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

80–431PDF 2002

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

HEARING AND MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

INCLUDING MARKUP OF

H.R. 5005

JUNE 26 AND JULY 10, 2002

Serial No. 107–110

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia 

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GROVER JOSEPH REES, Professional Staff Member and Counsel 

DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian 

MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Marc Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affiars, U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 7

The Honorable George Lannon, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................................. 18

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Georgia: Prepared statement ......................................................... 4

The Honorable Marc Grossman: Prepared statement .......................................... 10

MARKUP 

Markup of H.R. 5005, To establish the Department of Homeland Security, 

and for other purposes ......................................................................................... 35

Text of H.R. 5005 .............................................................................................. 36

Amendments to H.R. 5005, Offered en bloc by the Honorable Henry 

J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and 

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, for himself and the 

Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 92

Amendment to the Amendments to H.R. 5005, Offered by the Honorable 

Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ............ 99

APPENDIX

HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey: Prepared statement ................................................... 107

Questions for the record, as expressed by Members to Under Secretary Marc 

Grossman during the hearing, together with answers submitted for the 

record .................................................................................................................... 108

MARKUP 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Prepared statement ................................ 110

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia: Prepared statement ......................................................................... 111

(1)

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m. in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Today’s 

hearing will examine the functions and activities of the State Department that bear most directly on the domestic security of the 

United States. 

H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, will make important changes in the way in which these functions and activities are 

carried out. As introduced, this legislation would transfer to the 

new Department of Homeland Security authority over the process 

by which visas for admission to the United States are granted and 

denied. Yet the legislation would also preserve the role of the State 

Department, at least for the time being, as the institution whose 

employees do most of the work on the front lines. It is hard to 

know in advance how any new arrangement will work, and this is 

particularly true of an arrangement in which responsibilities will 

be divided between an established institution and one that has not 

yet come into existence. 

But this Committee has a responsibility to report the sections of 

H.R. 5005 that are within our jurisdiction in the form most likely 

to achieve the goals of the legislation. The evidence we hear today 

will enable the Committee to fulfill this responsibility. 

The proposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security 

has often been described as a response to the failure of existing institutions. However painful it may be to look back to the days and 

weeks before September 11th and wonder what we might have 

done differently, we must recognize that virtually all of the agencies charged with protecting our national security and public safety 

could have done better—and, by doing better, might conceivably 

have averted the tragedy. But we simply cannot allow an enterprise of this magnitude to be about assigning bureaucratic blame— or, even worse, about inflicting bureaucratic punishment. On the 

contrary, the Homeland Security Act must be about providing for 

the future. 

Before we build and empower new institutions, before we demolish or weaken old ones, let us learn as much as is humanly possible 

about exactly what needs to be done, so that we can be sure the 

new structure will be one that works. 

2

In the case of visa processing, the first thing to understand is 

that the United States currently issues approximately six million 

visas every year. The overwhelming majority of these are non-immigrant visas, mostly for tourists and business travelers. Even if 

we were prepared to cut this number in half—at great sacrifice to 

the U.S. economy—we would need an institution or institutions capable of adjudicating millions of visa applications. These institutions would need to subject any application that presents even a 

hint of a threat to national security or public safety to the strictest 

possible scrutiny. At the same time, these institutions would be required to address fairly and efficiently all the other questions that 

go into determining whether each of those millions of applications 

should be granted or denied. 

The sheer magnitude of these tasks strongly suggests that the 

Administration’s proposal is a wise one. In order to protect our borders from terrorists and other evildoers, the Homeland Security 

Department must have a role in the visa adjudication process. 

However, if the Secretary of Homeland Security were forced to 

build a new structure from scratch to adjudicate those millions of 

visa applications—or to cobble one together from bits and pieces of 

other agencies—it is hard to know how he would find time to perform any of the other essential functions which this legislation confers upon him. 

So we need the Department of Homeland Security in this process, but we need the State Department as well. The question to 

consider is whether or not the legislation can be fine-tuned to ensure that each institution will have responsibility for what it does 

best. 

I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide some estimate 

of the number of visas, out of those millions of applications, which 

present security issues. Even if the number is in the tens of thousands—or even if it is in the hundreds of thousands—this would 

leave millions of applications in which the questions to be adjudicated are traditional consular issues, such as whether the applicant is likely to overstay his visa or to become a public charge. Can 

a structure be devised that will ensure that Homeland Security officers get a close look at every application that may present security concerns, and that consular officers continue to adjudicate all 

other applications, so that the Department of Homeland Security 

will be able to focus its time and energy primarily on homeland security? 

I know the Administration must be devoting considerable 

thought to this question, and I hope our witnesses will be able to 

share some of these thoughts with us today. Their testimony will 

enable the Committee to report legislation that will appreciably enhance the safety, and therefore the freedom of all Americans. 

I now yield to the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, Representative Tom Lantos, for any opening remarks he 

would choose to make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me state 

at the outset that there are probably no two Members of Congress 

leading a Committee who have been as united and as supportive 

of the President’s goal in defeating terrorism globally, than the 

3

Chairman and the Ranking Member of this Committee, and it is 

in that spirit that this hearing is conducted. 

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend you for calling today’s hearing on the Administration’s plan to create a Department 

of Homeland Security. Congress must respond quickly and decisively to the President’s call, and today’s hearing will facilitate this 

critically important initiative. 

In the aftermath of September 11th, our Committee had the responsibility of ensuring that the President received all the powers 

he needed to conduct the war against global terrorism. Together, 

you and I managed a 91⁄2 hour marathon session on the House 

Floor and ultimately approved the resolution with just one dissenting vote. 

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our Committee and this Congress, in its consideration of the proposed Department of Homeland 

Security, will again give the President the powers and authorities 

that he needs. I am confident that our President will have the 

same bipartisan support wall-to-wall that he has had in the fight 

against terrorism. 

The political will to create a new Homeland Security Department 

exists in Congress, but we must structure the Department correctly; otherwise, America’s security will end up suffering. The new 

Homeland Security Department must make it easier for our nation’s law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel to 

fight terrorism, not spark years of disputes in which those who battle terrorism will fight each other. 

The State Department has been an interesting test case, Mr. 

Chairman, of how difficult it is to integrate different entities. As 

we all know, we have recently been through the integration of the 

United States Information Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State. It was a horrendously complex undertaking, and I hope we learned from this experience. As a matter of fact, although the experience was horrendously complex and difficult, all three agencies basically shared a 

very similar culture. In creating the Homeland Security Department, we have the task of combining agencies and departments 

across the full spectrum of our government with profoundly different cultures, and the task will be excruciatingly complex. 

The specific issue before us today is whether the new Homeland 

Security Department, the State Department, or a combination of 

the two, should be charged with issuing visas to millions of foreigners who visit our country each year. With over six million nonimmigrant and 400,000 immigrant visas granted annually, how the 

issue is resolved will greatly affect the resources which both Departments will have to devote to this issue, the role of the U.S. Foreign Service, and our national interest. 

The Administration has proposed that the Department of Homeland Security be responsible for issuing visas, but that this power 

be exercised through the Secretary of State. This proposal, and I 

hope Under Secretary Grossman will elaborate on this, sounds 

rather peculiar to me; because what it tells me is that there is really no change, which, of course, is the formula I personally would 

favor. This is a very complex undertaking. 

4

A junior foreign service official, serving at a faraway Embassy, 

is clearly under the authority of the Ambassador. He relies on the 

whole structure of that large Embassy. He needs the guidance and 

advice of more senior officers at the Embassy, and to say that it 

is the Homeland Security office that will do the issuance of the 

visa, I think is a fiction. It is the Department of State that will continue to do so and, at some level, there will be some liaison. 

We are told by the Administration that the personnel who process visa applications, often first-tour foreign service officers and 

contract employees, will continue to work for the Department of 

State. But, we have many questions as to how this proposal will 

work and we hope Under Secretary Grossman will be able to answer that today. Who will set the policy to determine who gets a 

visa and who doesn’t? What issues, other national security, will be 

considered when considering an application? And which agency will 

have the resources to carry out the task? 

Some in Congress have also discussed the concept of moving all 

of the State Department’s Consular Services Bureau to the Homeland Security Department. Such a move, in my judgment, would be 

a profound mistake. The Consular Services Bureau handles countless tasks, completely unrelated to Homeland Security—from helping Americans in jail, to dealing with international child abduction 

cases, to facilitating international adoption matters. These important missions would get lost in a new large department and, at the 

same time, dilute its central function of focusing on real threats 

against the United States. 

I look forwarding to hearing from our distinguished witnesses 

and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. It is not mandatory 

that Members make an opening statement. I just thought I would 

announce that rule. It is an entitlement—no, it is not an entitlement. It is by leave of the Chair. But, I will entertain opening 

statements——

Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Reminding everyone that brevity is 

the sole of eloquence. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am so happy you said that before it got directly to me. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, whatever that means, I agree with the 

gentlelady. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. That means thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. And I do have a statement that I would like to 

submit for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

The need to protect American lives and property against future terrorist attacks, 

from both domestic and international sources, has never been clearer or more pressing. 

Unfortunately, the last 10 months have taught us that our security and intelligence-gathering mechanisms have not performed as well as many of us had hoped. 

Many serious deficiencies and problems, including lack of leadership, departmental 

overlap and redundancy, and ineffective intelligence sharing, were known even prior 

to September 11. 

5

Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we act—and act boldly—to correct these problems. But it is equally imperative that we do so thoughtfully, deliberately, and responsibly. 

The plan before us today is a bold one and its implications for the proper running 

of various governmental functions are far-reaching. The proposed Homeland Security department would transfer the resources, personnel, and missions of numerous 

departments and agencies throughout the federal government and employ nearly 

170,000 people with a budget of more than $37 billion. Meanwhile, the process developed for the consideration of this unique new government agency is itself unusual. 

Therefore, as we work to create a national framework to enhance and streamline 

our security and intelligence-gathering apparatus, we have a greater responsibility 

to ensure that the remedies we seek to enact are consistent with our democratic values and do not create more problems than they seek to solve. Specifically, accountability, through continued public and congressional oversight, and safeguards 

against threats to our civil liberties must be integral to this process. 

This proposal represents a positive response to the need to address the primary 

deficiencies in our current state of anti-terrorist preparedness—chiefly the lack of 

leadership and coordination. However, many questions still need to be answered and 

clarifications need to be made. 

Most relevant for this Committee is section 403, which proposes to transfer control over immigration and naturalization laws relating to the functions of diplomatic 

and consular officers in connection with the granting or refusing of visas from the 

Department of State to the new Department of Homeland Security. How will this 

transfer affect consular ‘‘non-reviewability’’? 

Exactly what is meant by the Secretary of Homeland Security’s ‘‘exclusive authority’’ over the granting or refusing of visas and how this will be exercised ‘‘through’’ the Secretary of State is also unclear. Will one Secretary be able to direct the employees of another? 

In addition, how will the transfer of visa authority affect non-security related consular and diplomatic functions (e.g., reunification of families, admission of those 

with specifically-needed skills, opportunities for cultural and educational exchange, 

facilitation of trade and tourism, commerce and diplomacy)? Will the Secretary of 

State, to whom will be ‘‘delegated’’ non-security related visa authority by the Secretary of Homeland Security, be subordinated to the Secretary of Homeland Security? 

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the many matters that will require clarification 

in the coming weeks. While I appreciate that the Administration has requested (and 

congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have agreed) to move consideration 

of this bill along an expedited timetable, it is essential that we do so in a manner 

that is both deliberate and responsible. 

There is simply too much at stake for the American people for us to forego serious 

and thoughtful consideration of the many critical changes offered by this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. You are more than welcome to speak it or put 

it in the record. All Members’ opening statements will be made a 

part of the record without objection. Mr. Gilman? 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by your advice and be brief. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and 

for continued leadership, as this Committee does its part to help 

reform our national security infrastructure. The President’s proposed creation of a Department of Homeland Security is the most 

significant transformation of the U.S. Government in over a half a 

century. 

Homeland security starts abroad. The men and women staffing 

our embassies and consulates, who handle many critical immigration law enforcement responsibilities, including issuing visas and 

passports, serve as our front line defense against terrorists. We 

need to make certain that the men and women who will be making 

visa decisions, no matter who they report to, have the information, 

discretion, and motivation necessary to make certain that America 

excludes terrorists and their supporters, while welcoming its 

6

friends and those who want to make a better life for themselves 

and their families. 

The precise future locus of responsibility for visa decisions has 

raised some concern among our colleagues on the Government Reform Committee, on which I serve, and on the Judiciary Committee. We welcome this distinguished panel, who are here today 

to testify before our Committee regarding this important issue, and 

we will be listening carefully. We hope they will advise us on how 

best to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman? 

[No statement.] 

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman does not have an opening statement. 

Mr. Leach? 

[No statement.] 

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

Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am also very cooperative and 

I would like my statement to appear in the record. 

Chairman HYDE. It certainly will. 

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. In extra heavy print. The gentlelady from 

Miami has no statement. The gentleman from Boston, he has no 

statement. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you; make a note of that. Mr. Schiff? 

[No statement.] 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Does anybody else have a statement that—Mr. Royce’s will go in the record. Thank you. 

[The information referred to was not available at time of printing.] 

Chairman HYDE. Very well. I’m now pleased to introduce our distinguished witnesses. It is a pleasure today to welcome the Honorable Marc Grossman, who was confirmed by the Senate in March 

of 2001 as Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Ambassador Grossman has been a career foreign 

service officer since 1976. During this span, he has, among other 

assignments, been Director General of the Foreign Service, Director 

of Human Resources, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. He has also served previously as Deputy Director for the private office of the Secretary 

General of NATO, political officer at the U.S. Mission to NATO, 

Deputy Special Adviser to President Carter, and in other assignments within the Department of State. Ambassador Grossman 

earned his B.A. from the University of California and a Master of 

Science in International Relations from the London School of Economics. We look forward to hearing you today, Ambassador Grossman. 

We, also, welcome today the Honorable George Lannon, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. 

Mr. Lannon is a 26-year veteran of the Foreign Service and is a 

consular specialist. He served in several countries, including Mexico, Lebanon, and El Salvador. Mr. Lannon will not be making a 

statement, but will be available for questioning. 

7

We are pleased to have both of our witnesses today and I would 

ask you to summarize your statements within 5 minutes, give or 

take. Your full statement will be placed in the hearing record. Ambassador Grossman, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFIARS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Lantos 

and others, I am very pleased to be here to testify this morning and 

be part of this conversation about the creation of the Office of 

Homeland Security. 

If I might say, Mr. Chairman, taking from your opening statement, I certainly appreciate your comments. I hope that at the end 

of this conversation, and I hope at the end of the work that you 

do, you will find, as you said, this to be a wise proposal and something very much worth supporting. I think, Mr. Chairman, the object here is, as you said, to make sure that we are looking after and 

protecting the safety and freedom of all Americans. That seems to 

me a very good way to look into this, and I very much appreciate 

your invitation here. I appreciate your comments. 

To Ranking Member Lantos, I also want to say that I appreciate 

especially your point, as you said, that this has been a Committee 

which has not only supported the President and supported the Department in the global war on terrorism, and that it is in that spirit that we have this hearing. It is certainly in that spirit that we 

arrive here. 

Two other points, if I could, before I make my statement, to the 

Ranking Member and also to Mr. Gilman. I think our object here 

is to make sure that we are focused, as the Chairman said, on safety and freedom of American citizens. And, therefore, the focus on 

the creation of the Homeland Security Department seems to me absolutely crucial. And I hope, Congressman Lantos, in this conversation, we can tell you that we do not find this particularly peculiar. 

We believe that given what happened on the 11th of September 

and given the need to focus carefully on issues of law enforcement, 

issues of protecting the United States, that the proposition the 

President has made to the Congress is one that is not peculiar, but 

indeed worth supporting. And we believe we can make this work. 

The Chairman said, you know, ‘‘Is there a structure we can 

find?’’. I believe the answer to that is yes, and I would be glad to 

answer further questions on this. 

The other question, as Congressman Gilman and Mr. Lantos 

talked about, is this issue of culture. If I could just say that from 

our perspective, the issue here is whatever different cultures existed in the past, the culture that has to exist now in the executive 

branch, seems to be a culture, as the Chairman said, that focuses 

on the safety and freedom of American citizens. And that means 

everybody has to change. It means we have to change, other people 

have to change, and I think the President’s proposition for this 

issue and creation of the Office of Homeland Security shows a way 

forward. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might take the opportunity in my statement, 

I hope to answer some of the questions that you posed and that the 

8

Ranking Member posed. I thank you, very much, for inviting me 

to this hearing. As you both said, this is the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s. 

Let me be absolutely clear that the Department of State supports 

the President’s proposal and specifically section 403, which transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security control over the 

issuance and denial of visas to enter the United States. From my 

perspective, September 11, 2001 brought a vigorous, a determined, 

and an effective response from the people in the Government of the 

United States. But as the President said in his transmittal of this 

bill to the Congress, we can do better. And I believe, in fact, we 

must do better, and that is one of the reasons that we so strongly 

support the President’s proposition. I believe the President’s proposition shows the way ahead. As we do everything in our power to 

protect our country and its people from terrorism in the United 

States, the Department of State has been, and will continue to be, 

fully committed to this effort. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, you both said that we have 

got a lot of important work ahead, and we have no more important 

work than the protection of Americans at home and abroad. Let me 

give you some statistics, Mr. Chairman, that you were looking for. 

On any given day, about three million private Americans are 

abroad. Americans abroad give birth to 44,000 children that the 

State Department documents as American citizens; 2,000–3,000 

Americans are arrested every year in other countries. They need to 

be visited. They need to be helped. They need to find their way 

through a foreign legal system. Some 6,000 Americans abroad die 

every year, and about half of those families ask that the bodies be 

returned to the United States. 

We search for, and we assist in the search for, almost 40,000 

Americans abroad, who are lost or whose families lose contact with 

them and are concerned about them when they are living and traveling abroad. When a plane crash overseas happens, it is State Department officers who are often the first people on the scene to help 

those families and parents and survivors. One-hundred-and-fourteen thousand Americans study abroad, a number that has gone up 

10 percent a year for a number of years. And our passport offices 

at home and abroad issue almost seven million passports to our fellow citizens. 

Who does this work? And Mr. Gilman said, who is on the front 

line of America’s offense or defense here? Why are they drawn to 

this career? How do they help us get to where we want to be? And 

very much, as the Chairman asked, what is the State Department’s 

value added here? 

My answer to that question, over my career and some of the 

things that I have done, is that our Foreign Service employees and 

our Civil Service employees are drawn from the very best talent in 

the United States. And what motivates them? What motivates 

them is patriotism, the desire to promote and protect and defend 

the United States of America, curiosity about life abroad, and desire to serve their fellow citizens. 

One thing that is very interesting to me is over the past year, 

and certainly since the 11th of September, the number of people 

who are taking the Foreign Service exam, who want to join the 

9

Foreign Service, has grown in very large numbers. Eight thousand 

took the exam in September of 2000. Almost double that number 

took the exam in September 2001. Our officers learn languages. 

They learn about the cultures, and they get prepared for what I 

think you would agree can often be a very, very dangerous job 

abroad. 

The amount of work, Mr. Chairman, that you asked about on our 

visa lines is—the only word I can use is staggering. Mr. Chairman, 

in fiscal year 2001, the Department of State adjudicated nearly 

10.5 million non-immigrant visa applications at 196 posts. Out of 

this total, we issued about 7.5 million visas, or 71 percent of the 

applications. And we also handled 628,000 immigrant visa cases. 

The Department has committed nearly 75 percent of its total of 

880 overseas consular officers to the visa adjudication process, either officers, who are doing the work directly, or supervisors. Applications are reviewed in every case by American consular officers. 

Our name check system is consulted in every case. Documents are 

verified and, very often, the applicant is personally interviewed by 

a consular officer. 

You asked, Mr. Chairman, how many people get interviewed; 

how many would likely be security threats. During Fiscal Year 

2001, more than 68 percent of our posts interviewed 50 percent of 

their visa applicants. That does not mean they are all security 

risks, but those are the people who people wanted to see in front 

of them to check their information. Experienced consular supervisors reviewed issuances and refusal, our anti-fraud units monitored attempts of deception, and only then was a visa issued. 

I want to say that from my perspective, this idea that is out and 

about—that consular work is only done by people who stamp visas, 

by only the most junior people, and only those who are disgruntled—from my perspective, anyway, misses the entire point. That 

charge made by those people, to me, does not get it. 

I think the majority of people in the State Department, and I 

would say a majority of the people in the Foreign Service, recognize 

the value to their further careers of a knowledge of foreign society, 

knowledge of immigration work, and ability to help American citizens abroad. That most officers move on to other jobs in their careers, seems to me, not a negative, but a testament to our career 

service. Those who do stay with the consular function, one of the 

five core competencies of the Foreign Service, make a huge contribution to the representation of the United States abroad. And I 

might say, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I have found most 

heartening in the past year is that the number of people who are 

choosing consular affairs as their specialty coming into the State 

Department has risen dramatically, and it is now the third most 

chosen of the five specialties. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope you would allow me, for the record, to put 

in some examples of how, in real life, people have used their expertise to protect the United States. I have four or five of those I 

would like to put into the record. 

