as in my medical career, being able to have 

secure communications around the world and provide cutting edge, 

lifesaving medical treatment because of a high resolution in quality 

of sound and video is something that we should be able to explore 

in trying to grant visa interviews. 

As I mentioned, I have worked in the homeland security sector 

for a large part of my career, been both to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

As was mentioned, I am on the Armed Services Committee and the 

Select Committee on Intelligence. I know firsthand the threats of 

terrorism and national security. Nothing in this legislation that I 

have introduced is intended to compromise it in any way. Rather, 

it is bipartisan legislation that looks to streamline a process in a 

way that has already been proven by the Department of State’s report on itself when it did its pilot study on how to use videoconferencing, and it is widely supported by the tourism travel and hospitality industry, by Discover America Partnership with over 50 

members. We have letters of support that we would ask to enter 

into the record. 

At a time when we need jobs and increased economic growth, 

H.R. 3039 provides a solution at no cost to the taxpayer while 

maintaining safety and security. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Immigration. I look forward to your questions and 

the discussion later today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck follows:] 

16 


Heck-1.eps
17 


Heck-2.eps
18 


Heck-3.eps
19 


Heck-4.eps
20 

ATTACHMENTS 


74260A-1.eps
21 


74260A-2.eps
22 


74260B-1.eps
23 


74260B-2.eps
24 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you for staying within the guidelines of 

the lights. You obviously have a military background, and I appreciate your credentials both from military and serving on the Intelligence Committee. You obviously no about many of the challenges 

that we are facing at a national security level, I am sure many 

cases beyond many of us. 


74260B-3.eps
25 

Regarding the in-person visa interview, you spoke a little bit 

about the electronic versus the in-person interview, but the in-person interview requirement was put in place as a result of the fact 

that only 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were interviewed for visas despite the State Department’s authority to do so. Given that terrorists constantly attempt to and some are successful in entering the 

country by abusing U.S. immigration policy, shouldn’t we make 

sure that every visa applicant has a sit down, face-to-face interview 

so that the consular has the best ability possible to determine the 

intent? 

I would yield back. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the important 

point that you brought up was that only 2 of the 19 actually had 

an interview. This does nothing in changing having the interview, 

this actually opens up additional pathways to conduct interviews so 

that more people can actually have the interview. And with the 

newer technology, especially telepresence technology, it is almost 

like sitting in the room with the individual while you are conducting that interview. And so the technology has progressed significantly, even since the pilot study was done in 2006, that actually allows the ability for an individual to conduct a very comprehensive interview. I tell you I have talked to people from the 

consular staff. And they do have a lot of discretion. In fact I was 

given one anecdote where the person claimed to be a farmer but 

their visa was denied because according to the interview official 

they didn’t have calluses on their hands to make it look like they 

were a farmer. 

I think that we need to be much more selective in how we decide 

to grant or not grant the visas, but what this program does is actually increase the ability for more interviews to be accomplished. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. I remember when I was in local government 

we did—the courts did arraignments by video. Something as fundamental as your due process rights in a criminal proceeding could 

be accommodated through a video transaction. So I think, and you 

are right, Cisco is headquartered in my district. Their telepresence, 

I mean it is like you could touch the person, it is so like being 

there, it is amazing technology. So I think it is very creative and 

I think there is a lot of promise with that. 

I wanted to talk about the 12-day visa processing standard. I like 

it, but here is the concern I have and I am not sure that I have 

the solution and maybe you do. If you don’t have additional resources, and I realize using the video capacity will help some in 

that, the easy thing is just to say no. And so you might end up with 

an increased number of arbitrary noes to accommodate the 12-day 

requirement. Have you thought about that and what we might do 

about that? Because these decisions are not reviewable by anybody. 

Mr. HECK. Yeah, thank you for that question. In fact, we do 

allow within the bill for the State Department to increase the visa 

fee to be able to offset the additional resources that may be necessary to meet that timeline of trying to get them done within 12 

days. In addition, I will say that when we met with the Department of State officials they were concerned that in the event they 

would need to move people due to humanitarian crisis or evacuVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\051712\74260.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
26 

ation of U.S. citizens and they needed more officials in another 

area, that that would pose some difficulty for them and we were 

willing to help them with that and say look, we would be willing 

to allow—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I saw that you accommodated that, yes. 

