U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

71–601 PDF 2012

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM OVERSIGHT: 

RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Serial No. 112–91 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

David F. Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

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

Richard M. Stana, Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

James Jay Carafano, Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign 

Policy Studies, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis 

Institute for International Studies, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 61 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 72 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 74 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Illinois ..................................................................... 11 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from David F. Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................... 90 

Lettter from Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor, Immigration, 

& Employee Benefits, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America .......................................................................................................................... 93 

Letter from Bill Vergot, President, the National Federation of Croatian Americans Cultural Foundation ................................................................................... 95 

Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of Michael W. McCormick, Executive Direcor and Chief 

Operating Officer, Global Business Travel Association (GBTA) ...................... 97 

Letter from Brent Thompson, Vice President, Global Government Affairs, 

Expedia, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 101 

(1) 

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM OVERSIGHT: 

RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

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

Also Present: Representative Chabot. 

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

Clerk; and (Minority) David Shahoulian, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call to order the Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Policy Enforcement. 

While the Visa Waiver Program is a popular diplomatic tool, it 

is unfortunately a flawed program. Before it is expanded, the program should be reexamined to ensure that any national security 

concerns are addressed and resolved. 

Under the VWP, nationals of designated countries—and there 

are currently 36—are allowed to enter the United States without 

a travel visa. 

Since its creation, the VWP has been rightfully criticized on national security grounds. Those concerns have been validated over 

the years when individuals such as the suspected 20th September 

11th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui came to the U.S. as a French national under VWP and when Richard Reid boarded the American 

Airlines Flight 63 en route from Paris, France, to Miami, Florida, 

with a British passport and attempted to light a bomb that was 

hidden in his shoe. 

Congress has acknowledged these security concerns several times 

and added security-related requirements to the program in the 

2002 Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, 

and most recently in the 2007 Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act. 

But even with the changes, the VWP is still the subject of significant security risks, both inherently and due to a lack of follow-up 

to ensure the countries become or remain compliant with the program’s requirements. A May 2011 Government Accountability Office report found that only ‘‘half of the countries have entered into 

2 

agreements to share watchlist information about known or suspected terrorists and to provide access to biographical, biometric, 

and criminal history data.’’ Such an agreement is a requirement of 

the program. 

And Congress required the Department of Homeland Security to 

issue biennial reports regarding the security risks associated with 

a country’s VWP status, but the GAO found that the DHS had not 

completed the latest biennial reports for 18 of the 36 VWP countries in a timely manner. 

Unfortunately, this criticism is not new to the Visa Waiver Program. A 2004 DHS Inspector General report found that the agency 

was ‘‘unable to comply with the mandate to conduct country reviews of each VWP-designated country every 2 years to determine 

whether the country shall be continued in the program.’’ And a 

2008 GAO report concluded that the ‘‘DHS has not fully developed 

tools to assess and mitigate risks in the Visa Waiver Program.’’ 

So DHS consistently ignores congressional mandates regarding 

the VWP and cannot keep up with the demands for the 36 countries that are currently in the program. These failures need to be 

addressed before we encourage the expansion of the Visa Waiver 

Program. 

This Subcommittee has a significant interest in protecting Americans and ensuring that the VWP is not a national security risk. 

The United States shares a close friendship with many of the 

Visa Waiver Program countries and with many countries that 

would like to be designated for the program. However, legislation 

and policies that can compromise our national security should be 

carefully scrutinized by Congress. 

Before I close, I know one of the witnesses, Rich Stana from 

GAO, is retiring, and this will be his last time testifying before 

Congress. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Stana 

for his years of service. He has been testifying in front of this Subcommittee on immigration-related issues since 1997. We have 

greatly benefited from his expertise, and we all wish him well in 

his retirement. 

Thank you very much, Rich. 

Mr. STANA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. There is a vote on. If you would like to make your 

opening statement, then we will go vote, or if you would prefer 

to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am fine to make it now, and then—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. We can go directly to our colleague 

when we return. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would yield to the gentlelady, the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First created by Congress in 1986, the Visa Waiver Program has 

actually played a vital role in growing our economy, creating and 

maintaining American jobs, and keeping the country safe. The program permits business travelers and tourists from certain countries 

to visit the United States for up to 90 days without first obtaining 

a visa at a U.S. Embassy overseas. The participating countries 

have to follow strict security measures and agree to share addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\120711\71601.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71601
3 

tional intelligence with our government. As such, the program facilitates and promotes travel for business and leisure to the United 

States while promoting national security. 

The Visa Waiver Program was first initiated with just two participating countries, the United Kingdom and Japan. Over the 

years, as has been mentioned, countries have been added and subtracted depending on several factors, including conditions in the 

country, and the rate at which its nationals are refused other nonimmigrant visas by consular officers. 

The Visa Waiver Program now has 36 participating countries. 

Current long-term participants include many of our closest allies, 

such as Australia, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, Sweden, Japan, 

and the U.K. Most recently, in 2008 President Bush expanded the 

program to include additional allies, such as the Czech Republic, 

Estonia, Hungary, and South Korea. Greece was added in 2009 

under President Obama. 

The Visa Waiver Program is important to our economic growth. 

In 2010, over 65 percent of all foreign visitors to the U.S. came 

from visa-waiver countries, even though such countries make up a 

small percentage of the world’s population. According to the U.S. 

Travel Association, those visitors spent nearly $61 billion, helping 

to support millions of American workers with travel, tourism, hotel, 

and restaurant industries. 

But what is more telling is how much this country may have lost 

because the Visa Waiver Program does not include more countries. 

While other countries have taken steps to welcome more visitors, 

waiting times for visits at U.S. embassies and consulates have 

grown to embarrassingly long levels. In some consulates, it now 

takes more than 6 months for visa applications to be processed, so 

the result has been decreasing market share in international travel. According to a study conducted by an American industry coalition, the U.S. is estimated to have lost $43 billion in visitor spending in 2005 due to lost market share. And, according to the Department of Commerce, the positive balance of trade generated by inbound travel declined by more than 72 percent between 1996 and 

2005. 

Since 2005, those losses have only grown, as international travel 

continues to increase but the U.S. share of the travel market continues to decrease. And as we lose market share, we also lose the 

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

show that foreigners who visit the U.S. are 75 percent more likely 

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

likely to support the United States and its policies. So this country 

also suffers because fewer foreign visitors are able to experience 

and value our hospitality and our values. 

For these reasons alone, we should consider expansion of the 

Visa Waiver Program, but there is a more important reason, however counterintuitive it may be. Many of the supporters of the Visa 

Waiver Program, including conservative security advocates like 

former DHS Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker, support expansion 

of the program because they believe it makes the U.S. safer. 

This is because participating countries are required to share important law enforcement and national security intelligence and 

take other steps pursuant to agreements required by the program. 

4 

Participating countries must exchange watchlists of known and 

suspected terrorists, issue more secure e-passports, report lost and 

stolen passports on a daily basis, and enhance overall 

counterterrorism and law enforcement cooperation with us. At the 

same time, visa-waiver travelers must also obtain preclearance to 

board a flight to the U.S. through the Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization. 