The 19 terrorists who attacked the United States on September 

11th, entered the United States on legally issued visas and proceeded on their deadly mission undeterred by any U.S. authorities. 

We have to ask the question why. Why did we not recognize who 

10

they were and what they planned to do and refuse these visas? Because, there was no way, without the identification of these people 

as terrorists, either through law enforcement or intelligence channels and the conveyance of that knowledge to consular officers 

abroad, for their intentions to be uncovered. The identification by 

intelligence and law enforcement and the sharing of that data with 

consular officers abroad remains the key to fighting terrorism with 

visa policy. 

We have come a long way in a short time, and many new things 

have happened, including the very great help we have received 

from the Congress and the U.S. Patriot Act and a number of decisions the President has made. But one of the most important reasons, I believe, to support the President’s proposition in this area 

of homeland security is to make sure that the right information is 

collected, and the right information goes to our consular officers 

abroad. 

One more point, Mr. Chairman, and then I will stop. In creating 

this new department, with its very proper focus on homeland security and its very proper focus on law enforcement, it is also important to recognize, as you did in your opening statement, that visas 

have an important connection to the foreign policy of the United 

States. The United States uses visa policy to advance our goals of 

promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortions and sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and punishing enemies of democracy around the world. These priorities will 

continue to inform our policy, and the Secretary of State will support the Homeland Security Department to advance them. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I look forward to 

your questions in this conversation. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grossman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR

POLITICAL AFFIARS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting my comments on the most extensive re-organization of the Federal Government since the 

1940s. 

The Department of State supports the President’s proposal. September 11, 2001 

brought a vigorous, determined, and effective response from the people and government of the United States, but, as the President said in transmitting his bill to Congress, also the knowledge that we can do better. The President’s proposal shows the 

way ahead as we do everything in our power to protect our country and its people 

from terrorism. The Department of State has been and continues to be fully committed to this effort. 

The State Department has no more important work then the protection of Americans at home and abroad. On any given day, about 3 million Americans are overseas. Americans abroad give birth to 44,000 children whom we document as US citizens; 2,000–3,000 Americans are arrested each year in other countries and need to 

be visited, helped, and their cases monitored. Some 6,000 Americans die each year 

with 2,000 families choosing to have their loved ones’ remains sent back to the US 

for burial. 

We search for and assist over 40,000 Americans abroad whose families have either lost track of them or become alarmed about events where they are living or 

traveling. When a plane crashes overseas our officers help parents, spouses, and 

children cope with the tragedy and navigate a foreign bureaucracy. 114,000 Americans study abroad every year; this number is going up by 10% annually. Our passport offices at home and abroad issued 7,000,000 US Passports to our fellow citizens 

last year. 

Who does this work on what Secretary Powell likes to call the first line of America’s ‘‘offense’’? Why are they drawn to this career? How does what they do help protect us at home and abroad? What is the State Department’s value added? 

11

Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service employees of the State Department are 

drawn from among the best talent in the U.S.. They are entering motivated by patriotism, curiosity about life abroad, and a desire to serve their fellow citizens. More 

Americans than ever are taking the Foreign Service written exam: 8,000 took the 

exam in September of 2000, 13,000 in September of 2001 and 14,000 in April of 

2002. Our officers learn foreign languages, prepare to live in some of the least hospitable parts of the world, face grave danger (as the Africa bombings of 1998 and 

the bombing of Consulate in Karachi witness)in order to protect Americans. 

The amount of work on our visa lines is staggering. In Fiscal Year 2001, the Department adjudicated nearly 10.5 million non-immigrant visa applications at 196 

posts. Out of this total, we issued visas to over 7.5 million people or about 71 percent of applicants. We also handled 628,000 immigrant visa cases. 

The Department has committed nearly 75 percent of the total 880 plus overseas 

consular officers to the visa adjudication process, either as officers providing direct 

interview services on a regular basis or as the managers of this function. Applications are reviewed in every case by American consular officers. Our name checking 

system is consulted in every case, documents are verified and often the applicant 

is personally interviewed by a consular officer. During FY–2001, more than 68 percent of posts interviewed at least 50 percent of their visa applicants. Experienced 

consular supervisors review issuances and refusals, anti-fraud units monitor attempts at deception and only then is a visa issued. People who say that consular 

work is only done by ‘‘visa stampers’’ or disgruntled junior officers who all want to 

be Ambassadors don’t get it. 

The majority of Foreign Service Officers recognize the value to their careers of the 

knowledge of a foreign society, its people, and the complex web of US immigration 

law and regulations gained in doing consular work. That most officers move on to 

other specialties within the Foreign Service is a testament to our career pattern and 

the variety of work we do overseas, but the career track of consular officers is one 

of the five core competencies of the Foreign Service. I find it heartening that an increasing number of people joining the Foreign Service are choosing to do consular 

work as their specialty. Consular is now the third most popular choice for new candidates, following the political and public diplomacy cones. 

Here are some real-life examples of the value-added I describe:

• Consular Officers in two different posts refused student and tourist visas to 

Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni who allegedly conspired with Zacarias 

Moussaoui and the 19 9/11 hijackers. They believed him to be an intending 

immigrant and therefore ineligible under the law.

• A female visa applicant in Manila was closely questioned by a consular officer, who elicited information substantiating her ties to the Abu Sayyaf Group. 

Her visa was refused for involvement in terrorist activities.

• A consular officer in Germany thought the multiple visa applications of a retired refugee from Kosovo odd: how could this man spend so much time in 

the US, even with his generous pension? Looking more deeply into the case 

the consular officer found that the man was getting welfare benefits in Germany and the US, and was a member of an alien smuggling ring that had 

moved 2,000 aliens into the US, and was involved in gun-running and counterfeiting.

The nineteen terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 entered the United States 

on legally issued visas and proceeded on to their deadly mission undeterred by US 

authorities. Why did we not recognize who they were and what they planned to do 

and refuse those visas? Because there was no way, without prior identification of 

these people as terrorists through either law enforcement or intelligence channels 

and the conveyance of that knowledge to consular officers abroad, for their intentions 

to be uncovered. 

Identification by intelligence and law enforcement and the sharing of that data 

with consular officers abroad remains the key to fighting terrorism with visa policy. 

We have come a long way in a short time towards the comprehensive data sharing 

we must have to prevail in this area of the war against terrorism. Executive orders 

and The USA Patriot Act now require such sharing, and our files on potential terrorists are far better now than they have ever been in the past. 

The new Department of Homeland Security will assure consular officers timely access to the best data the US Government keeps on terrorists. A better flow of information is another reason to support the President’s proposal. 

In creating the new Department, with its proper emphasis on homeland defense 

and law enforcement, it is important to recognize that visa policy plays a vital role 

in foreign policy concerns of the United States. For example, the US uses visa policy 

12

to advance our goals of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and 

sterilization, enforcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and in punishing the 

enemies of democracy around the world. These priorities will continue to inform our 

policy and the Secretary of State will support the Homeland Security Department 

to advance them. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ambassador Grossman. If I may 

ask the first question. Under the Homeland Security Act, as introduced, the Secretary of Homeland Security is granted broad supervisory authority over all visa processing. Some Members of Congress have felt that the entire operation should be transferred to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, because of the sensitivity of 

people coming in and out of our country. 

My own view is a compromise between the State Department 

handling these millions of applications, as they do now, but having 

an official or an officer of Homeland Security present at the missions where the visas are issued, to attend to security issues. That 

person would be available for reviewing an applicant, guidance as 

to what to look for, resolving questions in dispute, but dealing with 

homeland security issues. The Administration of these millions of 

applications would stay with the State Department, but there 

would be present—physically present in the field at each mission, 

a security officer from Homeland Security, to take care of those 

issues. 

That, it seems to me, would provide the element of security necessary without interfering with the enormous job of dealing with 

this mountain of paperwork and applications. 

Your comment, please. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I would say a 

couple of things. 

First, I think we ought to start all of these answers, or certainly 

I will anyway, by recognizing what I tried to say in my statement, 

which is that we have got to change the way we do business after 

the 11th of September. That is what we want to do, and that is 

why we are supporting the President’s proposal. I think it makes 

the right balance between the guidance and the direction that 

would come from the Department of Homeland Security and the 

Administration through the Secretary of the visa process. 

As to your suggestion, I think as we go along, we would take 

ideas and suggestions from the Chair, from any other Member, and 

I certainly would take one from the Chair of this Committee. My 

initial reaction is that we ought to figure out whether we can 

achieve the same goals that you seek, Mr. Chairman, through rapid 

communication. I, for one, would be a little bit worried about sending someone from Homeland Security to all of our missions overseas, because you then add one more person to the mission, and 

maybe create a security problem. 

These are things I would like to talk about with you. But, I think 

for the moment, what we have got is a pretty good balance between 

the direction that we would receive and our consular officers would 

receive from the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Secretary of State, and I think we can achieve this. But, as I say, I 

am very, very glad to have an idea from the Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Lantos? 

13

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing 

has a very special flavor, Mr. Secretary, because we clearly all 

share the same goals and objectives. And my questions relate to 

your envisioning what will unfold on the ground and my understanding of what is unfolding on the ground. Let me just mention 

two items—or three. 

All cabinet secretaries are equal by definition; but if there ever 

was validity to the concept of primus interpares, first among 

equals, then the Secretary of State historically in the American 

governmental structure is the number one cabinet secretary. I have 

difficulty envisioning my good friend, Tom Ridge, issuing directives 

to my good friend, Colin Powell. And I have difficulty comprehending how the American people would view this bizarre relationship. We recognize that this is merely a sort of administrative and 

bureaucratic sleight of hand, Ridge passing on the responsibility to 

Powell and Powell then making a new system for issuing visas, because certainly the system has to be dramatically restructured, in 

view of security. 

I have infinitely more confidence in the Department of State 

doing it with people who have lived abroad for their whole career, 

who understand foreign cultures, who speak the language, etc., 

etc., etc. And my feeling is—and you served as our distinguished 

Ambassador to Turkey—if I would be the lone Homeland Security 

guy assigned to Ankara, presumably not speaking a word of Turkish, never having been to Turkey, trying to prevent visas being 

issued to people who should not be getting visas, it would be a 

pretty overpowering responsibility. While tightening within the Department, the issuance of visas in Turkey, maybe I should say 

Saudi Arabia, where I think the most outrageous pattern has existed for far too long, I would feel much more secure having Colin 

Powell and you, with years of experience behind you, deal with 

this. 

Tom Ridge was a colleague of ours and then governor of Pennsylvania, and I do not know which people he would find to assign to 

this. Would they go to the Foreign Service Institute? Would they 

have language training? Would they have training in culture? 

Would they then be restricted to one place? I mean, take the Balkans. You would need linguistic training in a dozen-and-a-half languages, some of these very complex languages. How would you 

handle this? 

My own concern with respect to the visa issue, if it has any 

focus, is the use of foreign nationals in issuing visas. As you know 

better than I do, Mr. Secretary, in many of our embassies, the majority of the work, in some cases the bulk of the work, is done by 

not nationals of the United States. We are in a new era, and some 

of the insanities that we see unfolding even today reflect the fact 

that security was not the prime consideration prior to September 

11, and now it is. Yet our top agencies dealing with this matter are 

still farming out translation of documents to people of questionable 

security clearance or qualifications. Those are the issues we need 

to worry about. 

And I truly think we will move on whatever legislation is proposed, probably unanimously. This is not a contentious issue, but 

it is an issue where not all the wisdom is in the possession of the 

14

Administration. Some of us have considerable experience with embassies and with foreign cultures and foreign societies. And this bureaucratic sleight of hand that Tom Ridge is in charge, assuming 

he will be the new cabinet officer and he delegates some things to 

Colin Powell, who then works under Ridge or cooperates with him, 

this is a sort of a fiction that I have some difficulty dealing with. 

I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on some of these matters. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Congressman Lantos, let me try to answer all of 

your questions, because we have also given this a huge amount of 

thought. First, I think we have to recognize, and we all have to 

admit, that the structure that was in place before the 11th of September was a structure designed to bring as many people as possible to the United States, who met certain criteria. We were asked 

by the tourism industry, we were asked by the education industry, 

we were asked by many of your offices to bring people into the 

United States. And that is fair enough, and that is what we were 

doing before the 11th of September. I think we ought to just admit 

that out in the open. 

After the 11th of September, as you said, whereas security was 

not previously the foremost requirement, it is now. And so, we have 

to do what you said in your opening statement, which is to change 

the culture of what it is that we are doing, absolutely. Our people 

bring to this job tremendous skills; they bring to this job skills that 

nobody else has. 

But the question now is, how do they focus their skills, and on 

what do they focus those skills? And I would submit to you, sir, 

that the job we all have in changing this culture, in both executive 

branch and legislative branch, is to make sure that the skill, the 

desire, and the patriotism that people bring to their job is now focused not on the job pre-9/11, but on the job post-9/11, which is 

making sure that security is uppermost. 

I would say to you, Mr. Lantos, that all of the positives that you 

listed about our experience—languages, culture, understanding—

all ought to be turned to the ability to better protect the United 

States of America and how to do that. I would say that what you 

are calling a bizarre relationship, I think actually has the possibility to turn out to be exactly the right balance. 

When the Secretary has talked to me about this, after his conversations with Governor Ridge, after thinking about this a lot, he 

said exactly what you said about the Congress and the Administration. Nobody any longer has a lock on all wisdom in this regard. 

State Department does not have a lock on this wisdom. The new 

Department of Homeland Security might not, other areas might 

not. But, we think, and I know the President thinks, and I believe 

the Secretary thinks, that it is time now, given 9/11, to give the 

authority and the responsibility for issuing regulations, for carrying 

out the Immigration and Nationality Act, for setting standards, for 

issuing standards, to the Department of Homeland Security, so 

that it is absolutely clear what our objective is. 

And I think this can work. That is why section 403 talks about 

working through the Secretary of State, so the Secretary is informed, so he continues to hire, promote, and train the people who 

are doing this work. But, I think all of the pluses that you put out 

15

there, which I appreciate, now need to focus on the question of 

homeland defense. 

I would also agree with you, sir, that we do need, all of us, to 

make sure that our Foreign Service national employees, the vast 

majority of whom, I believe, do a very, very good job, that they 

need to be part of this culture change as well. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your excellent testimony. 

Following up on the questions that have been asked, as you can 

see, we really have a difficult time understanding the mechanics of 

how this process will actually work. Under the previous Administration, there were instances where the FBI had objected to or had 

concerns about particular individuals seeking visas to enter our 

country. Yet, the State Department essentially vetoed the FBI and 

approved the issuance of the visas. 

Under the structure that this bill seeks to create, if our intelligence and law enforcement agencies raise objections or concerns 

about the issuance of visas to these individuals, who would make 

the ultimate determination? The Secretary of State, as Mr. Lantos 

was asking? The new Secretary of Homeland Security? And what 

does section 4(3)(a)(1) of the bill actually say when it says that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security shall have exclusive authority, 

through the Secretary of State? It is really very difficult for us to 

get a grasp on that. So, essentially, what would be the relationship 

between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the new 

Department or Bureau of Information Analysis, and the State Department, regarding the issuance of visas? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, ma’am, let me see if I can answer that question as clearly as I can. First, this is a little bit, in a sense, like 

a confirmation hearing, in the sense that since we have not done 

this job yet, I do not know how to answer your question about how 

exactly the mechanism will work. There is no Department of Homeland Security. So, we have to find a mechanism, and we will find 

that mechanism in carrying out the law. 

I also believe that the sectional analysis, which the President 

sent up with the law, really has got this clearly defined, extremely 

well defined, about what the responsibilities are. But it is hard to 

say, because there is no Department of Homeland Security yet. 

In specific answer to your question, it will be the Secretary of 

Homeland Security who will make the decisions about the issuance 

and denials of visas. And I kind of tripped over that sentence a couple of times, too, in reading that. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the—and then number one and number two—exclusive authority, and then the authority to delegate. So, in the proposition that you make, which is if there is information from the FBI, 

if there is information from the CIA, it will be the authority of the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to make that decision. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am sure that there will be some follow-ups 

to that. Let me ask you about the Visa Express Program. Why did 

you suddenly and abruptly drop the name Visa Express from the 

program that you had in Saudi Arabia, where Saudi nationals and 

third country nationals living in Saudi Arabia submit visa applications to travel agents. Why did Secretary Ryan not mention the 

16

program, formerly known as Visa Express, in his testimony before 

the Senate in October? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I apologize—I do not know the answer to the second question, but I would be glad to come back to you. I think that 

people decided that the name Visa Express was completely giving 

the wrong impression. It gave the impression that this was someway around the normal visa process, which indeed it was not. Visa 

Express in Saudi Arabia and in other countries in which we use 

it, is a way for consular officers to be able to focus on the hardest 

cases. It is a way to get your passport into the Embassy. We have 

not subcontracted the visa function to travel agents. These decisions are still all made by Americans under the law. 

So, I think it was a smart thing. And, again, I go back to the 

point I made to Congressman Lantos, which is that before the 11th 

of September, of course, what did everybody want? Everybody 

wanted people to come into the country as quickly and easily and 

politely and efficiently as possible. And I think after the 11th of 

September, calling it Visa Express just gives absolutely the wrong 

impression. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of observations and then a question. The first observation is that I think 

there is a general recognition in this country and I think the law 

recognizes that there is no absolute right to come into this country, 

that the standards of rights and due process and carrying the burden for denials does not apply in the context of issuing visas in the 

way it might apply to a whole variety of benefits and privileges for 

U.S. citizens. And that is seen by the fact that a consular decision 

is non-reviewable in a court. And the second point, I guess, is that 

we would be foolish not to rethink policies and processes after September 11th, given what has transpired. 

But, I just want to throw out a concern. I hope it is just an abstract one, but I am interested in your reaction. You point out correctly that visa policy plays a vital role in foreign policy concerns 

to the United States and you cite visa policies to advance our goals 

of promoting religious freedom, opposing forced abortion and sterilization, and forcing the reciprocal treatment of diplomats, and 

punishing the enemies of democracy around the world. 

But, there have been times in our country’s history where we 

used our visa policies to enforce policies which were not so wise or 

sensible. There were times when we denied visas to people based 

on sexual orientation. There were times when we denied visas because someone was an outspoken opponent of atmospheric nuclear 

testing. There were times when we denied visas 40 years after a 

person had expressed sympathies for one side or the other in the 

Spanish Civil War. 

We cleaned up a lot of that in the early 1990s. I remember in 

the good old days, when the democrats were in the majority, in the 

State Department Authorization Bill, we made a lot of changes, got 

rid of a lot of this. Now, we are giving very, very broad authority 

to deny visas. Tell me what is wrong with the current authority 

that the Secretary of State now has to decide when—he or his designees decide when and when not to issue visas. Why do we need 

to broaden that authority further, and risk the fears of absolute 

17

discretion leading to slipping back into sort of abusive and intolerant practices, which do not serve foreign policy or security interests? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I will give you a personal answer. The personal answer is that I think all of the examples you have cited, and there are many, many more, as well, are 

important and worth remembering. And it is also worth remembering how many of us either are children or grandchildren of immigrants, or immigrants ourselves. And I do not necessarily think 

that the answer here is what is wrong with the current system, 

other than to say, as Congressman Lantos—— Mr. BERMAN. No, the current authority. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, but it is, as we have been talking about since 

the 11th of September, it seems to me that there needs to be a 

change in culture. There needs to be a change in presumption, if 

you will. There needs to be a change in what it is—on what criteria 

people are making these decisions. And the idea that you would 

move this authority, as the President wishes to do, to a Secretary 

of Homeland Security, I think sends the message to everybody that 

the idea is different; that what we are interested in is different. 

And I think that is an important thing, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I take your point quite seriously. You have 

made it several times and it is worth making. I just wanted to perhaps throw out some concerns. 

I am curious about the situation under this new organizational 

chart, where the Secretary thinks that American foreign policy interests are served by not granting a visa to someone. At least in 

the old days, if there was a dispute between the Attorney General 

and the Secretary of State, the President or the National Security 

Advisor would decide that dispute. Here, it looks to me like the 

Secretary of State, in this particular area, is a bit of a supplicant. 

Can I persuade the Secretary of Homeland Security, or whatever 

this new department is going to be called, to grant this visa, notwithstanding the regulatory processes, and if I cannot, what do I 

do? Am I going outside the chain of command, if I want to raise 

this directly with the President? Just perhaps speak to that. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, again, as I tried to answer the Congresswoman from Florida’s question, because there is no Department of 

Homeland Security yet, it is speculative. But, I know from talking 

to Secretary Powell that he believes that the language that is in 

this law—through the Secretary of State—is the right place to be. 

He believes that from his perspective, it keeps him informed, it 

keeps him in line with what he could consider to be his troops, and 

it gives him all of the opportunity that he needs to make the kinds 

of points that you say, if that situation were to arise. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman? 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the criticisms of 

the current visa issuance process is that screening for security is 

not a top priority; that there is too much emphasis on customer 

service and that there is too much pressure to show the host country that we welcome visits by their countrymen. Do you think security concerns have been overshadowed by efforts to be customer 

friendly? And I pose that to our good Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Mr. Lannon. 