Mr. HECK. During a time of national crisis or humanitarian crisis 

where individuals needed to be redeployed. I think the key is that 

they already looked at increasing some of the resources in these 

three targeted countries. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I met with the ambassador in Brazil and they are 

in the process of gearing up right now. I mean it is insane, you 

can’t even get inside the building for your application to be heard, 

and they are gearing up so that they can do, he says, a better job. 

I guess I would just say I don’t know I have a solution but we 

have all in our capacity as advocates for our constituents seen 

cases where it is inexplicable why someone doesn’t get a visa and 

then they are coming for the daughter’s wedding and they can’t get 

in and you get the call. Certainly we want national security issues 

but in some cases there is really almost arbitrary denials for people 

who have legitimate needs to visit family. So I am just concerned 

this could aggravate it. But maybe there is a way to get around 

that. I would love to talk to you further after the hearing about it 

and brainstorm on that. 

Thank you. I yield back Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Heck, for 

your testimony and taking the initiative on a bill that I understand 

matters to your constituents and a number of people across the 

country. I always look at numbers and I get curious about how 

they are derived, so I want to just take you back that $1.9 trillion 

in economic activity that is derived from tourism and let’s see then 

from that. The first question I had was how much is derived from 

foreign tourism and I think you had 1 out of $7 in the United 

States derived from foreign tourism. So I am extrapolating these 

numbers but can you source that 1.9 trillion for me first? 

Mr. HECK. The 1.9 trillion is the tourism industry in general, 

both domestic and international, to the United States and the number comes from the U.S. Travel Organization. 

Mr. KING. Okay, generally a consensus between all of them then. 

And so I began to wonder then what percentage of the U.S. GDP 

that would be, so I took one-seventh of that number and came up 

with 271 billion and divided it by 15 trillion GDP just to pick a 

round number, and I came up with 1.8 percent of our economic activity that is foreign travel according to this number. Then you also 

had testimony that says that the global longhaul travel has been 

reduced—or been increased by 40 percent in the same period of 

time longhaul global travel to the U.S. Has dropped from 17 to 12 

points. 

Do you have an estimate on how much of global longhaul travel 

is for impact on the United States economy? 

Mr. HECK. It was estimated by the Department of Commerce 

that if we were able to get from 12 percent back up to 17 percent 

that that would be about $860 billion worth of economic activity. 

27 

Mr. KING. That number was on the first page of your statement, 

I understand. But how much of this then can be tied to a delay in 

visa, issuing visas, how do you link those two together? 

Mr. HECK. Well, we know that certainly from the experience that 

we have had in southern Nevada which is very dependent on travel 

and tourism and especially business travel and the convention industry, there was a travel and tourism summit held that had representatives from all of the major trade shows in attendance, and 

they have talked about how they have had difficulty in bringing 

foreign travelers to the trade shows here in the United States, primarily for people to come, those who want to show their wares because the lead time takes too long to know whether you are going 

to get a visa before you actually book convention space. And they 

have found that those same shows have seen an increase in their 

attendance in foreign locations; those shows are held in Europe, 

they are seeing an increased attendance there and they are seeing 

a dropoff in attendance in the shows in the United States. 

Mr. KING. And I do hear some of these complaints. Is the lead 

time all together from say the average application time until such 

time as the visa is issue, what is that average lead time, do you 

know? 

Mr. HECK. Well, for the countries we are trying to address 

through the bill the wait times has been as high as 180 days just 

for the visa interview, not the granting or denial of the visa, just 

to get an interview. 

Mr. KING. Is there a mean time or an average time though rather than extreme time? 

Mr. HECK. In those three countries they vary. Brazil has been— 

China has been as high as 180 days, Brazil has been as high as 

60 to 70 days. India has been even higher at times. So I do not 

have a mean time of all three countries. 

Mr. KING. But I do have some information here that gives I believe it was average wait times for different cities in China, Beijing, Shanghai and several others, that show 2 to 4 days of an average lead time. Do you have experience also that that happens? 

Mr. HECK. Right, those numbers have been within the last 4 to 

5, 6 months, actually since the bill has been introduced. But again 

we have seen wait times far exceeding that. 

Mr. KING. And I think to be clear for this panel, too, that what 

I have expressed here is wait time for the interview, not the full 

time for the issuance for the visa, just to put some balance to this 

discussion. 

Mr. HECK. Right. 