These measures provide U.S. Government personnel with new 

tools to secure the borders, help prevent terrorist and criminal activities, and promote a safer international travel environment for 

our citizens and those of our allies. Considering all of these benefits, as well as recent improvements made to the program by the 

Departments of State and Homeland Security, it may well be time 

to alter the program and extend its reach. 

I look forward to the hearing today and our witnesses, and especially Representative Mike Quigley, who has been such a leader in 

advocating especially for Poland, one of our most firm allies in the 

world. 

And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back, looking forward to hearing from Mr. Quigley first and the rest of our witnesses. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

As you probably are all aware, the bells went off. We have about 

7 or 8 minutes to get to the floor to vote. So we will vote as quickly 

as we can, return, and, Mike, we will be ready to go as soon as we 

get back. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The Subcommittee stands in recess for probably 

20 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I apologize for the interruption, but that is the 

way the system works around here. Unfortunately, we don’t have 

a lot of control over when the bells ring. 

I was about to introduce our witness, our colleague and friend 

from Illinois, Mike Quigley. Congressman Quigley represents Illinois’s Fifth District in the United States House of Representatives. 

He is a Member of the House Committee on Judiciary and the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Congressman Quigley is the former Cook County commissioner and has 

served his community for over 20 years. 

Welcome, Mike. And, with that, we will yield to you for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Lofgren. I appreciate that. 

And I also want to thank the Chairman of the full Committee, 

Lamar Smith, for helping us put this together, the Committee staff 

for their hard work, and certainly my staff, Lindsey Matese and 

others, who have worked so hard to get us to this point. And I look 

forward to hearing from the second panel here of experts today. 

But today’s hearing really represents a watershed moment. Believe it or not, it has been 10 years since this Committee has had 

5 

a hearing on the Visa Waiver Program, and in that time a lot has 

happened. And many in this room have long-founded beliefs about 

what this program, commonly known as VWP, can or cannot do. 

Let me ask something of my colleagues today, and that is: Let’s 

set aside some preconceived notions of the program. As I have spoken to my colleagues over the past few years in my time here in 

Washington about VWP, I have repeated one line: This is not your 

father’s VWP program. This is not your father’s Visa Waiver Program. And, again, this is not an issue of immigration. These are 

travelers, not immigrants. This is an issue of national security, but 

it is not about comprehensive immigration reform. 

The Visa Waiver Program increases our access to data regarding 

who is coming and going. It allows us to map and trend countrybased data and requires a commitment to safety and security from 

country designees. 

One of the most compelling reasons to promote the expansion of 

VWP to qualified countries is that the program has become a vital 

counterterrorism tool. Already, the program requires travelers to 

receive travel authorization through the ESTA program before 

boarding a U.S.-bound flight. Over the last 2 years, DHS developed 

an enhanced biographic program and accelerated efforts to improve 

vetting and screening capabilities. 

DHS still must release overstay numbers in order for VWP expansion to happen, something they are working on. Combine this 

work with the reformed and expanded Visa Waiver Program and 

we will have effectively minimized opportunities for the expansion 

of terrorist networks. This is a goal I am sure we all share. 

My interest in this issue began, though, even before I took office. 

I represent a district that is nearly one-fifth Polish. Chicago has 

the highest concentration of Poles of any city outside of Warsaw. 

I hear from my Polish community daily about the unfair law that 

excludes their country from visa-free travel. Poland, whose country 

has fought side-by-side with Americans in Afghanistan, is among 

those countries left outside looking in. 

As President Obama acknowledged in Warsaw this year, Poland’s 

exclusion from VWP is having a detrimental impact on our relationship with this key ally. Other vital nations, such as Brazil and 

Taiwan, are currently excluded from participation. 

So I took action. I introduced H.R. 959, the Secure Travel and 

Counterterrorism Partnership Program Act of 2011. The bill would 

allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to bring additional eligible countries into the VWP by modifying primary qualifying criteria for entry. Senators Kirk and Mikulski have introduced identical language. The Administration formally supports this language. 

This Nation needs to keep its doors open for visits from its allies. 

Foreign travelers who come to America gain an understanding of 

what makes America great, and they share these positive experiences with their neighbors. Expansion of the VWP would bring in 

tourism dollars and economically stimulate the travel industry. In 

2008, the countries in the VWP generated more than 16 million 

visits to the United States, accounting for 65 percent of all overseas 

arrivals that year. VWP travelers spent more than $51 billion in 

the United States. 

6 

International travelers spend three times more than national 

travelers when they come to this country. That spending generated 

512,000 jobs, $13 billion in payroll, and $7.8 billion in taxes for our 

economy. If properly done, expansion of the VWP will improve our 

international relationships, create jobs, stimulate the economy, 

and, again, let me repeat, make us safer. 

There are 36 countries currently designated for visa-free travel 

under the program, all of which must sign information-sharing 

agreements with the U.S. and qualify under certain enumerators 

regarding refusals at consular offices abroad. The U.S. Government 

maintains that there are significant security benefits from having 

countries enter into the required info-sharing agreements and to 

report lost and stolen passports promptly, in addition to the economic and diplomatic benefits accrued from more travel to the U.S. 

As I conclude my remarks, I am hopeful that those with questions will ask them of our panelists and that they will listen to the 

answers. I wholly believe that today’s outdated visa regime reflects 

neither the current strategic relationship nor the close, historic 

bonds between our peoples. I look forward to today’s discussion and 

thank the Committee for its indulgence. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quigley follows:] 

7 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Quigley, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 


MQ-2.eps
8 


MQ-3.eps
9 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And, Mr. Chairman, at whatever points of procedures you deem appropriate, I will for the record ask that a letter 

of support from the President; testimony from Senator Kirk; testimony from Roger J. Dow, President and CEO of the U.S. Travel 

Association; testimony from the U.S.-Poland Business Council; letters of support from the Discover America Partnership, the Polish 

American Chamber of Commerce, the Embassy of the Republic of 


MQ-4.eps
10 

Croatia, and the Embassy of Romania, as well as the Kosciuszko 

Foundation, be submitted for the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If that is a unanimous-consent request, I 

would—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. It is. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So it will be made a part of the record of the 

hearing, without objection. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

11 


71601A1.eps
12 


71601A2.eps
13 


71601A3-1.eps
14 


71601A3-2.eps
15 


71601A3-3.eps
16 


71601A3-4.eps
17 


71601A4-1.eps
18 


71601A4-2.eps
19 


71601A4-3.eps
20 


71601A4-4.eps
21 


71601A6-1.eps
22 


71601A6-2.eps
23 


71601A5.eps
24 


71601A7.eps
25 


71601A8-1.eps
26 


71601A8-2.eps
27 


71601A9.eps
28 


71601A10.eps
29 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Quigley, do you agree that if a country does 

not meet the requirements to sign the agreements that the country 

should not be designated? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes. Countries need to meet the requirements. The 

bill in question does not lax the requirements. It believes that the 

Department of Homeland Security and even in the last few months 

has gotten even more prepared for having a protective system 

using visa waiver. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you agree that additional resources would 

be necessary to support ICE? And if you do agree with that, would 

you support additional resources be available to devote specifically 

to identification information, our removal of foreign nationals who 

overstay their allotted time in the U.S.? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I do, but I think the Chairman, with all due 

respect—and I would defer some of this to the Assistant Secretary—I believe that there will be some cost-shifting. 