18

THE HONORABLE GEORGE LANNON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LANNON. No, security is, I think, the prime issue on any visa 

issuance. Security checks are required before a visa will be issued. 

They cannot be overcome. They have to be done. They are run 

through the name check system. We take this very seriously. It is 

only done by an American. A visa cannot be issued over refusal, 

without being checked by somebody else, to make sure that it was 

done correctly. So, I think security is and remains the prime factor 

in the issuance of a visa, regardless of what the host country nationals or the host country thinks about it. If a person is ineligible 

for security reasons, they will not be issued a visa. 

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Lannon, let me address a further question. The 

Consular of Affairs issued all 19 of the hijackers of September 11th 

valid visas for legal entry into our nation, is that correct? 

Mr. LANNON. That is correct. 

Mr. GILMAN. In fact, didn’t you renew some of those individual 

visas not long before the September 11th attack? 

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

Mr. GILMAN. Does this make the case that the system really 

needs revision and maybe some other authority ought to take 

charge of the process? 

Mr. LANNON. No. I think it makes the case that we need the information in the lookout system that would enable us to deny that 

visa based on the new information that may have been available. 

Mr. GILMAN. What prevents this from having that information in 

the lookout system? 

Mr. LANNON. Well, in the past, there have been issues of just 

timeliness of getting information from the law enforcement, intelligence community into the system. We have various ways of doing 

it; but, sometimes, they are just too slow. I think we look to the 

Department of Homeland Security to speed this process and ensure 

this information is put into the system. 

Mr. GILMAN. Is that being taken care of now? 

Mr. LANNON. Well, because of the Board of Securities Act, we received the NCIC information from the FBI. We are in the process 

of integrating that information into our systems. Since September 

11th, we have seen a marked increase of the information flowing 

in from the intelligence community into the system, as well. So, 

since the Patriot Act and the Board of Securities Act, we have seen 

increasing information coming into our lookout system. 

Mr. GILMAN. So, we would not be confronted with this kind of a 

problem in the future, based on that revision? 

Mr. LANNON. I hope not. 

Mr. GILMAN. I hope not, too. Can you, please, describe the consular training program? Does it train people to detect suspicious 

behaviors that reveal motivations of the individual, particularly 

with an eye on possible terrorists? 

Mr. LANNON. We have a 26-day course at the Foreign Service Institute, where they go through basically the law. It covers three 

main segments: Immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas, and American citizen service. There is some interviewing techniques training. But, it covers the law. The problem, I think, is what does a 

19

terrorist look like; how do you discover one without other information. I think one of the things about the 19, they are rather 

unremarkable. They were middle class people. They did not look 

like anything. It is very hard to train someone to discover a terrorist. Again, this is why we look to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, who are looking at who these people are, to 

provide us with this information, so we can get it into our systems, 

to give the consular officers the tools they need when a person applies for a visa. 

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Lannon——

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman, your time is up. 

Mr. GILMAN. I thought I had 1 more minute remaining, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. You do. You have 42 seconds, I am sorry. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lannon, one more question. What 

percentage of these applicants are actually interviewed by a U.S. 

consular officer? 

Mr. LANNON. We think it is hard to extrapolate it. We do not 

have an exact figure, but we think it is 50 percent or more, probably no more than 60, but around 50 percent worldwide. 

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

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

Chairman HYDE. Surely. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I feel a little bit badly that perhaps I should 

have listed the examples in my statement. But, Mr. Gilman, for the 

record, I put in, with the Chairman’s permission, three or four examples of where consular officers, using their intuition, using their 

knowledge of the host country, actually did find people who turned 

up for a visa: In two case, terrorists; in another case, someone who 

was running a huge alien smuggling ring. So, we do have these, 

and I submit these examples for the record, with the Chairman’s 

permission. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Ambassador, I think your numbers were about 

10 million applications and 7 million non-immigrant visas that are 

issued per year. Does that mean that there are 3 million visa applications that are denied? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Correct. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. What is the basis? I never realized that it was 

that proportion. That means almost 30 percent that are denied. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, of course, it is worldwide. In some countries, and we do not have to go through each one, but in some countries, that proportion is considerably higher, obviously. But the law, 

as it is currently written—and again, we can only speculate about 

how it would be enforced in the future—but the law, at the moment, gives consular officers a whole range of possibilities for denying visas. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How many of those three million, if you know, 

were denied based upon security concerns? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I think we would have to check. But, I would like 

to come back to you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I think that—I think that would be informative. 

20

Mr. GROSSMAN. It is very important. We should have that number. We will come back to you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was the Chair that indicated that there 

are some that would put the entire consular function under the 

aegis of the Homeland Security Bureau. Does the Administration 

have a price tag on that particular proposal or suggestion? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, sir, because the Administration does not support it. We have not done any of the work to find out how much 

it would cost. But, as I said——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Has there been any conversation about what the 

cost might be? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Only speculative. I mean, as I said in my——

Mr. DELAHUNT. What is the speculation? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, I am saying only speculative, in the sense 

that it would cost a lot of money. But, if you——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are we talking a billion? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I have no idea, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. But I would be glad to come back to you. Again, 

if you take what I said in my statement, the numbers of births, 

deaths, other kinds of consular services, those are things that I 

know the Secretary believes we ought to be doing, because the Department of Homeland Security should focus on homeland security. 

And where the Secretary wants to be is totally in support of the 

President and Tom Ridge on this. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask you this question: How does this proposal impact—would it impact at all the Visa Waiver Program? I 

mean, if our purpose now is to protect American citizens and, clearly, that is it, and, as you say, there has been a shift in presumption, how many nations are under the umbrella of the Visa Waiver 

Program, and do we have adequate security indicators or precautions to discover those that might harm our national interest? 

And I will follow up with another question: In situations where individuals would have dual passports, dual nationalities, one of 

which would be issued by a nation that was part of the Visa Waiver Program. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I do not know the answer on dual nationals, but 

we would be glad to take that. On the question of the Visa Waiver 

Program, it goes back actually to this whole conversation. Of 

course, the Visa Waiver Program was, as you say, designed to 

make it easier and more customer friendly to get into the United 

States. That presumption should change. 

But I would say, Congressman Delahunt, that even before the 

11th of September, people looked very, very carefully at the security issues that had to do with the Visa Waiver Program. For example, a number of countries have never gotten in, because they 

cannot control their blank passports. There are periodic reviews——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that, Ambassador. But, I am thinking, for example, an individual from Great Britain. Presumably, 

they qualify for the Visa Waiver Program. I do not even know what 

the population of Great Britain would be, at this point; but, presumably, there are Commonwealth nations where their citizens 

21

would be entitled to a British passport. And, yet, what kind of 

screening filtering device would we have? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. All good questions. I would like to come back to 

you. And, of course, the Visa Waiver Program would then be under 

the control of the Department of Homeland Security, and I am sure 

whoever takes that job will look quite carefully at it. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I can appreciate the fact that you do not have 

some ready answers here on what it would look like in the mechanisms. Presuming that the legislation passes, it is going to be a 

work in progress and it really will be incumbent upon both Departments, as well as Congress, to exercise its oversight and to really 

follow it. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you can see we 

are all supportive of many of the concepts you outline, but we are 

struggling with just how this would work, and I have some basic 

understanding questions in that area. Does the Administration’s 

proposal mean that one Secretary will be able to direct the employees of another Secretary? That seems to be the implication here. 

And, if so, how do you see that working? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I was waiting for another question. The way we 

see this working is, is that all the authorities that are currently 

with the Secretary of State for issuance and denial of visas will 

transfer to the Department of Homeland Security; that the Department of Homeland Security will issue regulations and directions 

about how that process should be carried out. And as the law says, 

the Director—I’m sorry, the Secretary of Homeland Security may 

or may not wish to delegate some of that authority back to the Department of State or someone else in the Federal Government. 

The reason Secretary Powell and Governor Ridge wanted to 

make sure, and the President agreed, that it said, ‘‘through the 

Secretary of State,’’ is so that these regulations would not be issued 

directly from the Department of Homeland Security to consular officers abroad. It would go through the Secretary, so he is informed. 

Mr. GREEN. I guess I do not understand what you mean by ‘‘through the Secretary.’’ In other words, you promulgate regulations. You in essence physically carry them over to the Secretary 

of State, who then physically passes them along. What does that 

mean when you say, ‘‘through the Secretary of State’’? I still, as a 

basic question, do not understand how that would work. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. In a sense, I would agree with your proposition. 

It means physically that if the Secretary of Homeland Security 

were to decide on issue x or y—that we should change the way that 

we are issuing visas or we should look more specifically at a category of people—he would promulgate that change in whatever 

form that he wished. It would then come to the Secretary of State, 

and we would, through the Department’s communications, through 

the Department’s training, through the Department’s apparatus, 

convey that to our people. 

I mean, this happens all the time. We get instructions and we 

get changes and we get impulse from all kinds of cabinet agencies. 

So, I know—— Mr. GREEN. When you say it happens all the time, I understand 

there may be communications between the agencies; but, if the SecVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
22

retary of Homeland Security makes a policy change, makes a regulatory change, and then passes it to the Secretary of State, what 

if the Secretary of State disagrees? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, again, I would say, as I answered a question before, the Secretary of State has talked to me about this, and 

he certainly believes nobody after the 11th of September has got 

a lock on all wisdom here. We do not want to be in that attitude. 

We want to be supporting what Governor Ridge and the future Secretary of Homeland Security are going to do. But, you know, if the 

Secretary of State is informed of what is going on and has concerns 

about it, I am sure he would find a way to raise them. 

I think the focus right now should not be on that part of it, with 

all due respect, sir. It ought to be on the transfer of these authorities, the focus on security, homeland security and law enforcement. 

And we believe, I know Secretary Powell believes, that that will be 

the vast, vast majority of the work that gets done. Again, when he 

has talked to me about this, we do not even talk about the cases 

where there is going to be disagreement, because, as we have said 

to the Chairman and Ranking Member, it has got to be a culture 

change here. 

Mr. GREEN. Again, I think we all agree with you, in terms of the 

purposes of this legislation. But, I think, as we look back on September 11th and the systems in place before September 11th, many 

of us have concerns that the system is far from seamless. And my 

concern is that the process that you have outlined also does not appear to be seamless. It appears to be multi-staged, with one stage 

building upon another. And if there is a breakdown in any part of 

the process, then this ‘‘seamless’’ model breaks apart. I think that 

is the concern that we have, that we all want to address. 

Under this proposal, as it has been outlined, who is responsible 

for staffing and managing U.S. passport offices? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. The State Department, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. So, the State Department is responsible for staffing 

and managing. Homeland Security is responsible for developing the 

policies and regulations. See, the concern I have is that as the 

President outlined this concept of clear lines of authority and accountability. I am not sure that as it has been outlined here, it 

quite meets those objectives. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, very much. Ambassador Grossman, how many visas did you say? It was seven million visas 

issued a year? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir, in Fiscal Year 2001. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And of those visas that are issued, these are 

non-immigrant visas; is that correct? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Of those seven million non-immigrant 

visas, how many do not return back to their home country? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I will get you that information. I do not have 

that information. 

23

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is pretty important—— Mr. GROSSMAN. It is, absolutely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Fact, isn’t it? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, could you give me a guess? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I cannot. I apologize. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not even anything in the ballpark here? A 

million? Two million? Three million people? Five-hundred thousand? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Oh, I am sure that is too low. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, am I. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I mean, part of this, to go back to the point that 

Mr. Green was making, is this is one of those seams that I believe 

the Department of Homeland Security can stitch up, because, right 

now, you have immigration——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope so. My guess is we are talking 

about millions of people who overstay their visa, and that that is 

a large number of illegal immigrants in our country. 

Now, when you are checking people before you grant a tourist 

visa or whatever, a student visa, is there a greater background 

check given to someone who wants to immigrate into this country, 

than is given to someone who wants a tourist visa? Is there more 

attention paid——

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, there is more attention paid to security, 

medical background, all those things. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. So, if someone comes in and they 

have overstayed their visa, if they want to stay here permanently, 

we are actually saying that there is going to be less of a check on 

someone than if they have immigrated from overseas. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I think, sir, and I am going to sound slightly bureaucratic here; but, I think, sir, that the change of status that 

would occur in the United States if—of course, the responsibility 

belongs to the INS and they make the same kinds of checks, health 

and background security—if they are going to let them immigrate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They do make the same—they cannot—right 

now, they do not change the authority, do they? They have to go 

home for that. So, you are just postulating that the INS would 

make that same thorough check. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Well, for someone, who is here—— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Someone, who is here illegally, who overstayed their visa, tourist visa, and you just told us that the immigrant visa is much more extensive background——

Mr. GROSSMAN. I am sorry, I misunderstood. If they are here illegally, absolutely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. But, there are large numbers of people, who 

change status legally, and I was just trying to say that they get the 

same check as a legal immigrant. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us note that the background check is 

much more thorough for immigrant visas and from what I have 

been told by consular officers, that the INS people here do not have 

the same intelligence background and resources available to them 

as our people overseas do. In fact, Mr. Lantos made it very clear 

that he wanted the real specialist to be able to look into these reVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

quests. And, of course, it is the Administration’s position, I believe, 

to make sure that under 245(I), that people, who are here legally, 

do not have to return back to their home country. 

How many student visas do we issue? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I will have to get that exact number for you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A million? Two million? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I do not think it is that many, but—— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Five-hundred thousand? All right, you do not 

know. Let me ask you this: You think we should be concerned 

about students being given visas from Iran or Iraq or Communist 

China, who are going to be educated in schools and being trained 

how to do very technical things, like make atom bombs? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, good. Do you think we have a policy 

now that permits that? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. We have checks certainly in place. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You believe that right now, students from 

Communist China, from Iraq and Iran are not granted visas to participate in graduate studies that would permit them to obtain the 

skills necessary to build weapons? Let me suggest, sir, that you 

better study your——

Mr. GROSSMAN. No, there is a clearance procedure in place, it is 

called the Mantis Program, wherein there are certain disciplines 

and certain countries that submit student visa applications that 

are cleared through an interagency process. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, let me just suggest that I think that we 

have people from those countries, especially from Communist 

China, who are being trained in very technical scientific training 

in this country, that can be utilized, maybe it is not directly here 

on how to make a bomb, but it gives them all of the physics and 

everything necessary to go back to their home countries and 

produce weapons of mass destruction. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez? 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for your testimony. As one of the Members sitting on the Select 

Committee that is going to determine the final draft of this, I have 

some serious concerns about what I have heard here today and how 

I read the legislation. So, let me try to pursue them with you. 

First of all, for the record, as a senior State Department official 

and representing Secretary Powell, are you telling the Committee 

affirmatively that the Department supports all of the reorganization as it relates to the State Department, as is outlined in the 

President’s legislation? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Now, I read, on page 16 of the legislation, which 

is primarily the focus of what we have been talking about, section 

403, the visa issuance, it says,

‘‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other law, the Secretary’’—

referring to the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security—

‘‘shall have exclusive authority’’—

25

and I am going to omit the next few words—

‘‘. . . to issue regulations with respect to administer and enforce the provisions of that act and all other Immigration and 

Nationality laws relating to the functions of diplomatic and 

consular officers of the United States, in connection with the 

granting or refusal of visas, and the authority to confer or impose upon any officer or employee of the United States’’—

which I read to mean, beyond the State Department, in any other 

department of the Federal Government—

‘‘with the consent of that agency to serve in the functions and 

pursuit thereof.’’

Now, what that says to me is that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the exclusive authority to do all of these things, notwithstanding the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the 

State Department, in my mind, as I read this, becomes a functionary of the Secretary of Homeland Security, except for the one 

caveat where the Secretary of State can, assuming that there is no 

problem with the Secretary of Homeland Security, still deny someone a visa for other interests that the State Department has. Is 

that a fair statement? Is that your understanding of the legislation? A yes or no will suffice. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, it is my understanding of that legislation. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay. Now, if that is the case, I listened to your 

response to Mr. Berman, that when you describe, well, what we are 

doing here, saying what criteria, what presumption, that the idea 

is different in terms of how we are going to approach the issuance 

of visas. How is it then, if this law is passed as is, assuming that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgates new visa issuance 

guidelines, focusing mainly on homeland security, and maybe, in 

some respects, conditioning under the guise of security a whole 

host of stated provisions within the law as to what our immigration 

policy is, how do we continue to pursue our traditional foreign and 

domestic policy objectives, such as reunification of families, admission of those with much needed skills in this country—for example, 

computer engineers. Unfortunately, I hope we get to the day soon 

where every American is going to fill those jobs; but the reality is 

that the industry needs far beyond what we create—opportunities 

for cultural and educational exchange, facilitation of trade and 

tourism. We just spent enormous amounts of money in the airline 

industry to keep it alive. How is it, under those provisions, which 

traditionally have been under the Secretary of State, that if the 

new criteria, the new presumption that the idea is different, how 

do we preserve all of those particular goals? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Mr. Menendez, thank you, very much, for that 

question. Let me answer it in three ways. First of all, to go back 

to the previous answer I gave, you asked me to give a yes or no 

answer about whether that was my understanding. With a little bit 

more time here, I think you are using—you can use it if you 

want—the idea that somehow the Secretary is a functionary in 

this, and I think that understates his role, because he still is the 

hirer and the promoter and the trainer of all the people who are 

out there. So, I think it is more than a functionary’s role. But, I 

26

do not disagree that the authority belongs to the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

The second point is when you ask how are we going to do all the 

old things, if there is the new presumption and the new idea, I 

would answer your question by saying that nobody is saying that 

this new presumption of security after the 11th of September is the 

only thing that we are going to do, but that it now has to play an 

extremely important role in the decisions the Secretary for Homeland Security is going to make. And so, when you talk about cultural exchange, the reunification of families, businesses getting the 

right people to come and do our work, these are issues that, of 

course, will have to be dealt with; but it’s necessary that the security and the law enforcement part of this become a bigger part of 

the pie, if you will. 

The only quibble I would have with you, sir, is that I would not 

say that these are new things and, therefore, the only things. They 

are new things which are additive to the challenges we already 

have as a country. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Grossman, in 2001, under the Visa Waiver Program, 17.1 million visitors entered the United States from 29 countries. In February, Argentina was removed from the list, leaving 28 

approved countries. In addition, 44,500 stolen blank passports from 

the Visa Waiver Programs are unaccounted for; they are stolen. 

Earlier you responded that the presumption should change. Can 

you tell us what reforms are being contemplated? Are those reforms likely to be chilled, paralyzed, or go nowhere because of reorganization? 

As you know, we went through reorganization a few years ago—

and I was then a part of that as the Co-Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee—it seemed 

like some things got crowded out. I am wondering, since this far 

exceeds the seven million or so who go through the normal route, 

or whatever we want to call it, of having an interview, what is the 

deal here? 

Secondly, let me ask you: Based on your statement, there is 

about a 30 percent refusal rate. What percent of those refusals are 

later issued visas due to a reapplication? 

Finally, what criteria do consular officers use to grant visas without interviews? Even in a case where the applicant looks good on 

paper, wouldn’t consular officers be in a far better position to 

evaluate whether the applicant presents a security risk if they had 

the opportunity to observe his or her demeanor and extemporaneous answers to the sorts of questions that would be asked in 

an interview? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. Let me see if I can answer all of those 

questions. First of all, on the Visa Waiver Program, certainly, since 

the 11th of September, this program has gotten more scrutiny. As 

you say, we have taken a country off of it. We have also sent teams 

out where we have concerns: Loose passports, for example, people, 

who don’t look after their passports. So, I think people in the ConVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
27

sular Affairs Bureau and our Diplomatic Security Service are much 

more focused on the Visa Waiver Program. 

Second, obviously, I cannot speculate about the future, but for 

me, personally, I would think that the Visa Waiver Program would 

be among those things that the new Secretary of Homeland Security would look at first. And I would not say, Mr. Smith, that this 

was something that would be pushed aside in any reorganization, 

because, as you say, the numbers are high. And to be fair, there 

is a lot of interest in this Committee and in the Congress in the 

Visa Waiver Program, both pro and con. We get plenty of letters 

from people who want more countries to be put into VWPP, not 

less. 

I would ask Mr. Lannon to talk on the issue of reapplication. 

But, let me talk on your fourth point, which is, you know, wouldn’t 

it be better if we could interview everybody, and how is it that we 

make these decisions. In a perfect world, I think you would still try 

to strike a balance. You would have to do a risk assessment. A 

businessman from Britain or France or Italy or Brazil, who has 

been in and out of the country for a period of years, who works for 

an American company, who has got a 10-year visa, who is an investor in the United States, who has shown over time that he lives 

by our laws and he is the kind of person we want to have in the 

country. No, sir, I do not think that you would gain much, other 

than probably, you know, an interesting conversation, from talking 

to that person. 

The second point I would make is that which Assistant Secretary 

Lannon made earlier. The key thing here is information coming 

from our law enforcement agencies, from CIA, from FBI, and getting it to the person at the point of attack, at the person who has 

to make that decision. And as I said in my statement, it seems to 

me this is one of the biggest reasons for being in favor of the President’s proposal, to bring all these things together. 