Mr. KING. So to some degree your bill has had a positive affect 

in a positive way. I would make that point so you don’t have to or 

actually you already did. But I have been looking on. I would add 

also we have a similar times down in South America, Brazil, 2 

days, 2 days, Rio de Janeiro 1 day, Sao Paulo 25 days. Odd that 

it would be had a high out of Sao Paulo. And then you go into Asia 

and you see New Delhi 4 days, Mumbai 4 days, but there are some 

longer dates there too. It looks to me like the issue time is reasonable if you look at it from an average standpoint or a mean standpoint and probably plenty of lead time for someone to be able to 

28 

plan a convention and book their travel, but it is the extremes that 

you are concerned about. Do I interpret that correctly? 

Mr. HECK. That is correct. And also one of the major reasons for 

the videoconferencing provision is that those 2 to 4-day times is in 

that city, somebody applies within that city, but in these larger 

countries it may take somebody 2 days to travel to the consulate 

to be able to get the interview, and that is after being scheduled 

for the interview. And so the videoconferencing from remote locations will help expedite that process as well. 

Mr. KING. Would you do patient exam over conferencing? 

Dr. HECK. I have many times. 

Mr. KING. And would you diagnose over that? 

Dr. HECK. We have many times. The resolution and the quality 

now is such that you can provide cutting edge life saving care via 

telemedicine around the world, and I have done it on several occasions. 

Mr. KING. I have another topic we will talk about in person. 

Thank you, doctor, I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I thank 

you for being here today, Joe. 

We will turn to our second panel. 

Our first witness is Janice Kephart, the Director of National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. She served as 

counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Ms. Kephart received her JD from 

Villanova Law School and her Bachelor’s Degree from Duke University. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. KEPHART, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 

SECURITY POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. KEPHART. Thank you for having me. Thank you for the invitation to testify and your continued interest in visa security. 

The bill we are considering today mimics President Obama’s visa 

waiver interview pilot program announced in January 2012 for 

China, India and Brazil. The effect of the President’s program is 

still unknown in terms of reducing application processing time. If 

the pilot achieves the aims the President seeks; that is, to dramatically reduce visa processing times by negating many visa interviews and visa revetting, then this bill is unfortunately unnecessary, untimely and premature. Especially concerning is that this 

bill probably unknowingly supports the President’s amnesties policies that include not enforcing immigration law against illegal population but for convicted criminals and terrorists. 

What does systematic enforcement of immigrant immigration law 

have do with this bill? Well, crunching out more tourist visas will 

add to more tourists likely becoming overstays. According to 2011 

GAO reporting, ICE only actively pursues 3 percent of the overstay 

population due to resource constraints. None other than criminals 

and terrorists are pursued now, and even the criminal deportation 

numbers are half of what they were in 2010, with a paltry 5,500 

identified in the first quarter of 2012, with twice that many identified in the same quarter in 2010. What does this mean for Chinese, 

Brazilian and Indian illegal population numbers? To me this means 

they will grow. 

29 

For years Brazilians and Indians have come to the United States 

for many reasons, but also to get away from poverty, while Chinese 

often come to escape a repressive regime. That is good, right? This 

is America, we welcome people here for a better life. But unfortunately, that is not the end of this story. China openly commits significant corporate government and university espionage on American soil, and it uses its own citizens to do it. 

Just as disturbing is the incredibly high illegal alien population 

numbers from China, India and Brazil currently in the U.S. These 

three countries have increased their illegal status in the U.S. By 

nearly 70 percent collectively in the last decade, with 700,000 illegal aliens in the U.S., representing 6 percent of the total 11.5 million of the illegal population. China is the biggest producer of illegal aliens outside this hemisphere ranking fifth of the 180 Nations 

in the world, India ranks seventh, Brazil is close behind. And here 

is the clincher, most of these illegals must be overstays from issued 

visas. 

As to those arguing that there is sufficient security in the automated check State now does of visa applicants and 12 days is sufficient time to get all applicants, let me say this. First few, if any 

of the problems in visa issuance with the 9/11 hijackers had anything to do with technology or databases vetting the applicants. 

Rather, the issue is that the interviews that could have detected 

fraud and lies were simply not done. In the one instance where 

there was an extensive interview at a border security inspection at 

Orlando International Airport, potential Flight 93 hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani was forced to return to Saudi Arabia only because 

his interview was done. 

Second, fraud does not change depending on where a person is 

from or what the intent is in coming to the United States. Fraud 

is fraud whether used by terrorists, spy, criminal or simple economic migrant. Whether committed in 2000 or the year 2012, the 

commonality is it that it all breaks the law, it is all detectable, but 

usually only through the interview process. 