I do believe two things: that there are lost opportunities, financially, by not having a Visa Waiver Program. That is money that 

doesn’t come to our country in the form of tax dollars at the Federal, State, and local level. 

I also believe that by not having this program it ties up our consular offices in other regards for people having to go through a visa 

process. So, by reducing the burden in one area, reducing the burden on people putting visa processes together, it frees up those resources to deal with what is needed to have an appropriate Visa 

Waiver Program. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would yield to the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, first, before asking anything, I would just 

like to offer my praise to you, Congressman, for the leadership that 

you have shown in this area. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And, you know, when I think about the citizens 

of Poland and how they are fighting side-by-side with American 

soldiers in Afghanistan, and then to think that their fellow countrymen have been excluded from this program, you know, it really 

is an incentive to make sure that this works properly. And your efforts are obviously key and in the forefront on this. 

I just—you know, one of the things that I have often thought is 

that, you know, the refusal rate of consular offices has—there is almost no relationship to anything. And your bill actually tries to tag 

a metric that is actually meaningful. 

One of the things that we need to do is to be able to calculate 

that, and I wonder if you would like to share any thoughts on how 

that might progress. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I agree that the overstay rate makes more 

sense. I think that the other process of trying to determine whether 

or not someone will overstay or a guess is very subjective, and it 

is a more appropriate tool to gauge with overstay rates, numbers 

that I believe we will be getting rather soon. And, again, I would 

defer to the Assistant Secretary to talk about how that process will 

work. 

But I do agree with your earlier statements, as well. This is very 

important from a diplomatic point of view. You don’t have to just 

go to the point of Poland defending us and working with us, with 

30 

boots on the ground in Afghanistan and other locations. You can 

go back a hundred years, in terms of the relationship between the 

United States and Poland. And, unfortunately, I believe we have 

let them down at several key junctures. And they are literally the 

front line, and have been for a long time, in protecting this country 

and Europe from various threats. 

So I believe the Assistant Secretary can go into more details, but 

I do think your point is well taken, that gauging overstay makes 

far more sense than someone’s subjective determination guessing 

how someone will act when they are in this country. I do believe 

the improved—the historical analysis, biographical data, will be 

very, very important as it continues to improve, actually far better 

than biometric in making us safe and making sure that we know 

who is coming over and how long they are here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I thank you. And I know that each one of 

us has multiple obligations all at the same time, so I won’t burden 

you with additional questions. Just to thank you once again for 

being here and for your leadership on the subject. 

And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I would certainly invite Mr. Quigley to sit at the dais for the 

rest of the hearing if he opts to. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But since he is not a Member of the Committee, 

he can’t participate in the questions and answers, as is the case 

with my good friend Mr. Chabot, who we certainly invite to share 

the dais with us. 

And thank you very much for being here, Mike. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you so much for having me. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Our second panel, if you would step forward. 

I would like to welcome our very distinguished panel of witnesses 

today. 

Each witness’ written statement will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. I would ask each witness to please summarize his 

or her testimony in 5 minutes so that everyone will have a chance 

to have an opportunity to ask questions. 

And, with that, I would like to introduce our first witness, Mr. 

David Heyman. Mr. Heyman is Assistant Secretary for Policy at 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In addition to his time 

at DHS, Mr. Heyman has served as a senior advisor to the U.S. 

Secretary of Energy and at the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. Mr. Heyman received his B.A. From Brandeis 

University and his master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University 

of Advanced International Studies. 

Our second witness today, Mr. Richard Stana, serves as director 

of homeland security and justice issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. During his nearly 35-year career with the GAO, 

he has served in headquarters, field, and overseas offices and has 

directed reviews on a wide variety of complex military and domestic issues. Most recently, he has directed GAO’s work relating to 

immigration and border security issues. Mr. Stana earned a master’s degree in business administration, with a concentration in financial management, from Kent State University. 

31 

Our third witness, Dr. James Jay Carafano, is director of The 

Heritage Foundation’s Center for Foreign Policy Studies as well as 

the deputy director of the Institute for International Studies. He 

joined Heritage as a senior research fellow. Dr. Carafano is a graduate of West Point. He holds a master’s degree and doctorate from 

Georgetown University as well as a master’s degree in strategy 

from the U.S. Army War College. 

Our fourth witness, Ms. Jessica Vaughan, is the policy director 

at the Center for Immigration Studies. She has been with the Center since 1991, where her area of expertise is administration and 

implementation of immigration policy. Prior to joining the Center, 

Ms. Vaughan was a foreign service officer with the U.S. State Department. She holds a master’s degree from Georgetown University 

and a bachelor’s degree from Washington College in Maryland. 

So, with that, we will start with you, Mr. Heyman. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID F. HEYMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

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

thank you, other distinguished Members, for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. I also want to thank you just 

for holding the hearing. This is an important program and an important hearing as such. 

I think most people take for granted that they can travel to a 

large part of the world without a visa, but visa-free travel to the 

United States is actually relatively new. In 1986, Congress established a pilot project to facilitate low-risk travel to the U.S. and 

help spur trade and tourism. That program’s ability to accomplish 

these goals has been a success. In fiscal year 2010, nearly 18 million visitors from visa-waiver countries constituted approximately 

two-thirds of all overseas travelers coming to the United States. 

This has great implications for our economy. According to the Department of Commerce, in 2010 spending by international travelers 

to the U.S. directly supported 827,000 jobs. Moreover, each additional 10 jobs created directly from tourism expenditures generated 

approximately 3 to 4 additional jobs indirectly in service sectors. 

Much has changed since the program’s inception. Thanks in large 

part to congressional action, the Visa Waiver Program has also 

evolved over the past 25 years. It is now an essential tool for increasing security, advancing information sharing, strengthening 

international relationships, and promoting legitimate trade and 

travel to the United States. 

The Visa Waiver Program currently allows eligible nationals of 

36 countries to travel to the U.S. without a visa and, if admitted, 

to remain in our country for a maximum of 90 days for tourist and 

business purposes. In the last decade, Congress and the executive 

branch have worked together to implement a number of enhancements to the program to address evolving threats to international 

travel. And now we see in places it is a requirement of partner 

countries and there are key enhancements in support of and to the 

benefit of U.S. law enforcement and security. 

Specifically, several unique security benefits accrue to the United 

States: the mandatory bilateral information-sharing agreements regarding potential terrorists and criminals; sharing of lost and stoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\120711\71601.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71601
32 

len passport data; inspections of visa-waiver countries’ aviation 

border control and travel document standards; the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, requirement; and vigorous 

monitoring of changing conditions in visa-waiver countries. All of 

these security benefits would not accrue without the program. 

Two security concerns are often raised when discussing visa 

waiver. The first is the notion that Moussaoui and Richard Reid 

both came from visa-waiver countries, and the second is that the 

Visa Waiver Program lacks a consular interview. In both of these 

cases, I would note two important points. First, the other 19 hijackers had valid visas and interviews. And, second, more importantly, 

these events happened in 2001. We have put in place a post-9/11 

travel architecture that didn’t exist then: watchlisting, information 

sharing, predeparture screening, the ability to no-board. The Department of Homeland Security had not even been created. 