And, third, again, we have talked about this a couple of times 

during this hearing, if you actually tried to interview everybody, 

the enormity of it and the capacity, you would not meet your security goals, I do not believe, sir. You certainly would not meet other 

goals that people on this Committee, such as Mr. Menendez are interested in, in having people come to the United States. 

We have to have the best regulation, the best information, the 

best trained people and make sure they have the wherewithal to 

carry out their jobs. 

Mr. LANNON. That 30 percent rate is the adjusted rate. That is 

not to say someone a year later could apply and get one; but, generally, that is the adjusted rate, where the person that came in initially was refused, was told to bring back something else, and then 

brought it and was subsequently issued. That represents the adjusted rate. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I am a 

little concerned about how general your comments have been today 

on the recurring question about the integrity of the visa process, 

and, in fairness to you, I know this is a very tough issue. But, I 

think we need to resist the temptation to assume that just because 

we move this function to this new department, we have solved the 

28

problem, that we have thoroughly understood what the problem 

was and what the causes were, as distinguished from the symptoms. This issue about information sharing between the consular 

officers and the INS at the point of entry, as well as all of the agencies that contain this very sensitive information is too important 

not to get it right and it is unforgivable if we do not. 

Now, my impression from conversations with a number of people 

involved in this, including Mary Ryan, is that there are a couple 

of problems. One has been an attitudinal issue and as you have described, there has been a change in culture. And it has been my 

impression that after September 11th, that lookout list suddenly 

became a lot more lush. 

My concern is whether we need to institutionalize something to 

make sure attitudes do not lapse over time back to where they 

were. The second issue is a resource issue and that has to do with 

whether there is sufficient confidence in the security, the sanctity 

of the INS database, the people that have access to it—I know that 

is not your issue—and State, whether there is sufficient trust and 

confidence in that database and the people that have access to it 

among all the law enforcement and intelligence community, who 

jealously guards that information. And it seems to me, particularly 

at the INS, because this all runs together, there are some resource 

issues there about getting their information infrastructure in tact. 

I just want to urge you to work with us on the function and the 

end result and the bottom line, and not just how we connect the 

boxes and where the line of authority and line of communication 

are. I would be interested in any comments you might have. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Yes, sir. I think all of that is advice well given. 

I think that I particularly agree with you and we certainly, Assistant Secretary Lannon and I, are not here to tell you that if you 

move the authority for the visa process from over here to over here, 

all problems are solved; definitely not. There is still a huge amount 

of work to do. I think the work that has been done since the 11th 

of September, as you say, has been good, but there is still a lot of 

work to do and a lot of culture to change. 

I guess I would say to you, secondly, Mr. Davis, which is to say 

that, to me anyway, if you want to continue to pursue this culture 

change, I say the way to do it is to create a Department of Homeland Security, because for the legislative branch, for the executive 

branch, people have to pay attention. It is not business as usual. 

This is the largest reorganization since World War II, and I think 

it is called for, I think it is right, and I think it will change attitudes. I hope it will, because, as you say, the culture has to change. 

Third, obviously, as you rightly say, we will not comment on the 

INS question. We are doing a huge amount to try to protect the security of our data, and not just the security of the data in the consular world, but the security of all of the data at the State Department. And I believe that, again, changes, certainly since Secretary 

Albright started us on this path, certainly since Secretary Powell, 

since the 11th of September, you will find a much tighter degree 

of control on all of the information at the State Department now, 

and I think that is a good thing. Is there more to do? Absolutely. 

But, I appreciate your raising this. 

29

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just close and this may be more of a subject 

for the Intelligence Committee. I think we need to understand how 

many names are added September 11 and why they had not been 

added sooner, because I think that tells us something about the 

magnitude of the problem. I am not suggesting it had anything to 

do with September 11th. I think that is clear. This is about prevention in the future. And I think that gives the cause and helps us 

enact a permanent change. 

I support the creation of the Department, Mr. Ambassador. That 

is not the hard part. The hard part is getting the function right. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I agree with that, and we will be glad, either 

open or in a classified way, to try to get you the information you 

asked for. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a 

distinction between processes and policies. And it strikes me that 

you have got a pretty good balance on your homeland security bill 

and you have got, I think, the only credible basis for giving some 

authority to that State Department over the basic policies, although I would hope the Department would have some input as 

policies are made. But when one thinks it through, we are creating 

this large department and it presumably will have some people. It 

does not take that many people to come up with the policies. To 

implement the policies does, however. And you are now the implementing department and the Department of State, to my knowledge, has made no indication that given this greater degree of scrutiny that is being required by the American people, that you need 

another soul, individual, people. 

And I think I would like to ask you to think that through and 

to make some recommendations to this Committee. This Committee 

has jurisdiction over the Department of State and its people and 

you are now being given substantially upgraded responsibility. And 

it is minor that there is a little bit of policy being transferred to 

the Department of Homeland Security. It really simply means for 

the President of the United States that is a non-people intensive 

effort. Implementation is a totally people intensive effort, and it is 

going to be a lot harder. 

The second thing on policy I would like to stress is that the Department of State’s major issue, with regard to homeland security, 

is to have good policies. All of these processes to protect homeland 

security are fairly minor, if we have lousy policies. 

And so, I would only stress, from the brief experience we have 

all had in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror, that this is a pretty 

good time to assert American leadership; but American leadership 

is only going to be accepted if we put a lot of attention on the listening pretty attentively to the news of some other people. It is impressive how some other people have in their societies in place 

more assertive techniques at looking at individuals in their societies than we do, and that the number of helpful breaks that come 

from potential terrorists have largely come through processes implemented by other countries abroad, sometimes with the assistance of the United States. But, my impression, it is not trivially at 

their own initiative. 

30

I think if we are going to have a Homeland Security Department 

that works, we are going to have to have a Department of State 

that is upgraded, itself, both in a leadership and a listening function. I would like to hear from the Department of State on your advice, in this regard, and very substantively. 

I mean, I am very impressed that some steps that have been 

taken by the Secretary in building up the Department of State. I 

am not impressed that they are as significant as they should be. 

And I think all of you are going to have to think this through, because, psychologically, it sounds like we are creating a Department 

of Homeland Security that takes responsibility from the Department of State and, therefore, State is left with lesser needs for upgraded people. And I think it is the reverse circumstance. 

Finally, I would just like to stress that you have got a difficult 

balance. Obviously, national security requires greater rigor to be 

applied to the visa review process. But at the same time, the national interest of the United States is and increasingly will be related to how people have an understanding of America. And, interestingly, the visa program for education, for example, is like an exchange program paid for by them. So, it is an economic benefit to 

the United States. It is, also, a cultural benefit to the United 

States, particularly with countries that cooperate with us on the 

war on terrorism. I think one has to be very concerned about not 

instituting blanket policies for all countries that really should be 

narrowed to other kinds of countries. And so, I would hope that the 

Department would weigh in on this issue, as carefully as it can. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, so much, 

for holding this hearing on homeland security. I want to thank Ambassador Grossman for coming. And I want to make this statement, 

because I think everybody ought to understand the hardships that 

the Department of State has been laboring under, and I have firsthand experience. 

I found the Consular Corps very well trained to identify those applicants that would present problems. There is no problem with 

what the Consular Corps puts them through. I have seen it. I am 

pleading for the applicant, in some cases, because she is the babysitter who wants to travel with the American family. So, they do 

their work well. 

The problem is having the resources to do the job and the follow 

up. It was just mentioned about function, and I think the function 

ought to stay with the people who are trained to do it. If the White 

House is going to make those decisions, I would hope that it would 

move State Department people, who are trained in the Consular 

Corps, into that new department. Just passing it through is not 

good enough. If they are not trained to recognize those aspects and 

those issues and false passports and papers and so on, like the 

Corps is, if they do not have some familiarity with the language 

and the culture and so on, they are going to miss a lot. 

Another point that has to be made, remember, is the terrorist 

had no records. They were trained to come and melt in with our 

society. These were not people—even if you traced them back, you 

31

would not be able to determine that they were going to be a threat 

to us. 

Now, we have seen what can happen. It is the follow up, when 

people are in this country, immigrants, visas and so on, where we 

need to have the resources to be able to check them out. There was 

a question asked, how many. Well, how would you know? I mean, 

you do not have the resources. I was always told that in the State 

Department, we cannot do it, because we do not have the budget, 

we do not have the resources. 

So, I think that it is incumbent upon the Department of State 

to recommend to the President that this new agency, department, 

have new resources, budget. The President said, it would be revenue neutral. It cannot be revenue neutral. You are going to have 

to have trained people in the right places. You are going to have 

to have a larger staff. They are going to have to follow up on people, who come and are on time-limited visas, to be sure that they 

are back in their countries or leaving this country in time. 

So, I want to say just in closing that we need the State Department and its functionaries need to clarify—and we are all frustrated, because we do not know the fine details. We need to have 

it clarified to us, how all of this is going to be worked out or how 

it is going to be housed and who will do the work. And we need 

to, along with it, have a well-defined budget, to be able to do these 

functions. And so, I would appreciate Ambassador, that you come 

up with these recommendations to the Secretary of State, who then 

can take it back to the White House. Thank you, so much, and good 

luck. I do not envy your position. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey has come up 

with two additional questions. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. So with great pleasure, I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I just say to our distinguished witnesses, as you know, the December 2001 Office of Inspector General’s report on the Visa Waiver Program found that the INS inspectors were not consistently clearing passport numbers against 

the lookout system. You know the FBI’s list of the most wanted 

people. Can you assure us today that all of these individuals’

names and known aliases are in the computer lookout list, so that 

we do not give them a visa if one or more of them has applied 

somewhere around the globe? 

Secondly, and this is very important, because it is very timely, 

when Jiang Jamin, a high Chinese official, visited Iceland, there 

was a very concerted effort made to preclude Americans, who happened to be Falun Gong practitioners, from traveling to Iceland. 

Our citizens were being very negatively impacted. I wrote to the officials in Iceland protesting it. A couple of days later—and I am 

sure you protested as well—they changed it. But, meanwhile, many 

people did not get their opportunity to have their voices heard. 

We also know that here, in this country, there have been threats 

against Falun Gong practitioners. And this is part of homeland security, I would think. You know, it is not just who comes in, but 

who is actually here from the Chinese government, fomenting and 

32

making these threats against American citizens who are Falun 

Gong. But what are we doing about that? And, again, this list here, 

does the lookout system have them adequately factored into our 

system? 

Mr. LANNON. This is the FBI list—— Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes, the FBI list. 

Mr. LANNON. Yes, those names were put into the lookout system, 

our lookout system. We did it ourselves. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And their aliases, as well? 

Mr. LANNON. Excuse me? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And their aliases, as well? 

Mr. LANNON. Alias, everything. All the information we had and 

information that is gleaned, as we get it, is put into the lookout 

system. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that. Mr. Grossman? 

Mr. GROSSMAN. As you say on Falun Gong, we followed this issue 

closely. We went right to the Icelandic government. We also went 

to the Icelandic airlines, since they were complacent in this as well. 

We also, through our Embassy in Reykjavik, did our very best to 

make sure that our citizens, who were detained there for a short 

amount of time, knew that we were with them. But I take your 

point, and it is a very, very important one. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And perhaps you could check into the 

threats that are being made against Americans of Chinese extraction who are Falun Gong. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I would be glad to. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. It is outrageous. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. I would be glad to. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I guess coming within this Committee’s jurisdiction the biggest effect is a change in the responsibility 

for who would issue visas. I have, in the last 6 years on this Committee, been more than a little bit critical. We have horrendous 

delays in issuing of visas. No real success in keeping out those who 

have killed thousands of Americans. And I have been dealt with 

more than a little absence of courtesy, whenever I have asked those 

out in a field to look at a particular case, including one of our consul generals, who called me at 4 o’clock in the morning and then 

said he did not know there was a difference in time zones. And so, 

I, at least, cannot see any reason why transferring this responsibility to a new agency would not be an outstanding idea. 

Perhaps, I could ask Mr. Lannon to comment on the delays that 

we have had in—or what is the level of delay, if somebody comes 

in, who married an American, say, in the Dominican Republic or 

the Philippines, how long would it take, in the absence of any security concern, for that person to be given a visa and be able to continue their married life here in the United States? And I realize my 

criticisms all relate to a prior Administration. I have no criticisms 

that are now applicable, that I brought to your attention. 

Mr. LANNON. When we get the case, basically, we will schedule 

an appointment within 30 days. I think where the jam up on the 

process tends to be with the filing of the petition. And most petitions have to be filed in the United States, so they have to work 

33

their way through the INS and then they go to our facility in Portsmouth, where there is a couple of weeks processing there. But, by 

and large, once we get the case, it is 30 days from the time we actually receive it at post, where we will process it through. That is 

the American citizen. Also—— Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So, if I had a situation where a married 

couple of no challenge to legitimacy of the marriage, no challenge 

to the national security, had to live, just because people were too 

tired to follow the paperwork, for 3 years separate lives, married, 

with a child, so there is not a lot of doubt as to the legitimacy of 

the marriage, that would be an unusual case? Because, at the time, 

I was told, gee, Congressman, why are you calling us; it is pretty 

difficult. 

Mr. LANNON. For an American citizen or is this a——

Mr. SHERMAN. No, obviously, American citizens do not need visas 

to come to this country. 

Mr. LANNON. No, no, I am saying——

Mr. SHERMAN. For the spouse of an American citizen. 

Mr. LANNON. Spouse of an American citizen. I think 3 years 

would be very unusual. But, I will add that there were problems 

that last year, it was at the end of 2000, when Congress passed the 

law of the K–3 visa, which was to deal with this, because of the 

backlogs and processing, to allow these people to come to the 

United States and wait their time in the United States. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If we had a situation where the average wait in 

the Philippines was 2 years, the average wait in London was 2 

weeks, would you transfer personnel, so as to even out the weight, 

or would you decide that those who married English citizens, 

should wait only 2 weeks and those who married Filipinos, should 

wait 2 years? 

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

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

a person had a really good job, you would issue them a visa. But, 

what is your stand on accepting a performance bond, so that you 

are given an economic assurance that the person will return? 

Mr. LANNON. Well, the bond itself does not overcome the presumption of 214(b). So, generally, a bond cannot be accepted in lieu 

of 214(b), the idea that the person will not return. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Shouldn’t we have a situation where a bond would 

play a role in making the 214(b) decision? After all, I mean, you 

can point to that statute, as if it is a real standard. It is really just 

whatever the whim of the consular officer is, or the guess. 

Mr. LANNON. Well, it could play a role, but it does not necessarily 

have to play a role. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, it has. 

Chairman HYDE. I want to thank our witnesses for their excellent testimony. We are at the opening chapter of a long tale, I am 

34

sure. But, we are getting started in the right direction. I appreciate 

your cooperation. 

Mr. GROSSMAN. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(35)

MARKUP OF H.R. 5005, THE HOMELAND 

SECURITY ACT OF 2002

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m. in Room 2172, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, I now call up the sections of the bill H.R. 

5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, referred to this Committee under House Rule X for purposes of markup and move their 

submission to the Select Committee on Homeland Security. 

[The bill, H.R. 5005, follows:]

36

1

I 

★

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5005

To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2002

Mr. ARMEY (for himself, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. DELAY, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. COX, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. 

BALLENGER, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BASS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. 

BOEHLERT, Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROWN

of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CALVERT, 

Mr. CAMP, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. 

COOKSEY, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DREIER, 

Mr. DEMINT, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. ENGLISH, 

Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. GEKAS, 

Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GOODE, Ms. GRANGER, 

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. GRUCCI, Mr. HANSEN, 

Ms. HARMAN, Ms. HART, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. HAYES, Mr. 

HAYWORTH, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HORN, Mr. 

HOUGHTON, Mr. ISSA, Mr. JENKINS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. 

KELLER, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KING, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. LINDER, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr. 

MANZULLO, Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mrs. MORELLA, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. 

OXLEY, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. PITTS, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. 

SAXTON, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

SHAW, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. 

SOUDER, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. UPTON, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. 

WAMP, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WELLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, 

Mr. WICKER, Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico, and Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina) (all by request) introduced the following bill; pursuant to House 

Resolution 449, referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, 

Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Government Reform, Intelligence (Permanent Select), International Relations, the Judiciary, 

Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means, for a 


80431a.AAB
37

2

HR 5005 IH1S 

period ending not later than July 12, 2002, in each case for consideration 

of such matters as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Homeland Security Act of 2002’’. 

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

Sec. 3. Construction; severability. 

Sec. 4. Effective date. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Sec. 101. Executive department; mission. 

Sec. 102. Secretary; functions. 

Sec. 103. Other officers. 

TITLE II—INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROTECTION 

Sec. 201. Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. 

Sec. 202. Functions transferred. 

Sec. 203. Access to information. 

Sec. 204. Information voluntarily provided. 

TITLE III—CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND 

NUCLEAR COUNTERMEASURES 

Sec. 301. Under Secretary for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear 

Countermeasures. 

Sec. 302. Functions transferred. 

Sec. 303. Conduct of certain public health-related activities. 


80431a.AAC
38

3

HR 5005 IH1S 

Sec. 304. Military activities. 

TITLE IV—BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

Sec. 401. Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. 

Sec. 402. Functions transferred. 

Sec. 403. Visa issuance. 

TITLE V—EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

Sec. 501. Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

Sec. 502. Functions transferred. 

Sec. 503. Nuclear incident response. 

Sec. 504. Definition. 

Sec. 505. Conduct of certain public health-related activities. 

TITLE VI—MANAGEMENT 

Sec. 601. Under Secretary for Management. 

Sec. 602. Chief Financial Officer. 

Sec. 603. Chief Information Officer. 

TITLE VII—COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Coordination With Non-Federal Entities 

Sec. 701. Responsibilities. 

Subtitle B—Inspector General 

Sec. 710. Authority of the Secretary. 

Subtitle C—United States Secret Service 

Sec. 720. Functions transferred. 

Subtitle D—General Provisions 

Sec. 730. Establishment of human resources management system. 

Sec. 731. Advisory committees. 

Sec. 732. Acquisitions; property. 

Sec. 733. Reorganization; transfer. 

Sec. 734. Miscellaneous provisions. 

Sec. 735. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE VIII—TRANSITION 

Sec. 801. Definitions. 

Sec. 802. Transfer of agencies. 

Sec. 803. Transitional authorities. 

Sec. 804. Savings provisions. 

Sec. 805. Terminations. 

Sec. 806. Incidental transfers. 

TITLE IX—CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 

Sec. 901. Inspector General Act. 

Sec. 902. Executive schedule. 


80431a.AAD
39

4

HR 5005 IH1S 

Sec. 903. United States Secret Service. 

Sec. 904. Coast Guard. 

Sec. 905. Strategic national stockpile and smallpox vaccine development. 

Sec. 906. Select agent registration. 

Sec. 907. National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center.

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the fol3 lowing shall apply for purposes of this Act: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘American homeland’’ or ‘‘home5 land’’ means the United States, in a geographic 

6 sense. 

7 (2) The term ‘‘assets’’ includes contracts, facili8 ties, property, records, unobligated or unexpended 

9 balances of appropriations, and other funds or re10 sources (other than personnel). 

11 (3) The term ‘‘Department’’ means the Depart12 ment of Homeland Security. 

13 (4) The term ‘‘emergency response providers’’ 

14 includes Federal, State, and local government emer15 gency public safety, law enforcement, emergency re16 sponse, emergency medical, and related personnel, 

17 agencies, and authorities. 

18 (5) The term ‘‘executive agency’’ means an ex19 ecutive agency and a military department, as de20 fined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 

21 5, United States Code. 

22 (6) The term ‘‘functions’’ includes authorities, 

23 powers, rights, privileges, immunities, programs, 


80431a.AAE
40

5

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 projects, activities, duties, responsibilities, and obli2 gations. 

3 (7) The term ‘‘local government’’ has the mean4 ing given in section 102(6) of the Robert T. Stafford 

5 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub6 lic Law 93–288). 

7 (8) The term ‘‘major disaster’’ has the meaning 

8 given in section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford 

9 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub10 lic Law 93–288).

11 (9) The term ‘‘personnel’’ means officers and 

12 employees. 

13 (10) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

14 of Homeland Security. 

15 (11) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in 

16 a geographic sense, means any State (within the 

17 meaning of section 102(4) of the Robert T. Stafford 

18 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub19 lic Law 93–288)), any possession of the United 

20 States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the 

21 United States. 

22 SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY. 

23 Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or unen24 forceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or cir25 cumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maxVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.AAF
41

6

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 imum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall 

2 be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which 

3 event such provision shall be deemed severable from this 

4 Act and shall not affect the remainder thereof, or the ap5 plication of such provision to other persons not similarly 

6 situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances. 

7 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 This Act shall take effect thirty days after the date 

9 of enactment or, if enacted within thirty days before Janu10 ary 1, 2003, on January 1, 2003. 

11 TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF 

12 HOMELAND SECURITY 

13 SEC. 101. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; MISSION. 

14 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a De15 partment of Homeland Security, as an executive depart16 ment of the United States within the meaning of title 5, 

17 United States Code. 

18 (b) MISSION.—(1) The primary mission of the De19 partment is to—

20 (A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United 

21 States; 

22 (B) reduce the vulnerability of the United 

23 States to terrorism; and 


80431a.AAG
42

7

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (C) minimize the damage, and assist in the re2 covery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within 

3 the United States. 