Third, State’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs, Ed 

Ramotowski, reiterated this point in a September 2011 hearing before House Homeland, making clear that the automated security 

checks and review of submitted documents don’t catch what an 

interview will, saying, ‘‘The personal interview that our officers 

conduct in our embassies and consulates often note discrepancies 

in the interview that open a line of inquiry and lead to a visa denial when necessary.’’ 

Fourth, it is also important to revet visas, a case made manifestly clear by the fact of the Christmas Day bomber’s visa issuance 

and which is reduced in this bill. 

And lastly, terrorist organizations or governments seeking to use 

their citizens as spies are likely to recruit from those that have already been issued U.S. visas. It is foolish to assume that vetted 

once means no revetting need take place. 

In regard to videoconferencing, there are a host of security issues 

that are specific a visa interview, including State Department personnel safety that I note in my written testimony that are not addressed in the bill fully. 

30 

In regard to section 7 of the bill it gives limitless authority to the 

Secretary and what can be done to visa categories or visa terms 

with any country, under any circumstances, very dangerous for immigration policy and diplomacy and our national security. 

In conclusion, illegal activity needs to be curtailed significantly 

and current immigration law enforced before we consider broadening out our visa policies even further than already done by the 

President as this bill would do. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kephart follows:] 

31 


JLK-1.eps
32 


JLK-2.eps
33 


JLK-3.eps
34 


JLK-4.eps
35 


JLK-5.eps
36 


JLK-6.eps
37 


JLK-7.eps
38 


JLK-8.eps
39 


JLK-9.eps
40 


JLK-10.eps
41 


JLK-11.eps
42 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Kephart. Our next 

witness is Ms. Jessica Zuckerman. She is a Research Associate at 

the Heritage Foundation House and Center for Policy Studies. She 

researches and writes on issues such as border security, counterterrorism, immigration policy, among others. Ms. Zuckerman received 

her Master’s Degree from George Washington University and holds 


JLK-12.eps
43 

a Bachelor’s Degree from Ohio State University. Welcome, Ms. 

Zuckerman. 

TESTIMONY OF JESSICA ZUCKERMAN, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, 

ALLISON CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

I believe very strongly in the need to tackle the challenges of facilitating legitimate travel by reducing unnecessary barriers to issuing 

visas. 

The policies contained in H.R. 3039 are a commendable step in 

reducing visa backlog and derive two significant benefits in my 

opinion. The first advantage is job creation as was discussed. Currently inbound travel to the U.S. Supports almost 2 million American jobs and the value of global travel is expected to double to 

more than 2 trillion over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, the U.S. 

Share of long distance travel is shrinking. According to the U.S. 

Travel Association, this decline is said to have resulted in the loss 

of approximately 78 million visitors and over half a trillion in lost 

spending. If America recaptures its fair share of international travel by some estimates more than 1 million jobs could be created over 

the next decade. 

The second advantage is public diplomacy. As the Ranking Member has pointed out, surveys of international visitors to the U.S. 

Have shown that foreigners who travel to the country are over 74 

percent more likely to view the U.S. favorably and 61 percent more 

likely to support the U.S. And its policies. 

These are just a few of the many reasons the United States 

should work to regain its rightful share of long distance travelers. 

And it is my view that this can be done without disadvantaging 

homeland security. With these advantages in mind, I would like to 

briefly explore some of the background issues. 

Currently one of the most vexing burdens for foreign visitors 

wishing to obtain a visa is long wait times for applicants to be 

interview at overseas consular offices. In May of 2010 the Department of Commerce and State indicated the visa wait times in high 

volume countries such as Brazil and China were anywhere between 

1 to 5 months. While the State Department has done much to improve wait times in these nations more remains to be done. 

H.R. 3039 would set a reasonable visa processing standard of no 

more than 12 days for citizens in the high-volume nations of China, 

Brazil and India. These standards would serve to codify many of 

the changes made by the Department of State over the past year 

and help to combat extensive visa wait times. 

Standards, however, are nothing without the resources to meet 

them. Recognizing this fact, H.R. 3039 also calls for the use of fees 

collected from issuing machine readable nonimmigrant visas to hire 

additional consular personnel. The processing standards contained 

within H.R. 3039 offer a strong first step in reducing overly burdensome visa wait times. 