In my written testimony, I will elaborate further on the security 

and economic benefits of this program and provide a status of the 

Visa Waiver Program and its implementation. 

One element, additional element, I just want to touch on today 

has to do with overstays and enhanced exit. I am pleased to report 

that the Department has taken a number of steps to improve its 

capability to record exits. 

First, we are enhancing our existing biographic air exit system 

to better be able to match records and, thus, identify overstays 

with much greater fidelity. This will allow for better reporting of 

data on overstays for visa-waiver and non-visa-waiver countries 

alike and improve our ability to prioritize those who constitute a 

threat to national security or public safety. 

Second, as is being announced today, perhaps even at this very 

moment, by President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Harper as part of our U.S. and Canada shared vision of perimeter security, the Department of Homeland Security is working to facilitate 

the exchange of information on U.S. and Canadian entry records so 

that an entry in one country becomes an exit from the other. Thus, 

when you enter Canada from the United States, we will be able to 

register you as exiting from the United States when this is fully 

operational in 2014. 

Beyond these efforts, we remain committed to introducing the biometric component to the exit process when it is financially feasible 

and benefits are commensurate with the costs. 

Let me close by saying just a word or two about the legislation 

proposed by Congressman Quigley, Senators Mikulski and Kirk. As 

you may know, President Obama has expressed his strong support 

for this legislation. We regard this bill as an opportunity to expand 

the substantial security, political, and economic benefits of a program that has been developed and strengthened over the span of 

a quarter of a century. 

In conclusion, let me reiterate the valuable contribution this program brings to our economy and to national security, and I ask 

your support for this valuable program, not only for the benefits, 

the economic benefits, it provides the country, but also to the contributions it makes to our national security and our enduring international partnerships. 

Thank you. I am happy to take your questions. 

33 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heyman follows:] 


DHS-1.eps
34 


DHS-2.eps
35 


DHS-3.eps
36 


DHS-4.eps
37 


DHS-5.eps
38 


DHS-6.eps
39 


DHS-7.eps
40 


DHS-8.eps
41 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Heyman. 

Mr. Stana? 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD M. STANA, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STANA. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member 

Lofgren, for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on the related issues of visa waiver, US-VISIT, and visa overstays. 

Each year, millions of visitors come to the United States for various reasons like to either tour or for medical reasons or to visit 

family. From fiscal years 2005 to 2010, about 98 million visitors 

came through the Visa Waiver Program for stays of about 90 days 

or less. Another 36 million came during that 6-year period for varying durations and for various reasons. 

I would like to spend my time in my oral statement to discuss— 

really put some perspective and context around some of the issues 

and numbers that we have heard about making changes to the 

Visa Waiver Program and things that maybe Congress could consider in that regard. 

First, let me begin with a few observations on the Visa Waiver 

Program itself. Since the program was made permanent in 2000, 

we have issued six reports that, when taken together, show 

progress that the Department has made in managing the program, 

but also show some persistent problems that haven’t gone away 

yet. 

On the positive side, the major information gaps that we found 

early on, regarding the reporting of lost and stolen passports, has 

pretty much been addressed. And to the Department’s credit and 

to INTERPOL’s credit, 35 of the 36 visa-waiver countries now routinely report, and, although the information isn’t always timely and 

perfect, it is there. Another positive is that the Department has put 

more staff on the case to manage the program. And DHS has 

smoothly implemented ESTA, and now they have about a 99 percent compliance rate from the airlines. 

On the other hand, while over half the countries in the program 

have signed the required agreements to share biographical, biometric, and watchlist information, only several have actually begun implementing those agreements. And DHS is more than a year overdue on the required biennial security risk assessments for half of 

the visa-waiver countries, in some cases 2 years or more. 

Finally, another challenge is with the ESTA program. The compliance rate of 99 percent indicates some success, but that leaves 

hundreds of thousands of travelers who are not cleared before 

boarding airlines to the United States. In 2010, there were 360,000 

such passengers. And, upon reflection, it appears that about at 

least 650 should have not been permitted to board. DHS has begun 

to analyze a small portion of these cases to see if they are of legitimate concern or if there is a systemic weakness to the program. 

Now, related to the integrity of the Visa Waiver Program is our 

ability to determine traveler compliance with the terms of their 

visas. And this gets us into US-VISIT. Since 2002, DHS obligated 

about $193 million to develop air, sea, and land exit solutions, but, 

again, there is good news and there is some not-so-good news. 

42 

The good news is, on the entry side, it is pretty well up and running at the 300 land, air, and sea ports of entry, and it appears 

to generally be working well, in that biometric information is collected and used by our officers at ports of entry and by consular 

officials overseas. 

The not-so-good news is that the exit records are not there. We 

do not have a biometric exit capability at airports, seaports, and 

land ports. We have biographic information from airline departure 

manifests that could help identify overstays, and ICE uses it for 

that purpose. But, again, DHS does not, itself, use that information 

for mandatory and statutory reports on overstay rates. So doing a 

country-by-country assessment would be even more difficult. 

Finally, let’s talk about overstays. The Pew Hispanic research 

center in 2006 estimated that about one-third to one-half of the illegal alien population in the United States entered with a valid 

visa and overstayed. That is a very large figure. To its credit, ICE 

uses a risk-management process to focus its attention on the greatest security risk of those it identifies. But, again, you are talking 

about ICE arresting only about 1,200 visa overstays per year, 

against 4.5 million to 5 million overstays in the United States. 

Clearly, DHS and ICE need to do more to get on top of that issue. 

In closing, we recognize that the Visa Waiver Program can help 

to find the appropriate balance between facilitating legitimate travel and attending to security concerns. Much progress has been 

made to shore up the vulnerabilities that we identified, and we are 

in a much better position today than we were when the program 

started to address these concerns. 

Now, that said, we also recognize that the program has lots of 

information gaps and management challenges and that adding 

more countries before addressing these gaps and challenges could 

further strain ICE’s and DHS’s ability to effectively manage this 

program. We have made a number of recommendations to DHS and 

State to help ensure that visa-waiver countries meet the stringent 

criteria that Congress established for meeting the program’s security requirements. 

This concludes my oral statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stana follows:] 

43 


Stana-1.eps
44 


Stana-2.eps
45 


Stana-3.eps
46 


Stana-4.eps
47 


Stana-5.eps
48 


Stana-6.eps
49 


Stana-7.eps
50 


Stana-8.eps
51 


Stana-9.eps
52 


Stana-10.eps
53 


Stana-11.eps
54 


Stana-12.eps
55 


Stana-13.eps
56 


Stana-14.eps
57 


Stana-15.eps
58 


Stana-16.eps
59 


Stana-17.eps
60 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Stana. 

Dr. Carafano? 


Stana-18.eps
61 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES JAY CARAFANO, DIRECTOR, DOUGLAS 

AND SARAH ALLISON CENTER FOR FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE KATHRYN AND SHELBY 

CULLOM DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. CARAFANO. Thank you, sir. And I would like to thank the 

Committee for holding this important hearing. 