4 (2) In carrying out the mission described in para5 graph (1), and as further described in this Act, the De6 partment’s primary responsibilities shall include—

7 (A) information analysis and infrastructure pro8 tection; 

9 (B) chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, 

10 and related countermeasures; 

11 (C) border and transportation security; 

12 (D) emergency preparedness and response; and 

13 (E) coordination (including the provision of 

14 training and equipment) with other executive agen15 cies, with State and local government personnel, 

16 agencies, and authorities, with the private sector, 

17 and with other entities. 

18 (3) The Department shall also be responsible for car19 rying out other functions of entities transferred to the De20 partment as provided by law. 

21 SEC. 102. SECRETARY; FUNCTIONS. 

22 (a) SECRETARY.—(1) There is a Secretary of Home23 land Security, appointed by the President, by and with the 

24 advice and consent of the Senate. 


80431a.AAH
43

8

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (2) The Secretary is the head of the Department and 

2 shall have direction, authority, and control over it. 

3 (3) All functions of all officers, employees, and orga4 nizational units of the Department are vested in the Sec5 retary. 

6 (b) FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary—

7 (1) may delegate any of his functions to any of8 ficer, employee, or organizational unit of the Depart9 ment; 

10 (2) may promulgate regulations hereunder; and 

11 (3) shall have such functions, including the au12 thority to make contracts, grants, and cooperative 

13 agreements, and to enter into agreements with other 

14 executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper 

15 to carry out his responsibilities under this Act or 

16 otherwise provided by law. 

17 SEC. 103. OTHER OFFICERS. 

18 (a) DEPUTY SECRETARY; UNDER SECRETARIES.—

19 To assist the Secretary in the performance of his func20 tions, there are the following officers, appointed by the 

21 President, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen22 ate: 

23 (1) A Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 

24 who shall be the Secretary’s first assistant for purVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.AAI
44

9

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 poses of chapter 33, subchapter 3, of title 5, United 

2 States Code. 

3 (2) An Under Secretary for Information Anal4 ysis and Infrastructure Protection. 

5 (3) An Under Secretary for Chemical, Biologi6 cal, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures. 

7 (4) An Under Secretary for Border and Trans8 portation Security. 

9 (5) An Under Secretary for Emergency Pre10 paredness and Response. 

11 (6) An Under Secretary for Management. 

12 (7) Not more than six Assistant Secretaries. 

13 (b) INSPECTOR GENERAL.—To assist the Secretary 

14 in the performance of his functions, there is an Inspector 

15 General, who shall be appointed as provided in section 

16 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

17 (c) COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD.—To assist 

18 the Secretary in the performance of his functions, there 

19 is a Commandant of the Coast Guard, who shall be ap20 pointed as provided in section 44 of title 14, United States 

21 Code. 

22 (d) OTHER OFFICERS.—To assist the Secretary in 

23 the performance of his functions, there are the following 

24 officers, appointed by the President: 


80431a.AAJ
45

10

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (1) A General Counsel, who shall be the chief 

2 legal officer of the Department. 

3 (2) Not more than ten Assistant Secretaries. 

4 (3) A Director of the Secret Service. 

5 (4) A Chief Financial Officer. 

6 (5) A Chief Information Officer. 

7 (e) PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS.—Sub8 ject to the provisions of this Act, every officer of the de9 partment shall perform the functions specified by law for 

10 his office or prescribed by the Secretary.

11 TITLE II—INFORMATION ANAL12 YSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

13 PROTECTION 

14 SEC. 201. UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS 

15 AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION. 

16 In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities 

17 specified in section 101(b)(2)(A), the primary responsibil18 ities of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and 

19 Infrastructure Protection shall include—

20 (1) receiving and analyzing law enforcement in21 formation, intelligence, and other information in 

22 order to understand the nature and scope of the ter23 rorist threat to the American homeland and to de24 tect and identify potential threats of terrorism with25 in the United States; 


80431a.AAK
46

11

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (2) comprehensively assessing the vulnerabilities 

2 of the key resources and critical infrastructures in 

3 the United States; 

4 (3) integrating relevant information, intelligence 

5 analyses, and vulnerability assessments (whether 

6 such information, analyses, or assessments are pro7 vided or produced by the Department or others) to 

8 identify protective priorities and support protective 

9 measures by the Department, by other executive 

10 agencies, by State and local government personnel, 

11 agencies, and authorities, by the private sector, and 

12 by other entities; 

13 (4) developing a comprehensive national plan 

14 for securing the key resources and critical infra15 structures in the United States; 

16 (5) taking or seeking to effect necessary meas17 ures to protect the key resources and critical infra18 structures in the United States, in coordination with 

19 other executive agencies and in cooperation with 

20 State and local government personnel, agencies, and 

21 authorities, the private sector, and other entities; 

22 (6) administering the Homeland Security Advi23 sory System, exercising primary responsibility for 

24 public threat advisories, and (in coordination with 

25 other executive agencies) providing specific warning 


80431a.AAL
47

12

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 information to State and local government per2 sonnel, agencies, and authorities, the private sector, 

3 other entities, and the public, as well as advice about 

4 appropriate protective actions and countermeasures; 

5 and 

6 (7) reviewing, analyzing, and making rec7 ommendations for improvements in the policies and 

8 procedures governing the sharing of law enforce9 ment, intelligence, and other information relating to 

10 homeland security within the Federal Government 

11 and between such government and State and local 

12 government personnel, agencies, and authorities. 

13 SEC. 202. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED. 

14 In accordance with title VIII, there shall be trans15 ferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, 

16 and liabilities of the following entities—

17 (1) the National Infrastructure Protection Cen18 ter of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (other 

19 than the Computer Investigations and Operations 

20 Section), including the functions of the Attorney 

21 General relating thereto; 

22 (2) the National Communications System of the 

23 Department of Defense, including the functions of 

24 the Secretary of Defense relating thereto; 


80431a.AAM
48

13

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (3) the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office 

2 of the Department of Commerce, including the func3 tions of the Secretary of Commerce relating thereto; 

4 (4) the Computer Security Division of the Na5 tional Institute of Standards and Technology, in6 cluding the functions of the Secretary of Commerce 

7 relating thereto; 

8 (5) the National Infrastructure Simulation and 

9 Analysis Center of the Department of Energy, in10 cluding the functions of the Secretary of Energy re11 lating thereto; and 

12 (6) the Federal Computer Incident Response 

13 Center of the General Services Administration, in14 cluding the functions of the Administrator of Gen15 eral Services relating thereto. 

16 SEC. 203. ACCESS TO INFORMATION. 

17 The Secretary shall have access to all reports, assess18 ments, and analytical information relating to threats of 

19 terrorism in the United States and to other areas of re20 sponsibility described in section 101(b), and to all infor21 mation concerning infrastructure or other vulnerabilities 

22 of the United States to terrorism, whether or not such 

23 information has been analyzed, that may be collected, pos24 sessed, or prepared by any executive agency, except as oth25 erwise directed by the President. The Secretary shall also 


80431a.AAN
49

14

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 have access to other information relating to the foregoing 

2 matters that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by 

3 an executive agency, as the President may further provide. 

4 With respect to the material to which the Secretary has 

5 access under this section—

6 (1) the Secretary may obtain such material by 

7 request, and may enter into cooperative arrange8 ments with other executive agencies to share such 

9 material on a regular or routine basis, including re10 quests or arrangements involving broad categories of 

11 material; 

12 (2) regardless of whether the Secretary has 

13 made any request or entered into any cooperative ar14 rangement pursuant to paragraph (1), all executive 

15 agencies promptly shall provide to the Secretary—

16 (A) all reports, assessments, and analytical 

17 information relating to threats of terrorism in 

18 the United States and to other areas of respon19 sibility described in section 101(b); 

20 (B) all information concerning infrastruc21 ture or other vulnerabilities of the United 

22 States to terrorism, whether or not such infor23 mation has been analyzed; 

24 (C) all information relating to significant 

25 and credible threats of terrorism in the United 


80431a.AAO
50

15

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 States, whether or not such information has 

2 been analyzed, if the President has provided 

3 that the Secretary shall have access to such in4 formation; and 

5 (D) such other material as the President 

6 may further provide; and 

7 (3) the Secretary shall ensure that any material 

8 received pursuant to this section is protected from 

9 unauthorized disclosure and handled and used only 

10 for the performance of official duties, and that any 

11 intelligence information shared under this section

12 shall be transmitted, retained, and disseminated con13 sistent with the authority of the Director of Central 

14 Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and meth15 ods under the National Security Act and related pro16 cedures or, as appropriate, similar authorities of the 

17 Attorney General concerning sensitive law enforce18 ment information. 

19 SEC. 204. INFORMATION VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED. 

20 Information provided voluntarily by non-Federal enti21 ties or individuals that relates to infrastructure 

22 vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism and is 

23 or has been in the possession of the Department shall not 

24 be subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code. 


80431a.AAP
51

16

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 TITLE III—CHEMICAL, BIOLOGI2 CAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NU3 CLEAR COUNTERMEASURES 

4 SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, 

5 RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR COUNTER6 MEASURES. 

7 In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities 

8 specified in section 101(b)(2)(B), the primary responsibil9 ities of the Under Secretary for Chemical, Biological, Ra10 diological, and Nuclear Countermeasures shall include—

11 (1) securing the people, infrastructures, prop12 erty, resources, and systems in the United States 

13 from acts of terrorism involving chemical, biological, 

14 radiological, or nuclear weapons or other emerging 

15 threats; 

16 (2) conducting a national scientific research 

17 and development program to support the mission of 

18 the Department, including developing national policy 

19 for and coordinating the Federal Government’s civil20 ian efforts to identify, devise, and implement sci21 entific, technological, and other countermeasures to 

22 chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other 

23 emerging terrorist threats, including directing, fund24 ing, and conducting research and development relat25 ing to the same; 


80431a.AAQ
52

17

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (3) establishing priorities for, directing, fund2 ing, and conducting national research, development, 

3 and procurement of technology and systems—

4 (A) for preventing the importation of 

5 chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

6 related weapons and material; and 

7 (B) for detecting, preventing, protecting 

8 against, and responding to terrorist attacks 

9 that involve such weapons or material; and 

10 (4) establishing guidelines for State and local 

11 government efforts to develop and implement coun12 termeasures to threats of chemical, biological, radio13 logical, and nuclear terrorism, and other emerging 

14 terrorist threats. 

15 SEC. 302. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED. 

16 In accordance with title VIII, there shall be trans17 ferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, 

18 and liabilities of the following entities—

19 (1) the select agent registration enforcement 

20 programs and activities of the Department of Health 

21 and Human Services, including the functions of the 

22 Secretary of Health and Human Services relating 

23 thereto; 

24 (2) the following programs and activities of the 

25 Department of Energy, including the functions of 


80431a.AAR
53

18

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 the Secretary of Energy relating thereto (but not in2 cluding programs and activities relating to the stra3 tegic nuclear defense posture of the United States): 

4 (A) the chemical and biological national se5 curity and supporting programs and activities 

6 of the non-proliferation and verification re7 search and development program; 

8 (B) the nuclear smuggling programs and 

9 activities, and other programs and activities di10 rectly related to homeland security, within the 

11 proliferation detection program of the non-pro12 liferation and verification research and develop13 ment program, except that the programs and 

14 activities described in this subparagraph may be 

15 designated by the President either for transfer 

16 to the Department or for joint operation by the 

17 Secretary and the Secretary of Energy; 

18 (C) the nuclear assessment program and 

19 activities of the assessment, detection, and co20 operation program of the international mate21 rials protection and cooperation program; 

22 (D) the energy security and assurance pro23 gram and activities; 

24 (E) such life sciences activities of the bio25 logical and environmental research program reVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.AAS
54

19

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 lated to microbial pathogens as may be des2 ignated by the President for transfer to the De3 partment; 

4 (F) the Environmental Measurements Lab5 oratory; and 

6 (G) the advanced scientific computing re7 search program and activities, and the intel8 ligence program and activities, at Lawrence 

9 Livermore National Laboratory; 

10 (3) the National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis 

11 Center of the Department of Defense, including the 

12 functions of the Secretary of Defense related there13 to; and 

14 (4) the Plum Island Animal Disease Center of 

15 the Department of Agriculture, including the func16 tions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating there17 to. 

18 SEC. 303. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED 

19 ACTIVITIES. 

20 (a) CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT THROUGH

21 HHS.—(1) Except as the President may otherwise direct, 

22 the Secretary shall carry out his civilian human health23 related biological, biomedical, and infectious disease de24 fense research and development (including vaccine re25 search and development) responsibilities through the DeVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.AAT
55

20

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 partment of Health and Human Services (including the 

2 Public Health Service), under agreements with the Sec3 retary of Health and Human Services, and may transfer 

4 funds to him in connection with such agreements. 

5 (2) With respect to any responsibilities carried out 

6 through the Department of Health and Human Services 

7 under this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with 

8 the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall have 

9 the authority to establish the research and development 

10 program, including the setting of priorities.

11 (b) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—With respect to such 

12 other research and development responsibilities under this 

13 title, including health-related chemical, radiological, and 

14 nuclear defense research and development responsibilities, 

15 as he may elect to carry out through the Department of 

16 Health and Human Services (including the Public Health 

17 Service) (under agreements with the Secretary of Health 

18 and Human Services) or through other Federal agencies 

19 (under agreements with their respective heads), the Sec20 retary may transfer funds to the Secretary of Health and 

21 Human Services, or to such heads, as the case may be. 

22 SEC. 304. MILITARY ACTIVITIES. 

23 Except as specifically provided in this Act, nothing 

24 in this Act shall confer upon the Secretary any authority 


80431a.AAU
56

21

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 to engage in warfighting, the military defense of the 

2 United States, or other traditional military activities. 

3 TITLE IV—BORDER AND 

4 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

5 SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANS6 PORTATION SECURITY. 

7 In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities 

8 specified in section 101(b)(2)(C), the primary responsibil9 ities of the Under Secretary for Border and Transpor10 tation Security shall include—

11 (1) preventing the entry of terrorists and the 

12 instruments of terrorism into the United States; 

13 (2) securing the borders, territorial waters, 

14 ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea 

15 transportation systems of the United States, includ16 ing managing and coordinating governmental activi17 ties at ports of entry; 

18 (3) administering the immigration and natu19 ralization laws of the United States, including the 

20 establishment of rules, in accordance with section 

21 403, governing the granting of visas or other forms 

22 of permission, including parole, to enter the United 

23 States to individuals who are not citizens or lawful 

24 permanent residents thereof; 


80431a.AAV
57

22

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (4) administering the customs laws of the 

2 United States; and 

3 (5) in carrying out the foregoing responsibil4 ities, ensuring the speedy, orderly, and efficient flow 

5 of lawful traffic and commerce. 

6 SEC. 402. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED. 

7 In accordance with title VIII, there shall be trans8 ferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, 

9 and liabilities of the following entities—

10 (1) the United States Customs Service of the 

11 Department of the Treasury, including the functions 

12 of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto; 

13 (2) the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

14 of the Department of Justice, including the func15 tions of the Attorney General relating thereto; 

16 (3) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

17 Service of the Department of Agriculture, including 

18 the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating 

19 thereto; 

20 (4) the Coast Guard of the Department of 

21 Transportation, which shall be maintained as a dis22 tinct entity within the Department, including the 

23 functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating 

24 thereto; 


80431a.AAW
58

23

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (5) the Transportation Security Administration 

2 of the Department of Transportation, including the 

3 functions of the Secretary of Transportation, and of 

4 the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, 

5 relating thereto; and 

6 (6) the Federal Protective Service of the Gen7 eral Services Administration, including the functions 

8 of the Administrator of General Services relating 

9 thereto. 

10 SEC. 403. VISA ISSUANCE. 

11 (a) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding the provisions of 

12 section 104 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

13 U.S.C. 1104) or any other law, and except as provided 

14 in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall have—

15 (1) exclusive authority, through the Secretary 

16 of State, to issue regulations with respect to, admin17 ister, and enforce the provisions of that Act and all 

18 other immigration and nationality laws relating to 

19 the functions of diplomatic and consular officers of 

20 the United States in connection with the granting or 

21 refusal of visas; and 

22 (2) authority to confer or impose upon any offi23 cer or employee of the United States, with the con24 sent of the executive agency under whose jurisdiction 


80431a.AAX
59

24

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 such officer or employee is serving, any of the func2 tions specified in paragraph (1). 

3 (b) REFUSAL OF VISAS.—The Secretary of State may 

4 refuse a visa to an alien if the Secretary of State deems 

5 such refusal necessary or advisable in the interests of the 

6 United States. 

7 TITLE V—EMERGENCY 

8 PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

9 SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPARED10 NESS AND RESPONSE. 

11 In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities 

12 specified in section 101(b)(2)(D), the primary responsibil13 ities of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness 

14 and Response shall include—

15 (1) helping to ensure the preparedness of emer16 gency response providers for terrorist attacks, major 

17 disasters, and other emergencies; 

18 (2) with respect to the Nuclear Incident Re19 sponse Team (regardless of whether it is operating 

20 as an organizational unit of the Department pursu21 ant to this title)—

22 (A) establishing standards and certifying 

23 when those standards have been met; 

24 (B) conducting joint and other exercises 

25 and training and evaluating performance; and 


80431a.AAY
60

25

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (C) providing funds to the Department of 

2 Energy and the Environmental Protection 

3 Agency, as appropriate, for homeland security 

4 planning, exercises and training, and equip5 ment;

6 (3) providing the Federal Government’s re7 sponse to terrorist attacks and major disasters, in8 cluding—

9 (A) managing such response; 

10 (B) directing the Domestic Emergency 

11 Support Team, the Strategic National Stock12 pile, the National Disaster Medical System, and 

13 (when operating as an organizational unit of 

14 the Department pursuant to this title) the Nu15 clear Incident Response Team; 

16 (C) overseeing the Metropolitan Medical 

17 Response System; and 

18 (D) coordinating other Federal response 

19 resources in the event of a terrorist attack or 

20 major disaster; 

21 (4) aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks 

22 and major disasters; 

23 (5) building a comprehensive national incident 

24 management system with Federal, State, and local 


80431a.AAZ
61

26

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 government personnel, agencies, and authorities, to 

2 respond to such attacks and disasters; 

3 (6) consolidating existing Federal Government 

4 emergency response plans into a single, coordinated 

5 national response plan; and 

6 (7) developing comprehensive programs for de7 veloping interoperative communications technology, 

8 and helping to ensure that emergency response pro9 viders acquire such technology. 

10 SEC. 502. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED. 

11 In accordance with title VIII, there shall be trans12 ferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, 

13 and liabilities of the following entities—

14 (1) the Federal Emergency Management Agen15 cy, including the functions of the Director of the 

16 Federal Emergency Management Agency relating 

17 thereto; 

18 (2) the Office for Domestic Preparedness of the 

19 Office of Justice Programs, including the functions 

20 of the Attorney General relating thereto; 

21 (3) the National Domestic Preparedness Office 

22 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the 

23 functions of the Attorney General relating thereto; 


80431a.ABA
62

27

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (4) the Domestic Emergency Support Teams of 

2 the Department of Justice, including the functions 

3 of the Attorney General relating thereto; 

4 (5) the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

5 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (including 

6 the Office of Emergency Preparedness, the National 

7 Disaster Medical System, and the Metropolitan Med8 ical Response System) of the Department of Health 

9 and Human Services, including the functions of the 

10 Secretary of Health and Human Services relating 

11 thereto; and 

12 (6) the Strategic National Stockpile of the De13 partment of Health and Human Services, including 

14 the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human 

15 Services relating thereto. 

16 SEC. 503. NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE. 

17 (a) NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM.—At the 

18 direction of the Secretary (in connection with an actual 

19 or threatened terrorist attack, major disaster, or other 

20 emergency), the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall 

21 operate as an organizational unit of the Department. 

22 While so operating, the Nuclear Incident Response Team 

23 shall be subject to the direction, authority, and control of 

24 the Secretary. 


80431a.ABB
63

28

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this title shall be 

2 understood to limit the ordinary responsibility of the Sec3 retary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environ4 mental Protection Agency for organizing, training, equip5 ping, and utilizing their respective entities in the Nuclear 

6 Incident Response Team, or (subject to the provisions of 

7 this title) from exercising direction, authority, and control 

8 over them when they are not operating as a unit of the 

9 Department. 

10 SEC. 504. DEFINITION. 

11 For purposes of this title, ‘‘nuclear incident response 

12 team’’ means a resource that includes—

13 (1) those entities of the Department of Energy 

14 that perform nuclear or radiological emergency sup15 port functions (including accident response, search 

16 response, advisory, and technical operations func17 tions), radiation exposure functions at the medical 

18 assistance facility known as Oak Ridge National 

19 Laboratory, radiological assistance functions, and re20 lated functions; and 

21 (2) those entities of the Environmental Protec22 tion Agency that perform such support functions (in23 cluding radiological emergency response functions) 

24 and related functions. 