The legislation also calls on the Secretary of State to conduct a 

2-year pilot program for the processing of nonimmigrant visas via 

secure videoconferencing. In many large countries such as Brazil 

and India citizens may have to travel for hours or even days at 

44 

great personal expense in order to reach a U.S. consulate to conduct their visa interview. The use of secure videoconferencing 

would help to ease this burden, allowing for remote interviews for 

individuals living far from the U.S. consulate. It also offers the potential to expand the Department of Homeland Security’s visa security program where consular facilities do not have the space or resources to house visa security officers. 

Finally, H.R. 3039 would also require the State Department to 

publish data on wait times for visa interview appointments and 

visa application processing as well as provide performance assessments of how the department is responding to increased demand 

for visas. Such data would be crucial in helping the Department of 

State to understand bottlenecks in visa application rates. Publishing this data would also serve to encourage individuals to apply 

for visas at times of lower demand. I would urge the Congress to 

seriously consider such initiatives aimed at facilitating greater 

travel to the U.S. without compromising security. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zuckerman follows:] 

45 


JZ-1.eps
46 


JZ-2.eps
47 


JZ-3.eps
48 


JZ-4.eps
49 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Zuckerman. Our next witness, 

Mr. Edward Alden, is the Bernard L. 

Schwartz, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Prior to joining the Council Mr. Alden was the Washington Bureau 

Chief for the Financial Times and also served as the project director for the independent task force on immigration policy. Mr. Alden 


JZ-5.eps
50 

holds a Master’s Degree in international relations from the University of California Berkeley. 

Welcome, Mr. Alden. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD ALDEN, BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ 

SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

Mr. ALDEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you turn your microphone on? 

Mr. ALDEN. There we go. Thank you very much to both of you 

for inviting me to testify today. 

I have studied U.S. Visa policy for a number of years. My 2008 

book, The Closing of the American Border, detailed the mistakes in 

visa processing that were made before the 9/11 attacks, but also examined the negative economic and diplomatic consequences of the 

decline in travel to the United States after 2001. 

More recently I coauthored with Liam Schwartz, an American 

Israeli immigration lawyer who is one of the world’s foremost experts on visa processing, a Council on Foreign Relations report recommending improvements to the U.S. visa system to speed processing without sacrificing security. I agree with Ms. Zuckerman 

that the record of progress in recent years shows that efficiency 

and security can go hand in hand and that the United States does 

not need to harm its economy to safeguard its borders. 

While it is far from comprehensive and not without some problems, the legislation before you today deserves support. It would 

promote job creation by addressing inefficiencies in the visa system. In particular, it takes on one of the chronic problems that we 

have seen over the past decade which is that improvements in visa 

processing times have not durable. The State Department has periodically reduced the waiting times by surging staff when the backlogs have grown unacceptably long, only later to relocate staff or 

fail to anticipate demand increases and have the wait times balloon 

again. The exchange between Mr. King and Congressman Heck is 

very much about this. You go back a year ago and the wait times 

in many places were 2, three, 4 months. The State Department has 

put resources into these countries and the wait times have been reduced dramatically. 

This legislation would set a new visa processing standard of 12 

days or fewer in the biggest markets that have been subject to the 

longest delays. 

H.R. 3039 should, however, be approved as part of a broader 

package of legislation that includes reforms to the criteria for expanding the visa waiver program and encourages more efficient 

visa security screening. 

Since 9/11, the United States has made considerable progress in 

improving the security and integrity of the visa system. But this 

was not accompanied for many years either by either staffing increases or by technological improvements to maintain efficient visa 

processing. The result has too often been long delays for visa applicants. The falling U.S. Share of world travel, which is in part the 

consequence of visa issues, certainly not all by any means, has hurt 

the United States economically by discouraging tourists and business travelers. 

51 

Tourism is the largest service export in this country and expanding travel is an easy way to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

The good news is that the State Department has recently made improved visa processing a high priority and has increased staff and 

significantly reduced waiting times in key markets like China and 

Brazil. These improvements are being made without additional expenditures of taxpayer dollars, which is important given budget 

constraints. The fees charged to foreign travelers fully cover the 

cost of additional staffing and improved technology. There was just 

an increase in the tourist fee by $20 to $160 last month, for instance. 

H.R. 3039 would build on this recent progress. Establishment of 

the 12-day standard is a reasonable target. The Department of 

Commerce’s U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board has recommended a more ambitious 5-day target. Virtually all U.S. Missions in these countries, Sao Paulo is one of the few exceptions, are 

currently meeting the standard. But as I elaborate in my written 

testimony, the legislation should make clear that this is a goal, not 

a deadline. Flexibility in implementation is essential. 