I believe that this is the single most important visa issue that 

the Congress and the President can address, just because the majority of visitors who come lawfully through this country use this 

visa program, so it is our single most important visa program, but 

also because this is the wave of the future. If you go out there, you 

look at the trends in international travel and when you look at 

countries who are doing innovative work like Australia, this is the 

trend of where we are going. So this is the future. And getting this 

program right, well, I don’t think, in terms of international travel, 

anything is more important. 

The Heritage Foundation, I am very proud to say, has dedicated 

substantial resources to looking at homeland security issues. I believe that we have the largest—and I am proud of the work that 

we have done. And in every issue that we have looked at, we have 

held the same standard, which was we insist on programs and answers and solutions that keep the Nation safe, free, and prosperous, and we won’t compromise on any three of those objectives. 

And there are few issues that we have dedicated more resource and 

time to than looking at the Visa Waiver Program. 

So, in my testimony, I wanted to highlight what I thought really 

are the key issues to be addressed. The first one is the linkage between biometric exit and authority for visa-waiver caps. The second 

is the issue of using refusal rates versus overstay rates for authority to enter into an agreement to the program and to remain in the 

program as a country. And the third is the future of the Visa Waiver Program. And I would like to address each of those very, very 

quickly. 

On the first, whatever—you know, I am not going to—I mean, it 

doesn’t make any sense to really look at whatever the rationale 

was and why people thought biometric exit was a really great idea 

or why linking that to the Visa Waiver Program was a really good 

idea. And, you know, I can make arguments either way. Those arguments were made several years ago, and I think we have to 

evaluate where the program is and where its future is going based 

on the reality today. 

So, by our count, there have been at least 43 known terrorist attacks aimed at the United States since 9/11 that have been thwarted—43. Increasingly, most of those have been homegrown. Increasingly, I believe you have to give a lot of the credit for that for the 

fact that the United States and countries that have adopted similar 

initiatives to the United States, like Australia, are becoming harder targets for transnational terrorists. So, from a criminal perspective or from a terrorist perspective, what we are doing must be 

working. 

And I think you have to look at not just an individual program 

like Visa Waiver but the complement of all the tools that we are 

using to thwart criminal and terrorist travel, when you really 

62 

evaluate that and to figure out what additional value, either from 

an immigration perspective or criminal law enforcement perspective or counterterrorism perspective, that biometric brings to the 

table. And I think it is very, very difficult to argue, that you would 

really only gain very, very marginal benefits at all, at extremely 

significant additional cost. So I really don’t see where the cost-benefit analysis of linking those two programs together, at this point 

in time, really makes sense anymore. 

On refusal versus overstay rates, I think the issues on refusal 

rates as a valid predictor and as a measure of overstay propensity 

are legion. We have had them for years. Clearly, the standard by 

which we run the program, overstay would be a much, much more 

effective metric. We should move toward that metric. And it is important to get that metric right because it is valuable for determining whether countries should not just enter the program but 

whether they should remain in the program and also to identify 

what are the best practices, what are the lessons learned, what are 

the ways to adapt and improve the program over time. So I think 

moving toward the overstay rate is not only the right metric, it is 

the metric that we need to really evaluate and keep this program 

healthy for decades to come. 

On the third issue of whether the Visa Waiver Program—it is estimated in about 10 years the value of international travel is going 

to double, to about $2 trillion. The U.S. percentage of that is 

shrinking, and it is going to shrink in the future if we don’t improve access to this country. And that is not just an economic issue, 

although right now I think it supports millions of—2 million plus 

jobs on international travel, but it is going to affect us in terms of 

public diplomacy, in terms of intellectual capital, and a whole other 

realm. We have to get back into the business of bringing people 

safely into this country. 

We really have two alternative strategies: expanding and improving visa-waiver or expanding visa-access programs, or lowering the 

standards for visa-access programs. Expanding the speed of the 

way we issue visas would require significant capital investments or 

lowering standards, which would increase risks. I think the alternative of enhancing the Visa Waiver Program and using that as an 

instrument to bridge to the future is a much, much more cost-effective way of getting back our legitimate share of international travel. 

And, conversely, of course, as you add countries to the program, 

you free up resources, not just in the State Department but in 

DHS, for strengthening the Visa Waiver Program and focusing visa 

resources on countries that are truly countries of concern. 

And so what would my recommendation be? It would be that, 

look, this Administration needs to learn how to walk and chew 

gum; they need to learn how to expand this program and how to 

address and strengthen the management of the program at the 

same time. 

The new countries that are coming into the program, they are 

not the problem. They are the most compliant, they most want to 

be there, they are the least security risk. And when you bring these 

countries into the program, that actually, I think, strengthens your 

position to go to existing countries in the program and present 

63 

them with the challenge of meeting the standards that other countries have demonstrated that they can meet. You learn new lessons. I mean, you know, we have already seen this with United 

States and Australia, where as we make initiatives, they are learning—as we are making initiatives, they are learning from us. So I 

think bringing countries into the program actually is going to allow 

us to pull other countries which are not quite up to standard yet 

into the future. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carafano follows:] 

64 


JJC-1.eps
65 


JJC-2.eps
66 


JJC-3.eps
67 


JJC-4.eps
68 


JJC-5.eps
69 


JJC-6.eps
70 


JJC-7.eps
71 


JJC-8.eps
72 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Vaughan? 

TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY 

STUDIES, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

In my view, these proposals to modify the Visa Waiver Program, 

with the result that would expand participation in it, are very premature. We have heard about some of the benefits of the program, 

which are real, for foreign visitors, obviously, and also the travel 

industry and the State Department. And we are all aware of the 

risks and problems that are associated with any relaxation of entry 

requirements and screening—not just security risks, which other 

experts here have emphasized today, but also the problems associated with illegal immigration. 

The risk I see is that if the Visa Waiver Program is modified or 

expanded before better security measures, better visitor tracking, 

and better interior immigration law enforcement is in place, Americans are going to be more vulnerable to attack and more exposed 

to transnational crime and the country is going to experience even 

more illegal immigration, all of which comes at enormous fiscal and 

social cost to the Nation. 

And I would also argue that, yes, the program has worked well 

in expanding travel here, but part of the reason for that is because 

we have been relatively strict about which countries are admitted. 

We have heard from Mr. Heyman about the potential for very 

important security enhancements that we hope will eventually be 

implemented, but, at this time, most of those enhancements are 

really very much aspirational. We really need to give DHS a 

chance to catch up and develop tools to evaluate the results since 

the last major expansion of the program, which occurred right in 

the middle of some enormous economic and political upheaval. 

And, of course, we can still pursue security enhancements, like 

information sharing, even outside of the framework of the Visa 

Waiver Program. There is no reason we can’t seek those agreements, regardless, with these other countries. 

Mr. Stana has covered most of the issues related to the Department of Homeland Security’s slow progress in meeting congressional expectations, so I am going to focus my remarks mainly on 

the issue of overstay metrics. 

But before I do, I just want to make one quick comment about 

ESTA. I agree that ESTA can help determine—can help with 

screening people for terrorism ties or criminal ties. But one thing 

that ESTA cannot do is help overcome a country’s basic issues with 

eligibility and compliance. Just because someone is not a known 

terrorist or a criminal, which is what mainly ESTA can determine, 

does not mean that they qualify for entry. 