80431a.ABC
64

29

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 SEC. 505. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED 

2 ACTIVITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as the President may oth4 erwise direct, the Secretary shall carry out the following 

5 responsibilities through the Department of Health and 

6 Human Services (including the Public Health Service), 

7 under agreements with the Secretary of Health and 

8 Human Services, and may transfer funds to him in con9 nection with such agreements: 

10 (1) All biological, chemical, radiological, and 

11 nuclear preparedness-related construction, renova12 tion, and enhancement of security for research and 

13 development or other facilities owned or occupied by 

14 the Department of Health and Human Services. 

15 (2) All public health-related activities being car16 ried out by the Department of Health and Human 

17 Services on the effective date of this Act (other than 

18 activities under functions transferred by this Act to 

19 the Department) to assist State and local govern20 ment personnel, agencies, or authorities, non-Federal 

21 public and private health care facilities and pro22 viders, and public and non-profit health and edu23 cational facilities, to plan, prepare for, prevent, iden24 tify, and respond to biological, chemical, radiological, 

25 and nuclear events and public health emergencies, by 

26 means including direct services, technical assistance, 


80431a.ABD
65

30

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 communications and surveillance, education and 

2 training activities, and grants. 

3 (b) PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PROGRAM.—

4 With respect to any responsibilities carried out through 

5 the Department of Health and Human Services under this 

6 section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary

7 of Health and Human Services, shall have the authority 

8 to establish the preparedness and response program, in9 cluding the setting of priorities. 

10 TITLE VI—MANAGEMENT 

11 SEC. 601. UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT. 

12 In assisting the Secretary with the management and 

13 administration of the Department, the primary respon14 sibilities of the Under Secretary for Management shall in15 clude, for the Department—

16 (1) the budget, appropriations, expenditures of 

17 funds, accounting, and finance; 

18 (2) procurement; 

19 (3) human resources and personnel; 

20 (4) information technology and communications 

21 systems; 

22 (5) facilities, property, equipment, and other 

23 material resources; 


80431a.ABE
66

31

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (6) security for personnel, information tech2 nology and communications systems, facilities, prop3 erty, equipment, and other material resources; and 

4 (7) identification and tracking of performance 

5 measures relating to the responsibilities of the De6 partment. 

7 SEC. 602. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 

8 The Chief Financial Officer shall report to the Sec9 retary, or to another official of the Department, as the 

10 Secretary may direct. 

11 SEC. 603. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. 

12 The Chief Information Officer shall report to the Sec13 retary, or to another official of the Department, as the 

14 Secretary may direct. 

15 TITLE VII—COORDINATION WITH 

16 NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; IN17 SPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED 

18 STATES SECRET SERVICE; 

19 GENERAL PROVISIONS 

20 Subtitle A—Coordination With 

21 Non-Federal Entities 

22 SEC. 701. RESPONSIBILITIES. 

23 In discharging his responsibilities relating to coordi24 nation (including the provision of training and equipment) 

25 with State and local government personnel, agencies, and 


80431a.ABF
67

32

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 authorities, with the private sector, and with other enti2 ties, the responsibilities of the Secretary shall include—

3 (1) coordinating with State and local govern4 ment personnel, agencies, and authorities, and with 

5 the private sector, to ensure adequate planning, 

6 equipment, training, and exercise activities; 

7 (2) coordinating and, as appropriate, consoli8 dating, the Federal Government’s communications 

9 and systems of communications relating to homeland 

10 security with State and local government personnel, 

11 agencies, and authorities, the private sector, other 

12 entities, and the public; 

13 (3) directing and supervising grant programs of 

14 the Federal Government for State and local govern15 ment emergency response providers; and 

16 (4) distributing or, as appropriate, coordinating 

17 the distribution of, warnings and information to 

18 State and local government personnel, agencies, and 

19 authorities and to the public. 

20 Subtitle B—Inspector General 

21 SEC. 710. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the last two sen23 tences of section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

24 1978, the Inspector General shall be under the authority, 

25 direction, and control of the Secretary with respect to auVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.ABG
68

33

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 dits or investigations, or the issuance of subpoenas, that 

2 require access to information concerning—

3 (1) intelligence, counterintelligence, or 

4 counterterrorism matters; 

5 (2) ongoing criminal investigations or pro6 ceedings; 

7 (3) undercover operations; 

8 (4) the identity of confidential sources, includ9 ing protected witnesses; 

10 (5) other matters the disclosure of which would, 

11 in the Secretary’s judgment, constitute a serious 

12 threat to the protection of any person or property 

13 authorized protection by section 3056 of title 18, 

14 United States Code, section 202 of title 3 of such 

15 Code, or any provision of the Presidential Protection 

16 Assistance Act of 1976; or 

17 (6) other matters the disclosure of which would, 

18 in the Secretary’s judgment, constitute a serious 

19 threat to national security. 

20 (b) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS.—

21 With respect to the information described in subsection 

22 (a), the Secretary may prohibit the Inspector General 

23 from carrying out or completing any audit or investiga24 tion, or from issuing any subpoena, after such Inspector 

25 General has decided to initiate, carry out, or complete 


80431a.ABH
69

34

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 such audit or investigation or to issue such subpoena, if 

2 the Secretary determines that such prohibition is nec3 essary to prevent the disclosure of any information de4 scribed in subsection (a), to preserve the national security, 

5 or to prevent a significant impairment to the interests of 

6 the United States. 

7 (c) NOTIFICATION REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall 

8 notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 

9 House of Representatives within thirty days of any exer10 cise of his authority under this section. 

11 Subtitle C—United States Secret 

12 Service 

13 SEC. 720. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED. 

14 In accordance with title VIII, there shall be trans15 ferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, 

16 and liabilities of the United States Secret Service, which 

17 shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the Depart18 ment, including the functions of the Secretary of the 

19 Treasury relating thereto. 

20 Subtitle D—General Provisions 

21 SEC. 730. ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MAN22 AGEMENT SYSTEM. 

23 Title 5, United States Code, is amended by insert24 ing—

25 (1) after part III a new part as follows: 


80431a.ABI
70

35

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 ‘‘PART IV—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

2 SECURITY 

3 ‘‘CHAPTER 100

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘10001. Human Resources Management System.

4 ‘‘§ 10001. Human Resources Management System 

5 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 

6 the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in regulations 

7 prescribed jointly with the Director of the Office of Per8 sonnel Management, establish, and from time to time ad9 just, a human resources management system for some or 

10 all of the organizational units of the Department of Home11 land Security, which shall be flexible, contemporary, and 

12 grounded in the public employment principles of merit and 

13 fitness.’’; and 

14 (2) the following after the matter relating to 

15 part III in the analysis:

‘‘Part IV—Department of Homeland Security 

‘‘1. Human Resources Management System ....................... 10001’’.

16 SEC. 731. ADVISORY COMMITTEES. 

17 The Secretary may establish, appoint members of, 

18 and use the services of, advisory committees, as he may 

19 deem necessary. The service of an individual as a member 

20 of an advisory committee established under this paragraph 

21 shall not be considered to be service bringing him within 

22 the provisions of sections 203, 205, or 207 of title 18, 


80431a.ABJ
71

36

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 United States Code, unless his act, which by any such sec2 tion is made unlawful when performed by an individual 

3 referred to therein, is with respect to any particular mat4 ter that directly involves the Department or in which the 

5 Department is directly interested. An advisory committee 

6 established under this section shall not be subject to Pub7 lic Law 92–463, but the Secretary shall publish notice in 

8 the Federal Register announcing the establishment of 

9 such a committee and identifying its purpose and member10 ship. 

11 SEC. 732. ACQUISITIONS; PROPERTY. 

12 (a) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—(1) 

13 When the Secretary carries out basic, applied, and ad14 vanced research and development projects, he may exercise 

15 the same authority (subject to the same limitations and 

16 conditions) with respect to such research and projects as 

17 the Secretary of Defense may exercise under section 2371 

18 of title 10, United States Code (except for subsections (b) 

19 and (f) of such section), after making a determination that 

20 the use of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for 

21 such project is not feasible or appropriate. The annual re22 port required under subsection (h) of such section, as ap23 plied to the Secretary by this paragraph, shall be sub24 mitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker 

25 of the House of Representatives. 


80431a.ABK
72

37

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (2) The Secretary may, under the authority of para2 graph (1), carry out prototype projects in accordance with 

3 the requirements and conditions provided for carrying out 

4 prototype projects under section 845 of the National De5 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 

6 103–160). In applying the authorities of such section 845, 

7 subsection (c) thereof shall apply with respect to prototype 

8 projects under this paragraph, and the Secretary shall 

9 perform the functions of the Secretary of Defense under 

10 subsection (d) thereof. 

11 (b) PERSONAL SERVICES.—Notwithstanding the time 

12 and pay limitations of section 3109 of title 5, United 

13 States Code, the Secretary may procure personal services, 

14 including the services of experts and consultants (or orga15 nizations thereof). 

16 (c) EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.—

17 Section 602(d) of the Federal Property and Administra18 tive Services Act 1949 (40 U.S.C. 474(d)) is amended by 

19 striking ‘‘; or (21)’’ and inserting ‘‘; (21) the Department 

20 of Homeland Security; or (22)’’. 

21 (d) REAL PROPERTY.—Notwithstanding any other 

22 provision of law, the Secretary, in accordance with regula23 tions prescribed jointly with the Administrator of General 

24 Services and the Director of the Office of Management 

25 and Budget—


80431a.ABL
73

38

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (1) may acquire replacement real property (in2 cluding interests therein)—

3 (A) by transfer or exchange of the Depart4 ment’s property with other executive agencies; 

5 or 

6 (B) by sale to or exchange of the Depart7 ment’s property with non-Federal parties; 

8 (2) by lease, permit, license, or other similar in9 strument, may make available to other executive 

10 agencies and to non-Federal parties, on a fair mar11 ket rental value basis, the unexpired portion of any 

12 government lease for real property occupied or pos13 sessed by the Department; 

14 (3) may make available by outlease agreements 

15 with other executive agencies or with non-Federal 

16 parties, any unused or underused portion of or inter17 est in any real or related personal property occupied 

18 or possessed by the Department; and 

19 (4) may deposit the proceeds of any exercise of 

20 the authority granted by this subsection into any ac21 count in the Treasury available to him, without re22 gard to fiscal year limitations. 

23 (e) DELEGATION OF CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES.—

24 Upon the written request of the Secretary, the Adminis25 trator of General Services shall delegate to him all responVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.ABM
74

39

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 sibilities and authorities provided by law to the Adminis2 trator for the care and handling of the Department’s sur3 plus real and related personal property, pending its dis4 position, and for the disposal of such property. 

5 (f) RECOVERY OF COSTS.—Notwithstanding any 

6 other provision of law, the Secretary may retain, from the 

7 proceeds of the sale of personal property, amounts nec8 essary to recover, to the extent practicable, the full costs 

9 (direct and indirect) incurred by the Secretary in dis10 posing of such property, including but not limited to the 

11 costs of warehousing, storage, environmental services, ad12 vertising, appraisal, and transportation. Such amounts 

13 shall be deposited into an account available for such ex14 penses without regard to fiscal year limitations. 

15 SEC. 733. REORGANIZATION; TRANSFER. 

16 (a) ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary is 

17 authorized to allocate or reallocate functions among the 

18 officers of the Department, and to establish, consolidate, 

19 alter, or discontinue such organizational units within the 

20 Department, as he may deem necessary or appropriate, 

21 but such authority does not extend to—

22 (1) any entity transferred to the Department 

23 and established by statute, or any function vested by 

24 statute in such an entity or officer of such an entity, 

25 unless not less than ninety days’ notice has been 


80431a.ABN
75

40

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 given to the President of the Senate and Speaker of 

2 the House of Representatives; or

3 (2) the abolition of any entity established or re4 quired to be maintained as a distinct entity by this 

5 Act. 

6 (b) TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Except as oth7 erwise specifically provided by law, not to exceed five per8 cent of any appropriation available to the Secretary in any 

9 fiscal year may be transferred between such appropria10 tions, except that not less than fifteen days’ notice shall 

11 be given to the Committees on Appropriations of the Sen12 ate and House of Representatives before any such transfer 

13 is made. 

14 SEC. 734. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 

15 (a) SEAL.—The Department shall have a seal, whose 

16 design is subject to the approval of the President. 

17 (b) GIFTS, DEVISES, AND BEQUESTS.—With respect 

18 to the Department, the Secretary shall have the same au19 thorities that the Attorney General has with respect to the 

20 Department of Justice under section 524(d) of title 28, 

21 United States Code. 

22 (c) PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED

23 FORCES.—With respect to the Department, the Secretary 

24 shall have the same authorities that the Secretary of 

25 Transportation has with respect to the Department of 


80431a.ABO
76

41

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 Transportation under section 324 of title 49, United 

2 States Code. 

3 (d) REDELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS.—Unless other4 wise provided in the delegation or by law, any function 

5 delegated under this Act may be redelegated to any subor6 dinate. 

7 SEC. 735. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

9 as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 

10 Act. 

11 TITLE VIII—TRANSITION 

12 SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS. 

13 For purposes of this title—

14 (1) the term ‘‘agency’’ includes any entity, or15 ganizational unit, or function; and 

16 (2) the term ‘‘transition period’’ means the 12-

17 month period beginning on the effective date of this 

18 Act. 

19 SEC. 802. TRANSFER OF AGENCIES. 

20 The transfer of an agency to the Department shall 

21 occur when the President so directs, but in no event later 

22 than the end of the transition period. When an agency 

23 is transferred, the President may also transfer to the De24 partment any agency established to carry out or support 

25 adjudicatory or review functions in relation to the agency. 


80431a.ABP
77

42

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 SEC. 803. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITIES. 

2 (a) PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE BY OFFICIALS.—

3 Until the transfer of an agency to the Department, any 

4 official having authority over or functions relating to the 

5 agency immediately before the effective date of this Act 

6 shall provide to the Secretary such assistance, including 

7 the use of personnel and assets, as he may request in pre8 paring for the transfer and integration of the agency into 

9 the Department. 

10 (b) SERVICES AND PERSONNEL.—During the transi11 tion period, upon the request of the Secretary, the head 

12 of any executive agency may, on a reimbursable or non13 reimbursable basis, provide services or detail personnel to 

14 assist with the transition. 

15 (c) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Until the transfer of an 

16 agency to the Department, the President is authorized to 

17 transfer to the Secretary not to exceed five percent of the 

18 unobligated balance of any appropriation available to such 

19 agency, to fund the purposes authorized in this Act, except 

20 that not less than 15 days’ notice shall be given to the 

21 Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House 

22 of Representatives before any such funds transfer is made. 

23 (d) ACTING OFFICIALS.—(1) During the transition 

24 period, pending the advice and consent of the Senate to 

25 the appointment of an officer required by this Act to be 

26 appointed by and with such advice and consent, the PresiVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.ABQ
78

43

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 dent may designate any officer whose appointment was re2 quired to be made by and with such advice and consent 

3 and who was such an officer immediately before the effec4 tive date of this Act (and who continues in office) or im5 mediately before such designation, to act in such office 

6 until the same is filled as provided in this Act. While so 

7 acting, such officers shall receive compensation at the 

8 higher of—

9 (A) the rates provided by this Act for the re10 spective offices in which they act; or 

11 (B) the rates provided for the offices held at 

12 the time of designation. 

13 (2) Nothing in this Act shall be understood to require 

14 the advice and consent of the Senate to the appointment 

15 by the President to a position in the Department of any 

16 officer whose agency is transferred to the Department 

17 pursuant to this Act and whose duties following such 

18 transfer are germane to those performed before such 

19 transfer. 

20 (e) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL, ASSETS, LIABIL21 ITIES, AND FUNCTIONS.—Upon the transfer of an agency 

22 to the Department—

23 (1) the personnel, assets, and liabilities held by 

24 or available in connection with the agency shall be 

25 transferred to the Secretary for appropriate allocaVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431a.ABR
79

44

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 tion, subject to the approval of the Director of the 

2 Office of Management and Budget and notwith3 standing the provisions of section 1531(a)(2) of title 

4 31, United States Code; and 

5 (2) the Secretary shall have all functions relat6 ing to the agency that any other official could by law 

7 exercise in relation to the agency immediately before 

8 such transfer, and shall have in addition all func9 tions vested in the Secretary by this Act or other 

10 law. 

11 SEC. 804. SAVINGS PROVISIONS. 

12 (a) COMPLETED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.—(1) 

13 Completed administrative actions of an agency shall not 

14 be affected by the enactment of this Act or the transfer 

15 of such agency to the Department, but shall continue in 

16 effect according to their terms until amended, modified, 

17 superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in accord18 ance with law by an officer of the United States or a court 

19 of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. 

20 (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘com21 pleted administrative action’’ includes orders, determina22 tions, rules, regulations, personnel actions, permits, agree23 ments, grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registra24 tions, and privileges.


80431a.ABS
80

45

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (b) PENDING PROCEEDINGS.—Subject to the author2 ity of the Secretary under this Act—

3 (1) pending proceedings in an agency, including 

4 notices of proposed rulemaking, and applications for 

5 licenses, permits, certificates, grants, and financial 

6 assistance, shall continue notwithstanding the enact7 ment of this Act or the transfer of the agency to the 

8 Department, unless discontinued or modified under 

9 the same terms and conditions and to the same ex10 tent that such discontinuance could have occurred if 

11 such enactment or transfer had not occurred; and 

12 (2) orders issued in such proceedings, and ap13 peals therefrom, and payments made pursuant to 

14 such orders, shall issue in the same manner and on 

15 the same terms as if this Act had not been enacted 

16 or the agency had not been transferred, and any 

17 such orders shall continue in effect until amended, 

18 modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or re19 voked by an officer of the United States or a court 

20 of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. 

21 (c) PENDING CIVIL ACTIONS.—Subject to the author22 ity of the Secretary under this Act, pending civil actions 

23 shall continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act 

24 or the transfer of an agency to the Department, and in 

25 such civil actions, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, 


80431a.ABT
81

46

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 and judgments rendered and enforced in the same manner 

2 and with the same effect as if such enactment or transfer 

3 had not occurred. 

4 (d) REFERENCES.—References relating to an agency 

5 that is transferred to the Department in statutes, Execu6 tive orders, rules, regulations, directives, or delegations of 

7 authority that precede such transfer or the effective date 

8 of this Act shall be deemed to refer, as appropriate, to 

9 the Department, to its officers, employees, or agents, or 

10 to its corresponding organizational units or functions. 

11 Statutory reporting requirements that applied in relation 

12 to such an agency immediately before the effective date 

13 of this Act shall continue to apply following such transfer 

14 if they refer to the agency by name. 

15 (e) EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS.—(1) Notwith16 standing the generality of the foregoing (including sub17 sections (a) and (d)), in and for the Department the Sec18 retary may, in regulations prescribed jointly with the Di19 rector of the Office of Personnel Management, adopt the 

20 rules, procedures, terms, and conditions, established by 

21 statute, rule, or regulation before the effective date of this 

22 Act, relating to employment in any agency transferred to 

23 the Department pursuant to this Act; and 

24 (2) except as otherwise provided in this Act, or under 

25 authority granted by this Act, the transfer pursuant to 


80431a.ABU
82

47

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 this Act of personnel shall not alter the terms and condi2 tions of employment, including compensation, of any em3 ployee so transferred. 

4 SEC. 805. TERMINATIONS. 

5 Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever 

6 all the functions vested by law in any agency have been 

7 transferred pursuant to this Act, each position and office 

8 the incumbent of which was authorized to receive com9 pensation at the rates prescribed for an office or position 

10 at level II, III, IV, or V, of the Executive Schedule, shall 

11 terminate. 

12 SEC. 806. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS. 

13 The Director of the Office of Management and Budg14 et, in consultation with the Secretary, is authorized and 

15 directed to make such additional incidental dispositions of 

16 personnel, assets, and liabilities held, used, arising from, 

17 available, or to be made available, in connection with the 

18 functions transferred by this Act, as he may deem nec19 essary to accomplish the purposes of this Act. 

20 TITLE IX—CONFORMING AND 

21 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 

22 SEC. 901. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT. 

23 Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 

24 (Public Law 95–452) is amended—


80431a.ABV
83

48

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘Homeland Security,’’ after 

2 ‘‘Transportation,’’ each place it appears; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘; and’’ each place it appears 

4 and inserting ‘‘;’’; 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘,,’’ and inserting ‘‘,’’; and 

6 (4) by striking ‘‘;;’’ and inserting ‘‘;’’. 

7 SEC. 902. EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE. 

8 Title 5, United States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in section 5312, by inserting ‘‘Secretary of 

10 Homeland Security.’’ as a new item after ‘‘Affairs.’’; 

11 (2) in section 5313, by inserting ‘‘Deputy Sec12 retary of Homeland Security.’’ as a new item after 

13 ‘‘Affairs.’’; 

14 (3) in section 5314, by inserting ‘‘Under Secre15 taries, Department of Homeland Security.’’ as a new 

16 item after ‘‘Affairs.’’ the third place it appears; 

17 (4) in section 5315, by inserting ‘‘Assistant 

18 Secretaries, Department of Homeland Security.’’, 

19 ‘‘General Counsel, Department of Homeland Secu20 rity.’’, ‘‘Chief Financial Officer, Department of 

21 Homeland Security.’’, ‘‘Chief Information Officer, 

22 Department of Homeland Security.’’, and ‘‘Inspector 

23 General, Department of Homeland Security.’’ as new 

24 items after ‘‘Affairs.’’ the first place it appears.