The bill also promises better transparency. The Department of 

State maintains current wait times but doesn’t show us historically 

whether wait times have gone up or down in different locations. 

And the legislation would also require an annual visa demand forecast to help manage workload. 

H.R. 3039 is only one element of the changes needed to make 

sure the United States has the most secure and efficient travel system in the world. Increasingly improvements in screening technology and information sharing are making it possible to enhance 

security even as processing speeds improve. This approach should 

be wherever possible to focus consular resources on higher risk 

travelers. 

I just want to make one quick point on the 9/11 Commission before I sum up. The 9/11 Commission looked at the whole realm of 

problems prior to 9/11 and interviews clearly were an issue, especially in Saudi Arabia, but the biggest failures were failures of information sharing. Two of the hijackers identified by the CIA as al 

Qaeda operatives, that information not shared with the State Department, those individuals not watch listed. The 9/11 Commission 

rightly focused on information sharing as the key element to protecting our borders against terrorist travel. They even acknowledged that had the interviews been done in Saudi Arabia, consular 

officers at the time were looking for people who might overstay and 

the Saudis didn’t do that. Very few if any of the hijackers would 

likely have been turned back by interviews. So the 9/11 Commission, if you read their recommendations, says it is critical that border screening systems check people efficiently and welcome friends, 

that admitting large numbers of students, scholars, business people, and tourists fuels our economy, cultural vitality and political 

reach, and they call for the design of these security measures to be 

updated and adapted to meet that goal and the goals of security. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alden follows:] 

52 


Alden_1.eps
53 


Alden_2.eps
54 


Alden_3.eps
55 


Alden_4.eps
56 


Alden_5.eps
57 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very, Mr. Alden. I am going to try to 

make my questions a little expedited because we are scheduled for 

votes momentarily and I don’t want to hold you here for an hour 

or so because there are a series of votes. 

Very briefly, Ms. Kephart, would you be kind enough to respond 

as the counsel on 9/11 Commission, you may or may not have had 

a little different perception as to the statement that Mr. Alden presented, could you respond to that? 


Alden_6.eps
58 

Ms. KEPHART. Sure. I was a counsel on the 9/11 Commission assigned to the border team, I did all the immigration work for the 

9/11 Commission for how the hijackers got in and stayed in. And 

I also conducted all the interviews of all the border inspectors who 

had let the hijackers in as well. So I come at this from a perspective, having been also an author of the 9/11 and Terrorist Travel 

monograph, with a very, very strong sense of what our border recommendations were and why we insisted on the in-person interview. I was also the one who found out and discovered Mohammed 

al-Qahtani as the potential 20th hijacker who did not get in. It was 

based on the behavioral interview that we had done of him at Orlando International Airport, August 2001, that our commissioners 

decided to include the paragraph in the 9/11 Commission final report, in the recommendations, about the importance of the interview and the importance of determining behavior. It was critical to 

us, and so I do take a little bit of an issue at the interpretation 

of the 9/11 Commission report. 

Thank you for letting me respond. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Kephart. In the interest of time 

I would yield to the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. In the 9/11 Commission report on page 

389, it indicates that we should have efficiency and that admitting 

large numbers of student scholars and business people and tourists 

is basically good for the country. But the last sentence in that paragraph says, training and design of security measures should be 

continuously adjusted. 

Now in the footnote to that paragraph it says this, one post-9/ 

11 screening process known as Condor has conducted over 130,000 

extra name checks. The checks have caused significant delays in 

some cases but have never resulted in visas being denied on terrorism grounds. 

That makes me wonder whether we should examine the utility 

of that particular—I mean, we want to be protected but if we are 

doing something that doesn’t yield value except for delay maybe we 

ought to be doing something else in terms of security. So, I am 

wondering, Mr. Alden, you have studied this considerably. We put 

about 366,000 people through the SAO process every year. Is there 

a more efficient way of dealing with our security concerns than 

what we are doing now. 

Mr. ALDEN. I strongly believe there is. I know it is not directly 

the topic of this legislation, but it arises out of the concern you expressed in your question to Mr. Heck, which is if interviews are 

moving at a more rapid pace you were worried by the danger of arbitrary denials. I think more likely what we will see is more individuals being put into what they call the security advisory opinion 

system, which is a very lengthy background check. And there is no 

question in some cases these are appropriate. The problem is that 

the numbers have grown extraordinarily. 