So what kind of overstay metrics do we need? Well, we have 

known for some time that visa overstayers represent about 4 million to 6 million people within the illegal alien population. A few 

have become terrorists; some commit crimes. But, in general, they 

are costly to the taxpayers, based on reputable studies, that is 

about between $3 billion and $5 billion every year. 

We also know that we need better data, but I question whether 

the biographic matching system that DHS has proposed, based on 

73 

ADIS, will be able to deliver what Congress mandated and what 

Federal agencies need to maintain the integrity of the system. 

Since ADIS is maintained by the airlines, not the government, 

there could be data integrity problems. It is not biometric, so it 

can’t actually authenticate the identity of travelers. It is more susceptible to fraud. The users of the system tell me that, as it is operating now, because it is biographic, it can have difficulty producing 

matches. And it is so inexact that sometimes people using it either 

get hundreds of matches, which is not helpful, or none at all because the system can’t match records where people change their 

names. 

I would agree with Mr. Carafano that once we have credible 

data, the overstay rates are superior to refusal rates for determining likely compliance from visitors. But I would caution that 

they should not be considered in isolation from refusal rates or 

other key metrics like adjustment-of-status requests and so on. 

And it is certainly premature to speculate about what an acceptable overstay rate might be because we have no reliable information about what is happening now. A low overstay rate might be 

an indication of a high refusal rate that is right-on, or it could be 

an indication for countries, for example, from the Western Hemisphere, where a lot of the people who are coming here illegally are 

actually entering over the land border, not with visas. So mere reliance on the overstay rate is going to be misleading with some of 

those countries. 

Obviously, we have to accept some risk in our admissions, and 

we know that there are going to be mistakes. Therefore, we also 

have to make sure that we have a satisfactory level of interior immigration law enforcement. And, right now, we don’t have that. 

There are 2 million, roughly, criminal aliens living here, according to ICE. There are about 7 million illegal aliens working here 

in jobs that we need for Americans and legal immigrants. We have 

sanctuary cities and States that refuse to cooperate with Federal 

efforts and attract illegal immigration. We don’t have mandatory 

status verification at the workplace. And the current Administration is broadcasting that it is targeting only those illegal aliens who 

are convicted of serious offenses for enforcement. 

So expanding the Visa Waiver Program too fast or irresponsibly 

is going to make it that much harder for ICE, and the price will 

be paid by those Americans who are victims of crimes committed 

by people who shouldn’t be here or who lose job opportunities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] 

74 


JMV-1.eps
75 


JMV-2.eps
76 


JMV-3.eps
77 


JMV-4.eps
78 


JMV-5.eps
79 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. 

Mr. Heyman, DHS has told the Committee staff that DHS has 

identified 757,000 in-country overstay leads. How many agents 

does DHS currently have that are specifically assigned to make 

sure that those 757,000 illegal immigrants are located and deVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\120711\71601.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71601

JMV-6.eps
80 

ported? How many specifically do you have assigned to take on the 

task of 757,000? Is it less than 10,000? 

Mr. HEYMAN. So let me give you context of that number. This 

summer, we decided, as part of our review of the Visa Waiver Program and looking at overstays, to make an effort to—there was a 

1.6 million backlog dating back to 2004. We ran it through a number of databases, which we had not done before previously. And 

just in the checks against the databases, we were able to get—all 

but 757,000 were cleared, as in people who had left the country or 

changed status or otherwise. The 757,000 possible overstays were 

then vetted by CBP and the National Counterterrorism Center for 

national security and other rules, and we were able to get that 

number down even further. 

Let me tell you the—jump ahead to the short story. The investigative leads that came out of that numbered only in the couple 

of dozens after we ran through the number of data checks and evaluations. And, of those, we—ICE was given those leads, a number 

of them were duplicate records, a number of them were people who 

were in status, some were departed. The answer is, it came up with 

only two investigations that were required by the field, and they 

both turned out not to be of concern. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Heyman, I understand all the wonderful 

work they are doing. I am just trying to determine whether we 

have enough wonderful people to do all the work that needs to be 

done. 

Of the 757,000—I will ask the question one more time—how 

many people are specifically tasked to—I would like—obviously, 

you have to have an exact number or within two or three. 

Mr. HEYMAN. Yeah, there are sufficient resources for the internal 

enforcement, which is now based upon prosecutorial discretion. 

And, as I said, the 757,000—we are not required to do field investigations. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Can you tell me how many people specifically are assigned just for the purpose of field investigation? 

Mr. HEYMAN. It is in the thousands. I will get you the exact 

number. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am sorry? 

Mr. HEYMAN. It is in the thousands. I will get you the exact 

number. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. I would appreciate that, and we will make 

it a part of the record of the hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

81 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Of the 757,000, or whatever that magic number 

is, in the last 12 months how many have been deported? 

Mr. HEYMAN. As I said, those are not all overstays. The number 

actually gets down to about two investigations. One was somebody 

who was a changed status, so they were legitimately present, and 

one who had already left the country. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Of all of those that—and we do know that there 

are a lot of individuals in this country that are clearly visa 

overstays. In fact, when we talk about all the illegal alien problems 

that we have in this country, it is not just the folks crossing the 

southern border. And I think most would agree that that number 

is somewhere around 40 percent of the people that are illegally in 

this country are visa overstays. Is that not correct? 

Mr. HEYMAN. I think that is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Now, if you could please tell me, of the 11 

million, 20 million, or whatever that would be overstays in this 

country, how many were formally—how many were removed from 

the country last year, a number? 

Mr. HEYMAN. I don’t have that number for you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you say it is less than 500,000? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Less than 100,000? 

Mr. HEYMAN. I don’t have that number for you. I can get it for 

you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Probably less than 10,000? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Well, what we have done is we are looking at the 

national security and public safety risk. And we have made every 

attempt to investigate those of concern—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Sir, with all due respect, public safety is our primary responsibility, but the law also calls for this. If you don’t have 


71601B.eps
82 

enough folks, say, ‘‘We need more help,’’ and I would like to know 

what that number is. 

So, obviously, you don’t know what the number is, you don’t 

know how many people you have working out there, you don’t 

know how many people have been removed. I would think that 

number would be fairly simple to come up with. 

Dr. Carafano, you have stated that you believe that the biometric 

program needs to be reassessed; is that correct? 

Mr. CARAFANO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Could you tell me, when an immigrant that has 

a visa leaves this country, what better method do you have of identifying whether they actually left than through a biometric program? 

Mr. CARAFANO. Well, the question is, what is the additional 

value of that biometric qualification versus a biographic qualification. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, identification, I would think, would be 

one—— 

Mr. CARAFANO. So, obviously, you could spend a billion dollars 

and have a home that is perfectly secure, and then you could ask, 

okay, well, if I just got a burglar alarm and locked my doors, which 

maybe I would spend $100 for, is that reasonable security? And I 

think the answer is, we have to make a decision about what is reasonable versus what is—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So, in other words, you would, kind of, maybe 

prefer the honor system? 

Mr. CARAFANO. No, sir, I think I have very carefully stated not. 