80431a.ABW
84

49

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 SEC. 903. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Code is 

3 amended in sections 202 and 208 of title 3, and in section 

4 3056 of title 18, by striking ‘‘of the Treasury’’, each place 

5 it appears and inserting ‘‘of Homeland Security’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall take effect on the date of transfer of 

8 the United States Secret Service to the Department. 

9 SEC. 904. COAST GUARD. 

10 (a) TITLE 14, U.S.C.—Title 14 of the United States 

11 Code is amended—

12 (1) in sections 1, 3, 53, 95, 145, 516, 666, 669, 

13 673 (as added by Public Law 104–201), 673 (as 

14 added by Public Law 104–324), 674, 687, and 688, 

15 by striking ‘‘of Transportation’’, each place it ap16 pears, and inserting ‘‘of Homeland Security’’; and 

17 (2) after executing the other amendments re18 quired by this subsection, by redesignating the sec19 tion 673 added by Public Law 104–324 as section 

20 673a. 

21 (b) TITLE 10, U.S.C.—Section 801(1) of title 10, 

22 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the General 

23 Counsel of the Department of Transportation’’ and insert24 ing ‘‘an official designated to serve as Judge Advocate 

25 General of the Coast Guard by the Secretary of Homeland 

26 Security’’. 


80431a.ABX
85

50

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of transfer of 

3 the Coast Guard to the Department. 

4 SEC. 905. STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND SMALL5 POX VACCINE DEVELOPMENT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Public Health Security and 

7 Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 is 

8 amended—

9 (1) in section 121(a)(1)—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘Secretary of Health and 

11 Human Services’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary of 

12 Homeland Security’’; 

13 (B) by inserting ‘‘the Secretary of Health 

14 and Human Services and’’ between ‘‘in coordi15 nation with’’ and ‘‘the Secretary of Veterans 

16 Affairs’’; and 

17 (C) by inserting ‘‘of Health and Human 

18 Services’’ after ‘‘as are determined by the Sec19 retary’’; and 

20 (2) in subsections 121(a)(2) and (b), by insert21 ing ‘‘of Health and Human Services’’ after ‘‘Sec22 retary’’ each place it appears. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 this section shall take effect on the date of transfer of 


80431a.ABY
86

51

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 the Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of 

2 Health and Human Services to the Department. 

3 SEC. 906. SELECT AGENT REGISTRATION. 

4 (a) PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.—The Public 

5 Health Service Act is amended—

6 (1) in section 351A(a)(1)(A), by inserting ‘‘(as 

7 defined in subsection (l)(9))’’ after ‘‘Secretary’’; 

8 (2) in section 351A(h)(2)(A), by inserting ‘‘De9 partment of Homeland Security, the’’ before ‘‘De10 partment of Health and Human Services’’; 

11 (3) in section 351A(l), by inserting after para12 graph (8) a new paragraph as follows: 

13 ‘‘(9) The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary 

14 of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Sec15 retary of Health and Human Services.’’; and 

16 (4) in section 352A(i)—

17 (A) by striking ‘‘(1)’’ the first place it ap18 pears; and 

19 (B) by striking paragraph (2). 

20 (b) PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM

21 PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE ACT OF 2002.—Section 

22 201(b) of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

23 Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 is amended by 

24 striking ‘‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’’ and 

25 inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’. 


80431a.ABZ
87

52

HR 5005 IH1S 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of transfer of 

3 the select agent registration enforcement programs and 

4 activities of the Department of Health and Human Serv5 ices to the Department. 

6 SEC. 907. NATIONAL BIO-WEAPONS DEFENSE ANALYSIS 

7 CENTER. 

8 There is established in the Department of Defense 

9 a National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center, whose 

10 mission is to develop countermeasures to potential attacks 

11 by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction.

Æ


80431a.ADA
88

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the sections will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The Chair 

yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of presenting a statement. 

On June 6th of this year, President Bush proposed creating a 

new Department of Homeland Security to bring together vital preparedness, law enforcement and emergency response functions that 

are currently scattered among numerous departments and agencies 

of the Federal Government. On June 18, Majority Leader Armey 

introduced the President’s homeland security proposal as H.R. 

5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

Today’s markup is an important step in bringing this urgent 

project to fruition. Today the Committee on International Relations 

will markup the provisions of the Homeland Security Act that are 

within the Committee’s jurisdiction. We will then submit our recommendations on these provisions to the Select Committee on 

Homeland Security. 

The most important provision of the Homeland Security Act that 

falls within the Committee’s jurisdiction is section 403, which 

would transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security all responsibility for enforcing and administering the laws relating to processing of visa petitions at United States diplomatic and consular 

posts abroad. Those responsibilities are currently vested in employees of the State Department, including the Secretary of State and 

consular officers who are members of the Foreign Service. Section 

403 provides that the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be exercised through the Secretary of State. 

Section 403 further provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate some or all responsibility for visa processing to 

any officers and employees of the Federal Government. 

I strongly support this provision of the President’s homeland security plan, and today, Mr. Lantos and I will offer an amendment 

to clarify and reinforce the provision. Our amendment will address 

concerns expressed by some who believe the President’s proposal 

does not go far enough. These critics have suggested not only giving the Secretary of Homeland Security exclusive authority over 

the visa process, but also requiring Homeland Security personnel 

to do the actual adjudication of all visa applications at all of our 

embassies and consulates—over 12 million applications per year. 

In my view, this proposal is well intentioned but ultimately selfdefeating. It would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy, and would cause enormous practical difficulties in our embassies and consulates abroad. Even more important, it would risk 

overwhelming Homeland Security personnel with non-Homeland 

Security functions, and thereby making it difficult or impossible for 

them to perform their central mission. 

Our amendment will provide for a compromise on the issue of 

visa adjudication by Homeland Security employees. The amendment will explicitly authorize the assignment of Homeland Security 

employees in U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad. Rather 

than assume all visa processing functions; however, these employees will concentrate on identifying and reviewing cases that 

present homeland security issues. 

Under our amendment, Homeland Security officers at U.S. Embassies and other overseas posts would train consular officers, enVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
89

sure their access to appropriate information, coordinate the gathering and analysis of intelligence-related information on threats to 

homeland security, and review individual visa petitions that 

present homeland security issues. This arrangement will preserve 

the essence of the Administration’s proposal; the sensible division 

of labor under which Homeland Security officers will be allowed to 

concentrate on Homeland Security functions, while helping to ensure that security concerns will be central to key decisions made 

abroad. 

Our amendment will also address a possible unintended consequence of the present language in the bill whereby certain visa 

decisions may be subject to administrative and judicial review, 

which they are not subject to under current law. With over 3 million visa applications denied each year, this change would have 

enormous implications for our judicial system as well as for the security of our borders. By transferring to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security exactly these authorities currently vested in the Secretary 

of State, and by explicitly providing that no private rights of action 

are created, our amendment will ensure that denials of visa petitions in our overseas posts will continue to be non-reviewable. 

Finally, our amendment would provide that the Secretary of 

State may deny any visa application which the Secretary has reason to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy 

or security consequences for the United States. This language 

would be substituted for a broader authority in the introduced 

version of H.R. 5005, which states that the Secretary of State may 

deny a visa if he deems it ‘‘necessary or advisable in the national 

interests of the United States.’’ We felt ‘‘national interests’’ was too 

broad. 

We will also offer an amendment which addresses section 302, 

regarding the transfer of certain programs from the Department of 

Energy. The amendment will strike a clause relating to certain assistance programs designed to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation abroad. Under this section, certain parts of the Department of 

Energy, including the Nuclear Assessment Program which, among 

other things, is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear 

bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling 

incidents, would be moved to the new Homeland Security Agency. 

In addition, section 302 includes a clause which would transfer 

to Homeland Security certain assistance programs to the former 

Soviet Union relating to protecting nuclear materials there, which 

are currently part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 

Administration representatives have told this Committee that this 

language is no longer necessary because the final decision has been 

made to not transfer those programs. Therefore, the amendment 

will make the correction so that the assistance programs are not 

transferred. 

We intend to offer these amendments to section 302 and 403 en 

bloc. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support the President’s proposal for overseas visa processing as perfected by the amendment Mr. Lantos and I will offer. 

By retaining a role for consular officers in adjudicating the millions of applications presenting no security-related issues, the 

President’s plan will allow Homeland Security officers to perform 

90

their Homeland Security mission. By authorizing the presence of 

Homeland Security officers in our overseas posts to identify and 

deal with homeland security issues, our amendment will ensure 

that the President’s plan works as intended. 

I now recognize, with great pleasure, the Ranking Democratic 

Member on the Committee, Representative Tom Lantos, for any 

opening statement he may wish to make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first 

commend you for scheduling today’s markup on the Administration’s plan to create a Department of Homeland Security. 

Congress is moving expeditiously to address this wide-ranging 

proposal creating a huge new department that consolidates dozens 

of governmental functions. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend you on the remarkably bipartisan approach with which you 

and your staff have approached this critically important project. 

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

today we will again demonstrate to the world that the Congress 

and the President stand shoulder to shoulder in the war on terrorism. I do not believe there is a Committee of Congress in either 

House which has displayed the degree of bipartisanship that, under 

your leadership, our Committee has. 

The specific issue before us today is whether the new Homeland 

Security Department, the State Department, or a combination of 

the two should be charged with issuing visas to the millions of foreigners who visit our country each year. 

There are about 10 million nonimmigrant visa applicants, and 

600,000 immigrant visas processed annually. It is difficult to understand how some in Congress believe that an entirely new visa 

bureaucracy could be created in the Homeland Security Department without a substantial reduction in our national security. 

If I may digress for a moment. The morning newspapers are 

filled with the outrageous story of a bribery scheme at a facility in 

Qatar in issuing visas. Apparently an employee was selling visas 

at $10,000 apiece. I hope that the full weight of our laws will be 

brought down upon him and he will be punished with the severity 

that this horrendous crime merits. But I think it is very naive to 

assume that transferring the function from the Department of 

State to the newly established department can eliminate all such 

potential future outrages. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of State has some of our government’s finest civil servants, trained in over 60 languages, with decades of experience in dealing with foreign cultures. Their continuation in the foreign service is predicated on carrying out their responsibilities successfully. If they don’t, they don’t get promoted 

and will be forced out of government service all together. 

I believe that the current system can be improved, particularly 

through providing additional resources for the Department of State 

to allow more detailed interviews of visa applicants. But I do not 

believe that we need any fundamental changes in the structure of 

adjudicating the issuance of visas from the one that currently exists. 

91

The President and the Secretary of State have agreed that the 

policy functions relating to visas needs to be centralized in the new 

Department of Homeland Security. I support the Administration’s 

proposal, although it needs considerable clarification. We will be offering, you and I, Mr. Chairman, an amendment which will clarify 

and refine the Administration’s proposals. 

I obviously strongly support our joint amendment and I ask all 

of my colleagues to do so. Our amendment will include a proposal 

to authorize the new Secretary of Homeland Security to assign employees of the new department abroad to address particular security concerns relating to visas, and to coordinate more effectively 

the intelligence gathered abroad so that it gets to the right agency 

and officials without delay. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wise compromise, particularly 

given the fact that there are those who want to go much further 

than the President, including proposals in our body to move the entire visa function to the new department. 

I urge all of my colleagues to support the thoughtful compromise 

embodied in the Hyde-Lantos amendment, and I want to thank you 

for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of our 

Committee. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. The Judiciary Committee is marking up this same bill at 10. We have nine 

Members of this Committee who also serve on Judiciary. So with 

the indulgence of the Committee, we will eschew opening statements and move right along. 

I have two amendments at the desk. I ask unanimous consent 

they be considered en bloc and be considered as read. All Members 

have copies of the amendments in front of them. Without objection, 

the amendments will be considered en bloc and considered as read. 

In my opening statement, Mr. Lantos and I have described these 

two amendments. The first amendment is to section 302 relating 

to nonproliferation matters. 

The amendment to section 403 relates to organizational changes 

regarding visa issuance. I believe these are appropriate amendments, and my understanding is the White House supports the inclusion of these amendments in our recommendation to the Select 

Committee. 

[The information referred to follows:]

92

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5005

OFFERED BY MR. HYDE

Page 18, lines 18 and 19, strike ‘‘and activities of 

the assessment, detection, and cooperation program’’.


80431b.AAB
93

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5005

OFFERED BY MR. HYDE AND MR. LANTOS

Page 23, strike line 10 and all that follows through 

line 6 on page 24, and insert the following:

1 SEC. 403. VISA ISSUANCE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 104(a) 

3 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

4 1104(a)) or any other provision of law, and except as pro5 vided in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary—

6 (1) shall be vested exclusively with all authori7 ties to issue regulations with respect to, administer, 

8 and enforce the provisions of such Act, and of all 

9 other immigration and nationality laws, relating to 

10 the functions of consular officers of the United 

11 States in connection with the granting or refusal of 

12 visas, which authorities shall be exercised through 

13 the Secretary of State, except that the Secretary 

14 shall not have authority to alter or reverse the deci15 sion of a consular officer to refuse a visa to an alien; 

16 and 

17 (2) shall have authority to confer or impose 

18 upon any officer or employee of the United States, 

19 with the consent of the head of the executive agency 

20 under whose jurisdiction such officer or employee is 


80431c.AAB
94

2

H.L.C.

1 serving, any of the functions specified in paragraph 

2 (1). 

3 (b) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.—

4 (1) The Secretary of State may direct a con5 sular officer to refuse a visa to an alien if the Sec6 retary of State considers such refusal necessary or 

7 advisable in the foreign policy or security interests 

8 of the United States. 

9 (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 

10 affecting the authorities of the Secretary of State 

11 under the following provisions of law: 

12 (A) Section 101(a)(15)(A) of the Immigra13 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

14 1101(a)(15)(A)). 

15 (B) Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigra16 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

17 1182(a)(3)(C)). 

18 (C) Section 212(f) of the Immigration and 

19 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)). 

20 (D) Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigra21 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

22 1227(a)(4)(C)). 

23 (E) Section 104 of the Cuban Liberty and 

24 Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 

25 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6034). 


80431c.AAC
95

3

H.L.C.

1 (F) Section 616 of the Departments of 

2 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 

3 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, 

4 as amended. 

5 (G) Section 801 of H.R. 3427, the Admiral 

6 James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign 

7 Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 

8 and 2001, as enacted by reference in Public 

9 Law 106–113. 

10 (H) Section 568 of the Foreign Oper11 ations, Export Financing, and Related Pro12 grams Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 

13 107–115. 

14 (c) ASSIGNMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMPLOY15 EES TO DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized 

17 to assign employees of the Department of Homeland 

18 Security to diplomatic and consular posts abroad to 

19 perform the following functions: 

20 (A) Provide expert advice to consular offi21 cers regarding specific security threats relating 

22 to the adjudication of individual visa applica23 tions or classes of applications. 

24 (B) Review any such applications, either 

25 on the initiative of the employee of the DepartVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

80431c.AAD
96

4

H.L.C.

1 ment of Homeland Security or upon request by 

2 a consular officer or other person charged with 

3 adjudicating such applications. 

4 (C) Conduct investigations with respect to 

5 matters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. 

6 (2) PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT; PARTICIPATION

7 IN TERRORIST LOOKOUT COMMITTEE.—When appro8 priate, employees of the Department of Homeland 

9 Security assigned to perform functions described in 

10 paragraph (1) may be assigned permanently to over11 seas diplomatic or consular posts with country-spe12 cific or regional responsibility. If the Secretary so di13 rects, any such employee, when present at an over14 seas post, shall participate in the terrorist lookout 

15 committee established under section 304 of the En16 hanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act 

17 of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1733). 

18 (3) TRAINING AND HIRING.—

19 (A) The Secretary shall ensure that any 

20 employees of the Department of Homeland Se21 curity assigned to perform functions described 

22 in paragraph (1) shall be provided all necessary 

23 training to enable them to carry out such func24 tions, including training in foreign languages, 

25 in conditions in the particular country where 


80431c.AAE
97

5

H.L.C.

1 each employee is assigned, and in other appro2 priate areas of study. 

3 (B) Prior to assigning employees of the 

4 Department to perform the functions described 

5 in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall promul6 gate regulations establishing foreign language 

7 proficiency requirements for employees of the 

8 Department performing the functions described 

9 in paragraph (1) and providing that preference 

10 shall be given to individuals who meet such re11 quirements in hiring employees for the perform12 ance of such functions. 

13 (C) The Secretary is authorized to use the 

14 National Foreign Affairs Training Center, on a 

15 reimbursable basis, to obtain the training de16 scribed in subparagraph (A). 

17 (d) NO CREATION OF PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—

18 Nothing in this section shall be construed to create or au19 thorize a private right of action to challenge a decision 

20 of a consular officer or other United States official or em21 ployee to grant or deny a visa.


80431c.AAF
98

Chairman HYDE. And so I ask Mr. Lantos if he has any remarks 

he wishes to make on the amendments. Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again want to commend you for your leadership on this issue. My understanding is 

that your staff, my staff, and the White House will continue working on some technical details of the proposal, but I fully support 

your recommendation and I urge all of our colleagues to do so on 

a bipartisan basis. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Are there any amendments to the amendment? I go to Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report. 

Ms. RUSH. Amendment to H.R. 5005 offered by Mr. Paul. At the 

end of section 403(b)——

[The information referred to follows:]

99

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5005

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

At the end of section 403(b) insert the following new 

paragraphs (and redesignate accordingly):

1 (2) PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF STUDENT

2 VISAS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

3 an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the 

4 United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) 

5 of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act without review by the Secretary of 

7 State if the alien is a national of a country des8 ignated under section 620A of the Foreign Assist9 ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country 

10 that has repeatedly provided support for acts of 

11 international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export 

12 Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a 

13 country that supports acts of international ter14 rorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control 

15 Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating 

16 fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 

17 (2) PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY

18 IMMIGRANT VISAS.—Notwithstanding any other pro19 vision of law, an alien may not be granted an immi20 grant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration 


80431d.AAB
100

2

H.L.C.

1 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to 

2 diversity immigrants without review by the Secretary 

3 of State if the alien is a national of a country des4 ignated under section 620A of the Foreign Assist5 ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country 

6 that has repeatedly provided support for acts of 

7 international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export 

8 Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a 

9 country that supports acts of international ter10 rorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control 

11 Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooper12 ating with United States antiterrorism efforts.


80431d.AAC
101

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection. The gentleman is recognized 

for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. 

Mr. PAUL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment—— Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, is this an amendment to your 

amendment? 

Chairman HYDE. Yes. An amendment to the amendment. Mr. 

Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you. Originally I had an amendment that 

would have called for a blanket visa denial of student visas and diversity visas to citizens of those countries designated as promoting 

state-sponsored terrorism or a country designated as not fully cooperating with the U.S. antiterrorism effort. 

I think this is very important because it would deal with the precise problem of individuals who come into this country. Unfortunately, it was not to be made so that I could offer and get accepted 

a blanket visa denial. 

That is exactly what we did in World War II. We didn’t have 

German citizens coming in and we didn’t have Japanese citizens 

coming in. We targeted the individuals that were so important. 

But, nevertheless, we have been able to, with the help of staff, rewrite this amendment to at least make a strong point along the 

way. 

Instead of the blanket denial of visas, we are going to require 

that a specific process for more scrutiny of each individual coming 

from these countries be carried out by the Secretary of State. And 

I think this will serve to protect us to a larger degree. It will not 

solve all of the problems, obviously. But, the main reason why I am 

doing this is that I do think that we are dealing with probably the 

most important part of the reform coming about since 9/11. It is 

dealing with the individuals that cause the crimes and the terrorism. 

When I look at a lot of the things that we have done since 9/11, 

it concerns me a whole lot because so much of that has been directed toward the privacy and the civil liberties of many Americans. The whole idea of searching and monitoring children and 

grandmothers and pilots makes so little sense compared to this. 

So I think it is the dangerous immigration that is key to making 

our country more safe and more secure. I understand this will be 

accepted, and I appreciate that very much. And it will make the 

point. It will help. But, quite frankly, I think we should just deny 

visas to these countries until we get a better understanding of 

what is going on. And I think that is really the essence of the 

amendment. I don’t have a whole lot more to add to that, and I 

hope that it will be accepted. 

Chairman HYDE. The Chair is pleased to tell the gentleman from 

Texas that our staff and Mr. Lantos’s staff have reviewed and 

worked with your staff, and we are prepared to accept the amendment. Unless there are further discussions—Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that 

I think the amendment as drafted would allow this, but I just 

wanted to clarify. Should a person seek refugee status for fear of 

persecution from the government of a country that is on the terrorists list? As I understand it, this amendment, if accepted, will reVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
102

quire review by the Secretary, but it would allow a situation where 

that person could end up being granted refugee status after the 

special review imposed by this requirement; is that correct? 