So there were, you mentioned, 366,000 visa applicants put into 

these reviews last year. They take a long time, an average about 

4 weeks, in some cases much longer, months and even years. The 

troubling thing about this, a lot of these individuals are highly 

59 

skilled individuals so we do it for people with technology backgrounds. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Believe me, I hear about it from Silicon Valley all 

the time. 

Mr. ALDEN. Aerospace companies, semiconductor companies, 

these are people with skills who automatically get put into these 

background checks. You have it happening in India a lot. The State 

Department has been working for some time, and I am puzzled as 

to why they haven’t rolled it out, systems that would more efficiently narrow down the number of people who are determined to 

need these long background checks. The technology is much better 

than it used to be in raising red flags that this is someone that we 

really need to take a careful look at, and these numbers should be 

much smaller, nothing like 366,000. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. Whenever I go overseas I always try and go into the embassy or consulate and talk to the people that are actually doing the processing to get a sense from them 

directly how it is going and what their suggestions are. One of the 

issues is that our State Department employees can’t actually access 

the database, they have to hand it over to Homeland and that is 

inherently delayed, and having served for 10 years on the Homeland Security Committee, I regret to say that the Department of 

Homeland Security is not a model of efficiency, and that would be 

bipartisan inefficiency. Under both Administrations it hasn’t been 

that great. 

Would it help expedite—I mean, these State Department employees have background checks, they are as reliable as other American 

employees—to let them access the databases that Homeland never 

gets around to checking, would that help? 

Mr. ALDEN. This has broadly speaking been a constant problem 

over the last decade. There has been a tremendous challenge in integrating the different databases that contain information about individuals who raise concern on terrorism or criminal grounds. 

There has been real progress. This is an enforcement example rather than terrorism example, but the State Department consular officers now have data on overstays. So if you have flown into an airport in United States and you flew back to your country after the 

period of your visa expiration, if you go to apply for another visa 

that will come up on the screen of the State Department consular 

official and they are at least going to want a pretty good explanation of why you didn’t go home on time the last time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No delay would count but otherwise—— 

Mr. ALDEN. Yeah, quite a reasonable set of questions. So there 

have been improvements on that front, but I agree still real issues 

with information not being shared freely across the agencies. Really if you look at it, DHS and State have the same mission here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. ALDEN. This is what they call a layered screening system to 

try to be sure that there are multiple points in which it is possible 

to identify people that we want to keep out of the country. 

One of the ironies of the Christmas Day bombing story is that 

CBP officials, once he was on the airplane, ran their checks and 

they said this is a guy, as soon as he gets to Detroit we are going 

to pull him aside and question him and probably send him on the 

60 

next plane back home. That turned out to be too late, and there 

have been a number of efforts since. But it is a layered system—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The sooner we get that information, the better off. 

Mr. ALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Zuckerman, you heard 

the discussion I had with Mr. Heck regarding the economics of 

travel and I would point out, do you agree with that $1.9 trillion 

in economic activities as a consensus number that we heard here. 

And then his testimony says 1 out of $7 are of foreign travel dollars. That mapped out to be $271 billion in economic activity here. 

And I notice that in your written testimony you had that number 

set at $606 billion but your oral testimony was more than a half 

trillion. Both of those definitions do fit but those numbers don’t 

match. Can you tell me why? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. I can’t but I can double-check that and submit 

it for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. KING. I would be interested in that. I hear a lot of economic 

discussions. So I would like it if we could agree on the numbers we 

are discussing here. You had 2 million American jobs that were 

used on tourism and travel. I remember testimony in this Committee that we needed to bring more immigrants in to do that 

work. Would have you an idea of what percentage of those 2 million American jobs would be jobs that we are actually seeking to 

fill or have filled by legal or illegal immigrants? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. I don’t have that offhand, no. 

Mr. KING. Just my curiosity, as I read through your testimony, 

Ms. Zuckerman. And I also notice note that you point out in May 

of 2011 is the time that you have here when you identified that 

there are wait times in countries such as Brazil and China anywhere between 1 to 5 months. Do you agree with Mr. Heck that 

that wait time has diminished significantly over the last, say, 6 

months or the last year would be appropriate. This is 1-year old 

data, correct? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. Yes, this is the height. 

Mr. KING. Then to take you back to the data that I quoted to Mr. 