I think biographic data is perfectly adequate for what the system 

is intended for, which is to show you trends and compliance with 

the law. If you are interested in tracking specific individuals because they are a terrorist concern or a criminal concern or because 

there is some kind of immigration concern, there is plenty of data 

in the current system to find and track those individuals. 

So if you are asking me if it is worth it to spend all that additional money to gain very little additional capability, I would tell 

you ‘‘no.’’ It would be like somebody who wanted to take a trip, you 

know, downtown, and instead of going in a Piper Cub, they said, 

‘‘No, I want an F-35.’’ 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, I am not sure I understand that specific 

analogy, and reasonable minds can differ. 

I would yield to the gentlelady, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I listened here to the witness from The Heritage Foundation, 

it is pretty clear that having an expanded Visa Waiver Program— 

you are the conservative think tank. I mean, this is not some 

flighty liberal proposal. And I think it is important to be very hardheaded about what is being discussed here. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But—would the gentlelady just yield for a moment? Just for the record—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Just for the record, Mr. Carafano is the Democrats’ witness today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is right. And it is a sad day when the Democrats have to invite the conservative Heritage Foundation. But I 

83 

was happy to do it to make this point, and I think it is an important one. This is a mainstream proposal, and it is accountable. 

You know, I think it is important to be practical and to weigh 

apples to apples. We are talking about 757,000 potential overstays. 

Some of those are duplicates, so it is not that high. But those include—that is not visa-waiver people; that is everybody. It is people 

who came in with visas, people who came in with visa waivers. So 

to say that somehow that is an argument against the Visa Waiver 

Program is completely illogical. 

And it is important to note that if you are in the Visa Waiver 

Program, it doesn’t mean that you have a right to enter if we think 

there is a problem with you. That is why the background is done 

and the enhanced background is done, and you are turned away if 

there is a reason why you should not be admitted to the United 

States. 

So I would like to actually ask you, Mr. Heyman—and I thank 

you for being here—what is the enhanced information that we get 

on this Visa Waiver Program? 

And confirm this information, if you will. It is my understanding 

that all the newcomers into the Visa Waiver Program have complied with all of the requirements. The only issue in terms of lagging on compliance is the countries that were in from before the 

new ones were added. Is that correct? 

And then please describe why this makes us safer. I mean, what 

else do we get for nations that join in to this program? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Thank you for the question. 

It is true that the implementation of the Visa Waiver Program 

has been much more than aspirational. There are about five or six 

requirements that are fully implemented. Secure travel documents 

are now fully implemented, including e-passports; that is fully implemented, that requirement. The lost and stolen passports, as we 

heard from the GAO, has been fully implemented, 35 out of 36 of 

the countries. The ESTA program is now fully implemented, 99.5 

percent compliant. And we have continuous and vigorous monitoring across all the countries as it pertains to aviation security 

and border security. 

So, absolutely right, these are actually in—programs that have 

been implemented. Some of the information-sharing agreements 

need to get concluded. We are on track for getting those concluded 

next year. And then it requires those partner countries to have 

their technology updated, to have their legislation passed, so that 

they can actually implement it fully. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just a comment before I do a follow-up. I was interested in Ms. Vaughan’s testimony. And we get classified briefings from time to time, and obviously we can’t go into what we are 

told in the classified briefings, but I think we are allowed to say 

what we are not told. And we get reports on who is coming across 

the land border by ethnicity and by country. And I have never been 

told that anybody from Brazil has been apprehended. So that is not 

a violation of our oath; it is what we were never told in a classified 

setting. And I just thought it was important to make that point. 

Getting to the cost-benefit analysis, I mean, unless we want to 

have no one enter the United States, which would be a catastrophe 

84 

for our country, how do we best spend our funds to make sure that 

we have the most vigorous system to protect our security? 

Mr. Heyman, you and also Mr. Carafano suggested that the biographic system is worthy of expansion. And I am wondering if some 

of the money that has been programmed for the biometric system 

that really hasn’t been implemented because—you know, I know 

the pilot program really didn’t work except when it was at, you 

know, the door of the airplane—whether that would be a source 

that could be used to really upgrade this biographic system well. 

I mean, Mr. Carafano and Mr. Heyman, maybe you could both 

comment on that. 

Mr. HEYMAN. Sure. 

Look, the enhanced biographic exit program that we are in the 

process of implementing provides greater fidelity of the data for 

overstays. That will be helpful for the Visa Waiver Program. As everyone, I think, on this panel has acknowledged, that is a better 

metric, a useful metric for visa-waiver designation. It will also help 

us in terms of the ability to do better targeting for enforcement actions and the like. 

The process of implementing that is on the order of—for automating that—we can do it manually now with great fidelity, but it 

takes a lot of resources, somewhere between $15 million and $20- 

some-odd million. It would be useful to take the biometric resources 

to help us on that right now, particularly given that biometric estimates, at the minimum, are somewhere at $3 billion to have an effective biometric program. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Before my time is up, Mr. Carafano, do you want to briefly comment on that? 

Mr. CARAFANO. Well, I have been in this business a long time. 

You know, if this was a mandate that could have been easily fulfilled, it would have been fulfilled back in the 1990’s when it was 

first implemented. I don’t think we are arguing between biographic 

versus biometric because I doubt this government is ever going to 

be able to afford or implement biometric. So I really think we are 

kind of having a false debate here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Before I yield back, I would just like to echo your comments, Mr. 

Chairman, about Mr. Stana and his long service to our country. 

And I guess this is your last hearing. It is great to see you, and 

we appreciate you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STANA. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

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

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do thank the witnesses. And I especially thank Mr. Stana for 

a lot of years of service. And I am sure that I have contributed to 

the difficult times of your service here. I appreciate the product 

that came from that hard work. 

And, first, I would just turn to Mr. Heyman. I am trying to understand here what our optimum policy is and what we would like 

to do. You know, we should all start with, if we could draw this 

out so it is the best it could possibly be and then work on how we 

get to that goal. And so I am looking at a Visa Waiver Program, 

85 

a US-VISIT program, a prosecutorial discretion policy that may be 

a program for administrative amnesty, the way I see it. I have not 

seen the will within an Administration to enforce immigration law 

since I have been close enough to actually look. And so I lack a lot 

of confidence in what we might do to grant more license for more 

open borders because I don’t quite see yet—I don’t see the philosophy, I don’t see the mission within the Administration, this one 

or the previous three. 

And so I would just take you to this. If you could have this thing 

operating, functioning the way you would like to have it function, 

without regard to the cost or the ability to put the resources together—and Christmas is coming—what would your ask be? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Well, the best ask for the quickest turnaround for 

the most fidelity both for enforcement but also for visa-waiver expansion would be to get the enhanced biographic exit system up 

and automated as soon as possible. It is a few million dollars. It 

would be worth doing. 

The ability to track and monitor overstays—and I should just 

add for the record that, in our pilots looking at the data to make 

sure we could have better fidelity of overstays, it is quite clear that 

the visa-waiver countries are substantially lower in terms of 

overstays than other countries. And I think it is something that 

will bear out as we are able to get that data up and useful. 