Mr. PAUL. That is my understanding. That would be the purpose 

of the review. Otherwise, it would be a blanket prohibition. 

Chairman HYDE. The question is on the amendment to the 

amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have 

it. The amendment to the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. PAUL. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I did have another amendment, but I 

understand that it would be ruled out of order. But if I may be permitted, I would like to just mention it, because I think it too is 

very, very important. And it emphasizes a point that we have been 

in denial of—and that is dealing with Saudi Arabia. I know it is 

not politically correct to do anything or mention Saudi Arabia for 

various reasons, which I won’t get into right now. 

But, I think there is a very specific reason that we do not. But 

just think about it—among the terrorists—15 out of 19! Currently 

people with Saudi passports can get into this country pretty easily. 

Now, my amendment really wasn’t that harsh. It didn’t deny 

passports and entry to Saudis. It was only a sense of Congress resolution that Saudi Arabia be designated not fully cooperating. Now, 

that is an excellent category, and it is one that I am attracted to 

because it makes a point that a country should be watched, but it 

isn’t that onerous. It doesn’t impose boycotts, it doesn’t impose embargoes, it is not nearly like designating a nation as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

But, it does mean that we wouldn’t sell weapons to that particular country. It would make the point that we don’t think that 

they are cooperating enough. There is pretty good evidence for this. 

Of course, the large number that had passports who committed the 

terrorism, most of the ones, or many of the ones in Camp X-Ray 

right now have Saudi passports. 

The regime, we do know, did establish and funded some of the 

terrorist schools. We also know that most likely the funding for the 

terrorists came through the Saudis. And yet, we don’t want to deal 

with that. 

And I think we are missing something there. I am disappointed 

that we couldn’t just have a sense of Congress resolution to say 

that we should watch Saudi Arabia more carefully, because I think 

this would have helped. This to me is very minimal. I would have 

hoped that a resolution could have passed. And some day I think 

we will be forced into this decision. 

When you think of the serious complications of our foreign policy 

by putting an air base in Saudi Arabia—for instance, I mean, why 

just stick our thumbs in their eyes and further alienate individuals 

that may not want to be alienated? And my purpose was to make 

that point, that we certainly can have friendly relationships, and 

that is what my goal is. That is why I like this category, because 

it doesn’t close the door. It doesn’t close off trade, because I am in 

favor of that. 

103

It also distracts from the intense interest in putting more regulations on the American people. I want to watch for the bad guys. 

I don’t want more regulations and violations of civil liberties here 

at home. I want to watch those individuals. And I think Saudi Arabia deserves more attention. I hope in the future that we can pay 

more attention. I will look for the opportunity to bring this up once 

again. And I yield back to the Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. I want to point out that 

Mr. Paul is not offering this amendment, so if we could abbreviate 

the discussion, that would help us move along. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will respect your request to 

conclude this session. So I will just speak for a moment. Several 

of the things that my friend from Texas said I fully concur with. 

And I merely need to advise him that the definition of what is politically correct is changing daily. 

Several of us have very severe concerns about the failure of 

Saudi Arabia to cooperate with us in our policy in the region. We 

have made our objections clear along many lines. 

Our Subcommittee dealing with this region held a hearing on 

Saudi Arabia, during the course of which harsh criticism of Saudi 

Arabia was presented by several Members of our Committee. 

So I think that the gentleman is onto something significant. 

Saudi Arabia would not exist today had we not sent a half a million American troops into the region. The House of Saud would be 

a villa on the French Riviera. And I think it is important to realize 

that some of us are outraged at a country where half of its citizens, 

its women, are denied the most fundamental human rights. 

So political correctness has changed, as I am sure my friend from 

Texas understands. And speaking for this side of the aisle, we will 

be very happy to look at amendments and resolutions involving 

Saudi Arabia. This has been a one-way relationship for too long. It 

is an outrage that the most modern, up-to-date military facility in 

the region apparently would not be made available for our use in 

case hostilities were to arise in that region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to inquire as to a 

portion of the amendment dealing with section 302. In the Committee analysis, it mentions that this section pertains to a proposal 

to move from the Department of Energy a nuclear assessment program which, among other things, is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling incidents, to the new Homeland Security agency, 

along with portions of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 

I understand from the analysis the Administration has decided 

to no longer move these programs to the new department, and that 

the amendment follows through on that decision not to transfer the 

program. 

The question I have is, why has the decision been made not to 

transfer those programs? It seems, on first blush, that nuclear 

bomb threats, extortion plots, and nuclear smuggling incidents are 

104

a quintessential part of the homeland defense mission. I wonder if 

I could inquire of the Chair what the policy rationale was for not 

transferring those to the new agency? 

Chairman HYDE. I am informed that the language that was 

available was overbroad and ambiguous and generally unsatisfactory. So that was one reason why the change was made, but the 

intent was to transfer research programs, but not on-the-ground activities. 

In any event, it is very complicated. There were good and sufficient reasons. But the most readily available was that the language 

was inappropriate. The idea will still be worked on. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I don’t know if there is anyone present from the Administration who may be able to delineate what aspects of the nuclear threat would be under the roof of the new agency and what 

aspects would remain under DOE. 

Mr. BERMAN. Is there anyone from the Administration here? 

Chairman HYDE. Everything is being transferred except foreign 

assistance programs. Foreign assistance programs are not being 

transferred. Everything else is. 

Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the NunnLugar programs will not be transferred? And I think appropriately 

so. 

Chairman HYDE. That is right. 

Mr. BERMAN. But the issues raised by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, regarding smuggling into this country—what 

was that list you read initially? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time. The Committee analysis says 

the Nuclear Assessment Program, which among other things is relied upon to assess the credibility of nuclear bomb threats and extortion plots and to follow nuclear smuggling incidents, would be 

moved to the new agency. 

Nunn-Lugar is separately identified in the analysis as something 

else that would be moved. But the Administration has now decided, 

according to this analysis, to move neither of those programs. 

Chairman HYDE. That is correct. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The analysis seems to indicate it is broader than foreign assistance, unless I don’t understand what foreign assistance 

encompasses. If we are moving the assessment of nuclear bomb assessments, extortion plots and nuclear smuggling incidents out of 

the new Homeland Security Agency, it seems like we are leaving 

a fairly gaping hole in what that agency would do. 

Chairman HYDE. The intention of the Administration, I am informed, is to move research programs to the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of information, Mr. Chairman. Is the Administration not aware that we are marking this bill up today? 

Chairman HYDE. I am not sure what the Administration is aware 

of. I don’t get daily communiques as to the scope of their knowledge. Are you being critical that there is no one here? Maybe they 

just don’t choose to identify themselves. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. That is very understandable, Mr. Chairman. But 

it would be helpful to this Committee to know that first they were 

105

invited; and second, that they are in attendance or that they have 

refused to attend, because the gentleman from California asks very 

important questions to which this Committee is entitled to learn 

the Administration’s point of view as to why this is being done in 

a major reshuffling of our government. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, as a practice in this Committee, at least 

under this Chairman, we don’t take people from the audience and 

ask them questions without laying a very strong foundation. I 

would say that we never do it. 

The Administration is transferring research programs and not 

anything else. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that our joint staffs 

contact the Administration at the conclusion of this hearing and we 

obtain the necessary information and distribute it in writing to all 

Members of the Committee before the close of business today? 

Chairman HYDE. You are seeking an explanation as to what the 

Administration wants to do? 

Mr. LANTOS. Exactly. And its reasons for doing that. 

Chairman HYDE. We will try to get that as quickly as we can and 

have it reduced to writing. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Any further discussion? 

Ms. Berkley of Nevada. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But my comments have 

already been made by others. 

Chairman HYDE. Not half as well, I might add. All right. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I just want 

to express the fact that I share Mr. Schiff’s concerns. It is not 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee, but in my other Committee, the Commerce Committee, I am going to be introducing an 

amendment. I think that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) should be under the umbrella of the new Homeland Security. 

I am very concerned about security at nuclear power plants, particularly a power plant in New York not far from the New York 

metropolitan region. I think when we are talking about nuclear security, it does not make sense to have part of it under Homeland 

Security and part of it left out. I think it all ought to be taken as 

one. 

So I just wanted to identify with Mr. Schiff’s concerns and say 

that I hope we revisit it. And when the package is ultimately out 

there for voting, I hope that there will be more of a consistency 

than there is now. 

Chairman HYDE. I might comment that I agree with the gentleman. I think it is a very reasonable request. And we will get 

that information. 

Are there any further amendments to the Hyde-Lantos amendments en bloc? If not, the question occurs on the amendments en 

bloc, as amended by the Paul amendment. 

All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendments are agreed to. The question occurs on the motion to submit 

the recommendations of the Committee on H.R. 5005 favorably to 

the Select Committee on Homeland Security. 

106

All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion 

to submit the recommendations of the Committee to the Select 

Committee is adopted. 

Without objection staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. The Committee stands adjourned with the thanks 

of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(107)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

JUNE 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the implications of legislation we will be considering shortly that is vital to our national security. I would like to thank Under Secretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary 

Lannon for coming before this Committee to provide testimony and answer questions as to how the new Homeland Security Department will impact security with 

respect to our embassies and consulates overseas. 

Under Secretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary Lannon, the directions you 

give and the many staff that work for you in our embassies throughout the world 

are the first line of defense in the War on Terrorism. The prevention of future attacks on our nation may hinge on the success of the State Department in denying 

visas to potential terrorists who wish to destroy our country. 

While those who serve America abroad at our embassies are first in the line of 

defense, they are also many times the most susceptible to attack, as we saw even 

before September 11th through the 1998 bombings that occurred at our embassies 

in Kenya and Tanzania. I was the prime author of PL 106–113, the Embassy Security Act. Signed into law in 1999, this legislation helped strengthen security requirements at our embassies. The new Department of Homeland Security is designed to 

protect Americans in the 50 states and US territories, but can it also help ensure 

greater protection for Americans at our embassies? 

This Congress has already passed legislation to strengthen our immigration system by mandating the creation of an entry-exit system that will require the implementation of technology upgrades, the sharing of information between agencies 

through a common database, and the bio-metric screening of visas. While full implementation of these measures will take time, we must make absolutely certain we 

do everything possible to root out terrorist threats attempting to enter our nation 

today. 

I was pleased with the Attorney General’s announcement earlier this month requiring the rigorous registration and fingerprinting of nationals entering the United 

States from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya. Some have said immigration and 

travel should be cut off completely from nations that pose serious threats to our national security. We must remember nationals from these nations may be fleeing persecution and seek refuge in our nation and I believe that people from any nation 

should be given the opportunity to enter our nation after thorough, careful screening. 

I am afraid, however, that the Attorney General’s announcement did not go far 

enough. While the governments of Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya are vehicles 

for terror themselves and may have many terrorists residing within their borders, 

nation’s which are our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have extremist factions within their borders who are eager to inflict great harm on the United States. 

We all know that the majority of the September 11th terrorists were not from Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran, but rather Saudi Arabia. 

Undersecretary Grossman and Assistant Secretary Lannon, I know that our embassies are inundated with millions of visa requests each year and that programs 

such as Visa Waiver Programs and Visa Express are designed to help facilitate what 

might otherwise be an insurmountable work. However, our national security must 

come first and foremost and should be considered above all else. I have grave conVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
108

cerns that these programs, as currently carried out through US consulates, offer tremendous loopholes for those who wish to harm our nation to enter it. 

I hope testimony is presented here today as to how the Department of State, in 

conjunction with the newly forming Department of Homeland Security, will work to 

close these loopholes as quickly as possible. I also hope the CIA, FBI and INS are 

and will continue to get crucial information concerning potential threats to officials 

at our embassies. The safety and well-being of the American people depends on it. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD, AS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS TO UNDER SECRETARY

MARC GROSSMAN DURING THE HEARING, TOGETHER WITH ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR

THE RECORD

Question: 

Out of 7.5 million visas granted, how many people overstay? 

Answer: 

We refer you to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for further information on this issue. Under Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

the Attorney General and Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service are responsible for issues dealing with aliens who arrive at and enter the 

United States. 

Question: 

Please check into these threats that are being made against Americans who are 

Falun Gong of Chinese extraction. 

Answer: 

The State Department takes seriously any allegation that foreign diplomats are 

abusing their status in the United States. Falun Gong representatives have been 

in contact with us regarding their allegations, and we have urged them to file 

charges with local police following any incidents of alleged harassment. We have facilitated their direct contact with appropriate officials at the Civil Rights divisions 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. 

The State Department is not aware of any case where Chinese diplomatic or consular personnel have been detected conducting activities incompatible with their 

diplomatic status. The United States Government will take strong measures if concrete evidence emerges of official misconduct by Chinese diplomats. 

Question: 

How many visas are denied annually based on security concerns? 

Answer: 

Under Section 212 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), consular officers decide to refuse visas on several ground related to security concerns, including 

suspicion of terrorism, sabotage, espionage, technology transfer, other criminal activity, attempted violent overthrow of the United States government, Nazi war 

crimes, and genocide. The law requires a report only on denials based on suspicion 

of involvement in terrorist activity. Every three months, the Consular Affairs Bureau submits a report to Congress of the number of visas refused for terrorist reasons. The most recent report we submitted to Congress for the period March, 2001 

through February, 2002 shows that sixty-six (66) individuals had been refused visas 

because of terrorist activities. 

Question: 

How much would it cost to move the consular function from the DOS to the HST? 

Answer: 

The FY 2002 DOS budget estimate for the consular function is $573.58 million. 

This pays for all consular activities: visa services, passport services as well as American Citizen Services. This funding covers the cost of operations and salaries of all 

domestic and overseas staff (including Foreign Service Nationals). Included within 

this budget estimate is $284.488 million for overseas visa services. 

We do not have an estimate of the one-time cost to move the visa function out 

of the State Department. An estimate of this cost could not be developed without 

considering these factors:

• Consular activities are integrated within the Department’s worldwide operations, infrastructure, and management systems at more than 220 visa 

issuing posts in more than 160 different countries, 16 passport facilities doVerDate May 01 2002 10:04 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 080431 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062602\80431.001 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
109

mestically, and within the Department of State headquarters in Washington, 

D.C.

• Consular activities include:

— responding to non-immigrant visa requests from foreign tourists, students, business people, investors and government officials;

— responding to immigrant visa demands in accordance with U.S. immigration laws;

— providing routine and emergency assistance overseas to American citizens in distress;

— keeping American travelers and the U.S. travel industry aware of dangerous situations abroad through Consular Information Sheets, Travel 

Warnings, and tips to travelers;

— adjudicating passport applications for the millions of U.S. citizens wanting to travel abroad; and

— the Border Security Program—with major initiatives to strengthen U.S. 

border security through improvements in consular systems and programs through information, infrastructure, connectivity, human resources and document integrity. 

Question: 

How are dual-nationals naturalized in a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country 

treated by VWP? 

Answer: 

Any dual national who has been naturalized in a VWP country and travels to the 

United States on his or her VWP-country passport is treated the same way as native-born citizens of a VWP country. 

Question: 

How are people who enter on the VWP screened? 

Answer: 

Most nationals of countries under the visa waiver program (VWP) do not apply 

for visas at Embassies or consulates abroad and are therefore not screened by U.S. 

consular officers. INS Inspectors admit passport holders from VWP countries; we 

refer you to the INS for specific questions on their screening procedures. 

Not all nationals of VWP countries are eligible to travel to the U.S. without a 

visa. For example, if they have previously been refused visas, have criminal convictions, have previously been deported, or have ever been members of a terrorist organization, they may not travel under VWP. These residents of visa waiver countries 

must apply for visas at our consular sections abroad. These applicants are screened 

by U.S. consular officers, who make determinations on their applications following 

the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Question: 

Why didn’t Mary Ryan mention the program formerly known as ‘‘Visa Express’’ 

during her testimony October 17, 2001? 

Answer: 

Assistant Secretary Ryan was asked to testify on visa security and technology. 

The program formerly known as ‘‘Visa Express’’ was simply a visa application tool—

a means to deliver documents to the Embassy—and had no bearing on visa adjudication or security. 

At many posts, travel agencies and other third parties distribute visa application 

forms and submit to the Embassy completed applications on behalf of their customers, with supporting documents for subsequent screening by U.S. consular officers. Internal security concerns raised by long lines of visa applicants were one important factor considered when these application programs were established. This 

program acts as an important security measure by regulating the number of applicants on the Embassy compound. 

Third parties, whether they are travel agents, courier services, or a national postal service, have no roles whatsoever in the visa process beyond delivering the application materials. The decision on whether to issue or refuse a visa is always made 

by American consular officers. 

Question: 

How many student visa are issued annually? 

110

Answer: 

The Department issued 319,518 Academic Student (F) visas and 5,657 Vocational 

Student (M) visas in FY 2001, including visas issued to students’ spouses and children. In FY 2000, the Department issued 308,044 Academic Student (F) visas and 

6,564 Vocational Student (M) visas. 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE MARKUP RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

JULY 10, 2002

Mr. Chairman, after the shock and the horror of September 11th, I resolved to 

myself that I would do everything in my power as a Member of Congress, and as 

a Member of this Committee, to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. 

The Department of Homeland Security legislation we are considering today represents our best and most significant opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. 

I commend the President for recognizing that only a wholesale reorganization of our 

government can prevent a return to the tunnel vision, red tape, and petty turf battles that created the weaknesses Al Qaeda exploited to such deadly effect. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you as well for your strong leadership on this and 

other important issues, and lend my strong support for your Amendment to this bill, 

which will build upon and enhance the President’s legislative proposal. 

As all of us know, the central purpose of the President’s proposal is break down 

the barriers that prevented agencies from coordinating and sharing their 

antiterrorism efforts by centralizing the many different agencies responsible for protecting our nation from people like Osama Bin Laden. However, we must tread carefully. If we act hastily or sloppily, the Department of Homeland Security, which will 

become our third largest federal agency and employ an estimated 170,000 federal 

workers, could fall victim to the same problems experienced in other bureaucracies, 

where too many times tasks overlap and inefficiency runs rampant. 

Take the issue of visas, for example. Obviously it will be helpful if people from 

the Department of Homeland Security could assist the State Department in detecting potential threats when they process visas. But if we’re not careful, the Department of Homeland Security could wind up with the responsibility of actually processing 10 million visas a year. They are not equipped or trained to perform that 

enormous task. And if the Department of Homeland Security tries to take that responsibility on, they will fail, and terrorists will slip through the system. 

The Hyde amendment will help protect against this by ensuring that Americans 

working for the Department of State, and serving at US consulates abroad, work 

side-by-side with the Department of Homeland Security officials monitoring the visa 

process. Under the Chairman’s amendment, both agencies can work together and 

share information while still performing their unique and distinct roles. 

The overwhelming majority of the 10 million visa applicants do not pose a security threat to our nation. In a very real way, our mission is to find the needle in 

the haystack. If Homeland Security personnel had to oversee and review each and 

every one of these applications, it would take energy and focus away from the most 

pressing security risks. The Hyde Amendment will help protect against this potential problem by ensuring that the State Department maintains a large degree of autonomy to continue to handle the visa screening process, while giving Homeland Security personal the ability to intervene and act when necessary. 

Homeland Security officials will still be able to examine visas when they choose 

to, provide vital intelligence information to State Department personnel when needed, and concentrate their efforts and presence in countries where Al Qaeda 

operatives are active. 

The Homeland Security Bill will establish a solid framework for the men and 

women who protect America in a variety of capacities to serve to their fullest potential. With the Hyde Amendment, this committee can leave a solid mark on this historic legislation. Again, I commend the Chairman for his leadership on this legislation and am hopeful of its swift passage. 

111

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

JULY 10, 2002

Mr. Chairman, today we are marking-up what I consider to be a critical piece of 

legislation. In particular, I believe that H.R. 5005, The Homeland Security Act of 

2002, will provide an important and critical comprehensive response to the attacks 

which occurred on September 11, 2001. 

Without a doubt, I believe that we need to reform and modify all of our government agencies to reflect the new demands of our national security. In this sense, 

I could not agree with the President more that we need a fundamental reorganization of the government to address the needs of Homeland Security. 

However, Mr. Chairman, I do have some reservations about the way the President 

has addressed the visa issuance process with respect to Homeland Security. Today, 

while I am supporting your amendment, I do believe that I need to flesh out where 

I believe we should go with respect to visas. 

While the visa issuance process is not completely within our jurisdiction, I do believe that what we have to say as a committee is important. In particular, I believe 

that we should more strongly advocate in the future for wholesale reform of the visa 

process. In this sense, I do not believe that we, as the House of Representatives, 

will go far enough in addressing the problems that are present in our current system. 

Mr. Chairman, after studying the issue, I am more convinced than ever that what 

we need is wholesale visa reform, not just nibbling at the edges of reform. I am 

afraid that this all that we will be able to accomplish now. However, I am supporting your amendment because I believe it to be a significant improvement over 

the President’s. 

To accomplish reform, I believe a close examination and reform of the Diversity 

Visa program is required. Additionally, we must determine what the genuine staffing needs are for visa issuance and oversight, and we must ensure that we have 

better investigations of foreigners who wish to come to our country. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Æ