Heck on the 2 and 4-day wait periods with various cities in places 

like China and Brazil and in Asia. The Beijing 2 days, Shanghai 

4 days, and Brazilia 2 days, Sao Paulo was the anomaly in this 

whole list at 25 days. I wanted to make sure that I understand this 

correctly, the process that one uses to apply for a visa can now be— 

the application can be online and that is available to everyone now, 


Zucker-1.eps
61 

isn’t it, online application? And at that point can’t they also schedule an interview online? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. I am not positive, but I believe so. 

Mr. KING. I am confident that that is the case. As I review the 

material that I am looking at from the State Department, that one 

can go online and apply for a visa and schedule the online interview and these dates that I have given here are State Department 

numbers, 2 to 4 days for almost every one of these major cities 

within the countries in question with the exception of Sao Paulo. 

So if it is a 2-day waiting period to schedule the interview, when 

they finish the interview can you tell me will they then receive the 

visa, if it is going to be issued on the spot? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. It would have to go through possibly a background process if they are flagged as was mentioned by—— 

Mr. KING. Let me ask Ms. Kephart who has dealt with this. Can 

you illuminate that subject a little bit for me? 

Ms. KEPHART. Can you repeat the question one more time? We 

have gone on a long string of—I am sorry. 

Mr. KING. Of course. I have had that happen to me before too. 

The question is when one applies for a visa one can do so online 

and then schedule the interview online. 

Ms. KEPHART. Yes. 

Mr. KING. If the interview time, according to the State Department, now in most of these cities is 2 to 4 days, then when one 

schedules the interview say within say 48 hours or perhaps more, 

when they arrive for that interview, the in-person interview that 

you advocated, do they receive the visa normally at that meeting? 

Ms. KEPHART. Well, according to the information that you provided, I don’t know if they are providing it at the meeting, at the 

actual meet itself. My memory of it was it was not always at the 

meetings. Sometimes there is a was a few days lag time. But if you 

are talking about 2 to 4 days that is not a big deal, especially when 

you need to revet. 

If you have an officer in front of you and that officer begins to 

note fraud in your interview, they are going to want to check out 

more. That is why you need more time. Sometimes you can’t do 

that within 2 to 4 days. Sometimes you can’t even do it within 12 

days if it looks like you have a large fraud scheme in front of you. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I turn the question to Mr. Alden. Can you 

identify anything in this bill that enhances security? 

Mr. ALDEN. That enhances security. 

Well, I think by setting—most of the bills are about facilitation. 

I think you are right about that. The question is does it detract 

from security. My argument would be no, it in no way detracts 

from security. I think the issue is can you be efficient and secure 

at the same time. 

Mr. KING. I heard that testimony. Ms. Zuckerman, do you agree 

with Mr. Alden? 

Ms. ZUCKERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And Ms. Kephart, do you? 

Ms. KEPHART. No, I think this is a facilitation bill and the security is dumbed down and numbed down by it. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I yield back. 

62 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank our 

witnesses. I would like to have had a little more time today, but 

the bells are about to go off. I want to thank each of the witnesses 

today for your testimony. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can do so and that the answers may be made a part of 

the record of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, I again thank the witnesses and this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Since September 11th, each proposed change to U.S. immigration policy must be 

thoroughly considered with an eye toward national security. Unfortunately, we 

learned by experience that those who wish to do us harm will exploit any weakness 

in immigration policy to enter the United States. 

However, U.S. immigration policy should not be so restrictive that it denies access 

to foreign nationals who want to enter the country for legitimate business or travel 

purposes. 

H.R. 3039 makes several changes to current U.S. visa policy. It requires the State 

Department to issue visas within a span of 12 days or less. The bill requires the 

State Department to conduct a two year pilot program that uses video-conferencing 

in place of the required in-person interview for a non-immigrant visa. 

H.R. 3039 also requires the State Department to post on their website the median 

wait times for interviews and visa processing. And the bill alters the current standard for visa validity so that the time period for which a visa is valid is no longer 

tied to the time period of visa validity set by the foreign national’s home country. 

These changes have major consequences for U.S. immigration policy and national 

security. We have to be careful not to encourage rubber-stamping of applications in 

order to meet a deadline. 

In addition, the use of video-conferencing in place of in-person interviews changes 

current law, which was enacted because the State Department did not exercise its 

authority to interview in-person the majority of the 9/11 hijackers. 

The State Department has informally expressed concerns about some of H.R. 

3039’s provisions. So I look forward to hearing the testimony of the Gentleman from 

Nevada and of all of the witnesses today to assess the risks and benefits of H.R. 

3039. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Æ