Mr. KING. We still, though, have this situation, if we had USVISIT working in and out, and they were biometric, then we would 

have finally that list of those people that are here in the United 

States and we would have the definitive list of the overstays that 

the Chairman says might be 757,000. I don’t see any heartburn 

about that growing number of people here in the United States— 

or there is a little, I hear a little, but I don’t see it being led with 

that policy. 

So do you have a sense of what the price is to this society for 

the, I will say, criminal actions that take place here in the United 

States because of visa overstays? 

Mr. HEYMAN. So I would just like to say that, first and foremost, 

I think this Administration has an outstanding record of enforcement actions, having record removals for this year beyond any 

other preceding years. And I think that that speaks for itself. 

I do think that, if you look at overstays, you are going to have 

to make the distinction between those that are of national security 

or public safety concern versus those that are not. The proper—— 

Mr. KING. Does the law make that distinction? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Sorry? 

Mr. KING. Does the law make that distinction? 

Mr. HEYMAN. The law does not make that distinction, but what 

makes that distinction, as is the case for all—— 

Mr. KING. Is prosecutorial discretion. 

Mr. HEYMAN. Yeah, is the ability for us to provide guidance given 

limited resources. There is no way we could do everything, and so 

we have to make distinctions on what is more important. We are 

going to take those criminal actions—— 

Mr. KING. Mr. Heyman, would you be more comfortable if Congress actually granted prosecutorial discretion and defined the difVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\120711\71601.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71601
86 

ference between visa overstay people according to who is a risk and 

who isn’t? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Well, I would leave it to Congress to do that, although there is a history of every Attorney General, I think, going 

back, you know, throughout history, of using that. 

Mr. KING. That is a long discussion on prosecutorial discretion, 

but I think this Administration has taken it as far as any I have 

seen, at least with regard to immigration. 

And it seems to me this House, at least, voted to make it a crime 

for overstaying a visa some years ago. Do you recall that? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And do you think it might be a good idea for this Congress to come back and revisit that and perhaps draw that distinction so it would be easier for the prosecutorial discretion appliers 

to determine between a dangerous and a nondangerous visa overstayer? And perhaps we might be able to draft into law that if 

someone is a risk to society, we will make it a crime for them to 

overstay their visa, but if they are not, we just kind of let them 

go and be part of that 757,000? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Well, one of the things that the Visa Waiver Program does which is, I think, unique to the Visa Waiver Program 

is it allows us to do this advance screening for the ESTA program. 

So we are actually doing—— 

Mr. KING. Is that biometric? 

Mr. HEYMAN. That is biographic, but you do collect the biometrics for ESTA. 

And one of the things we do prior to anybody giving travel authorization is we screen them against all the immigration databases to see if they violated the immigration laws, to see if there 

are overstay records, as well as all the terrorist and criminal—— 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Heyman. 

I would like to turn quickly to Mr. Stana and wouldn’t want to 

let you leave this hearing without getting asked one last question 

before you go off into retirement. 

But do you have any knowledge of the price to society for those 

who have, one category, illegally crossed the border into the United 

States and the other half of that category being those visa overstayers? Do you have a sense in the loss in American life that 

would be the cumulative loss of life here in the United States due 

to people who have overstayed their visas and/or crossed the border 

illegally? 

Mr. STANA. I don’t know that anyone has calculated the loss of 

economic opportunity or loss of life owing to the illegal alien population in the United States. As you know, there are thousands and 

thousands of illegal aliens, criminal aliens, who are in our Federal, 

State, and local prisons. They run up the cost to the American taxpayer in terms of per diems and other costs that way, costs to law 

enforcement. 

So those costs are there and they are documented, and I believe 

a report that we did for you not all that many months ago documented that. But, beyond that, the loss of life, the lost economic opportunity of a victim, I don’t recall seeing any data like that. 

It is interesting when you make the distinction between 

overstays and other illegal aliens, because the overstays, you might 

87 

argue, are subject to far less enforcement action. About 3 percent 

of ICE enforcement resources are devoted to the overstay population. And this number we are throwing around of 757,000, that 

is the top of the funnel. By the time it gets down, you are talking 

about 1,200 arrests a year. And, of those, it is hard to say how 

many are actually deported. There might be delays in deportation 

because they are in jails or they are awaiting deportation for another reason. But this 757,000 winnows down to a little over 1,000 

a year. 

Mr. KING. Does 25,064 homicide arrests of criminal aliens ring 

a bell? 

Mr. STANA. Yes, it does. That was in the report. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much, Mr. Stana. 

I thank all the witnesses. I regret I am out of time, and I yield 

back the balance of whatever might be available. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today to help 

us better understand what our policies are. 

I would like to direct this question to Mr. Heyman. I think you 

would be the correct one. And maybe this was discussed before, 

maybe everyone else knows; I don’t. How does a country indicate 

its interest? Do we initiate invitations to countries, or do countries 

apply, or how does this happen, for them to become a part of the 

program? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Thank you. No, it has not been discussed. 

Countries indicate usually to the State Department officially that 

they are interested in being designated a visa-waiver country. They 

oftentimes will also approach the Department for technical discussions about what the requirements are, how does one become designated. And then they must meet the obligations set forth by Congress to be designated. 

Ms. WATERS. I noticed that there are no African countries that 

are part of the acceptable countries that are in the program. Do 

you know if there have been any applications from any African 

countries? 

Mr. HEYMAN. No. And what I do know is that the countries have 

not met the requirements as set by Congress at this point, and that 

is probably why you haven’t seen them. 

Ms. WATERS. All African countries that have applied have not 

met the requirements? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Those who have requested, and I don’t think we 

have had very many. 

Ms. WATERS. That have requested? 

Mr. HEYMAN. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I will yield to the gentlelady from California. She has some more 

questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you to my colleague. 

I just wanted to make a quick comment on Mr. King’s point, because I think there has been a lot of beating up of the Administration for its priorities. But there is an express requirement in 6 U.S. 

Code 202 that directs the Department of Homeland Security to esVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:55 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\120711\71601.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71601
88 

tablish, quote, ‘‘national immigration enforcement priorities and 

policies.’’ And, for years, the appropriations bills have directed that 

additional enforcement and funding for removal priorities, including through Secure Communities and 287(g) and the Criminal 

Alien Program, be directed toward removal of criminal aliens. 

So I just thought it was worth getting that on the record. And 

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And we yield back our time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, that will be added to the 

record. 

And I would like to thank all of our witnesses today and, again, 

recognize Mr. Stana for his years of dedicated service. I know I 

have had the honor of participating in many hearings where he has 

testified. 

And I want to say, for myself and I am sure the Committee, how 

much we appreciate your public service and wish you well in your 

retirement years. Lots of blue skies and green lights to you. 

Mr. STANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a privilege to 

work for GAO and for the Committee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you so much. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

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

of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And, with that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(89) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

90 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from David F. Heyman, Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 


71601G-1.eps
91 


71601G-2.eps
92 

f 


71601G-3.eps
93 


71601C-1.eps
94 

f 


71601C-2.eps
95 


71601D-1.eps
96 

f 


71601D-2.eps
97 


71601E-1.eps
98 


71601E-2.eps
99 


71601E-3.eps
100 

f 


71601E-4.eps
101 

Æ 


71601F.eps